Welcome to the 82nd session of the Texas House of Representatives.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and the gallery, please, rise for the invocation. Members, we're waiting for our pastor of the day. The chair recognizes Representative Miller to lead us in the pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Members, guests, will you please join me in the pledge to the United States flag and the great State of Texas.

(Pledges to the U.S. and the Texas Flag).

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to introduce our doctor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, it is with great pleasure this morning that I introduce to you our doctor of the day my constituent and my good friend Dr. Erica Swegler of Keller, Texas. This isn't Dr. Swegler's first visit to the Texas House. She served as doctor of the day for every regular session since 1989. And even a few special session in between. Dr. Swegler has served residents of northeast Tarrant County through her many years of extensive service in our community. She's currently a partner at North Hill's Family Medicine in North Richland Hills and has staff memberships at North Hill's Hospital, Baylor Grapevine and Harris Methodist H-E-B Hospital. Dr. Swegler has been and continues to be active on the State and national level working to improve the health of not only her patients but the healthcare provided for all of our citizens. Mr. Speaker and members, please, help me join -- join me in the helping to give a very warm Texas House welcome to our doctor of the day Dr. Erica Swegler and her husband Paul.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King of Zavala. Chair recognizes Representative King for a Memorial Resolution.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move that we suspend all rules necessary to take up and consider House Resolution No. 655.

THE SPEAKER: Members, this is a Memorial Resolution, please, take your seats. Is there any objection to the suspension of the rules? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 655 by King of Zavala. WHEREAS, Residents of Dilley lost one of their most esteemed native sons and public servants with the death of former Chief of Police Santos Martinez on April 12, 2009, at the age of 57; and WHEREAS, Santos Martinez was born in Dilley on May 24, 1951 to Prajades and Margarita Martinez; the youngest of 10 children, he grew up working in the watermelon fields; after graduating from Dilley High School, he joined the Frio County Sheriff's Department as a dispatcher and soon thereafter decided to run for public office; he was subsequently elected as the county constable for Precinct 4; and WHEREAS, While serving in this role, Officer Martinez undertook a dangerous undercover assignment at the request of federal law enforcement agencies that had been investigating a South Texas drug cartel for 10 years; he quickly infiltrated the group with his easygoing nature, and his efforts led to multiple arrests, bringing down the cartel in a matter of days; and WHEREAS, He became chief of the Dilley Police Department in 1994, and during nearly 15 years on the job, he earned the respect and admiration of local, state, and federal officers alike; moreover, Chief Martinez was known for his loyalty to the city and for his easy rapport with citizens, making him not only a highly effective peace officer but also a beloved figure in the community; despite struggling with diabetes, Chief Martinez continued to work as long as he was able, retiring only shortly before he died; and WHEREAS, In all of his endeavors, he enjoyed the love and support of his wife, Teresa, and the couple were blessed with a daughter, Bianca, and two grandchildren; and WHEREAS, Santos Martinez exemplified the highest ideals of his profession, carrying out his duties with compassion dedication, and courage, and he will be forever remembered with deep appreciation by the citizens he served and by all those whose lives he touched; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the life of Santos Martinez and extend sincere condolences to the members of his family: to his wife, Teresa Martinez; to his daughter, Bianca Marshall, and her husband, Casey; to his grandsons, Jeremiah H. Martinez and Elijah Santos Martinez Marshall; 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 adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Santos Martinez.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King of Zavala.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members and thank you for your attention to this very, very important resolution that I bring before you today. Each of us that have served in the office very long know that every community and every neighborhood that we may represent there are always individuals that are very, very special that truly exemplify public service and in Dilley, Texas chief Martinez was that person for us. He had a way of taking the most difficult situations and turning them around very, very quickly as you can hear from the resolution. He was loved in the family and he was a proud Dilley Wolf and he grew up in the community and we were very, very fortunate to have him as a police chief for a number of years and a constable before that and a public service was his very life. And it was in his family also. And we are very, very fortunate today to have with us some of the family members and with your permission I would like to introduce those to you. This morning on the dais we have with us Teresa Martinez who is with us, and that is chief Martinez's wife. Teresa also runs the Housing Authority in the Dilley, Texas and has done that for a number of years. We also have with us Bianca Marshall, his daughter. And Bianca is just recently graduated from Southwest Texas State and San Marcos and is looking forward to starting a career. We also have with us Casey Marshall the son-in-law, he's with us today, Casey. And we have Jeremiah Martinez who is graduated from Dilley School, valedictorian and is going to be starting here at the University of Texas in the fall. Also with us today in the gallery, we are joined by some family members and some community leaders in Dilley and we have with us Frank Martinez. If y'all can stand in the gallery, so we can recognize you. And we have Deanna Martinez. So ladies and gentlemen and members, if you would join with me in the thanking these folks for coming to us today and allowing us this opportunity to honor Chief Martinez I would appreciate it very much. I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, this is a Memorial Resolution all those in favor, please, rise. Resolution is unanimously adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you for allowing us to honor Chief Santos Martinez.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Woolley moves to add all members' names to the Resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Weber to lead us in prayer this morning.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, if y'all will join me we will go to our Lord and pray to help start our day. All mighty God which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thank you, Father, for this piece of earth that you've given us called Texas? We want your will here on earth in Texas to be done as it is in heaven. And Lord we pray that you would come be in our midst today as we open up this day of our session as we wind down in the last week or so. We pray a blessing upon all those who are here. And, Lord, we pray a blessing upon the Santos Martinez family as well for his sacrifice and for his life. And now, Lord, we pray that you be in the midst of our deliberations and discussions and you be honored and glorified. But, Father, I come to you humbly this morning asking for forgiveness, Lord. Father, as a country and as a state we have worshiped those who play sports. We call them athletes and we pay them great salaries. Lord, we have worshiped those who do entertainment, we call them movie stars; we pay them great salaries. But, Lord, we don't even pay our own schoolteachers and our law enforcement officials hardly anything, Father, it seems as if our priorities are out of whack. Lord, please forgive us and help us to get our economy in this great land that you've given us back on track, Lord. Help us to make right decisions and to be able to pay those who educate the next generation of your precious children and those who protect us, Lord. Help us to be able to show them in a tangible way that we appreciate them. Lord, help us to help Texas get back on track. Help our economy. We urge you to help bring reliability in our economy and in our spiritual life as well. Now Jesus be glorified in all that we say and do in your name we ask. Amen.

THE SPEAKER: Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House.

CLERK: H.B. 215, H.B. 423, H.B. 555, HB. 591, H.B. 901, H.B. 1550, H.B. 1770, H.B. 2007, H.B. 2014, H.B. 2342, H.B. 2851, H.B. 3051, H.B. 3234.

THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Isaac on the floor of the House? Representative Isaac. Is Mr. Menendez on the floor of the House? Representative Menendez. Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1965.

THE SPEAKER: Is there any objection to suspension of the rules? Chair hears none. So ordered. Rules are suspended. The chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: H.B. 1965 by Menendez. WHEREAS, Eric Cooper, president and CEO of the San Antonio Food Bank, has been recognized by Feeding America as its 2011 Executive Director of the Year; and WHEREAS, Feeding America is a leading domestic hunger relief organization; through its network of more than 200 member food banks, it provides nutritious food to approximately 37 million Americans each year, including 14 million children and 3 million seniors; its Executive Director of the Year Award is presented to a director of a member food bank who has significantly contributed to the effort to feed the hungry in his or her community; and WHEREAS, In his role as head of the San Antonio Food Bank, Mr. Cooper leads an organization that feeds more than 58,000 people every week in an area that includes Bexar County and 15 surrounding counties; since he assumed his present post in 2001, the SAFB has increased its distribution of food and grocery products from 14 million to more than 43 million pounds and boosted its operating budget by over 769 percent; Mr. Cooper has also overseen a $10 million capital campaign that enabled the SAFB to move into a new facility to better serve the community; and WHEREAS, Under Mr. Cooper's guidance, the SAFB has added new services and programs, increased public awareness of its mission and the problem of hunger in the community, and expanded its team of employees, volunteers, and donors; among the initiatives undertaken have been the creation of a major food stamp outreach program, the establishment of the Community Kitchen, which feeds homeless women and children while training unemployed and underemployed individuals in culinary, job, and life skills, and the securing of grants that have made it possible to hire full-time nutritionists to educate partner agencies and their clients about obesity and other health problems caused by poor diet; and WHEREAS, During Mr. Cooper's tenure, the SAFB has maintained a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, and it has received the Feeding America Food Bank of the Year Award; and WHEREAS, In addition to his work with the SAFB, Mr. Cooper serves as president of the board of directors for the Texas Food Bank Network and as a member of both the Mayor's Fitness Task Force and the Feeding America national task force on nutrition and food sourcing; he has also co-chaired the Mayor's Task Force for Hunger and Homelessness and helped launch a national fund-raising effort the Campaign for a Hunger-Free America; and WHEREAS, Mr. Cooper is a graduate of the University of Utah where he earned degrees in sociology, social work, and business administration; before he was hired to lead the SAFB, he served as product donations manager for the North Texas Food Bank from 1999 to 2001 and as deputy director for the Utah Food Bank from 1993 to 1999; and WHEREAS, Eric Cooper and his wife, Erinn, are the proud parents of five children, Madison, Morgan, Gabriel, Elijah, and Meredith; in his spare time, Mr. Cooper volunteers as a Scout Master for the Boy Scouts of America; and WHEREAS, An accomplished administrator, Eric Cooper has provided inspiring leadership to the San Antonio Food Bank and contributed immeasurably to the work of alleviating and ending hunger in South Texas, and he is indeed worthy of this prestigious accolade; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Eric Cooper on his selection as the 2011 Executive Director of the Year by Feeding America and extend to him sincere best wishes for continued success; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Cooper as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, members it's a great pleasure today that we welcome Mr. Eric Cooper who is standing behind us. As you heard, he's President and CEO of the San Antonio Food Bank. He's also a member of Feeding America and this year he has been distinguished as 2011 executive director of the year. With Mr. Cooper on the dais is Steve Connock who is a chairman of the San Antonio Food Bank. Members, as you heard, the San Antonio Food Bank has established itself as a leader against hunger in southwest Texas with a new facility proudly located in my district. It's enhanced the service to its clients and they fight hunger and feed over 58,000 individuals in each and every week. And one of the things that Eric has done that we're very proud is that he runs the food bank with great entrepreneurial spirit, a cooking school, a catering and really has taken it to new heights. I believe they were awarded the food bank of the year for urban cities in 2009 or 2010. And so, please, help me welcome Mr. Cooper and Mr. Connock to their Texas House and let us recognize them for his great efforts and I'm proud to be joined by my colleague Mr. Garza at the mic here as we welcome Eric Cooper and Mr. Steve Connock to their House. Thank you members. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. The question occurs on the adoption of the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Garza moves to add all members' names to the Resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I would like to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 2040.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there any objection to suspension of the rules? Chair hears none. The rules are suspended. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the Resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 2040 by Isaac. Commemorating the inaugural Memorial Hermann Iron Man Texas Competition taking place in the Woodlands on May 21st, 2011.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. in the Woodlands in chairman Eissler's district 2,500 athletes will begin the first iron man Texas. It will start with a 2.4 miles swim, 112 mile bike, finished with a 26.2 mile marathon and I would like to wish my wife good luck. So good luck, Carrie, I know you are going to do well and I'm very proud of you. Thanks so much. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're about to go on the local and consent calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The Chair recognizes Representative Phillips for a Memorial Resolution. Please, take your seats, members.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, members. I would move to suspend all necessary rules to call up H.R. No. 512, resolution recognizing the life of Donato P. Rodriguez, Jr.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none so the clerk will read the Resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 512 by Phillips. WHEREAS, A full and generous life drew to a close with the death of Donato P. Rodriguez, Jr., on December 28, 2010, at the age of 77; and WHEREAS, Donato Rodriguez was born in Del Rio on February 13 1933, to Donato Rodriguez, Sr., and Maria Paredes Rodriguez; after attending The University of Texas, the University of Houston, and Sul Ross State University, he went on to earn a master of education degree from Antioch College; and WHEREAS, Throughout his distinguished career in education Mr. Rodriguez fought for social justice and civil rights, doing his part to make the world a better place for the poor and less fortunate; he was a schoolteacher until 1966, when he became director of the Community Action Program of Val Verde County, one of President Lyndon Johnson's antipoverty initiatives; in 1971 he began working with the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory in Austin, assessing the educational needs of low-income children across the nation; and WHEREAS, Mr. Rodriguez joined the Texas Education Agency in 1975, having been recruited to help ensure that schools followed federal desegregation orders and complied with laws barring racial and sexual discrimination; he subsequently became director of the Equal Education Opportunity Division at the TEA, the post from which he retired in 1993; and WHEREAS, The same energy and passion for building a brighter future that defined his professional work also drove Mr. Rodriguez in his life as a private citizen, and he gave generously of his time and talents in behalf of numerous civic organizations; and WHEREAS, In all of his endeavors, this esteemed Texan enjoyed the love and companionship of his wife, Teresita, to whom he was married for more than 57 years; their life together was further enriched by three children and four grandchildren; and WHEREAS, Among the talents that Mr. Rodriguez perfected, to the delight of his family and friends, were those of cooking and storytelling; in his leisure time he also took great pleasure in travel, and he and his wife visited many of the world's wonders including the Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, and the Mayan and Aztec pyramids; and WHEREAS, A devoted family man and a dedicated public servant Donato Rodriguez will be deeply missed, but the compassion and integrity with which he lived his life will forever inspire all who had the good fortune to know him; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the memory of Donato P. Rodriguez, Jr., and extend sincere condolences to the members of his family: to his wife, Teresita Rodriguez; to his son, Donato Rodriguez III, and his wife, Dana; to his daughter, Linda Donovan and her husband, Jim; to his grandchildren, Donato Rodriguez IV Javier Rodriguez, Jimmy Donovan, and Alex Donovan; to his sister Alma Garcia, and her husband, Carlos; to his brothers-in-law, Louis Cardwell, Thomas Cardwell and his wife, Libby, and David Cardwell and his wife, Peggy; to his great-aunt, Belia Guerra; 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 Donato P. Rodriguez, Jr.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, members. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this Memorial Resolution for a great Texan who was -- as we often hear not only talked the talk but he walked the walk. He had an esteemed career with the Texas Education Agency making sure that those -- that all of us had a bright future in education no matter the color of our skin, the sex that we had. Made sure that we were compliant with federal laws, made sure that all children were treated the same. And I appreciate the opportunity to bring this and want to recognize, before I move passage, his wife, Teresita, his daughter Linda, and his son Donato and his daughter-in-law Dana Rodriguez. They are up on the -- if y'all would stand -- and his grandson who is an Eagle Scout. Thanks for coming to let us honor your husband Donato. He was a fine man and we appreciate his service to Texas. Joined today by Donna Dukes who knew Rodriguez's, knew Donato and Representative Gallego who is from Del Rio where the routes of Donato came from. Thanks for coming today and thanks for letting me bring this. And Representative Alberto Alonzo with me and Representative Strama who y'all saw had a little helper today and I think the helper took him somewhere so thanks for letting us honor Donato and thank you. And I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members this is a Memorial Resolution. All in favor, please, rise. The Resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Dukes and Representative Gallego move to have all members' names added. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Members, I would be remiss not to also recognize a co-worker of Donato's for the many years in the same department and that's my step dad Robert -- along with my mother here who were great friends with Donato, too. So we're really glad you came to help us honor Donato and his life. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam speaker and members. All too often we talk about the numbers. A billion dollar cut, 100,000 people laid off. It's important to remember that we're effecting real people, our family, friends, and our neighbors. While we are debating the details of the budget we can't ignore the real Texans behind the numbers that we talk about. Today I want us to realize the impact of the decisions we make here. In this case, it's the decision not to fund medicaid case load growth. This profoundly effects our disabled Texans. Today I would like to introduce to you Tucker and Heidi Waters. Heidi's eight-year-old son Tucker was born twelve weeks early with cerebral palsy. Doctors told his parents that he would never talk, eat, sit up, or walk. But Tucker receives many intensive therapies funded by medicaid that allows him to do some of these things today with some assistance. Tucker's family is concerned about what underfunding medicaid in Texas would mean for him and for other disabled Texas children. Medicaid provides necessary therapies, medical supplies *respit care and medical surgeries that enable the Waters to meet Tucker's needs at home. With the long -- with long waiting lists for community services, they are thankful that they have been able to get the assistance they need without having to institutionalize their son. The House passed a budget that included a 10 percent reduction in medicaid rates paid to caregivers. Though that provision has since been removed, the House budget is still short almost $5 billion for funding medicaid case load growth and the Senate budget which some House members consider too generous cuts it an additional 1 percent to home and community service programs. Because of the budget cuts thousands of Texans with disabilities fear that they will lose the service that they would give them independence and that the long waiting list will threaten their ability to receive vital care. Members, the most important thing we will do this session is to pass a budget. I say we can do better. Please, help me welcome Heidi and Tucker Waters to their Texas House today. They are in the north gallery. Please, help me welcome them. Thank you, members.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam for an introduction. We are going to wait on that. Members, we're going to -- we are ready to begin the consideration of local and consent calendar. Please, be ready if you have any bills on the calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain H.C.R. 158.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. This resolution urges the Congress to establish a pathway to citizenship through military service.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The chair -- is there objection of consideration of H.C.R. 158? The Chair hears none and lays out H.C.R. 158. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: H.C.R. 158 by Hartnett. Urging the federal government to grant a conditional green card to certain noncitizens to allow them to enlist in the United States armed forces and urging the federal government to award citizenship to these immigrants upon the completion of four years of honorable military service.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on passage of H.C.R. 158 to third reading. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The chair calls on Representative Castro to explain Senate Bill 36. Chair moves Senate Bill 36 to the end of the calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Harris to explain Senate Bill 41.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, relating to the use of constraints in state supported living facilities.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 41. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 41. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 41 by Zaffirini. Relating to the use of restraints in state supported living centers.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 41. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The chair calls on Representative Raymond to explain Senate Bill 58.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Members, it designates a highway the Veterans of the Korean War Memorial.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection in consideration of Senate Bill 58? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 58. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 58 by Zaffirini. Relating to the designation of segments of State Highway 359, State Highway 16, and State Highway 285 as the Veterans of the Korean War Memorial Highway.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage of third reading of Senate Bill 58. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out -- calls on Representative Raymond to explain Senate Bill 71.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Regarding certain reports submitted and analysis conducted HHS services.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 71. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 71. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 71 by Nelson. Relating to certain reports by Health and Human Services agencies.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 71. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick to explain Senate Bill 74.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Senate Bill 74 relates to the distribution of surplus of data processing of the university system.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 74? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 74. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 74 by Nelson. Relating to the disposition of surplus or salvage data processing equipment of a university system or an institution or agency of higher education.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 74. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Burnam for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members, I want to introduce to you and I hope you will give a warm, warm, warm welcome to these fourth and fifth graders from Dagget Montessori School from Fort Worth here in the north gallery. Thank you all for coming out. And I want my colleagues to know a little bit about Dagget Montessori School. First of all it's in the neighbor I live in and my district office is in. Secondly, it was established in 1983 and it is an exceptional school in Fort Worth. In fact it is the only exemplary elementary school in Fort Worth ISD. We are really proud of these kids and their parents that are here with them today and the teachers. I particularly want to call out Linda Foster. She's a hero to everybody in the school. She's retiring this year. She's very much loved and appreciated by the folks there and I haven't actually met her myself but I'm going to go up there and join you guys in a minute. Thank you for joining us today. We are on the local and consent calendar so this will be going pretty fast and you won't hear very much about these bills. These are Senate Bills coming over to the House that pretty much everybody support but somebody will probably pop one or two of these bills. That's when it's fun. We'll see you in a minute.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg to explain Senate Bill 78.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: This just makes sure agencies talk to each other before issuing health related licenses.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 78? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 78. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 78 by Nelson. Relating to adverse licensing, listing, or registration decisions by certain health and human services agencies.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 78. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor to explain Senate Bill 80.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. Senate Bill 80 has to do with the public health laboratories administered by the State department health service.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 80? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 80. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: H.B. 80 by Nelson. Relating to public health laboratories administered by the Department of State Health Services.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 80. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain Senate Bill 122.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Senate Bill 122 relates to post conviction forensic DNA analysis.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 122? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 122. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 122 by Ellis. Relating to post conviction forensic DNA analysis.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Madam Speaker, I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 122. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Kuempel to explain Senate Bill 131.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you, Madam speaker and members. Senate Bill 131 allows the city, sheriffs to establish a cemetery.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 131? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 131. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 131 by Wentworth. Relating to cemeteries in certain municipalities.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 131. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The chair calls on Representative Thompson to explain -- Representative Thompson requests to remove Senate Bill 144 to the next local and consent calendar. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to explain Senate Bill 155. Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This bill simply clarifies some issues related to the medical benefits of school teachers and aligns -- aligns those benefits along with the termination that they may have in their employment contract.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 155? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 155. Clerk will read the Bill.

CLERK: S.B. 155 by Huffman. Relating to the eligibility of certain school district employees to participate or be enrolled in certain group health benefit programs.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage of Senate Bill 155 to third reading. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick to explain Senate Bill 178. Representative Hancock to explain Senate Bill 176.

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: 176 relates to the student eligibility of the tuition rebates offered by general -- tuition institutions.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 176? Chair hears none and lays out House Bill -- Senate Bill 176. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 176 Huffman. Relating to student eligibility for tuition rebates offered by general academic teaching institutions.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hancock.

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 178. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Walle to explain Senate Bill 209.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill shows that juvenile matters be reported to the appropriate judge.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 209. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 209. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 209 by Zaffirini. Relating to juvenile case managers.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 209. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Gonzalez of El Paso to explain Senate Bill 219.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This has to do with access to mental care services for children in foster care and kinship.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 219. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 219. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 219 by Nelson. Relating to health and mental health services for children in foster care and kinship care.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez -- Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gonzalez of El Paso.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Just goes ahead and takes care of some issues that -- to go ahead and deal with other issues that are important to the access of healthcare.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on adoption of amendment. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 219. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Gonzalez of El Paso to explain Senate Bill 221.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: 221. Thank you, Madam Speaker, allows for investigations for alleged abuse and neglect -- of the DFPS.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 221? If not, the Chair lays out Senate Bill 221. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 221 by Nelson. Relating to the Department of Family and Protective Services, including protective services and investigations of alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation for certain adults who are elderly or disabled; providing a criminal penalty.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gonzalez of El Paso.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: All this amendment does is it meets the applicable definition of abuse and neglect under --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The question occurs on the passage --

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 221. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Raymond to explain Senate Bill 222.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Members, this is regarding tenant services home and community based services.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 222. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 222. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 222 by Nelson. Relating to access to certain long-term care services and supports under the medical assistance program.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 221. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Harper-Brown to explain Senate Bill 246. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Members, this gives flexibility in determining performance security to NTTA.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 246. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 246.

CLERK: S.B. 246 by Shapiro. Relating to toll collection services provided by a regional tollway authority.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 246. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Hochberg to explain Senate Bill 247.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Members, this is a small clean up for the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration Senate Bill 247? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 247. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 247 by Shapiro. Relating to the authority of the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission to participate in the establishment and operation of an affiliated nonprofit organization and provide grants.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 247. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor to explain Senate Bill 256.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Madam Speaker and members, Senate Bill 256 relates to requiring physician private autopsy facility from filing complaint against --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 256. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 256. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 256 by Nelson. Relating to requiring a private autopsy facility to post a notice for filing a complaint against a physician; providing a penalty.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading to Senate Bill 256. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered chair calls on Representative Zerwas to explain Senate Bill 258.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Madam Speaker and members. Senate Bill 258 makes changes to the by state law involving the language of the Texas pledge such that it's consistent across the board including the flag retirement ceremony.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration Senate Bill 258. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 258. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 258 by Heger. Relating to the pledge of allegiance to the state flag during a state flag retirement ceremony.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 258. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Kolkhorst to explain Senate Bill 263.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This -- Senate Bill 263 closes the loophole in the law that allows the physician to avoid the license revocation by entering into no contest plea and accepting deferred adjudication from the court -- child molestation charges.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration Senate Bill 263. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 263. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 263 by Corona. Relating to the revocation or suspension of the license of a physician placed on deferred adjudication community supervision or arrested for certain offenses.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 263. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Guillen to explain Senate Bill 264.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Members, Senate Bill 264 requires that each board provide information on quality childcare indicators for each childcare provider in the area --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 264. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 264. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 264 by Zaffirini. Relating to certain information provided by local workforce development boards regarding certain child-care providers.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 264. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Scott to explain Senate Bill 303.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Members, I request that this be moved to the end of today's local calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. It there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Creighton to explain Senate Bill 304.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker and members, Senate Bill 304 allows the hospital district to establish an appointment services program.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration Senate Bill 304. Chair hears none lays out Senate Bill 304. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 304 by Nichols. Relating to employment services programs for certain residents receiving services from public hospitals or hospital districts.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 304. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Smithee to explain Senate Bill 310.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, this relates to the Dallam-Hartley Counties Hospital District.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 310. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 310. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 310 by Seliger. Relating to the Dallam-Hartley Counties Hospital District.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 310. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to explain Senate Bill 311.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Madam speaker, this just deals with the Ochiltree County Hospital Districts.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration Senate Bill 311? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 311. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 311 by Seliger. Relating to the authority of the board of directors of the Ochiltree County Hospital District to employ physicians and other health care providers.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 311. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Madden to explain Senate Bill 315.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker and members, this deals with a maintaining information pertaining to criminal combinations of --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 315? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 315. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 315 by Corona. Relating to the agencies and entities responsible for compiling and maintaining information pertaining to criminal combinations and criminal street gangs.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 315. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair calls on Representative Eiland to explain Senate Bill 335.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: This bill relates to the exemption of regulation of health spas and certain governmental hospitals --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 335? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 335. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 335 by Fraser. Relating to an exemption from regulation as health spas for certain governmental hospitals and clinics.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 335. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Hopson to explain Senate Bill 349.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: This allows the certain municipalities to raise revenue for construction maintenance operation of --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 349? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 349. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 349 by Eltife. Relating to the hotel occupancy tax rate in certain municipalities.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hopson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 339. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Eiland to explain Senate Bill 387.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: This relates to the selling and consumption of raw oysters taken from Texas waters.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 387? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 387. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 387 by Williams. Relating to the sale and consumption in this state of raw oysters harvested from Texas waters.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The Chair recognizes Representative Eiland. Representative Eiland to move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 387. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hopson to explain Senate Bill 400.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: This House Bill involves child care programs to access --

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 400? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 400. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 400 by Shapiro. Relating to the entities eligible to make purchases using the cooperative purchasing program administered by the comptroller.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hopson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 400. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Lozano to explain Senate Bill 402.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you, members, Madam Speaker. S.B. 402 relates to the community land trust -- simply puts the community land trusts in the statute.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 402? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 402. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 402 by West. Relating to community land trusts.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lozano.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 402. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Keffer to explain Senate Bill 408.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Members this bill would amend John Graves act with regard to airport runs are required to monitor --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 408. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 408. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 408 by Estes. Relating to inspection of and the operation of watercraft on the John Graves Scenic Riverway; providing for the imposition of a criminal penalty.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 408. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick to explain Senate Bill 419.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Madam chair and members, Senate Bill 419 prohibits state funding to public Junior colleges --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 419? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 419. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 419 by West. Relating to prohibiting state funding to public junior colleges for physical education courses offered for joint high school and junior college credit.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 419. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Smith of Harris to explain Senate Bill 431.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Members, this relates to the military variance pay.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 431. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 431. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 431 by Jackson. Relating to the use of fraudulent or fictitious military records; creating an offense.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Smith of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 431. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen to explain Senate Bill 432.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: This is reduces the penalties for those in disaster areas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 432. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 432. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 432 by Jackson. Relating to the penalty for failure to make a timely installment payment of ad valorem taxes on property in a disaster area.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 432. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to explain Senate Bill 436.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this bill would authorize certain counties to inspect day-care centers.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 436. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 436. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 436 by Nelson. Relating to the authority of a county to inspect day-care centers and group day-care homes.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 436. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor to explain Senate Bill 489.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. Senate Bill 489 relates to the Texas State Technical College System, the greatest higher ed system in Texas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 489? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 489. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 489 by Fraser. Relating to the Texas State Technical College System.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: With the benefit of all West Texans, move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 489. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair calls on Representative Craddick to explain Senate Bill 494.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker and members, this allows local hospitals to borrow money.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 494? Chair hears none Senate Bill 494. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 494 by Fraser. Relating to the authority of certain local governmental entities to borrow money for a public hospital.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 494. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen to explain Senate Bill 499.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I move to postpone S.B. 499 until May 22nd --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson to explain Senate Bill 502.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Madam Speaker and members, this bill relates to determination of the paternity creating -- move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 502. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 502. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 502 by West. Relating to determinations of paternity; creating an offense.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 502. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Creighton to explain Senate Bill 512.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker and members, Senate Bill 512 gets fresh water supply districts in compliance --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 512. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 512. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 512 by Hegar. Relating to the qualification of supervisors of a fresh water supply district.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 512. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Anderson of McClendon to explain Senate Bill four -- 514.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair, members this is a clean up bill for TSTC.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 514. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 514. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 514 by Burkett. Relating to the acquisition of land and facilities by the Texas State Technical College System.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson of McClendon.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 514. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Zerwas to explain Senate Bill 520.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, madam speaker and members, 520 makes some various changes to the local government code regarding county --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 520? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 520. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 520 by Heger. Relating to the creation, administration, powers, and duties of a county assistance district.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 520. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Gonzalez to explain Senate Bill 520.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker, this is a study that will look at the fiscal impact of adjusting ad valorem taxes impacting disabled veterans and survivors --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Excuse me. And that was Senate Bill 540? Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 540? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 540. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 540 by Van de Putte. Relating to a study of the fiscal impact of adjusting the amount of the ad valorem tax exemption to which disabled veterans and the surviving spouses and children of disabled veterans and certain members of the armed forces are entitled.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 540. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop to explain Senate Bill 545.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Senate Bill 545 is a -- bill that clarifies employee termination process.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 545? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 545. The clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 545 by Seliger. Relating to employment records for law enforcement officers, including procedures to correct employment termination reports; providing an administrative penalty.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 545. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes -- Senate Bill 548 has been withdrawn from the local and consent calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to explain Senate Bill 558.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: Ms. Speaker, members, this deals with the Swisher County Memorial Hospital district.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 558? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 558. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 558 by Duncan. Relating to the Swisher Memorial Hospital district.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 558. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Torres to explain Senate Bill 563. The Senate Bill 563 has been withdrawn from the local and consent calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso to explain Senate Bill 601.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you, madam speaker and members. This allows the El Paso Hospital district to employ --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 601? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 601. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 601 by Rodriguez. Relating to the authority of the El Paso County Hospital District to employ and commission peace officers.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 601. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Isaac to explain Senate Bill 629.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, madam speaker and members, S.B. 629 makes change for the -- I have a perfecting amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The amendment -- excuse me -- is there any objection to consideration of Senate Bill 629? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 629. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 629 by Heger. Relating to the Ranch at Clear Fork Creek Municipal Utility District No. 1; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, madam speaker and members. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the consent from the city of San Marcos required for the inclusion of the area located within the city's --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 629. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Geren to explain Senate Bill 736.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, madam speaker, Senate Bill 736 would add local bill --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 736. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 736. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 736 by Hinojosa. Relating to membership of local school health advisory councils.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to the third reading of Senate Bill 736. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to explain Senate Bill 747.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, this is to strengthen the licensing of real estate education requirements to --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 747? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 747. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 747 by Corona. Relating to the professions regulated by the Texas Real Estate Commission.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hamilton.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: This just strengthens the bill and keeps everything in the correctiveness of it. Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, the question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 747. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes -- Senate Bill 767 has been withdrawn to the next local and consent calendar. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Dukes to explain Senate Bill 768.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: Thank you, madam speaker. Senate Bill 768 creates the Rio De Vida municipal district in eastern Travis county.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 768? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 768. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 768 by Watson. Relating to the creation of the Rio de Vida Municipal Utility District No. 1; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Dukes.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Dukes to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: Thank you, madam speaker. The amendment adds the elected board to the MUD and it is an agreed upon language. And I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Dukes.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Dukes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: I think this amendment is a correction for drafting errors.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Dukes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Mr. Gonzales, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Madam chair, will Representative Dukes yield for a question?

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Will you yield for a question, Ms. Dukes?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Representative Dukes, just so that we're clear. Yesterday, there was some confusion about this bill and the concern was that the board was not elected. I want the body to know that the amendment fixes that. That the board is elected, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: That's a fantastic amendment and a good bill. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWANNA DUKES: Thank you. Move passage, madam speaker.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 768. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative King of Taylor to explain Senate Bill 794.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. Senate Bill 794 relates to the use of money from the public fund for health related programs to provide grants in nursing education programs.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 794? The Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 794. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 794 by Nelson. Relating to the use of money from the permanent fund for health-related programs to provide grants to nursing education programs.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 794. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to explain Senate Bill 795.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this bill specifies training requirements for certified nurse aids.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 795? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 795. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: Clerk S.B. 795 by Nelson. Relating to regulation of nurse aides.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 795. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Scott to explain Senate Bill 803.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Members, this is relating to venue projects in certain counties.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 803? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 803. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 803 by Heger. Relating to venue projects in certain counties.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Scott.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 803 is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The chair recognizes Representative Smith of Harris to explain Senate Bill 813.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Madam speaker, it creates the Harris County Municipal District Utility No. 528 --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 813? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 813. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 813 by Gallego. Relating to the creation of the Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 528; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Smith of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 813. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to explain Senate Bill 822.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members, this adds the state health related institutions to the definition of medical groups.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 822? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 822. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 822 by Watson. Relating to expedited credentialing of certain physicians by managed care plans.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 822 is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso to explain Senate Bill 860.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you Madam Speaker and chair, this is -- go ahead and allows the El Paso County Hospital District to employee --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 860? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 860. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 860 by Rodriguez. Relating to the authority of the El Paso County Hospital District to appoint, contract for, or employ physicians, dentists, and other health care providers.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 860 is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Madden to Senate Bill 882.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Madam speaker, members this bill deals with the filing of certain information release of an accused person on personal bond.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 882? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 882. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 882 by Whitmire. Relating to the filing of a copy of certain records related to the release of accused persons on personal bond.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading Senate Bill 882. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Laubenberg to explain Senate Bill 896.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: This allows the father of a fallen soldier to get a license plate.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 896? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 896. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 896 by Estes. Relating to the issuance of specialty license plates to certain family members of a person who dies while serving in the United States armed forces.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 896. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Lozano to explain Senate Bill 910.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you Madam Speaker and members. This bill relates to State attorneys called into active duty in military service.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 910? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 910. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 910 by Lucio. Relating to certain state attorneys called into active duty military service.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lozano.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 910. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Lucio to explain Senate Bill 942. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Thank you Madam Speaker. This relates to the creation of Lakewood Regional Medical Center.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 942? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 942. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 942 by Watson. Relating to the creation and financing of the Lakeway Regional Medical Center Defined Area in Travis County Water Control and Improvement District No. 17; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: We have an amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Lucio.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair calls on Representative Lucio to explain the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: This is just to clarify an amendment defining the area and limiting powers of the district.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of the -- to adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So moved. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 942. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to explain Senate Bill 943.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Madam Speaker and members, 943 provides the use energy storage -- competitive wholesale --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 943? Chair hears none. Lays out Senate Bill 943. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 943 by Corona. Relating to the classification, use, and regulation of electric energy storage equipment or facilities.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 943. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Madden to explain Senate Bill 953.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Members, the bill deals with granting occupational license and monitoring persons by corrections department.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 953. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 953. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 953 by Whitmire. Relating to the conditions for granting an occupational license to certain persons, the monitoring of those persons by a local community supervision and corrections department, and the fees associated with department services.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 953. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Larson to explain Senate Bill 988.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Yeah, this allows creation of cyber security education and economic development.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 988. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 988. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 988 by Van de Putte. Relating to the creation of a cyber security, education, and economic development council.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Larson.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Yeah, I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 988. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio to explain Senate Bill 992. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: This relates to loans under the owner builder loan program.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 992? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 992. The clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 992 by Lucio. Relating to the allocation of loans made under the owner-builder loan program.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage of Senate Bill 992 to third reading. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative John Davis of Harris to explain Senate Bill 1047.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker and members, this allows NASA Johnson Space Center to commercialization --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1047? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1047. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1047 by Jackson. Relating to the eligibility of an innovation and commercialization organization associated with the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center to receive funding from the Texas emerging technology fund.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative John Davis of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Madam speaker, I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1047. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown to explain Senate Bill 1057. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill simply -- registration of used vehicle.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1057? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1057. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1057 by Wentworth. Relating to the transfer of certain vehicle registrations at the time of sale of the vehicle.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1057. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Jackson to explain Senate Bill 1098.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Madam Speaker, I move to postpone Senate Bill 1098 to next local and consent calendar.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chairs hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to explain Senate Bill 1154.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Madam speaker and members, this bill would renew the statewide blue ribbon task force to reduce child abuse and neglect.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1154? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1154. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1154 by Uresti. Relating to a task force for the development of a strategy to reduce child abuse and neglect and improve child welfare.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1154. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond to explain Senate Bill 1178.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Members, this has to do with the certain day care center and criminal history background checks.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1176? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1178. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1178 by Nelson. Relating to the regulation of certain shelter day-care facilities, child-care facilities, and individuals providing child-care services, and access to certain criminal history record information; providing an administrative penalty.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1178. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain Senate Bill 1187.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: This bill relates to indexing lis pendens notices.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1187? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1187. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1187 by Watson. Relating to the effect of indexing notices of lis pendens.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1187. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Madden to explain Senate Bill 1208.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Madam Speaker and members, this deals with the age where juveniles can be placed on determinate sentences --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1208? Chair hears none and lays out 1208. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1208 by Whitmire. Relating to the age until which juveniles placed on determinate sentence probation may be on probation.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1208. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio to explain Senate Bill 1248. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: This is the designated portion of Highway 499 as Colonel Card Boulevard.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1248? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1,248. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1,248 by Lucio. Relating to the designation of a portion of State Highway 499 as the Colonel Bill Card Boulevard.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: This is for my dear friend Bill Card, rest in peace. Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1248. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Lozano to explain Senate Bill 1250.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. S.B. 1250 is bracketed just for -- in my district and it relates to the operation of rock crushing facilities.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1250? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1250. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1250 by Lucio. Relating to the applicability of certain restrictions on the location and operation of concrete crushing facilities.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lozano.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1250. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The chair recognizes Representative Anderson of McClendon for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, it's with great honor that I'm able to recognize the students that we have in the north gallery here. They are from University High School in Waco. Joe Nesbit is here with them today. Joe, if you can stand up. Here we are. And that's LEAD, which is leadership, education, develop and we are welcome to have you here today and Representative Gonzalez would like to make a recognition also.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Just want to say hello to you guys and no that I went to junior high and high school with one of your teachers. I know her as Maria Ovalia but I think you know her as Maria Ovalia Hermillo -- I think is right is her married name? So thank you guys for coming and we welcome you to the Texas House.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you Madam Chair.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: And just for your reference we are on what's called the local and consent calendar meaning it's for someone's district in particular or it went through committee without any objection. So that's why we are able to move it so quickly. Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado to explain Senate Bill 1251.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you Madam Speaker. This is the east end management district bill we heard earlier this session and I have an amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1251? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1251. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1251 by Gallego. Relating to the board of directors of the Greater East End Management District.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: This amendment simply reverts the Senate Bill back to what already has passed the House. Move adoption of the amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Alvarado.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. It simply reverts the Senate Bill back to what we passed in the House.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1251. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Beck to explain Senate Bill 1295.

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Madam Speaker and members, this bill amends to the Texas surface coal mining and reclamation -- compliance of Federal acts.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1295? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1295. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1295 by Heger. Relating to the mining and reclamation of certain land previously affected by surface coal mining operations.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Beck.

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1295. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Lozano to explain Senate Bill 1311.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, this bill simply extends Purple Heart trails to different areas in the State of Texas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1311? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1311. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1311 by Lucio. Relating to the designation of certain highways as part of the Purple Heart Trail.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Lozano.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1311. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales of Hidalgo to explain Senate Bill 1320.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Members, this bill is the companion to a bill that we passed out last week in the House on deeds in lieu of foreclosure and I do have an amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. I'm sorry. Let's back up. All right. The -- is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1320. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1320. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1320 by Lucio. Relating to trade practices in connection with executing and filing deeds in lieu of foreclosure.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gonzales of Hidalgo.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales to explain the amendment.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: This amendment reduces the time to bring an action from four to two years so they can be identical to the one that we passed in the House.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of --

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Move adoption.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: -- of the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales of Hidalgo.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1320. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Gal -- Gallego to explain Senate Bill 1331.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you Madam Speaker, 1331 relates to the criminal offenses of possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor and providing alcoholic beverages to a minor and there's a committee amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment -- well, let us lay it out first. Senate Bill -- is there objection to consideration of the Senate Bill 1331? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1331. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1331 by Watson. Relating to criminal offenses regarding the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Burkett.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair calls on Representative Gallego to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you. This is a technical correction with some language that had to do with legal implications and so it's entirely technical. I move adoption of the amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1331. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to explain Senate Bill 1352.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this bill would give Central Health leasing authority.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1352? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1352. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1352 by Watson. Relating to the lease of property or hospital facilities by certain hospital districts.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1,352. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira to explain Senate Bill 1386.

REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Members, this is a bill that allows cities and counties to opt in to be able to collect certain fees.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1386? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1386. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1386 by Lucio. Relating to the refusal to register motor vehicles by a county assessor-collector or the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Oliveira.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment makes it permissive and allows the city and counties to work together with the State.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.

REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Move adoption.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1386. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick to explain Senate Bill 1410.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 1410 relates to reporting student enrollment in tech-prep programs and evaluating the tech-prep programs.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1410? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1410. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1410 by Duncan. Relating to reporting student enrollment in tech-prep programs and evaluating tech-prep consortia.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1410. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to explain Senate Bill 1414.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: This deals with sexual abuse and child molestation training.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1414. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1414. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1414 by Duncan. Relating to child molestation training for volunteers --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1414. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to explain Senate Bill 1422.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: This is identical to the House Bill and it deals the Denton County Transportation Authority.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1422? Chair hears none and lays out 1422. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1422 by Nelson. Relating to coordinated county transportation authorities; creating an offense.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1422. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Kleinschmidt to explain Senate Bill 1477.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Senate Bill 1477 authorizes differential pay benefits for --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1477? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1477. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1477 by Heger. Relating to differential pay and benefits for certain employees of emergency services districts who are members of the armed forces.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1477. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Larson to explain Senate Bill 1543. Representative Larson?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Members, this relates to the independent school districts to invest in the corporate bonds.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1543? The Chair hears none.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Move adoption.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: -- the Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1543. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1543 by Wentworth. Relating to authority of independent school districts to invest in corporate bonds.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Larson.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The Chair recognizes Representative Larson to explain the amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Larson to explain the amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Representative Larson, could you explain your amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Actually I would like to postpone this to Monday, May 23rd at 8:00 a.m.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel to explain Senate Bill 1578.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Okay. 1578 allows Jefferson County to join the Gulf Coast Rail District.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1578? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1578. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1578 by Williams. Relating to the addition of a county to a freight rail district.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1578. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Smithee to explain Senate Bill 1598.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Members, Mr. Speaker, members, this bill deals with the inspection of portable fire extinguishers.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1598? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1598. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1598 by Corona. Relating to the inspection of portable fire extinguishers.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1598. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Alvarado to explain Senate Bill 1660.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This lets the Texas veterans get help from the commission and comptroller to --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1660? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1660. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1660 by Lucio. Relating to certain unclaimed property of veterans and veterans' families.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1660. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to explain Senate Bill 1667. Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. Senate Bill 1667 makes a number of administrative conforming changes to the --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1667? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1667. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1667 by Duncan. Relating to the administration of and benefits payable by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and to certain domestic relations orders.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1667. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to explain Senate Bill 1668.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: This bill eliminates and reduces cost and equities in TRS service credit purchases.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1668? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1668. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1,668 by Duncan. Relating to purchase of service credit in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1668. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Truitt to explain Senate Bill 1669.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: This bill makes a number of adjustments in return to work rules for TRS retirees.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1669. Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1669. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1669 by Duncan. Relating to the resumption of service by retirees under the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Madam Chair, Madam Chair.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: For what purpose, Ms. Kolkhorst?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Can I talk to the representative?

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Ms. Truitt, Representative Truitt?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Just a point of clarification.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Would you yield, Representative Truitt, for Representative Kolkhorst?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Sure.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Lady yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Sorry I didn't get to -- just for clarification, retire, rehire, what are we doing in there with that particular --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Statutes controlling TRS return to work provisions have become increasingly complex and difficult to administer. In 2010 the board of trustees and staff met in several public meetings to discuss simplifying the law. Many of the ideas generated in those meetings are found in this bill. This bill would allow a TRS retiree to work in Texas public education without a loss of an annuity only if the retiree has been separated from service with all public education institutions for twelve full consecutive months immediately after retiring.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Just one quick follow up. We did a whole lot of work on retiree rehire --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: This does not harm that.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. Good. So because the sensitivity there was that obviously we had problems with the fund and everything. And I just wanted to clarify that so that people aren't -- we still have them -- if they are retired, they have to do -- the school district has to put up the part that they were going to --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Great super. Thank you, madam.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: You bet. Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1669. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Coleman to explain Senate Bill 1687. Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm -- Senate Bill 1687 relates to the information of turnover among license jailors and jails under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Jail Standards.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1687? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1,687. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1687 by Ellis. Relating to information on turnover among county jail personnel.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1687. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls on Representative Alvarado to explain Senate Bill 1692.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, S.B. 1692 brings parity to the requirement for counties that have websites to post the prove online --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1692? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1692. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1692 by Lucio. Relating to the municipal and county budgets on the internet.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you. I move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1692. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher to explain Senate Bill 1719.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker and members, this bill insures that the agreement under S.B. ninety --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1719? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1719. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1719 by Williams. Relating to certain comprehensive development agreements of the Texas Department of Transportation.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1,719. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain Senate Bill 1736.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: This allows the institutions of higher education to credit to military veterans for their work in the military.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1736? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1736. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1736 by Van de Putte. Relating to the establishment of the College Credit for Heroes program.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1736. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Smith of Harris to explain Senate Bill 1755.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Yes. This allows another medal to the Veteran's license plate.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1755? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1755. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1755 by Van de Putte. Relating to the issuance of certain specialty license plates.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Smith of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1755. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Miller of Comal to explain Senate Bill 1831.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Madam Chair and members, this bill is about the designation of El Camino Real de Tejas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1831? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1831. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1831 by Wentworth. Relating to the designation of the El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail as a historic highway.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Miller of Comal.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Senate Bill -- the question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1831. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Margo to explain Senate Bill 1910.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: This bill simply provides incentives for solar energy for El Paso electric companies.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 1910? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 1910. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1910 by Rodriguez. Relating to the delay of the transition to competition in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council service area and to net metering and energy efficiency goals and programs for utilities in that area.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Margo.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1910 is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Morrison to lay out -- to explain Senate Concurrent Resolution 11.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This is to honor the first Eagle Scout in the State of Texas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11? Chair hears none. The clerk will read the be the Bill.

CLERK: S.C.R. 11 by Heger. Designating May 22 of each year from 2011 through 2020 as William Elmo Merrem Day in honor of the first Eagle Scout from Texas.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Morrison.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the passage of S.C.R. 11 to third reading. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair calls on Representative Scott to explain S.C.R. 16.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Members, this is recognizing the immeasurable contributions that women have made in the military.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of S.C.R. 16? Chair hears none and lays out S.C.R. 16. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.C.R. 16 by Nelson. Designating the month of March each year from 2011 through 2020 as Women Veterans Month in tribute to the immeasurable contributions that women in the military have made to this nation.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Scott.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage of S.C.R. 16 to third reading. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain Senate Bill 36.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Madam Speaker and members, Senate Bill 36 allows the coordinating board to better access academic advising --

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Is there objection to consideration of Senate Bill 36? Chair hears none and lays out Senate Bill 36. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 36 by Zaffirini. Relating to methods for increasing student success and degree completion at public institutions of higher education.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Move passage.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Question occurs on the passage to third reading of Senate Bill 36. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Scott to explain Senate Bill 303.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Yes, I ask to move to the next local and consent calendar.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're going to adjourn for five minutes. And then we'll come back and do third readings on the local and consent calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Scott for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Members, I said the wrong thing on Senate Bill 303. I move to postpone until Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. the 23rd. Monday the 23rd at 8:00 a.m.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, if there are no further announcements, the House stands adjourned until 11:30 a.m. this morning.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Quorum is present. Representative Thompson asks unanimous consent for those members granted leave of absence on the previous legislative day to be excused on this legislative day. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Thompson moves to suspend all necessary rules to consider the local and consent calendar bills on third reading. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Thompson asks unanimous consent to use the vote on the first record vote for all bills as well as H.C.R. 158, S.C.R. 11 S.C.R. 16 with the understanding that a member may record a vote on any bill with a journal clerk. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair lays out S.B. 41. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 41 by Zaffirini. Relating to the use of restraints in state supported living centers.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Chair recognizes Representative John Davis of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 41. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 149 ayes, the motion prevails, or the bill is finally passed. Excuse me. The Chair lays out the following bills and resolutions on third reading. The clerk will read the bills.

CLERK: S.B. 58 by Zaffirini. Relating to the designation of segments of State Highway 359, State Highway 16, and State Highway 285 as the Veterans of the Korean War Memorial Highway. S.B. 71 by Nelson. Relating to certain reports submitted and analysis conducted regarding health and human services. S.B. 74 by Nelson. Relating to the disposition of surplus or salvage data processing equipment of a university system or an institution or agency of higher education. S.B. 78 by Nelson. Relating to adverse licensing, listing, or registration decisions by certain health and human services agencies. S.B. 80 by Nelson. Relating to public health laboratories administered by the Department of State Health Services. S.B. 122 by Ellis. Relating to post conviction forensic DNA analysis. S.B. 131 by Wentworth. Relating to cemeteries in certain municipalities. S.B. 155 by Huffman. Relating to the eligibility of certain school district employees to participate or be enrolled in certain group health benefit programs. S.B. 176 by Huffman. Relating to student eligibility for tuition rebates offered by general academic teaching institutions. S.B. 209 by Zaffirini. Relating to juvenile case managers. S.B. 219 by Nelson. Relating to health and mental health services for children in foster care and kinship care. S.B. 221 by Nelson. Relating to the Department of Family and Protective Services, including protective services and investigations of alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation for certain adults who are elderly or disabled; providing a criminal penalty. S.B. 222 by Nelson. Relating to access to certain long-term care services and supports under the medical assistance program. S.B. 246 by Shapiro. Relating to toll collection services provided by a regional tollway authority. S.B. 247 by Shapiro. Relating to the authority of the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission to participate in the establishment and operation of an affiliated nonprofit organization and provide grants. S.B. 256 by Nelson. Relating to requiring a private autopsy facility to post a notice for filing a complaint against a physician; providing a penalty. S.B. 258 by Heger. Relating to the pledge of allegiance to the state flag during a state flag retirement ceremony. S.B. 263 by Corona. Relating to the revocation or suspension of the license of a physician placed on deferred adjudication community supervision or arrested for certain offenses. S.B. 264 by Zaffirini. Relating to certain information provided by local workforce development boards regarding certain child-care providers. S.B. 310 by Seliger. Relating to the Dallam-Hartley Counties Hospital District. S.B. 311 by Seliger. Relating to the authority of the board of directors of the Ochiltree County Hospital District to employ physicians and other health care providers. S.B. 315 by Corona. Relating to the agencies and entities responsible for compiling and maintaining information pertaining to criminal combinations and criminal street gangs. S.B. 349 by Eltife. Relating to the hotel occupancy tax rate in certain municipalities. S.B. 387 by Williams. Relating to the sale and consumption in this state of raw oysters harvested from Texas waters. S.B. 400 by Shapiro. Relating to the entities eligible to make purchases using the cooperative purchasing program administered by the comptroller. S.B. 402 by West. Relating to community land trusts. S.B. 408 by Estes. Relating to inspection of and the operation of watercraft on the John Graves Scenic Riverway; providing for the imposition of a criminal penalty. S.B. 419 by West. Relating to prohibiting state funding to public junior colleges for physical education courses offered for joint high school and junior college credit. S.B. 431 by Jackson. Relating to the use of fraudulent or fictitious military records; creating an offense. S.B. 432 by Jackson. Relating to the penalty for failure to make a timely installment payment of ad valorem taxes on property in a disaster area. S.B. 436 by Nelson. Relating to the authority of a county to inspect day-care centers and group day-care homes. S.B. 502 by West. Relating to determinations of paternity; creating an offense. S.B. 512 by Heger. Relating to the qualification of supervisors of a fresh water supply district. S.B. 514 by Birdwell. Relating to the acquisition of land and facilities by the Texas State Technical College System. S.B. 512 by Heger. Relating to the creation and administration power and duties of county assistance district. S.B. 540 by Van de Putte. Relating to a study of the fiscal impact of adjusting the amount of the ad valorem tax exemption to which disabled veterans and the surviving spouses and children of disabled veterans and certain members of the armed forces are entitled. S.B. 545 by Seliger. Relating to employment records for law enforcement officers, including procedures to correct employment termination reports; providing an administrative penalty. S.B. 558 by Duncan. Relating to the Swisher Memorial Hospital District. S.B. 601 by Rodriguez. Relating to the authority of the El Paso County Hospital District to employ and commission peace officers. S.B. 629 by Heger. Relating to the Ranch at Clear Fork Creek Municipal Utility District No. 1; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. S.B. 736 by Hinojosa. Relating to membership of local school health advisory councils. S.B. 747 by Corona. Relating to professions regulated by the Texas Real Estate Commission. S.B. 768 by Watson. Relating to the creation of the Rio de Vida Municipal Utility District No. 1; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds. S.B. 794 by Nelson. Relating to the use of money from the permanent fund for health-related programs to provide grants to nursing education programs. S.B. 795 by Nelson. Relating to regulation of nurse aides. S.B.803 by Heger. Relating to venue projects in certain counties. S.B. 813 by Gallego. Relating to the creation of the Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 528; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. S.B. 822 by Watson. Relating to expediting credentials of certain physicians by managed care plans. S.B. 860 by Rodriguez. Relating to the authority of the El Paso County Hospital District to appoint, contract for, or employ physicians, dentists, and other health care providers. S.B. 882 by Whitmire. Relating to the filing of a copy of certain records related to release of an accused person on personal bond. S.B. 896 by Estes. Relating to issuance of specialty license plates to certain family members of a person who died while serving in the United States armed forces. S.B. 910 by Lucio. Relating to certain state attorneys called into active duty military service. S.B. 942 Watson. Relating to the creation and financing of the Lakeway Regional Medical Center Defined Area in Travis County Water Control and Improvement District No. 17; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds. S.B. 943 by Corona. Relating to the classification, use, and regulation of electric energy storage equipment or facilities. S.B. 953 by Whitmire. Relating to the conditions for granting an occupational license to certain persons, the monitoring of those persons by a local community supervision and corrections department, and the fees associated with department services. S.B. 988 by Van de Putte. Relating to the creation of a cyber security, education, and economic development council. S.B. 992 by Lucio. Relating to the allocation of loans made under the owner-builder loan program. S.B. 1047 by Jackson. Relating to the eligibility of an innovation and commercialization organization associated with the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center to receive funding from the Texas emerging technology fund. S.B. 1057 by Wentworth. Relating to the transfer of certain vehicle registrations at the time of sale of the vehicle. S.B. 1154 by Uresti. Relating to a task force for the development of a strategy to reduce child abuse and neglect and improve child welfare. S.B. 1178 by Nelson. Relating to the regulation of certain shelter day-care facilities, child-care facilities, and individuals providing child-care services, and access to certain criminal history record information; providing an administrative penalty. S.B. 1187 by Watson. Relating to the effect of indexing notices of lis pendens. S.B. 1208 by Whitmire. Relating to the age until which juveniles placed on determinate sentence probation may be on probation. S.B. 1248 by Lucio. Relating to the designation of a portion of State Highway 499 as the Colonel Bill Card Boulevard. S.B. 1250 by Lucio. Relating to the applicability of certain restrictions on the location and operation of concrete crushing facilities. S.B. 1251 by Gallego. Relating to the board of directors of the Greater East End Management District. S.B. 1295 by Heger. Relating to the mining and reclamation of certain land previously affected by surface coal mining operations. S.B. 1311 by Lucio. Relating to the designation of certain highways as part of the Purple Heart Trail. S.B. 1320 by Lucio. Relating to the execution of deeds conveying residential real estate in connection with certain transactions involving residential real estate. S.B. 1331 by Watson. Relating to criminal offenses regarding the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor and providing alcoholic beverages to a minor. S.B. 1352 by Watson. Relating to the lease of property or hospital facilities by certain hospital districts. S.B. 1386 by Lucio. Relating to the refusal to register motor vehicles by a county assessor-collector or the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. S.B. 1410 by Duncan. Relating to reporting student enrollment in tech-prep programs and evaluating tech-prep consortia. S.B. 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. S.B. 1422 by Nelson. Relating to coordinated county transportation authorities; creating an offense. S.B. 1477 by Heger. Relating to differential pay and benefits for certain employees of emergency services districts who are members of the armed forces. S.B. 1578 by Williams. Relating to the addition of a county to a freight rail district. S.B. 1598 by Corona. Relating to the inspection of portable fire extinguishers. S.B. 1660 by Lucio. Relating to certain unclaimed property of veterans and veterans' families. S.B. 1667 by Duncan. Relating to the administration of and benefits payable by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and to certain domestic relations orders. S.B. 1668 by Duncan. Relating to purchase of service credit in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. S.B. 1669 by Duncan. Relating to the resumption of service by retirees under the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. S.B. 1687 by Ellis. Relating to information on turnover among licensed jailers at jails under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Jail Standards. S.B. 1692 by Lucio. Relating to the municipal county budgets on the internet. S.B. 1719 by Williams. Relating to certain comprehensive development agreements of the Texas Department of Transportation. S.B. 1736 by Van de Putte. Relating to the establishment of the College Credit for Heroes program. S.B. 1755 by Van de Putte. Relating to the issuance of certain specialty license plates. S.B. 1831 by Wentworth. Relating to the designation of the El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail as a historic highway. S.B. 1910 by Rodriguez. Relating to the delay of the transition to competition in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council service area and to net metering and energy efficiency goals and programs for utilities in that area. S.B. 36 by Zaffirini. Relating to methods for increasing student success and degree completion at public institutions of higher education.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The chair declares -- those bills just read and the resolutions to be finally passed on the recorded vote, recorded on the -- record vote recorded on with the understanding that a member may record a vote with the journal clerk. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Members, the following bills on first reading and referral.

CLERK: S.B. 1927 by Zaffirini. Relating to the authority of certain volunteer firefighter and emergency services organizations to hold tax-free sales or auctions.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: The following announcements. The clerk will read the announcements. Members, you might want to listen to the announcements.

CLERK: The Committee on Economic and Small Business Development will meet during lunch recess today, May 20, 2011, in the House chamber at desk number 14. This will be a formal meeting to consider S.B. 824. The Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety will meet during the lunch recess today May 20th, 2011, in the House chamber at desk number 119. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Transportation will meet during lunch recess today, May 20th, 2011, in the House chamber at desk number 97. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business and S.B. 1925. The Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures will meet during the lunch recess today, May 20th, 2011, in the House chamber at desk number 122. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Natural Resources will meet during the lunch recess today, May 20th, 2011, at 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider S.B. 1913, S.B. 1914, S.B. 1915, S.B. 1916, S.B. 1920, and pending business. The Committee on Defense and Veteran's Affairs will meet during lunch recess today, May 20th, 2011, at the House chamber at desk number 15. This will be a formal meeting to consider S.B. 34.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Members, if you have any other announcements please bring them down front now. And I would like to introduce Garrett Trulott who just told me that he wasn't born in Texas but he got here just as quick as he could. If there are no further announcements members, the House stands in recess until 1:20 today.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much Madam Speaker, members. I would like to congratulate today the person who worked in my office as a Texas legislative intern. Kataisha Jorden is graduating tomorrow, Saturday May 21st, with a masters of science from the school of architecture with a degree in community and regional planning from the University of Texan at Austin. So, Kataisha, I would like for you to stand, she is joined here by her family members. Please, give her a big hand. I'm delighted that she's graduating, I don't know what I'm going to do when she leaves.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Madam Speaker and members, I request permission for the Committee on House Administration to meet while the House is in session at 3:00 p.m. today, May 20th in 3W.9 to consider S.C. 1928, S.C.R. 51 and the possible removal of Representative Frullo's furniture.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. Madam Doorkeeper, for what purpose?

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

THE SPEAKER: Please admit the messenger.

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

THE SPEAKER: Following announcement. Clerk will read announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on House Administration will meet at 3:00 p.m. on May the 20th, 2011, room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider S.B. 1928 by Ellis, S.C.R. 51 by Ellis.

THE SPEAKER: Please excuse Representative Patrick because of important business on motion by Representative Aycock. Are there any objections? Hearing none. So ordered. The following resolution. The Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 1846 by Woolley. WHEREAS, Benjamin McPhaul is graduating from The University of Texas at Austin in May 2011, marking a significant milestone in the life of this esteemed young Texan; and WHEREAS, This native of the Lone Star State hails from Carrollton and attended The University of Texas at Arlington for two years before coming to Austin; he has consistently maintained a high grade point average while also working nearly full time; and WHEREAS, Mr. McPhaul is studying government at UT, and he has supplemented his coursework with real-world experience in the political process; he has interned with U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul and is currently serving as a legislative intern in the office of the Honorable Beverly Woolley, speaker pro tempore of the Texas House of Representatives this session; and . WHEREAS, Mr. McPhaul has long given back to his community through his involvement with Habitat for Humanity and the Metrocrest Social Services Thrift Store in Carrollton; outgoing and compassionate, he is also a natural athlete who enjoys soccer; and WHEREAS, A source of great pride to his family, Ben McPhaul may indeed reflect on his academic career with a sense of accomplishment and look forward to the next exciting chapter in his life; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Benjamin McPhaul on his graduation from The University of Texas at Austin and extend to him sincere best wishes for the future; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. McPhaul as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Speaker Woolley.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members, Benjamin McPhaul has worked in my office all year while going to UT. He also holds two other jobs at the at the same time. He's been a great help to me this year and I want to congratulate him and ask him, he and his parents and his girlfriend to stand up. His parents are Mary McPhaul and Michael McPhaul. Thank you so much for being here and welcome. Congratulations, Ben.

THE SPEAKER: Members, we're about to do a Memorial Resolution, please sign your seats or take your conversations outside the rail. Chair recognizes Representative Smithee for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, I like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider H.C.R. 55. I appreciate your indulgence and your attention as we honor Clint and Margaret Formby who are two of the finest residents of the Texas panhandle who have passed away in the recent years. And what an exemplary life -- both of them, I won't go through, except I want to say Clint Formby had the longest running radio show I think ever over a half century prior to his death on the radio station he owns in Hereford, Texas. And Margaret was the founder of the Cowgirl Hall of Fame which started in Hereford, Texas and now it's relocated in, Mr. Geren, in Fort Worth. It's now one of the attractions in Fort Worth, the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. So, with that I would move to suspend all necessary rules.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. Following resolution. The Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: S.C.R. fifty five by Seliger. WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of Texas honors and commemorates the lives of John Clinton Formby and Margaret Clark Formby; and . WHEREAS, This distinguished couple was widely admired. Throughout the Panhandle and the state for their many contributions to their community and their respective fields of endeavor; and WHEREAS, John Clinton Formby, known as Clint Formby, was born December 23, 1923, in McAdoo; after graduating from McAdoo High School, he entered Texas Tech University; he left school to enlist in the United States Army during World War II, and he served as a staff sergeant and medic at the 235th General Hospital in Marseille, France; and . WHEREAS, Margaret Clark Formby was born July 12, 1929, in Van horn; salutatorian of her 1946 class at Van Horn High School, she attended Texas Tech University, where she became the first Miss Texas Tech; and WHEREAS, After the war, Clint Formby returned to Texas Tech University, where he met Margaret, and they were married; while attending school, he worked with his uncle on the construction of the KPAN-AM radio station in Hereford, and his was the first voice heard on the air when the station began broadcasting; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Formby had a lifelong interest in the role women have played in western culture, and she built an impressive collection of western and rodeo artifacts; to highlight the many contributions that women made to the legacy of the West, she founded the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Hereford, using her collection as its foundation; the museum has since moved to the heart of the Fort Worth cultural district, where it continues to delight visitors from across the nation; and . WHEREAS, Mr. Formby crafted a long and illustrious career in the radio industry; known on-air as the "Old Philosopher," he did a daily broadcast on a wide variety of topics that ran for more than half a century on KPAN-AM and FM, the longest-running daily radio broadcast by a single host in the country; and . WHEREAS, The couple was active in numerous civic organizations and each won numerous accolades for community service; Mr. Formby served as president of the Deaf Smith County Chamber of Commerce and of the Kiwanis Club, was named Citizen of the Year, and in 1984 was inducted into the Hall of Fame of the Texas Association of Broadcasters; Mrs. Formby worked with the American Cancer Society and the Kings Manor Methodist Home, and she helped to establish the Cowboy Symposium held at Texas Tech University, where she served on the board of the National Ranching Heritage Center; she was also the first woman elected to the Texas Tech University Rodeo Hall of Fame; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Formby enjoyed more than 50 years of marriage and raised five children, Larry, Marshall, Ben, and Scott Formby, and the late Linda Kay Formby; and WHEREAS, They were beloved by their family and countless friends, and although they are deeply missed, their generosity of spirit and their many accomplishments will continue to live in the hearts and minds of those they left behind; now, therefore, be it . RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby pay tribute to the lives and shared legacy of Margaret Formby and Clint Formby; and, be it further RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be prepared for their family as an expression of admiration and tribute from the Texas Legislature, and that when the Senate and the House of Representatives adjourn this day, they do so in memory of Margaret and Clint Formby.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you Madam Speaker and members, we're joined by the podium by Lisa Formby who is the daughter-in-law of Mr. and Mrs. Formby. And we're glad to have her here, and I would move for adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a Memorial Resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. Representative Four Price moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? The chairs hears none. So ordered. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Members, we're getting ready to go on the calendar. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 23. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 23 by Nelson. Relating to the administration of and 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.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Madam Speaker and members. This is the piece of legislation that seeks to make some changes in the law to implement various cost savings and efficiency measures certain Health and Human Services and in the health benefits program. We have a number of amendments. I appreciate your patience and your input and I would move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 23? The question --

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Madam speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Keffer,for what purpose?

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Is -- would Mr. Zerwas could I ask a few questions, please?

THE SPEAKER: Representative Zerwas, do you yield for a few questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Thank you John, and I don't see -- there's Mr. Hopson. I was wondering if we can call Mr. Hopson over. I'm still getting phone calls from my pharmacies and -- on questions about 23. And I know we went over this with Mr. Hopson yesterday. But I just think for public and for people that are listening especially in rural areas, if Mr. Hopson can come to the microphone and -- what this bill actually does with the amendments that have been put on with 23, please.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Absolutely.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hopson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you Mr. Keffer. Bill that Zerwas did, the amendment that Zerwas amended does four things for retail pharmacy. Number one, it provides for any willing provider that means that the people that have the insurance policies be allowed to choose the pharmacy they want to. They won't be forced to go to a certain pharmacy or in their community but they will be willing to choose providers that they want to. And the many health organizations or PBM's can't use copays to direct patients to certain pharmacies. What they have done in the past is that they would sign up the contract with the school district or signed up a contract with a municipality and then if they would tell them if go to certain pharmacies you will pay zero co-pay. If you go to anybody else you will have to pay $10 or more. And number two, it allows the patients to use their own specialty pharmacies. And specialty pharmacies are a new thing in Texas, there's about 50 of them in the state. And these are pharmacies that traditionally deal with disease states such as dialysis or cancer and things that have very, very expensive treatments. And the PBM's and maintenance organizations are beginning to put their own pharmacy -- their specialty pharmacies in and they're requiring under some of the insurance programs that people with these disease states can't go to their own pharmacy. They will have to go to one of their's that they own. And number three, there's no compulsory mail order --

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: That's been a real issue, on this mail order situation --

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: If you can explain that, please.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah, under one of the paragraphs, in Zerwas' amendment it says that the patients won't have to be -- does not compulsory that they will have to use mail order. That means they'll be able to continue to use their local pharmacy and not be required to send off their medications through mail and have them bill their -- and also number three requires that managed care organizations, PM or PBM's, can't make unreasonable requests to direct business to a certain pharmacy. In the past they have used things like -- in your town you can only go to a pharmacy that's headquartered in a certain state. And I think which is pretty unreasonable, I think, and that also covered in the that amendment. And number four, it includes a provision for prompt pay. That prompt pay in this one is a 21 day prompt pay. But H.B. 2292 that's passed this House earlier by Representative Hunter, it's got provisions in there for an 18 day prompt pay. And those are the four provisions that are basically under there.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Especially in rural America as you certainly have all your life have provided the service and this the great community effort of our independent pharmacies. And so that -- the calls I've been getting -- were wondering if we were tipping the balance toward the big box or mail order or whatever the case may be. Under one of the paragraphs on the amendment that Dr. Zerwas has put on and what you've been explaining, we're trying to keep that balance and making sure that people can go to the pharmacy of their choice and they are not being crowded out by competition that is unfairly put their way.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah. And also it's got the provision that mentions for no compulsory mail order.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Yes. No compulsory mail order.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Well, thank you very much for the explanation. I appreciate that.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Madam speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Just one question of a Representative Hopson.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Hopson, do you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chuck it's the same question --

THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: -- since we are getting all this together for an intent. Same question that I asked Dr. Zerwas yesterday, is there anything in the amendment or the bill that would allow a physician to stop acting like a pharmacy from his office?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Not to my knowledge. There's not one in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. Madam Speaker, would you mind compressing this to writing and having this statement of intent to be put in the journal, please?

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to close on this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members, I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 23? The question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 23. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. We show Representative Anchia voting nay, representative Lucio voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 102 ayes and 45 nays Senate Bill 23 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage of Senate Bill 663. Clerk will read bill.

CLERK: S.B. 663 by Nichols. Relating to the continuation and functions of the State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of Hearing Instruments; providing an administrative penalty.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Ms. Speaker, members. This is a very controversial sunset bill to the State's Committee of Examiners and the fitting and dispensing of hearing instruments. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 663? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 663. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 143 ayes, zero nays, Senate Bill 663 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Castro for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider H.R. 1975.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 1975 by Branch. Recognizing May 20, 2011, as GenTX Day.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you Madam speaker and members. I'm laying out this resolution for chairman Branch of the Higher Education Committee. House Resolution 1975 declares today, Friday May 20th to be GenTX day across the State of Texas. As you know GenTX is a grass route of public relations campaign led by students to really import to our State and to the students of our state, the importance of higher education and going onto college. So there are events across the State today in different cities and counties to that help emphasize the importance of higher education. In my hometown in San Antonio; for example, large employers like Clear Channel and HEB, Univision, everybody is wearing their college T-shirts, the T-shirts of their alma mater. And I know that across the state at HEB's all over the place, the employees are doing the same thing to help kids understand and see firsthand really the importance of going to college. And so we would ask on behalf of Chairman Branch and other members of the Higher Education Committee that you go forth and really spread the word about GenTX and about the importance of higher education in Texas. Thank you members. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 660. Clerk will read the Bill.

CLERK: S.B. 660 by Hinojosa. Relating to the review and functions of the Texas Water Development Board, including the functions of the board and related entities in connection with the process for establishing and appealing desired future conditions in a groundwater management area.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Madam Speaker, I move to postpone to the end of general state calendar third reading.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 543. Clerk will read the Bill.

CLERK: S.B. 543 by Heger. Relating to a probate fee exemption for estates of certain law enforcement officers, firefighters, and others killed in the line of duty.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor of Galveston to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. Once again this is the same bill that we passed back in March waives probate fees for firefighters, law enforcement, and other persons killed in the line of duty. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 543? The question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 543. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, zero nays, Senate Bill 543 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 710. The Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 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.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you very much. Members, this is simply a swimming pool hot tub, drain tub disclosure. It doesn't mandate anything and it was passed yesterday. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 710?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Madam Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Workman?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: I have a question. Would the gentleman yield in?

THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WORKMAN: Jose, if I have a pool it's been in for awhile and it's always had water in it, how do I know it's got a hazardous drain?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, what this says is when you go to sell your house that you would have to have an inspection. That's what it says.

REPRESENTATIVE WORKMAN: Okay. So I have to spend money to determine whether I have a hazardous drain, whether I have a hazardous drain or not.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE WORKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Members, question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 710. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all voted? There being 68 ayes, 77 nays Senate Bill 710 fails to pass. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 864. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 864 by Rodriguez. Relating to the services included in a retail price list provided by a funeral establishment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gooden to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Madam Speaker and members, this is a funeral home disclosure bill we passed on second reading yesterday. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 864? Question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 864. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, zero nays, Senate Bill 864 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 761. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 761 by West. Relating to the employment of physicians by certain hospitals associated with nonprofit fraternal organizations.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Ms. Truitt to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you Madam Speaker and members. This is the Scottish Rite hospital, fraternal hospital bill we passed yesterday. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 761? Question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 761. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 146 ayes, zero nays Senate Bill 761 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 587. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 587 by Uresti. Relating to jurisdiction in certain proceedings brought by the attorney general with respect to charitable trusts.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Madam Speaker, I move to postpone to time certain that being 2:30 today.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1416. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1416 by Hinojosa. Relating to the creation of the offense of possession, manufacture, transportation, repair, or sale of a tire deflation device; providing criminal penalties.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this bill we discussed yesterday making it a criminal offense to intentionally, knowingly, possess, manufacture and repair or sell these deflation devices. I move final passage.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1416? Question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 1416? This is a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes, zero nays. Senate Bill 1416 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 660. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 660 by Hinojosa. Relating to the review and functions of the Texas Water Development Board, including the functions of the board and related entities in connection with the process for establishing and appealing desired future conditions in a groundwater management area.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Ritter to explain the Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you Madam Speaker, members. This is a sunset bill for the Texas Water Development board. I believe we have one, third reading amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Keffer.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Thank you very much. This is striking the study on hydro tracking and putting it into the hydro tracking bill itself. And it is acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Could I --

THE SPEAKER: Representative Hartnett, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Gentleman yield for a question?

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield for questions?

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: I will.

THE SPEAKER: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Could you explain that amendment? I just didn't have time to get here quick enough.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes --

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: You want it on the -- okay. What happened was that we had a study put on hydro tracking disclosure by Mr. Martinez-Fischer yesterday. And we have had a situation arise in the Senate where we don't know where it is going to come as far as -- that's our bill that was heard in the Senate natural resources twice and the same bill that we passed over here and --

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Okay. Thank you.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: -- and now we just want to make sure in the process here that we have a vehicle on it.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Yeah if this is what we passed, that's good.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: It is what we passed. Yes.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 660? The question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 660. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 143 forty three ayes, 4 nays Senate Bill 660 is finally passed. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 1662. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 1662 by Watson. Relating to the payment of costs associated with certain educational programs of Prairie View A&M University.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you Madam Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Madam speaker.

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?

THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield for questions?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: You want me to lay it out first?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes --

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: This is a student success initiative at Prairie View A & M University. The Academy for Collegiate Excellence and Student Success is a success program, it's a summer program and a fall program for students with the focus in math, reading comprehension, writing, critical thinking and problem solving. It has been on the campus for about 15 years. It costs approximately $15,000 a year. 15,000, for the program. The comptroller for 10 years -- no for 14 years has said that everything was fine but now they want to just make sure that they are able to expend these dollars primarily on the students for this success initiative. And let me add by saying, this is the same program of the same bill that Senator Seliger passed out for UT permanent basin -- touch your office mate for UT permanent basin last time. This is the same exact bill and now I'm carrying it for Prairie View A & M University. In fact, the bill for UT permanent basin passed out on the local and consent calendar. So we have simply taken the same bill for the students, $15,000. Who could vote against $15,000?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Madam speaker, would the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Weber, Mr. Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Would the gentleman yield?

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

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, do you yield?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Silvester.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Is this -- are you saying that we're taking state money and we're paying the students to bring them into the college to kind of preview. And according to what you showed me is it not true that you are going to pay for travel, for meals, for lodging, and a stipend?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: It could be for that. These are junior and senior high school students --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: -- that they bring on to the college campus and over the course of program there's been about 1,500 students and the success rate has been about 77 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So let me -- tell me if I'm correct. So we are going to take state money we are going to take students to preview the school if you will. And answer me this, is it your understanding that if a coach in an effort to recruit an athlete paid for an athlete to come to any university and use state dollars to pay for travel, meals, and lodging and paying that athlete a stipend would not be disqualified?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Probably under the NCAA rules. That's NCAA but the --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Silvester.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: -- but the -- but the beauty about this is that we are placing equal value on students who want to focus on their academics. I don't think it should only be a sports star in order to receive the emphasis from the state. Now I was a sports star --

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Madam Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Morrison, for what purpose?

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Would the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield for questions?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: No, I was -- it will come to me a little bit, you know -- oh, I'm sorry, I will yield.

THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Representative Turner, I think -- I wanted to ask you a few questions about your legislation and basically what Prairie View -- is what Prairie View is trying to do is to bring these students on campus so that they want to go on to get a higher education.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Absolutely.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And the program has been so successful so Prairie View is recruiting students to come to Prairie View and be successful, correct?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The success rate is about 77 percent.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And this bill passed out of the Higher Education Committee --

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: -- unanimously.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct, by none other than Honorable Chairman Branch.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And --

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Who I highly respect.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And, Mr. Turner, and the legislation you are talking about from last session for Don Shepherd Public Leadership Program, that passed local and consent, unanimously?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And I believe that the members here all voted for it including Mr. Weber.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. Mr. Weber certainly did.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: I think this is a great peace of legislation that is helping students to join in higher education and close the gap. Great legislation, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you very much, Representative Morrison.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose? Would the gentleman yield for questions?

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

THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Representative Turner, could you tell me if this vote is going to be scored on the poor man's scorecard.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: It is just on the top of the list. It's just $15,000.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: That's what I was afraid of.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The T-shirts are already made and ready to be handed out.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose Mr. Hilderbran?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Would the gentleman yield?

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

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields for questions.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Representative Turner, is this your reelection bill?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I can't get back here.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Is this a really, really important bill for you?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, it is. I know where you're going.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I just want to remind you that we should accommodate each other and help each other from time to time.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I do remember. I would ask for your -- I would ask for your support and I would ask that this vote be a record vote so we could identify where the poor man's cards and T-shirts -- who should receive them. Now we've got the poor people in the gallery and they are going to score you on this vote.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1662? The question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 1662. The record vote has been requested. The record vote is granted. Members -- I mean, the clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 2 nays Senate Bill 1662 has passed to third reading. Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Madam Speaker, I know that I'm not as attractive and good looking as Mr. Martinez-Fischer but I want to join Mr. Martinez-Fischer as we recognize some students up in the gallery we see them here in the north and east gallery. Will the students from Mount Sacred Heart, please, stand up. That's my old alma mater and I'm here happy to welcome you to your Texas House. Hopefully one day you can be down here taking care of the State of Texas while we are back home and hopefully there's a nursing home available for us. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: We also want to recognize a former member of the House, former councilman Juan Solis. Thank you for bringing the students up from Mount Sacred Heart.

THE SPEAKER: Chair is going to recognize Representative Workman for a notice.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Thank you Madam Speaker and members, I want to give notice that I intend to ask for reconsider Senate Bill 710 one hour from now at 3:12.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the notice. Is there any -- members that bill will be eligible for reconsideration after 3:12 today. Members, the Senate -- or the notice that is given is about Senate Bill 710 which relates to the disclosure of the hazardous drain in the swimming pool or spa by seller of residential real property. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business H.C.R. 66. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: H.C.R. 66 by Hancock. Urging the United States Congress to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases for stationary sources.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Hancock.

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. H.C.R. 66 simply requests that Congress prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for stationary sources such as factories or refineries for electricity generating sources and gases, et cetera. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the resolution? Hearing -- Representative Eiland, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. Could you tell us what a single point would be?

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: A single stationary actually.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That like a refinery?

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: That would be such as factories, refineries electricity generating sources, et cetera. Et cetera is kind of a word, not a stationary source.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. So we don't want the EPA regulating the emissions coming from places like refineries.

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Correct. Currently they have -- through the Clean Air Act they have the ability to provide regulations over mobile sources but here lately they have kind of dipped their toe into stationary sources and we are essentially trying to clarify. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against H.C.R. 66? The question occurs on the final passage of H.C.R. 66. This is a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted. Have all members voted? There being 107 ayes, 34 nays, H.C.R. 66 is passed to third reading. Members, the House will stand at ease until 2:20 p.m. today.

(THE HOUSE STANDS AT EASE)

THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 1811 and recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Madam Speaker, and members. I move to postpone Senate Bill 1811 until 4:00 p.m. and I know Mr. Gallego is going to have a question and it will be where you got Senate Bill 31 coming up and we'd like to get that behind us.

THE SPEAKER: The clerk will read the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Madam Speaker.

CLERK: S.B. 1811 by Duncan. Relating to certain state fiscal matters; providing penalties.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Once again, I would like to postpone until 4:00 p.m. And yes, ma'am, I would be happy to visit with Mr. Gallego.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Geren, you postponing the fiscal matters bill for an hour. I think that makes either the tenth or the eleventh postponement of the --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Actually about an hour and forty minutes, Pete.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I -- I'm wondering if -- well, if it's realistic then I certain don't mind but the idea that we all have to stay it out and wait and wait and wait and wait and sometimes we wait for nothing. As opposed to if it's not done at 3:00 if perhaps we might consider doing it at a time certain rather than just inching along --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Pete my motion is 4:00 o'clock and at that time I hope to be -- if I have to come back again, I hope to be able to postpone until tomorrow --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. That would be my request. Just so that we don't all hang out.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Pitts tells me we are all getting paid $19.72 to be here today.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, it brings me great privilege today and proud to introduce to you all a bunch of great young men and young women from Kountze High School, from Kountze, Texas. Y'all stand up and welcome to your house.

THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 31. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: S.B. 31 by Seliger. Relating to the composition of the districts for the election of members of the Texas Senate.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you Madam Speaker and members. This is the Senate Bill 31 is Senate Bill to provide the districts by the 2010 census. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, members.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'll go ahead and explain a little bit more. Members, this is the Senate version of our redistricting map. They have their map, we have ours. And the Senate created this map after receiving some public input through seven interim hearings about the State and after releasing the proposed map the Senate Committee on Redistricting had two public hearings on the map. The plan creates 31 Senate districts with an average population of 811,147. The map was approved -- the Senate attorneys reviewed the map and believe that it come applies with the Texas Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and other applicable laws. The map was approved by the Senate on a vote of 29 to 2. And according to legislative tradition, if we both get this far, the Senate does not amend the House map and the House does not amend the Senate map. The Senate Committee on Redistricting approved our map House Bill 150 without any Senator offering even a single amendment and the full Senate approved H.B. 150 on second reading, again, without any Senator offering any amendment to our map. So they respected our map and are hopefully expecting us to respect their map. The Senate is waiting for us proceed so they can move forward on our House Bill 150 redistricting map to final passage. We are -- they moved it out on second reading, we are trying to do that today to move ours to third reading so we can be in the same playing field. And I do want to personally appreciate the courtesy of Senator Seliger who has had a tough job over there both for the Senate map and our map and demonstrated that moving our map without an amendment and I believe we should show the same courtesy to them as they showed to us on our map. I would ask none of you to offer any amendments, however, I do think there are a couple filed but I want to talk to those members --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Madam speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: -- and I would --

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Whenever Representative Solomons is ready.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, I'll be happy to yield because all I was going to do is to -- I think unless there was somebody who is willing to withdraw their amendment I just want to move passage and hopefully we can pass it on to third reading and maybe we can take it up maybe tomorrow. But, yes, I will be happy to yield.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I know, Burt, that the Senate is responsible for drawing --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, hold -- wait a minute -- Mr. Geren has mentioned that I think the map is at -- let me find out exactly --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: You can actually look at the map if you like to in your red apple. It's plan 148, I believe, S148. "S" for Senate. So if you want to actually look at the map, the plan is -- yeah, it is. Plan 148 -- I had it right here. Okay. Yes, now I'll be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Burt can you tell us how many majority and minority districts are there in this proposed version of the Senate map?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: How many majority and minority districts? I don't know. It's a Senate map.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Or minority majority districts, I should say.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, we talked about different ones. I have a whole list of Senator Seliger's sent over here of all the various -- for a final number I don't know how many --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Do you know whether it changed much from the current Senate the lines existing now versus --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I don't know the -- you know, I don't want to say there's a specific number of a change or not. I don't know. It's a Senate map and I didn't really look at that aspect. They did send over some information about each of the districts if I wanted to look at each one if anybody had a question about a specific district.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But it's on all -- the same information just like we did ours is on red apple if you want to look at it and see how it is. I'm sure most of you will have -- hopefully already looked at it. I know there's some questions about one of the districts about whether or not it was protected or not but other than that that would be only --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker -- Madam Speaker, I'm sorry.

THE SPEAKER: Yes. For what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, I do.

THE SPEAKER: He yields.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was not here when you laid it out the S.B. 31. I was in the Senate. So I apologize that I missed your opening remarks. I do want to ask you, however, could you remind me how far it is from your home to here. How many miles? 200 and something miles?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: From my home?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Yeah. 200 and something?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I guess -- when we do the mileage I think it's -- from Carrollton it's 200 miles or so. Actually to my apartment, I measured it once from my apartment to my house -- from my apartment to my current apartment was 220 some miles.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Right. So 220 miles so there was a State Senate District in S.B. 31 that ran from Carrollton to here. Just in terms of common sense do you think that would make sense?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: It might. I mean some of these districts are huge. I mean they really are. Unless you are in a --

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: No, we are not going to agree --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Specially if you are from Dallas County or perhaps in Harris County. If you start including counties some of them are smaller than others. Some of them are -- there's a lot of counties in it.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: I don't think there are any in the map that you are putting before us. I don't think there are any districts that run from Carrollton to Austin.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: No. I don't think there are any from Carrollton to Austin. There's apparently that's running from your area towards Travis County.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: There's one that runs from where I live 230 miles from here and from where Representative Guillen my desk mate lives which is 303 miles from here, to here. From 300 miles to Austin. From here Rio Grande Valley from Laredo to Austin. And so, there's a lot of reasons why this is not a good map but I can assure you if you stop and look at it and if you had worked on this map -- I know you pretty much accepted and you didn't -- and I understand that. But I have to -- I have to point out my part of my concerns with this map it that it clearly with reference to my district in Laredo the city of Laredo that I represent is very different from the city of Austin. So --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I understand that. I know Senate district 21 is rather lengthy but we didn't draw that. We didn't draw this they went through to their process.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: I understand that. I understand, Mr. Chairman. But I just don't think this map will survive the courts.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I understand there are members probably on both sides that think our map -- our respective maps look kind of funny in some districts but it's their map and that's what we are trying doing.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Madam Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?

THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Burt, Mr. Chairman, this is along the same lines with Mr. Pena Raymond was talking about. Travis County now in this map is divided four ways. We have four Senators now representing -- according to this map representing Travis County. And the one that I paid -- all of that I paid particular interest with or objection to mainly because the county itself is you know is over million people in it. And it's easily I believe drawn -- should be drawn to have maybe two Senators, one representing the bulk of the city. Do you agree with that, that the population is such that you could create basically one Senator representing the entire city?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Let me just tell you what I've learned in this redistricting process. You have to move where the populations are and I'm not going to try to second guess what the Senate did in how they divided Travis County. The arguments of some of the Travis County folks is it should be primarily one person. However, in all the urban counties, they are all divided, they've all got divisions. Everyone of the major urban counties in drawing a redistricting map has drawn in and has been divided in at least three, four ways maybe -- probably in five ways.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And I agree with that. You've got a lot of bigger counties that you have more than one Senator I think that makes sense. If you have four, Travis County is hard to --

THE SPEAKER: Members, if we can have some order, please, the gentlemen are having difficulty hearing one another.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I said I agree with you. I think you're right. The larger part of the counties do tend to have more than one Senator but whether it's four or five I'm not sure whether that's really common.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: It is pretty darn common.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: You know Dallas and Houston.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Bexar County, Travis County, Harris County, Dallas County Travis -- Tarrant County all our major metropolitan areas are divided and there are people who are okay with that. And there are some who think that's not necessary but when you start looking where the numbers have to come from that's why you seem -- you see that on these maps.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: This is the last thing that I want to mention about this. And I know this isn't your map, Chairman. I know that you didn't draw this -- but had is my opportunity to at least get the -- let the members know how I feel about this and ask you a couple of questions. The objection that I have to this is also my district which is predominantly Hispanic is entirely in Senator Zaffirini's district who I have a lot of respect for but as Richard Raymond was mentioning before I think the problem with this map is the assumption that someone with a Spanish surname is the same no matter where they are in Texas. I will tell you that being from south Texas I know that the needs of south Texas are greater, are very different than needs in Austin. Someone with a Spanish surname in Austin has different interests than those in south Texas and the Valley and Laredo. And I think that's the problem with this map. And again I know this isn't what you drew up but I think that's going to be very problematic in the courts, eventually.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, all I can say is that they drew it, the numbers seem to work and you needed the population. There was population center issues about where the population was coming from.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: But my concern is that it is done at the expense of the minorities in urban areas.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: And I think -- and I understand that. I would say that based on what I saw on the maps all the counties are going to be very well represented even though some may think, well it shouldn't have been that many. That it could have been some more, whatever. But I think they are all going to be represented by some wonderful Senators. They are just asking us to approve their map.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Well Chairman, I respectfully agree with that. Thank you.

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

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose? Gentleman, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chairman Solomons, what is the most difficult job someone might be assigned in a legislative process during the redistricting process of a redistricting session?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: In my opinion redistricting or the budget one or the other.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And so, it's not my intent to suggest that the messenger should be killed today. However, I do think it's a terrible plan and I want to ask you some questions to see if you know what you are attempting to do with the bill that you are carrying to my home district in my home county. Are you aware that both I and Representative Veasey testified before the Senate committee concerning what they are proposing to do to the Senatorial district that most of our constituents live in today?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I did not know that you and Mr. Veasey testified over on the Senate side. No, I didn't.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, we both testified against the bill. Are you aware why we testified against this bill because of what it does to Senate District 10?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I didn't know you even testified over there. So how would I know why you didn't --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, then maybe this line of questioning is designed so that you know how bad this bill is for Tarrant County and particularly the people that I represent. Are you aware that under the proposed lines, the concentrations of African Americans in Tarrant County are busted up in to or cracked into four different Senatorial districts.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I believe Tarrant county has four Senate districts. Right.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And are you aware that there are more specifically and importantly the concentrations of African American populations are cracked up into those four different Senatorial districts. Are you aware that is also true of the Hispanic population?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: As I understand it the Senate drew their map, their attorneys approved it, they don't think it's a violation. I understand that you and Mr. Veasey feel like there is some issues with that, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And I think specifically if you looked at my District 90 that I currently represent which I am sure you are aware is over 70 percent Hispanic. The District 90 that I currently represent is cracked into three different Senatorial districts. It is impossible to crack the district into three different Senatorial districts when the district is over 70 percent Hispanic without cracking those populations into three different Senatorial districts. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm aware that some of these districts go into I would guess your district as well as Mr. Veasey's goes towards the city of Fort Worth.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, correct. And I've mentioned on this floor before that I'm the only representative that only represents Fort Worth so the point --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises the point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, in light of the importance of this redistricting legislation, I ask that the gentleman's time be extended.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam we're in the last ten days of the session. We can't extend the time.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: This is redistricting.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Sorry, it's the last ten days of this session.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you Mr. Speaker. Did you say --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I said we are in the last ten days of the session. We can't extend the time.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.

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

CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo. Members, this is plan S139.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker and members, in the committee I had mentioned that I considered accepting a plan that allowed for a Hispanic opportunity district. And in the end Mr. Veasey presented it. So, what I'm going to do is bring it before you. And I am being very respectful of Chairman Solomons' comments of respecting the Senate and they listening to the House plan. But let me tell you with all due respect to Mr. Solomons we have to have a discussion. Let me tell you why we have to have a discussion. If you recall I have consistently mentioned the increase of the population in the census from 2000 to 2010. I have consistently mentioned -- I have consistently mentioned that in the last ten years, the increase of the population of the State of Texas was what 65 percent Hispanic. Members, three million more people in the state. Three million more people in the state. Which has let for us to have additional four Congress people. But more important they consistently mentioning that there's an increase in the population of the state. One of those big increases is in north Texas. In Dallas, about one million Hispanic. In Fort Worth, 500,000. It takes approximately 800,000 to create a Senate district. So, even though I'm not very good at math I think what that would mean is we would get two Hispanic opportunity districts. Two opportunity Hispanic districts for the senate. Two. But in this amendment I'm being fair. I'm not asking for two. I'm asking for one. Members, this amendment what it does it connects Dallas and Fort Worth and consider the increase of population of Hispanics, there's no Hispanic member in north Texas to be in the Senate to argue for a Senate district.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Would the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: One second. There's no person to design. So, what I'm trying to do is rectify, rectify, rectify, that misnomer that has occurred in north Texas. No more, no more, no more, will you not consider that there are Hispanics in north Texas. We got 1.5 in two counties. We're there. This is an opportunity even though we couldn't say it in the Senate we're saying it here in the House. I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Alonzo, do you think it's possible or impossible to rectify -- is that rectify? The differences between your statements and the growth of the Hispanic population which I think we all acknowledge. And also the dispersion of that growth because I know even in your district you are short what was your House district short population?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: About 30,000.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: 30,000 and I think our good friend and colleague of Representative Anchia, what was his district short?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: About the same number.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: About the same number. Was it closer to 50,000?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: It was close to that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes, was it a possible number?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That is possible and you are 100 percent correct. At the moment and let me say why I say at the moment. The reason I say at the moment is this, in my opinion -- real quick -- if I may comment really quick -- in my opinion --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: -- in my opinion, there's more to the story because there -- in my opinion the count was not correct. But at the moment even with that necessity for our districts there's tons of folks in the north Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Great and I just wanted to make sure that the point was made in case -- in case you disagreed I wanted to hear your point but there seems to be a large dispersion of growth in Texas of all ethnicities and particularly Hispanic --

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: -- and particularly in our county of Dallas where sometimes people are under the elusion that there's a higher concentration in certain areas even in west Dallas County we were short population; isn't that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: But just to add to the comments of Mr. Branch. It goes back to the discussion that we have been having on redistricting that's at two levels. One level is fair, and the other level is legal. Depending on who draws the lines determines the fairness at the time but, yet, there's another little asterisk that Mr. Dan Branch likes to point out, we have to consider the legal part as well.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would like to ask the -- Representative Alonzo some questions regarding to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Alonzo, your proposed amendment would create a Hispanic district that is majority of Hispanic?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Hispanic opportunity district.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Oh, Hispanic opportunity district. And what areas does it cover, Tarrant and Dallas County?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That is correct. Covers Dallas and covers Tarrant county, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And are you aware that Senator Wendy Davis offered an amendment that would create a Hispanic opportunity districts and the Senator's voted that down.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, I appreciate it. At least my prayer was answered in the Senate side. At least for consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: At least it was up for consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Do you think it's possible that is maybe impossible to convince some of our members on the House floor that what they are doing is not only illegal but not right and unfair?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I think it's possible that they are listening because they are -- and I can tell because I can see their eyes looking this way. And I appreciate the listening members because this effects us all and we have to take into consideration the two issues, what's fair and what's legal. And I'm here to be helpful, members. I'm trying to be a helpful kind of guy. The helpful part is to -- for you to put those two issues into consideration. One is the fairness issue and the other one is the legal issue. So, in all fairness and being legal we want to take this map into consideration and that's why I bring it before you.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Representative Alonzo, while I might prefer a map that is a majority minority opportunity district that's entirely within Tarrant County. And I believe that is possible to do and that would be the fairest thing to my county, can you appreciate why I have decided to support your amendment to make sure that we have this discussion about what is happening with the high population growth of Hispanics in the state and what appears to be an intentional attempt to create retrogression by reducing the number of Senatorial districts that minorities can actually have an impact in deciding who their representative in the Senate is.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Let me comment, Mr. Burnam, you will hear, members that what I said in this discussion besides the legal part and the fair part, is the word, "Hispanic opportunity districts." I'm not saying that it's me or somebody else should be elected. Whoever the district decides. In your case, Mr. Burnam, you have that situation. The -- it is an Hispanic opportunity district. The Hispanic population in that district decided on yourself. In Houston we have what's called a Gene Green congressional district. That is a Hispanic opportunity district. The Hispanic in that district has decided to elect Mr. Green. What I'm saying let us create an opportunity. The numbers, members, are so big. They are big. Can you imagine one million and half a million that's 1.5 million. I think it's time -- I think it's time. We are in the 21st century. How long must we wait? We have to wait a long time, members, for us to create the opportunity and for us to get elected, for city council folks to get elected, for JP's to get elected, judges to get elected. This is now time. We got to that point in those elections. Now is the time. We can say that today and in this House that we can recognize this change is positive, it's good. This is an opportunity for us to have an Hispanic opportunity district in north Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, Representative Alonzo, in conclusion my question would be, do you believe, do you believe, that it is possible to create a fair and legal districts in north Texas but that has not been done was not been given that opportunity with the Senate bill that has been sent over here but we can with your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: No, but under this plan, legally possible and fairly possible.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you so much for your efforts.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you for your question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Just one more question for Representative Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Alonzo, you've been talking about legal and fair.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Would you agree that fair is often subjective and in the eye of the beholder?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That is correct. That's in the eye of the beholder of the majority of the decision makers. That's why, Mr. Branch, let me tell you what I commented the other day.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Is that why we have been trying to get through because fairness can be --

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That is correct --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: In fact wasn't it your 35th President John Kennedy that said, life is not fair?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Not only that. Not only that, but one the examples I used in our redistricting hearings, Mr. Branch, was this. We make decisions as legislators and somebody else interprets it. We might like it. We might not like it but we live with it. And one of the examples that I use, members, as Mr. Branch pointed out about interpreting and making sure it is legally right. In 2000 there was an election for President. In my opinion, the process said Al Gore won but the Supreme Court said that George Bush won. I didn't like it, I lived with it. What is happening here, we're going to present this map, if you help me today, if you help me today, that will be done with. I think. But if you don't, we'll have an interpretation. But again as I walk away from the podium, I want to thank Chairman Solomons for allowing us to be a part of a big effort that took a long, long time going around the State and hearing different opinions but members, closing I ask that you vote -- just to let you know I'm going to give you some information. It's coming, it's coming, it's coming. The Chairman has advised me that he's going to move to table. I'm not surprised. So you will not be surprised that I ask that you would vote no on the motion to table. It's possible to vote no on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I -- this is the Senate map and I appreciate the lively discussion and the passion that Mr. Alonzo shares in trying to have my -- have what he believes is fair for minority districts but this is the Senate map and we are trying to move it to third reading so we can get our map done as well for what we did on this House floor for some odd -- I don't know for 16 hours or whatever it was. So anyway I'm going to move to table. I do think that the map is legal according to the Senate attorneys. And they put a lot of work in it over at the Senate and I would ask you to table to Mr. Alonzo's amendment. So I'm going to move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Alonzo voting no. Have all voted? There being 98 ayes and 46 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is S154.

CLERK: Amendment by Martinez-Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer. REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, this is a map that I think there's something that you can support because it's actually Senate Bill 31 with two tweaks in two areas. Senate District 17 and Senate District 10. We know the obvious. We argued this during House redistricting and I'll restate it for the purposes of potential Section 5 challenges down the road. In the last decade 89 percent of all growth in this state was minority population and over 60 percent 65 percent of that growth in Texas have been Latino population growth. Today Latinos makeup over 37 percent of the Texas population. And over 33 percent of the Texas voting age population. Simply put minorities, African Americans, Hispanic, and Asian Americans combined now constitute more than 50 percent of the voting age population in Texas. I thing the Senate has done a good job in drawing their map, however, in doing so they made some mistakes in my view in two districts. And I said District 17 which is currently represented by Joan Huffman. Today as we speak has a 42.4 percent African American, Hispanic voting age population. The map as passed by the Senate reduces that to 35 percent. The amendment I'm offering increases the African American, Hispanic voting age population to 59.70 percent making it a minority opportunity district. And looking at it more specifically because I want to look at Hispanic voting age population and African American voting age population by itself. Senate Bill 31 for District 17 has a 22 percent Hispanic voting age population and a 12.8 percent African American voting age population. This amendment increases this percentages to 37.4 HVAP to 23.1 BVAP. This plan F154 would increase African American VAP by 10.3 percent in District 17. It impacts Senator Jackson's district by taking the current district and running it all the way up to Port Arthur to connect with the African American communities in Port Arthur, Texas. With regard to Senate District No. 10 we create a majority minority district in the metroplex that is actually a CVAP district. Which is one of the highest thresholds in minority districts that indicates you can draw a CVAP district in the metroplex if you wanted to. Those are very difficult to draw in the State. Courts have been very willing to scrutinize a map that does not look at population in a CVAP capacity. This is what District 10 does. Senate Bill 31 had a combined African American, Hispanic voting age population of 35.2 percent. Currently it's 42.40, so we regress back a bit. This amendment will increase the VH back to 75.2 percent. In order to create this minority majority seat District 10 goes into Dallas County. It takes minority population from District 9 along with Senator Harris, District 16, Senator Corona and District 23, Senator West. With respect to Senator West what the net effect of what it does because you have to be very sensitive of Senator West's district. His African American voting age population actually goes up 3.7 percent. And his Hispanic population actually reduces. So it becomes even a stronger African American district for Senate District 23 it still performs the same way with its election data but it does make that district even stronger in terms of African American voting age population. That's what this does. I think that when you look at this in the big picture you will probably see some Section 5 challenges with respect to these districts and whether or not you can create these minority opportunity districts. This amendment only does that. It does not impact anybody else. Although there is probably potential in other parts of the state and I will let those Senators who wish to do that independently do that take that up on their own. But these are the most agreges violations, in my view, of Section 5 and that's why we wanted to bring a -- bring a map of minimal changes and that's why we only make these changes in 17 and 10. And I certainly would ask the author of this or the sponsor of Senate Bill 31 to find this acceptable to him for the purposes of Section 5. I move adoption.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Would the gentleman yield? REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REP. MARC VEASEY: I wanted to ask my desk mate Trey Martinez-Fischer one of the things that was heard during the congressional redistricting that took place back in 2003 was the fact that Republicans had a certain percentage that was elected statewide. Well, let us say that they got 50 plus percent of the vote so they deserved a certain percentage of the congressional fee. Now are you familiar -- and I mean you are aware of it and I think you just probably just laid it out that the Hispanic population and African American population of this state now constitutes the fact that there should be 11 or 12 Hispanic Senators and even three or four African American senators. Does your map sort of fall into the same sort of line of thought that Republicans preached a few years ago, that the percentages should line up according to certain population? REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: To be very clear about it I think this map is clearly about population. I mean, we've always taken the view we let the politics fall where the politics fall.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Right. REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: So we draw the map based on the demographic growth and if districts can support that growth and I think -- that's why I don't want to come to this floor and say that we can withdraw every Senate district in the state but there's two areas where you have had explosive populations. But in fact the reality when those Senate districts came back the minority population instead of growing deminished. I think that's problematic. I think at a minimum they should have at least maintained the status quo and perhaps maybe moved up incrementally but it actually went backwards. And that's what we were alerted to. And that's why I thought in these two areas we can adjust this by just purely looking at the demographic shifts and not care about the politics and draw a map that will comport with those changes. And so, that's what we attempted to do with Senate District 17.

REP. MARC VEASEY: One of the things that's also disturbing about the map that was passed out of the Senate and passed out of the House Redistricting Committee, is that so many African American and Latino communities are branded and put in the far flung reaching rural district or they were unnecessarily packed. How does your map address the issue of packing in areas that have been branded? REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And I would say this. Respectfully, I've had a lot of time to work with Chairman Solomons on redistricting and we've had some very good conversations but I think as far as analyzing this map with regard to District 10, it's very difficult to accomplish what's been accomplished here by disbursing minority communities when in fact in the metro area that's where the strongest growing has occurred. So, when you look at Senate District 10 what's been drawn in the Senate this isn't anything that anybody did here. It doesn't comport with the demographic growth. It doesn't comport with the minority opportunities and you can't take a district that's a coalition minority district that is growing and growing and then disburse it and not make up for it somewhere else. And so, because of the complexity of District 10 has changed so much that's frankly the easiest district to draw in the entire state because there's so much opportunity in the minority community. And now we have drawn here a minority CVAP district that's over 50 percent. That is actually the hardest district to draw demographically speaking. So, if we could draw it on a couple days notice by looking at the Senate map and making adjustments to it. Then certainly the Senate could have drawn it if they wanted to. I think an argument on argument -- you know the argument is going to be, well, if the potential is there we have demonstrated that there's a demographic potential to draw CVAP district in the metroplex. And the question is going to become, why wasn't it done? What was the compelling reason to not do it and where did you offset that? And arguably if you diminish in 10 and diminish in 17, you are not making up for it anywhere, I think, it's going to be very difficult to respond to on a Section 5 argument. But I don't have the last word. And I know as much as Burt Solomons has worked on this, he knows he's doesn't have the last word. We will let those at the Justice Department or D.C. court, the District of Columbia wherever the Section 5 review will take place. We will let them decide. But we need stuff like this. We need demonstrations like this to show as an exhibit that it could have been done. And I know we're running out of time in this session and there has been very little time afforded to look at the Senate map. I know the argument about taking it as a courtesy and passing the map because they'll pass our map. And I understand that. I respect that tradition. But when it comes to voting rights, when it comes to representing communities of color. What mouth is going to try to accomplish in representing the voting rights act we could not let this go by and that's why we have taken the time to draw a very limited map and making changes in the two biggest area that needed to be changed. Recognizing that there are still other places on the board that probably could have been changed and should have been changed and had there been more time to vet that I think we could have been brought that argument to the floor. But I think this is the best that we could find on a very short notice as to, you know, the lack of minority opportunities that's existing in the Texas Senate at a time when the demographic population is growing at rates that's unimaginable to other places in the country.

REP. MARC VEASEY: What type of message do you think we're sending if the African American population continues to grow and the Latino population continues grow at the level at which it is growing but we continue to create opportunities and draw opportunities in redistricting for the Anglo population that's not decreasing or not increasing as fast and particularly in rural areas where it is not increasing nearly as fast. What type of message are we sending about who these opportunities are for when those populations are growing fast? I think we could be sending the wrong message here. Especially to the black and Hispanic communities saying that while you're decreasing but we are going to use your number so we can additional opportunities for our community and not your community. REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I think that looking at demography and looking at the potential minority growth you could redraw this Senate map in much different way. And I can see that. But in just being consistent and looking at the growth and looking at the target areas where that growth occurs, you could draw a reasonable map that comports with the overwhelming view of the State Senate and maybe grant them that deference and that courtesy that Chairman Solomons alluded to. But in these two areas, this is too obvious to ignore. And so, in being consistent about respecting those demographics -- that's why we do the census. We do the census to know what our state looks like and we want to know what our total population is so that we can get money. And then we have the obligation once every decade to draw these maps. And you know the maps ought to represent the shifting demographics. And what I said earlier, I don't know if you caught this. Today as a result of the census, more than 50 percent of the voting age population in the State of Texas is either African American, Hispanic, or Asian. Yet you won't find that reflection in our maps. And I think we can do a much better job. That is the obligation that MAOF has undertaken with respect to any district that has a single member district. We did this with the State Board of Education, we did this with the Texas House, we put an amendment on the Railroad Commission sunset to make the argument to -- since 1891 there has only been three Hispanics elected to serve on the Railroad Commission since 1891 and we are still doing these districts statewide. We made the argument that you can do three districts and you can run them for the same amount of terms and rotate the chair to comply -- for what would the House desire and the railroad commission map. But we did it there as well. And so when it comes to the Senate, I'm mindful of the courtesy, I'm mindful of the deference but I'm also more cognizant of the Voting Rights Act and I'm more cognizant in our duty as minority Representatives to represent the voiceless. The voiceless people on those maps and when you look at those people on the maps are communities of color and that's what I try to correct in Senate District 10 and Senate District 17.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Representative Martinez-Fischer since the Voting Rights Act was passed in the mid 1960's, in Tarrant County they have always started with the facts that southeast Fort Worth which is largely and African American community in Fort Worth and the north side that both of those areas would be in one Senate district. Why do you think under this plan that was passed by the Senate and passed by the House committee that they seek to remove both of those districts out of the Fort Worth core district or in this case Senate District 10? REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I'm not going to pretend to know. I'm not going to speculate but I can tell you it has nothing to do with demographics. If demographics was a paramount concern, protecting the growing minority populations, protecting minority opportunity districts, if that was the primary driver of the Senate map, Senate District 10 would look much differently. If protecting a growing minority coalition district in 17 you would want to expand that growth where you could and not take it back. I mean it goes back -- it goes from 42.40 percent today to 35.2 percent. It goes back 7 percentage points at a time when the growth is unspeakable for minorities, particularly Latinos. But it also does -- I'm sorry -- that's in 10. In 17 it's about the same 42.40 to 35.20 on the African American and Hispanic VAP. Our amendment improves that substantially. Makes it a true minority opportunity district. Gives the minorities the opportunities to represent the candidate of their choice and it's truly a coalition district. It is a, you know, 37 percent HVAP district under my amendment and a 23.1 BVAP district.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises the point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I do appreciate the passion as well of Mr. Martinez-Fischer. I'm not sure where 17 and 10 meet on this bill but besides -- let me just say this. This is a Senate map, I think -- oh, Huffman. Okay. His map does more than just effect two districts. It really effects quite a bit of the state. It is the Senate map. There Senate lawyers have assured Mr. Seliger that it meets the Voting Rights Act and Mr. Martinez-Fischer's map actually is redrafting his vision of what the Senate maps ought to look like -- Senate districts ought to look like and I would beg to differ that we shouldn't be doing that and I would ask that we move to table Mr. Martinez-Fischer amendment.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Representative Solomons, do you realize that Representative Fischer's map splits Fort Bend County into four separate Senatorial districts?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I believe that Mr. Martinez-Fischer's amendment effects quite a bit of the state in a way that I don't think this House would like to see it but I'm pretty sure that the Senators would like to see it and it's they're map.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: And the other aspect of that we talked about community interest and the minority representation. The fact one of the fastest growing populations is the Asian American population and his map actually disburses that into four different sections. Disbursing that minority representation, are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: No. But thank you for telling us.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you. I think we need to table his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes.

REP. MARC VEASEY: I wanted to ask you a question about this map but -- that I quite found a little bit disturbing. Back in 2001 --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: The Senate map is disturbing or Mr. Martinez Fischer's version of the Senate districts is disturbing.

REP. MARC VEASEY: No. The senate map. You are right. I mean you are ready to close. I will come back.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Oh, okay.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Of course, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Chairman Solomons, I'd like to ask a clarifying question. Something I thought I heard you say in an exchange earlier about putting the higher priority over the interest of the 31 people that serve the people of Texas on the other end of the Capitol versus a 150,000 people that I represent in district 90 in Fort Worth. Let us be clear.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I don't believe I said that. Go ahead --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's the reason I want to clarify --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I don't believe I said that. I said this is a Senate map. And quite frankly I appreciate the vigor and the passion and the idea that some of the members feel as if they should have another version to bring -- for minority purposes in the Voting Rights Act and I would only add that I believe the attorneys for Mr. Seliger, Senator Seliger in the Senate said that they believe that they believe it complies with the constitution, Texas Constitution of the Voting Rights Act and you know as well as I do. Should we pass this map and they pass our map and it goes to the governor's desk and then there are going to be several lawsuits over certain aspects of this map and then we will figure out from a third party perspective. But right now the attorneys and the folks involved in the redistricting process and their interpretations seem to think that this does comply with the Voting Rights Act.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. But the purpose of my question is just to make sure that everybody is clear that the 31 people serving over there do not fall under the protection of the Voting Rights Act and almost 80 percent of my constituents and almost 80 percent of Representative Veasey's constituents do fall under the protection of the Voting Rights Act. I just wanted to make sure that you were clear on that. And you are, aren't you?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I -- if that's your opinion. I understand what you are trying to do.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, what I'm trying to do is trying to clarify the debate.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, I'm telling you that they based their map after a number of hearings and based on what they believe the interpretation is. I understand you have a difference of opinion.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, actually there was only one hearing. It was an abbreviated hearing and it was less than 24 hours notice; is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: They had seven interim hearings around the state. They have the -- they had two public hearings of which by the way no one showed up for the public on the second hearing. No one.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chairman Solomons, is it not true that they only had one hearing on this bill and it was conducted within less than 24 hour notice?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: That's not true.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: It was less than 30 hours notice?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: You said we only had one hearing. We had two hearings. No one came to the second hearing.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: That's my understanding.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Would Mr. Solomons yield for one question?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Burt, I was looking at the district that they have in this amendment that is Senator Huffman's. And it was brought up earlier by Mr. Raymond that it was 200 and some miles from Carrollton down to Austin. Do you have any idea how many miles would have to be driven to get from one end of Senator Huffman's district to get to the other? And how many of those would have to be swum instead of driven because of the layouts they have in that district?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I have no idea. It appears that some of the -- some of his versions of what he thinks the districts should look like seems rather lengthy.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I think it's measured it I think it's about 350 miles I think that they have to go from one end to the other.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, as Mr. Alonzo said, there's in the -- and Mr. Branch mentioned it is fair and legal perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I don't care if the people in the Senate have to swim that length from Galveston up to the farther parts of east Texas that they have in that map.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I don't think people have to swim to get to your -- if you are --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I don't think they should either.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: -- but that's just me --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you, Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, I appreciate it. Members, I would ask you to show the same courtesy and I'm going to move to table Mr. Martinez Fischer's amendment. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer to close. REP. MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Mr. Solomons. Thank you Jerry. If you have swimming lessons in the 17th zone please don't confuse yourself. And frankly that district is actually drawn that way as it came out of the Senate. We just picked it up in Brazoria and took it up to Port Arthur. If you look at the Senate District 19 you need more than a floaties to get through that district to get from San Antonio to El Paso. You've heard the arguments. This is a demonstration to show what can be done. We don't have the last word. I don't Chairman Solomons doesn't. Respectfully this is the only place where we can make the argument to start the process. So, with that if any members are concerned about voting rights, minority voting rights, Voting Rights Act, I would ask you to, please, vote no on the motion to table and ask you to vote no. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Pickett because of important business in the district on a motion to Mr. Menendez. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Martinez-Fischer sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Solomons voting aye, show Representative Martinez-Fischer voting no. Have all voted? There being 99 ayes and 44 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey. Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to request permission for the Committee of Ways and Means to meet at 4:00 o'clock -- if it would please the House 4:15 to make it an hour notice May 20th, 2011 at 3W.15 to consider S.B. 1546 S.B. 1574 and S.B. 1927.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Ways and Means will meet at 4:15 p.m. on May the 20th, 2011, room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider S.B. 1546, S.B. 1574, and S.B. 1927.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Members, I wanted to share this plan with you, 137. But before I go into the plan let me be clear about one thing. Yesterday there was a column, I believe, it was in one of the major newspapers here. That said I was when we had our redistricting hearing over in the Ag museum that I was in there fighting hard for the incumbent in Senate District 10. That could be the furthest thing from the truth. Whenever I argue these points and whenever I make the arguments that I do in redistricting, particularly as it pertains to Tarrant County, I am making arguments on behalf of the constituents in the south of Fort Worth that are largely African American and Latino and also the constituents in Representative Burnam's district in north Fort Worth who are split up and put into Denton County. I'm making arguments on behalf of these constituents and for these constituents only. And we need to be 100 percent clear about that and I would appreciate it that when we are talking about redistricting that if the other elected officials in this body and the people that talk about redistricting and send this message out to the State of Texas through different medians that it stays focus on the constituents that is are being discriminated against and that the plan that was passed out of the Senate and the plan that was passed out of the House and not on a single Senator, particularly the incumbent in Senate District 10. Because that is not what this is about. It is about people in -- near southeast side of Fort Worth. The north side, Rolling Hills, Evermon, Forrest Hill in my district that have been sent out into a rural area where the people that live in that area came and testified. The Republicans that live in those counties they came and testified and said that they did not want to be in district that included urban Tarrant or urban Dallas County.

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

REP. MARC VEASEY: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Veasey. Representative Veasey you serve on the redistricting committee here in the House, correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And you took somewhat unusual measure to go testify against the proposed Senate lines in the Senate redistricting hearing, correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes, I did.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And I also did also the same thing; is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And you represent a majority minority district and I represent majority minority district.

REP. MARC VEASEY: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And overwhelming portion of both of our districts in my case all of Fort Worth, all of my district is within the city of Fort Worth right now and almost all of your district is within the city of Fort Worth right now with the notable exception Forrest Hills which is the first majority African American city council in the State of Texas for suburban.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, we both represent highly minority communities.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And it was revealed in the testimony in the Senate hearing that the four minority city council members from the city of Fort Worth have all sent letters or signed a letter objecting to cracking your legislative district and my legislative district into three different Senatorial districts; is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And isn't it also true that as a part of the testimony that the constable that represents an overlapping area for my legislative district, Constable Sergio DeLeon, sent a letter objecting to cracking his constable districts into three different Senator districts.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And lastly but most importantly to you and me on a personal level, isn't it true that the Lake coma vise rights act vise rights act counsel have sent a letter to pleading to pet them in to southeast Fort Worth because they are the largest African American neighborhood in Fort Worth not in southeast Fort Worth --

REP. MARC VEASEY: -- sugar asked that in the senate direct with southeast district and they have been for years.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And you know that at least -- district that my first priority is to restore the lake coma community whom I represent they represent other ten percent of my constituency to restore them to the same senatorial district that they have been over twenty years combine combined with the southeast district; is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And what came to surprise us is that while they put the Lake Como community in District 10, they took most of southeast Fort Worth out of District 10; is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yeah, they put most of district --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: The other thing that the totally surprised us is that they took the historical north side one of the oldest barrios in Fort Worth they took all of the north side Diamond Hill communities and put them in the Senatorial district dominated by Denton County; is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: That is absolutely correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, what they've done by putting the Lake Como community over in a district that is centered in Fort Worth but taking southeast Fort Worth they have cracked the African American communities in Fort Worth into two different Senatorial district; is that correct?

REP. MARC VEASEY: To paraphrase the great author of Ellis they wanted to make sure that the black and Latino communities were put in a basement and shut off for the next ten years to make sure that we would not be able to have any influence in the Senate district.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And let us make get it clear --

REP. MARC VEASEY: And this plan that I'm laying out corrects that. And makes it clear.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And let us make it clear. In the case of district 90, the district that I represent, the north side, north of downtown north of the river is a heavily Hispanic and some African American district now. But that Hispanic community has been cracked away from the Hispanic community on the south side, the other historically large Hispanic community in Fort Worth and they are divided, separated into not two but three different Senatorial district.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I think you have a good amendment. I think there should be no objection to this amendment. All this does is correct the illegal proposals to crack the African American, Hispanic communities in Fort Worth and the larger Tarrant County and put them into one district so they can have a viable voice and in electing who and deciding who their Senator should be. Thank you for this amendment.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Thank you. And not only is this plan more fair than the plan that was passed out of the Senate which is a very unfair plan that Representative Solomons laid out today. The plan that I have that I'm laying out, also takes into consideration the testimony that we heard from various communities interests around north Texas. We had a Republican from a Hood County come out and testify and say that they do not want to be in a Senate district that came into a large urban area. The same thing with Republican officials that came in from Johnson County. I fixed that on this map. And those of you who are familiar with Tarrant County maybe -- may know the story of several years ago about the city of Benbrook. They were upset about an African American football coach that was hired because Benbrook is in the Fort Worth ISD. They were upset about the African American football coach that was hired because that was the first time that one had been hired there. So they wanted to secede from the Fort Worth ISD and start their own school district. They said that they could have a school district like Aledo or like Granbury were it not for the Fort Worth ISD. And the one of the -- and the oldest parts of Benbrook along 377 definitely have a flavor to them like a Granbury or an Aledo community. And so one of the things that I did on this plan was that I put southeast Fort Worth back into an urban -- urban dominated.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Dutton raises the point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Thank you, Harold. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Mr. Veasey, didn't you bring this forth yesterday? Mr. Veasey brought this amendment to the committee and the committee did not approve it. I understand Mr. Veasey's concern about his district and where -- which district it is in and the communities around there. But once again I would ask you to table Mr. Veasey's amendment as the committee did. In not approving it because it seems as if the Senate felt that was where the population had to come from. That's where they needed to go. And it does not violate the Voting Rights Act. So any way I am going to ask you to table Mr. Veasey's amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close.

REP. MARC VEASEY: I disagree with Chairman Solomons tremendously. This act clearly violates the Voting Rights Act. There are many neighborhoods in which they could have put into Senate District 22 that fits in more neatly with 22, with Hood and Johnson County and areas that go all the way down to Falls County, than the southeast Fort Worth. The story I was telling a minute ago about Benbrook, along 377. The Benbrook community fits in very nicely with the Granbury community. The Hood County, Johnson County, Cleburne was named after a Confederate general. Based -- those are more communities of interest and those various restaurants and watering holes along 377 those are communities of interest. Those communities they do things, they congregate together, they church together. We need to make sure that the southeast Fort Worth is in a more urban community. Benbrook and certain -- and other parts of Fort Worth will fit in a lot neatly and more nicer with Senate District 22. It is clear that the motive behind putting southeast Fort Worth in Senate District 22 is to make sure that votes don't have to count. And you know when you think about the legislative redistricting board and the comment that they made in 2001, they specifically said that the minority communities in Senate District 10 were not being fragmented and that the communities of interest are being kept together. Now those same comments that were produced by Republicans on the Legislative Redistricting Board are being ignored so they can discriminate against voters in southeast Fort Worth. The plan is completely unfair. We need to go and move forward and have a good plan that everyone can be proud of and where everyone has a fair chance. When you look at the number of African Americans and Hispanics, and the numbers that have grown in Tarrant County, it is clear that in trying to create this new seat that they would like to create, that they are putting the interest of people with money and voters that aren't growing as fast as African American and Latino voters in front of those who deserve an opportunity and deserve to be able to elect a State Senator of their choice. I ask that you be fair, that you do the right thing. That you have a good story to go back and share with your kids and your grandchildren that you are on the right side of the civil rights issue. The Voting Rights Act people fought hard and people died, people sacrificed a lot to make sure that we would have fair elections in this country and to make sure that people would have the opportunity to have fair representation. We do not want turn back the clock today and vote against the Voting Rights Act, to vote against the strong civil rights legacy that we have this country. Let us do the right thing and vote no on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey sends up an amendment. And Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Solomons voting aye, Representative Veasey voting no. Have all voted? There being 96 ayes and 42 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This is plan 137.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. For a member of the class of 1980 it seems like a long, long time ago for me and I know some of us are from prior to that. But it gives me great pleasure to welcome the seniors of the class of 2011 from Wessex Canyon High School who are here with us in the gallery today. They are accompanied by their teachers Tina Taylor, Scott Williams, Elizabeth Smith and their principal, Steven Highbrit. If you would, please, stand and be recognized. Wessex Canyon High School seniors welcome to the Texas House. Your house. And grasps on your upcoming graduation. Very cool.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Thank you, members. I wanted to lay out a statewide plan here. I think this plan also is much more fair than the plan that was passed out of the Senate and what was passed out of House in the Redistricting Committee a day or two ago. This amendment can produce the same or better Hispanic districts along the border without going in to Travis County. One of the things that is also addressed that Representative Solomons talked about the SSVR numbers are equal or greater than the SSVR numbers in the proposed map. Travis County is a already a Hispanic opportunity district and the map gives Hispanics the opportunities to also elect the person of their choice and in District 14 and also keeps in line with the submissions that were made by the Legislative Redistricting Board back in 2001 and keeps the insular minority communities of 10, 9, 14 and 16 together. Of course under the plan that was voted out, 10, 9, 14 and 16 have been greatly fragmented and packed unnecessarily and we want to make sure that that doesn't change. Of course in Senate District 10 in Tarrant County the Anglo population currently is below 50 percent and they make that over 50 percent which is illegal. And so, that's also a violation and that is corrected on this statewide plan also.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, do you yield?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Representative Veasey, so while maybe we weren't ready to support your first amendment which addressed exclusively the problem of the likely illegality of the proposed Tarrant County plan, this proposal addresses in addition to Tarrant County the concerns that have been articulated concerning the cracking of Latino populations here in Travis county?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And you say that it provides for an opportunity district in the southern portion of the state that doesn't exist in the current plan?

REP. MARC VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Could you explain that one a little bit better. What does that provide us?

REP. MARC VEASEY: And I have the map right here. It's a -- and I don't have the exact numbers right in front of me but I can explain it to you. I can promise you that the map that I have here today, the statewide plan, that the opportunities are much more in line with the State when you look at the number of Hispanics that have increased statewide and the African American population that have increased statewide. It's much more in line and also fall into that same philosophy that the Republicans used back during the redistricting where they say we make up a certain percentage of the statewide elections, therefore, we should have a equal proportion of those congressional seats. Well, I do that. That is what this particular amendment follows. This amendment follows the same Republican doctrine of -- and it's just replaces Republican with the words African American and Hispanics. That if there are certain number of Hispanics, there's certain number of African Americans and certain voting percentage which I believe President Barack Obama received about 43 or 44 percent of the vote in 2008, and that is what this Senate map reflects.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Under the existing Senate Bill district lines there are only three Senatorial districts that are anchored in the Rio Grande between Brownsville and Laredo and our majority Hispanic districts. What does your proposal do?

REP. MARC VEASEY: In my proposal -- and I'm going to have to let you look at it. It is a -- because I have to put this together very quickly. I didn't have the chance to look at it like I would like to. But based on what I was given by my legal counsel it rectifies some of the mistakes that were made --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So it doesn't represent the retrogression proposal that Representative -- Chairman Solomons is about to --

REP. MARC VEASEY: It fixes all the retrogression that has taken place and it proposed --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: -- and attempts to address the issue of the increasingly larger and larger Hispanic population in our state as opposed to when the lines were drawn a decade ago.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Absolutely. One of the things that disturbed me about the statewide plan that was voted out of the House committee that's on the floor today and one of the reasons why I wanted to submit this plan is that if you look at the rural population and you look at -- versus the African American Hispanic population that's increasing in the state it's clear that many of those opportunities for the rural Senators and populations that aren't growing quite as rapidly are being maintained or even increased on the backs of the African Americans and Latinos and that's not --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, this form of retrogression you are talking is literally they are achieving these lines on the backs of urban Hispanics and African Americans.

REP. MARC VEASEY: If there's anything that is clear about this map it is that fact that the population increases in the state are being used to preserve the old guard.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's kind of like trying to adopt the balanced budget, isn't it? It's essentially the same thing on the backs of the working minorities of the state. Thank you.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Thank you. Members, I ask that you vote for this particular plan. All of the problems in Tarrant County, Dallas County, Harris County are rectified under this map. This is the map that we can go to the justice department and be proud. I think that reflects nicely on our state because whenever you get into these redistricting battles and things are done blatantly like, for instance, when you take southeast Fort Worth all the way down into -- past Falls County, it leads a very negative perception on the state. It makes it look like that Texas is not a friendly place for African Americans and Latinos to reside in even though it is one of the fastest growing areas for African Americans and Latinos. And we want to make sure that our state keeps its friendly face. And we also want to make sure that we do the right thing not only morally but what is legal and in keeping with the Voting Rights Act, I can tell you that this plan, plan 137, is -- keeps us in line with the Voting Rights Act and it's fair to all citizens.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Mr. Veasey's prior amendment effected all the three districts. This amendment effected all the districts in his look at how he believes the Senate map should look and he's basing it on a variety of arguments he believes are relevant. So I'm going to move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Veasey to close.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Members, I close and ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Veasey sends up a motion. Representative Solomons moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Solomons voting aye, show Representative Veasey voting nay. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 98 ayes, 44 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members this is plan 153.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I want to just to echo and reaffirm what you have heard from Representative Trey Martinez-Fischer and Representative Veasey. This map that has been filed by the Legislative Black Caucus creates the two African American districts, districts 13 and 20 -- 13 and 23. And then the Hispanic districts that are included in here 6, 19, 20 21, 26, 27 and 29. It also creates to minority impact districts. Districts 10 and District 15. There are a total of the minority districts of 11 that are included in this amendment. We just believe with the added growth that has occurred and where that growth has occurred that these minority districts, both African American and Hispanic and minority impact districts should be incorporated and adopted and therefore, we are putting forth this amendment for your consideration.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for questions?

THE SPEAKER: Does the Representative yield for questions?

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

THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you Representative Turner, I appreciate you bringing this maps to us. Are you aware that all of the districts immediate population except for a couple of districts down in the valley, the Senate districts, they needed population added?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And are you aware that in this plan 153 we actually put intact and keep the minority district together in District 10?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Which is a concern that Representative Veasey and Burnam had with regard to destroying integrity of 10 and the minority population.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's why from the outset I want to reaffirm and echo what Representative Veasey and Representative Burnam and Representative Trey Martinez-Fischer have to say.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And with this map it is our intent to increase the overall population of minority districts that will be reflective of the population of minorities in the State of Texas; is that correct?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you very much.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And let me just say I don't see Representative Solomons. There is Representative Solomons. I don't know if you had the opportunity to see it. But I would say to you this would enhance the State of Texas. Quite frankly if it was on the local and consent calendar it would pass.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Solomons to speak against.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I'm going to move to table Mr. Turner's statewide substitute plan. It's just that. It's his version, I believe, of what he believes the Senate districts should look like and based on a variety of factors. The Senate, however, voted their plan out and they were told as I understand it that they believe that meets the Voting Rights Act and should we pass this map and I'm sure that some of these same arguments you've heard today are going to be at the courthouse and we will just let them decide. But at the end of the day I do think that it is a statewide substitute based on what Mr. Turner believes should be done.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Sure.

THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you Chairman Solomons. Are you aware that in this plan we essentially leave the core of all the districts in tact except by adding population to them without taking the core of their districts away?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: If you tell me that, that's fine.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And I appreciate you have no interest in trying to review it but I just want to kind of go through these questions with you just for the record since you have no interest looking at it. District 20 and 27, chairman -- Senator Hinojosa and Senator Lucio's districts they were not touched because they were already within deviation, are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm not aware of that in your plan. I know what the Senate plan did on a variety of the Senate districts based on the information that was presented to me from Senator Seliger, from his notebook and what they represent in each of those districts.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And when you visited with Senator Seliger, did he indicate that his plan maximized minority participation, minority districts throughout the State of Texas? Did he indicate if this plan would maximize the population so that you would maximize the number of opportunities districts for minority districts to be elected in?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: My notes reflect from him is that his attorney told him that the map that they finally approved in the Senate met the Voting Rights Act requirements and the Texas Constitution and the other applicable laws. I guess someone else would have to determine that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And I appreciate that. But my question was, did he indicate whether or not in doing so that his map would create the most minority districts that create the greatest opportunities for districts for minorities to be represented in. Even understanding that you are saying that it meets the Voting Rights Act. My question is whether or not his plan maximized opportunities for minorities --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: He did not tell me that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. And --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: We did not have that conversation. He did not tell me that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Did he indicate to you whether he was aware that District 10 -- the District 10 it tore up that district in terms of minority representation in those communities, did you all discuss what happened to District 10, in his map?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I have some notes of what he sent over in connection with District 10. We didn't discuss it in any detail but I do have his notes as to what happened in District 10 and what he is -- with the understanding of what those District 10 did. The combination of black and Hispanic voting age population was only 42.4 percent, 17.9 percent black and 24.8 percent Hispanic. The SSVR was only 12.1 percent and -- so, whether or not it was a protected minority district or not there were issues that were discussed by the lawyers over there and how that worked. They don't believe that it's a protected minority district. In the new District 10, the black plus Hispanic VAP is 35.2 percent. 13.4 percent black and 22.1 percent Hispanic. The SSVR is 11.3, 59.4 percent of the voting age population is Anglo. These are the notes I have on that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. Let me ask you another question as it relates to minority impact districts. Did he indicate if there were any other minority impact districts available that could have been drawn?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm sorry? He was talking to me to remind me that the current district is 52 percent. So --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: What I was --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: If you would repeat the question again?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I was to get with what he was talking about so I'm going to go back and cover that. I was just trying to ask you about the integrity of those communities, minority communities being torn up in District 10. But my next question is whether or not they looked at whether there were any other minority impact districts that could be drawn that they did not draw in the Senate plan?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I don't know. Ms. Davis, I only have the notes. One of the notes was of how the district was made up based on population issues. It wasn't so much the community interest and that maybe issue down the road. But the numbers worked the way they were supposed to work. What they believe for the Voting Rights Act. We'll see.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And that's what I was trying to talk about, the communities of interest. And the last question that I have is, one of the interests we have is to create additional districts, obviously. And so, I was wondering if they considered whether or not there could be other districts that could be created that they chose not to create?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Senator Seliger and I did not have that conversation. Members, I'm going to move to table Mr. Turner's amendment and ask that you do so. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. We've taken a lot of time to go through and draw these maps. We do believe that the maps are in the best interest of the State of Texas. It takes into account where the growth has taken place in the State and, again, it maximizes African American, Hispanic and minority impact districts. And I would ask for your favorable consideration. I now ask you to vote no on the motion to table and to allow us an opportunity to further debate this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner sends up a motion -- sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Solomons voting aye, show Representative Turner voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes, 48 nays motion to table prevails.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That's close enough for verification.

THE SPEAKER: Verification vote is denied. Respectfully denied. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 31? Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to speak against, I would presume.

REP. MARC VEASEY: Members, I know that asking you to do the right thing in regards to redistricting is tough. Back when the Voting Rights Act was passed back in the 1960's a lot of the folks -- there weren't very many African American or Hispanic elected officials at that time. I think that if you look at the pictures hanging on the floor that you won't start to see Hispanic or African American that are serving in the legislature until around the late 1960's. A lot of those folks that served in the legislature that prevented many African Americans and Hispanics from serving for many, many years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act they were good people just like you were. The people that served here back in the 1940's, 1950's they were good folks just like all of you are. And so, I know that asking you today to do the right thing as it pertains to the Voting Rights Act, is tough for you just like it was tough for those folks that served here 40, 50 years ago. But, I'm asking you to not do this to our state. When you look at the growth patterns in the State, particularly in the metroplex and the other large urban areas you will see that the Hispanic and African American population has outpaced the population of Anglos in the State. We have to have fair representation. You can't have the system of designing maps that continues to promote Anglo candidates and the old guards over the fast growing Latino and black population. It's just not fair. There's no way to argue that it's fair. And when you look at the way how these districts were chopped up and produced to basically to dilute the African American and Latino growth, there's no way that you think it's fair. I mean look at the Legislative Redistricting Board which in 2001 was dominated by Republicans. And this is what they said when they submitted the plans to the Department of Justice, DOJ, for preclearance. It says, quote, this plan generally avoids unnecessarily fragmenting significant black and Hispanic into a community even when such communities are not large enough to constitute a voting majority of the Senate districts. As a result at least districts 14, 15, 9 and 10 contain significant minority communities that are essentially kept in tact within these district. Those are words that are produced by Republicans. Now those words are being trampled. Now those words are being totally disregarded. So the people that are living -- so that state Senate districts in rural areas and areas that aren't -- and population that aren't going as fast as the minority population in the state can continue to have the same level of representation and even greater representation at the expense of those who are choosing to move here and call Texas home. The African American community in the Dallas Fort Worth area is the second fastest African American growing area in the entire country. Only behind Atlanta, Georgia. The Latino community in Dallas Fort Worth is the fastest growing Latino community in the entire country. You cannot look at the Senate District 10 in particular and when you think about -- and I know that everyone in the Tarrant delegation knows that the communities on the south side -- near southeast side that make up -- near southeast will make up southeast Fort Worth, also the communities of Forrest Hill and Everman. You cannot look at that map that stretches all the way down to Falls County and know and think that's fair. The people that served before you that sat in these seats, they knew that the discrimination back in the 50's and 60's that was happening against African Americans -- but most of those people knew that wasn't fair. Some of them were probably prejudice people but most of them knew that that was not fair. But they could not find the courage within themselves to do the right thing. Even when something was blatantly happening that was discriminatory. They could not do the right thing because they thought that they were not going to get reelected. So they let discrimination take place. I'm asking you to not to do that today. Have a good story to tell your kids and your grandkids when you get ready to leave here. That despite the fact that your constituents, you know, may not have been sympathetic to African Americans being flung all the way into and isolated. And sent all the way into McLennan County and Johnson County and places that southeast Fort Worth has absolutely nothing in common with, that you did the right thing. That you did what the people before you 40, 50 years ago could not do. And that you stood up for civil rights. You stood up for the Voting Rights Act and you changed Texas history forever. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Burnam in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Representative Burnam joins his colleague from Tarrant county. Mark and I represent the two majority minority counties in two Tarrant County. And what is done to the representation for our constituents is just unforgivable. Unfortunately pretty consistent with the theme of this legislative session, the total indifference, lack of concern, but beyond the non-neglect. What we are about to see today is another example of why Texas is under the Voting Rights Act. Because in many ways, we continue to behave just like the old south feel Confederate state that we are. Consistently ignoring the rights of minority communities. In the case of Tarrant County we take the African American population and cracked it into four different Senatorial districts. We take the Latino population and do exactly same thing. It's harshest in the Senatorial in the House district that I represent right now because the inner city entirely within the city of Fort Worth district that I represent right now is cracked into three different Senatorial districts. Two of which are dominated by counties out -- populations outside of Tarrant County. I'm asking you, I don't really have high expectations but I'm asking you to hear the appeals of the four minority city council members from Fort Worth our JP our neighborhood associations, this is wrong. And unfortunately you're probably not listening. We will just have so see you in court and we will have a delay in implementing the new senatorial lines. I ask you to vote no horrible bill.

THE SPEAKER: Show Representative Alonzo to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'm going to be brief but I sure want to come in and oppose this plan because as I mentioned when I was making my comments, it was time to let folks know that, hello, there is significant amount of population of Hispanic in north Texas. Do you remember when Chairman Solomons began his presentation, he said, in the business -- and I won't to use his exact words but in the business of redistricting you go where the population goes. Guess what. The population goes to north Texas. Population is in north Texas. The numbers are there. One million Hispanics in Dallas County, 500,000 in Tarrant County. The population is there. Now with this amendment that I presented that could have fixed that discussion it shows that 63 percent of the population would have been Latino and 57 would have been Hispanic voting age population. Members, one of the things that is going to be considered as Chairman Solomons pointed out that the Voting Rights Act was enacted in Congress in 1965 to protect racial and ethnic minorities from discrimination in voting and it's rightly considered one of the most respected civil rights laws in American history. Texas is covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires Federal review of election changes in covered jurisdictions and box changes denying or wishing the right to vote on account of race, color, or because of discrimination based on membership of a language minority. Changes that lead to retrogression for racial language minorities -- exercise of the electoral franchise. Members, Texas was responsible 107 Section 5 objections interposed by the Justice Department under Section 5 from 1980 through June 2006. Ten of these objections were aimed at blocking statewide voting changes that would discriminate against minority voters. The reason I point that out, the discussion has been on the one hand, there was a discussion of fairness on the other hand on the legal that the proposed map is legal. I propose to say that it's not. We created opportunity to fix -- to fix it and it was denied. You have one more opportunity to fix it. And that's by voting no on this bill. I strongly urge you members, I strongly urge you. I come here from north Texas to let you know that we have a growing population, we have an growing opportunities, and we want to have an opportunity to participant at the State Senate level. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak on for or against? If not Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I appreciate your courtesies and your patience with this the entire session on redistricting. We were able to move this to third reading. Hopefully, we will for the first time in a long time pass both the House map and a Senate map. I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues, particularly in a couple of the districts. But I would ask your indulgence to pass this on to third reading. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 31. All those in favor vote aye. Oppose vote -- record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote no, members. Have all members voted? You have time to vote from your desk. Please vote. Show Representative Susan King voting present. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 92 ayes, 48 nays, 7 present not voting. S.B. 31 is passed to final reading -- to third reading.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I believe this has already been asserted but may make certain that all comments on this bill be reduced in writing for the House journal?

THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam requests that remarks be reduced in writing and placed in the journal. Is there opposition on second and third reading? Is there any objection? There being none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Representative -- members, the House will stand at ease until 4:25.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: We are at ease, Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I understand that Mr. Speaker. But since we're at ease and not in recess then the parliamentary inquiry is still appropriate; is that correct?

THE SPEAKER: Please, bring your parliamentary inquiry down in front for now.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Chair recognizes Representative Miller of Erath for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I request permission for the Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety to meet while the House is in session, 5:15 p.m. today at 3W9. We are going to consider pending business.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety will meet at 5:15 p.m. today, May 20th, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker and members, I request permission for the Committee on Lands to meet while the House is in session at 5:15 p.m. on May 20th, 3W15 to consider a calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Lands will meet at 5:15 p.m. today May 20th at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.

THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 587 on third reading.

CLERK: S.B. 587 by Uresti. Relating to jurisdiction in certain proceedings brought by the attorney general with respect to charitable trusts.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, Senate Bill 587 simply amends the Texas property code to provide the attorney general with standing to intervene on charitable trust. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak on for or against Senate Bill 587? The question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 587. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Marquez voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted. There being 130 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 587 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Miller for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I would like to move to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 2151. Honoring Isora Young of Stephensville celebrating her 106th birthday.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following resolution. Clerk will read the Resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 2151 by Miller of Erath. Congratulating National Cowgirl Hall of Fame member Isora DeRacy Young on the occasion of her 106th birthday.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Members, thank you for allowing me to introduce this resolution in honoring this great lady of my district. She's 106 years old today. And is one of the more famous rodeo stars of her time. Thank you and I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider H.R. 2133 which honors Richard Taylor of Blue Mountain Peek ranch in Mason on receiving the 2011 Lone Star Award from Texas Parks and Wildlife.

THE SPEAKER: Clerk read the Resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 2133 by Hilderbran. Congratulating Richard Taylor of Mason on his receipt of a 2011 Lone Star Land Steward Award from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption of the resolution.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection? Hearing none. The resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 2038.

THE SPEAKER: Clerk read the resolution.

CLERK: H.R. 2038 by workman. Recognizing the 2011 Austin Kidney Walk.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Members, tomorrow is a National Kidney Foundation will be holding its annual Kidney walk raising money for research and treatment of kidney disease and I want to wish them much success. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Smithee for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'm asking for permission for the House Committee on Insurance to meet while the House is in session in room 3W15 at 6:15 p.m. today. To consider pending business.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Permission granted. Now, clerk read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Insurance will meet at 6:15 p.m. today on May 20th, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

THE SPEAKER: Members, previously it was announced that there will be an attempt to reconsider Senate Bill 710. The hour has passed. I would like to recognize Representative Workman for the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to reconsider the vote on which Senate Bill 710 was defeated. It had to do with a misunderstanding between myself and Mr. Menendez on the content of the bill. So, I would like to reconsider.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection. So ordered. Chair lays out Senate Bill 710. The clerk will read the Bill.

CLERK: S.B. 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.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez to explain the Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The mistake was made on my part when Mr. Workman asked me if there was a new fee. And it -- when I -- after reviewing it and talking to Senator Van de Putte and my good friend Representative Solomons and Hartnett, all this does is add one new other additional thing where you have -- are you aware or not aware that you have a single blockable main drain in a pool hot tub or a spa so if you check, you check yes you are aware or no we are not aware. And that's all it does. There's no new fee. It doesn't cause you to do anything to change anything it's purely a disclosure and that's why the realtors are in favor of this bill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Representative?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Jose, I'm not against the bill. I voted against it before, because I didn't know whether -- I've got a pool, many people here have pools, but the poor people that's in San Antonio don't. But in any case, what is a hazardous drain? I don't know what the hazardous drain is.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Here is what I've come to the understanding as to talking to folks that work with pools. What they tell me is if you look at bottom of your swim pool and you see one single drain and if you can see the grate, if you can see the drain itself, it's supposedly one of these single blockable main drains that has the suction and children in many cases have been sucked in to the bottom of the pool and drowned. We have had children and young adult and adults themselves held at the bottom of pool and hot tub and what they have done now in the older pools they can put a little cover.

REPRESENTATIVE BERMAN: And the new pools all have covers them now. So the covers on them -- that's not hazardous?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: No, sir. Not at all.

REPRESENTATIVE BERMAN: Okay. I'll vote for your bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, very much. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against? The Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REPRESENTATIVE WORKMAN: Members, I've reviewed this, and after consideration I think we should vote for this bill. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on Senate Bill 710. This is for final passage, Members. It will be a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye. Vote nay. Have all voted? There being 142 ayes, 4 nays. Senate Bill 710 has finally passed. The second reading of Senate Bill 1811. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 1811 by Duncan relating to state fiscal matters.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, as voted out of the Appropriations Committee, Senate Bill 1811 is identical to the House Bill 3790, which is our version of the Fiscal Matters Bill. It is a combination of statutory changes we need to conform with our decisions we've already made in House Bill 1, as it came on the floor of the house, and its clean up language that was requested by the Comptroller. There is also revenue-generating proposals that will allow us to fill some of the gaps that still exist in one. Let me give you a summary of what is in Senate Bill 1811. It reveals a premium tax credit that insurers currently receive for the payment of licenses. It repeals the Fingerprint Imaging Requirement that currently applies to the Tannant and other programs with HCR 16789. HCR is requested to come up with other ideas or costs savings for identification. Members, it defers the Foundation School Program from August 13th payment to September the 13th payment. Basically, this requires the state to only pay 23 payments over the biennium instead of 24. This is approximately 1.8 to $2.3 billion, depending on other decisions made in the Appropriations Bill. It suspend the S Watch, Sales Tax Holiday, but I will be following a perfecting amendment to remove that suspension. It conforms to state law to current FDIC cover requirement for banks to hold state deposits. It changes the way states collect the premium taxes on surplus lines and independently procure insurance policies. It removes various requirements for the Comptroller to purchase hard copy reports. It consolidates the administration of the voter registration programs at the Office of the Secretary of State. It removes the requirement for the Comptroller to audit certain cities and counties for the Collection Improvement Program. It changes the Unclaimed Property Transfer Deadline from November to July, which is approximately $200 million savings. It expands the $50 late filer amount. It requires a person to sustain and collect a Purchase-for-Tax Refund, and authorizes the Comptroller of public accounts to administer a competitive grant program for obesity. And, Members, I have several perfecting amendments that I think we're going to take up first, and let me kind of describe the perfecting amendments to Senate Bill 111. It removes Article 1, which has been -- we've heard a lot of problems with this article that allows the agencies to collect fees and to -- other items in the Article 2, dealing with the reveal of the Premium Tax Credit for insurance examination fee. It replaces language in Section II 03 in order to grandfather the 2011 Premium Tax Credit for insurance agencies. And in Article 4, dealing with the substantiation of tax refund, it replaces that language to allow tax payers to use electronic records. In Article 5, it deals with the Collection Improvement Program at the office of the Court Administration. In Article 8, it's dealing with Unclaimed Property Transfer Deadline to make it conform. Article 10, dealing with the Comptrollers reporting requirements, it removes language that would have inadvertently repealed the statute. It removes Article 12 dealing with the suspension of the Sales Tax Holiday. And in Article 13, dealing with the surplus lines of insurance it adds and replaces language to conform throughout the implementation of federal laws.

CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Members, when I was laying out the bill I told you about the perfecting amendment, and the main thing this perfecting amendment does, it continues the Sales Tax Holiday.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: The amendments by Oliveira.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This amendment to the amendment puts on a bill that we passed earlier in the Session, 2969, that came out of the Land and Resource Management Committee to sell certain properties. And it is acceptable to the author, and it will raise approximately 85 million to $100 million.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Oliveira sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. Back on the Pitts amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Pitts sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This Amendment's on Page 6.

CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this is the amendment per the TRS to bring the state contribution to six percent. I move passage. Move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Villareal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Mr. Chairman, it my understanding in Committee that this change in the state's commitment for our retired teachers was going to be temporary.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, it is. In fact, what we have worked out in conference, it's a fact that six percent would be for the first year and it would return back to 6.35 at the second year. And this amendment, though, does sunset it.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: It does. So the temporary nature of this change is incorporated into your perfecting amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: It is on the -- it's sunset after the next biennium. But the actual -- the agreement is that it will do it just for one year.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: I'm sorry. Say that again.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: The agreement that we have in conference has been that we will just make this a one year lowering of the state contribution, bring it back to 6.5.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And will bring it back to 6.5 starting when?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Starting the second year of the next biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Of the second year of the -- 13? 14 biennium?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: No. This coming biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Oh, this coming. Okay. Okay. So 2013 is when it will rise back up?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Pitts sends up an amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this is Audit Amendment, and it's concerning the Texas Emergent Technology Fund in the Governor's Office, and there was an audit by the State auditors on that fund, and this would require a report for the total number of jobs created for each project. It would give the Speaker and the governor and two appointees each a statewide Advisory Committee to make the final nominations to the grant boards. It requires every member of the Advisory Committee to file Financial Disclosure Statements, identical to what elected officials are required to file. It requires the Advisory Committee and subcommittees to follow the posting requirements of the open meeting fact, and it's required for the ETF Award to submit a state and federal criminal background check. I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Pitts sends is up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. Members, go on to Page 27. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This, Members, simply say safety net for funding of state agencies of bills that have already passed this body. It contains support of the Texas Animal Health Commission, the Petroleum Storage Tank Remediation Fund, Texas Parks & Wildlife and the Railroad Commission. I think there are two amendments to this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Miller of Erath.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Speaker and Members, what this Amendment to the Amendment does, it deals with the Texas Animal Health Commission. They had requested up to $12 million in new fees. We had this discussion on Representative Hardcastle's bill. We lowered that to $2 million. Having discussions with Texas Animal Health Commission, they think they can get by with half that. So that's what this Amendment does. It allows them to cap that at $6 million instead of 12 and it will sunset it at the end of the biennium. It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Miller sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Sheffield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Members, this Amendment just kind of clarifies the amount of service line fee that can be sent to the Railroad Regulatory Commission it, basically, allows them to bill five percent for their program. It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Darby sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Amendment on Page 267. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Madden.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Mark Shelton and I have been working hard on Contributional Managed Healthcare and what to do with the Contributional Managed Healthcare Committee. This is an Amendment we've worked out on their board, on the structure of the board, what they'll be doing. That makes it a six-member board, five of which are voting, two of which are departments that, at least, have to be in a position appointed by the director at TDCJ. The other one appointing Members by the governor. It has a Medicaid director that's on the board. It also has several reporting requirements. It has the appointment of the executive director. And it has the executive director language that's in there. And it makes several other correcting amendments we think will make this a much better and functioning Committee that we've been working on. Sylvester, it does those kind of things I believe we've been working so hard for.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Chairman, who are the people on the board again?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: There will be six Members of the board, Sylvester. Two of them will be Members appointed full time by the governor, by the TDCJ, one of which will be a physician. There's three public Members appointed by the Governor, two of whom have to be physicians. The signature person on the board will be the state medical director appointed by the board and we have Medicaid discussions that will be there for the board to work with.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. So six Members?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Three of whom are doctors?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Three of whom are doctors, and the requirement is in the Amendment will require that a physician be the head of the board.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. And will this board be the one they will serve in the same capacity as the Committee is serving today?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That's correct. Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Is Dr. Listhcomb a part of this?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Well, Dr. Listhcomb works for TDCJ and certainly been will be a part of what's going on. Because some of the requirements that we have in there, Sylvester, particularly on Page 4, will require with the final authority requiring standards. Standards of Care will be working with the, Dr. Listhcomb. So it's certainly our intension that Dr. Listhcomb will be a part of that, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. Thank you very much, Chair.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Madden sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. We're on Page 396. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Otto.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this article or this Amendment has to deal, basically, with Article 1. These are the items that would have been contain in the Article Fiscal Matters Bill that we decided to file as an Amendment to Senate Bill 1811. I'm just going to pass through. There's a lot in here, but I will try to cover each of the topics that we're dealing with. The first deals with the Texas Facilities Commission Parking Lease Program. Basically, there is a 28 percent vacancy rate in State parking lots. This Amendment allows for the Facility Commission to lease State-owned parking and garage spaces. The second item is the AG. It says that the Attorney General can charge a reasonable fee for the filing of electronic documents for someone that wants to file electronically. It also says the Attorney General has the authority to review invoices. This language was passed out of the Senate in March, and the House State Affairs Committee in April, without any public opposition. It has been set on the House Calendar for Friday and it is being carried by Chairman Cook. Next is the Attorney General. It allows him to charge for reviewing Toll Project Authority documents. This language was vetted by the house Transportation Committee and passed out eight to nothing. It is carried by Chairman Kolkhorst. It also exempts the attorneys working for the Attorney General for barges with a Sunset date of January 1, 2016. It also grants an exemption for the attorneys working for the AG's Office from CLE with a Sunset date of January 1, 2014. It also provides for the transfer of funds from the Texas Preservation Trust Fund Account deal with the Historical Commission into a GR-dedicated account and freeze up money for this budget for that agency. It also does what I call a technical correction to the Department of Information Resources. It's not a new fee, but it gives direction regarding the fees they are already collecting. Regarding the State Debt Calculation, it basically allows the Bond Review Board to use current data for the purposes of making the calculation of the Constitutional Debt Limit. They were advised to put this in statute as a result of their longstanding assumptions that they had used, that if they wanted to adopt what they considered more accurate assumptions, they were advised to get it in statute. That's what this does.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Castro, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Would the gentleman yield for a question or do you want to finish laying out the --

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: No. I'll be glad.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Part of the amounts that you talked about here were amounts from the Attorney General's Office, the attorneys not having to pay State Bar dues; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: And then the attorney and the Attorney General's Office not having to take CLE credit hours?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's right. Both of those having a Sunset date. I know that those were both bills. Did both bills pass through both the House and the Senate chambers?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I'm not aware if -- I think we passed the Bar Dues Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: The bar dues, but I just don't recall whether we passed both.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Yeah. I didn't think we passed the CLE, but I could be wrong with all the chaos of the Session. So what is the cost of the CLE? Because I dealt with the Bar Dues Bill in our Committee. But what's the cost of having the Attorney General's Office not -- the attorneys not have to go through the CLE?

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: All right.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: All right. It saves approximately $215,000 per year without any significant reduction. It says in efficiencies. It's about $215,000 per year.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: That the state will not have to pay --

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Will not have to pay for the CLE.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Now, I just want to be clear that we're saving money because we're really -- the loss is going to be taken by the State Bar of Texas; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That would be correct or whoever provides the CLE.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Right. Well, let's take the case of the bar dues.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yeah. On the bar dues, you're correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: So, I mean, we're saving money, really, at somebody else's expense?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I think I left off at the State Debt Calculation, and that's just authorizing the Bond Review Board to use more current assumptions, if they so choose in coming up and publishing the Constitutional Debt Limit. With regards to the Ethics Commission, there is an increase in the lobby registration and renewal fees, but it is capped at 50 percent. Originally, in the House Bill, it was up to 100 percent. This is adopting the Senate language, which was capped at 50 percent increase. There's also in this Amendment a Tactical User Differential Premium, dealing with ERS. It requires ERS to require a Monthly Tobacco Premium Differential. On the Commission on State Emergency Communication Poison Control Centers, it allows the CE-SEC to designate six medical facilities as Regional Poison Control Centers for the state so there is not a consolidation. It also provides for the expansion and use of certain of the tobacco settlement funds in Senate Bill 1579. It also takes on the Enterprise Fund and the Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs. It basically says that the program, I believe, that was started in San Antonio, that creates jobs and housing for people. It's a Jobs Bill that it would allow the Governor to designate that as a proper use of the Enterprise Fund. Public Assistance Reporting & Information System, and referred to as the PARIS System. This basically tries to ensure that the Texas Veterans' Commission is making full use of the Veteran's benefits available so that it can help potentially reduce our Medicaid enrollees. Then there is also lastly, a Grant and Contract Management, which is transfers uniform grant and contract management functions from the Governor to the Comptroller because the governor feels the Comptroller is better equipped to handle this function. I believe it is acceptable to the author. Move adoption. Move passage. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. There's one Amendment on the parking that I'm aware of.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Otto.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Okay. This is a correcting Amendment for the Facilities Commission. This deals specifically with the fact that surplus property was not transferred out of the Facilities Commission. So this gives them some authority to handle the surplus property. It also basically allows them to look at an energy facility in the future, dealing with the production of co-generation of electricity. Although they are currently under contract with Austin Power, it just merely gives them the authority to look into this. It is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Strama, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: May I have a question of the author?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Can you say that last part again.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: About the energy?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Basically, it's giving them the authority to look at whether or not -- it's not authorizing them to undertake any union or Capitol improvements. They have an existing contract with Austin Power, which gives them the lowest rate available for industrial classification. But it does allow them to look at whether or not the state would benefit from looking potentially at a co-generation facility for State-owned office buildings.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Okay. Can I just ask how recently that language was given to you? Because I know they just signed a contract. They did.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: And this is in no way meant to change anything regarding that contract.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Would it be fair to say this is -- I know that co-gen was a big subject of those negotiations. I think they both are pointed in the same direction on this. I just want to know if this is sort of consistent with the agreement that they'd struck and the direction that they've agreed to go and exploring?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: It is. It is not intended for them to -- it is not giving them the authority to pursue the creation of a co-gen facility. It's giving them the same authority that all other agencies have with regards to looking at this in the future.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: And just out of curiosity: Is it necessary to change that in the law?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Well, I mean --

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Or do they not have that authority now? I guess --

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Well, they wanted to clarification. We're adding the one item.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: And I'm looking through this Amendment real quick. Is it the first -- it's the first page, isn't it?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Can you help me find it in the Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: It's the first top part of the page. If you'll look at the new line. It, basically, says -- all we're doing is basically defining a project and giving them the same project authority that any other state agency has, but this is not enabling them to go out and build a Co-Gen facility. Okay? This was not a pre-filed Amendment, right?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: No. This was an Amendment to the Amendment because it was left out of the Article 1 Amendment. The Facilities Commission needed both the ability to deal with surplus property and also, this was an approved, No-Cost Amendment by LBB that said this is giving them the same authority that any other state agency has with regards to looking at these issues on procurement.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Okay. Do you have some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: That would give me time to find out -- I don't mistrust what you're telling me. I just want to make sure that I checked with Austin Energy about that.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Okay.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Otto, how does this Amendment play into -- I believe there's an Amendment later on down in the process that saves some, I don't remember, 3 to $6 million range, which that's come out of State Affairs that would move the Facilities Commission responsibilities and combine it in the General Land Offices shop, which already leases space for State agencies and handles State lands and those kind of things.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: This Amendment does not assume the merger of the Facilities Commission with any State agency.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So in the event that that Amendment is added, then it actually would increase the savings, I suppose?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: It would increase, I'm sorry, what?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Your Amendment doesn't necessarily have any savings in it?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: No. Mine is just trying to --

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: A procedural --

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Procedural because we did not transfer -- there were two discussions we were having regarding the Facilities Commission. One was the possibility of taking purchase plus property and moving to the Comptroller's office. That did not happen.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Therefore, we needed to go back and give them the authority now to handle surplus property. The second was the discussion regarding power and co-gen. This was an agreed to, No-Cost Amendment by LBB. It does not give them the Capitol authority to go out and build a co-gen facility.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Okay. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. He's going to request for a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye. Vote nay. This is on the Amendment to the Amendment. So Mr. Lucio voting aye. Show Mr. Bobac voting eye. Show Representative Hunter voting eye. Have all voted? Being is 138 ayes and 8 nays, the Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Geren.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Geren. The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Members, I want you to know this is tough for this Aggie to sit here and do this, but Representative Geren and I talked last night, and I wanted to let you know that the Parking Lease Program in no way will infringe on the tailgating for the University of Texas. And that's what this Amendment, basically, takes care of. I move passage. It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. We're waiting on an Amendment to be scanned.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Mr. Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Mr. Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. All this Amendment does is it deducts the Charitable Organization 501 C 3, 501 C 6's, and it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. We're waiting on the Amendment. The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment to the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Mr. Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, all this amendments does is conforming to what we passed on the Appropriations Bill and it allows the Texas Fire Commission to be self-sustaining, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Otto on the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. We're on Page 48. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Otto.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this Amendment repeals a recurring transfer of $250,000 per fiscal year from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission to the Texas Department of Agriculture for the Wine Marketing Assistance Program. It is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. This Amendment is on Page 230. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Truitt.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. The Law Enforcement Custodial Officer Supplemental Fund known as LECUS is meant to represent a supplemental retirement for State Troopers, game wardens, TACB officers and prison guards in recognition of their hazardous-duty jobs. This Amendment renames the distribution of certain court costs to the LECUS cost that will result in decreasing the liability in the funds. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Truitt sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted. Amendment on Page 241. The Amendment Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Cook.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment authorizes the Comptroller to contract with consultants to sit with procurement that have good potential for savings. It enables the Comptroller to bring procedure strategies, procurement strategy to the practice of the private sector to the state at no up-front costs. And I do have one Amendment to the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Cook.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment will allow the Comptroller to evaluate the potential statute to use utilize the potential savings to the entity documents and reports. It is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Cook sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: I believe the Amendment is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Cook sends up an Amendment as amended. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. Amendment on Page 720. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hildebran.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative -- the Amendment on Page 720 is temporarily withdrawn. The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This Amendment is the bill that we've already passed out of this House and over to the Senate, House Bill 2403 and the Nexus Bill. It also fixes a Carry-Over Statute in the old franchise tax that was cutting off some credits, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. We are on Page 726. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Lantroupe.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The Amendment on Page 771. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Otto.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the Article 4 Judiciary Amendment. There's a couple of items in here. This also contains an item that we passed in this House. It, basically, provides that on assistant prosecutors, if there's not sufficient funds for the payment of longevity supplements for Assistant Prosecutors to meet the requests made by the county, then the copy it would not be entitled to receive those moneys from the state. It also -- the process servers, it allows -- this is the bill that we did pass in this Chamber. It allows for them to, basically, have a fee that would be administered by the Supreme Court for process servers. It also changes the classification of the Judicial in-Court Personnel Training Fund from other funds to a dedicated general revenue account. It also eliminates the statutory rate for Juror Pay Reimbursement for each day after the first day. The rate is currently $40 per day after the first. It would -- with $34 per day reimburse the counsel it I for each day following that day. I believe it is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Otto, I'm sorry. I didn't get all of it before you were about to finish.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Right now we reimburse counties $40 per day per juror for trials that last more than, in essence, one day?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: And are we lowering that from $40 to $34?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Well, it just says here the rate is currently $40 per day after the first, and then -- yes, we're lowering that to $34 per day after the first day.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Okay. And so are counties still going to be required to pay $40 --

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's going to be up to the county.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Okay. So the county is authorized to pay $40 or they can pay whatever --

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Or they can drop down to what we're reimbursing them. We're basically eliminating the statutory rate.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The the Amendment's adopted. Back on Page 70. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hildebran.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hildebran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This is an Amendment that Mr. Otto and I have been working on to, basically, end out a program. Let me lay this out because we need to do a little legislative intent. In 2003 the Legislature passed a bill, HB 734 by Mr. Lottenberg that changed the definition of the place of business of a retailer, which is a term in the Tax Code that is used to determine where municipal sales and use taxes are sourced. This was done in an effort to exclude from the definition, so-called Sales Tax Billing Offices. These were the offices that entered into contracts with retailers to re-invoice items so as to ship the sales tax from the retailers location to the city where the Billing Office was located. And, typically, they involved a rebate by the city gaining a new tax back from the corporation generating the tax. My Amendment here on SB 1811 tightens that definition of place of business of retailer, and then moves the effective date. The original bill in '03, had an '05 termination date or expiration date where they weren't supposed to get in the program. There were a few that had a unique circumstance that were recognized by the Comptroller's Office and were allowed to continue. Those are being ended now with this Amendment. And there will be no more extended after September 1st. And the ones that are in that business today will be transitioning out because of this Amendment. It is intended to distinguish between the amount of purchasing companies that are making investments and add into that the tax base and sales tax billing offices where there is no true investment in municipality and additional value to the added tax base. It is the language that's been agreed to by the Comptroller and it has no fiscal note.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Otto, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Hildebran do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Chairman Hildebran, are you familiar with the term Additional Purchasing Companies, companies that typically are a part of an affiliated group of companies and exist to generate economic benefits through economies of scale, negotiating purchasing contracts and group discounts or other similar legitimate business functions?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes, I am.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: And are you aware that at the time we passed the 2003 bill, our intent was to stop those billing offices' types of arrangements without effecting the traditional purchasing companies and legitimate rebates where a city might agree to return a portion of the economic development sales tax to reimburse the developer for infrastructure structure or a true investment in the community that invested value into the tax base?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes, I am. And it's not my intent with this Amendment to change the way judicial purchasing companies are treated for municipal sales tax purposes.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: To summarize, then, your Amendment is intended to tighten up and further the original intent of House Bill 3534 while continuing to treat a traditional purchasing company as a place of business of the retailer for municipal sales tax purposes; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Otto, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I would move that the conversation between Chairman Hildebran and myself be reduced into writing and placed in the journal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Hildebran.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hildebran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Mr. Speaker, Members. This Amendment is a simple Amendment that makes clear that the effective date is September 1st, that no other -- they can't govern and it basically gives the one that are doing it now, the three months up to September 1st to transition out. Move adoption of the Amendment to the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hildebran sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted 678. The Chair recognizes Representative Hildebran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: I move adoption of the Amendment to the Amendment as amended.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hildebran sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. Representative Otto. Representative Smith of Tarrant. The Chair recognizes Representative Otto for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Amendment on Page 771 was passed.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The motion is adopted. We're back on the Otto Amendment on Page 771. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Smith of Tarrant.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Mr. Speaker, Members, this Amendment ensures the judges are reimbursed with the actual expense with fees associated with CLE seminars.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Smith sends up an Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Would you ask Representative Smith just to explain his Amendment where we can understand him.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: I thought I did that. It just ensures that judges continue to be reimbursed for actual expenses associated with CLE seminars. And it's acceptable to the author. Do you get it?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Smith, so now we're back on the actual Amendment, and now that I've had a chance to review the Otto Amendment, do you see that it now removes the pay to jury service for jurors?

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: I'm not here to address the Amendment itself. I'm just amending the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Okay. Well, I'll wait for Mr. Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Okay. I think it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Smith sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. We're back on the Otto Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes. Mr. Otto yields.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Now, Mr. Otto, I've had a chance to go back to my desk and read your Amendment, and amongst all the things that it does, previously the state paid in reimbursed counties $6, and counties paid jurors $6 per each day of jury service. And in many counties, like Dallas and Harris, that didn't even pay the parking lot fee. When years ago, I think it was four, maybe six years ago, we raise the amount of money that we paid jurors, from $6 to $40. And we are now eliminating that so that no longer is the state going to reimburse counties to pay jurors $40 per day, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: In other words, we're not -- it's not an unfunded mandate on counties, but we are eliminating it and going back to funding counties at $6 per juror per day?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Well, my notes tell me that the legislation would result in four different rates. Each fiscal year is determined by amounts appropriated and the reimbursement claim submitted by counties on a quarterly basis.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Right. But there's many things in your bill that have to do with judges pay and reimbursement, et cetera. I'm talking about the jury service because you strike through 40 and the only thing that's left is six.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's correct. It eliminates the statutory rate for jury pay.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Right. Goes back to six.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Six.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: From 40.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: And I'm not for that so I'll come speak against it.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Otto, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Chairman Otto, are you willing to accept an Amendment to take that portion of it?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I need to look and converse with the Chairman to find out what the fiscal note is on that one item.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And the reason why I raise that question: I mean, it's very difficult to get these jurors right now. So the fiscal savings, I believe, will be far outweighed by the impact on service by these jurors.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Jackson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: A question for Mr. Otto.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Otto, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Otto, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is if the state does not fund the $34 that we reimburse, that the counties don't have to pay it?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That's my understanding because we're striking the statutory provision.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: And that would be an unfunded mandate, and just for people's information, I think they'd like to know that just for Dallas County, the 34 dollars a day after the first day that has been refunded by the State for the county adds up to $965,000 a year. So each of your counties, if we don't do what -- if we don't leave in what you've got, each of our counties are going to be saddled with the unfunded mandate of some pro rata of that. For Dallas County, it's $965,000 a year.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: We're trying to determine what the true fiscal costs of this provision is.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Otto, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Now, it's not really I an unfunded mandate, is it? We require the counties to enforce the laws in the State of Texas, don't we?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes, we do.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: And shouldn't we pay for that? Should we pay for that?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: We require them to do it.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I'm not following what you're saying.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Well, the counties don't make laws, do they? Counties don't make the laws which end up being enforced by juries, do they?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: No.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: The state makes those laws, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Yes, they do.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Well, if we're going to require the counties to do it, why shouldn't we pay the jurors?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Pay the what?

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Pay the jurors.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Why shouldn't the State pay the jurors?

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Yes. Yes. They're serving on a jury that is -- we requiring them to serve and we're requiring them to administrate laws made by the State. I mean, it just seems to me that it makes far more sense. I don't look it at it as an unfunded mandate. The county can't say we're not going to enforce the laws of the State of Texas. And when it's a jury duty issue, it's not the county enforcing the laws of the county?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: I mean, you know, all the Amendment says is that the State shall reimburse the county the appropriate amount as provided in the general Appropriations act as opposed to the $34 per day.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Right. But the way I understand that, though, is that the $34 now -- well, the way I understand the Amendment is the -- we will pay jurors $6 a day rather than $40?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: That would be correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Well, I'm just asking about, you know, the efficacy of that given the fact that we want people to participate on jury duty, I assume?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Well, I don't have the fiscal part for this one provision taken out. If I can temporarily withdraw this Amendment, let us see if we can come back and fix that.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: I appreciate that. Because I think we ought to consider the fact that the counties are not operating on their own. The counties are operating on the basis of what the State has told them to do, which is to enforce the laws of the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Let me temporarily withdraw the Amendment so we can look and see what the bottom line is for that one item.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: All right. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hildebran.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hildebran. The Amendment on Page 20 is temporarily withdrawn. The Amendment on Page 21. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett. The Amendment is withdrawn. The Amendment on Page 352. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Workman.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment is withdrawn. The Amendment on Page 59. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment is withdrawn. The Amendment on Page 61. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Fletcher.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher. The Amendment is withdrawn. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Madden.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment on Page 67 has been withdrawn. The Amendment on Page 77. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment on Page 93. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Howard. The Amendment is withdrawn. The Amendment is on Page 96. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. This Amendment uses a small fraction of the Trama Funds in order to create some educational partnerships between medical and nursing schools and some of the hospitals to train the next generation of trauma physicians and nurses, and I believe there's an Amendment to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Zerwas, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Dr. Zerwas. What did you just say?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: As you know, we have a dedicated Trauma Account that comes from the Driver Responsibility Program. It has about $300 million in it right now, and those moneys are used to pay for Uncompensated Trauma Care. What this Amendment proposes to do was to dedicate a very small amount of that balance that's not used is to dedicate $4.5 million towards the fellowships for physicians and nurses to be trained in trauma. And it's actually already in HB 1 as a rider, and it was a bill that was heard in Public Health and passed out.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. So currently, how much do we have in the Trauma Care Account?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: It's about $300 million.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so you're taking 4.5 to go into education for physicians. Where will the 4.5 end up? At a particular entity or --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: It would be a Grant Program that various medical schools and nursing schools could apply for in conjunction with hospitals that tend to do a lot of trauma activity and could provide these fellowships.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so the money would go to the entity and not to the student? Not to an individual?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: It would go to the entity to support the position.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And to the extent that we're taking money out of Trauma Care, tell me what do we do with the balance of the Trauma Care Account?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Well, we have an HB 1, $57 million per year dedicated to Uncompensated Trauma Care for the coming year. About $115 million. This would be $4.5 million over and above that. So the trauma fund would have even more than half of the money that's in it right now unused.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so we're not appropriate rating the other half of the Trauma Care money? We're just leaving it in there in that account and using it for the certification?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: That's how it's been used in the past, yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And with this Amendment, we're only going to move 4.5 million, right?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: That's what we have, actually, baked into HB 1, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yes, ma'am.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield, Dr. Zerwas?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yes.

SPEAKER: Will UT Southwestern participate in this?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yes. Any medical school or nursing school that's involved in trauma is affiliated with a hospital that does a decent amount of trauma could qualify.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Eiland.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker, what the Amendment to the Amendment does is last Session we appropriated money to UTMB for FEMA-related repairs. And what this Amendment does is discontinue that appropriation because we haven't spent it all yet. And it expires on June 19th as opposed to going to the end of the biennium. And so we authorize them to just continue on with that same money.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield, Mr. Eiland?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Representative Eiland, the money that you're taking out of Trauma Care.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: I'm not taking any money out of Trauma Care.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: This was money previously appropriated to UTMB for the hurricane last Session. This has nothing to do with the Trauma Care.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: We had this Amendment ready for 1511. 1581 went away, and this was the only place that we could amend to get into this bill with this Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. I hear you. What does your Amendment cost?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: My Amendment doesn't cost anything. It's money that we previously appropriated to UTMB, and so we're making sure that they. If they don't get the contracts completed and encumbered by the June 19th deadline, that they will continue on and they can still have access --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Let me make sure I understand: If you have 45 million appropriated up through June 19th; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so if June 20th comes without this, would you not have money?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: We would lose some of those -- we would lose up to some of those funds. What I'm doing is just extending out 25 million in case FEMA does not get the contracts encumbered in time.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so what I'm asking you: Is this an additional 25 million --

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: No. It's part -- we appropriated UTMB approximately 150 million dollars for FEMA related projects, and in case they don't get that whole 150 million encumbered by June 19th. This would in essence, extend that authority, that $25 million up to that 150. So it's no new money.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So why wouldn't you be extending the whole entire 150 million through June 19th, if you're extending something that's already been spent?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Because --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: If it's been allocated or appropriated why wouldn't our extension be to just extend the current appropriation if it's not a new cost?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Because people as slow, and it takes a long time to get everything lined up and encumbered and contracted to spend all of the money.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. But it's the same 150 million is what you're telling me?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So why do we need to have a dollar amount in it versus just a date to extend it? We've already appropriated the 150 million, and it's already there, and you're concerned about a date. Why aren't we just moving the date versus adding additional costs?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Well, because we're confident that we're going to get nearly all of it encumbered. And so I didn't want to put a big number in there. So it's really not 17 million that we may not get encumbered by the June 19th deadline, but just to give us some extra room, I put the $25 million in there so that we can extend --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Well, then why wouldn't if be a cost to the bill if, in fact, -- I'm having a hard time understanding how you would -- what you're saying as it relates to -- there was 150 appropriated. You don't think you're going to get all the 150 encumbered by the date. And you're adding another 125 million. But if you're talking about the original 150 that you can't you can get encumbered, why do we have to add another 125 million?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: It says up to 25 million.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Why do we need to do 25 million if you already have 150 that you're not going to be able to spend by the June 19th date?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: We are going to be able to spend, we're confident, 133 million by that date. We don't know if we can get the other 17 million encumbered by that June 19th date. So I want to extend out beyond that June 19th date the previous authority on those funds. So --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But if I understand you, the previous authority would only be another 17 million, right? And so you're basically saying you want to extend out 25 million due you on, beyond June 19th, right? Is that what you're saying?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. And I think that we'll need 17 million -- we may not get 17 million of that encumbered by the June 19th date.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Well, do you understand why this doesn't make sense? It's not very clear?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. I could have put 17, but I just put 25. But it's no new money.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: The problem with it is when you talk about 150 million and then you say you got 17 but you're going to extend out 25, at some point that doesn't add up to me.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: But if the language of the Amendment, if you read it, it is still subject to the total of 150 total, period.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: It's not going beyond that 150 total. It just gives us more time to spend that much, up to the 150 and gives the authority to do that. But, you know, if you have questions, I'll withdraw it. We can --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Well, I just want to understand what you're doing because all of a sudden these numbers didn't match to me. If you had 150 million and you were going to extend it out, why would we claim 25 if you only had 17 left?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Right. But it's still subject to the original 150 appropriation.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: All right. Mr. Eiland sends up an Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Ms. Giddings.

REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, is Dr. Zerwas coming back?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, he is. Members, there is food in the lounge. It's pretty good. Mr. Geren recommends it. Oh, it's catfish. Very good. Dr. Zerwas will temporarily withdraw the Amendment on Page 96. Never mind. Back up, Members. We do have the Amendment to the Amendment scanned. The Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: In accordance with Rule 13, Section 7, on behalf of Lynn Arbor Brown giving notice that the Conference Committee on Senate Bill 1420, the TxDOT Sunset Bill, will meet at 9:15 upon Senate adjournment in room 3E4. You are hereby notified.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Do we have somebody that can tell us about the Amendment? I know we're waiting for another Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, we have an Amendment to the Amendment. Mr. Eiland is amending Dr. Zerwas' Amendment and Mr. Eiland will explain his Amendment to the Amendment. The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: So in accordance with what I talked about with Ms. Davis, I'm moving it from 25 million to 17 million. And so UTMB, last Session, we gave them 150 million for FEMA match. They have been working with FEMA to try and get all that money encumbered before the June 19th deadline comes because it is a supplemental Appropriations Bill. And what I'm trying to do is to extend the deadline that they can encumber those funds because it may be 17 million that they may not be able to get encumbered by that time because people as slow.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So it's only spent as its needed --

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. There's no new money. We had previously, and if you read the Amendment, it says out of funds previously appropriated.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So it's no cost to the bill? So there's no cost to the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: There's no cost to the bill that I know of.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. Maybe we could ask Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: The funds that are previously appropriated --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I get that. They've been swept and I guess the question: Is this an Amendment that is necessary for the bill or is this an Amendment that we're starting to get the people's wish list the bills that didn't get passed? I have no problem with helping you. I mean, us helping, but then we start going down this slope. So, Dr. Zerwas, is your Amendment -- is your Members on the list saying that this is one the ones that we need to pass?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Mr. Pitts and I spoke for the need for this Amendment to be done. It didn't make his had initial list. This is a bill that did pass out of Committee, as I explained when I laid it out.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Is it going to cost the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: It's already embedded in the cost of HB 1 at $4.5 million.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And why is it on here? Because everybody else has got bills that passed out of Committee they've all been pulling their bills.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I pulled three of my three bills.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And no disrespect to you, it's just --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I'll let Mr. Pitts speak to the need for this particular bill --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I mean if you need it for House Bill 1 to be successful, I'm all over that. That's what we're here doing tonight. Is it just because it's better and I mean life will be better if it passed, I mean, I've got five bills that didn't -- that were sitting on the calendar, they got killed the other night that I wish would be --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I'm happy to speak to the merits of the Amendment as it is --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: That's other good. And again, Dr. Zerwas, I don't mean any disrespect to you, personally.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: No problem.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Would Mr. Pitts speak to that?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts, will you respond to Mr. Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Is this on your revised list of Amendment's that you think would be helpful for House Bill 1?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Larry this is an Amendment that we've already passed. It was not on our list that we had to do. And that we gave to the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Caucus. And it is an Amendment that we have already assumed in our House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. Do you know if the funds from -- that Representative Eiland is discussing -- have those been swept? Have they been accounted for?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: This is not a cost to the bill. The moneys already there. It just gives him additional time to spend it in the current biennium; but we're going to go ahead and it's all going to be acceptable to the author, you're going to accept it -- I'm just making sure that everybody understood. It was not on our list that it was acceptable to the authorize. And it's my promise to the Democratic Caucus and to the Republican Caucus that I would not accept any other Amendment that wasn't on that list.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So how many of these Amendment's that we have out there that --

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: There are no more Amendment's.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So if we have a vote on this, we're all done?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I mean, that's what I want to know.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: The ones who you have voted on previously before this Amendment are the ones that we need as perfecting Amendment's or Amendment's for House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So how many more Amendment's after this one that, I think, we've already invested time in?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That are up here?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I'm not advised. That have not been withdrawn?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I am not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So now we're at a new chapter of this bill where the Democratic Caucus, Republican Caucus, they worked hard to remove Amendment's, and now these are on those things that, I guess, people are just going to make their case of why they should take our time to do this?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. And what with you suggest us to evaluate? I mean, heck, Dr. Zerwas, I want to give it to him. What kind of parameter would you think we should, what kind of lynch are we looking at to decide these Amendments?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: This should have been on the list.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Sir?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: This Amendment should have been on the list that we were given, you were given. I am going to be opposing the rest of the Amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. If you think that this is something that helps the bill, HB 1, or is instructed to it, that's fine.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: This is something that we have assumed in House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So you're not opposing this one?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I'm not opposing this one. I think we have one more that has not been done that's going to be taken as we get to it.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. Now, what about the Education --

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That's the one.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. I just want to make sure so we can all plan. Because I think everybody's worked real hard to pull Amendments. So I would be glad to apologize to Dr. Zerwas and, hopefully, you will quickly accept the Amendment to the Amendment to we can get going.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I accept the Amendment to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Wait a minute, Mr. Speaker. I'd like ask a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Ms. Davis?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Chairman Pitts needs to answer a question with regard to this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield, Mr. Pitts?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Chairman Pitts. I'm listening to your discussion with Chairman Phillips. I just want to understand one thing. Whether or not this Amendment is a cost to the bill in any form or fashion? If it's 150 million that Craig had appropriated and he wanted to get the million extended. And I know Dr. Zerwas said his 4.5 came out of the Trauma Care, which had 300 million. I'm just wondering from an accounting standpoint whether or not this Amendment has any impact on the overall budget as it is today? If there's --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: This is an appropriation we made in proposed House Bill 1. So yes, it does cost, but it comes out of the trauma fund. Craig's Amendment is an Amendment concerning the Trauma Fund that would allow -- health related to be able to spend the money before the end of the biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: The 150 million that was appropriated out of Hurricane Fund or Disaster Fund that Craig was spending is an additional 17 million cost to the bill, is that what you --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: That is not on the House Bill 1. It's money that's already been appropriated to him previously.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Yeah. But let me ask you something. You're saying two different things. Is the money in House Bill 1 -- does it allow for an account for the 17 million that Craig is trying to appropriate now, if not, it's a cost to the bill, as I understand it?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: No. Back from the last biennium, we appropriated this money.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Well, would you agree that based on the last biennium, is based on their not being money? And so if there's no money and all of a sudden we are appropriate rating 17 million, wouldn't that be a new appropriation based on the fact that you don't have 17 million set aside for that activity?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: This money has already been appropriated to UTMB.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But you didn't put the account when you were doing all the other --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: The accounts weren't supposed to be sent yet, Yvonne. --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: It expect --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: If the money expires before the biennium, is there money in that fund still? Is that what you're saying in.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: If it is not sent at the end of the time that was provided for in House Bill 1 for this particular Appropriations, that money in August will be flipped.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. And so for this particular biennium, the 150 million or the balance, the 17 million, is already appropriated for this activity in House Bill 1? Is that what you're saying?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: In House Bill 1, that the agencies are operating under today.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So is House Bill 1 that we are appropriating more for the next biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: For this next biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: This current biennium is that we're giving them authority to extend through the current biennium?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: That's through the current biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And that money is appropriated already?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: All right.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so there's no cost to the bill by using that money for this --

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: No there's no cost.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, I actually have a Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: To follow up on Chairman Phillips' comment: This bill, as I understand it, or the contents, really has been postponed one times have the Amendment's were required to be pre-filed so they've been on file for a long time. Members have been waiting for a long time to off their Amendments. At some point, as I understand the process, Mr. Pitts is taking what I would guess to be optimistically called the perfecting Amendment that he's intending to accept on to the bill. At some point we are going to reach the Amendment's which are not acceptable to Mr. Pitts. Is it the Chair's intent to allow the Members who have been waiting all of this time to offer thighs Amendment's -- is it the Chair's intent to allow the Members to offer their Amendments or is it the Chair's intent to entertain a Motion to move the previous question and cut off the date on those Amendments?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's the Chair's intention to allow each member to offer their Amendments have.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So regardless of the number of Amendment's that have been pre-filed, it is the Chair's -- I understand that a lot of them have been pulled. But it is the Chair's intent to allow the Members to offer their Amendments?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It is the Chair's intent to allow the Members to offer their Amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We are back on the Eiland Amendment to the Zerwas Amendment. Mr. Eiland withdraws his Amendment temporarily. Members, we're on Page 141. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villareal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Villareal. Is Mr. Villareal on the floor? The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on Page 150. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego. The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Is Mr. Villareal on the floor or anywhere close? The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo. The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Members, obviously, if you have Amendments, please be paying attention to the order the Amendment's are cup coming or up here around, and when your name is called, please come quickly for the other Members. Members, we are going through the books. Amendment by Amendment that have not been withdrawn. Mr. Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I just want today make sure I understood, maybe it would with be a Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I believe I heard that Mr. Pitts said he's going to object or oppose all remaining Amendment's other than the one dealing with the Education and the one with the draw. Is that correct?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: That's what I heard and he is shaking his head, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, we're on Page 152. Mr. Villareal. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villareal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Villareal. Members, again, wear on Page 152. Members, the Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Martinez on the floor of the House. The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Callegari. Members, we're on Page 190. The Amendment is on Page 190 is withdrawn. Ms. Davis of Dallas. Members, we're on Page 191. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. This is an Amendment that would allow us to evaluate the various exemptions that we have in place. Currently, we have given companies in businesses tax exemptions and allowed them to have a tax write off or exemption, and it's money that the State sorely needs in terms of providing the services that we need for the residents of the State of Texas. This bill or Amendment will allow us to evaluate the various (inaudible) to get a schedule how we can look at these moneys that the State is losing so that we can try to recoup some of the funds that would be due to the state so that we could provide the necessary services. This is a simple Amendment. It just allows us to do some sort of evaluation so we can determine whether or not there is some --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Burnam for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Speaker work the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, the lady yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Thank you. Ms. Davis, your Amendment does not raise taxes?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: It does not raise taxes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: It is not an additional fee he?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: No. It's not a fee.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: But enables us to look at the possibility of generating more funds to address the problems with our structural deficit?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's correct. Currently we have allowed companies to have exemptions, and what we're trying to do with this Amendment is allow us to do some sort of regular review of those exemptions to determine the value that those exemptions are brought to state government or those benefits that the State gets because of those exemptions.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Were some of those exemptions established 50 years ago when we first set up the sales tax?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: And they have not been reviewed in 50 years?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: They have not. In many instances they've been not been reviewed to determine what the value is to the State. Because they were important to the states economy. Some were created because they created "X" amount of jobs. Some were created because they would allow -- we could bring companies into the State. Some were -- for various reasons. But we have no reporting where it tells us whether or not that same value is associated with this exemption or benefit to the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: So when we started the Session, there were estimates that we might be as much as $27 billion in debt and all this proposed Amendment does is suggest that maybe we should study and figure out whether or not we have outdated exemptions and appropriate exemptions? Maybe we're not being as wise as we should northbound the way we collect our sales tax in.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's exactly right. And with the $27 billion deficit, and as you know, we're deal with Appropriations process right now where we're talking about not being able to fund education at the right level, not providing necessary resources for healthcare, not taking care of our school districts. We need to look at all resources available to the State if we're serious about having a transparent budget process and having transparency where the funds are this is an example of what we need to do so that we can review. In fact, those kind of things that are coming up before us and make sure that the state realizes the benefit that they were supposed to provide to the State.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Does it seem to you that it would make more sense to have this sort of study than to keep playing the shell games that apparently are going on in this bill and other budget discussions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And Representative Burnam, that's exactly why we brought this Amendment to the floor. Many Members are new Members. They don't realize that the state has $27 billion off the budget off the table. They came in saying no new taxes, no new fees, not realizing that we were not even collecting you all of the dollars that would be available to the State. To me the, it's requirements and it's responsibilities to the citizens of Texas. Everybody is kind of expecting us to take these hard budget cuts without putting all of the dollars on the table and looking at and seeing what's setting priorities for the State of Texas. Let me just add this: Many of the businesses, many of them, that have these exemptions are making record profit while the State is broke. We pretend we don't want to say it, the State's broke. We're eroding our education system have we're eroding our healthcare system and we're sitting here leaving $27 billion off the table and not talking about it. And at the very least, to be responsible to our citizens and to this State, we ought to, at least, have a way to exam them and provide to the State of Texas and then determine whether or not we want to keep them.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: So this is kind of like the Responsible Adult Amendment, you're responsible to find out what your options are before you make bad decisions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's exactly what this Amendment is trying to do, is say to everyone here that if we're going to make decisions, let's make it with informed information.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: So do you have any idea why we have it acceptable to the author that did nothing to review or evaluate how we might generate more income?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: This is not cost to the bill. We have the Sunset Commission. We have the ability to do it and we're just unwilling to it because of special projects for special folks and special interest. At this time we need to have a special interest for the citizens of the State of Texas and make budget and transparent and commit ourselves to looking at all options, including the exemptions. It makes no sense for us to ask people

(inaudible) $40 million $405 billion quarterly returns an exemption.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: So the question I was going to ask is: Why isn't it such that that this really simple Amendment that is not about shell games, that is not about robbing Peter to pay Paul, that it's not about kicking the can down the road. It's a simple Amendment to provide the opportunity to build in a study and, an assessment of what we may be missing out on?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: It would.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: It would appear that this Session is about remember can politics and not about policy for the State of Texas. And I say that very earnestly because if we were dealing with policy, we would all want to know what's available to us to represent our Districts as best we can and to provide as much input to this process to benefit the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: So you think responsible decision makers have the responsibility to find out what the options are before they make more bad decisions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And particularly when we talk about transparency, if we really want to be transparent and have an open budget process, why would we start with all of the things that are available to the state as a tool to raise income across the board responsibly address those issues?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Well, I think you have a really good Amendment. You've convinced me that it should be acceptable to the author. So author, Chairman Pitts, is this going to be acceptable? Thank you, Ms. Davis.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I oppose this Amendment, which is House Bill 784, that never got out of the Committee.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Davis to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Chairman Pitts, and while I expected you to -- did you move to table? While I expect you to oppose this Amendment, I still think it's important that those of us who are here to represent our constituents, we ought to at least be concerned that we would take and oppose an Amendment (inaudible) If you look at what's going on around this Capitol, and if you look at the kind of things we're passing and you don't understand what's available out there, you can only make the decision, based on the information you have. This Amendment would allow us to become better as Members and we're able to explain to our constituents why the necessary cuts, why certain things are in place. And then we're able to determine what had changes we can make. So Members, understand, that there are some deals (inaudible) I understand that many of you pulled down your Amendment's because it's political expedient for you and your various caucuses. I will tell that you this Amendment is just a commonsense Amendment so that you can be a better, more informed legislature so that you can represent the interests of this State on your constituents versus just being here to go along and get along. We ought to be thinking about how do we govern this State and how we make decisions based on that. And I will tell you that this Amendment allows you to be more informed. It's not about either of the parties --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises the postpone. The gentle ladies Point of Order is taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I ask you to vote for this Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: And, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a record vote.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Davis sends up an Amendment. The question on the Davis Amendment. Vote aye. Vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting no. Mr. Bobac voting no. Mr. Hardcastle voting no.

(Inaudible). All Members voted? Being 98 nays, 47 ayes, Amendment fails. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I'm so glad to have this time to bring good government to you because I know many of you missed it off of this grand Amendment. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. This is an Amendment that in reviewing the various things as it relates to the budget process, we contacted the Comptroller and requested for information, and what we found out is the information that the Comptroller was not able to tell us how she got her information. If any of you all are familiar with the tax exemptions and Tax Incidence Report, in 2009, the Comptroller estimated the total -- (inaudible). In 2010, the total amount of exemptions provided was about $38.2 billion. The amount in exemptions from state taxes, a corporation or business enjoys. It just lumps it together. This Amendment will require the Comptroller to include in the report the actual dollar amount for business received in exemptions. The Amendment would enhance the level of transparency so that we would actually know what companies are getting these billion dollars of deductions to the tune of $39 billion.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: When was going to ask the lady a question when she's ready.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Are you ready, Ms. Davis?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Let me just finish one thing.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: She's still laying out her Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Members, this past Incidence Report said there was right at $27 billion, but we don't know what entities got those tax reductions. And so this Amendment would just ask that the Comptroller, when they put out their Incidence Report, that they would tell what companies and how much they actually got in terms of an exception is that we will know the various folks that are utilizing these exceptions, and can determine whether or not that's something we think they still ought to enjoy. With that I'll, yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Ms. Davis, as I understand your Amendment, the additional language that you're adding would apply to any business entity that pays taxes; is that correct, and receives the reduction of taxes so that essentially the taxpayers would know who's getting -- the beneficiary of any exception that the Legislature passes and what the benefit was in terms of the actual dollars?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's exactly right. Because right now it's just the -- the report does not define what the difference is, what those benefits, who receives them. And in order for us to determine what the value is, we really need to know who actually received those benefits and reductions in taxes. If they're creating jobs, if they're important for our economy, it's good for us to know those companies that are using these exceptions and that's what this Amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So it would be helpful in terms of doing a Cost Benefit Analysis so that you would know the costs of the exception and you would be able to compare that (inaudible) in terms of jobs or other expenditures so that you would be able to balance and make a determination as to whether or not that exception would be good public policy.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's what we're trying to do, Representative Gallego. What we found is so many times we don't even know who and what these exceptions are for. And again (inaudible) again, this Amendment is for transparency. We don't know what it is we're doing with these funds we're not collecting. What's going on with them. You I mean, it could be that there's a great benefit to the State and to the great investment. But without knowing and knowing who's getting them, it's hard for us to determine and realize the benefit because it's just lumped together. And so the Comptroller indicated to us they could not determine who was getting these benefits and so the extent that they could

(inaudible) we ought to know what our investments are. Because these tax exceptions because investments and we ought to know what we're vesting. That's what this Amendment does.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Reynolds, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Would the gentlelady yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Ms. Davis, this Amendment simply is an open --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: What this Amendment does, it doesn't cost the bill, it doesn't create any costs or expense to the bill. This is good Government to say we're giving exceptions, you're doing it in these categories. We need to know who's getting them. What the benefit is to the State so that we can martial our support for them as they're good and continue them. If they've outgrown their use, we'll at least have accurate data to determine if they've outgrown their use and this will just allow us to know who and what. It's just transparency.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: And as an elected official isn't it our fiduciary responsibility to be as open and transparent to the taxpayers as possible?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: It is our responsibility and, quite frankly, we would think it would be good information. So that you would be an informed legislator and be able to discuss with your constituents why we made these investments, what the investment is to the State but we have to know it. And without this Amendment, we don't capture that information. We don't know it. And so we as legislatures ought to have some notion of what our investments from and what the benefit is so that when our constituents come and ask us what happened here or why does this company get an exception and why are we giving them exceptions and why are they not paying sales tax? Why are they not paying property tax? We will have the answer for them by virtue of collecting the data and determining what it is and that they're providing to the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: And possibly, instead of (inaudible) our children and our seniors, we can possibly create more revenue by closing some of the corporate loop holes that we have right now, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: There is no question that there is probably moneys that we could bring to the table to pay for what we call necessary its for our state to be maintaining a strong presence and not erode education and healthcare. And so knowledge is the answer to knowing where we have some vulnerabilities that we can put back in the budgetary process and make them more useful and more helpful to make the State as long as we'd like for it to be.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: And won't you agree that right now we pretty much have a structural deficit with our budget?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: There's no question that there's a structural deficit. There's no question based on the way we are putting fund together for this budget that we sort of need revenue. That we need to are reevaluate what our priorities are. We need to know where we're investing from dollars. There's no question that this budget, if no other budget calls for us to be prudent legislators and look at everything so that we don't do harm to the people of this State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: It sounds like your Amendment will do that. It will allow us to have an open discussion about possible because that we could increase our revenue without raising taxes by closing possible corporate loop holes that people shouldn't have anymore, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I think that's correct. And you know, Representative Reynolds, I don't know why everybody's afraid to look at this. We've been talking about the budget deficit and I've heard a couple Members say we looked at it during the interim. Well, we really didn't look at it, and the Comptroller told me they couldn't provide us this information. So, in fact, if they can't provide us the information, if they're not collecting the information, how do we look at it? So this Amendment is gone because the Comptroller said they don't have the information.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: I happen to whole heartedly agree with you, and I think it's an excellent Amendment. Thank you for bringing it.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And Members, I would ask you again, and I recognize the climate in which we work, and I understand everybody and I heard somebody say the Hunter Club, the Century Club. I'm fine with being in the Century Club if I'm trying to do what's right. And I think it's important that you all recognize --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hobson raises the Point of Order. The gentlelady's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the exchange between myself and Representative Davis be placed in the journal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Are there any objections? The Chair hears none. The Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, I oppose this. This was not a bill. It did not have a hearing and I oppose it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will Chairman Pitts yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Davis' Amendment, are you acknowledging, is a way for us to have more information about tax exemptions of all sorts?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I'm not saying that some of these are not good ideas or bad ideas. Ms. Thompson has probably that's probably a good idea, but I'm going to be has something that's probably a good idea, but I'm going to be consistent. I'm going to be consistent. I am going to oppose every Amendment --

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: So you agree that this could be a good idea?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I'm going to say that it might need to have a bill filed and a hearing next Session.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: You know and I understand, well, I think first to the substance of the issue there was a number quoted, the amount of exceptions that we give out, I imagine per biennium, is about $39 billion. Do you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I'm not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: This is not a bill. It's not a hearing, and so I don't think all the facts have been presented.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Well, do you agree with the fact that those exceptions are not itemized or we don't know exactly what they are or, you know, maybe even what the full total is?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know, I'm just going to keep on repeating, but I'm going to be consistent that I'm not judging on whether this is a good, proposed bill for next Session or not. I'm going to oppose this Senate Bill 1811.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: And I guess I have one point and one question. I guess, Chairman, do you realize that part of the reason that tax exemptions, closing tax loop holes get less out of the discussion in our budget is because we lack information to understand fully and completely how much they are, which industries are getting them and the effect on the budget. So I don't see the Amendment as a complicated Amendment. I mean, we just want to understand what exactly is going on. Why would you be against understanding exactly what's going on?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Because you I made a promise to your public and the Republican Caucus that I would oppose all the Amendments that were after the perfecting Amendments and there's one that I have that I'm a sponsor of that I'm going to oppose.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: But even if this is a policy, I think -- I think, I mean, most folks would agree with this transparency.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know, I think you have a bill that you should file for the next Session.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Chairman.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Reynolds.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Yes, I have one question if the gentleman will yield for one question.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Chairman Pitts, I think you have done an admirable job and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I simply have one question for you: Do you think it's possible that a corporation, let's just say, a big corporation that's been very, very profitable can out live its exception?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I think that should be testimony before a Committee next Session.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: But that's just a simple question: Do you believe it's possible?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I am not advised. I'd like to hear the testimony that would be next Session on this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Well, I have a follow-up: Wouldn't it be prudent to have a hearing and provide an open debate to see if whether or not a corporation has out lived its exceptions?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I think it would be prudent -- go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Don't we owe it to the taxpayers to make those kind of critical decisions? Don't we have a fiduciary duty if we're talking about not having structural deficits and $27 billion short falls to find every avenue to increase revenue without raising taxes?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I think it would be prudent for you and Ms. Davis to file a bill next time and have a hearing on that bill so the testimony can be given in a public hearing and not on the floor of the House when we're passing Senate Bill 1811.

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: And I respect that, but I will respectfully say that it's my understanding, and Ms. Davis can correct me if I'm wrong, that she did file a bill and it never did get a hearing. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: The same to you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Davis to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. Let me just say for the record I have filed bills trying to get us to review exceptions and I have tried to talk with the Comptroller and ask them about giving us information and they told us they didn't have it. It wasn't available to us. So we've tried to go through the process. But just as you've made a deal on the House Floor, not to take Amendments and to oppose everything, your Chairman and various committees have the same kind of response to democratic bills, that don't agree or fit in with their legislative agenda. And so to the extent that I respect this, this would be proper if with we had an open process in the committees that would lend itself to proposal dialogue and discussion of the issues versus us having to be relegated to hearings when it's too late in the process, then we wouldn't be on the floor discussing this. We would have a process that would lend itself to having legitimate debate on legitimate public policy that's good for the State of Texas. And it wouldn't be limited to when you deem appropriate. But whenever this House is discussing issues, legislative policies that would be good for the State of Texas, ought to be something that is available to put on the floor any time that we're debating. And so with that, Members, I will just tell you, this and other bills relating to reviewing this is an appropriate time when the House is in Session. And when we're discussing budgets and when we're discussing the lack of funds and resources to provide for our constituents, what more appropriate time to discuss how we can find transparency in our budgetary process than now? So while I respect that there's an agreement that Members will pull down and not discuss the various issues that are important for this State of Texas, I am not willing to relinquish my responsibility to my constituents to stand up and fight for things that will provide additional resources and ideas so that we can pass an Appropriations Bill that's not perceived to be so harmful to the State and those people that we represent in the state. So I always think its appropriate. We only have today, and since I'm not able to get anyone to take this serious in the Committee process, I bring it to the floor hoping, just hoping, that Members will recognize they have a responsibility to their 145,000 folks in their Districts to look at options to make sure that we've looked at all options to bring these issues forward and hopefully we can find a Resolution as it relates to these budget short falls and budget cuts. And to be more informed can only help each of us. And I'm sorry if you don't have an appreciation for that good government, but it's not going to lessen my responsibility and/or responsibility to bring it to you. And if you don't have the wisdom to accept it, that's not going to be on me. That's going to be on each of you who go back home and say, yeah, we cut your education. Yeah, we took your job at the School District. Yeah, we laid off -- you'll have to answer that and you'll need to have an answer for what did you do to try to make a difference and stop this from happening? And then you tell them you made a commitment to not having the Amendment's on the floor and you tell them that you decided you won't consider public policy, you're going to make a political decision. You go back home and you tell them that because I'm going to go back home and tell them I stood up, I fought, I tried to offer them good Government and the Members of the Legislature are just not willing to hear it. So you all are going to have to make them list not at home. And then when those of you look around next Session and you don't see your friends, you'll know why.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Davis, sends up an Amendment. The vote is on the Davis Amendment. A record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Vote aye. Vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Mr. Pitts voting no. All Members voted? There being 97 nays, 49 ayes. Amendment fails. Members, we're on Page 203. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hardcastle.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Hardcastle.

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. And, you know, this exhilarating debate and all the things we talk about that we're closing and not closing. My Amendment has to do with the fact we created the Texas cord blood bank in San Antonio Texas ten years ago, and we use cord blood now in replacement for a lot of bone marrow transplant. And so my Amendment is the cost saving Amendment to the Medicaid system and to the bill and to the State of Texas aside from saving lives, every time we use cord blood instead of bone marrow, we save $45,000. And last year the Medicaid case rate for bone marrow transplants, we did 400 bone marrow transplants, just in the last 12 months. It was actually the Cord Blood Center at M.D. Anderson and the blood bank at San Antonio were actually funded in the Senate Bill. They were not funded in House Bill 1, and this Amendment would simply leave the right for LBB to fund them if they had a little budget trash laying around that they could keep one of the greatest scientific things that we have in Texas things open.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Hardcastle, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Hardcastle. In your last couple of sentences, what did you say? This will be funded if --

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: Well, and I'm quoting some numbers crushers, but basically what it takes the funds from the Cord Blood Bank in comparison to our total budget is budget trash. You know, we're talking about 2 to $4 million to run the whole program.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Right. But correct me if I misunderstood you, but I thought you said if there was money available, LBB could --

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: No. I said by having this in the record, the LBB would have the option of going back and saying this in the bill, but we can go ahead and fund it in our interim charges.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Right. And in a time that we're dealing with such a fiscal crisis, that would be unlikely, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: I would not venture a guess.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: I sympathize and I support the goal of the research that you're trying to fund. As I mentioned, we are in a fiscal crisis and we've got people potentially not having a bed in a nursing home and kids not have a sufficient amount of teachers to teachers them and so on. You mentioned a statistic that each time it was used 45,000 was saved. Do you have a total dollar amount of what you project this to be in I'm trying to determine how this is a fiscal matter? I mean, you mentioned that statistic but we're dealing with raw numbers right now and we've got --

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: And the 45,000 is what we save every time we use cord bloods instead of a bone marrow transplant. A bone marrow transplant right now costs you $225,000.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: But those are private costs, right? It's not costs the State is paying?

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: That's Medicaid bone marrow transplants.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Then can you give me a dollar amount --

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: And that is the entire treatment for the bone marrow transplant.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Can you give me a dollar amount to the total expenditure?

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: I'm not advised. My main point was that everybody know that we're not just knocking schools five percent or just nursing hopes X number. You know, without being in the budget, the Cord Blood Bank in San Antonio closed.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: How much are they funded right now?

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: This budget, none. It would take about three -- I believe two and a half, $3 million for them, and a million, two, for the Cord Blood Bank at M.D. Anderson.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: In the past, how much has they been funded?

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: I don't have those figures right here in front of me.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: I'm just trying to determine a dollar amount. What this would cost our budget if funded. I'm sorry that I don't have a sufficient answer for you.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Hardcastle sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is withdrawn. Ms. Truitt. Mr. Farias. Mr. Guillen. Members, we're on Page 261 of the following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Farias.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, Members, I want to take you back one Session. In the 81st Session I introduced a bill that would require employers to notify employees if they qualified for an income tax credit return. Well, we found out that in 700,000 folks that qualify for an income tax return, credit return, are not getting or applying for that money. So we're leaving in the Federal Government, between 1.4 billion and $1.9 billion in money that should be coming to Texas. What this bill does, it allows the Comptroller to identify how many employees or people that qualify are not applying for this money. The reason being: We need to find out who they are so we can get these people to apply for their money to bring it back to Texas. Each one of your Districts there are millions of dollars that are left with the Federal Government because our folks within our Districts are not applying for that money. And so in order to boost the economy in Texas and get our money from the Federal Government that is owed to the people of Texas, we need to get them to apply for this earn earned income tax credit. And with this study that the Comptroller will perform will actually identify who is and who is not applying for the money. So all this does is just require the Comptroller to conduct the study on the effect of the provision of Federal Government income tax, as well as the number of tax credits claiming the credit and the number of tax credits in this had state who are eligible to claim that credit but who do not claim it. That's all this bill does have we always say that the Federal Government is keeping our money have all we're asking is these folks that we identify them and get them to apply for this. Remember, there's 700,000 Texans that do not apply for that earned income tax credit.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Lyons.

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Yes, I will.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: Do you know in Wichita Falls we have an active program that actually goes through the EITC Program. It brings back about or $4 million a year, through a lot of our non-profits led by the United Way?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Do you know how many are not applying?

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: We know that there's probably another 40, 50 percent who aren't reaching out that we're not reaching.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to reach those folks because the way the economy is in Texas, we need all the help we can get. And if we're leaving this money with the Federal Government, I think we need to find who they are and start getting them on board to get them to start applying for their money to help our own District and the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: Well, I agree with the effort and I agree with the idea. I just don't know that we as a state need to run it from the top down. I'd rather see communities do it from the top up where it's making an impact and it can help folks out. We also do financial planning.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I agree. We've got 700,000 people who are out there. And we need to identify who they are. Once we do that, we can start helping our economy by bringing this money into Texas and not leave it with the Federal Government.

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: All in all, I just think it's a great idea. We just need to find some way to do it. We differ on ways to do it but either way we need to get after it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts to oppose.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this is House Bill 1352 that never got out of Committee. I oppose.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Farias to close.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, Members, it didn't get out of Committee because we haven't had time and we've been busy doing other things, but that doesn't mean the idea is not good. The idea, I believe, is great and we passed a bill last Session. All we're trying to do is to follow up. But because it didn't get out of Committee and it didn't get a hearing, that doesn't mean we didn't we didn't have a good idea. It just means we didn't get a hearing. That's all it means. But I'm telling you right now, if you want to leave all this money with the Federal Government, then you vote no. If you want to bring this money back to Texas then you vote with me and vote to table. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Farias sends up an Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Farias, let's roll it back a little bit. Vote yes on my Amendment. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Farias sends up an Amendment. It is a record vote. Vote aye, vote no, Members. Show Mr. Farias voting aye. Mr. Pitts voting no. All Members voted? There being 94 nays, 51 ayes. Amendment fails. Mr. Guillen. We are on Page 275. The clerk will read the Amendment. The big guy will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: We've got several Amendments that we're going to go through; is that right?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We still did, yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And so has anything changed besides what the Chairman said that he was going to oppose all Amendments except for the specific ones we talked about already?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don't believe anything has changed.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. And so we're just going through Amendments?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We are going through the Amendment's that are filed, yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Villareal, state your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: I understand we're going to be accepting an Amendment by Representative Eissler that pro-rates, or we're going to be debating an Amendment by Representative Eissler that pro-rates revenue, formal funding to our schools by uniform percentage cuts. I also understand that School District runs have been delivered to our e-mail box. Did you know if we can have these runs redone so we know how much each School District will be receiving per weighted average daily attendance? And I know this is not your typical Parliamentary Inquiry, but this is a critical Amendment that is going to impact the funding of all of our school districts, and we need to have a complete picture before we enter the debate.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You are right, sir. I don't know who is making those runs, though. The Chair is not advised, but certainly Mr. Eissler is sitting in his chair over there to make sure that we have plenty of time for the Members to look at their school IDSD runs. And certainly urge you to go and visit with Mr. Eissler. He is on the floor. And according to the Chair of House administration, that there is a new run that will be coming out soon, the ones that you have received are incorrect. So be expecting -- the corrected ones are already out? Well, I'm sorry. We are getting conflicted. The main thing, Members, is to visit with Mr. Eissler. He is on the floor in his Chair. The Chair Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment incorporates the Members who have widespread among groups creating openness and responsibility. These groups range from Texas Impact to Texas Public Policy Foundation to the Texas Association of Business. Specifically this Amendment would have the Legislative Budget Board meet annually, get updates from the Controller on State Revenue and Economic Trends. It would create a Section of the General Appropriations Act to break out fee increases in the budget. It would require the LBB to hold public hearings on Interim Budget Reductions from the public and legislative leadership. It would also have the Controller publish a Fee Schedule at the end of each fiscal year explaining the use of fee revenue. It would have the State's Cash Advancement Committee hold a public hearing on the State budget and Texas economy before approving tax and revenue anticipation notes. Also, the Committee would meet no more than 90 dies before the Controller issues these trends. Members, this will really be open government. This is about people understanding what we're doing here. We have increased fees in this State every Session since I've been here, since 2003. I think it's about time that the people of Texas know what these fees are, what they're going towards. Again, this has the wide range of support from Texas Impact, on the last two, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the Texas Association of Business. And finally, and probably most importantly, my friends Warren Chisolm supports this Amendment. So with that, thank you, Mr. Chisum. So with that, Members, I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I oppose.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Rodriguez to close.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I guess that's that then. But this Amendment, Members, is very -- it's a very -- I would agree it's a very good idea. Okay. He won't Members, again, this is about open government. This is about the people of Texas knowing what we're doing here in terms of our fees around the State and what we're trying to do and I think it's a great idea. Members, please vote in favor of this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Rodriguez sends up an Amendment. Mr. Pitts to oppose. It is a record vote. Vote aye. Vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Mr. Pitts voting no. Mr. Lucio voting aye. All Members voted? All Members voted? There being 95 nays, 48 ayes. Amendment fails. Members, we're on 288. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Cain.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Cain.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is just an Amendment to clean up the Section on which the Amendment is going to apply and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to Amendment to the Amendment by Cain.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Cain.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Mr. Speaker, Members, this Amendment simply clarifies the appropriate article and Section in the Amendment in which the current Amendment will apply and it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Cain sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. It is acceptable. Is there any opposition? The Chair hears none. Now, we're back to the Cain Amendment as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Mr. Speaker, Members, this is an Amendment to clarify the budget so that when you read it, you can understand it. And I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this was last biennium's appropriation and I oppose the bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Cain to close.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Mr. Speaker, Members, how many of you are able to open the budget and tell where we're spending money and on what programs we're spending the money? There are 27 people in here that can, but there's 123 that may not have such an easy time. And there are 25 million people out here that can't open the budget and figure out where we're spending the money. Now, there's no one in this room that's more excited about getting this bill passed than getting out of the House tonight. But this is the most appropriate time to do something that we haven't done since before 1993. And that is be able to pick up the budget, identify the programs that we're spending money on, how much we're spending on it, where the authority is for the spending, and where we're getting the money. All this Amendment does is require an annotation to the budget. It doesn't require a rewrite of it. It doesn't require a re-budgeting process. It just simply requires an annotation to the budget that will identify for each of us at a thumbnail, where the moneys spent. The folks in here who can read the budget and understand it, they have to look at these different forces to be able to do that. The proposed budget, the legislative budget estimate, the fiscal size-up. The Committee substitute.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: I will in just a moment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: In just one moment.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: They also have to review the LAR, the Legislation Acquisition Request. Many volumes of Texas statutes for the authority, and count less conferences with the LBB. And even then, many times they have to rely on the Legislative Budget Board for those numbers. This Amendment simply allows us to open that budget and be able to tell where the moneys spent. And I yield for a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: For a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield, Mr. Cain?

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Cain, I like your Amendment. It's an open budget type Amendment so we know what we're dealing with; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: It is broad and open. That is correct. One of the most transparent things that we can do that we did before 1993.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: And many of us here have ran on transparency in open government, did we not?

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: I certainly did.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: I support your Amendment. I think it's good for transparency and open government and I hope that Mr. Pitts will accept it.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Thank you. Move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Cain sends up an Amendment. The question is on the Amendment. Vote aye. Vote no, Members. Show Mr. Pitts voting no. Mr. Cain voting aye. Have all Members voted? All Members voted? There being 85 ayes, 63 nays. The Amendment is adopted. Members, we're on Page 294. Mr. Jackson. The Amendment is withdrawn. Members, we're on Page 321. Mr. Gallego.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this Amendment will do: It would essentially reallocate some money from, that's used from the State bar views to create a Texas Legislative Fellowship Program. And in addition to that, it would provide some additional revenue for clinical education accounts at the various public law schools in Texas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this was House Bill 216 that was left ending in the Committee and I oppose.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this does is it takes the fees that are remitted to the credit of the judicial programs approved by the Supreme Court for the basic Civil Legal Services Program. It gives them some additional revenue. I can slow down. It takes some money that is currently done essentially through bar dues for lawyers, and it increases the amount that would go through to provide basic, civil legal services. That is something that is handled through the Supreme Court. It would also creates the revenue to the Fair Defense Account in the General Revenue Fund. And in addition to that it would provide for clinical legal education at the public law schools of the state. And finally it would he create something that I know that we are all interested in, and that is something that you can do already in the Capitol in DC on the federal level that President Johnson started years ago. But this was created on the State level. The Texas legislative fellows program that would allow students enrolled in the universities to have essentially a fellowship working for a member of the Legislature, which I think would be a great experience and it would provide a stipend for those interns to be paid from the revenue that's raised. I think it's a great Amendment. I think it's wonderful public policy and I'm really sorry that Mr. Pitts has decided to fight off all Amendments, whether it's good or bad because, frankly, this is probably one of the better Amendments and a very good opportunity to do some good.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Would Chairman Gallego yield for just a few questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Chairman Gallego, I see that you have the University of Houston, you have Thurgood Marshall School of Law, both schools of law in Houston, and they both have great clinics. One, in particular, at my law school, University of Houston Law Center, which is -- would it benefit the practicing future practicing lawyers, such as, the Immigration Clinic that we have at the University of Houston and the Innocence Project where a lot of exonorees have been able to get out of jail because of faulty evidence. But particularly, those two programs have been great, just great programs for the public.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I would tell you, Mr. Walle, that there is no better teacher than experience. And when you give a student an opportunity to work, really, get hands on experience, in a clinic situation at a law school, it makes them much better lawyers. When they graduate and when they take the bar exam, it helps them fill a passion for the law and a passion for justice. And so that is what this is designed to do, is to give those students at those universities, Texas Southern, Texas Tech, University of Houston, University of North Texas, and the University of Texas School of Law, to create clinics at those law schools that would give people the hands-on experience. And in addition to that, at the college level, it would create a fellowship program much like the fellowship program that is available at the national level in Washington, that allows students to come in and work for Members of Congress. It was a problem that was established by President Johnson in the years -- now, pretty long ago, actually, when I was a kid. But it would pretty, really, I think, take us to that next step and give us a lot more opportunities to folks who are in school to learn about public service and to really broaden their horizons.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises a Point of Order. The time has expired. The question is on the adoption of the Gallego Amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 46 ayes and 96 nays, the Amendment fails. The Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Members, the corrected e-mail from House Administration, from Representative Eissler, House Administration to your state e-mail has arrived on your computer, and it has the per watta column in it, also. The latest isn't the correct one. The first few were not correct.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This Amendment will simply abolish the Texas Environmental Funds and direct the State to fully fund the Pre-K programs that were eliminated. Any remaining savings would go to the Foundation School Program to benefit all our public school children. The Texas Environmental Fund has fundamentally failed in creating jobs in Texas. Since 2003 the program has subsidized $12 million of taxpayer dollars, I might add to private corporations. A record of that money went to firms that were nailed to create or promised jobs. The Governor is able to ask for the money back if the companies failed to create the Project Corporation Bench Marks. Pre-K, on the other hand, is proven to be effective. The Bush School of Government and the public service -- the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M reported that every dollar invested in Pre-K programs expect to yield at least $3 and 50 percent in return investment. It is proven to be effective. The Bush School of Government and the public service at Texas A&M invested in Pre-K programs expect to yield at least $3.50 in return development. I might also add that the Texas Association of Business found that in the last four years, high quality Pre-K resulted in high quality of savings to Texas taxpayers. Let's demonstrate high priorities and on a proven program which is an effective Pre-K program for the State of Texas. I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, there was no bill filed on this so it never had a hearing in the Committee. I oppose.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, what we're trying to do is obviously minimize the damages that's been done to our Pre-K programs. Many of the Pre-K programs across the State have been drastically reduced in particular in my District, I've had several programs that have been eager going to be cut to half day or be eliminated where they have tops of kids that are on waiting lists, and there's no program better than our Pre-K programs in the State of Texas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Walle sends up an Amendment. This is on the adoption of the Walle Amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting no. Representative Walle voting aye. Show Representative Eissler voting no. Have all voted? Being 47 ayes, 97 noes, the Amendment fails. Page 364, the following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego. The Amendment's withdrawn. The Chair recognizes Representative Hockberg for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A number of you have asked me where the comparison runs are for the Amendment that I have filed to Mr. Eissler's Amendment. It was delivered to mailboxes by House Administration around 3:00 o'clock this afternoon. I know I've had several over the last few days that I've worked the amount of money in. The most current one that corresponds to what I have filed came out about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon. The only one with today's date on it. So if you're looking for my School District printout to match the Amendment, it's the one with today's date that was in mailbox today. Thank you, Members.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Amendment on Page 376. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, one of the more controversial decisions that was made by the Legislature, and I say controversial because it's been poorly managed, badly handled and has gotten incredibly bad reviews from the press is the Emerging Technology Fund. It spends a lot of money and not necessarily create very many jobs. What this Amendment would seek to do is essentially to abolish the Emergent Technology Fund. As I understand it, what was done in the Appropriations process this year is not to fund it with additional revenue, but to give it what's called UB, which is unexpended balance. And if the decision has been made then to let them spend out the money that they have, which is just under $200 million and not fund it going forward, then we might as well clean up the statutes, make the appropriate decision, and just do away with the Emergent Technology Fund. I mean, it's really been a huge opportunity for mischief and it's been a very, very big disappointment and in my view, a very big block on state government. So this Amendment will seek to do something, in short, that in my view, is it something that the Appropriations Committee is on its way to doing, which is just getting rid of the Emergent Technology Fund entirely. So I would move adoption of the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: May I ask a question, please?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield, Mr. Gallego?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I would absolutely yield to Mr. Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you for bringing this Amendment. When we all swore our oath here, we not only swore an oath to the Texas Constitution, but also to the United States Constitution, did we not?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely. That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: And in that Constitution, did it not say, does it not say that its purpose was to promote the general welfare and not concentrated welfare for special interest in particular places?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Yes. The answer is yes. And I will tell you that that has been part of the challenge for me in terms of being sympathetic to the Emergent Technology Fund is that it has been used in essence, to target people and companies to do favors for that don't necessarily return that investment to the taxpayers of Texas. So it has created wealth, but not necessarily provided a benefit to the Texas economy or to the taxpayers of Texas. You know, people have taken sample millions of dollars but not created anything knew. New. Not put any money back. And if you think about it, as an investment, everybody understands that the purpose of an investment -- the ideal investment is one that gives you a good rate of return. Well, this investment has not given us a good rate-of-return. In fact, it hasn't give en the rate-of-return at all. It has been entirely an out know, really in getting money to people who haven't really done -- haven't kept their part of the bargain. Haven't kept their word. And as a result we've made some people rich, but Texas as a state has lost am money, and I think lost a great deal of credibility.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Well, I sure appreciate you bringing this Amendment. I think it's a good Amendment that we should support. And we see these funds used that would benefit every citizen in the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: You know, Mr. Simpson, if there's $200 million left in that account, I have no idea how many Meals-On-Wheels $200 million would deliver, but it's a lot. I have no idea how many kids could learn to read if we use $200 million to teachers kids to read, but I bet you it's a lot. I have no idea how many kids could go to kindergarten on $200 million, but I can guarantee you that it's a lot. And all of those kind of investments that we would make in the future of Texas, whether it's kids going to college, whether it's kids learning to read and write or whether it's Meals-On-Wheels to people who can't leave their House, all of those to me are better investments to me than the Emergent Technology Fund.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I agree. I support your Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I appreciate it. Members, I urge you to think about this. I urge you to think about this very carefully, review it, and hope that you would support the idea of doing away with the Emergent Technology Fund. It hasn't performed the way it was supposed to. It hasn't done the way it was supposed to do, and frankly, at this late juncture it is not a very good investment of our time, our effort or money. I move adoption of the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, there was not a bill filed have it did not have a hearing Committee and I oppose.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for not filing the bill. I apologize for not bringing it to Committee. But I will tell you that all those articles I read in the Dallas Morning News and all those articles I read in the Fort Worth Telegram and all those articles that I read in San Antonio and Houston (inaudible) perhaps haven't read them all. I was in Alpine before Session and I perhaps should have filed a bill or one of us should have. This is a great idea. Whether it was a bill or not, this is a great idea. Each of us knows that the Emergent Technology Fund has had some significant problems. It's had some serious flaws. And so regardless of whether it was a bill or not, it's a great opportunity to send a message that we are good students of taxpayer funds. That taking care of taxpayer money is very important to each and every one of us. And furthermore, it's a great message to send that each of us, each of us is very, very interested in making sure that Texas gets a rate-of-return on its investments and we have not gotten a rate-of-return on this at all.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Chairman, Gallego, you're talking about Technology Fund. Can you tell us what the State actually gets for this fund have what's the benefit to the State?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Well, the theory or the reality?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: We know what the theory is, but in reality, what do they realize?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Nothing. Nothing but trouble. We have very little to show for the development of these dollars have they there haven't really been any new jobs created. The idea was that if you created a new industry, it would create jobs. The jobs would generate money. The money would circulate through the Committee, and (inaudible) and a couple of people -- we've given out grants to (inaudible) to certain companies that didn't have a rate of return on the development. Didn't create new jobs. Didn't grow. Didn't add money to the economy, and as a result, we're left holding the bag.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So we're not able to count any jobs. This is another situation where there's probably resources available that we could reallocate differently in the next way?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely. That's the whole purpose. I don't know how to emphasize the fact that this didn't do what it was designed to do, what it was supposed to do. This is $200 million that is essentially sitting there doing nothing. Well, if it gets spent, it gets spent. But it doesn't get spent in a way that gives us a rate-of-return on our development.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And don't we have basic needs that we're not meeting in this budget and wouldn't this money be better used towards those needs versus --

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Well, Ms. Davis, as I told Mr. Simpson: $200 million or just under that will be easy in this account. That will teach a lot of kids to read or write. That would with teach a lot of kids math. A lot of kids how to use a computer. It would certainly deliver a lot of Meals-On-Wheels. That would use a lot of this money in the Emergent Technology Fund.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so why do you think Chairman Pitts is tell us because a bill wasn't filed it's not good legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Well, I think Mr. Pitts made a commitment to try to fight off every Amendment. I think Mr. Pitts knows and in his heart he understands this is great public policy. I think he would probably in other circumstances be the first person to vote for this Amendment. I just wish I could convince him to vote for this Amendment right now right here.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: In the budgetary process is probably the most important bill, the only bill we have to pass, right?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely. And today's the only opportunity to make some decisions about public policy in this State. This is the first time we've had an opportunity on the floor to look at a bill that has such a diverse array of subjects, of topics that would allow each individual member to offer an Amendment that they think are important to make state government better. This is one of those Amendments that I think to me makes state government better.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And our Amendments are offered where we think they have much to do about what we think the priorities have to do based on what the courts say, wouldn't you agree?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Absolutely. Ms. Davis, these Amendments have been pre-filed for a very long time. Members have been waiting a very long time (inaudible). Again, I think this is a great Amendment. I think it's very important and I move adoption of the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield to Mr. Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I just want to make sure that you're aware that Mr. Pitts had some perfecting Amendments early on where he did some great work to put fences around the Emergent Technology Fund. And so your Amendment, where you said you had concerned, that they have already taken concerns by that Perfecting Amendment. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: It's a bad development. I want to get rid of the bad development. Okay? I want to make sure that you're aware that the Perfecting Amendment that we're all adopting, that it goes to the heart of what you're adopting.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I want to take care of the taxpayer as opposed to building a fence around it so that that money is locked in and not available for other purposes that are more important than a better development.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The question occurs on the adoption of the Gallego Amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay. Show Representative Pitts voting no. Have all voted? There being 50 ayes and 91 nays. The Amendment fails. Members, we're on Page 474. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Members, this is the Amendment. I don't know what Mr. Pitts is going to do right now, but this is the Amendment that he and the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee just absolutely fell in love with. And let me read it to you. It says if the budget of estimate Appropriations does not provide funding for a public institution, like a Jr., college, and including a public institution of higher education or a hospital, that receives an Appropriations in the previous biennium, the director shall disclose that fact to each member representing a legislative District which the effected institution is located, before the date that the budget of estimated Appropriations is transmitted. And so what this says is that if you have funding for something in your District, a public institution, and it is not funded, then you just have to be given notice as a member having that institution in your District. It's a great Amendment. I wish that Dennis Bonnen was here. Dennis Bonnen absolutely loves this Amendment, but he is not here today and he wanted to stand up here with me when it finally came out. But I hope that Mr. Pitts will accept the Amendment. It will go a long way and just empowering each individual member just (inaudible) something in your District that is of noteworthy importance and it's not going to get funded.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this is a bill that we did hear in Committee. And yes, Mark is right. We like this Amendment, but I promised both the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Caucus that we were going to oppose (inaudible) and I do oppose this one.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Members, this is a really easy one. It's the tools to empower each member to make sure that it's if something in your District is about to be eliminated or zeroed out, that you'll be voted. And I think it's something that every member would enjoy and like to have and something that you can use to strengthen your constituents and help keep your town as a part of what we do here every day. So I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Veasey sends up an Amendment. The question occurs on the adoption of the Veasey Amendment. Show Representative Pitts voting no. Have all voted? Being 51 ayes, 92 nays. The Amendment fails. We're on Page 482. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Larson.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Larson.

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: This Amendment -- first of all, I got an Amendment, I believe, to the Amendment. It should be there. Do you have the Amendment to the Amendment? It keeps Greenhouse Gases in Texas, and if you've followed what's transpired over the last year, the EPA has come in and they've pulled 122 Texas facilities that they have to directly permit with the EPA versus going through the process of the flex plan that was put in place by TCEQ. So what with we're trying to do is basically take our environmental management of Greenhouse Gases and allow Texans to control how we management that from the manufacturing facilities. And the EPA rules that have been promulgated, I feel like they violated the Administrative Procedures Act, both Constitutions. And so I would ask for your support for Texas business and I will move for passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: Yes, ma'am. I sure will.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Larson, you are aware that the EPA states or would like states to regulate themselves, but when we don't do so, they step in. And so we have the ability to do this right now. We just aren't.

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: Well, we do, but the problem is, the imposition that the E P H has put TCEQ in. They eventually with six rule makings in 2010, you usurp the power of TCEQ to go ahead and regulate the emissions in the state. So what we're saying is basically saying allow TCEQ to do this without EPAs (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Allow us to not follow Federal law, basically?

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: We're going to follow the Emissions Standards set up by the Federal Government, but we're going to do the rule making under TCEQ. From an environmental standpoint on a regulatory basis, TCEQ is one of the top five largest regulatory agencies in the world. And I feet like the EPA, the imposition they have made through these proposal makings, and the violation of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, that if we want to take over the Green House Gas Emissions, then we essentially need to tell all of our employees in TCEQ not to obey the EPA Guidelines because they're in violation of Federal law.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: I disagree with that. We can implement these ourselves, as long as we do follow the Clean Air Act, which is a minimum standard. We can go beyond that but not below it. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I move for passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members, this is another one that I'm opposing, and I want to make sure that everybody understands because I think there's been a question that when I met with the Republican Caucus and when I met with the Democratic Caucus, we discussed that I would oppose all the Amendments other than the perfecting Amendments. And I'm carrying forward with that promise that I made to the Democratic Caucus and to the Republican Caucus but it did not force anybody to withdraw their Amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, he yields.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: If he would just define each one of -- (inaudible) and we would move a lot faster through the process, Mr. Pitts. Each of these Amendments. Mr. Larson's Amendment was a Perfecting Amendment. If it makes him feel better, I would argue that it is a Perfecting Amendment and so you should just accept it and we can all move a lot faster.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I had promised and I think there was a list given on the perfecting Amendments that I would not oppose. And we have gone through that list except one that's coming towards the end. And this is one that was not on that list, and you were given a copy of that list.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So even though it makes the bill better, it's not -- it makes your bill closer to perfect, so it could be a Perfecting Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: The Perfecting Amendments were at the very beginning and it had my name on it. I oppose.

REPRESENTATIVE MR. MILES: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Miles, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Can I get Brother Pitts back at the mic, please.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Representative Pitts, I just want a clarification. You keep reiterating that you made an agreement with both parties that you would not expect

(inaudible). I want a point of clarification: There wasn't an agreement made. You informed both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that you were not going to accept any Amendments; is that correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: There was especially in the Democratic Caucus, there was a question, if I would accept the Republicans' and not accept the Democrats'. I said I would treat everybody the same. We're going to oppose every Amendment other than the Perfecting Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: I understand that. So point of clarification: It wasn't an agreement? You informed both parties that that's the way it will be done? Is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: It was what we talked about in the Democratic Caucus and in the Republican Caucus?

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Right. Right. But it wasn't an agreement. You just informed them, right?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I informed both Democratic Caucus and the Republican Caucus.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, sir.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Larson.

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: Members, what this does, it allows us to have the full responsibility of managing our own environment. We've got all of the business groups, the Texaco Chemical Council, Texas Business Association, Texas (inaudible) all of these folks support of this.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Can I just have a point of clarification for Mr. Larson?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Mr. Larson, I don't know if you know this, but our foundry has a permit and they were handled by the TCEQ until they were declared null and void by EPA. When you started, and I think I know where you're going, but since Green House Gas Legislation was not passed, but in regulation with EPA, they started promulgating some of those. We don't want our TCEQ to go into Green House Gas business. We just want them to be able to take care of Texas and the environmental program that we have had to the Flex Program to continue to be able to do that and not be shut down by the EPA. Is that your Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That's what gives us the ability to manage our own environmental issue.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LARSON: Thank you. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Larson sends up an Amendment. The question occurs on the adoption of the Larson Amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting no. Have all voted? There being 75 ayes and 68 nays. The Amendment is adopted. Members we're on Page 513. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Crownover.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and Members, I have an elegant little Amendment that will save thousands of Texas lives and millions of Texans dollars. This is a paired down (inaudible) that was passed out of Public House. It was in Calendar. It came to the House Floor on Tuesday. It was on the Calendar for Tuesday. It came to the House Floor on Thursday, and I postponed the bill at that time because I knew it would take time. And 55 of your bills passed because I took the bill down at the time. I think this is a very important Clean Air Amendment. I think it's very important Public Health. We know that it will save $30 million. Commissioner Steve has certified that this will save $30 million. We also know that we have over 80 people signed tonight's bill. So I know that time is short, but I do want to indulge you in thinking about the new bill is paired down. Many of you said you couldn't vote for a bill that would go into like an attorney's office. This is paired down to people --

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Sheffield, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: For a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I certainly do.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Myra, you and I have had this discussion many, many times, actually since last Session when you carried this bill, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: You know I'm a restaurant owner?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: I have a beverage license that your bill actually effects.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: As well. And I believe that we even had the endorsement of the Restaurant Association, did you not on this particular bill last Session?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes. The Restaurant Association supports this bill because they want a level playing field throughout this State.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: You know, the argument is, also, that instead that we don't want Government interfering with our business telling us how to operate our business, do we?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: But yet the local entities do that, right?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: The local businesses do it for their entities the way they want them, and they wind up exempting certain businesses that actually compete with the others in different ways, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right. And we know that only 17 percent of the population smokes, so it's important to protect the other 83 percent from the arsenic, benzene, particulate matter, cyanide that is in second-hand smoke.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Right. And of course by doing this on a Statewide Smoking Ban that effects these permits, it's my belief that it creates a fair playing field, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I'm sorry. I'm back. What did you say?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: I said by actually making a Statewide Smoking Ban, it creates a fair playing field, for businesses like myself?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right. So if you need a license from the Health Department or from the TABC, you would know a lot more about that than I do. But if you need a license from them that you can't have milk held at the wrong temperature, you have to have slip free floors, your people have to wash their hands, you know many more of those things than I do. So it does not make sense that that same organization should have Benzine, arsenic, cyanide, particulate matters. We know that second-hand smoke has 4,000 chemicals, and 60 of them are carcinogen. So what we know just doesn't make sense that we would allow one person to sit and smoke and make the rest of the room suffer from these carcinogens.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: You're correct there. Of course, it also creates a very clean working environment for the employees in these places now, as well, right?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, you probably know more about cleaning ash trays than I do.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I think in your bill, you also exempt patio areas and places that are outdoors?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right, we have tried to be very careful that we follow the science. And the science is that the second-hand smoke effects people on indoor places. So many people wanted us to not allow smoking in patios or at the entrances, but the science isn't fair. So the owner of the building could affect that and they could make those rules. But what they want is the same level playing field so that people know -- when we have that level playing field, we know that people understand the laws, respect them and we depend on voluntary compliance here.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Right. Myra, I have actually fought this issue on a local basis for like 30 years. Again, getting back -- don't get into my business have changed. And not only the times have changed, but the economic benefits to the State of Texas with this Amendment on the savings on Medicaid is great. It creates what? 400 and something extra beds, right, on nursing homes?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right. Instead of us wasting that $30 million in the next biennium, we could instead spend that $30 million on 421 beds in a nursing home or it would also pay for almost 10,000 children on CHIPS. So this seems like a really, really bad -- and you know, I have some very, very dear friends that smoke. This is not anti-smoking. Some of my very most precious people in my life smoke. Most of them wish they could quit smoking.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Myra, just one other quick thing, and I'm hearing people in my back want to ask you a couple questions. We don't allow smoking in the Capitol here because it actually helps preserve things a little better, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Absolutely. It preserves the building from fires, and it also preserves a very most precious private property and that's our lungs and our heart and our brain and our health.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: I think you have a very good Amendment, Ms. Crownover. I'm going to support you.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Thank you for your help with it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Zerwas, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would with the gentlelady yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I will.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you, Ms. Crownover for bringing this forward. You presented this a couple years ago in the Public Health Committee, as I recall, and do you recall that there were people on both sides of this issue that testified at that time on this particular bill?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I did. This is the third Session I've done it, and it's kind of amazing because I see the movement. The first Session I did, I had people chew me out and say that that was not a wise thing to do, that it was depriving them. And the second Session, there were a few people in the tobacco bars that were talking against it. And so this last Session I have met with the tobacco bars and the tobacco shops and we

(inaudible) goes in a tobacco bar or a tobacco shop accidentally and nobody works there. So I think that is a very respectful. So we're not trying to put anybody out of business but we are trying to protect the lives of people. And I know you and Mr. Otto and Mr. Pitts and Kale Alvarado are also joint authors, and I have been proud to work with you on that.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you. I think where I was thinking is that as we is the through Public Health this time, I don't think there was anybody who, you know, felt like through a scientific argument that could say that it was okay to -- for people to breath second-hand smoke. Was that your recall of that?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: That's a very good point. 15 years ago there were some fake studies that the tobacco industry had paid for. They were not vetted. They hadn't gone through the process, but those fake studies don't even exist anymore. There's not anybody out there saying that second-hand smoke doesn't kill. We know that in the United States of America we lose 400,000 Americans a year from direct smoking. We also know that we lose 53,000 Americans a year from second-hand smoke. (Inaudible) We did cannot overlook it anymore. We also know that we require industry to spend billions of dollars every year keeping our outdoor air clean. So if you have a refinery, if you're manufacturer, if you're an oil and gas producer, you have to spend literally billions and billions of dollars so that we can walk outside and breath air that is not harmful to us. (Inaudible). To require industry to spend all that money and then turn around and walk in a bar and go sit down and relax with friends and proceed to harm our own personal health -- that just is not logical.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: So in the time that you've had to study the whole issue and stuff, and certainly by the fact that there's not a lot of evidence out there to the naysayers who would say that this is an inappropriate thing to do, would you agree that the science is pretty much weighed in on this to say that people would say third hand smoke now is something to start considering, but second-hand smoke is certainly just as toxic to an individual who's exposed to it on a day in and day out basis?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: You know if we lost 53,000 Americans to some other thing, we'd have a huge crusade or we would go to war over that. That is absolutely, positively unexpected. This is not pursuing smokers. I know that smoking is a legal activity. All we're doing is asking the smokers to kindly and respectfully step outside when they want a cigarette. I don't think that's a big price to pay. And you know, I've actually had (inaudible) to say, oh, I hope you pass that bill. And if you'll pass it, it will really help me in what I'm trying to do. So it's a win/win. The other thing is that some businesses think, oh, my gosh, it will put us out of business. All you have to do is look at Austin, Texas, friends. Do you see any bars or restaurants that are suffering? And now when people, college kids, come back to Austin from another place, they can't believe when they go to Memphis or Denton, Texas, that our bars are (inaudible) How it will harm them?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: And when we set up a couple sessions ago or whenever that was, you know, obviously there was a lot of attention around effective cancer remedies as well, a couple ways to prevent cancers, and it was clear that cessation of smoking was one of those things that was highly cost effective and the actual amount of money that could be saved.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Miller raises a Point of Order. Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment (inaudible)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members, this Amendment just prevents fraternal organizations, veterans organizations in charitable bingo be -- I am trying to so hard to quit smoking and if you'll pass it, it will really help me in what I'm trying to do. So it's a win/win. The other thing is it that some businesses think that, oh, my God gosh, it will put us out of business. All you have to do is look at they can't believe when they go to Memphis or Denton, Texas, that our bars are full of chemicals that will harm them.

SPEAKER: A couple sessions ago, or whenever that was, obviously there was a lot of attention around effective cancer remedies, as well as effective ways to prevents cancer. And it was clear that cessation of smoking was one of those things that was highly cost effective and the actual amount of money that could be saved.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Miller raises the Point of Order. The lady's time has expired. The Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment to the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Elkins.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this Amendment just exempts fraternal organizations, veterans organizational and charitable bingo from this Amendment that she's put on. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Mr. Elkins, you're exempting certain organizations; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Yes. I would like to actually exempt everybody. This is just more big government imposing our will on people. I believe that what she's doing here -- look, no one can justify smoking. I certainly don't smoke, and I don't like to be around it. This is an issue of personal freedom that it's another mandate in the government. Government infringing upon the rights of people. Of businesses and property owners. I believe that property owners and property rights trump the state's interest. I'm sorry. So I'm just fundamentally opposed because this is just another governmental edict when we don't need the government. Many businesses have made the decision to be nonsmoking establishments. They don't need the government to tell them what the force of law to do because it's in their best economic interest to do so.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And you said that some of those organizations are private organizations.

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: These are all private organizations.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And the reason why they have to have -- why they are private is because they have some kind of license?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: I don't know why. I just want to make sure that the private clubs can do what they want to. In the past when we worked on this bill, I've been opposed to this bill just on philosophical basis, that it violates people's property rights, and that's not what I'm about. But if people want to have a private club or a private organization and do what we want to in their private place, in my opinion government has no role. If Representative Crownover wants to pass a bill that prohibits state buildings or state buildings from smoking, I'm fine with that. We're a state government. We can dictate to state buildings and state organizations no smoking in state facilities. But now we're encroaching upon people's free property rights. And for that reason, if this Amendment passes, at least, I want people to have private institutions that are not necessarily open to the public to be able to do what they want to in their private place of business. And I would ask that the House vote yes on this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: First of all, I want to make very clear: This is about public places. This is only about public places.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Let me go ahead and finish for a moment. This is about public, enclosed places. It does not include patios. It does not include entrances. It does not include exits. It does not include private places. Now, that might sound complicated to you, but actually the law is crystal clear because when we had the civil rights situation, where there were all sets of places that tried to pretend that they were private and they were not really. So the law is crystal clear. This bill only applies to public places that are enclosed.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Will the gentlelady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Just to make sure we understand because his Amendment relates to like fraternal organizations and veterans organizations. Would your bill apply to those, local VFW Hall or the local --

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, it depends on whether the public is invited. Just like some country clubs are very exclusive, only their Members can be there. That's a private place. So even if it's open to the public and someone can come in and pay just the green fees to play, then it is considered a public place. But I'm not an expert on the law on private and --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So if you have a wealthy private country club, they could allow smoking. But if you had another country club that was not private, they could not?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, it depends on the bylaws of the country club.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, your bill says anybody that has a license from the State.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right. And so and there's a very logical reason to do that. If they are working under a license of the State of Texas, they have all sorts of other laws. They have to have a fire escape. They have to have fire equipment. They have to --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So I just want to make sure that if you have a license -- so let's say a private country club has to have a license to serve Mixed Beverage Permit, then they would be covered by your bill?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, they would.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: And they have to be -- you know, there are all sets of laws with the TABC that protects the Public Health.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I guess the question I have: What about an insurance salesman? What about an insurance salesman that has no employees?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: That's a very good point because I had many of you say that you couldn't vote for me, vote for this bill in that situation. This does not effect them because they don't need a license from the TABC or from the Health Department.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. That's what I want to make sure because that's not what was said earlier. I just want to make it clear. So let's say you're a pulmonologist and you want to have a smoking office.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: You can do that?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: If it's a private place. And I'm not an expert on the law. Let me just say that this bill tries to exempt bingo halls and we know that this Amendment -- with we know that there is a $30 million savings. And the way the Amendment is written, that the Commissioner must certify that there will be a $10 million savings in the first biennium. If he doesn't certify this, this bill does not even become law. So it has to be proven that this bill will save dollars in Medicaid for the State of Texas. We are making a choice here between 421 nursing home beds and we have talked about that and talked about that. We're also making a choice here whether we allow people to smoke and harm other people or whether we put 10,000 people on CHIPS. And I just don't think that's a logical choice. So I move, Members, please vote no on this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Elkins to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. We're not going to labor this very long, but let me just --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Isaacs, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Let me just make a comment and I'll answer questions. Right now, this Amendment now is about the State imposing its will upon private businesses and people that have a license, maybe because they want a license. Maybe because they don't but because of government edict they have to have one. Now we're telling them because you have a license in your private place of business, you cannot allow smoking. There are niche markets and there are people that cater to certain niche markets and I do not want prohibit people that cater to those types of individuals from allowing them to operate. Now, it's smoking. We've heard a lot of debate now about the State doesn't want you to eat. Let me just tell you this, Members, is that sugar has been around for 5,000 years, but it's only been a problem in the last 20. There's obviously something else besides sugar that's the problem. It has a long history. And now if it's one thing, if it's one more government encroachment, and I'm just going to ask you to please vote yes on this Amendment, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: I will.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: So your analogy is sugar. So if I happen to be a candy bar and I happen to be under your mouth catching crumbs, that's going to be bad for me? Representative Elkins, you said something about personal freedom. Do you believe that smoking is a personal freedom?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: I believe that it's a legal product and that people can do it freely.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: I think you said that you used the term personal freedom.

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: It is a personal freedom.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Do you have any other personal freedoms that you intentionally do that cause more harm to people that are around you than yourself?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Well, I don't do it so it's not a problem for me. But look --

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: But could you give me an example of some other personal freedoms that people knowingly, intentionally do that cause nor harm it people around them than themselves?

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Well, if cigarette smoking is so bad, and I think that it is, then as a society, why don't we ban it like drugs? Well, you know I what the problem is. The State makes too much money off it to ban it. So now that the state's making profit off of it, what's the problem? I mean, look, if it's so bad, let's ban it. We have the right of legislation. We can ban it. Ut you know what? We're not going to because it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and so it's about money. Everything that we do up here is about money. It's no big deal. I respect that, but you know what? It's a lawful, legal product that people can do. They could smoke if they want to. I choose not to but a lot of people do. And in their place of business. Now, as a business owner I have the right to say no smoking on my establishment if I want to. Or I can say smokers welcome. I can do whatever I want to. But if this goes in, we're going to lose the right because it's now going to be a government edict saying you can't do something. That's what I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to the government edict telling private property owners what they can and cannot do in their own place of business. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members to vote yes on my Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The question occurs on the adoption of the Elkins Amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Aliseda voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Crownover voting no. The vote on the Amendment. Have all voted? There being 90 ayes and 54 nays, the Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment to the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Aliseda.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.

REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: Members, I'm not going to repeat what Mr. Elkins said. I want you to take some time and think about what you're doing here. This is supposed to be a body of private property loving, freedom loving individuals. And now we're taking the position that we can regulate those private property rights, almost to the point of, you know, what's next? Our backyards? The backyards of these establishments? That's where this thing'S going. And I have an Amendment here that applies to pool halls, strictly pool halls, where people 21 and over go to. I've played some pool in my life. I had some fond memories. I don't smoke myself, but I can remember going often with my uncle and playing some pool. And I think if we're going in to the business --

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Aliseda, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Representative Aliseda, do you realize that if you went to one of these pool halls, you would be healthier if you did smoke?

REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: I realize that, but that was part of the ambiance of going into that place is what I expected when I went there.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: It's more harmful for you to go in there as a non-smoker.

REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: I would submit to you, that the people that work there, the people that were supposedly trying to protect are, in fact, smokers and that's why they work there.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: And you can say that with 100-percent certainty that everyone who works in the pool hall is a smoker? I can tell you they're secondhand smoker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Can we have some order please. The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and Members, I understand that there is some confusion going around. This is not the original bill, House Bill 670. This has been paired down. It is only public places, places where the public has access to. We have all sorts of restrictions. You know, years ago we used to get on an airplane and have to suffer through someone smoking a cigarette. And finally, the stewardesses sued and they said, this is killing us. This enclosed air is literally, literally killing us. And so now we know that second-hand smoke absolutely kills people. This bill has been strictly paired down. It only effects public places.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Sheffield, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker, does the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Ms. Crownover, back to my original conversation about private property rights: Being in the business myself, what you're really trying to do is create a very fair playing field statewide, are you not?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I am.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: You're not trying to exempt the little bar down the street and let the restaurant bar not have it or whatever, right?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: It's really about creating a fair playing field throughout the State of text, everybody's equal, so really nobody's business is rail going to be affected by not having them to be able to allow smokers in that business. I agree with the philosophy that don't tell a private property owner what to do. But you know what? The local entities are doing that now, are they not?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: And you know that it's perfectly okay to own a saxophone. But is it not okay to play a saxophone at 3:00 in the morning and keep somebody else up and deprive their health? This deals, only, only with public places. It deals only with indoor places that need a license from the TABC or that need a license from the Health Department. And when the Health Department certifies that that place is clean, that they have the milk at the right temperature, that they don't serve you used food, that they don't have slip floors, that they don't have asbestos falling from the ceiling. They should also be able to say that they don't have Benzine. They don't have arsenic. They don't have particulate matter. They don't those 60 carcinogens in the room.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Representative Crownover, I really believe -- Members, you're really losing track of what's really going on here because you're really complaining about government getting involved in business. What we're trying to do is solve the issue and make it a statewide ban to where everybody has the fair playing field. The guy down the street cannot compete with me in other different ways. That's what we're trying to do is create a fair playing field, right?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Right. And the reason that government has every right to be involved in this is they pick up the healthcare cost. This bill is set up so that the Commissioner of Health & Human Services must certify that this will have a cost savings, and when he certifies that, in the next 90 days, these places will become smoke free.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I yield.

SPEAKER: First, Myra, I'm disappointed by the cavalier attitude that I've been hearing about. What is the No. 1 threat to Texans' health in this State? This is a serious problem we're talking about, and I know there's discussion of property rights, but it deserves serious consideration. We're talking about something that taxpayers pay for besides the suffering that goes on in Texans' lives? We pay for all the medical care that goes with this problem.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Absolutely.

SPEAKER: We pay through Medicaid. We pay at our hospitals. I mean, this is a hugely expensive problem, and I think it deserves serious treatment. I appreciate what you're doing.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: It absolutely does, and we know that in the first year, we know that there are 30 other states that are smoke free. France, Great Britain, Ireland are smoke free. In the first year that these states or countries go smoke free, heart attacks dropped by percent.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Alvarado, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Ms. Crownover, the more exemptions we make, doesn't that cut into the costs can be? Savings to the tax payers and to the State?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: It absolutely does. Everybody might have some list, you know. We don't smoke in theaters. We don't smoke on elevators. We don't smoke here in the Capitol. We don't smoke in museums. I think Mrs. Thompson was responsible for those improvements. She also told us a story of when she used to sit back there in the back and they smoked on the House Floor and it made it so miserable for her that she had to move her seat outside the rail. So I think this is a moving body of knowledge. When I got married in the '70s, one of the typical gifts was ash trays because back then we thought it was polite to let a guest smoke. And now we know, it's not that it smells bad. It kills people.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentlelady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Isn't the point of conformity the fact that many cities have moved forward on their own in creating an unlevel playing field? So, for example, in San Antonio there are many cities, where the city of San Antonio has adopted one policy of regulating smoking in public places, but the smaller cities that are imbedded within the City of San Antonio have a different policy. And so you could be running a restaurant on one side of the street and have to live on the other side of the street, gets to operate under a different set of rules. So if we create these exceptions, don't we perpetuate that in equality?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes. We absolutely do. And it also raises the healthcare cost. Like this billiard -- I'll bet everybody in this room loves to play billiards, but the reason I don't go to billiard hall is that I come out with my hair smelling bad, my clothes smelling bad, but that's only a secondary thing. We know that second-hand smoke kills people. I know the Bowling Association came to me four years ago and said we support this Amendment because we want kids to be able to come and have a birthday party in a bowling alley. We want it to be a fun, healthy place and we don't want to kill people. So I think that's very important. There's no reason that somebody couldn't play billiards without smoking. It's very, very easy to step outside and be considerate of the other people that enjoy playing billiards. That's simple and they do it in 30 other states. No billiard businesses have gone out of business. No bowling alleys have gone out of business. No bingo halls have gone out of business because of that.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Ellis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIS: Will the lady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIS: Ms. Crownover, do you recall when we heard this bill in Public Health. I think there was actually one that (inaudible) that specifically asked them, do you make your money off your people going to your pool hall to smoke or do you make your money off of people going to your pool hall to play pool? Do you recall that conversation?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIS: And this Amendment is trying to exempt them, but the pool halls are not going to lose their business because people cannot go smoke there, are they?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: No. Absolutely not. The 30 other states people are still playing bingo.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The lady's time has expired. The Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown for a motion. REPRESENTATIVE HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Members. I request permission from the Conference Committee on the TxDOT Bill to meet at 9:20 on adjournment of the Senate, on 5/20/11 in 3E4, to consider the Conference Committee Report on SB 1420.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: Members, the government can use healthcare expenses to justify anything they do. I'll just bring your attention to a little thing called Obama-Care, and that's exactly what she's using. That's exactly what she's using to justify this particular bill. My little Amendment -- since we're going to get into the business of picking and choosing winners in this legislation -- and believe me they have already exempted some businesses. We now voted on another one. I'm going to ask that you vote yes on my Amendment, and

(inaudible) Thank you very much.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Aliseda sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay on the Amendment. Show Representative Aliseda voting aye Representative Crownover voting no. Representative Torres voting aye. Representative Gallego voting no. Have all voted? There being 79 ayes and 58 nays. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate to ask the Members to refrain from using such lang like Obama-Care? I know what the Affordable Healthcare Act is, but I think it would be respectful if we would refrain from using slang on the House Floor.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Thank you, Mr. Veasey. The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment to the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Simpson.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I hope you'll look at your past system. I've got an important Amendment to make this bill a lot more comprehensive, and it's gender free, and we can apply this principal in every place. Where it says smoking, we replace it with the words smoking and wearing perfume or cologne. And then, also, we define --

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Let me finish. Wearing perfume or cologne means the application on an individuals skin of a liquid substance, extract or preparation that emits and diffuses a fragrant odor. And then where the bill, the Amendment says nonsmoking signs will be posted, I'm replacing the word nonsmoking with nonsmoking and perfume or cologne free. Mr. Weber, I'll accept some questions.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you David. I just had a couple of questions for you, really. Does your Amendment apply -- if you put your cologne on before you go through the scanner at the airport?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I know it radiates you and shows you naked but I don't know that it detects cologne or perfume.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: I'm afraid this Amendment may not be germane. It may not pass the smell test.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Well, seriously, though --

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I think this is a good Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Mr. Simpson, for four and a half months we have been working here, being away from our family. You are a family man. You actually brought your family to Austin. This is not a laughing matter, and I want to tell you, I thought you were a pretty good member. And I still am going to believe that. But this is out of bounds. And I will tell you: Do you know how many people die of cancer every year? Do you know how many people die of cancer?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I know there are a lot.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Yes, there is. Do you know what the President of M.D. Anderson told me? I've done Article 3 and now I do Public Health. On third of all cancer can be eliminated if we eliminated smoking. And I'm going to say one more thing: For a man who is always talking about the size of the budget, the size of the budget is huge. And cost drivers there had to do with our health and our health habits. And personal responsibility. And I'm just going to say that someone behind me is going to call a Point of Order on this, but I ask you to show some decor in this House and take up a serious matter that some of us deal with Public Health every day and you're out of bounds on this one. Speaker, I have a Point of Order on Rule 11, Section II.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Bring your Point of Order down front. The Point of Order is temporarily withdrawn. The Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I just want to respond to the remarks that were made by Representative Kolkhorst. I'm going to withdraw this Amendment but I have a list in front of me on my computer of all the carcinogens that are associated with cologne and with perfume. And when I was recently with my mother-in-law at a nursing home in Longview, Texas, I noticed plaque carded across the hall was a sign that you could not enter that room wearing cologne or wearing perfume. So certainly there's some fun in this Amendment but it's also very serious. Basically, the EPA did a study and they sited an argument in a report that second-hand smoke caused lots of problems. That very report in its summary affirmed just the opposite. There was a court case that established that -- actually, that second-hand smoke case was not a problem. And I want to say if it is such a problem, why do we associate asbestos with lawsuits and not second-hand smoke? I withdraw my Amendment. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lottenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE LOTTENBERG: This simply applies the law that we are passing for the rest of the state to those of us who are here in the Capitol. If we're going to ban smoking statewide, then we need to ban it inside the Capitol.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE LOTTENBERG: I accept this as already an open flame law in the Capitol so thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Lottenberg sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. Back on the Crownover Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and Members, I ask for your close attention, please. We have 80 Members that have signed onto this bill. We know that it will save thousands of Texas lives. We passed an Amendment on texting that would save lives. Why in the world wouldn't we do something that would save thousands of Texas lives and millions of dollars? I remind you it only applies to public places. It only applies to places that need a license from the Department of Health or the TABC. other states have it, and it is saving lives day after day after day. I ask for your support on this bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Ms. Crownover, you know in the past I've been very supportive of your effort to pass a Statewide Smoking Ban, but the question that I want to ask you tonight is: Have you followed Mr. Pitts on every Amendment in which he's asked for members to table or to vote down or have you, kind of, followed your own conscious on things? Because I had an Amendment earlier that simply stated that if there was a public entity in someone's District that was being zeroed out, that they receive notice from the LBB before that project is zeroed out. And I went and checked the role and you voted against it and it wasn't partisan. So I want to ask you tonight: Are you just following Mr. Pitts? Because I know that you're asking for quite a bit of bipartisan support on this measure.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I am. And I think this is a special case because this bill was up on the Calendar on Tuesday. It came up late Thursday night, and because I pulled my bill down, 57 other bills were passed through that night. I pulled it down because I knew it would take some time and discussion, and I wanted to be respectful of other Members' bills. Now, I also know that we passed the secret -- we are spending $3 billion to prevent cancer. If any one of you sitting out there has the choice of curing your cancer or preventing your cancer in the first place, and when you can prevent cancer in the fiscal note is zero. It costs nothing, and it saves Medicaid 30 -- (inaudible) I think this is just a very clear cut time to save money and save lives.

REPRESENTATIVE HARTNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE HARTNETT: Myra, I just pulled this up off of the Center for Disease Control, the Federal Government Disease Control Agency. Did you know that more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from AIDS, drug use, alcohol use, car wrecks, suicide and murderers combined?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I did.

REPRESENTATIVE HARTNETT: Would you say this is our No. 1 health issue in Texas by far?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: It is.

REPRESENTATIVE HARTNETT: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: It's also our No. 1 Clean Air Act. Members, I know we've taken on some Amendments and people all have their individual alley points on this. But this is an important -- we are spending $3 billion on cancer prevention and cure. This costs the State nothing. It will save Medicaid $30 million, and that's why it is on the fiscal matters bill.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the lady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Ms. Crownover, you've not explained to the Members why you're so passionate about cancer and why you're so passionate about this stuff.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, I know that there are -- the bill started out protecting workers. We know that there are people that need their jobs and we've had some very cavalier comments about, oh, well, they could get another job. We know that there are people that absolutely cannot get another job. They need their job.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Why is it, Ms. Crownover, that you're so passionate about preventing cancer?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, we all have cancer deaths in our lives.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And, Ms. Crownover, there are not very many Members of this Chamber now in seniority and times has changed. Your predecessor --

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes. My husband. He died of leukemia, and one of the major causes of leukemia is Benzine. We know that percent of the Benzine in people's blood is due to smoking. I think this is just crystal clear and I thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And you've not mentioned that to any of the Members, and you've not said that, Ms. Crownover, but I want you to know that I understand why this is so important to you. I understand why it should be important to all of us, and I truly appreciate your tireless efforts working on this cause.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I understand why it's so personal to you and I want you to know that you have my vote.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Thank you. I appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE BOHAC: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BOHAC: Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BOHAC: Myra, do you know that ten percent of people who died from lung cancer have never smoked a day in their life?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: No, I didn't know that.

REPRESENTATIVE BOHAC: (Inaudible). I'm very involved in the Lung Cancer Alliance (inaudible) because her first husband died at age 35. She had a three-year old and she was pregnant with twins. And he was diagnosed with lung cancer and given three days to live. Never having smoked a day in his life. All you're doing with this bill is connecting the major cities together to create continuity throughout the state; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE BOHAC: And you're protecting workers' lives from secondhand smoke?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE BOHAC: I think you have a good bill.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Thank you. Members, I vote -- I plead for you to vote for this Amendment. It will save millions of Texas dollars and thousands of Texas lives. People we know and people we don't know. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hughes to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Thank you for your indulgence. Just a couple moments as we bring this important day to a close. I know that cigarette smoke is offensive. I know it's harmful. I don't smoke and I don't like it. And for public property, for schools, for government buildings, for that sort of thing, of course it's appropriate for the state to ban smoking.

(Inaudible) that's public property owned by all of us. That's not private property. This Amendment extends to private property and private property open to the public is still private property. And the government has no use banning the use of a legal product on private property. And so if a restaurant owner or a bar owner wants to allow smoking, I don't have to go there and you don't have to go there. We can make choices for ourselves in these matters. And so there might be other activities that you like and that I like, but in our republic, we can't outlaw those.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Isaacs, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Only the public places, and so people can knowingly choose to walk into a place or not? Is that what you're asserting?

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: I said private property, not public property.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Do people have the option to --

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: We have Freedom of Contract and Employment At Will in Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: That's great. And do you know when I was in college I worked at a restaurant that had a second-hand smoking section.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: You notice how fewer and fewer restaurants are allowing smoking?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: That's right. I did not have an option. I looked and I looked and I needed not only a place to live. I needed food. And I wanted to continue my college career. So I did not have a choice. I had to take a job at a restaurant that had a smoking section. I knowingly submitted myself to something that a -- knowing the history to my family...

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an Amendment that Mrs. Thompson's Amendment, which I support, and this has to do with the little man and the little woman. This has to do with everyone's savings. Right now when you buy a $50 U.S. mint gold piece, you don't have to pay sales tax on it because it's over $1,000. But when the little man or the little woman wants to buy a piece of silver, they have to pay sales tax on it. And many people don't have the privilege that like you and I do of having a 401-K or a pension plan to put away money to save. This allows the little man, the little woman, everyone, to save, to fight inflation, to fight debasement of the currency. And this especially helps those who are on fixed incomes, and a lot of people who just deal in cash. And they want to purchase gold and silver to protect themselves in the future against the basement of the currency and against inflation. Right now the present policy punishes those who likes to save and are little. And I would like to --

REPRESENTATIVE STEWART: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Stewart, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE STEWART: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Certainly.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE STEWART: Does this have anything to do with Louisa Mae Alcott?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I'm not aware if it does.

REPRESENTATIVE STEWART: Louisa Mae Alcott. Little Women.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you. It's for everyone's savings. The little women. The little men. Thank you, Vickie. And I would like for your support on that. I believe I talked to most of you all about this may be acceptable to the author, and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Simpson sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment to the Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. We're back on the Thompson Amendment. Mrs. Thompson moves passage. The question occurs on the adoption. The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know when Representative Simpson's little men and little women get together with Ms. Thompson's little men and little (inaudible)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Villareal sends up an Amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Villareal voting aye. Show Mr. Pitts voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 39 ayes, 98 nays, 2 present not voting, the Villareal Amendment fails to adopt. Members, we're on Page 736 of your bill packet. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gonzalez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez to explain her Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is open mic night so I thought I'd give it a try. This House Bill or this Amendment, rather, passed out of Committee Ways & Means, and it is a personal responsibility bill. And let me explain why. What this proposes to do is increase the State traffic fines from $30 to $45, and this goes under the Responsible Driver Program. It is projected to bring in $85.1 million in the next biennium to the State of Texas. Approximately 35 of which would go to Trauma Care Funding. District 76 in El Paso has one Level I Trauma Care Center in the whole entire southwest region, and it is important that we have this money to protect those individuals that are going to be in traffic fatalities or near traffic fatalities. And so we must care for our trauma centers. I understand that some of you may have an issue with raising the fee from 30 to $45 but, again, this is about personal responsibility. I can tell you that some of the safest drivers I know were my mom and my grandmother and that was because we knew we couldn't afford to get a traffic ticket. So I urge you to vote yes on this particular Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: This is a fee and probably a tax increase. It does bring in a lot of money and I oppose it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez to close on her Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: It's a good bill. Vote for it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Gonzalez sends up an Amendment. The question is on the adoption of the Gonzalez Amendment. Vote aye. Vote no. This is a division vote. Have all voted? There being 32 ayes. 88 nays. Two present not voting, the Gonzalez Amendment fails adoption. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment. Is Representative Guillen on the floor? Is Representative Kolkhorst on the floor?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Torres brought to you an Amendment. This bill has the support of the TML, which is all the cities across the state. This bill has the support of the Texas Association of Business. We all know that this is basically the only bill, the only Amendment that we will have this time to try to extend permanently the million dollar small business tax exception. No other Amendment will you see tonight or any other time in this Session when you can extend and pay for permanently the million dollar tax exception for all small businesses. NFIB has a quote that says if the small business tax exception goes away from a million to $600,000, they're going to consider that a tax increase and rightfully so. What this bill does, this Amendment does, is it brings into -- it modernizes our PUC and Tax Code and taxes the same businesses, providing the same service closer to the same rate. We should not have a government supplied advantage. When I came as a freshman, like Mr. Taylor there, who's a wise man from West Texas here, who told me, when you're in the Legislature, everybody comes up here for one thing. They want a fair advantage. And that's what's happening right now between the satellite industry and the cable industry. The satellite industry has a tax advantage that we have supplied of 8 and a quarter percent. The adoption of this Amendment would lower that tax advantage to two percent, and they would still have a tax advantage of 2 percent in most of the states. We would take the money that is recouped from this equalization and put the first money to the million dollar tax exception and the remaining of the funds to local property tax reduction. And so with that, you've seen some of the flyers that we have passed out. We've got Empower Texas. So it's said that they recognize that a tax swap that goes to property tax relief or --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Mr. Taylor?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Just a minute.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He'll yield in just a minute.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: That that would not be used on the score card which is important to some people. We have Governor Norquist's group who gave a letter when we had the bill in Committee, that said if you use -- if you close this tax loop hole and you put those taxes to reducing taxes at other places, it's not a violation of the tax pledge if you took one. And so we have tried to calm many of the fears that you have of oh, it's going to be a break in my tax pledge. No. It's not. We try to bring to you something that your cities support, which they do, and their businesses support, which they do, which gives something that our small businesses need and that is the million dollar exception for our small businesses. And now I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Eiland, you clearly worked hard on this. And I just want to make sure that with equal precision, the numbers of the Members of this chamber understand this flyer. American for Taxpayer Empower Texans have not endorsed what you're proposing tonight; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Correct. You could see on the Chamber document, at least Empower Texas, it says that they will not use it on the fiscal score cord card or whatever you all call it. They recognize the issue. They recognize some people, you know, cable people who do have not a tax advantage may not like it. They also recognize that it's not the role of government to pick winners and losers and those kind of things. So no, it is not endorsed by those two tax groups. What they said is they both recognize the issue and they will not count it as a violation of your pledge or of your score card. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields, Ms. Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Representative Eiland, wouldn't you say this is a pro-business initiative that is simply leveling the playing field and bring something parity to the cable industry and the satellite industry?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: It almost brings parity. Satellite will still have a two percent advantage in municipality because Federal law says that municipalities cannot tax satellite. And therefore, they will still have a two percent advantage, but that's better and more competitive than eight and a quarter percent advantage.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: So that's leveled the playing field some. And the services are, according to a report that the House Ways & Means Committee said that they're virtually indistinguishable.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Correct. It's the same product.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: And if you just compare the key industries and look at the number of jobs that the cable industry brings in versus the satellite, it's a pretty strong comparison there. Would you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: There's more boots on the ground, so to speak, for cable than there is satellite.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: I notice you have a broad base of support, the Texas Association of Businesses and you have the Texas Municipal League, sometimes not always on the same side. But for cities, what do you think that means for, for example, the City of Houston or other cities?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: The money that this raises in the City of Houston will go to tax relief in the City of Houston. So I think it's good.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Okay. Were you aware that Texas cable TV subscribers pay more than double the fees and taxes on their services than satellite subscribers pay?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. Yes, that's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Would you say that's fair?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: After the passage of this bill, satellite will have, what I would say, a fair advantage. Two percent is a fair advantage. Eight and a quarter percent is a pretty unfair advantage.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: And would you say the treatment is reasonable and neutral?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: It places all the money that it raises into product tax reduction and the small business tax exception.

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields for a question, Mr. Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: Mr. Eiland, I'm hearing you talk about the two different industries, and what I'm more interested in is if we vote for this Amendment, are we voting for an additional tax?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: We're going to be voting to lower the taxes in our cities and we're going to be voting to raise the Small Business Tax Exemption.

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: Okay. Well if this bill is revenued neutral, are these funds going to be rolled back into Small Business Tax Exemption to provide a property tax relief?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. They are.

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: Okay. I guess when I'm looking at this: I'm wondering if this tax exception would be able to help small business be able to put it back into more dollars and put it back into new hires and new equipment?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. I think if you had what we had awhile ago, Mr. Gallego's Amendment -- if it was true that there was $2 billion being raised from people that are not making money in the franchise tax, then this bill is even more important because it raises the exception so that people will that have less than a million dollars in revenue don't have to worry about if they're making money or not because they will be exempt from the franchise tax like they are today.

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: Well, we've had a lot of conversation today about how these taxes effect different businesses, but would this Amendment like not level the playing field?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes. It would level the playing field almost.

REPRESENTATIVE FLETCHER: I think you've got a good Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Mr. Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: I yield for some questions.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields for some questions.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Representative Eissler, is it not true that cable companies pay a franchise tax to municipalities currently that satellite companies do not pay because they are using city right-of-ways for the delivery of their signal?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: It is correct that they pay a franchise tax, just the same way that telephone companies pay a franchise tax.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: And telephone inaudible) --

(House Stands at Ease.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Guillen to explain his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This Amendment expands the Tax Code to offer 100 percent disabled veterans, their spouses to pay their ad villarum taxes in installments. And I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts to speak in opposition to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: It's agreeable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Guillen to close in his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GUILLEN: Thank you. It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendments. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villareal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Villareal to explain his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: This Amendment is going to be acceptable to the author. It was heard in Appropriations. It sets up an interim Committee to examine our permanent revenue shortfall and it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, Members, this Amendment would require all revenue generate by this bill be appropriated to the Texas Education Agency for deposit in the Foundation School Program, and I think that Jim said that it's acceptable to the author. I hope he's not playing a joke on me.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Castro Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Do we all need to join the conversation or --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Would you come down front, please. Representative Huberty. Representative Villareal. Representative Gallego. Representative Aycock. The Chair recognizes Amendments by Huberty, Gallego, Villareal and Aycock have all been withdrawn and Miller. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Lantroupe.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lantroupe.

REPRESENTATIVE LANTROUPE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an Amendment I laid out earlier tonight and there is an Amendment to the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment to the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Mr. Speaker, this simply asks for the Supreme Court to do an audit and garner the amount of money that is spent on attorneys ad litem, judicial bypass cases and report back to the Legislature on it next Session. And I think it's acceptable to the author to the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative King sends up an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted. On the Lantroupe Amendment, the Chair recognizes Representative Lantroupe.

REPRESENTATIVE LANTROUPE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and this Amendment is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Lantroupe sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. That's all the Amendments. The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1811? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1811. Record vote's been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk ring will the bell. Have all Members voted? There being 96 ayes and 49 ayes, Senate Bill 1811 is passed to engrossment. Members, if you have any announcements, bring them down front. If there are no further announcements, Representative Veasey moves the House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m., today May 21st. The House stands adjourned.