REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Quorum is present. The House and gallery, please, rise for the invocation. Chair recognizes Representative Harless to introduce our pastor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. It is my great honor to introduce to you today Michael Pender, he's the senior pastor at Fallbrook Church. Pastor Pender is my constituent and Fallbrook church is in Representative Turner's district. As founder of Fallbrook Church Pastor Pender has seen his congregation grow from four families to several thousand worshiping at two services every Sunday. Under his dynamic leadership many have come to know the Lord as their savior. He believes that his call is to be a good shepherd over the sheep entrusted into his care. Pastor Pender is one of the most humble men I know. He doesn't seek glory for himself or the church but gives God all the glory. He's married to Janice Forman Pender and they have four children. Michael, Jr., Arnel, Collin and his daughter Bailey who drove here today from Mary Harden Baylor to join him. Please, give Pastor Pender a warm welcome. Pastor: I want to thank Representative Harless for this opportunity to pray this morning. Let us pray. Heavenly Father we give you praise this morning and we thank you for the marvelous gift of life. We know these leaders have gathered today as part of their God-given ministry to lead and make decisions for the great State of Texas. Father, they have to address some complex and unprecedented challenges and I ask that you give them wisdom to guide us through the difficult days ahead. Father you have entrusted the lives of millions of Texans in their hands and I pray that you continue to use them to keep the great State of Texas as the greatest state in the United States of America. My final request is to bless the great State of Texas as you bless the United States of America. I present this prayer today in Jesus name. Amen.

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

REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Please, join me in the pledge to the flags. [PLEDGE]

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

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. As we start this last seven days of the 82nd session I thought it was very appropriate, you know, we have a physician here to look after our physical needs and that's PH not FI and however we might need that. But my pastor this last weekend gave us a verse from first Thessalonians that says encourage each other and build each other up. And I think that the Speaker spoke to us last week about, you know, civility and issues like that. Let's be supporters and builders of each other, encouragers in this last seven days. I have the honor today and privilege of introducing Dr. Beverly Nuckols. Dr. Nuckols is a long time resident of New Braunfels. She has been very active in the community, she and her husband Larry. She is the vice president of the Republican Women's Club there in New Braunfels. Larry is our county chair. She's been coming to the Capitol actually since 1994 and she mentioned to me that back in, I think, 2003 she actually came five times when we had those special sessions. It might have been 2005. Please, help me and welcome today and give a hardy Texas thank you Dr. Beverly Nuckols for coming and being with us today.

THE CHAIR: Madam Doorkeeper.

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

THE CHAIR: Admit the messenger.

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

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

THE CLERK: HB 3803, HB 3531, HB 35, HB 2973, HB 2959, HB 2907, HB 2902, HB 2716, HB 2609, HB 2518, HB 2507, HB 2476, HB 2417, HB 2383, HB 2118, HB 2080, HB 1899, HB 1814, HB 1573, HB 1469, HB 1137, HB 1127, HB 1075, HB 1067, HB 886, HB 675, HB 499, HB 442, HB 441, HB 417, HB 350, HB 252, HB 240, HB 159 HB 91, HB 8.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Davis of Harris, are you on the floor? Chair recognizes Representative Geren for announcement. Members, please, listen up.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, last night Nancy Otto was taken to Breckenridge Hospital she was having some chest pains. She's doing well today. They're going to run some more tests. So, if we don't see John this morning that's where he is but keep her in your prayers, please.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Munoz for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. I move to the suspend all necessary rule to take up and consider HR 2072 to congratulating Mario and Carlos Bracamontes on their remarkable accomplishments.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Motion suspended. Sorry. Go ahead. Okay. The following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 2072 by Munoz. WHEREAS, Mario Bracamontes and Carlos Bracamontes are making a difference in the lives of at-risk youth in the Rio Grande Valley through their organization of the Toros rugby program; and WHEREAS, The Bracamontes brothers overcame their own difficulties with school and authority as teens through involvement in rugby, and two decades later, they are striving to help the next generation by offering a chance to play; they pooled their own money to purchase uniforms and began recruiting players at the Summit Sports Club and the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District's alternative education center, and they now oversee two teams and more than 60 middle and high school students; and WHEREAS, Mario Bracamontes is an assistant principal at Austin Middle School in the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD, and Carlos Bracamontes is the athletic director of the Pharr Parks and Recreation Department; together they have made great strides in keeping their players in school and out of gangs, and both the Boys and Girls Club of Pharr and the Pharr Police Department recognizing the initiative's effectiveness, have helped with funding; And WHEREAS, These outstanding Texans have demonstrated their commitment to the youth of the Rio Grande Valley and the future of the Lone Star State, and their efforts to reach and inspire students through athletics are truly deserving of commendation; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor Mario Bracamontes and Carlos Bracamontes for creating the Toros rugby program in Pharr and extend to them sincere best wishes for continued success with their important work; and, be it further RESOLVED, That official copies of this resolution be prepared for Mario and Carlos Bracamontes as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Munoz.

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The resolution is adopted. Representative Guillen moves to add all names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Munoz.

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. These I want to pay special attention to the two people we have here on the dais. I want to welcome here to the -- to their Capitol from the triple city of triple crown city of Pharr, Texas. And I want to introduce these two brothers to you and honor them for not only overcoming long odds to become success stories themselves but to salute them for making it possible for others to fight their way out of trouble and despair and to become solid, productive Texans. So, would you, please, help me welcome Mario and Carlos Bracamontes to their Capitol. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you Madam Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution to 2089 which honors the 2010, 2011 Zapata County Border patrol's youth of the year Lizbeth Martinez.

THE CHAIR: Members, is there any objection? Chair hears none. The rules are suspended. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 2089 by Guillen. WHEREAS, Zapata High School senior Lizbeth Martinez has been named the 2010-2011 Youth of the Year by the U.S. Border Patrol; and WHEREAS, The daughter of Hervey and Maria Martinez, this outstanding young Texan has demonstrated great initiative throughout her high school career; she is a member of the National Honor Society and the student council, and she has received national recognition as a result of her participation in Zapata's Mariachi Halcon program; moreover, she has excelled at her studies earning "commended performance" on her TAKS exams; and WHEREAS, Ms. Martinez has also brought her characteristic enthusiasm and drive to her community work, serving as a volunteer with the public library, the Boys and Girls Club, Operation Lone Star, and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital; after graduation she plans to study computer engineering at The University of Texas--Pan American; and WHEREAS, Lizbeth Martinez can reflect with pride on her academic record, extracurricular achievements, and contributions to her community, and she may indeed look with anticipation toward a promising future; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Lizbeth Martinez on her selection as the U.S. Border Patrol Youth of the Year for 2010-2011 and extend to her sincere best wishes for continued success; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Ms. Martinez as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Resolution is adopted. Representative Munoz moves to add all names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, it's an honor to recognize a talented hard working high school senior, Ms. Lizbeth Martinez, for her many accomplishments in service to her community. Lizbeth is was very involved with Zapata High Schools National Honor Society and Mariachi Halcon the high school's award winning Mariachi group that performed in the rotunda earlier this session. She's also valedictorian of her high school class. Ms. Martinez's enthusiasm and passion for what she does includes a wide variety of volunteer work as well. She's volunteered at Zapata public library, her local boys and girls club, Operation Lone Star, and the Saint Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Upon graduation Ms. Martinez plans to attend the University of Texas at Panamerican in Edinburg where she'll study computer engineering. I wish her the very best with her studies and future endeavors and I'm extremely proud to have Ms. Lizbeth and her parents Hervey and Maria Martinez with us here today. Also with us today are the border patrol agents Jorge Molano and Jesse Sanchez from Zapata County who work closely with the students at Zapata High School to select monthly, as well as annually the student youth of the month and the year finalists based on their achievements. Members, please, join me in recognizing an exceptional south Texas student the Zapata County Youth of the Year, Lizbeth Martinez. Chair recognizes Representative Anderson for a notice.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'd like to give notice pursuant to Rule 7, Section 37. I seek to make a motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 681 failed to pass. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion which is notice of the motion to reconsider by which Senate Bill 681 failed. Notice is given at 9:35. The earliest that the motion can be reconsidered to be taken up is 10:35. Thank you. Members, we're about to go on the House calendar. Chair lays out on third reading Senate Bill 694. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 694 by west. Relating to the regulation of metal recycling entities; providing penalties.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Smith of Harris County. Chair recognizes Mr. Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the regulated metals bill that we heard yesterday on second reading. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Floor substitute by Mr. Weber.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Weber.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the dratted kill the metal recycling business bill. This bill is going to limit -- I'm submitting my amendment which is actually a committee substitute, the original language. And if you'll take the time to pull it up you'll see that there are some differences between this my amendment and the bill that's before us here.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: What the recycling bill does as proposed, I want to refresh your memories, is that it limits metal recycling businesses from being able to pay for the materials brought to them, copper, aluminum, air conditioning coils. I understand that there's a thieving problem going on. I get that. But we're about to make a law that tries to make the business the, the guilty parties, and punish them by limiting them from the form of payments they can -- they can pay and the time in which they can pay them. We don't do that do to any other business that I know of. Many of you ran for the Republicans on the floor of the House on a smaller government, less intrusive, cut spending platform and in my opinion rightfully so. And what we're about to do is we're about to take a business and delve deep down into their procedures and their policies and we're going to say you cannot pay in this fashion. You must wait five days to write a check. You must wait ten days to pay cash.

THE CHAIR: Representative Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the -- would the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Leo, if you'll just wait.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: I can sure.

THE CHAIR: Not at this time, Mr. Berman.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I appreciate that. We are going to take a business and we are going to instruct them how to do their business. We don't do that to any other business that I'm aware of. We are hearing from scrap dealers all over the state. There's about 1100 if memory serves me correct. Three sessions ago we passed a bill out of this House before I got here -- out of this legislature that said scrap dealers needed to register with the DPS. They needed to take pictures of the regulated materials in question. They needed to report those to the DPS and to date only 14 percent of the dealers have registered. Now, I submit to you that what we need to do is that we need to go back and but teeth in that law that was passed three sessions ago and we need to make those scrap dealers register. Make them begin the process of reporting material. Get an online database. Serve notice to the criminals that we are coming after you on this -- on this horrific crime of stealing air-conditioning units and copper and wire and all the things they take. The argument put before us is that criminals turn in these stolen goods and they buy drugs with them. Well why don't we just outlaw drugs. Why don't we just outlaw stealing. Instead what we have done is we have crafted a bill that says to industry you will be responsible for cleaning up the thieving that's going on. Not law enforcement. Not the police department and let me hasten to add the four major police departments that said yesterday Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Fort Worth agreed to the language in the first bill as did the industry. The good actors in the recycling industry want to clean up their industry and what are we going to do what are we going to reward them. We are going to punish them by taking a cash or check for a certain number of days. We're going to drive the metal market, the regulated metals underground and the price up. And I tell you it's bad policy, it's bad for Texas business, it sets a bad precedent. Please stand up and take notice and vote with me and vote against this. And I will yield to my friend in the back.

THE CHAIR: Representative Berman, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Randy, you know I've got constituents who have told me they are going out of business if this bill passes.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, sir. I do know that.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: If they can't pay at the time they receive the scrap metal we are -- they are going out of business. They're just small businessmen. They don't have huge scrapyards like some people do. And I'm glad you brought this amendment. We shouldn't put the police departments' work on these businessmen. We shouldn't have to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I agree.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: It's not their job. We don't do it anywhere else. We try to stay away from other people trying to make them do the police work. So, I'll be supporting your amendment. I'm glad you brought it.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Leo I appreciate that. Thank you, Lon, I appreciate you being in support when we're --

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And just look at this. This is Lon Burnam to the left and Leo Berman to the right standing together for free enterprise.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: That's what it's about it's about free enterprise. Members, this is about free enterprise. Let them do their business. Do you think black markets don't exist and go underground for a reason. They do because the good actors will comply and we will make it hard on them and they will dwindle, some of them will go out of business. The bad actors will continue to operate --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Not at this time, thank you. The bad actors will continue to operate irrespective of the law. They will create a market, a black market underground and prices will go up and we will have done nothing but drive a good segment of business out of business. And yes, I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Let me ask you a question about these good actors you're talking about. You said there's 14 percent of these businesses that have complied with this legislation that we passed out of here two or three sessions ago; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So, these are the same people that you're saying are going to go out of business because they have a problem complying with the current law they choose not to comply with the current law.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Are you talking about the 14 percent or the 86 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: 86 percent are not currently complying with the law.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: There aren't any teeth in the law, Larry. So, that's a statistic that it was brought to us in committee even in last session.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I'm having a hard time understanding. You're saying these businessmen, these businesses they would comply if there were teeth? I'm having a hard time reconciling this industry you're talking about that 86 percent of them are choosing to ignore the law today and those are the people you are here saying oh, it's going to put those 86 percent out of business?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: No, I'm not delineating between the 86 percent and the 14 percent. Unfortunately, I wish it were that simple. We're going to catch them on both sides. We're going to drive out the good actors and we're going to drive out some that haven't registered.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You know I had a -- my wife realtor and representative of a retired gentleman who needed to sell his house he ended having to bring money to closing because people had broke into the house and stole the copper pipes out of his walls and this man who needed this to retire on no longer has that money because he had to put money into the house. I don't -- were you aware that we're having vacant homes where people are coming in stealing the copper the wires. They're putting a wench right up to the wires and just sucking them out of the walls. Are you aware of that, representative.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I'm aware of that but two wrongs don't make a right.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And are you aware that the construction industry is now having to hire guards that costs millions of dollars across the state to hire guards and, in fact, some cities are approving other things besides copper water lines because of this increased theft of copper.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I am aware of that. Are you aware that malls hire security guards because of the thieving that goes on in mall parking lots. Should we outlaw cash from a lady's purse because thieves steal the cash from the lady's purse use it to buy drugs.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I am telling you that there are more people stealing copper than are taken purses out of a little old lady's hands.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Then why don't we outlaw thieving.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, we do have an outlaw against thieving but when amphetamine people can take that stuff and go over to this business and give it to them with no identification. 86 percent are not participating and they can wash that money, take that money and go sell drugs, buy drugs which is what they're doing and you've admitted that that's what they're doing with this. This is part of the illegal narcotics trade and the law enforcement is asking for help, would you agree.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Law enforcement has agreed to the other language. I would agree to that. But, Larry, that's like saying somebody is taking cash out of the cash draw where they work at a restaurant and buying drugs. Why don't we outlaw cash in that cash drawer.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: We are talking about a major problem in this state. And let me ask you --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: We're fixing to add to it.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: We had a plant that we were trying to sell in one of my small communities. The fist time an industry was looking in and the president said of that company we will not come there because the building that they were going to purchase had been broken into at least three times. And they said how can we come to a community like that and we had to beg them to come and --

THE CHAIR: Representative Solomons raises a point of order the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this amendment? Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons. Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons against.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I am not sure what is in this 24, 25 page amendment. I don't know if it's good or bad.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm not ready yet. There may be some good things in here and there may be some bad things in here. Nobody has talked to me before hand about a 25 page amendment that basically substitutes the entire bill. This is a problem about metal -- these recyclers and the fact that theft of copper and wires -- we've had problems in all the urban areas. I don't know that Mr. Weber is trying to do a bad thing but I will tell you as member of this House I don't really appreciate a fact that somebody would come in the night before, file an amendment, a complete floor substitute and I don't even know what's in it. I don't know about you all but I've been working on my bill for the day and I think we ought to allow the bill to go forward and go to conference or whatever it needs to do. But I'm not saying that Mr. Weber is doing a bad thing. I'm just saying that I don't think this is reasonable or right and that's all I'm going to say. I'm going to vote against the amendment because I don't know even know what's in it.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'll be happy to yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman, yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Burt, this bill is the original bill and you've got Lon Burnam behind you there that was on the committee with me last time on the Environmental reg. And, I believe, that he would agree with me that this is the original bill as filed as agreed to by the industry and we had four police departments testify for this bill. So, the bill is essentially the same that the committee had but they changed the language.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: It's a Senate bill, isn't it?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yeah --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: It's a Senate bill so it's not the same bill it's a Senate bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I just wanted to answer that question for you. I'm not digging up something completely new. It's been vetted. It's been through the process. You know, I'm not a proponent really of either of the bills but the one that I'm submitting is not as onerous as the one that's before us now.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: And I don't know that. I don't know from the Senate -- I don't know about the Senate from the Senate side. I'm just saying when you do -- I'm going to have this problem later in the day where I've got a member who is basically late at night filed a complete floor substitute to a bill. Didn't even give it to me. I don't even know what's in it. I'm still trying to figure out what's in it. And it, quote, it's a Senate Bill and, quite frankly, I don't think that's a reasonable situation. I think we've got a bill the author of the bill should be able to go to conference and get it resolved and may turn out to be this but I think they ought to get the chance to go to conference.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam speaking for the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker members, like so many things we do. What we do here, right now, on this amendment doesn't really matter but process wise the problem is right now a Senate Bill came over, it was thoroughly vetted by the industry and the relevant players. It's has been an issue that has been before environmental reg. It is a serious issue. We're not talking about whether or not we should do something about this problem. We're talking about what is the least intrusive, the least restrictive, the least onerous way to address the issue and the problem. There are certain members of the House that have decided to essentially hijack the Senate Bill and put their version and run with that, which is okay, but if you're talking about and complaining about the process this is not the Senate Bill that came over here. The amendment that is being offered the Senate Bill. It has been thoroughly vetted for over two years and it's reasonable and I appreciate Randy running with this and, you know, it really doesn't matter whether we get 100 votes or not.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Gladly.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Lon. Is it not a fact that last session when I was on environmental reg from the very outset of this bill being presented I raised the longest loudest objection and said this is bad for business.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Yes. And you had a couple other committee members on that environmental committee saying, you know, this is too intrusive. You know, I'd be glad to go over the top to protect people's lungs from the air pollution we're dealing with. But you don't need to go over the top and trying to protect people from this blue collar theft. And that's what we're talking about.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And I appreciate that. Isn't it also a fact that nobody on the committee denies that there is thievery or thieving problem going on; isn't that a fact?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: There is absolutely no question in anybody's mind that there's a problem that needs to be addressed. The question is, are we going to do the right thing right now this morning? Probably not. It'll have to go to conference committee and the Senate will probably prevail because Senator West has said the House version is not going to become law.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And it's also a fact that we are on the verge and in danger of overreacting in such a fashion, wouldn't you agree?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: It is frequently the case that we overreact to a situation --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: We're going to have unintended consequences and I'm telling you at a time when our economy is down, wouldn't you agree, that this is not the time to depress what are otherwise good actors in our community because there's a thieving problem in mall parking lots and embezzlement from cash registers. There's all kinds of stealing going on and yet we have singled out this one industry and we're going to make it hard on them. Does that make any sense to you?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: It doesn't make any sense to me at all and I don't understand why certain people have developed such an attitude that it's completely inconsistent with our free enterprise approach to so many other things. Like I said, I'd like to see us do better regulation of air pollution. I know the physical harm that that causes. But in this case all we're doing is overreacting to a blue collar crime situation and we're creating some problems or we would if it became law with the item that is -- the bill that is before us right now. And the reason we should accept your amendment is because if we accept your amendment we're finished with this piece of business. We will have been done what is necessary and it can go to the governor.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you for bringing that up, Lon. You use the word "free enterprise." Isn't it your recollections that most of the Republicans a lot of Democrats, myself as a Republican, when we go out in the community and we talk about our constituents, our great country we say that we are believers in the free enterprise system; is that not a fact?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I've heard that, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You seem to have heard that. And now what we're about to do is we're about to limit in Texas one of the bright shining spots in the country from an economical standpoint and others. We're about to limit a business in Texas as if there's no tomorrow. As if we've got plenty of money. Does that make sense to you?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, one of the things that doesn't make sense to me is to say that make American dollar is not available or has to be postponed for trade purposes. I mean, let's go back, that's the reason we have a cash economy or that's the reason we used to have a cash economy.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Sure, you bet. And I'm a firm believer. Listen, I appreciate your attention. Members, thank you for listening. This is a crucial bill it may seem --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You're at the back mic.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And won't you join me in imploring members to look at this as a crucial bill and to vote for business. You join me in that Representative Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'm supporting you. That's why I'm at this mic now talking in favor of your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, I appreciate that.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Chairman?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Workman?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Burnam, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Are you aware that I'm in the construction industry?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Yes, I was.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: And we do commercial building work all the over the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And you're probably much more aware of the dollar amount involved in the problem that wasn't addressed last session because frankly of the overly aggressive, overly engaged attitude and the noncompromising attitude that we experienced last session. We could have solved this problem with legislation last session.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Are you aware also -- and I assume you're not but it's been over 3 years since we've had any copper stolen off of any of our projects.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, no. Congratulations I don't know what you've done to reduce that problem but it has been a problem for lots of people.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: My point is I'm not sure that this is an issue that we need to be worried about at the House, at this particular time. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, I disagree. I think there is a problem and I think we need to address it. I think we need to be smart in the way we address it. And I think the Senate Bill as it came over was smart. I think it's smart to put Randy's amendment back on the Senate Bill so it looks like it was when it got here. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Cook in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to ask the membership to table this amendment. Now, remember what we have is the Senate Bill and last I checked we're the House. And all we're asking you to do is vote out the bill as Chairman Smith brought it to us where we can go to conference. And I told Senator West that, you know, there are good points to the bill that he's proposed and there's very good points to the bill that we proposed. And the only way we can come together is to send it back over. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote this bill as it's proposed out. So I'm going to say -- and by the way just so everybody understands this business. For the folks that bring junk iron and aluminum cans and all those things they do every day you're not -- they're not effected one bit. This law does not effect them at all. What we're talking about is the regulated metal. So when folks bring copper statuary, bronze, things like that common sense tell you, you shouldn't be bringing in there unless you're a licensed air-conditioning person or 12 those are the items we're talking about here --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Cook, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: And one other thing. Let me tell you this has been a well organized --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Cook, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Not at this time. A lobbyist efforts but I'm going to suggest to you that the people who are not here to lobby on their behalf are the folks from churches, from boys and girls clubs, from Goodwill, from all sorts of nonprofits and schools that are perpetually having this regulated metal stolen. We worked on this. I chaired environmental reg last session. More bills filed on this issue. We spent the whole interim working on it and we have a chance to fix this problem this legislative session and hope we do that.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Cook --

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Cook, if we accept the bill as this amendment it doesn't go to conference meeting?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: It does not.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And when you-all going go to conference meeting y'all are going to work and try to address some of the issues that have been faced; isn't that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's exactly right. And once again we have met with Senator West and, you know, he's committed to working with us, we're committed to working with him.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: How many stories have you heard of people showing up on Sunday church and it gets hotter and hotter and, you know, what they found out, those air conditioners have been stolen over the weekend.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Not only that, when you look at the value of that copper, the cost to fix it is exponentially more than the value of the copper that was sold.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And, you know, I carried the legislation last year, last session.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And that was something Edmond Temple, our wonderful leader in this industry, who is involved in this industry asked me to carry that to make sure that we had sound legislation; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's correct. And by the way, you know, there's a lot of been said about, you know, what you can't get your check for five days or you can't get your cash for ten days. Let me ask you, Larry, how many businesses do you know that would go out of business with a five day or ten day receivable.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You know, there's a last problem with that business.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Nobody.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And what we've already heard from Mr. Weber is 86 percent of these businesses haven't complied with the law we've already passed; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's right. And, you know, what law enforcement -- and I've talked to -- I have personally spoke to law enforcement for Dallas, Fort Worth San Antonio, Austin, all these cities they tell me two things that are most important is, number one, the cash component. And number two, real -- realty in the enforcement codes. Right now most of them do not register and there's a very small fine. So, it's the cost of doing business. I get a small fine, I stay unregistered, I keep going. So we've got to have real penalty to force these folks to actually register and be good actors.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Cook, you know -- have you heard that it's not only our homes but -- do you remember the story about they are stealing miles of copper lines from the railroads. Railroads have copper lines to charge their batteries on their communication devices. Did you realize that?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Correct. That's another good example. In the House Bill if you bring in burned wire you've also got to bring in certificate from where you got it. The fire department that certified, you know, the circumstance of that. You can't just roll in with burned wire. In the other bill you can. So, another reason why we need --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Do you know that they're stealing the brass places on our tomb stones that people have in cemeteries and bringing those in.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And people's -- that's where they loved ones are buried for eternity and they take those and sell those -- do you realize that there are those that will buy those and not hold those, not reporting anything. The 86 percent we're talking about. How would you like to have your -- you saved up the money you could to buy that tombstone and it's gone. You know, that's kind of stuff we're talking about. The people that are engaged in this activity we're trying to work with here. They're not good actors.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Exactly, right. And once again the businesses that are doing right. The folks that are bringing in and doing right have nothing to be concerned about.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Those that are going to be regularly -- and you and I have talked about those that are regularly in this business and are selling this, they're not going to have an issue with these types of regulations; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's exactly right. And I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Cook, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you Chairman Cook. My good friend from Corsicana you've got -- I believe you had a great testimony there as it were. Didn't you say that churches and boys and girls homes and other organizations are losing air conditioners.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: There's a thieving problem going on. Would you agreed with that?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Do you think, Chairman Cook, it's only limited to air-conditioning units and copper and those kinds of things.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: No. But it's kind of like the bank robber Willy Lomus, you know, you go where the money is. And in this case they're going where the copper is.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So, you're bringing up a bank robber, is it your contention that we ought to outlaw cash in banks?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Pardon me.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You're bringing up bank robberies, is it your contention we should outlaw cash in banks.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: No, you are.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: No, I just asked you a question from back here. Chairman, you said if I recall and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm asking. Did you not say that this bill doesn't need to go to -- if voted out the way it is now would not go to conference.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Why is that?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Because it's a Senate Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So in essence you're saying is we have an agreed upon bill by the Senate; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: No. What you have is the Senate Bill. So if you want them to be in charge over here we can do that with every bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: What I am saying --

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I think this chamber is very capable of making good decisions.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I agree but I'm asking the question if this bill doesn't have to go to conference, if it's slightly less onerous why wouldn't we agree with something that's slightly less onerous, addresses the problem in a major way, and that doesn't have the controversy, doesn't need to go a conference committee and would pass. Why wouldn't we do that?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Honestly, Mr. Weber, most of the controversy has been your concerns. I think overwhelmingly if you recall we passed the House Bill 1933, 105 to whatever. So it didn't have a lot of controversy.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Are you aware that there has been phone calls made and input from a lot of constituents since that time?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I know there's a very concerted effort, a very concerted effort on this. And once again, I think that if some of these folks that have been victimized were engaged in this process I think you'd have probably had ten times more calls. But let me remind you what loss do we have by going to conference and making sure we have the very best bill as opposed to the least onerous bill. Let's have the very best bill we can have. That's what the citizens of Texas deserve.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, the very best bill that you're describing is going to be the most onerous on the business. So, I don't think limiting in Texas is necessarily good for all.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I don't think you eliminate business. I've been in business in Texas a long time. I have never known a business -- never known a business to go out of business by failing to keep good records. I've never known one that would go out of business if they've got a 5 or 10 day receivable. I'd love to have that in every business that I've ever been involved in.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, you're saying that if it needs to go to conference the bill as presented by the Senate would not need to go to conference. I think it makes good sense but you won't agree. Would you agree that people are finally waking up, their making phone calls and that we have a awoken a sleeping giant and they realize -- or do you think it's too late.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I think you've done a good job of getting your special interest to weigh in. And once again, I'm more interested in making sure the people that are getting wiped out by this are going to have a voice so --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm in the air-conditioning business. If this bill passes you have to have an AC license to turn scrap. It would help my business but I'm against it because it hurts them.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Move to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You've heard the entire argument. This is about helping business in Texas. Yes, we have at thieving problem but putting the burden on business is not going to help solve the problem. It sets a dangerous precedent. We need to pay attention. We need to think before we do this. The Senate has a good -- quite frankly, I don't like the Senate's version. But it's less onerous than what we've got in the House and I'm willing to compromise. Yes, I yield to my friend at the back mic.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Elkins, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you. Randy, for those of us who are not on the committee that heard the testimony was there ever any evidence that there was an any collusion between the thief and the metal scrap recyclers?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I'm unaware of any.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Okay. You've been making the point that this is about a thievery problem. And I'm just want to know, I mean, like to me I agree with your assessment that we're going after the wrong people. We're going after business, we're criminalizing business behavior. And I want to ask you this. How many people in this room would sell something and not get any money back for ten days.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: That's a good point, Gary. How many people would sell something and be dependent on their money for 10 days. I know there's accounts receivable all the time. But when you're a person out there trying to make ends meet, trying to help recycle, trying to do the right thing and now you're going to have to wait for your money. It doesn't make sense.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Well, right now if there's collusion going on and you said there's been no evidence or no testimony to that. We already have RICO laws and racketeering, organized crime laws crime laws we can address these issues. It just sounds to me that like we're going after business. It's just putting a bigger burden on business because for whatever reason law enforcement is not stepping up and going aggressively after these people that are committing these crimes.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You make a great point. I'm going to call for a record vote and want to see in my opinion who votes for business and who votes against business.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Did you.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Ms. Harless?

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, I will.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: Representative Weber, isn't there some cities that already have an ordinance similar to this without the exception of the cash? I know for instance the city of Houston requires a lot of these things that are in the legislation and I really think it's a good piece of legislation. What they're requiring you to do when someone shows up to sell you metal you have to take a picture of them. You have to get their thumb print, you have to get their driver's license, a copy of their driver's license. You have to get the information off of their car that they drove up in. You have to tag the metal that they're selling you and hold for a certain time frame. And now, what they're saying in the bill is that if you're getting a check you'll have to wait five days and if you're getting cash you have to wait ten days. What happens to the little man on the side of the road that's collecting metal that goes to the same place week in and week out to sell this metal in order to get food for his family. What happens to them under this piece of legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: He would not get the money. And let me tell you my air-conditioning guys break apart units on the weekends for extra money. They can't turn it in under this bill unless they have a license. Now, I wouldn't treat them this way. But there are some contractors that would say, you want to use my license to turn in the fruit of your hard work for the last couple of days? I want 10 percent, I want 20 percent or more. It's not good for the people who are trying to recycle, turn in that scrap for extra cash. It's going to hurt them. And that's a great point, representative, thank you.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: Well I feel less sorry for the air-conditioning man than as I do the little man on the side of the street trying to pay the bills --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So do I sometimes.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: -- for their family. And unfortunately they get caught up into this trap. And I have a lot of experience in the salvage metal business. My sister owns one. We're in the city of Houston we have adhered to the standards of the city of Houston for a number of years and they're good standards. It's a lot of paperwork. We have one person on staff full-time to keep up on the paperwork and inventory the metal but I think the cash payment is something that I've talked to Chairman Cook about last session and here we are with the same thing. You hurt the small person. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you great point. Members, Representative Harless brings up a great point. We are not only hurting business, we're hurting the small persons that are trying to make ends meet. Look if we want to ease into this make them register start requirements --

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Does the gentleman yield.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Let me finish, Chairman.

THE CHAIR: Not at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: If we want to ease into this to where the industry slowly but surely begins to come up to speed, maybe it's a year or a session or two. I don't know. Before we over burden them right off the bat let's give them a chance to register, give them a chance to build a database and start to spend the time and ease into it. Let's not overreact and have unintended consequences. I yield to my good friend in the back.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Once again, Representative Weber, are you aware that what we're wanting to do is go to conference committee.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Okay. And we can only do that if this amendment fails. Number two -- and I want make sure that members are clear. Those people who go out and collect cans on the side of the road that's not a regulated metal. They can go in and get cash. So if you're collecting aluminum cans nothing's stopping you from getting paid in cash. If you're bringing in an old lawn mower. Nothing's stopping you from getting paid in cash. If you got an old stove nothing's stopping you from getting paid in cash. So the junk iron and junk metal nothing is stopping you from getting paid in cash. It is the things that people steal. The regulated metal. Copper, manholes, manhole covers statuaries, bronzes the things that -- once again that can be stolen are those the ones we want to take our time and make sure we get it right. I want to make sure the members are clear, if you are bringing in junk iron you're going get paid in cash.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I'm not sure there was a question in that, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Woolley, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Does the gentleman yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, ma'am, I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Mr. Weber -- Mr. Weber, my family's business is on both sides of this. We have large electrical equipment we scrap a lot of it that's old and not being used. We stockpile it in a fenced area and it's stolen all the time in bits and pieces. whatever somebody can put in the trunk of their car. They even stole a cover that the water department had put -- a metal cover over a hole to fix a broken line. So it's that kind of thing. But we've also had buildings have the copper stolen out of a building. I think what you're trying to prevent in this instance are these little guys that get enough to fill their trunk and take it off and sell it. Whereas we deal with dealers all the time in selling used amounts. So I -- and I just talked to my son and he said the regulations were no problem for him at all. He would had rather see it regulated than having it stolen from us all the time. So, I just didn't know if you're aware of that, that's my question?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I was not.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Members, it's been a long discussion. I want you to vote know no on the motion to table and I appreciate your support.

THE CHAIR: Members, Mr. Weber sends up an amendment. Mr. Cook made a motion to table. The question is on adoption of the amendment. A record vote has been requested. A record voted is granted. All those in favor, vote aye. All those opposed, vote nay. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Representative Gallego voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 82 ayes and 58 nays the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you so much Mr. Speaker. Members, help me welcome some folks from Representative Harless' area and mine. Claude and Annette Hand they are also members of the church where Patricia and I attend Champion Forest Baptist Church. Welcome to your House. Members, help us welcome them. Go ahead and stand. Thank you. We're so glad you're here in Austin today. And thank you for all that you do for our community.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative White for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, today in our House south gallery we have students and faculty from the Harmony Christian School located in Lufkin, Texas. They have a real simple mission statement to guide every student toward academic excellence and spiritual maturity, to impact their world for Christ. They're guided by a simple vision statement. To educate students in the glory of God. Who are capable of achieving grade level with reasonable efforts and college preparatory environment through daily integration of God's word that they might impact they're world role for Christ. Harmony will you, please, stand. Members, join me in giving them a hardy welcome. Welcome to your Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hancock.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hancock.

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply insures proper notice of 30 days for discussion open -- or taken place before this is implemented. It's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hancock sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, anyone wishing to speak on for or against Senate Bill 694? Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 694. This is record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 106 ayes and 29 nays, Senate Bill 694 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Sheets.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move top of suspend all necessary rules take up and consider House Resolution 1982.

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

THE CLERK: HR 1982 by sheets. WHEREAS, Sarah Mason Thomas, Ashley Stallard, Nicole Johnson, and Savannah Still, four outstanding tennis players from Faith Academy in Marble Falls, proved their abilities by winning titles at the 2010 and 2011 Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools Tennis State Championships; and WHEREAS, Ms. Thomas won the 2010 2A title in girls' singles; a 13-year-old freshman at the time of her triumph, she was the youngest tennis player to ever become state champion; she dominated her opponents in all four rounds of the tournament, losing just 10 games, and defeated Victoria Hoelscher of Temple Holy Trinity in the finals to earn Faith Academy's first individual state title; Ms. Thomas has also competed in United States Tennis Association girls' 14 champ matches and has held a No. 1 ranking in the State of Texas; and WHEREAS, Ms. Stallard and Ms. Johnson won the 2010 2A state doubles championship as freshmen, giving the school its first title in that event; the pair won the crown in straight sets over Alexandra Bludau and Emma Gray of Halletsville Sacred Heart and only dropped six games in the course of four matches; Ms. Stallard has been a girls' 14 super champ player and Ms. Johnson a girls' 16 champ player; they, along with Ms. Thomas, are coached by Michelle Stallard at the Horseshoe Bay Resort; and WHEREAS, These victories helped the Lady Flames win the state title in the team competition in 2010, and more success followed in 2011; Ms. Thomas joined with classmate Savannah Still to claim the 2A state championship in doubles, while Ms. Stallard was state champion in the singles event and Ms. Johnson finished as runner-up; overall, Faith Academy went home with its second consecutive team title; and WHEREAS, The hard work and commitment to excellence demonstrated by these young women have helped their school team to become one of the finest in Texas, and they may take justifiable pride in their exceptional achievements; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Sarah Mason Thomas, Ashley Stallard, Nicole Johnson, and Savannah Still on winning titles at the 2010 and 2011 TAPPS Tennis State Championships and extend to them sincere best wishes for continued success; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the players as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative sheet.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to take up this resolution to congratulate Sarah Mason Thomas, Ashley Stallard, Nicole Johnson Savannah Still and Janelle Frazier who are up on the dais. These young ladies attend the Faith Academy in Marble Falls and they've won multiple titles at the 2010 and 2011 TAPPS tennis state championship. These young ladies have won championships in singles and doubles. One of these young ladies, Sarah Mason Thomas is the younger sister of my legislative aid, hunter Thomas. And according to Hunter he has taught Sarah everything she knows about tennis. Their coach Michelle Stallard and Allen Price have joined us in the gallery. If they would, please, rise. Members, please join me in congratulating these young ladies and I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Fletcher moves to add all names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Tourism to meet while the House is in session at 11:00 a.m. May 24th, 2011, today, at 3W9 to consider HR 1955.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. Clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Culture Recreation and Tourism will meet at 11:00 a.m. May 24, 2011, room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider HR 1955.

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1717. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1717 by Duncan. Relating to the operation and administration of the judicial branch of state government.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this is the bill which we've been working on for about six years now that deals with court organization and administration in Texas.

THE CHAIR: Members, there is one amendment. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this just clarifies the amendment that I put on yesterday regarding the judicial bypass cannot provide the name of the judge or the court that issued the order. Move adoption. It's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you. This is a culmination of a lot of hard work by a lot of people. A lot of judges throughout the state. I would particularly like to thank Judge Gary Harger and then Carl Reynolds of the Office of Court Administration for their great work and I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1717? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1717. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 117 ayes and 28 nays. Senate Bill 1717 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1835.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk, please, read the resolution?

THE CLERK: HR 1835 by Menendez. WHEREAS, Michael Gerber has served with distinction as executive director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs since May 2006; and WHEREAS, In guiding the TDHCA, Mr. Gerber has been responsible for a diverse portfolio encompassing affordable housing, homeownership, community services, energy assistance housing recovery following natural disasters, and colonia housing programs; the agency is currently administering more than $3 Billion in funds through for-profit and local government partnerships to deliver local housing and community-based assistance to Texans in need; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gerber has skillfully guided the TDHCA through a period of many challenges, including a difficult national economy a stagnant housing market, and the destruction caused by Hurricane Ike; during his five-year tenure, the agency financed the development of more than 45,000 units of safe and affordable rental housing, and it helped some 12,000 families become first-time homebuyers through its homeownership programs; TDHCA also weatherized more than 32,000 homes, and its community services programs benefited over 3 million Texans; moreover, the agency supported the construction of almost a quarter of the multifamily unit development in the state between 2008 and 2010; and. WHEREAS, A graduate of George Washington University, Mr. Gerber holds a master's degree in business administration from Marymount University; after working for two United States senators he joined the staff of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2003, and he went on to serve as a senior advisor to the assistant secretary for Public and Indian Housing and then as senior advisor to the assistant secretary for Policy Development and Research; moving to Texas, he garnered additional valuable experience in the Governor's Office of Budget, Policy, and Planning before attaining his current post; and WHEREAS, Through his outstanding leadership and commitment to excellence, Michael Gerber has benefited the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs and his fellow citizens, and he may take justifiable pride in his exemplary record of achievement; now therefore, be it. RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor Michael Gerber for his notable service as Executive director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Gerber as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Please, join me in welcoming this morning and recognizing a good friend and dedicated public servant of the State of Texas. Many of you know Mr. Mike Gerber as the executive director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. He will be leaving his post at the end of June. Mike's been a very familiar face to many of you for several years. He's worked on the governor's plans and policies staff from the 80th session and then he took over TDHC the next years. He's one of the most active agency heads that I've known. Constantly reaching out to the legislature to address issues and develop more effective housing and community affairs programs. Mike has led the department through some of the most difficult and challenging times any state agency could face. From meeting the needs of emergency housing for thousands of victims of two hurricanes, the financial crisis that hit the housing market and the distribution of millions of dollars of Federal stimulus money to begin the recovery of dozens of affordable housing projects were mired in the economic meltdown. Mike's been a great champion to our veterans especially those returning from the Middle East the past few years. He initiated special homebuyer program just for vets that continues to help our nations warriors realize the American dream they fought so hard to have. Mike's joined on the dais by his lovely wife, Jennifer and their two lovely daughters Abigail and Elizabeth. Please join me in welcoming them to their Capitol and thanking them for their service to the State of Texas. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection to adoption of the resolution? The chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Murphy moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 271. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 271 by Uresti. Relating to the board of directors of the Bexar Metropolitan Water District.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 271 is the backup bill for Bexar Met. We passed it yesterday. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 271? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 271. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Ms. Kolkhorst voting aye, show Mr. Madden voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 137 ayes and 8 nays, Senate Bill 271 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third and final passage of Senate Bill 773. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 773 by Zaffirini. Relating to telecommunications service discounts for educational institutions, libraries, hospitals, and telemedicine centers.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. This is the telecommunications discount extension under current law expires in 2012. This would extend it further and add QHC's for those eligible for discount. Move final passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 773. The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 773. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 111 ayes and 28 nays, Senate Bill 773 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 17. The clerk will ring the bell.

THE CLERK: SB 17 by Carona. Relating to the regulation of residential mortgage loan servicers; providing an administrative penalty.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt to explain her bill.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday that has to do with unregulated third parties acting as mortgage servicers in Texas.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 17? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 17. Members, this is record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 143 ayes and 1 nay, Senate Bill 17 is finally passed. The Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 731. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 731 by Nichols. Relating to the attorney general's legal sufficiency review of a comprehensive development agreement.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill would allow the attorney general to work with the partners of the coal projects and receive a fee from them. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 731. The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 731. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 139 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 731 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 223. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 223 by Nelson. Relating to the licensing and regulation of pulmonary community support services agencies and of the administrator to those agencies; providing penalties.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes, Ms. Gonzalez.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you. This is the bill that we heard yesterday being used to combat fraud, waste, and abuse to ensure that medicaid providers comply with the program requirements. I believe we have an amendment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Callegari.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members, this amendment basically eliminates the duplicate reports as filed by the attorney general. There are two reports -- reports with the same information and this eliminates one. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Callegari sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mrs. Gonzalez.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 223. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 146 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 223 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1909. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1909 by Lucio. Relating to the University of Texas Brownsville, including it's partnership agreement with the Texas Southmost college district.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Lozano. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill is an agreed to bill from among the stakeholders in Brownsville, Texas. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard -- is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1909? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1909. Members, this is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 1909 is finally passed. The chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 370. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 370 by Seliger. Relating to the authority of the Texas Water Development Board to provide financial assistance for certain projects if the applicant has failed to complete a request for information relevant to the project.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill deals with inaudible).

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 370? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 370. This is a record vote. Clerk will rings the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 146 ayes and zero nays Senate Bill 370 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 781. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 781 by Carona. Relating to the repeal of certain legislative oversight committees.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this eliminates some oversight committees. We do not do have one amendment which will be acceptable.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment deletes an unnecessary oversight process relating to state software. This will be a cost saving for the state. Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on final passage of a Senate Bill 781. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members floated. There being 146 ayes and 1 nay, Senate Bill 781 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1799. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1799 by Westbrook. Relating to the student loan program administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board authorizing issuance of bonds.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the expansion of our student loan program from 125 million to 350 million. I'll let you no that there is a SJR constitutional amendment coming up and I think, members, this will be particularly important in light of our limited resources for our grant program. Expanding our loan program will allow more students to have financial aid in Texas and I moving.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1799? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1799. This is record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 133 ayes and 13 nays, Senate Bill 1799 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1714. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1714 by Duncan. Relating to certain actions against an employer by an employee who is not covered by workers' compensation insurance.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this is the bill we passed yesterday. Worker's comp and deals with nonsubscribers to the system and this is the deal that they've all worked on. I believe we've had some legislative intent --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Chisum, is the reference in the new language in Section 406.034D to an agreement, quote, unquote, intended to cover any agreement plan or practice by an employer to provide benefits outside of workers compensation to employees that waive worker's compensation coverage.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It is.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And the final question. Is it the intent of Section 3 in the bill relating to the applicability section that's Section 382B only refers to those benefits payable by employer in exchange for a pre-injury waiver of the employee's right of action.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes.

REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Smithee.

REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Smithee , if I might I'd just like to get that legislative intent vote in. So, Mr. Speaker, I move that the language between me and Mr. Branch would be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Chisum, do you yield for Mr. Smithee?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you for working with some of the parties that were interested in this. As you know we have an employer in the panhandle that has had a very successful program with good employee satisfaction and they were concerned that this bill might affect them somehow but it's my understanding that there's -- that it's going to apply perspective.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It is going to apply perspective and we have allowed for that employers agreement with the workers to be carried forward. And so, this does not in anyway intended to affect that contract that they have with their workers right now.

REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you for your work on that.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield to my --

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you very much. And thank you for also carrying this legislation. I know you had a unique situation up in your area but under this bill there is no nonsubscription which is certainly a very large tool in our economic progress here in this state, the ability to be a nonsubscriber to workers compensation. This bill in no way affects or harms or hinders an employers ability to work under a nonsubscription way of doing business.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Absolutely. We did not change the nonsubscription deal. So, virtually if you want to be a nonsubscriber and employer in the State of Texas you can still do that.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Thank you, I move passage -- I'm sorry.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes. Mr. Chisum, I'm sorry I am trying to figure out exactly in a thumbnail sketch what your bill does. Does this affect nonsubscribers.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: This only affects one nonsubscriber and I'll just tell you their name is Cargill. They're a very large employer in mine and Mr. Smithee's district and around Lubbock, Texas all the way up to the northern parts of panhandle. It allows them because they have an agreement with their employees to be a nonsubscriber. We grandfather them in and we just say that you cannot any longer have an alternative to workers comp that requires the employee to waive their right to sue. And so, we don't want to continue those because that's a very large place where they could abuse the privilege. This company has not abused it. They're employee representatives are just fine with the way we are. So, we did not want to change that at all. We want them to be allowed to go forward but we don't want to proliferate this with some bad actors. So, if you want to be a nonsubscriber you can do that.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. So to be sure I get this correct your bill is only intended is to affect this one employer in your area and your grandfathering them.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: We are grandfathering them in. Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: They have an agreement a nonsue agreement with their workers.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: They do.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: So, what is their history? Has their workers been taken care of?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: They have a long history. They've had only one complaint that we're aware of. And, you know, it seems to be at program that is working for them and they continue to be a large employer in that area of the state.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. So this is just grandfathering this one particular company in your area and has no affect on the rest of the state.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Ms. Giddings.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Could the remarks between Representative Chisum and myself be reduced to writing and placed in the journal?

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Couple of questions.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: So, to make sure I understand. Is it the nonsue aspect that you're not grandfathering for nonsubscribers? Or is it all nonsubscribers going forward that doesn't have a self insured?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It has a date. You had to be a nonsubscriber and have this work -- this agreement in place by January 1, 2011. So anyone that was in front of that would be grandfathered in. It cuts off everybody else but as far as we are aware of we only had one company doing this completely under the law.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: So, if I'm doing this -- so if I'm a new company today and I choose to have my own safety program and I'm a nonsubscriber to workmans' comp and I have a policy where the employee signs off knowing that workman's comp in place --

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You cannot require them to waive their rights to sue.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: It's a right to sue really all we're cutting off here.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That is the big issue here. You cannot require an employee to waive their right to sue.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Okay. So I can still go in as a new employer, new business, manufacturing and have my own safety set up. Acknowledge that I don't have a comp policy, it's the right to sue issue that you're trying to shutoff.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1714? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1714. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 1714 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 542. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 542 by Heger. Relating to the regulation of law enforcement officers by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Fletcher to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, this Senate Bill 542 addresses regulation of police officers for T-CLEOSE, it's a clarification bill. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 542. The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 542. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 542 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 332. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 332 by Fraser. Relating to the ownership of groundwater below the surface of land, the right to produce that groundwater, and the management of groundwater in this state.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the groundwater ownership bill that we heard last night and was all agreed to. I do have a 24 page agreement but I don't think it's acceptable to the author. So I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 332? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 332. This is a record vote. Clerk will read the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 332 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 303. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 303 by Nichols. Relating to health care services provided or paid by hospital district or public hospital.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Scott to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE SCOTT: Members, the intent of this bill is to insure that hospital districts who do not own or operate a public hospital but still provide indigent care can recover some of the taxpayers money and in case there is a third party liable.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 303? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 303. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes and 1 nays, Senate Bill 303 is finally passed. Chair lays out for third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1543. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1543 by Wentworth. Relating to the authority of an independent school district to invest in corporate bonds.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Larson to explain the bill.

REP. LYLE LARSON: Members, this is the bill that we discussed allowing school districts to invest in corporate bonds. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1543. The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1543. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being a 126 nays and 20 nays, Senate Bill 1543 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1816. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1816 by Zaffirini. Relating to county and municipal land development regulation.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Raymond to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, these are the interim task force recommendations for Colonia agreed to by the task force, the Governor's Office and the Texas Association of Builders. I think there's an amendment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this just adds some of the provisions in HB 1604. The updated and agreed to road standards as earnest money contracts and 90 day cure provisions previously passed by the House. It's acceptable to the author and I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Question.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Could I ask the gentleman that offered the amendment a question.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Guillen, I mean this bill had some controversy over multiple sessions, is there anything that you're adding here that was in the least controversial? I understand. I'm for Mr. Raymond's bill but I'm just want to make sure the body understand what we're trying to do or change in Colonias with respect to your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: 1604 passed this House. We discussed it at length. We included some -- some amendments that Representative Riddle and Representative Lucio wanted. Those are in this amendment. HB 1604 is over in the Senate and we're just putting it in this bill because it's germane.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: It's just for a belt and suspenders in case 1604 doesn't pass.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Marquez. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez of El Paso to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this amendment does is basically the county land provisions that was passed out of this House back -- that will just give individuals with the county the ability to seek a certificate to show that the building code is in compliance and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Gonzalez sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on -- is there anyone wishing to speak -- hang on. Backup members. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill --

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I have a question for the author real quick.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond, do you yield to Mr. Miller?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Richard, what type of ordinance making authority does this bill give the counties?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: It doesn't give them anything new. What it does is -- what we worked on and what was agreed to with the governor's office and, you know, the task force and association of builders, is to do clean up. For example, the standard form that the Secretary of State would develop so that if a county wanted to nominate an area for identification of the Colonia --

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Say that again. I couldn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: If a county wanted to establish, you know, this is at Colonia. There would be a standard form. They can do that now, of course, but this directs the Secretary of State to do a standard form that used by everybody because --

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: What else does it do for them?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: What else does it do? It also -- it also says in here -- for example -- hold on. That instead of a municipality and a county establishing an application for a Colonia in a ETJ, that either or could do it. If the city does it then the county doesn't have to do. If the county does it then the city doesn't have to do it. And so, they don't have that duplication.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: So, does it mean that gives counties regulations over Colonia in the county?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: It doesn't create any additional. It doesn't do any new. The governor -- there was a provision in there that arguably would have done that and the governor's office asked us to remove that and Chairman Oliveira removed that in the committee.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: So, it has any new regulation?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: No.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Regulating powers to the county have been removed?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: No. The governor's office doesn't want that. So we -- there was a Section 5 --

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Let me restate my question because I think you answered it wrong. Any new regulation powers to the counties have been removed from your bill?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Oh, yes, correct, sorry. I thought you asked me if we added any new regulations but no, no it's been removed.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Okay. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Sorry, you may not know the answer. I'm looking at the Guillen amendment. Does this restrict contracts?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Ryan.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Earnest money contracts?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: It allows for earnest money contracts up to $250. Right now on B counties on the border you can't go in the developer, the one who is selling the lots cannot go into earnest money contracts whatsoever. What we're doing is we're allowing earnest money contracts before it's -- it's the development is actually finished only up to $250 and only if it's done by a mortgage loan originator -- a certified loan originator.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Now by earnest money contract do you mean like a deed? That's not just me selling or buying property is it?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No -- well in this case you've got lots being developed. If somebody -- if you are interested in buying one of these lots under today's laws on the border you cannot -- if I'm the one selling the lots, but I can't actually sell them yet because they're not finished. You and I can go into an earnest money contract under this bill up to $250 only if I make a loan certified loan mortgage originator and which is something that you can't do now.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Okay. Let's say I own commercial property in a border county and I want to develop it, what restrictions does this put on me developing that property.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Well, first of all, this -- this wouldn't apply because it's only on residential -- on residential property.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Yeah. I own 90 acres and I want to subdivide it and sell it for houses.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right. Okay. This actually will now give you the opportunity to go into a earnest money contract with someone who is interested in buying it from you.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Okay. I don't know what you mean by earnest money contract. I just want to sell it. I just want to sell the lot.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: You won't be able -- under the current law you won't be able to sell it until it's fully developed and under this law, too.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: So, you're not changing my ability to sell the property.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No. That current -- what we're just doing is we're talking about advertising.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Gives you the opportunity to advertise. Gives you the opportunity to do earnest money contracts in certain cases.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Right. Okay, thank you.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Guillen, we talked about -- you brought up the fact that this bill did pass the House but this bill actually failed the House originally; did it not?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I don't remember.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: To this amendment, right.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I -- yes.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: And then it was brought back up.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes. Well we amended it and it failed. It was brought back up in the same form and passed.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Okay. And so, my question is as you bring this as an amendment to this bill, did you address in this amendment the concerns with the original bill?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Oh, yes. We included the exact amendments that we applied on the House floor at that time.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: So this is the amended version of the original bill corrected.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: And no changes from that.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose Mr. Hancock?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Could we have the exchange between myself and Representative Guillen reduced to writing and placed in the journal?

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1816? The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1816. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Martinez-Fischer voting aye. Show Mr. Kuempel voting aye. Members, all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 76 ayes and 68 nays, Senate Bill 1816 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Jackson for updated information.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Members, I just want to give you an update on Nancy Otto. She did have a blocked artery and has had a stint and it's being completed and she's doing fine and some of her girlfriends are there with her and I think everything's good. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out as a matter of postponed Senate Bill 738 on third reading. Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you. This is Senate Bill 738. Which was --

THE CHAIR: The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 738 by Sheffield. Relating to the alternative methods of operating public schools.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: This is Senate Bill 738. We had a long discussion yesterday that ended with a point of order that I believe is a valid point of order. Representative Martinez-Fischer is going to withdraw his point of order. I'm going to withdraw my amendment and we're going to pass the bill as originally passed out of committee.

THE CHAIR: Representative Villarreal moves to withdraw his amendment. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is there anyone wishing to speak on Senate Bill 738?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on final passage. The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 738. All those -- for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I believe there's some questions just about to remind people of the content of the original bill. And if Mr. Villarreal would lay that out for some of the members just so that --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I would like to ask the gentleman a few questions.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Villarreal, would you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I'm somewhat confused by the amendment. Now we're removing an amendment and as Representative Coleman just asked you. What I specifically want to know is this bill bracketed for Bexar County.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: So this is not a bracketed bill any further.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No. Let me explain what the bill does. Currently in state law if a campus is considered to have an unacceptable performance rating for three consecutive school years after the campus is reconstituted, the commissioner has an ability to take certain actions. This legislation allows parents of the campus in question to organize a petition drive and have a majority of them recommend a particular outcome. Of the -- that the commissioner currently has at his or disposal or discretion I should say.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Villarreal, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think you've already answered the first one but let me ask it again and to be sure. This is not bracketed to Bexar County any longer as it's presently before us; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That's correct. This is the bill that originally passed out of committee.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. And this is also not limited to failing campuses this program could conceivably include campuses that are not problem campuses.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No. That's not accurate. The original bill is for failing campuses. In fact, campuses are --

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Campuses or districts.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Campuses, in fact, campuses that are -- have been failing for as many as five -- at five years or more.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: How about two? Was there some language for two at some point?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No. The original bill is for campuses that are -- have been failing for three consecutive school years after being reconstituted. And as you know a school only gets reconstituted after two years of failing. And so, after a total of five years what this bill does, it's very modest, is it allows parents to weigh into the decision making. And if the majority of them sign a petition they can direct the commissioner to do one of three actions which the commissioner currently has at his discretion. So what this changes really is the commissioner's ability to choose one of the three strategies for intervening in a campus that has been failing for a total at least of five consecutive years. So this bill has nothing to do with charters.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Sure. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 738? The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 738. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 738 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading Senate Bill 173. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 173 by West. Relating to civil remedy of violations of certain municipal health and safety ordinances.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill simply provides the city with an opportunity to pursue civil remedies for violations of the health and safety ordinances.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 173? The question occurs on passage to third reading Senate Bill 173. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 173 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as postponed business SJR 5 to second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SJR 5 by Ogden. Proposing a constitutional amendment to clarify references to the permanent school fund, to allow the General Land Office to distribute revenue derived from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund, and to provide for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock. Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker members, I postpone this legislation until January 1st, 2012.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No purpose.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Walle for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to give notice to the House that I'm going to make a motion to reconsider the vote by which SB 542 was finally passed. We just need a couple of corrections.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motive. Representative Walle issues the motion to reconsider --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Which bill was that Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Let me finish, Mr. Coleman --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Okay.

THE CHAIR: -- Senate Bill 542. That motion will not will be eligible to be made until 12:20 today. Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'm still waiting.

THE CHAIR: Okay. Chair recognizes Mr. Walle to explain.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Yes. The reason we're giving notice is when we passed the initial bill by representative -- Representative Fletcher and Senator Hegar I attached an amendment to it that had some errors on it and we're going to try to fix that and it's with the understanding of Representative Fletcher on that as well. He's in agreement. It's about training T-CLEOSE training. I attached an amendment for school resource officers training. We passed that bill in our committee on Homeland Security unanimously and I was attaching that particular version to that bill and unfortunately we had some technical problems with it. A couple of errors and we're trying to correct that. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out for second reading Senate Bill 499. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 499 by Jackson. Relating to the identification of breeder deer by microchips.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I plan to talk ten minutes on this bill.

THE CHAIR: Ten minutes?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: To complete the time and that's what I plan to do. And if need be that's what we will do.

THE CHAIR: Accordingly since Senate Bill 499 is a local bill. And it was transferred to this calendar the indication by Mr. Coleman to speak for more than ten minutes removes it from this calendar. Therefore SB 499 is removed from this calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 142. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 142 by West. Relating to the operation of property owners associations.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons. Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Let me find my glasses. This is the homeowners association bill and Mr. West and I have been working on for a number of years now and we have -- actually it's been a lot of years. And what has been going on -- this is what you were lobbied on yesterday by folks who want the bill written a particular way. And I want to go back -- I want to just talk about a few things involving what the bill does and doesn't do. One of the stories I wanted to tell you was this: I got an email yesterday that basically said that they had received some information from a property management company and he knows me and he said I presume there's another side to this story. I serve on an HOA board so, I'm interested in your input. And in the email it basically said, HOA's will not be able to get back any legal fees or collection costs from homeowners. The bill doesn't do that. It says a resident can opt out of an amendment or guideline. The bill doesn't do that. No board decision can be made outside of the board meeting no emailing. It doesn't do that. Solar panels can be installed without guidelines. General guidelines in the bill. And, in fact, I have an amendment that actually addresses one of Bob Perry's attorneys concerns. It says that payments -- board meetings would have to be open to the residents. Really? The bill actually says that board meetings will have to be open to residents of the homeowners association? I mean there's been a lot of misinformation going on about this bill. Let me tell you a couple of things that happened. Last session we passed a major reform bill in this House overwhelmingly. It was far, far more extensive than this that Mr. West and I have been working on. Mr. West's version was a version that basically that he thought he could get passed in the Senate. For the entire session Mr. West has been telling me, just fix whatever you need to fix and let's get the bill out and let's go to conference and figure out what we need to do because there's some adjustments that probably have to be made. So, in the context of doing that, I actually did that. I took some of the things that we had passed out of this body last session and I didn't rewrite his bill. I only added some things to the bill that we already passed in this House that I had negotiated with a variety of various stakeholders last session. And they weren't controversial last session. So, one of the things that happened yesterday was that you all were lobbied yesterday out front whenever you went out to talk to someone and it was done by Buddy Jones' crew out over there and he works for Bob Perry and is a major recipient of Bob Perry's money. But basically what it says is that this bill undermines many amendment provisions already found in the property code by requiring that a dedicatory instrument it uninforceable against the owner who purchased the property before the instrument was filed. Well, that's actually some law that I worked on several years ago that said if you didn't actually -- if the dedicatory instrument didn't apply to those properties and those lots then it wasn't enforceable. So, what I did is basically said it's not that way. That you basically could -- it wouldn't apply to that unless the property owner actually agreed to it. So, it also said that HOA's would have, under the bill that we have today before you, allow solar farms. It doesn't -- it does nothing of the sort. Solar farms are major commercial operations. This allows for individual use with guidelines and I actually have an amendment that I think addresses the fact that we don't want neighbors to be offended by a solar panel that you put up so you have to get a -- their permission when you turn in your application under the guidelines and leave all the requirements from the architectural control committee to then approve it. It also goes on to say that the committee substitute causes costly personal service requirements on owners. Mr. West and I have agreed -- and I think it passed the Senate and we've done it here before as well. That we tried to put into law that you would have to get an expedited judicial foreclosure the same as home equity except for the fact that you would to have personal service under the rules of civil procedure. That means that if you're going to take somebody's home away that's not authorized by the Constitution but by case law from 1977 that you would actually have to get served. Not just some letter, the certified mail. Most people do not open certified mail. We had an instance back home where Captain Powers wife who was foreclosed on by an HOA over really nothing in dues. Assessed as a $350,000 home that basically said that they sent her some letters. She didn't open them. Her husband was on active military duty. Well, they eventually through the law and through Federal law got back her property. But if they had just delivered the notice that said and gave her a -- and handed her the notice that said we can take your home if you do not pay these dues, assessments, attorney's fees and anything else that she would have been able to respond to that. She was distraught over her husband. Every attorney that I've talked to that does real estate basically believes that if it's not authorized by our constitution -- and by the way this is the only way you can lose your home that is not authorized by the Texas Constitution, that you at least ought to give them service. You ought to do that. The rules of civil procedure actually apply. It's likes 50, 60, $70. Most homeowners associations say they don't foreclose but a couple of them a year. And so at the end of the day what are you talking about? Why wouldn't you handle somebody notice that we're going to take your home away because nonpayment of dues or assessments. Why wouldn't you do that? So, I put in there the same language that Mr. West had except I added that you should actually give them personal service. You should actually tell somebody I want to take your home away. I don't know anybody in this room would like to just know somebody sent me notices could take home away without actually telling me that there's court action that I could actually do at. That misinformation has been going around

(*inaudible). Now, let me just tell you what the dynamic is. You have -- I have three or four -- I have, I think, four amendments that address the concerns of what TLR is talking about. And I would like to get those on the bill and I would like to get those into conference. I know a number of members have issues with homeowners associations and probably have a series of amendments. I'd like to have take those amendments to conference I don't want to take the body's time and spend four hours and arguing over this bill or debating this bill. What I'd like stood actually get to a point where we could actually go to conference and discuss some of the issues. Now, what you've been hearing about from both PTC and some others is that somehow this unduly interferes with the right to private contract and the right of homeowners when, in fact, the bill is actually trying to bring a little bit of balance, not a lot, but a little bit of balance to homeowners themselves. And that's what's going on in this particular situation is that it seems to be fairly lopsided. So what I'm trying to do is actually try to resolve what we can resolve in the political environment that will (*inaudible) both here and in the Senate about what can actually be done. The bill actually tries to ensure that you have priority of payment, that your moneys are spent for what are the purposes of it. This is being -- this misinformation is being driven by money. By management companies, by lawyers who work for management companies trying to say the bill does what it doesn't do. What I've done is because we have a number of red homeowners associations in this state, I've tried to take their good business practices of how they run their homeowners associations and ensure that's in the law. What Mr. West's bill did was very lopsided from a developer and management company's side. And what I'm trying to do is to bring a little bit of balance. You can only get so much done in this process because apparently unless two particular homebuilders like the bill we've been failing year at session after session after session. I have been on the Business and Industry Committee since I got here. Every session except for one when I was on State Affairs and couldn't be on Business and Industry -- and I think they even had homeowners association complaints. We have had hours and hours and hours of testimony from people who have problems with their homeowners association. And the law doesn't really address some of that. So, all we're trying to do is middle around the edges and try to make it a little bit more balanced. And so, when you talk about you're going to have to pay the attorneys and the management companies before they can even apply -- apply your payments for your dues and assessments and you maybe disputing a fine. All of the sudden a $200 or $100 can turn into $1000 $2000 and they're wanting that money before you can even apply to your dues and assessments. All we're trying to do is bring some balance. Mr. Orr and I have worked on priority of payment for at least three sessions that I can remember. And I think it was an issue before he came and started getting involved in it. We have been trying and trying and trying to make this work out and balance and all I'm trying to do is to take this to conference. Now, Mr. King has filed a complete floor substitute that you've been hearing about. That complete floor substitute is basically Mr. West's bill, on the other side. And, quite frankly, I can't even vote for it. It's that bad. If you have a situation in the bill with your homeowners associations about the cost of just getting your records, you'd like to see your records.

THE CHAIR: Representative Kuempel raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. The following amendment. The clerk will lay out the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'd like to ask the gentleman a question?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Sure I mean I've got my amendment --

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Burt, I just want to find out. You know, there are two homeowners association vehicles. One happens to be this bill and the other happens to be 1228 which is the bill I had that left the House and went to the Senate and came back with a huge bunch of sisters and brothers attached to the bill that I didn't plan for. If we pass this bill, is it essentially the same thing that the Senate added to 1228.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir. What Mr. West has done is like all good Senators and all good House members you look for ways to try to get your bill passed whether it's in whole or in parts. At the end of the day here's what really happened. Mr. West had tried to talk -- had talked to me in the interim and we've been working on this stuff for five or six years. He said since we had a big ominous bill last time that wouldn't be brought up because Mr. Perry would not lot Mr. Dewhurst bring up the bill even though the votes and the green sheets were there. We basically sat there and said, okay, fine. Why don't you file some individual bills and if you pass them out of the Senate we'll deal with them. Well then Mr. West decided he wanted to try to do the ominous bill and because he thought he could make some agreements. I was not part of those agreements or those negotiations over in the Senate. When he brought the bill over I made some adjustments to the bill on the edges on various sections. I did not rewrite the whole bill and what happened was that we got the bill out of business and industry very quickly because time was running out and the bill sat over for calendars for two weeks. I was not part of any negotiations on trying to get any of this done that Mr. Kinney and others want to do. All I'm trying to do is get to a point where we can actually get some things done. If we pass this and we pass your bills with some adjustments to it that would be similar to what's in this bill I think whatever we would do -- the whole idea is trying to get to conference and find out what we can actually get done for a change on something forward. Because apparently in this body in this legislature for over a decade now unless a couple of home builders agree with it and their attorneys we can't seem to make any real improvements to any of this.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I appreciate that, Burt because I just don't want to be put in the position of you having to negotiate in conference the same issues that in the bill that I have because we're going to probably move later on today not to concur with the Senate amendments. Which will take -- mean a conference call on 12/28. But I don't want to have to sit there and negotiate the same thing that's already been negotiated.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, it depends on if I can get this conference we might not need to do it. If I can get this to conference we may need to do your deal. Yours doesn't handle some of the issues of this bill does.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I'm going to help you get this one to conference.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I appreciate that, Mr. Dutton. I know you've worked hard over the years. Mr. Dutton by the way has had bills every session that I've been here trying to get a few improvements on homeowners associations. It's been very difficult to do in this body. This amendment by the way addresses an issue that TLR had in connection with attorneys' fee and the situation where -- actually I think the wording I put in was very appropriate because it meant to the statutes of real property subject to a restricted covenants to which real property is subject. There seems to be some controversy over that and that's fine. I'm willing to take that and strike that. So this amendment strikes that language so we don't have that particular issue about trying to figure out which statutes effect restrictive covenants. Although it's pretty obvious to almost any real estate attorney who deals in the business. And by the way I've represented almost, in fact, everybody in the food chain involving real estate at one time or another including homeowner associations. But anyway the amendment's acceptable to me.

THE CHAIR: Representative Solomons sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none and the amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Members, this is a -- like we all do we sometimes put something in the bill where in a section it wasn't supposed to be in that section. This deals with emergency matters. And what this amendment really does is strikes emergency in a particular section where it shouldn't be so that you wouldn't have to give notice of an emergency meeting. I think you should keep minutes of whatever your emergency meeting is but it wasn't intended to have to give at least 72 hours notice for an emergency. So it was in the wrong section. So I'm cleaning that up and taking care of that. So that takes away another misinformation fact because I was going to fix that anyway. So, the amendment's acceptable to me.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Members, this is -- oh, this is the solar panel amendment that somehow, for some reason, people seem to have an issue with by Mr. Perry and some homebuilders apparently and developers, I guess. But at the end we passed this bill -- what's in this bill. We passed this bill out of this House overwhelmingly over in the Senate. And, quite frankly, there was a provision added in the Senate that's going to come back and I'm not going to concur on. I'm like Mr. Dutton I'd rather resolve this one time. But this amendment says that instead of the language that I have in the bill which has some very strident guidelines of the only way you can put a solar panel on -- which by the way was negotiated all but one provision in the bill was negotiated with Mr. Bob Perry's attorney. And we wanted another section having to do with public nuisances that was very broad and created a loophole and, in fact, actually created lawsuits. So what this bill actually -- what this amendment actually does is that it says that you can do it under these guidelines you still have to take it through the architectural control committee for approval but because of some concerns that some people may not like to live next to a -- someone who has a solar panel, a small solar panel on their roof it basically says you have to get their permission to do it. So you're adjoining landowners front back and side basically have to give you permission to put up a solar panel. Now, I have a member of the homeowners association out at my -- another house I have, not at my home but another at another house and I can't build within a certain number of feet to my adjoining landowner if I want to put up a shed or do something without their permission. So, I thought this was a pretty good middle ground of what I had thought was pretty good and we had passed out of the House. And what they wanted to show public nuisance issue that at least the adjoining landowners would say, it's okay with us. We can see it, it's still okay with us. Now, at the end what we probably need to think about doing is this a big deal in Texas. We need to give property rights to private property owners if they want to use solar and try to use less electricity off the grid. This is a big deal. And we can't have arbitrary homeowners associations -- homeowners associations arbitrarily just saying no when it should be okay to do it. So, I put in some very specific guidelines. They still have to get approval from the architectural control committee and when you submit that for you architectural control committee approval you have to have at least your adjoining landowners and your neighbors say, it's okay, we can possibly see it from the street or from the backyard or from the side so at least everybody's clear that it's not really a problem for some person who happens to live or be on the architectural control committee and be halfway across the neighborhood and just doesn't like solar panels. This would allow some private property rights. And I think it's a good amendment and I think it will settle the issues and it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none and the amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: This amendment came from requests of the property management companies who have been running around the (inaudible) messaging. But there was some concern about the charges and some confusion about making copy versus other things required in retail certificates. So, I'm just going to delete and strike the language on the prescribed charges because at the end of the day, it's whatever those charges are going to be. We have tried to reduce charges to be really what they really should be but if it's going to create a lot of confusion let's just get rid of it. It's one of those things that we really can't get done and it's important but it's, you know, we just want to maker some improvements. So I'm willing to strike that language on behalf really of the property management companies that have been sending out the kind of emails I read to you. So the amendment strikes that language about the charges and it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Vo.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Vo to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HUBERT VO: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members. What this amendment does is to allow the HOA's to notify homeowners of meetings by mail or by hand delivery. This is for the homeowners associations especially the ones that do not have much money or who do not have the -- the management companies. This will help them to notify the homeowners by hand delivery.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: This amendment I think Mr. Vo has worked on. It really does probably reduce some costs. There was some misinformation about how costly all this is and that you had to send out certified mail. In fact, when I did my bill it was basically about being able to get that information either by mail/by delivery. I don't really care. I'm willing to take that to conference and discuss that with Mr. West. So, it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Vo sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kuempel.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All this amendment does is it allows the Eagle Creek Ranch Owners Association located in Floresville -- right now they have three lots that are zoned residential but they're land locked by commercial lots. They have no residential access. The lots adjacent have restrictions for either residential or commercial and because the property is designated residential it is virtually unusable and unsellable and we just want to let the homeowners be able to switch those to commercial lots. And I think it's acceptable.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Kuempel sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Workman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Workman to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Chair, members, you might have heard me speak about the captive community propane systems in my district. There are some 11,000 homes in Texas, with 4,000 of them in my district under these systems which are, in fact, unregulated monopolies. I have been unable to get these systems regulated through the normal process and I am not attempting to do that here. However, there is a particularly agreges situation that I would like to address. Some deed restrictions even prohibit a homeowner from changing their appliances out from propane to electric. All this amendment does is simply prohibits an HOA from restricting someone in changing out their appliance from propane to electric. And I move passage.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Sheffield, for what purpose?

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Would the representative yield?

THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield?

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Representative Workman, you and I have had discussion on this particular bill first day that you're trying to tack on as an amendment right now. Do you think it will -- was the 2885; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Yes.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: And, of course, it was left pending in Energy resources back in late March; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: But that is not what this amendment does.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: If I understand your amendment. This amendment allows homeowners to put a tank next to their home.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: No, it's not. This simply allows them to change their appliance out to all electric if they want to because right now some deed restrictions even restrict that.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Okay. So strictly about the homeowner having a choice to go all electric.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: That's right.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Okay.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Workman sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will lay out the amendment -- or read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez to explain --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: -- the amendment. Yes, Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: My main man is at the door again. Can you not dis him.

THE CHAIR: Are you talking about that main man or -- admit the messenger.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: All right.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes, Mr. Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment you might recognize as House Bill 44. It came out of committee it came out off this floor it went over to the Senate and unfortunately it got caught in some time crunch. They haven't let it out of the floor. Chairman Solomons has been gracious enough we had a debate on this floor. It's a common sense amendment that simply says -- and we clarified and worked with many members of the committee -- that says, if you have two residential lots that are adjacent to each other and you are given permission when you purchase your home to do something on the lot like build a playground set, a swimming pool or some other thing that you can also do that on your adjacent lot that's adjacent to your property. And it is agreeable to the author and I move adoption --

THE CHAIR: Representative Menendez sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Veasey to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: This amendment is bad news for the brother-in-laws out there. This amendment says an HOA board cannot say that you have to use this contractor or that contractor or the person that the HOA board is related to in order to get services done to your house. I heard stories about certain -- about HOA's requiring people to use certain landscapers, certain electricians and that just cleans that up. I believe it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Veasey sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to explain the amendment.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. In Texas it's estimated that there are over 30,000 property owner associations. This amendment will require that property owners associations registered with the Texas Real Estate Commission. The registration provides homeowners and the state the means by which to identify POA's who are doing business in the state. And this amendment is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons on this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But I will tell you that this is a real problem. We don't know how many homeowner associations there are but we think that that's -- and I talked to Ms. McClendon about the fact that we probably ought to have at least have some easy method without any real problems about just finding out how many there are. So, I think that's what she tries to do in a responsible manner. I'd like to take it to conference and have that discussion. So, it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bohac.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Bohac to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is designed to help homeowners who have a physical disability. What this amendment will do is require a property owner's association to consider a person's disability when a violation of a restriction occurs. The person claiming the disability must provide clear and convincing evidence of the disability with a report from with the physician. And I think it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: This amendment is acceptable this is the kinds of things we've been dealing with around the state where we have some -- you know, there aren't a lot but there are some homeowners associations that really don't take into consideration a person's situation in the payment of dues, assessments, fines, whatever. It's so easy to get a fine assessed against you up that can build up from something simply as a 50 or $100 fine to all of a sudden thousands of dollars and possibly losing their homes. And in some cases it very well may be because of a disability issue that the homeowner's association says, we don't ware care. So, I think I'd like to take this to conference as well and have a discussion. And so, it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Bohac sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none and the amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment seeks to do is kind of -- Mr. Solomons added some amendments earlier that would allow you to essentially conserve energy and to -- whether it's sun or -- for example, solar energy. This is essentially a water conservation amendment that would allow you to implement a landscaping designs that promote water conservation. I know that's a huge deal in many places especially as Texas hits some significant droughts over the last few years and probably keep having those droughts in the future. So this is a water conservation amendment.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Would the gentleman yield for a quick question?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: I assume for legislative intent for landscape design you don't mean just let weeds grow in the yard, right?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No I don't mean let weeds grow in the yard. I mean an actual -- something that promotes water conservation. So it has to be some, you know, coming from the desert I personally have a fondness for cactus but I'm sure that not everyone shares my fondness for cactus. But I do think that we should promote water conservation as a public policy.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Water conservation is to let your yard go wild.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, if you'd like to add an amendment to the amendment on third reading I'd be happy to entertain it Mr. Hartnett but that's my -- that's certainly not my intent.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Actually it's going to be acceptable to me because I'm trying to go and talk about all these various problems. I think it will be hard to sell Mr. Gallego's amendment as is drafted but the issue of water conservation is worthwhile as long as there is applicable guidelines and restrictions in allowing the homeowners association and architectural control committee to actually make sure that we're not doing what Mr. Hartnett talked about and saying, oh, I'm just letting the weeds grow. So, unless Mr. Hartnett has an amendment to the amendment to fix his amendment I'm going to accept it on the understanding that it's going to be hard to sell as it's drafted. But the discussion should be taking place that if, in fact, you're able to provide the kind of acceptable guidelines and allow some flexibility with the homeowners' associations on that then I think it's probably worth the discussion. So I'm going to accept and it and try to take to it conference.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative King to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker members, every session that I think I've been here the least I can remember we've always had a lot of bills on homeowners' associations that tried to strike a balance between the homeowners and the property owners and the associations that had to try to manage it. And there's been a lot of legislation over the years. It's never quite hit that and maybe that's because there hasn't been a comprehensive approach. About a year ago in April, April of 2010, interested parties started meeting together. I know they had six full meetings here in Austin beginning in April of 2010 working in the interim trying to draft up a comprehensive settlement agreement, if you will, that would balance the interest of all the parties. I know that there consumer advocates and consumers that participated. There were homeowners, homebuilders, realtors, land title associations, homebuilders associations, property owners associations, really the whole gambit of interested parties. And they put together a bill that as all agreed legislation is, is fair and balanced --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Could I ask the gentleman some questions?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I certainly do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Phil, how many of these meetings you're talking about -- how many of these meetings did you participate in.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I didn't participate in them.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: So, do you know what we discussed in those meetings?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I do from discussions with people that were there. They covered the whole gambit of all the many complaints we've heard about excessive fines and nonjudicial foreclosures and deed restrictions being enforced or being ignored --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: That would be assumed that we would talk about those things. I mean, how much testimony did you hear from citizens who live in homeowners associations.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I understand there was extensive testimony in the Senate hearings this sessions as well as numerous late night meetings in which I understand. Senator West took the lead in on the Senate side and of course this past out of the Senate 31 to zero as agreed comprehensive legislation.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: That's pretty much the Senate vote on most -- on most items. What did -- what do you know about priority of payment because that seems to be the biggest issue for people who live in homeowners associations.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes, it is. And the point is to make sure that taxes are paid early that fees --

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Not those payments. Priority of payment by individual homeowners made to homeowners' associations and how they are applied as it relates to the ability of a homeowners' association to file a foreclosure against a homeowner.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That is correct.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: No, I'm asking you what do you know about that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry, could you state the question again?

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Could you explain to the body the priority of payments by which a homeowners' association board can foreclose against a homeowner and how does your bill address that issue.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. I can do that. Let me get to that section. I'm just going through my notes here. Let me address it in terms of the difference between the priority of payments and the committee -- and the substitute that I filed and the bill that was filed by Representative Solomons. Section 17 of this bill removes the 18 month cap on payment plans allowing owners and property associations to decide on a link. It ties the payment plan to the priority of payments. In other words, if a property owner association receives a payment from an owner and the owner defaults on the payment plan the POA is not required to apply the priority of payments.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Do you understand what that means as far as the ability to do a foreclosure and what that does to the significants of a payment plan.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, I think I do. It changes the order for payments so that fines are lower on the list. It modifies third party collections, it also lets fees that attach to those fines and property owner not liable unless the owner receives a certified notice. It makes them not liable under this amendment for contingency fees that may be applied onto the payments from third party collectors or attorneys unless they receive advanced notice in writing

(inaudible) about certified mail contingency fee

(inaudible) (inaudible).

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: That is unresponsive. How does priority of payment -- what I'm asking you is nonresponsive to the question of how does priority of payment effect the ability of a homeowners' association to foreclose? Which one of these items would give them the authority to foreclose against a homeowner?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: With the exception of the changes I just laid out, the -- my amendment is the same with regard to foreclosures as Representative Solomons amendment.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: That is incorrect. Your amendment basically changes the priority of payment. And the priority of payments is what determines the ability of the homeowners' association to foreclose. Does not your amendment remove the priority of payments wherein the Solomons amendment a bill has priority of payments with assessments being first. And your -- once they default though on your agreement then assessment of payments become second or third in the priority of payments. Do you understand the significance of that change?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I do. But I'm not sure that statement is accurate.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Well, what do you understand it to be?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I already stated what I understood it to be.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: You don't think that it's accurate that the priority of payments has changed if you default on your agreement.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I think that what I've provide here is what was agreed to by all the shareholders not you or I but the people that are actually involved running homeowners' associations and participating in homeowners' associations, being a part of it.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Well let me ask you --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Agreed to do.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: (inaudible)

(inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible). Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It's exactly -- I'm not on trial, representative (inaudible)

(inaudible).

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: (inaudible)

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: When we challenge witness with responsiveness or nonresponsiveness. I have answered your question to the best that I can.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Well that's the point

(inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Seven or eight times.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: (inaudible)

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If you're not satisfied with the answer that's the best I can do.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Yes, sir. Does this bill not change the priority of payments if you default on your payments?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I've already answered that question.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: What was your answer, I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The record speaks for itself. It's whatever I said a minute ago when I read my comments with regard to Section 17 of the bill.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Do you know that the homeowners' associations ability to foreclose on liens on individuals did not come from the Texas legislature nor did it come from the constitution of the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I know that in the future that people are going to have a modified judicial foreclosure process (inaudible) (inaudible).

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: I'm not speaking of the procedure to foreclose. I'm speaking of the right to foreclose.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry. Say your question again.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Do you understand

(inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I think it's the answer I've said four or five times.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: No, it's not. I'm saying do you understand that the right to foreclose does not come from the Texas constitution or do you understand that the right to foreclose it does not come from the legislature. It comes from a court case. The legislature has not provided statutory authority to foreclose on these homeowners' associations. It was derived from a court case which gave them that authority.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Which is what we are trying to modify here to provide some guidelines from some statutory authority with regard to foreclosures, as I understand it.

THE CHAIR: Representative Orr, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Will the gentleman yield.

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Bill, I'd like to go back to the same on priorities. I'm not sure you're aware of this or not but my first session 2005 you had the payment priority bill. Were you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I did not remember that but --

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: And it passed this House and it kind of got stuck in the Senate and I also carried it in 2007. Do you know what happened to that bill in 2007.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, could you remind me, please.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: It was killed on point of order in this House because of trying to get something done. Do you know in the payment of priority between -- what the difference between the bill that you -- the version you've just filed and what Representative Solomons, the major differences in those two?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It's the same thing that I read to Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Well, and -- let's go a little bit different line then. I think what you -- you've done you've moved attorneys' fees in front of the actual fine. And so, why would you do that? Why are you trying to get attorneys paid before they ever actually pay for the fine?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I don't think this does that. I think what this does is it maintains a reasonable list of priorities.

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by White.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative White to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is House Bill 232 which passed, of course, unanimously out of the House on local and consent. Currently it's over in the Senate right now going through their local and consent calendar. Simply the change was that it put a sunset provision on the -- correction on the -- on the ability of property owners to change their deed restrictions. Instead of that being forever they would be given a four year window to do that and that will sunset in September of 2015.

THE CHAIR: Mr. White sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none and the amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment -- the King amendment as amended. Anyone wishing to speak on for or against? Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to speak against the amendment as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker members, I would ask you for some a little bit of attention. This is a big deal. We effect by what we do or not do affect millions of law homeowners around this state. I was a little disheartened by the TCC recommendation to support Mr. King's amendment because they even talk about extreme abuse of foreclosure but somehow that the bill that I have is good -- is bad and Mr. King's bill is good but it's got same language on foreclosures that I have except mine actually has something about personal service in it. But let me tell you what Mr. King's amendment does because here's the deal. Last night at 9:00 o'clock or thereabout Mr. King filed a 40 page complete floor substitute to this bill. Which is Mr. West's bill. We had that argument a little earlier today about trying to just not go to conference or -- actually taking Mr. White's amendment he may or may not have to go to conference. I don't know.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Orr --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Wait a minute. Let me -- Rob, I appreciate that but let me just lay out this thing because I don't think people understand what Mr. King's amendment really does. Mr. King's amendment -- by the way Bonnie Bruce and my chief of staff and I were up until almost 3:00 o'clock last night because Mr. King didn't have the courtesy to give me a 40 page complete floor substitute during the day for me to have any input into it. So, I got it late last night and we adjourned and we had to spend time trying to figure out what's in that amendment. And let me tell you what the amendment does. One of the things it does is a literally delete the fact that you could have a shingle like this that Mr. Elkins brought to me last session and we put it on at a bill -- on the bill. And all it does is it's wind resistant, it's hail resistant, it's 30 percent more efficiency, it looks exactly like any other amendment -- any other shingle and somehow homeowners' associations don't want to have to let somebody put something like this on. So we took it on the bill here last session. So, I have the same language that we did last session. We took it over there and guess what Mr. West accepted it. We tried to get the bill passed with this amendment on it and Mr. King takes it out. Mr. King also says that you should be able to file -- the amendment basically says -- which I think in my version Mr. West said in his version that you can basically get into an argument with your homeowners' association over the cost of getting some records sent to you. For example, if they tell you there's a $100 charge and then they come back -- and you pay it, then you come back -- they come back and say, oh, we forgot a couple of more documents. It's going to be another $75. If you have a dispute with them, Mr. King's amendment which I took out of my bill basically said -- if Mr. King's amendment said that they can put an assessment lien on your property which is foreclosable. So you have no way -- so that just doesn't make any sense. The bill that I have basically says they actually have to tell you how much it costs, you pay them, they give it to you. There's no assessment lien for some amount of money, some small amount of money. And by the way when the attorney sends you a bill for the invoice they're going charge you another $300 on top of the $75. Mr. King amendment allows you to do that. Mr. King's amendment basically says that collection companies -- this goes of Mr. Orr's and Mr. Deshotel's argument on priority of payment. Mr. King is a fine lawyer maybe in oil and gas and some other things but he is not a property real estate attorney like I am. I have represented everybody that's been working on this for years on this issue for legislation as well as other things. Mr. King's amendment basically puts third party collectors, attorneys before the homeowners' association, before the homeowners who want to pay their dues, want to pay their assessments, and want to pay their fines. But, you know, what under Mr. King's amendment you're going to pay the attorneys first, you're going collection companies first. You're going to pay everybody first because they hold that over your head. The importance of the priority of payment is they hold that over your head to basically get you with a foreclosable lien if you don't pay them all that money. This is about money. Priority of payment has to do paying your dues and assessments whatever fines. Collection fees and attorney's fees should be paid as well but you shouldn't be able to have to pay all those first. We've been fighting this battle for years. Mr. King's amendment and Mr. West had to negotiate a deal just to get it out of the Senate. I'd like to take that priority payment back to the conference. Mr. King doesn't think we need to do that. He doesn't apparently think it's important. He thinks attorney's fees and management companies should make all the money first. The judicial foreclosure, he took out the personal service so that's the same thing that TTC was complaining about that somehow it was bad.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Menendez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: One last thing and then I'll yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman does not yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I know I get kind of emotional about that because I didn't do that with some other bills today -- this session when I've been up here. This is something we have been working on for years. And we keep trying. Senator West and I have been trying for years. A number of members in this body and in the Senate have been trying to resolve at least some basic -- some fairness and balance to the entire homeowner association problem. It goes to private property rights. We affect the people's lives and we're just trying to get some place. We know we can't do everything. But we're just trying to get some improvement and all this is taking it back. I can't vote for my own bill if this goes on. This is putting into statute some of the worst business practices you could have in this entire process. And I do yield to my good friend.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you Chairman Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: It goes of private property right we affect millions of people's lives. And we're just trying to get some place we know we can't do everything but we're trying to get some improvement. I can't vote for my own bill. If this goes on. This is e putting until the statute some of the worst business practices you could have in this entire process and I do yield to may good friend.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Chairman Solomons. I received at least a few emails that I've been reviewing this morning from constituents. You know, I've heard the horror stories and many of many of my constituents are aware of the horror stories of HOA's that are out of control. But we have really well run, well managed HOA's in Bexar County. And many of them are concerned that the Senate Bill 142 that you brought to the floor will take away their ability to manage their HOA's. It's not your intention to any way, shape or form to take away the power of the HOA's to maintain their communities, to maintain their neighborhoods, is it?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: No. In fact, what the bill does is actually balance and is based on what the good homeowner's associations do. Mr. King's amendment for example doesn't say that you can get notice for emergency meetings. You get no records, you can't do anything. You don't know what's going on. Mr. King's amendment and the bill that Mr. West had to do basically said you can have secret meetings. They're putting it in the statutes that you can have secret meetings. I'm going on the basis of my good homeowners' associations and I have several in my district. I'm going on the basis of what I know is better practice that the good homeowners' associations do already. And the problem we get into are the ones that are not. The ones that are really not operating correctly. This would ask them, you know, what you ought to give somebody notice of the meeting, you ought to keep a record of it, you ought to give records out. Mr. King's amendment says they don't even -- they can tell you they don't even have to give you -- that they're unable to give out records. Unable to give the records. They don't even have to give you a reason. In my version they can still do that but they have to give you a reason. I think that's kind of okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Burt, if we support -- I'll wait for you read that. Burt, if we vote for the amendment -- I think you said earlier then you might not be able to go to conference; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: There wouldn't be any conference. In fact, I can't even vote on my own bill. I mean this is a big deal. I mean, it puts in as a statute bad business practices and what only a certain number of -- couple of attorneys and a couple of management companies want to see in legislation so they can build in what they do now to homeowners all over the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Orr, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Burt, what I hear you saying is if we can stick with you we can get this accomplished. I saw that you added eight or nine amendments and things that really needed to get done. There's a lot of problems out there with the homeowners' associations. Would you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir. My amendments actually clean up some issues that were brought to my attention by TLR and some others. We could still have some more discussion on it. The other amendments were added are issues that you see and it's why these members brought these amendments and say we'd like you to at least discuss them in conference.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Well, and the other thing -- really the payment priority is really a big deal and I've been working on it for many years trying to get this done. And Mr. King's amendment basically attorneys are now put in priority of homeowners and to get their fees before they could get their fines or anything else paid; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: It guts the priorities payment for discussion in conference. There would be none. They would statutorily enhance the collection companies and the attorneys should get paid before anything.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: It's crazy. And the other thing is they've got this payment plan and what they're going to be able to do is roll in their fines and then they can go and say they're going to foreclose on these homeowners over a fine which is illegal; is that correct?

THE CHAIR: Mr. (*inaudible) raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Is there anyone wishing to speak on the King amendment as amended. Hearing none. Chair recognizes Representative King to close.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, I'll close. Just real quickly I want to correct something on that attorneys' fees. The attorney's fees have to be collected because they've been paid by your homeowners' association. If you do not try to collect those from the homeowner then they're going to be charged to the association at large. Let me tell you what Mr. Solomons has brought here. Mr. -- I will not yield at this time. Mr. Solomons has brought you Mr. Solomons bill. It's his. He said he wasn't familiar with the amendment I filed. That's not correct because he took the very amendment I filed which was the bill that came out of the Senate, the agreed to legislation of all the stakeholders. He took that and wrote his amendment off of it. In fact, there was a hearing on that very bill in the House although it was not a public hearing there were no witnesses. It was just a hearing of the committee in which Mr. Solomons placed all his amendments on that bill without the opportunity for public testimony on them. But what Mr. Solomons has brought you is clearly Mr. Solomons bill. And I have respect for his integrity and I have no doubt

(inaudible).

THE CHAIR: Mr -- for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Not at this time --

THE CHAIR: Gentleman does not yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- and I do not believe that he would have done this except that he believes this is the right thing. What I have tried to bring you is not Mr. Solomons bill. I have tried to bring you what, I believe, to be an agreed piece of legislation. Work put together by the interested stakeholders.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: 2010 and --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Would the gentleman for a follow up?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Not at this time. They began work on this in April of 2010 --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- the homeowners, the property owners.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Is the gentleman refusing to have any debate with me over what the bill does and doesn't do and the process by which it comes to this floor of this House.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, I'm just trying to finish my remarks.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. Lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. What I have tried to bring to you is what the interested parties and the stakeholders have put together over the last 13 months. That included as I have mentioned six meetings in Austin with the title S associations, the homeowners' associations, property owners representatives, homebuilders, everyone involved in the process. And they had six meetings. They -- in Austin those meetings continued in -- as the session progressed and they came up with what is trying to be a balanced comprehensive bill between the needs of the property owners and the needs of the homeowners' associations to actually manage the properties that people ask them to manage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Deshotel, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And I believe this has struck a balance. Now, there's no question --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Not at this time.

THE CHAIR: Not at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Deshotel, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Could I ask the gentleman if intends to let us ask him a question before the time runs out?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I really want to finish my remarks and then if there's time for a question I'd be happy to take them.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman does not yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Now, what we have brought to us here is a bill that has come up on the last day of the session and, frankly, none of us have had the time to work through it to the degree we would like it to be. It's much like coming to the floor with a large sunset bill the last day of the session. And that's just how it's worked out. What I'm asking you to do is to not trust me or trust Mr. Solomons but I'm trying to ask you to you trust all the different groups which have put a lot of this bill together. Every session we come back to the legislature and we have more and more homeowners legislation. My experience has been and I'm sure yours to that when we finally get issues settled it's not because you come up with an idea or I come up with an idea but it's because the shareholders and the stakeholders enter in --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I thought I'd give Mr. King one more opportunity to talk about the process and everything he's talking about with the actual person who was involved in it. Would he yield for some questions and some dialogue?

THE CHAIR: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If I can just finish my comments.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman does not yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But what I would like to do is bring you -- what I'm hoping we can do is go on past experience. And that past experience has been at the end of the day solutions that are brought to us by the interested parties by the stakeholders are the ones that seem to fix problems once and for all. And so what I'm hoping and Mr. Solomons is correct he has a lot more experience on this than I do and I'll defer to his expertise. But what I'm trying to rely on is not Mr. Solomons but what I'm trying to rely on is on all the interested parties who have put together agreed legislation that they believe -- they believe will take this down the road and hopefully next session we won't be back again with people who are having struggles and in need of legislation. And with that I'll be happy to yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. King and thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative King, you're aware, maybe you're not aware, that of what I actually added to the bill was already and had been for the most part almost all of it had been negotiated last session for with same language. And I did not rewrite the bill with the same language that was negotiated with all those various groups last session. And I didn't rewrite the bill. I only took the portions that had been negotiated and addressed the issues that Mr. West took on. I didn't add a bunch of new stuff. All those things had been discussed and dealt with before. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm aware that -- that you changed the bill that came over that was the agreed legislation and that you made your changes to it. I don't know where those changes came from.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Have you never made changes to legislation that came over from the Senate.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I certainly have. And I'm not saying that you didn't have a right to do that. And I'm not saying that some of those changes might have been good things. I'm saying that I'm trying to fix a problem so that we're not dealing with this by next session by trying to purport

(inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: You're aware that I've --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- the agreed legislation of all the parties.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: You're aware that I'm trying to fix a problem to and I've been involved in it for a number years maybe longer than you have in the context of what those real problems are over a series of sessions --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And yet they still have not been fixed.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Because I don't believe you have been on Business and Industry, have you? You haven't sat through a homeowners' associations complaint (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: As you said yourself, we've been working on them year after year and yet they have not been fixed. And to my knowledge, I may be wrong, but this is the first time that all the parties have come with agreed legislation. I just think we ought to give them a chance a fix it instead of us trying to fix it.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right. So it's your idea that we should just continue on the same old path and basically just try to build into the law a variety of business practices and then just keep coming back session after session after session trying to deal with those issues.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Quite the opposite. I feel that's what we've been doing, session after session after session. What I'm trying to do is encourage people to vote for a bill that the people who will be using this put together. An agreed piece of legislation and see if their solution can't fix it instead of us trying to fix it and failing year after year after year.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, the problem is if you look at your own amendment which you, by the way, didn't give me yesterday for us to have any discussion. I was not part of any negotiations. This bill --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: This bill -- Representative King, this bill sat over in calendars for two weeks. The groups that you're talking about never even came and talked to me but yet somehow they're satisfied with what they drafted over there but they don't want anybody to mess with their bill or at least have some improvement and go to conference.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I completely agree with you. I wish it had got out of calendars.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. Members --

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, I would respectfully ask that you vote for this and allow adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR: The question is on the adoption of the King amendment as amended? The question is on the motion to table by Representative Solomons. Representative King sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. Excuse Representative Kolkhorst because of a SBA meeting on motion of Representative Geren. A record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed nay. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Solomons voting aye, show Representative King voting nay. All those voted? Have all members voted? Ayes being 68, nays being 74 the motion to table fails to adopt. There's been a request for a verification vote. Members, please take your seats. Members, there has been a request for verification. The request has been granted.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Could the chair order me a sandwich while I'm waiting on this vote.

THE CHAIR: The chair cannot.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: You're welcome. The clerk will begin by verifying the nay votes.

THE CLERK: Aliseda, Alonzo, Alonzo?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Alonzo on the floor? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Anderson of Dallas, Aycock, Aycock?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Aycock on floor? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Beck, Berman, Bohac, Branch, Button, Cain, Callegari, Carter, Christian, Coleman, Coleman?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Coleman on the floor. Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Craddick, Creighton, Sarah Davis of Harris, Davis of Dallas, Driver, Fletcher, Flynn, Frullo, Gallego, Gallego?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Gallego on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Garza, Gonzales of Williamson, Guillen, Gutierrez, Gutierrez.

THE CHAIR: Representative Gutierrez on the floor? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Hamilton, Hancock, Harper-Brown, Hartnett, Huberty, Hughes, Isaac, Johnson, King of Parker, King of Zavala, Landtroop, Larson, Laubenberg, Lavender, Legler, Lozano, Lucio, Lyon, Lyon?

THE CHAIR: Representative Lyon on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Madden, Mallory-Caraway, Margo, Martinez-Fischer, Miller of Comal, Miller of Erath, Morrison, Munoz, Murphy, Nash, Oliveira, Oliveira.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Oliveira on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Parker, Paxton, Paxton?

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Paxton on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Perry, Phillips, Price, Reynolds, Riddle, Scott, Sheets, Sheffield, Shelton, Taylor of Galveston, Torres, Walle, Weber, White, Zedler.

THE CHAIR: Chair will verify the ayes.

THE CLERK: Allen, Alvarado, Anchia, Anderson of McClendon, Bonnen, Bonnen?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Bonnen on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Brown, Burkett, Burkett?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Burkett on the floor of the House? Strike her name temporarily.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's here.

THE CLERK: Castro, Chisum, Cook, Darby, John Davis of Harris, Deshotel, Dukes, Dukes?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Dukes on the floor of the House? Strike her name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Dutton. Eissler, Eissler?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Eissler on the floor of the House. Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Elkins, Farias, Farrar, Geren, Giddings, Gonzales of Hidalgo, Gooden, Hardcastle, Hernandez Luna, Hilderbran, Hochberg, Hopson, Howard of Fort Bend, Howard of Fort Bend.

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Howard on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Howard of Travis, Hunter, Jackson, Keffer, King of Taylor, Kleinschmidt, Kuempel, Lewis, Marquez, Martinez, Martinez?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Martinez on the floor of the House. Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: McClendon, Menendez, Miles, Naishtat, Orr, Otto, Patrick, Pena, Picket, Pitts, Quintanilla, Raymond, Ritter, Rodriguez, Simpson, Smith of Tarrant, Smith of Tarrant?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Smith on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Smith of Harris, Smithee, Solomons, Strama, Taylor of Cullen, Thompson, Thompson?

THE CHAIR: Is Representative Thompson on the floor of the House. Strike the name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Turner, Veasey, Villarreal, Vo, Woolley, Workman, Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Representative Alonzo on the floor of the House? Verify Representative Alonzo. Is Representative Aycock on the floor of the House? Representative Aycock is on the floor of the House. Verify his name. Is Representative Bonnen on the floor of the House? Strike his name. Representative Coleman on the floor of the House. Verify Representative Coleman. Representative Dukes on the floor of the House. Strike her name. Representative Gallego on the floor of the House? Verify Representative Gallego. Representative Gutierrez on the floor of the House? Verify his name. Representative Lyon on the floor of the House. Verify Representative Lyon. Representative Martinez on the floor of the House? Strike his name. Representative Oliveira on the floor of House? Strike his name. Is Representative Paxton on the floor of the House. Verify Representative Paxton. Is Representative Smith of Tarrant on the floor of the House? Strike his name. Is Representative Thompson on the floor of the House. Representative -- verify Representative Thompson. Is Representative Eissler on the floor of the House? Strike his name. Is Representative Charlie Howard on the floor of the House? Strike his name. The following members are present voting aye because their machines malfunctioned. Show them voting aye. Gutierrez, Lyon, Walle. The following members were present voting no but their machines malfunction. Show them voting no. Gonzales of El Paso, Patrick, Burkett, Crownover, Miller of Comal. Members, 63 ayes and 73 nays, the motion to table failed. Excuse Representative Martinez for important business in the district on the motion of Representative Legler. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'm not going to ask the members to go through this again. Let me just tell you what disappoints me about it. Is that we have worked for years to trying to get some sort of improvement. We are now -- can possibly get something done with Mr. Dutton's bill and maybe Mr. Anderson's bill and a couple others out there. At the end of the day it's disappointing that the misinformation and not -- the misinformation about what my bill or what I tried to do -- it's I'm just disappointed about that. That some members really felt it was necessary to go along with Buddy Jones and Bob Perry and TCC and basically not really try to understand what the bill was, in not all cases. Not all members, by any means. However I do think that it is -- it is interesting to note that if this legislature isn't going to do anything to try to bring some balance to the homeowners' association. It's a sad, sad day. We've been trying for years to bring some improvement -- almost only able to do it in small bits and pieces and maybe that's the only way we're going to be able to get anything done. But I would say that I don't want to put y'all through another vote with your homeowners associations or anybody else but I -- I -- I really feel as if we've let some people down. Some people who really have real problems and we're not going to address it. I can't vote for Mr. King's amendment. I can't do it. It builds into the statute some really bad business practices totally in the favor of management companies, third party collectors, attorney's fees and attorneys who represent those groups. So, I'm going to pull the bill down. I move --

THE CHAIR: Representative Solomons moves to postpone to the end of the calendar. Is there any objection? Senate Bill 142 is postponed to the end of the calendar. Please excuse Representative Dukes because of important business in the district on the motion of Representative McClendon. Please excuse Representative Smith, Todd Smith, on important business in the district on the motion of Representative Woolley. Excuse Representative Pena because of important business in the district on the motion of Representative Deshotel. Members, it's the Chair's intention to take a recess until 1:45. Chair announces the following in the signing of the Chair.

THE CLERK: HB 1469, HB 1137, HB 1127, HB 1075, HB 1057, HB 886, HB 675, HB 499, HB 442, HB441, HB 417, HB 350, HB 252, HB 248, HB 149, HB 91, HB 8, HB 2609, HB 2518, HB 2507, HB 2488, HB 2476, HB 2417, HB 2383, HB 2118, HB 2080, HB 1999, HB 1814, HB 1573, HB 3803, HB 3531, HB 3510, HB 3372, HB 3342, HB 2973, HB 2959, HB 2907, HB 2902 HB 2716.

THE CHAIR: The House stands in recess until 1:45.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: House will come to order. Chair recognizes Representative Garza for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. If I can get the members of the National Veterans Outreach Program of the American GI Forum in the House gallery could stand. If I could get you guys to stand on the south gallery there. Members, we have Carlos Martinez who is the president of the National Veterans Outreach Program of the American GI Forum. We have Yolanda Suaras who is the senior vice president of business operations along with other member of National Veterans Outreach Guild. We welcome you today and thank you for visiting your House. The National Veterans Outreach Program is a veterans service headquartered in our home, San Antonio. With the field offices throughout the State of Texas. They provide job training, job placement for veterans of all eras. Also the NVOP started one of the first veterans homeless centers in America, in our city of San Antonio. So as a veterans service organization and the American GI Forum, 39 year-old organization that has served veterans with special challenges to employment since its founding in 1972. So it's an organization that has put together many opportunities to create continuum of care for veterans and considered by many across the country as unique and innovative. So we welcome you to your House. Thank you gentlemen, ladies. Members, let's give them a hand. Thank you so much.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we're pleased today not only with these veterans of the Veteran GI Forum but we've had other than veterans groups that have been in and out of the chamber today and they're here supporting the legislation we have to extend the exemption to surviving spouses and to the military voting bill. And so we had folks from the Texas Coalition of Veterans Organizations. We have over 600,000 statewide. Texas Association of Vietnam Veterans, Combat Infantry Badge Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 856, Vietnam Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, the Korean War Veterans Reserve Officers' Association and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. And we extend a welcome to all these folks. The one thing that's noted throughout the world is the American GI and these folks are here to represent them and went to try and pass this legislation and honor our GI's. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 8. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 8 by Nelson. Relating to improving the quality and efficiency of health care.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I want to thank you for allowing me to lay out Senate Bill 8 today. I first want start by saying thank you to a great public health committee. These bills, Senate Bill 7 and 8 came over late. Senate Bill 7 has been attached to Senate Bill 23 which saves us a tremendous amount of time on the House floor today. But the work that the public health committee does is pretty amazing from the experience of the Garnet Coleman's and Elliott Naishtat's and John Zerwas and Susan King and Sarah Davis, Vicki Truitt, certainly the experience Jodie Laubenberg and everyone that has been involved. We have had several meetings on this particular bill. We met with staffs, we met with stakeholders. This has been a very vetted bill. It's worked -- we've worked real hard to keep all stakeholders moving on with us as we move through the process. I would say that Senate Bill 8 is a reform of payment methodologies in new relationships among providers. One of the things and the goals of this bill -- and I know that Susan King knows this and we talk about this in our health committee a lot, is the cost of health care. The cost of the health care recent studies showed has gone up for a family of four buying health insurance from a little over 9,000 to -- in 2002 to 2011 being over 19,000 for a family of four to purchase health insurance. So certainly the goal of this is to improve outcomes while lowering the cost of health care. So I'm going to walk through what the bill does. Article 1 establishes our goals. Article 2 moves into establishing the Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency, which is charged to study and develop recommendations to the legislation on how to improve and reporting the transfer -- transparency of health care information. Improve health care quality and outcomes through promotion of evidence based best practices and contain health care costs through new payment and delivery models. The institute, which we worked on real hard amp changing things and I'm going to have a perfecting amendment that would do that. Would be governed by a board appointed by the governor and would include commissioners of TDI and Texas HHSC, DISHES, ERS,TRS, Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas Medical Board, and other health care providers, payers and consumers. The institute would provide a forum for discussion among the state and private payers, health care providers, and consumers on how to improve health care outcomes and contain costs, including development of new reimbursement and delivery models. The other thing that this bill does is -- and I want to say about the institute. It has to make recommendations to the legislature. It does not have rule making authority and the institute will sunset September the 1st, 2017 unless reauthorized by the legislature. The other big part of the this bill is Article 3. Which authorizes the establishment of health care collaboratives. That is composed of physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers that would allow -- which we would allow to negotiate new types of reimbursement methodologies, shared savings, pay for performance, and other bundle payments with payers, public and private. Shared savings, pay for performance and other bundle payments. These new reimbursement models are important because they would help align the financial incentives of all the health care providers and will pay providers based on quality and efficiency rather than based on the volume of services provided which we currently have today which is fee per service. Members, some of the most important parts of that legislation is, is that these new payment models cannot be utilized unless we make certain changes in the state law. Under current state law it is illegal for an organization such as collaborative to contract for and receive payment on behalf of combined groups of physicians and other providers. The receipt of and distribution of a bundle payment or other types of alternative payments would violate the state antikickback laws and laws that prohibit corporate practice of medicine and fee splitting among providers. So there's a number of things that we do in this legislation. It also allows us under the state action immunity doctrine to establish a process for reviewing the potential antitrust issues and having the Department of the Insurance and Attorney General's Office approve these collaborative type agreements. One of the things that I have adored as chair of public health is working with the vice chairman and Elliott Naishtat. And Elliott being as thorough as he is actually wrote the Federal Trade Commission about some parts of this bill. And I like to call him the FTC killer because in a very well short amount of a time we received a seven page letter back. And while the Federal Trade Commission raised some concerns, we very respectfully read that and we're going to do some perfecting amendments on that. It was really good feedback. We appreciate Federal agency of the Federal Trade Commission but I would say to you as I looked through their letter and then looked at what we're trying to accomplish here is that I think there's going to be more input in looking at antitrust kinds of violations. So I want to thank the vice chair Elliott Naishtat for always being so thorough and that we will work through this letter from the FTC and provide some safeguards and some of the concerns that they raised. Members, today I don't want to kill the entire rest of the calendar with amendments. There are going to be a lot of amendments that are going to be offered. I would ask respectfully this is about payment reform with health insurance. It's the health -- it's the insurance code. We also open up to the health and safety code. This is about payment -- how payers are going to pay the relationship between doctors and hospitals and health care providers. We will move through these very quickly. I cannot promise what will be kept in conference and what will not because we've worked so hard to keep everyone on board as we moved through this new type of system and these new kinds of payments and reform and how we deliver medicine. So with that Mr. Speaker, we can start on amendments.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the perfecting amendment that we worked on when we worked in committee and we worked then as our staffs worked and we worked as members and had two or three different meetings. We decided to roll a lot of these into one big amendment. I'm happy to walk you through step by step all 66 sections of this particular amendment or I can do a quick synonymous. But let me talk to specifically this amendment makes clarifying changes to the health care collaborative application enforcement process to further protect patients and market competition. For example, it allows the AG's office to take additional time to review an application if needed. It requires a health care collaborative to report any material change in the size or composition of the collaborative of the department -- to the Department of Insurance. It clarifies the attorney general may at any time and in his or her own initiative investigate a health care collaborative for issues related to anticompetitive behavior. It requires the Department of Insurance to report any enforcement actions against a health care collaborative to the appropriate state licensing agency and to the United States Department of Health and Human Service National Practitioner data base. It clarifies the definition of health care collaborative to make sure that all health care providers are allowed to participate. It requires that the board of directors of each collaborative to include at least three additional community leaders as ex officio nonvoting. It clarifies the definitions for the various potentially preventable events so that they are more consistent with the nationally accepted definitions, consistent with Senator Nelson's medicaid quality and efficiency legislation, SB 7, that we've passed on the floor. It insures that all members of the existing Health Care Policy Council are included in the Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency Board of Directors. It increases the term of the board members on the institute from two years to four years and staggers those terms. It ensures that ERS and TRS are not required of provide funds to the institute. Both affirm constitutionally prohibited from diverting any funds for their intended purpose and this should address all of the TRS, the retired teacher's concerns that they had with that particular item. It explicitly prohibits the institute from selling any protected health information or individually identifiable health information. Members, this was something that I was very vocal about and HB 300 has now finally passed the Senate which will give more protection. It adds more specific direction to the study on the feasibility of an all payer claims database. And it changes the health care facility recognition program to study -- to a study in order to give the department of State Health Services the opportunity to work with stakeholders on how such a program could be implemented in Texas. I think there is an amendment to the amendment.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: In drafting that amendment we left out two things and one was in reference to Chapter 541 of the insurance code it was necessary to specify the scope of applicability of Chapter 541 and it also applies to health care collaboratives which are not insurance companies. And it clarifies the Department of Insurance and the attorney general will be able to take action when collaboratives engage in deceptive trade practices just as they can against insurance companies. And it limits the application of Chapter 541 to regulatory actions and does not extend to individual lawsuits and class actions. And the second part of the amendment that clarifies that when reviewing the market power of the collaboratives application TDI may (*inaudible). AG will make a determination that the pro-competitive benefits are likely to substantially outweigh the anticompetitive effects of any increase in market power. This will ensure that in smaller medium markets health care collaboratives are allowed and can be formed. I move -- it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Kolkhorst send up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Kolkhorst amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Members, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none the amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, members. This strikes the portion that has the abortion facilities from the definitions of health care facilities. It also allows the -- it strikes the part of the executive commissioners authorities to add preventable readmissions. I did not think that was proper that solely the commissioner could decide PPR's. And then it strikes the institute may participate in other revenue generating activities. I did not want the institute selling that sensitive data. I move passage.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So members, when we're setting up the institute it's all based out of the Health and Human Service commission which we know is a large agency. I have some fears about the agency really being able to pull this off in the next two years. One of the thoughts that I had was that we have world renown health related institutions so this amendment requires that HHSC collaborate with other HRI's in providing administrative support to the institute in gathering their ideas. Move passage.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Members, as we discussed these health care collaboratives in trying to lower the cost of health care one of the fears that not only I but other members and stakeholders expressed was the fact that is this a way to actually hide the true cost of health care. So this amendment adds additional issues for the institute to study and provide recommendations to the legislature which would include, evaluating how the legislature may promote consumer driven health care system specifically on how to increase the adoption of higher deductible plans and health savings accounts and how these products can lower the overall health care cost and increase personal responsibility. And then the price transparency piece in looking at and making sure that eventually we get to the bottom of what health care is actually costing us and that would be a study by the institute. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Madam doorkeeper.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis. Amendment by Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes -- the amendment's withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a simple amendment that speaks of the covenants of not to complete that are embedded within this bill. This simply removes those covenants not to compete. Health care collaboratives are meant to bring physicians together to work together whether they're individually or within groups. It's not meant to try to block people out. So this amendment provides language which says that the covenant not to compete with reference to after the termination of the physicians contract is not valid. And so with that I think it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, all this does is require that a reporting must be submitted based on abortion complications. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Dr. Zerwas, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Would the gentleman yield?

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Zedler, we've had a conversation about this already a little bit and, you know, I know what you're doing here is to try to recognize that abortion can be related to some complications, just like any other procedure can be related to complications out there. Can you tell me why specifically abortion should be singled out as opposed to a DNC for a blighted ovum. Okay. A blighted ovum is an unviable fetus that gets a DNC and gathers complications that arise from that. Or a particular scraping for endometrial cancer. Again similar type procedures or something that may result from a cervical colonization looking for strain or cell of carcinoma of the cervix. Tell me why we need to single out abortion and not let -- and I can give you dozens of other things that would fall into this same category, why we should not list those that very specifically ought to be picked up and singled out.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Because a lot of times this is not dealt with because of the sensitive nature of it. And the fact of the matter is what we've had is emergency room physicians who consistently have come forward and said, you know, what we've seen instances where in particular clinics, abortion clinics that had complication after complication and they said very often it goes unreported because there's a disconnect. In a hospital a woman would typically or surgery center she would go back to the hospital or to the surgeon center where she had the --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: No they probably wouldn't go back to the surgeon's center. The surgeon center is not open after 5:00 or 6:00 o'clock in the evening. So they would end up back in a -- in a emergency room or a free standing emergency room. Now you mentioned that the emergency room doctors brought this to you. Can you tell me something in the literature that actually suggests that this is a problem among emergency room physicians nor among the discipline of emergency care in general.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Well, I can't show you any study. All I have is instances that are abortion -- I mean emergency room physicians that have come to me and said they've seen this.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And I respect that. And there's vignettes or anecdotal instances that I can share with you of people that had a dilation and curettage, that's what D&C stands for, that have had complications related to that that are exactly the same complications that are related to somebody that was going to have a termination of a pregnancy. So, the same procedures are involved in that and yes they can result in the same complications from that. So I think my point is here is that as we look at this, we're looked at trying to assess potentially preventable readmissions, potentially preventable complications and are those things that are in the hospital, the institutions, the physician, or otherwise are doing that are potentially saying that we can change. So, I guess again, I ask you there are a lot more instances of complications of things other than abortion. And this list would become just look like a medical dictionary of procedures that are out there. So I think by setting a precedent when we single out abortion in this is we're looking at saying we need to look at every one of these things and I think what we're trying to do in this to set up a scenario where we can, in fact, look at what are the potentially preventable complications. Things that we can prevent from readmission. So, I guess I would ask are there other things other than abortion that since you're tuned into this that you might want to list here.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: You know, I think what it boils down do is that this is something that we've seen in the past and very often -- if it's as you say where it's going to be done any how did then this in there shouldn't make any difference.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I think it does make a difference because it sets precedent for enumerating and listing procedures that's something -- a reason to have out there. So, again, I could tell you the litany of things that I just shared with you. Circumstances that ought to be listed because frankly they're going to occur much more frequently in a emergency setting than an abortion. And so I would say that we probably ought to look at listing them. I think what the bill does in effect by doing this is that it gives a the open door say, were going to look at all the complications there.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Okay. Here's the thing. Very often the statistic are skewed because abortion complications are reported as pregnancy complications so DISH's stats are skewed and all this does is correct that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I think that's one thing in order to correct the terminology for how a complication indication is done as opposed to having it enumerated in a amendment like this. So, I would suggest that there's an alternative to way to Categorize a complication as opposed to singling it out as a condition or a circumstance under which this would need to be -- needs to be recognized. So I would suggest, Mr. Zedler, that we probably ought to look at an alternative way of getting to the information that you're trying to get to -- and I don't deny it's important information for us to know but I don't think we get at it by virtue of creating an amendment in the law like this related to abortion.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Why don't we do this. I'll temporarily pull it down. We'll discuss and we'll discuss it and see if we can't come to an agreement. How's that?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That would be great. Thank you, Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's temporarily withdrawn.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment deals vexatious matter that's been before the House many times for a long time. Many of us have signed onto bills about this been have been lobbied about this and it has to do with what happens at the end of life when the doctor decides it's time to withdraw treatment and the patient doesn't want treatment withdrawn or the family or the advancement doesn't want to withdraw treatment. Now let me see it's a difficult issue people on all sides -- let me allow -- hopefully this will allows a relief. This amendment does nothing to change the law. It doesn't touch the 10 days, it doesn't say treatment pending transfer, it doesn't say anything about that. It says we're going report what's going on with this statute. So reporting bill is all it does. It's consistent with reporting requirements we currently have in law and that are put in Senate Bill 8. As we've had system testimony on this issue we've had families come in and talk about difficult circumstances and how their loved ones were treated and we've had hospitals and doctors give us differing views on how they're approached. We need this reporting. So all this does is so we have the to information act.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Would the gentleman yield.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hughes, do you yield to Mr. Burnam?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You just said that your proposed amendment doesn't change the law whatsoever.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's exactly right. As far as those procedures, the 10 days and all that stuff is not effected at all.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: The information I have received is the Catholic bishop Conference is opposed to this amendment. That one of the right to life groups is opposed this amendment and, in fact, all this amendment would do is create some confusion in already well established law.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Well Mr. -- if you'd read the amendment I think you'd find it's reporting only. Now, there's nothing to do with concern that the amendment's might be -- *inaudible.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So who was the -- so who was the (inaudible) (inaudible) who was doing the reporting to who and why is it any of their business whether or not my family's decided that we needed a D & R for one of our elders.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Well, it's not about D & R's. The reporting goes to the executive commissioner HSSC and just like other reporting --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Reporting on what?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: If it's any -- if it's any help to you (inaudible) (inaudible)

(inaudible) -- for scores of medical issues. Patient information --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: What are we reporting.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The patient information is not recorded -- they want to know --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Brian, your response is not responsive. What are we reporting?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: We're reporting the diagnosis of the patients on whom this procedure is invoked. We're reporting whether the patient agrees to the treatment. We're reporting whether an ethics committee was held as the statute says. We're reported whether the treatment was withdrawn. Whether the patient was transferred. We're tracking through the elements of 166.046 and finding out how many cases are involved. And allow me to tell you why. I'm going to tell you why. There are 50 to 60 cases where folks have testified to the legislature and they've said this has been mishandle, we've been treated wrong. We tried to get some information from --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Brian.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: -- the information's been a little differing. We need good information to make these decisions. That's what it does.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I call a point of order against further consideration of this amendment by Representative Hughes in that it violates Rule 11, Section 2 and 3. The amendment is not a subject under consideration nor is the subject that was included in the committee substitute.

THE CHAIR: Come on down front Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Chair recognizes Mr. Isaac for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I know some of you heard me talking last week about an event this past weekend in the Woodlands. I'd like to recognize my wife. We refer to her as iron mom around the house. She is an ironman finished a 2.4 full-time swim, 112 mile drop) bike and a marathon Saturday in the Woodlands. She's in the north gallery. Give her a round of applause.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you recognize me for a motion to limit amendments to those that are already up on the dais. I think we're killing a great portion of the calendar with these continual scrums and --

THE CHAIR: Why don't you --

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: -- I think other members would appreciate that.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, I think you have a phenomenon idea that we'd like you to come down front and visit with us about.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Members, the point of order raised by Mr. Coleman is respectfully overruled. Members, we are on the Hughes amendment. The chair -- there's an amendment to the amendment by Mrs. Truitt. Chair will lay out the amendment to the amendment and the clerk will please read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Truitt.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mrs. Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I didn't get to ask any questions from the back mic but, frankly, I have some concerns about the Hughes amendment because, frankly, I think it sets up -- is setting up a reporting mechanism that would allow plaintiff's attorneys to sue hospitals and doctors. So, out of respect for the desire of Mr. Hughes for reporting, members, my amendment to the amendment strikes the Hughes amendment and replaces it with an interim study. The interim study would look at several things including the reporting requirement that Mr. Hughes is attempting to create in his amendment because, frankly, this data would have to be collected from hospital claims data that would be very difficult for the Department of State Health Services accomplish at this time. It also includes examining the conflict resolution process in current law which has been the subject of Mr. Hughes repeatedly failed legislation. As many of you know there was a compromise bill back in 2007 which came from another interim study. This study is consistent with testimony provided in committee by the Catholic Conference of Bishops and the Texas Alliance for Life. The study would also address the artificial nutrition and hydration concerns raised by the bishops and other pro-life groups. I am absolutely pro-life but I have serious concerns that we are teeing up with the Hughes amendment an area that we don't want to get our providers into. And with that I respectfully request that you support this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hughes in opposition to the Truitt amendment to his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Just briefly about what the amendment does. And I want to make this clear because it's been very confusing a lot of stuff has been going back and forth. Many of us were concerned that there was going to be an amendment to this bill that was going to change the law. That was going to require treatment for an extended period of time. Please, know that the amendment filed in my amendment before and not Representative Truitt's amendment to it but the amendment is reporting only. That's all the amendment does. It doesn't change the law it, doesn't change the time periods. It just is reporting. Now let me give you a little bit of context briefly.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mrs. Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hughes, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'm sorry, not at this time. Not at this time.

THE CHAIR: Not at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Not at this time. Here's what hospitals currently report under the law. They report this to the state. This is reported in aggregate data just like the amendment that I have offered would do. They report cases that result in loss of bodily function, perinatal death unrelated to congenital condition, suicide when the patient is being watched 24 hours, sexual assault of a patient during treatment, transfusion problems, a procedure on the wrong part of the body, foreign object left in. We report infections, we report cancer, we report births. The consumer -- that is the Commissioner of Health and Human Services keeps track of this data so we can know how we're doing. So we can know what the state of health care is in the State of Texas. This is not individual patient data. All right. No names, no Social Security numbers --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mrs. Truitt?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield, Mr. Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Not at this time. Not at this time.

THE CHAIR: Not just yet. I didn't interrupt the gentle lady laying out her amendment to the amendment and I want to have just a moment before I yield. So hospitals customarily report data like this. So, here's what the amendment does: It tracks Section 166.046 of the health safety code. It asks the hospital to report to us -- to report to us whether this procedure is being followed. How many cases are there where the patient wants to live and the doctor and hospital have decided to withdraw treatment? How often does it happen? I can tell you and other members can attest to this from the committees. That we've had families come before us who have said, this happened, the law wasn't followed, I was treated horribly and then we can't seem to get good data on this.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Not at this time. I will yield in a moment but not at this time. Currently all we have is conflicting testimony. Families say one thing, some hospitals say something else, doctor says something else. We need good data and that's what may amendment does. Now, with regard to Ms. Truitt's amendment to the amendment, of course, it strikes all the reporting in the amendment that I filed. It calls for an interim study. This was studied in the 2005 interim. Many of the committees have looked at this. The Speaker may see fit to order this for an interim study, that remains to be seen. Even if we have an interim study, we need good data. We've got to have good data. The amendment that I have offered provides that consistent with Texas law, consistent with Senate Bill 8. And I apologize for taking up so much time, members, but I want to make clear. My amendment is not controversial. It doesn't change the law. It's about transparency, it's about reporting. And I will yield to my friend.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you. Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Truitt, the gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you. So, Mr. Hughes, what exactly is the intent of capturing all this data?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: The intent in capturing all this data is to let the legislature know whether the current system is working.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Isn't it true, Mr. Hughes, that you hope to accomplish this by what you hope to accomplish is to establish a new standard of care for purposes of lawsuits so that whatever extended family decides or changes it's mind to think is best that should be the standard of care for the courts other than what is demonstrated and accepted medical standards of care might be?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: No, it's not. Chapter 166.046 of the Health and Safety Code provides immunity from suit to hospitals and doctors if they follow this procedure.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Was this amendment in a bill that was passed out of committee.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: No it was not.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Was this amendment discussed with anyone at the department -- your amendment, discussed with anyone at the Department of State Health Services to determine if hospital discharge data capacity exists?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: We contacted the Department of State Health Services to determine what data is already collected to get the right language, to get the right nature. And we followed what they sent us. In fact, the information I provided to you a moment ago about what we currently require to be reported that came from the Department of State Health Services from a lawyer at DSHS.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: At the hear -- you had a hearing on a bill in Human Services why were most of the witnesses in favor of your bill, plaintiff's attorneys?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Why were most -- I couldn't quite hear you, I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Why were the witnesses in your -- at your bill hearing in Human Services mostly plaintiff's attorneys.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: You know, I recall one plaintiff's lawyer testifying. There may be others. I recall a number of families testifying -- a number of testifying --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Are you familiar with the Federal HIPPA law?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Ms. Truitt, I'm answering your question. I recall a number of families testifying who told us under oath horror stories, horror stories of how they were treated under the current law.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Are you familiar with HIPPA law?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I also recall doctors testifying in favor of and against my bill, medical doctors. In fact, there were two for and two against and the record will bear that out. I also recall lawyers testifying against my bill. There are lawyers and doctors in all people on many sides of this bill. And I hope that no one's trying to --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Are you familiar with the Federal HIPPA law?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Clear about that. I beg your pardon.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Are you familiar with Federal HIPPA law?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I am.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Doesn't HIPPA prevent hospitals from getting to tell their side of the story thus allowing attorneys involved to grossly misrepresent facts.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Hip --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And would you admit that --

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: HIPPA says -- HIPPA allows -- HIPPA allows information to be reported in the aggregate like we already do for cancer, for infections, for other problems that happen in hospitals. We already require this. Senate Bill 8 is very clear HIPPA is not effected by this. No patients names would be released under House Bill 8 with or without this amendment. I hope that everybody understands that. This is aggregate data about how this is being handled. And there's no question that HIPPA doesn't effect that.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: What groups are supportive of your amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Actually Texas Right to Life is in favor of this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Is the Texas Catholic Conference opposed to your effort.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: The Texas Catholic Conference hasn't seen this amendment as far as I know --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Is the Texas Alliance for Life opposed to your effort?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: The Texas Catholic Conference announced something last night saying they were opposed to something that said, treatment pending transfer. As you will note this amendment doesn't say treatment pending transfer or anything like it. This amendment says give us the data. Let us know if this is really working and that's what we want to know. The only reason -- there's no reason to fear this amendment unless we're afraid of the truth. If we don't want to know what's really going on then we don't need this. But if we want to have the best information to make policy for Texas we need this information.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Hughes, are you aware that another member of this chamber called the Catholic Conference just a few moments ago and they explained that they are opposed to your amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I'll take your word for it. I wasn't aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And are in support of my interim study because it gets at real data that's properly motivated.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I don't know about who is speaking to motivations. I tried avoid that from the mic. Most of us do. But I haven't talked to the Catholic Conference about this particular amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mrs. Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: That's Ms.

THE CHAIR: Ms.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you. Representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Why are you opposed to having this interim study.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Not opposed to an interim study. The Speaker may decide to do that. For an interim study though we do need good data. And let me say in 2005 this was the subject of interim study, it was done over that interim. A number of people testified at a couple of different hearings. In fact, the Senate and the House committees each had interim studies on this matter. There was also legislation in 2009 and 2007 and for what it's worth in 2007 and 2009 there were 76 plus co and joint authors of each of those bills. Now the bills didn't make it through the committee. That's how the process works. But we're not opposed to interim study, the Speaker may decide to do that. We need good data if were going to --

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. But in previous sessions you've had this or other people have carried this in the form of a bill. Three different bills.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: No ma'am. This study -- this language about reporting has never been offered to my knowledge. I -- you may -- someone may correct me but I've never filed a bill dealing with reporting. This is reporting only. That's all my amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. But it seems like -- if you feel so very passionate about this an interim study could be sufficient.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: An interim study would be fine. We need the data because what are we going to be studying? Again, let me stress this. As families have come and testified dozens and dozens of families. I'm not exaggerating. As dozens of families have testified when there's a real problem the law. We haven't been able to get good data. We have the families that come and testify, they testify under oath and they let us look at their medical records -- the committees but we don't have good data coming from the hospital side and that's why we need this amendment. This is just about information. This does not change the law.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. It seems like this is more -- boils down to lawsuits, basically.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Well, I don't really know how that would happen because this information is reported in the aggregate. This has nothing to do with an individual case.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: What purpose, Mrs. Gonzales of Hidalgo?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Also, Ms. Gonzales. Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Of course I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Representative Hughes, have you have you had an opportunity to check with TMA or any of the other medical groups to determine if this is going impose undue burden upon medical practitioners.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I have not. Again, we know that they are required to report. This is already happening. And, again, as the legislature since we do set policy don't we want to have the best information?

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to close on her amendment to the Hughes amendment. Chair recognizes representative -- Dr. Zerwas to speak for the Truitt amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You know, this is an issue that I think that this legislature has grappled with a great deal of time and it's a very important issue. Let me not discount that at all. This particular law is a very, very progressive law. It is a law that was sought out tremendously before it was ultimately adopted. It is a law that is about bringing honor and dignity to the end of life as I have said many times before. Anytime this law does not bring honor and dignity to life we should step back and look at it. Absolutely we should do that. And, in fact, in 2006 that's what this legislature did and they came forward with a consensus document with many of the people that Representative Truitt laid out to you that are in opposition to this particular amendment that Representative Hughes has laid out. Representative Truitt, Chairman Truitt has basically advocated that same position back in 2006. Let's step back and make sure that this very, very progressive law that deals with bringing the honor and dignity to the end of life is still, in fact, doing that. I happen to work in an environment where this is unfortunately one of the laws that has to be brought forward in order for us to deal with some very, very difficult circumstances. Circumstances where we have babies born that don't have a brain they just have a lot of fluid in their head. But for the most part would look like a newborn that is alive but, frankly, you know, we haven't figured out how to grow brains and it's never going to change. And sometimes the family has a very, very difficult emotional situation associated with that and we recognize that and sometimes you have to go forward and move forward with this law which is very, very clearly directed to involve

(inaudible) to involve people that have, in fact, concerns about how this is because this comes very close to have making decisions that are very, very uncomfortable for people. And so, ladies and gentlemen, I would say -- my fellow members that the amendment to the amendment that Chair Truitt has laid out here is, in fact, the direction that we need to go in order to reconsider and take a look. We may need to do with every two hours -- every two years to make sure that, in fact, we are continuing to do the right thing because it is a very, very serious thing that I will tell you all the people who get involved in this kind of thing, certainly the hospitals that I happen to be involved in with take the very seriously. It's something that has to be done right and it has to be done with every bit of human kindness that's involved in these very, very difficult circumstances. Looking at it as Representative Truitt has laid out for us is, in fact, the right thing for us to do. And I would ask, members, that you, in fact, support her amendment to the amendment to look at this as an interim charge and get all the stakeholders together to consider all the different facets that are, involved in this.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia?

REP. RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield for one question?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Dr. Zerwas, it's my understanding the Catholic Conference is, in fact, in favor of the Truitt amendment and against the Truitt amendment to the amendment and against the Hughes amendment; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's my understanding, yes.

REP. RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Dr. Zerwas, I just I -- serve as the subcommittee chair on end of life issues for the Human Services Committee and held a hearing on this. And something that was frustrating to me was the lack of data that I can refer to to know empirically how often this section of code was being used what the circumstances were around it. Since that data isn't available and I don't think this interim report will get the information that we need to deal with this subject. How are we solving the problem that Representative Hughes is trying to solve?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I think that we've looked at this right from the get go when this whole law was originally brought forward and ultimately adopted by the State of Texas. I think that we can look at continuing to build on what we have done. Certainly if there are things that need to be reported the interim committee can look at these things and say on a go forward basis these are things that we need to be sure that we put in place. But to the extent that they're going to change anything in terms of how we ultimately deliver on this law -- and, again, it's a very unfortunate thing. I mean none of us ever want and I'll tell you certainly as a physician that's not any place that I ever want to find myself in that situation. But I can tell you that because of the science and because of the technology we can do things that have probably never been thought of before but do very little to contribute to a life as opposed to just contributing to an existence. And we can keep people in existence for a very, very long time without having any sense of humanity in terms of why we're providing those particular services. So it's very important I think that we do not move forward with the law but that we reconvene the stakeholders. And, again, if this is something that we need to do every two years to make sure we're doing it right then let's do it every two years. Be sure that we are, in fact, doing the right thing. Again it's all about honor and dignity at the end of life Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Right. As, you know, as the subcommittee chair I asked many times for different stakeholders to provide data sets and Texas Right to Life shared their data set with me of what their experience have been using this law and I couldn't get any -- any of hospitals to share any kind of data set that this would request. Texas Right to Life supports Representative Hughes' amendment. Opposes Representative Truitt's amendment to the amendment because they think, as I do, for any of us to be honest brokers and try to figure out what the right thing for the State of Texas to do legally is to take a full look at the last ten years of how this law has been implemented. When we made the -- when we put this law in ten years ago everything we were doing was hypothetical. But now we actually -- if we ask -- if we vote today for Representative Hughes' amendment and oppose Representative Truitt's amendment we could actually find out what really has happened over the last ten years. And right now I don't know that as a policymaker. Even though I as a chair of a subcommittee asked stakeholders to provide information couldn't get it.

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Truitt to close on her amendment to the Hughes amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Speaker and I'll do so quickly. Members, I respectfully offer this amendment to the amendment because the Hughes amendment has not be collaborated on with any of the stakeholders on this delicate and serious issue. I agree that this is an important issue but the worst thing we can do, members, is blindly acquiesce to a bunch of data reporting that has not been vetted nor do we even know the cost associated with them. These situations are not black and white we should not allow one side of the courtroom to dictate the manner and content of what is corrected. What's at stake in this debate? Ultimately we'll be talking about violating doctors and nurses codes of ethics. We're all familiar with the Hippocratic Oath that physicians take, first do no harm. And I ask you to go along with me on this. Let's do the interim study. Let's go about this in a very serious and deliberate manner and make this what it is supposed to be rather than something that it shouldn't be. And with that I respectfully ask you to do no harm and vote for the amendment to the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman?

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Mrs. Truitt would you yield to a question? Will you yield for just --

THE CHAIR: Will the lady?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Yes.

THE CHAIR: She yields.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: First of all, we've heard that throughout the whole time of the debate over these issues that the Catholic Conference of Bishops in Texas has always been supportive of the position that you're taking, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Yes, sir.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: All right. The Texas Alliance for Life has always been supportive of the position you're taking; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Yes, sir.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: The health providers, hospitals and others and have all been in support of the position you're taking; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Yes, sir.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: In the committee -- in the Public Health Committee generally when we hear things -- and I really respect Mr. Hughes but generally the issues surrounded a pending lawsuit; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: I'm sorry I didn't hear you.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Generally when we have testimony it regarded a pending lawsuit against the hospital.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Yes, sir.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: And also many times that the reason had nothing to do with -- the reason it was a challenge with the patient had nothing to do with the law that's on the books; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Correct.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: You know, I've gotten a chance a work with a lot of different people this session and Alliance for Life and others on women's health service program. This is something that is a bipartisan and thoughtful issue where a lot of people have come together to make sure that Texas does treat our citizens with dignity. And I appreciate the amendment that you're doing.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Can I ask one or two questions?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Truitt, do you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: I do.

THE CHAIR: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Were you aware that me and Representative Hughes worked together on this type of legislation last session in a bipartisan effort to address this very serious issue as Representative Zerwas mentioned. Were you aware that he and I worked on that in a bipartisan effort?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: I was not aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I'm here to support your amendment because I think that by supporting your amendment is not, you know, going against I think what ultimately I agree with Representative Hughes were trying to do. I think yours is a very good first step and I'm saying that as someone joint authored that legislation last session. I appreciate your amendment and I intend vote for it.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you. Members, please vote for the amendment to the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Excuse Representative Larry Taylor because of TDI sunset meeting on a motion of Representative Crownover. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Okay, members, we are going to take an up and down vote on the Truitt amendment to the Hughes amendment. So you will have Mrs. Truitt voting aye and Mr. Hughes voting no. It's a record vote the clerk will, please, ring the bell. Mrs. Truitt voting aye, Mr. Hughes voting no. Have all members voted? All voted? There being 96 ayes 47 nays the Truitt amendment is adopted. Mr. Hughes sends up an amendment as amended. The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas. Amendment is withdrawn. Chair lays out the Brown amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Mr. Brown.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Brown.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Brown to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. All this does is -- is takes the Health and Human Services Oversight Committee and extends it through 2015.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Brown sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Shelton to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is about quality and efficiency in medicine and directs the executive commissioner to create a pilot program in the CHIP project to increase access and improve efficiency in that system and improve utilization particularly of the emergency room and it should be acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Dr. Shelton offers up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hardcastle.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hardcastle to explain his amendment.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This just a little amendment to look at and to see whether she's going to strip it off or not, that would bring competition back into the market and make sure that insurance companies look at all of the in service providers and the out of service providers when they're looking at that competition. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hardcastle offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is -- actually is a bill that we did here in Health and Human -- health -- a Public Health Committee and it's one that would require -- it would allow hospitals to have a policy for vaccinations for their employees. As you know, hospital workers have some of the closest contact with individuals that are in contact with others that could be very susceptible. Some are very immune compromised. This bill simply allows a policy to be put in place for hospitals that actually hospitals that have a policy in place regarding the vaccinations of those individuals that would have direct patient contact.

THE CHAIR: Dr. Zerwas offers up an amendment to the bill. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Creighton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, this allows any individual to participate in the collaborative but also makes sure that they don't have to be mandated to participate in a collaborative. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Creighton offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable -- I'm sorry members, there's an amendment to the Creighton amendment. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read it.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Creighton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Creighton to explain his amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: The amendment to the amendment is just a clean up that I worked on with the officer --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Creighton offers a clean up amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there any objections. Chair hears none. The amendment as amended is accepted. The Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miller of Erath.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller of Erath.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment simply says that we will do a periodic review of the PBM (*inaudible) to ensure that we are getting our best bang for a buck. And that's basically all it does. Has no fiscal note.

REP. CHUCK HOPSON: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hopson.

REP. CHUCK HOPSON: Quick question, please, sir. Will the gentleman yield.

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. CHUCK HOPSON: Representative Miller, how long has it been since they've had a review.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Well, Mr. Hopson, we've never looked at the PBM's and how they're handling our money. We've never had a review nor to my knowledge have we ever had an audit.

REP. CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I think it's time we take a look at that to --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, offers up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland. Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker members, this is a final TPO bill that we put on the table. I sent that bill -- Dr. Zerwas, and Dr. Schwertner were both co-authors so, I believe, it is acceptable to the author. It's basically something we've been working on for several years. If you're going to take the physician's discount under an insurance policy or a TPO arrangement that you have to have a direct contract with them and if you sell that or transfer to somebody else you have to get their -- notify the physician of the hospital. Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Eiland sends up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Taylor.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Sorry. The three legged stool of this bill is quality, efficiency, and transparency. To that point this is a very short amendment requiring to disclosure to patients, after all they are the lynchpin of all health care. This is a tiny part of a bill that passed out through committee that died on calendars and has to do with requiring notice to patients that data will be collected. It may be submitted to others, identified and it may be sold and on a website for the department. This information must be posted and it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative King sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. This is a bill that we did here called the Texas Emergency and Trauma Care Education Partnership Program. It basically allows for about $4.5 million of the trauma fund to be used actually partner with hospitals and educational institutions to create more fellowships and programs for nursing to pursue a trauma program --

THE CHAIR: Dr. Zerwas sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Ms. Laubenberg? Ms. Laubenberg? Clerk will read the amendment. Ms. Thompson.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Yes, ma'am.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: Please, state inquiry.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Who has the -- does anyone have the podium at this time.

THE CHAIR: Does anyone what?

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I'm going to talk to -- parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: Please, state inquiry.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to get an amendment for continuing medical education for the 118 members who we have spent about 30 percent of our time discussing this issue on women reproductive organs. I think that they have earned their medical educational credits this session and I'd like to be able to put an amendment in the bill for future references that when we spend that much time on this discussion that they would qualify for that certificate as well.

THE CHAIR: I think we've all learned about things we don't want to learn about this session Ms. Thompson.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Well, I think they've earned it this session and I would just like to be able to amend this bill with the office commission to for those members -- 118 members that qualify this session and --

THE CHAIR: Would you require a clinical.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: They've earned every aspect of it including proctologist and so forth and so on.

THE CHAIR: Bring your amendment down front.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The amendment's withdrawn by Mrs. Laubenberg. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment contains the key provisions of House Bill 1013 which was sponsored by 87 members passed by this House --

THE CHAIR: The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. Coleman, Mr. Garza, Mr. Callegari, Mr. Chisum, Mr. Zedler, Mr. Chisum, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Vo, Garza and Mrs. Howard and Mr. Christian.

THE CHAIR: Members, all the amendments -- all the members' amendments that were just read off deal the matter of scope of practice and are outside the scope of this bill and therefrom a point of order has been raised that they are nongermane amendments and that point of order is respectfully sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst to close.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you for again the hard work that's been put into Senate Bill 8. This is an attempt to reign in the high cost of health care while pursuing greater outcomes. I look forward to working all of you in conference. I don't know that we can -- we can hold onto everything but we'll try with the Senate, you never know about the Senate. I close.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on passage of Senate Bill 8 to second reading. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 8 is passed to third reading. Members, a record vote has been requested by Mr. Weber. A record vote has been granted. The clerk will, please, ring the bell on Senate Bill 8 by Mrs. Kolkhorst. Show Mr. Coleman voting aye. Have all voted? Show Mr. Vo voting aye, show Mr. Guillen voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 137 ayes, 5 nays, 2 present not voting, 6 absent Senate Bill 8 is finally passed to third reading. Mr. Pitts? Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1588. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1588 by Ogden. Relating to the creation and re-creation of funds and accounts, the dedication and rededication of revenue, and the exemption of unappropriated money from use for general governmental purposes.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, this is funds consolidation bill that we do every year in order to have enough money to certify the budget. It sweeps all of the dedicated funds and nondedicated funds all of those except those who are outside because of statute outside the treasury consolidates into one so that the controller can certify our budget. If this doesn't pass then we need to cut the budget by 4 billion -- $4.3 billion dollars. I believe there's an amendment.

THE CHAIR: Amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum to explain the Pitts amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, there is some other amendments that need to be added so that we get all of those funds in there. This one deals with the Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission general revenue fund created under House Bill 2694 and the Alamo Complex created in House Bill 3726.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum offers -- Mr. Burnam.

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

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Representative Chisum, would you clarify exactly what this does with the Radioactive Waste Commission?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: There's a little low level radioactive waste repository compact commission account created in the general revenue fund under House Bill 2694 this just adds it to the sweep list for a purpose of certifying the budget.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum offers up an amendment for Representative Pitts. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment streamlines attempts to establish inter-operable statewide emergency radio infrastructure allowing for communications between different types of public safety agencies. This is a bill that was passed by both Houses and this amendment would create consistency throughout the law and it is acceptable to the author and I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk, please, read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Margo.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Margo go explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. This just allows the University of the Texas El Paso to use their funds that were created under the tobacco lawsuit in Chapter 63 back in '99. Move acceptance.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Margo offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Brown.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. All this does is allocate where the money goes for our internet advertising. 50 percent goes to the credit for the Foundation School Fund and 50 percent goes to GR and I think it's acceptable to King author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Brown offers up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum to close.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1588? The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1588. All those in favor, say aye; all those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it Senate Bill 1588 is passed to third reading. Chair recognizes Mrs. Howard for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'd like to draw your attention, please, to the east gallery where we have cub scout. Pack 59. Fourth graders from Highland Park Elementary School here from Austin. Welcome to your Capitol. We're glad you're here with us today.

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 875. The clerk will, please, read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 875 by Fraser. Relating to compliance of state and Federal environmental permits.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hancock.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 875 creates a defense for Texas businesses against enforcement action in citing nuisance and trespass claims airing from greenhouse emissions. In those cases where the permit holder is in compliance with the permit issued by the TCQ, Federal government or agency of the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker will the yield?

THE CHAIR: Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Hancock?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Yes, I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields Mr. Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you neighbor. Representative Hancock, does Texas currently register greenhouse gases?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Currently the permit which this application is about deals with issues regarding the clean air act but there were no desire right now regarding the greenhouse gases.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, the answer would be no. The State of Texas does not currently regulate greenhouse gases.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Currently we -- we regulating particulate matter, we regulate nitrous oxide, sulfide, oxide we regulate those indicators that have been given to us that have actually created some great successes in reduction in air quality and improvement in air quality in the State of Texas over the last ten years.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Do you personally think that we should regulate greenhouse gases?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: That's really not addressed in this bill, in fact, I think that's what this bill's addressing is until it becomes -- it passes through the proper process that we don't want to see the EPA come in and really create regulations that have not been addressed or been vetted through congressional action.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But hasn't EPA asked us to issue permits for greenhouse gases as part of compliance with the Clean Air Act?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: EPA has overreached when it comes to greenhouses gases and gone outside the original boundaries --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. That's a matter of opinion.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: -- addresses particulate matter, it addresses, you know, socks and knocks and some of the things that Texas has done such a great job of improving quality in this state.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So that's a matter of opinion that we don't share and trying to be responsive to my question. EPA has asked us to issue permits, correct?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: EPA has Bonn outside the original -- has gone outside its original intent of the Clean Air Act.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Would you answer the question accurately?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well, it is fairly accurate. Well not fairly accurate, it's extremely accurate. That Clean Air Act addresses particulate matter -- (inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Isn't it true that in response to the EPA request what the State of Texas has done is sue EPA.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well, what the State of Texas has done is met the obligation of the Clean Air Act and they've recognized, in fact, this bill recognizes the overreaching actions of the EPA

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Could you be responsive to the questions I'm asking?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: To extend the -- beyond the Clean Air Act original and actually kind of taken it upon themselves in their overreach --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Can I surmise in answer to my question that the State of Texas has sued EPA over EPA's request that we develop permits for greenhouse gases.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I would say the State of Texas has recognized the overactivity of the EPA and, in fact, this session we've invited them down come testify so that we could have some of these conversations and they've yet to appear.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And would you say that maybe, in fact, the State of Texas has sued the EPA six different times on this matter?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I -- we're not -- on this matter regarding permitting and permit applications?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Yes.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I would say that the State of Texas has recognized that they have done a significant job in improving the air quality within the state and reduction under their permitting process.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And are you aware that the State of Texas has spent over a thousand hours and well over $100,000 in addition to accepting free, quote, unquote, help from a private law firm in D.C. on this matter?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I would say that the State of Texas has recognized it has been the job creator within this nation because of some -- friendly environment and we've been able to grow the economy --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So are you prepared to honestly answer any of the questions that I'm asking?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I'll be glad to talk about the bill itself.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. So if we win any of the lawsuits --

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The bill doesn't actually address the lawsuits. It addresses the permitting applications from within the state and the protection that we're looking to provide from our businesses from the overreaching activity of EPA. I do have some amendments, Representative Burnam, you can talk to those as we get the amendments going.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Yeah. One of those amendments is mine.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: You want to come on down and offer it and you can talk about it before we turn it down.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, that is really simple and --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a very simple and bad bill and this is a very simple amendment that only margily offer to improve it. And what the amendment says is if you'll note on line 2, excuse me, page 2, line 5 we simply insert the latter of the date of resolution of any litigation relating to greenhouse gases in which the State of Texas or any agency of the State of Texas is party for -- date of the act -- effective date of the act. All this is trying to do is clean up the likely litigation that's going ensue from all of this. I hope it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hancock.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have had an opportunity to look at this although Representative Burnam did not come and talk to me. I did see it online. I had an opportunity to look at this before coming up here and essentially what this amendment does is it gut the bill and so we're going to move to table the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Burnam sends up an -- Mr. Burnam, do you wish to close? Of course he does. Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, the reason you shouldn't table this amendment is the same reason I didn't have time to approach Representative Hancock about it before the fact. Actually this is a really bad bill and I don't think it guts it. I think it accurately states what it states. And I ask you not to vote yes -- I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Burnam sends up an amendment. Mr. Hancock moves to table. Motion is on the motion to table. Record vote requested, record vote granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Members, vote from your desk. Show Mr. Hancock voting aye, Mr. Burnam voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being a 104 ayes, 41 nays, two present not voting the motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker members, what this amendment does is the bill provides the protection to local government and I simply expand that protection to the industry.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Hancock.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'd like to ask the author of the bill some questions before we vote on it.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hancock, would you like to visit with Mr. Burnam?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Sure.

THE CHAIR: Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you Representative Hancock. Let's review exactly what this is going to do if it passes and is signed into law. Explain to the members what you're trying to accomplish here.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well what this bill does is protects Texas businesses from the EPA's regulatory overreach. Senate -- committee substitute to Senate Bill 875 prevents administrative, civil, criminal enforcement for nuisance or trespass claims greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses that currently hold a permit and the key point here that they are in compliance with the permit or under enforcement discretion granted by the state and Federal government. So these are permit holders that are meeting the obligations of that the state has placed on them and simply protects them from overreach regarding the EPA. The bill also applies only to environmental enforcement actions initiated by the state or local governments. As the bill does not impact the private citizens ability to bring a claim against the company arising from existing greenhouse gases. Also a key component that the -- we provided in this is does not apply to nuisance actions against noxious odors. The Senate Bill 875 implements one of the few tools for the state can effectively deploy the protect Texas businesses from onerous EPA greenhouse gas regulations that have been implemented without Congressional authorizations. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to speak in opposition to the passage of SB 875.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, whether you think we've got problem or not, over 95 percent of the scientists think we do. And the previous administration the Bush, George Bush presidency, thought that we had some problems. This bill does little if any good for anybody and it clouds the issue of whether or not the State of Texas should be moving forward and trying to address the problems created by the greenhouse gases. These problems for Texas are going to include likely flooding of our barrier islands, likely climate change, number of problems. Now, Mr. Hancock is simply one of the nonbelievers. Does not want to admit that there are problems going on and it's his right and privilege to do so. But the fact of matter is the State of Texas has literally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars objecting and trying to undermine the Clean Air Act which was signed into law by President George Bush. This effort moving forward was supported by his successor the second President Bush. I ask you to vote against this bill because it is counterproductive does not look at the longterm best interest of the State of Texas. And I would suggest that the actions of the attorney general are contrary to the best interest of most of the major sources of pollution in this state because he has created such chaos and confusion in the regulatory environment. So I ask you to vote no against the bill.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hancock to close.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Yes. Actually what this bill does is -- Texas is within guidelines of Clean Air Act dealing with particulate matter and --

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mrs. Giddings.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much, Representative Hancock. You took an amendment a few minutes ago and I just want to be certain that I understand what that amendment does. You say that we were building in certain safeguards for government and we're expanding those to me industry as well? Is that what I understood?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: That is what the amendment did, yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Can you just give me a brief thumbnail sketch -- two or three sentences about what the amendment does. I didn't get it in time to really read it. I have hard copy of it now but it was too quick.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Yeah. Hold on just one second. Yeah. It simply provides those that are in compliance with the permit that they cannot be sued in regard to these issues. So, I mean, especially protecting those that have a permit, they're in compliance with the permit, In other words, they met the obligations of the state.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. So that's the industry measure, right?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Correct. This is the amendment. The amendment -- and it just creates an affirmative defense for Texas industries. those that are in compliance with their permit.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Strama.

REP. MARK STRAMA: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield for a question?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. MARK STRAMA: Representative Hancock, I'm just curious do you believe that the scientific communities warnings about the human contribution to global warming are valid or invalid?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well, that's really not what this bill does nor is what the amendment does. I think that what we're clearly trying to state here is that there are legislative actions that need to take place enforcement of legislation takes place. And so what the EPA --

REP. MARK STRAMA: Related to greenhouse gas emissions, right?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well, I think what we've seen is there has not been national policy established in regard to greenhouse gases. We've seen the EPA take the Clean Air Act and the way that it has been implemented for years and years and years and all of a sudden they decided to move --

REP. MARK STRAMA: Here's the problem -- here's the problem. There's at finite amount of time in which I'm allowed to ask you questions and I don't have very many but you can filibuster answers that are nonresponsive.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: No, I don't mind answering I just want to answer --

REP. MARK STRAMA: Do you believe that human beings by admitting unlimited amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere are contributing to global warming or not?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I think what we're done in addressing knocks and socks in the State of Texas has done -- has provided significant improvement in many of the air quality concerns we have.

REP. MARK STRAMA: Is there a reason you don't want to answer my question about the emission of CO2 and the effect it might have on the warming of the planet.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well, because that doesn't -- it's not what the bill is addressing. The bill is addressing the legal standpoint of how we're going to enforce current law and the Clean Air Act within the guidelines -- of the way the Clean Air Act was established.

REP. MARK STRAMA: A component of which is potential Federal regulation of CO2 emissions, correct?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: And I'll be more than happy to have that conversation on the side but that's not what we're talking about here. And I think the body's interested in what the bill does and what the amendment does.

REP. MARK STRAMA: Does the bill have any consequence for Federal regulation of CO2 emissions.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The bill simply provides an affirmative defense for those that are in compliance with Texas permits.

REP. MARK STRAMA: Even if there is a Federal regulation that they are not in compliance with the governed CO2 emissions?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The bill simply states that it protects those that are in compliance with those who've received the permit and met all the guidelines within the permits within the State of Texas and recognizes --

REP. MARK STRAMA: Even if they're not in compliance with Federal laws governing CO2, law or regulation; is that right?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well --

REP. MARK STRAMA: I'm trying to understand what your bill does if all it says is that you're not breaking the law, if you're not breaking the law then why do we need the bill.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Because -- the reason we need the bill is because we've seen EPA and others take action in other states. I can give you some examples.

REP. MARK STRAMA: And the EPA that specifically concerned about in this bill is the regulation of CO2 emissions, right.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: And --

REP. MARK STRAMA: All I'm asking is a simple question (inaudible) (inaudible). Indulge me and answer the question anyway. Do you believe humans are contributing to the warming of the planet or not?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Right now we're talking about in this bill. So what I believe and what I don't believe -- I believe that we should enforce current law as the law states.

REP. MARK STRAMA: And you're concerned about Federal regulation of CO2 emissions. Is that not part of the bill?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Let me present a couple of cases for you that.

REP. MARK STRAMA: No, no. That's okay. If you don't want to answer the question I don't need you to -- All right. Let me ask a different question. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: And so we've actually seen this take place which is why we're bringing the bill before the state to protect those that are complying with the current permit process.

REP. MARK STRAMA: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield for a question?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Sure.

THE CHAIR: Sure.

REP. MARK STRAMA: For the benefit of the children in the audience who have to live on this planet for hopefully as much as another 80 or 90 years, are you concerned about the threat that we're going to dramatically change the climate on this planet if we don't do something reasonable to regulate CO2 emissions.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Strama, as a father of three children and as a believer in the creator of the universe, I believe that there are things we can do and those things we should do. But I believe the bigger picture controlled by somebody much greater than us. And I believe in his ability --

REP. MARK STRAMA: And solve the potential global warming problem for us.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I think things --

REP. MARK STRAMA: Why do we need laws then? Why didn't we let the creator deal with our knocks and socks emissions problems?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Well, I think we've dealt with the knocks and socks emission issue --

REP. MARK STRAMA: Why did we need to if the creator is taking care of those problems too.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Strama, I think I've addressed your question in a reasonable and fair way. The State of Texas has addressed the Clean Air Act where it clearly states in those issues. We have addressed knocks, we have reduced knocks. We have addressed socks, we have reduced socks. Other issues you want to bring up do not show merit in this bill. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 875. Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 875. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. I believe -- Mr. Burnam, did you ask for a record vote? I think he did. Yeah he did. Sorry about that. Members, record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 102 ayes, 40 nays, 1 present not voting, Senate Bill 875 is passed to third reading. Excuse Representative Villarreal because of illness on a motion by Representative Eiland. Any objection? Chair lays out Senate Bill 661 on second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 661 by Nichols. Relating to the continuation and functions, as applicable, of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the Office of Public Utility Counsel, and the Public Utility Commission of Texas and to the transfer of certain functions from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to the Public Utility Commission of Texas; imposing administrative penalties.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I really thought it would take a little longer to get here but this is the PUC sunset bill. And it's basically the PUC sunset recommendations with some provisions along with some stuff that people came to. We have a number of amendments that are going to be involved but not too many. And there will be a few that maybe I might need to speak against but for the most part I'd like to see if I can go to conference on a sunset bill. But the following are the major provisions in the bill. Summarized, gives the PUC tools for better oversight of electricity and telecommunications industries, adds provisions related to renewable energy, moves regulations of water utilities from TCQ --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Davis?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Enhances PUC oversight of (inaudible) address high risk operations, makes changes in *ERCOT board composition, the protocol processes and continues the PUC and *ERCOT for 12 years. The *ERCOT board issue I've got an amendment if anybody's looked at it. It just sort of opens the door on the makeup of the *ERCOT board going from -- with a variety of constituencies and advocating for constituencies and being aware of what's going on under *ERCOT for those constituencies. I think most of that is going to be worked out in conference. But anyway, it's pretty much a PUC bill and I'll be happy to yield.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I'd like to raise a point of order against further consideration that it violates Rule 4, section 32C3.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Davis, please bring it down front.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is temporarily withdrawn. Representative Solomons moves to temporarily withdraw Senate Bill 661 until 5:00 p.m. today. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading SJR 50. The clerk read the resolution.

THE CLERK: SJR 50[sic] by West. Proposing a constitutional amendment for providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance educational loans for students and authority to enter into bond enhancement agreements with respect to general obligation bonds issued for that purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, this is the SJR I mentioned earlier that goes along with 1799 and it will give evergreen bonding authority for our student loan program at the Coordinating Board. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the resolution? If not the question occurs on the passage of SJR 50. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes and 3 nays SJR 50 is passed -- is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading SJR 37. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: SJR 37 by Van de Putte. Proposing a constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker members, later on this evening we're to be debating Senate Bill 100 which makes Texas compliant with the Move Act. The Move Act is Federal legislation passed in 2009 that will enable our men and women in uniform who currently are logistically unable to vote to be able to vote. Senate version of SB 100 changes the filing deadline for Texas elections from January 2nd into the middle of December. A problem that that creates logistically with our election schedule as it is today is that we have a resign to run provision in the Texas constitution. Specifically in Article 16, Section 65. This constitutional amendment would change the resign to run provision from 12 months to 13 months before someone would have to resign from their term. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SJR 37? Question occurs on passage of SJR 37. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Show Representative Hamilton voting aye. Have all members voted? Being 131 ayes, 14 nays SJR 37 is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading SJR 14. The clerk read the resolution.

THE CLERK: SJR 14 by Van de Putte. Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members, this is a bill that continues what we had passed in '07 that is giving 100 percent disabled veterans that are 100 percent disabled that are service connected exemption from their homestead taxes. This extends that to the surviving spouse. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Anderson, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Doc, I wanted to thank you for bringing this SJR. Do you remember last session that we had an SJR that would have included the wives so that when the husband died they would get the 100 percent deduction also. But it failed to pass because the enabling legislation went beyond midnight. And I'm hoping we can get this enabling legislation before midnight tonight because there are thousands of World War II, Korean, and Vietnam veterans who are dying every day leaving their wives suddenly with 3 or 4 or $5,000 property tax bills. So we're just hoping we can get this enabling legislation before midnight tonight. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Leo. I appreciate that. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against SJR 14? Question occurs on passage of SJR 14. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 143 ayes, zero nays, SJR 14 is finally passed. Chair lays out SJR 26. The clerk read the resolution.

THE CLERK: SJR 26 by West. Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The present constitutional interpretation of existing provisions say that when two local entities are working enter into local contracts that there must be established like a sinking fund or they must levy a tax. Senate Joint Resolution 26 attempts to rectify this interpretation by giving Texas voters the opportunity to clarify that contracts entered into between two local governments, specifically a contract between a city and a county to increase efficiency and effectiveness do not automatically constitute a debt and trigger the requirement to a sinking fund or levy a tax.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SJR 26? The question occurs on passage of SJR 26. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 144 ayes, zero nays, SJR 26 is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading SB 327. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 327 by Van de Putte. Relating to including certain veterans service organizations as small businesses for the purpose of state contracting.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Garza.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Members, these were the veterans that I had introduced to you a little earlier. These veterans' service agencies qualify -- this bill allows them to qualify as a small business in order to bid on government contracts. These veteran service agencies help homeless, disabled and returning veterans with job skills transition into civil work posts. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the gentleman yield for one question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: There are certain people who are concerned about HUB. This will in no way interfere with HUB, will it?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Not at all. This is your veteran service organization and they are just looking for that status as a small business to compete on government contracts that are not a part of the HUB.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, would mind if we reduced that to writing and place it in the journal.

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

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 327? Now, the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 327. All those in favor, say aye; all those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 327 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1393. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1393 by Seliger. Relating to the use of contracts by local governments to purchase electricity.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Public Property Finance Act currently allows governmental entities to finance purchase of personal property not real property. Senate Bill 1393 simply clarifies that in purchases of electricity it can be treated as personal property under this act just as natural gas already is so that local governments can have financing tool to obtain lower and more stabilized costs.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Madam Doorkeeper.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following actions and has passed the following measures. HB 7 --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: I'd like to postpone Senate Bill 1393 to 4:45.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill SB 1434. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1434 by Carona. Relating to certain low-income weatherization programs.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 1434 amends Section 35.905 of the utilities code by changing funding for targeted low income programs from the base floor of 2003 funding levels to 10 percent of utilities overall energy efficient budget. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1434. Question occurs on passage to third reading Senate Bill 1434. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1434 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1286. The clerk will ring the bell.

THE CLERK: SB 1286 by Watson. Relating to the funding of retirement systems for firefighters in certain municipalities.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a bill that many Austin firefighters may have talked to you about yesterday and last night. This bill amends the Austin Firefighters Relief and Retirement fund governing statute to reflect increases in -- by the city of Austin and Austin Firefighters' Association contribution. The agreement for the pension increases only affects Austin as the city of Austin is not included in the Texas Municipal Retirement System. And finally, the actuary relies on this contribution rate as written in governing statute to determine the liability and funding status. And with that I will move passage.

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

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Rodriguez do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Eddy, there is a lot of confusion when Mark brought up the issue a few weeks ago regarding the police pension plan. Explain to us why Austin has to come to the legislature because other communities like San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston they don't have to go through this. Oh, Houston does? Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Certain cities that have to do this. In fact, in 2009 El Paso fire and police had a similar amendment dealing with their pension. Also San Antonio fire and police, Fort Worth and Houston also had similar legislation back in 2007. So this is something that sometimes we have to do for these firefighters that aren't under the Social Security system. So this is something that we have done in the past and has been kind of necessary in the past.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. Good, thank you. I appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller to speak for the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, when this bill the House Bill was up the other day I spoke against it. Since then I have received a resolution from the city of Austin and from the firefighters and I think it's okay. They need this to codify for their a new annuities and for their insurance.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone else wishing to speak for Senate Bill 1286. The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1286. All those in -- record vote's been requested. Record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Workman voting aye, show Representative Anchia voting aye, show Representative Cook voting aye. Have all members voted? Being 114 ayes, 28 nays, Senate Bill 1286 passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 981. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 981 by Carona. Relating to the regulation of distributed renewable generation of electricity.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 981 clarifies that REP, excuse me retail electric customers who cannot contract to buy lease or maintain distributed renewable generation including, wind turbines, solar panels on the customer side of the meter are not considered a power generation company, a retail electric provider or an electric utility. This will facilitate third party contracting leasing options for DRG to homeowners and businesses. There are two perfecting amendments from Representative Solomons.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

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

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, this was an amendment that was worked through the State Affairs Committee with respect to customers using distributed renewable generation and it is acceptable to the author.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This actually should have been part of the second amendment but it wasn't so it was done separately. This is the other side with respect to the electric retail customer. And it is acceptable to the author.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Representative Taylor sends up an amendment. Representative Anchia moves that the amendment is not germane. Pursuant to Rule 11, Section 2. The Chair respectfully sustains the point of order. Mr. King and Mr. Hilderbran? Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I do yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Rafael. From what I understand about this bill it's going to prohibit the PUC from basically regulating renewable generation; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I don't believe that's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Either side.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yeah. So there's no prohibition. Currently one of the things that inhibits distributed renewable generation is that if you currently generate on your side of the meter a certain amount you can be considered a generator just like Energy Futures Holdings or I'd should say Luminant might be. So what we're trying to do is allow for DRG on the customer side of the meter to where if you're at Wal-Mart, for example, and you wanted to put small wind or solar panels you could actually contract with third party to install and own that and then buy the power directly from the integrator of the solar panels or the small wind. The key here is that you do not -- you cannot produce more electricity than you use. So you're not going to be a net exporter of generation onto the grid. You have to use it on site and that's why I think people have agreed to this bill and are comfortable with it.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So, this in no way extends to the manufacture -- to the industry of renewable energy. This is simply for solar panels, wind generators, any other kind which would be downstream of their connection point, their meter if you will.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: It's on the customer side of the meter, that's the important distinction here.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: You're never -- you're not exporting the -- the generation onto the grid because a litmus test here is that you consume more than you're actually producing. So you're going to be using it almost by virtue of the on site.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So, if someone had five windmills that was producing enough power to power their home when they added a sixth and they wanted to give that to their in-laws next door does this prohibit them from doing that?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: A different issue all together. What we're talking about here is where you're --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Adding it back to the transmission lines.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: You know, you're a big box store, right. And you want to do DRG and you hire a third party integrator to come up and own the solar panels. Basically what you're doing is you're leasing them your roof top, by way of example. Basically what you're doing you're leasing them your rooftop by way of example. You're going to own the solar panels and you're going to buy electricity from them and it's going to be coming right off your rooftop. That's how it works.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So they would actually lease you the equipment is that kind of your scenario and you would buy the --

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: They could but they are going to be the owner of the equipment. What you have is the rooftop. You're going to say, hey, we're going to -- we're going to give you the right to the rooftop to install small wind, solar by way of example. Then we're going enter into a PPA, power purchase agreement, with you by agreement and time certain and we're going to buy directly from that source.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So, they're providing power on a contingent basis. It just doesn't come through the grid.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Do you envision that one day those companies will be regulated as a power provider.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Well that's how it is currently, right. They would be regulated the same way. If Wal-Mart wanted to do that at one of its big boxes currently state law regulates them as if they were Luminant and that's not the goal here. The key is that they're going to be using the power on site. They're not going to be exporting it onto the grid. So they're just using it themselves.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Crownover, for what purpose?

REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Will the gentleman yield.

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

REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Representative Anchia, you know that I had the House Bill 2289 that's basically incorporated in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes, ma'am.

REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: And I think it's a very good bill and it's very necessary. It just keeps these -- these specific people from having to have a license from the PUC, right?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That's right. It prevents them from being regulated as if they were a very large generator.

REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Great. I thank you for you refiling my bill and I wish it could help.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you for you help on this and I also want to thank Senator Carona who got all the stakeholders together on the Senate side for putting this together.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 981? The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 981. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 981 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 158 . The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 158 by Williams. Relating to the fraudulent obtaining of a controlled substance from a practitioner; providing a penalty.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, Senate Bill 158 creates a criminal penalty for doctors shopping for patients and do not disclose they are already receiving controlled substance. I have a couple of amendments that have been filed and they are acceptable to the author.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, this simply adds that a person who has access to drugs as part of their job description it covers those individuals who convert illegal drugs to sell.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Deshotel sends up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Woolley.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Woolley.

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment will allow for more efficient trials by allowing all defendants in pill mill scheme to be charged together. Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Woolley sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill is 158? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 158. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 158 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1120. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1120 by Seliger. Relating to the exemption from taxation of property of a local government corporation.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Members, basically what this bill does is to -- when a local government corporation goes outside of its utility code goes outside of its area to acquire property that property is not exempt from taxation. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I move passage, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1120? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1120. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 1120 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1048. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1048 by Jackson. Relating to the creation of public and private facilities and infrastructure.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This SB 1048 creates a parameter of frame work for public private partnerships. Currently -- currently they're taking place in the State of Texas and this puts in a (inaudible) and a framework in order for public private partnerships. The process is permissive and it insures transparency, openness and public input. It also provides a partnership advisory commission and I stress it excludes any roads and highways. They're not included. Anyway I have some amendments.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by John Davis of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. This does two things -- it's more of a clean up. It adds statutory authority in there and also it adds higher education and design builds into the statute that should have been there. And it's acceptable.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This provides authority for an engineering facility at UT Austin. It's acceptable to the author and I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Howard sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Margo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Margo.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. This is just funding authority for the University of Texas -- Texas Tech University in El Paso. It is acceptable to the author.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Louis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: This amendment provides some funding authority. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lewis sends up an amendment.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the author of the bill? Hey, I'm just asking a quick question. I'm kind of seeing these amendments pop up, is this a tuition revenue bond bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: It's not a tuition revenue bond bill but it is germane to the bill and they're using it as vehicle to be onto the legislation.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. So we're passing TRB's for all of our -- I just want to know if I should go draft one from my university.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: No. It's for public private partnership and that's what this is creating. It creates a vehicle for public private partnership.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. So, public private partnerships like we're doing are our highways.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: No. It specifically excludes any highways or roads are not part of that.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. So all the amendments being putting on for universities are, again, just want to make sure that Sam Houston State University gets equal footing here. I didn't know if this was a TRB bill or should I rush up there and get an amendment done.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Yeah. They came to me and asked me if they could put it on and so, I was agreeable for this bill to do that.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Would you be informed if debt service was included in HB 1 for TRB's?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair is not advised but it's my understanding that it is not.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Murphy.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Murphy.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment would require payment and performance bonds for the projects under this act. These are very important to protect both the public interest and the subcontractors. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Murphy sends up an amendment. It's acceptable. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, this amendment simply says that governmental entities may consider whether a business (inaudible) local governmental contract. Members, this amendment simply says that a government may consider whether a company is local when awarding governmental services and contracts.

REP. WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey would you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REP. WILL HARNETT: I didn't understand it. Could you explain it again, please?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: This amendment simply states that -- let's say that a governmental entity is getting ready to award a contract, let's say the contract is based in Dallas. And they want to use a local company that they can consider whether a company is local when -- if the company is qualified when awarding certain services and contracts.

REP. WILL HARNETT: So this is some geographic --

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Exactly.

REP. WILL HARNETT: -- consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Exactly.

REP. WILL HARNETT: And then the historically underutilized businesses is this in addition or just the technical wording.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: That's a technical -- the amendment is meant for local businesses.

REP. WILL HARNETT: And what kind of services are these aimed at?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Any sort of services that -- that a government contract would be trying to consider. Especially with you being from Dallas and being from a larger city you certainly understand the merits of that. I think certain school districts and other local governmental entities already do that on a local level. We're just trying to make that clear with the services under this code.

REP. WILL HARNETT: Is there anything mandatory or is this all discretionary?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: No it's all discretionary. There's nothing mandatory at all. It never works when it's mandatory.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Are there any bounds to this Mr. Veasey? You know, one company did million dollars another one did $20 million, is there any -- and the 20 million is a local company they could get the contract without any other consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: No, and we don't -- and basically it's just one aspect. Obviously, the company would still need to be qualified. It would need to be consistent in other areas when awarding contracts. We just want to make sure that local businesses have some consideration. You may be familiar with -- in Fort Worth with the Best Made Pickle Company.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: A very large company in Fort Worth. And they actually lost a contract to Alabama firm and local geography could not be taken into consideration. And so, we just want to make it clear that companies -- that local -- that if a company is local that can be considered.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Well, these kind of agreements I've seen before had some bounds on the, you know, within the 5 percent or within 4 percent or something. Not just -- it would appear to me that this would be -- might be -- could be used in a way that's not very good.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: No. I'm just trying to help local businesses but if it's confusing to you I'd be happy to pull it down. I'm just trying to help some local businesses. I'm going to pull it down. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: John, I'm reading here and I see the words eminent domain. Can you describe in the bill the use of eminent domain?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Everything does not touch eminent domain. It stays exactly as whatever is in the current statute stays the same. We made sure we specifically did not have -- whatever is in the current law remains.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Well my analysis here and I apologize for not having the bill -- it kind of caught me by surprise -- in front of me. It says that at the request of the contracting person the entity may exercise it's power or eminent domain.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Yes, what's currently -- like a city or county whatever they currently have a statute stays the same. We made for sure we kept everything status quo and not to touch the eminent domain issue. So whatever they currently have, whatever current powers they have stays the same. We do not touch that in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So, can you lay out a scenario for me, please -- first of all, let me backup a little bit. What problem are we trying to fix? What are we addressing here?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: What we have, Randy, right now, you have a lot of public private deals that are being taken place now but there aren't parameters in place. They don't have parameters for guidelines for profits to go through to develop public private partnership. They're not -- what we're trying to put parameters around them so that you can have a set procedures you go through to enter into a contract for a public private partnership. And actually it helps with your -- your city councils. It helps to give them attorneys and provides funding where they can negotiate good contracts on their behalf to represent the taxpayers.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. You said it helps provided funding to them?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Well, they are provided -- they are provided the dollars to help negotiate their contracts to give them the proper protections they need as they develop private -- public private partnerships.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Could you describe a scenario where a public private partnership in our area that this might apply.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Well, one example may be the BK on Highway 71. You have BK city hall. BK city hall is now in a mall. And that's -- and it's -- they have work as private land and they've worked with a public entity that the city hall is now own that shopping mall. They would work and have a relationship inside -- work together as a public private entity and it helps to raise money to build projects and it makes it much more -- tax revenues are available they're able to partner up with private sector and to work together to create partnership.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Okay. So you just said in your example the City Council, city hall --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: And BK on Highway 71 they have a new mall down there and they are actually inside there. You also have the access -- the Texas Brain and Spine Institute in Bryan, Texas, they also have it where they created that. And then Alamo Community College Topin Hall development is a another type of example where they've done public private partnerships.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And so, the Alamo Community College is the focus on one?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Yeah, Alamo Community College.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Okay. Well let me -- Jim has a question let me catch you off line.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: John, I want to ask some questions because I know we've worked on this bill in committee. We've made a number of changes to it and I'm not sure it's following kind of what you've done. But first off these partnerships you've talked about do not cover roads, they don't cover tollways, they don't cover highways; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Absolutely. They're excluded specifically in the bill to have those taken out of this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: John, one of the concerns we had four years ago of the trans-Texas corridor was it looked like our government entities had been sort of out negotiated in some instances. This bill provides a remedy -- provides a vehicle for them to get their own attorneys paid for by the companies that are doing the projects.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: It helps them to get -- city halls do not have the proper expertise to negotiate contracts. So it gives them the money and the resources to negotiate the contracts to give them the added protection to enter into a contract. Then it's up for public input, the transparency and folks are able -- the city's able to have their input into this process.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Just two other things, John. On the public assurance fiduciary possibility. Public entities cannot put its full faith and credit behind the financing of these projects? That's totally on the pricing itself.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: That's correct. That's right on the private sector.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: And these will be the questions Representative Weber had. There is no provision of eminent domain power to any of the entities that don't already have that. Being your local government.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: That's correct. We had an issue with ADT -- ADT had some issues, we resolved their issue. HCC is in full support of it. The TML is in full support of it and --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, John.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: -- it's patterned after Virginia had a law in 2002 and it's patterned after that for their public private partnerships which has been very successful. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we're waiting for an amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members. I have some students from Sonora High School today visiting. Everybody from Sonora stand up. I think they're in red there. I don't know who has left, but welcome to the Texas Capitol.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I have -- I have not seen the amendment since it's been posted here. Could I have a copy. Thank you. Members, I'm not sure where this is going to head. But Texas A & M Central Texas is one of those three universities we created last session. It has one single building that is under construction. It is growing fast. It's going to be TRB bills I'd be stupid not to put an amendment in. That's what this does. Four years no money they have to be a public private partnership. Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Aycock sends up an amendment. Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If Mr. Aycock will come back just for a second.

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

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Turner?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Mr. Aycock, tell me what we're doing again?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm filing an amendment on this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And why are you filing a TRB amendment on this bill?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: For a university that needs a building real bad.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: There are a lot of universities that need a building real bad.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I do not think so.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I kind of think so. Is this amendment acceptable to the author? And why is this amendment acceptable to the author?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: I had accepted three others that came to me earlier --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are there three -- are there three other TRB amendments on this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: There are.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And why are we doing -- why are we doing TRB's on this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Well, it was germane to the bill, so, that's why --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It may be germane to the bill but it does not sound like good public policy in this legislative session. And if that's -- if we are going to do TRB's then Mr. Speaker I would ask that we stand in recess for about 30 minutes so I can do my little amendment and get my TRB's in there as well. And I would encourage the other members to do the same. If we going to do TRB's let's open it up.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Mr. Speaker let me postpone until 5:40.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I would advise Representative Davis to take all those TRB's out and treat us all the same. We all got constituencies. Treat us all the same.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Very good.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection. The Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It was drafted very quickly and if you'll notice of all strange things if you look at your screen it says the University of Texas. I move to postpone this temporarily. Until it says Texas A & M Central Texas instead of University of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis moves to postpone Senate Bill 1048 until 5:40. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 1393. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1393 by Seliger. Relating to the use of contracts by local governments to purchase electricity.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: This is a bill we had -- we thought we had an amendment. We don't -- we didn't. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1393? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1393. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1393 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 776. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 776 by Zaffirini. Relating to the use of contracts by local governments to purchase electricity.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. SB 776 is the product of a compromise between all stakeholders, including merchant, brokers, the comptrollers office, and those concerned over fraud in the (inaudible) fiesta program and there is an amendment.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Quintanilla.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Quintanilla.

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Members, this amendment allows the a custom broker or authorized employee to sign concurrently with a customer. The power of attorney document contains certain information required by law. The amendment is acceptable to the author.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Riddle, for what purpose?

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'd like to speak with Representative Quintanilla and then after that I have a question for the author of the bill.

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

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Yes, ma'am.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Quintilla, would you just explain briefly how your amendment ties in with this bill?

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: How does your amendment actually tie in with this bill?

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Well, under the present law custom brokers must have people that purchase foreign items in a particular foreign country. They must sign a document saying that they are going to be exported. This document or the amendment allows the person to by the power of attorney saying that the purchase are going to a foreign country.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: So, all we have here is somebody's word on a piece of paper that they're not going to be paying the --

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: No, no, ma'am. The bill itself will describe what they have to do. This amendment only says that they must sign it under oath -- under a power of attorney --

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Who is (inaudible).

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: (inaudible) that they are taking the items back to the Mexico.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: And who is going to be signing under oath that the items are going to back to Mexico.

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Yes. In the bill actually itself says that the broker must see the items and they must, you know, bring the receipts and everything to that person.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: The broker from Mexico?

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: For purchase the items that are going to foreign countries.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: So is the broker from Mexico?

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: I'm sorry.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: So are the brokers typically from Mexico?

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: No, ma'am. They're U.S. citizens. The broker's here in the United States that give papers or sign papers are saying that they can retrieve their taxes. What is happening because in the past they've been real fraudulent. It's been so easy for people to get the money that they were abusing the system. Now we're putting more -- more penalties into the law and doing it -- tightening everything so the items that are going to go to Mexico are actually going to a foreign country, not just Mexico or any other foreign country.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Any other foreign country. Okay.

REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: We're tightening the laws, period.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you Chente. When the author comes back to the front mic Mr. Speaker I have a question. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Quintanilla sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Ryan, help me understand this bill a little bit. And we take -- so many come through and they're coming at us fairly quickly. It looks like and tell me if I'm wrong that what your bill is trying to do is it would -- that the brokers that are purchasing these items to go to another country are not having to pay sales tax; is that accurate?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No. That's current law.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. How is your bill changing it.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: What we're doing is we're doing six things. We're raising the fee to obtain a money fiesta from a $1.60 to 2.10 and, of course, that's for the -- the non-American citizens those coming from another country that buys something. We're raising that fee from $1.60 to 2.10. And that's dedicated -- that's dedicated 50 cent increase to the comptroller's enforcement program. This amount was decided as enough to make a difference in fraud without putting too heavy a burden on small businesses.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Is this over and above the tax?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: This is 50 cents more than what is charged now.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Is this over and above the tax that anyone else would pay.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Over and above the tax that anyone else --

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: When someone purchases something then they usually pay a tax like a sales tax or something of that sort.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Would this individuals pay that?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Okay. When somebody comes from another country and they purchase something here. And they make a money fiesta -- under current law they get their taxes back but before they get the taxes back a fee is charged as part of that transaction.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: So they're not -- excuse me, so they're not having to pay taxes on this?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No. They're having -- what this is, is the fee. We're increasing the fee for money fiestas.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. And that was -- okay. Thank you. I just needed that explained because in the brief explanation that we had here I was not altogether certain.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: We're doing we're doing six different things one of which is raising the fee for money fiesta which the money fiesta is what somebody from another country -- when they come into this country and they buy products and they get a money fiesta which is allowed in current law, they get their sales taxes back. But when -- before they get their sales taxes back they pay a fee for that transaction. We're raising that fee so that that money can go to the comptroller's office so she can fight fraud within the program.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Okay. Members, SB 776 this bill makes great strides to wring fraud out of the system which Texas provides sales tax rebates to foreign shoppers. It does so in a way that is friendly to the hundreds of small businesses who rely on these tax rebates. And it is a worked out compromise with all of the different stakeholders. And I look -- and I move passage of this -- of SB 776.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 776? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 776. A record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Cook voting aye. Have all voted? Being 124 ayes and 19 nays, Senate Bill 776 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 293. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 293 by Watson. Relating to telemedicine medical services, telehealth services, and home telemonitoring services provided to certain Medicaid recipients.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a home telemonitoring bill which we already put on Senate Bill 23. But we're going to pass it again. It reduces health care costs through electronic monitoring of care. This technology can prevent unnecessary emergency room visits and hospitalization. It is by (inaudible) earlier and prompt adjustments for care on (inaudible) occurs. And I do have a couple of amendments.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by John Davis of Harris.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is again what we put on SB 23 but it strikes the language of HHSC because they do not have statutory authority to create accountable a charitable organization. It adds mental illness, strokes, and heart attacks to the list of chronic conditions for telemonitoring. It allows hospitals and this is the home health agencies who supplies the service and it is acceptable.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Schwertner.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply puts a sunset date of September 1st, 2015 onto the expenditure of telemedicine as paid for by the State of Texas. It's acceptable to the author. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Schwertner sends up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objection. Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: And I move passage, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 293. If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 293. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 293 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1073. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1073 by Jackson. Relating to rainwater harvesting systems that are connected to public water supply systems.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What Senate Bill 1073 is a bill that allows people a rain water harvesting system to use that and hook it up to the same system that the public water supplies on, assuming that they use significant safeguards and the bill goes through there and names what those safeguards are so that it is done in a safe and good manner and there is no danger to the drinking water of that municipality. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1073? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1073. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1073 passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1551. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1551 by Rodriguez. Relating to children who are missing or who are victims of offenses; providing a criminal penalty.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. SB 1551 amends the code of criminal procedure to clarify the definition of a missing child to include a person and/or child whose whereabouts are not known and cannot be ascertained after reasonable investigation by law enforcement. And I think --

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

THE CLERK: Amendment King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment just allows the child injured in another county to be adjudicated in county where they were victim at. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Chisum sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1551? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1551. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 1551 is passed to have third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 573. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 573 by Nichols. Relating to certificates of public convenience and necessity for water or sewer services.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill addresses problems we've had in major metropolitan areas and fast tracks suburban counties where CT holders or those with the rights to provide water services have taken personal property rights away from landowners preventing much needed development in these rapidly growing counties. In the 79th legislative session in '05 Representative Callegari passed a bill, 2876, as a reform bill that this body wisely supported, to help with the problem of landowners having difficulty in not getting water service from CCN's but also not the being able to get out of CCN itself. And to find a more marketable or competitive source of water provided to them. So Chapter 13 of the water code provides a landowner may petition the TCQ to be released --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: And I'll yield in just a second Representative. The water code already provides that a landowner may petition TCQ to release from CCN and the necessity -- the CCN and the CCN holders if they're not providing service, the CCN are permitted to allow the holder to be the exclusive provider and waste water services to the area. This exclusive right is an incentive to provide water services but having the right is also a monopoly. The current process to be released from the CCN is costly and cumbersome for both the CCN holder and the landowner. So what this bill seeks to provide is if you have a 25-acre tract or larger that you can expedite a process for release from the CCN if you're not getting services. Now, the bill up dates the current process and makes it clear that if a landowner of 25 acres or more is not receiving water they may petition the TCQ to be released. The committee substitute itself maintains the provision that the TCQ can't deny a petition to be released based on the fact that the CCN holder is a borrower under a Federal program. And it also keeps intact current Federal -- or current state law that the CCN holder would have to be paid for the appropriate expenses in order for the release to be executed. Members, I want to stress that there's a bracket with this bill. It applies only to counties of one million in population or more or contiguous counties, two counties of one million or more and Smith County itself. The reason why Smith County is included is because I'm sponsoring this bill in the House and Senator Nichols in the Senate. That's one of his counties and he's had some very specific problems there with landowners not being able to find regress through the current system. So I've handed out a map to each of you last night and today that explains how this bracket works. This bill is not anti-rural this bill is bracketed to urban and urbanized fast growth counties. Senate Bill 573 doesn't impair federal loans to CCN holders and it does not harm the statewide water plans nor does it ultimately harm IOU's or CCN holders. It certainly does not produce colonias. And there is no intent in this bill to in anyway further the advancement of colonias which I've had some discussion with Representative Gonzales and I know that she and I will get some intent in the record. So from that I want to stress again this is a property rights bill for your landowners. It protects CCN holders at the same time and with that I don't see any activity at the back mic. So I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Miss Beck, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Mr. Speaker?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Ms. Beck, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Sorry about that.

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: I'm so sorry that you didn't see the line. And I would like to say that I'm very, very glad that I got up here early. My only question to you is, are the population brackets based on the 2010 census data?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, that's correct. The population brackets are based on the 2010 census bracket which is consistent with the Co-construction Act and we want to be very consistent there and I appreciate that question.

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I ask that our comments be reduced to writing and entered into the journal.

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

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Thank you.

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

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

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

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (inaudible) people out in the smaller counties the population counties in far west Texas they indicate that this is not a good bill for a rural areas. So can you explain that position.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: I would have to leave it to them to explain that, Representative -- Chairman Gallego. I could do my best. The bill's bracketed to exclude rural areas. So, I don't believe the bill --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Tell me who your bracket includes.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Counties of population of a million or greater in the contiguous county with those counties that are a million or greater. So Bexar County, Travis County, Dallas County, Harris County and you've got the contiguous counties associated (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So El Paso County would not be included.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: No. You're not one of those 35 counties you're not effected by this legislation. And I appreciate the question and I think all those calls will be turning to support once they've learned of the bracket.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, there's no -- and tell me why it's your position that this is a property rights bill if a protection for in terms of the those properties rights as opposed to what the knock on it is, its anti-property right.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Well, we've had some advances through the legislative process in landowners some redress in a situation where they're not receiving water through a CCN that they're located in and they want to be released from the CCN. But that process has still proven to be very costly and cumbersome and time consuming. So what we're trying to do here is enact a Chapter 2 to Representative Callegari's bill in 2005 that this body widely supported to make sure that landowners do have a protected property rights rather than a diminished property right with that CCN. If the CCN itself won't provide water then the land owner has a diminished property right. Case law 2010 is very clear that a CCN in is not a vested property right but of course all of us know that if we own land then that is a vested property right and we want to make sure the landowner trumps. Representative Anderson?

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose.

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

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

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: I yield.

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: Mr. Creighton, I think one of the other things that the members need to be aware of that now you are going to have some title insurance issues. Are you aware of that? Are you aware that there are title claims from people who bought property? They did not know that it was inside this CCN, are you aware of that?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: I am. That's a major problem that is still not yet fixed but Representative Callegari did a lot of great work on advancing that by making sure that at least there's a map established by meets and bounds that's in deed records and filed with the county and if there's some notice to landowners of 25 acres or more for a new CCN. But the problem you mentioned, yes, is still very much relevant.

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: Not only do they have that but their property that's encumbered by the CCN's may not be worth nearly what they paid for it because it's locked in that CCN, correct?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: That's correct. In fact, you have many examples where the landowner has a diminished property value, yet the CCN holder has an increased property value on their end because they have a captive set of landowners or monopoly.

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: Now, this is something that's really important for those in rural areas what happens when an underwriter refuses to underwrite the sale of a property in one of these CCN's.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: It blows the deal.

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: So, when you talk about private property rights this gets basically back to the very core of private property rights in the fact that you may not be able to get free and clear title to your property, correct?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: That's correct.

REP. CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Creighton, I think you've got a great bill.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Appreciate you questions, Representative Anderson.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Larson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Gentleman yield for questions?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, sir.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Brandon, when this was laid out in Natural Resources we talked about three or four different scenarios that this is happening in real time. Once you lay out the issues in Montgomery County that simulated the need for this as well as the scenario out here in southern Travis County and let people understand. The one in southern Travis I guess is the most interesting that was locked into a CCN where the folks that owned the water (inaudible) they were three miles away. The cost was exponential relative to being adjacent to the city of Austin had facilities available, the cost would be very -- very small in relation to what the investment owned utility would cost. The second part of it was the cost user once it's developed, the cost is three or four times higher. I think that's when you talk about it a lot of folks -- a CCN is not in the vernacular for a lot people that are sitting on the floor (inaudible) the folks that we represent but just the straight scenario about what the impacts are. So if you could lay that out for us.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Sure. The Austin example is one of the examples that we spent a lot of time discussing and have over the past couple of terms for me in Natural Resources. And I know recently that particular example this term with you and Chairman Ritter, with Representative Miller behind you, with Representative Price and the rest of the committee in my -- in my district the example that we've struggled with which is just one of the examples is with the city of Montgomery where the city annexed 75 acres into the city itself and the landowner was trying to improve the property but the land that was annexed was covered by CCN. And within that CCN there was an attempt to negotiate some sort of relief to be able to enhance the property but without being able to negotiate with the CCN and water supply corporation the city was held up. The landowners was held up, the consumer base that really needs that multi-family aspect was held up and it's been an exhaustive process over a couple of years under the current framework. It just proves that it doesn't work. And I had a lot of feedback from my constituents that asked for help with that.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Well, the scenario that we've got in Bexar County and I know a lot of folks are tired of hearing the word Bexar met but the Bexar met scenario in our community an area that I represent in local government we had --

THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield calls a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Brown.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Brown.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. All this amendment does is exempt Brazos County which I believe wasn't originally even intended to be effected. The amendment simply adds an exemption for counties between 200 and 220,000 who have a public or private university --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: I don't have a question for Mr. Brown --

THE CHAIR: Well, are you just resting back there.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Yes, I'm just resting. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker, may I ask Representative Brown a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Brown, would you yield for a question? He'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: He'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Can you just repeat that one more time. What county? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Brazos County.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Brazos County. Okay. I just want to make sure.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Texas A & M.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Gig 'em.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Creighton.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: And members, I just quickly I wanted to make sure I accepted Representative Brown's amendment to exempt or accept Brazos County from the bill because the bracket I have already exempts Brazos County. So that's why I accepted his amendment.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Callegari.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members, this amendment basically bridges the gap between the areas covered by Representative Creighton's bill and the rest of the state. It does three things. It allows the TCQ to grant CCN to serve profit within the HEJ of a city 500,000 or more, if the city is not entered into a binding commitment to serve the area within 180 days. In other words, (inaudible) request, they've got a 180 days to respond to the service or that CCN holder or landowner can request service from other entities. Second it prohibits cities from extended the CCN beyond the ETJ without consent of landowners and it also allows the TCQ to consider when evaluating expedited certification requests by landowner of 50 acres or more to consider price and service in that evaluation. I think we have an amendment.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment bill Lucio.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Lucio.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I worked with Chairman Callegari on this amendment. This essentially -- because of the current state of three counties in south Texas, Willacy, Cameron and Hidalgo and how the CCN holders are situated down there. His particular language -- not the overall bill but his particular language I would exempt those three counties and it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the --

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Lucio I don't understand you're exempting your county.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Phillips?

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Lucio?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: I will.

THE CHAIR: He will.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: You're exempting your counties from this --

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: More than just my county. I have a part of one county but two other counties that have --

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: And he's acceptable to that so you think it's acceptable to exempt out my counties as well?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: You can ask him.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: So, I mean my understanding -- he's including the entire state. He's bridging the gap for the entire state that his doesn't cover.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: And specific language which, you know, on its face I was not supportive of the Callegari bill as it stood alone.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: I think a lot of us are not comfortable with it either and have been told that we should not have that apply to the rest of the state. So, you certainly wouldn't -- would you mind -- would you accept an amendment on your amendment to exclude my counties from your --

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: I'd rather you do what I did which is amend Chairman Callegari's amendment but -- I'll accept it but I don't know if he would accept all of the amendments that were added on to mine but you're free to do that.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Sure.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to adoption of the amendment to the amendment. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Callegari to speak on the amendment as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I move --

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Callegari, would you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Sure.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Callegari, thank you for yielding. Your amendment now applies to make it easier to get out of CCN for the rest of the state that's not covered by Mr. --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Well, when you say easier I guess you could categorize it that way. What it tries to do -- if you could go back in time, back in 2005 we found that there were a lot of people who discovered that they were in CCN's and never knew they were applied in CCN's. When they went to try to get service to develop their property in many cases they were told that service was not available and when they subsequently asked to get out of the CCN they were told, yes, we'll let you out if you pay me a million dollars or half a million dollars or --

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: There may be a few occasions to that but as a whole --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Quite a few cases.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: As a whole though these -- these rural water districts have been providing service for years --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: And the intent is not to do away with their ability to provide service.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: It sure sounds like it. So you have a big developer come in -- you're not tell me these developers who you're talking about didn't know that they were in the CCN?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Most of them didn't know they were in CCN's, correct.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: You mean these big developers that have all these lawyers up here in these suits around here had no idea that they were in --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Many of them did not know they were in CCN's, that's correct.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: I find that hard to believe Mr. Callegari.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: You may find it hard to believe but that's --

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: If I tell them that you accepted an amendment awhile ago to accept some counties out, would you accept other counties out?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Depends on what counties and reason. (inaudible) the reason -- let me.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: I have three counties that I represent, Grayson -- or I have two counties specifically a third one Grayson Fayette counties and our -- we've ended up having to have litigation because of developers trying to get out of CCN's and -- (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: And remember every time that happens the developer requires a payment. The people who eventually buy those homes have to make (inaudible) let's say if you have 500 acres and you have to pay a million dollars to get out of the CCN, that meant that the people who bought the property had to pay a million dollars.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: We're not looking for them to get out of the CCN. They've been part of that for years --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: If the CCN is cumbersome (inaudible) somebody they have to have a way to provide service.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: They can't service them and your amendment can't even require them to ask for service does it?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Yes, it does. The basic -- my -- I passed a bill two sessions ago that provided an expedited release for these people who asked to get out and they have to make a request for service and the entity has to respond.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: And it cost one of my water districts quite a bit of money because of that legislation. And there's been no resolution to date. The more we have this get out of CCN free card the more attorney's fees and cost we're going to have.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Well, you're still going to have that cost because these people want to provide --

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: They want to sell their own water --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Landowners want the ability to develop their land and do whatever they want to.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: The developers want to be able to get in the water business and --

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Not developer. They don't want to get into the water business. They just want to get water provided to their customers. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Callegari sends up an amendment as amended. Is there any objection on the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. The amendment is withdrawn and we're waiting for another amendment to be drafted. Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: I'm waiting for the author when he closes and I'll ask a few questions.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment (inaudible)inform their customers of the rate increase that they also must provide the reason for the rate increase. These utilities will also be required to inform customers of a bill payment assistance program available for low income customers and I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is outside the scope of the intent of this bill. So I'm going to leave it to the will of the House.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Walle to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Again members, I'll repeat what the -- if y'all want to listen up. This amendment will require, require that when water utility companies inform their customers of rate increases that they also provide the reason. We have a situation in my county, in Harris County, in the unincorporated part of Harris County (inaudible) a private investor owned utility in and Mrs. T knows him very well. They eventually are raising the rates on our folks unjustly and we need to know why they're raising those rates. And my folks, really hard working folks, that really need to know why they're getting these unjust rate increases and that's the reason for this amendment. And I'd move to accept this amendment and would love your favorable support.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Walle puts up an amendment. Mr. Creighton leaves it to the will of the House. This is a division vote, members. This is a vote on the amendment. A division vote, members. It's a vote on the amendment. Have all members voted? All members, voted? Show Mr. Isaac voting no. Being 74 ayes, 49 nays, the amendment adopts. Members, we're going to -- we're going to stand down on the bill for just a minute while some

(inaudible) and take up a very important resolution. Chair recognizes Mrs. King and Mr. Keffer. Chair recognizes Ms. King.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A little break from all the excitement here. We would like to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution 1215 which will be read in full.

THE CHAIR: The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1315 by King of Taylor. WHEREAS, For nearly three decades, Tom Perini has served distinctively Texan food at the Perini Ranch Steakhouse in Buffalo Gap, earning a wide circle of fans from across the Lone Star State and beyond; and WHEREAS, After taking over his family's ranch in 1965, Mr. Perini soon became known among his fellow cattlemen as an expert open-range cook, and in 1973, he began a successful catering business; he opened the Perini Ranch Steakhouse in a former hay barn 10 years later, and it has since become a popular destination for chuck wagon style cuisine; the restaurant specializes in simply prepared steaks cooked over very hot mesquite coals, but is also known for its side dishes and desserts; and WHEREAS, Mr. Perini has been invited to cook at the James Beard House in New York, and he has prepared meals at the Texas Governor's Mansion and the White House; he has appeared on NBC's Today Show, CBS's The Early Show, and Fox and Friends, and he has traveled as far afield as Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Warsaw to introduce Texas cooking on behalf of the United States Meat Export Federation and the Texas Beef Council; and WHEREAS, In 2000, Mr. Perini shared many of his favorite recipes in the cookbook Texas Cowboy Cooking, which has gone on to sell more than 100,000 copies; he and his food are regularly praised by the media, with Saveur magazine including him on its "Twenty-Four Reasons Why We Love Texas" and Food Network Magazine calling his hamburger the best in the state; most recently, he was featured on the cover of Texas Monthly, accompanying an article about his fried chicken; and WHEREAS, The proud tradition of cowboy cooking is one of the glories of Texas culture, and Tom Perini has distinguished himself as one of its most expert practitioners; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commend Tom Perini for his achievements as a chef and restaurateur and extend to him sincere best wishes for continued success and happiness; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Perini as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. King.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And now for esteemed colleague and mentor Representative Jim Keffer our host for this evening.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you very much. Direct from Buffalo Gap one of the great ambassadors of Texas the Perini family. We're just very, very fortunate and honored to have them. It started with Speaker Laney, Speaker Craddick, Mr. Straus to allow us to have them come down on our long work night. The last night for Senate Bills and, I guess, this is our seventh time to do it. I tell you what. It grows and people look forward to it. And we just -- Ms. King and I and others who have been able to go to Buffalo Gap and Ms. Kolkhorst and -- Mr. Branch even, wow. It's not even near Highland Park. That's pretty cool. Anyway I do appreciate the opportunity to do this and to have this resolution and be, again, one of the great ambassadors of Texas and thank you. And we move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection to the adoption of the resolution? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Cook for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate for us all to give Jim a big hand for hosting this once again. Thank you very much, Jim, for doing this.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Keffer or excuse me, Chair recognizes Ms. King.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: I'm sorry we're a little unorganized. We need to introduce the dais, of course. We have Tom Perini who is up there, of course. His wonderful wife Lisa and his daughter Jessica. Welcome to your Texas House?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Sheffield moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Keffer to announce dinner.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Dinner will be served at 6:30.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: He's going to eat dinner.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: All right. Thank you. Mr. Keffer, do you know do they listen to western swing in Buffalo Gap.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Yes, Leon, they do.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone else who has an amendment that we're waiting on, on Senate Bill 573, the Creighton bill? Chair recognizes Mr. Creighton to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Unless I have, I believe, Representative Miller has a question for me. So before my closing I would certainly yield to him if he makes that request.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: He will, Mr. Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Chairman Creighton. I appreciate you bringing this measure before the House and letting us have some debate on this, some consideration. Let me just ask you, do you believe that this bill will have a detrimental effect on -- or a detrimental impact on water or water and sewer system ability to obtain financing for new infrastructure.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I don't -- I don't believe there will be a negative impact. You know, I understand, Representative Miller, you and I have had some conversations about federal loans that are in place to be able to assist water supply corporations and water providers within CCN's to be able to finance these projects. And no, I don't believe this bill will have any negative effect. And, in fact, current law which this bill doesn't change allows for CCN holders that have a federal loan to be compensated if they show that they've got pipes in the ground and they've got infrastructure in place. In fact, under the decertification process through the water code, Section 13254, the very first provision that's considered on a decertification application is the amount of the retail public utilities debt. So, if the property owner wants out of the CCN their 25 acres or more there's a federal loan that's assisting the CCN holder but the pipes are over here and the property owner is well in another location that is not going to receive service, they are unable to get them service that debt as well as the impact from the future consumer base would be considered.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Well, Chairman Creighton and I don't -- certainly don't disagree with you and your knowledge of the law as far as, you know, people being able to go through the process and decertify. But are you aware -- and I think you maybe, of a letter of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural development to Chairman Ritter.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, I am.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And in that letter the state director, you know, says that in the last three years there has been an investment of $94 million in low interest loans and grants to finance these programs that helped over 200,000 Texans. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, I am. It's a very valuable resource for water providers and their customers.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Now, you're also aware that they take at a lien on the entire service area for which the debtor has a certificate?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, I'm aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And are you also aware that when they take into consideration before they make that loan for that CCN that that whole area is -- is part of the asset that they're taking a lien on?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, I'm aware of that as well. The Federal loan of course takes into consideration within the CCN and they consider that collateral the entire area but they also consider on the front end the current ability to pay and the financial wherewithal of the CCN applicant or the Federal loan applicant that has the CCN. So they've got to prove up their financial ability on the front end. And it's up to, you know, good planning and good rates and providing good marketplace for whether or not those customers stay in that area.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And are you aware that under Title 7, Section 1926D that the Federal law protects the Federal government's interest in that property.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I am, Representative Miller. And it's a good point the Federal statute is there for a reason and it protects the CCN holder that has a Federal loan in place. I agree again that that's collateral for that loan. But keep in mind under the holding in Creedmoor which is a very recent holding, there was a three part test that had to do with whether or not that statute trumped decertification process. And the reason why it did not is under that three part test the third part of the test or the third step was whether or not there were pipes in the ground.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And I agree. And that's the point I wanted to come to is the fact that they are making a decision about loaning the money or not loaning the money which is not a -- it's not a Federal mandate but you would agree that that is a factor -- that will be a factor going forward if we pass this statute?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: It very much is a factor going forward and this bill protects CCN's in the sense that it does not change the current compensations process. And so, any infrastructure that's in place to serve a plat in a CCN that is backed by a Federal loan where a tract is to be decertified or the CCN is to be certified or part of that land or opted out, that CCN holder carrying that Federal loan will be compensated under current statute and this bill does nothing to change that.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Okay. Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the remarks between Chairman Creighton and myself be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller your singing already was and I'm not sure you're allowed anymore. Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Kuempel, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Creighton?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I yield.

THE CHAIR: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you. Mr. Creighton, you probably mentioned this before but again it's hard to hear in the back. What does a landowner have to do to get out of the CCN in your bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: In my bill the landowner has to apply for decertification through an application to the TCQ and then the TCQ reviews that application. If the land owner has 25 acres or more in size for that tract of a land which is consistent with some changes that we made to get landowners out of a CCN in '05 because of Chairman Callegari's work. TCQ would review that and allow the amount, you know, if they approve the application.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Is there any financial compensation from the landowner to the CCN involved in that process.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes. This bill doesn't change current law with regard to compensation. So, if there are -- if there's infrastructure in place and through the TCQ rule making authority and their decision making -- under the compensation statute itself for the rules within the TCQ they have to be -- the CCN holder has to be compensated if the TCQ determines that they should be. And nothing in this bill changes that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: And one last question, what constitutes service? Is that just a pipeline adjacent to a property or is it actually, you know, a tap into that property?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Now being able to tap into existing infrastructure --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: So, it's just a pipeline adjacent to the property then?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: And to have service, right.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Would the gentleman yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Creighton? He'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes I will.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you believe your bill will allow a landowner to determine the most efficient and cost effective way to provide water to his land?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: You may know this. I think you referenced the case. There is a 2,000-acre tract of land about to be developed in my district in southeast Travis County. They wanted get out of their CCN. It took them 3 1/2 years and over a million dollars in legal fees just under this process called expedited release. Release are you familiar with expedited release? That term?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I am.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Does 3 1/2 years sound expedited to you?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: It doesn't sound expedited, Representative Rodriguez, and we're working to correct some of the changes that this body made in '05 with this exact intent to be able to get a landowner out of a CCN if the CCN is not provided service or the CCN is unable or unwilling to be provide service. This case is a prime -- prime example of the very problem we're trying to remedy.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think you have a really good property rights bills and I try to support it. Thank you.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Creighton?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I yield.

THE CHAIR: He will.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Creighton, are you aware that several years ago that these CCN's went just all over the state and created these CCN's and the landowners did not even know that they were in a CCN, were you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I'm aware of it. And but for Chairman Callegari's work up to '05 and even after that now we would not have the setup that we have in place at least with a new CCN landowner's can opt out. And it was -- it has been a very big problem and I've heard much from my district over it and I appreciate your question on it.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: You're aware also that they have difficulty getting clear title on land sometimes when they have this lien from CCN's also. You aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I am.

THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order that the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Mr. King to speak against the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, and I want to visit with you a minute about this issue. There's nobody on this floor that's more of a appropriate rights advocate than I am. And it is some reluctance that I speak against something that I know some of the property rights advocates want to do. But I do represent one of the counties it has 46,000 people and is basically a farming community. It is a rural area, it is in this bill. We were not asked if we wanted to be in this bill but we were included in it in anyway. I was never asked if that county wanted to be included. I didn't know it until read the bill in the committee. But what it does basically, ladies and gentlemen, is if you read the bill, is a CCN in the State of Texas is awarded to an entity in exchange for them providing water and sewer services in that area. And that is an understanding and that is an agreement and the deal that is made between the State of Texas and those people. And the deal is, if we give you the exclusive right to provide these utilities in that area, and you put in the infrastructure and you spend the money and you sell the bonds or whatever or borrow the money or however it is and you're going to get your investment there and we guarantee that you're going to be the provider in that area. In exchange for your investment that's your rate of return. That's the deal that the State of Texas has made with CCN's in this state for many, many, many years. And we're about to renege on that deal. Now, there are some CCN operators that went out there a few years ago and they took them in some areas and some people didn't know they were being taken in and some bad things happened. And in 2005 Representative Callegari and some others on this floor passed some good legislation to begin the process of taking care of those situations. And I'm here to tell you that I'm not trying to stop anybody from getting out of a bad CCN. I'm here to help them get out of a bad CCN. Nobody should be captured and trapped in a CCN not doing its job. Absolutely. And there are laws in place today, ladies and gentlemen, that allow that. They may not be perfect. And the first test case was the one -- or the big test case was one down here at Creedmoor and it certainly wasn't perfect and that's the one that Mr. Rodriguez talked about. But the TCQ learned a lot of lessons on that and I think that the next one they have to do like that will be better.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: These -- I'm not going to yield for a few minutes, Charlie, thank you.

THE CHAIR: He doesn't yield at this time Mr. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: These CC -- these companies have an investment in the CCN and they have the State of Texas gave them a guaranteed rate of return. Now, with any county, the county that I represent, we're part of this bill. We weren't asked to be a part of that bill. When you -- at the point in time that you decide that you want to get out -- and I'll tell you something if he had 100 acres -- the current law says 50 acres -- but if he had a hundred acres or 200 acres in this where you could just automatically get out that would be one thing. And there were repeated attempts, it's my understanding, to change the bill to do that. But for some reason, the author of the bill and the Senate insisted on 25 acres. He wouldn't hear of anything more than that. I don't know why that would be but he wouldn't -- would not hear of anymore is what I was told. I don't know that to be. I didn't speak to him. But what happens is it doesn't allow the TCQ to make the decision. If you are in one of these counties and you have 25 acres or more you turn in a piece of paper and he says I want out of here. Now, it says in the bill, if you read it. It says if you're not being served. It doesn't mean if the service not available. It just means at any time -- you don't want their service. You haven't -- you don't even have to ask the people that are providing that service that have that investment and have millions of dollars whether or not they want to serve you. You can decide if you got 25 acres or more that you don't want to be in there. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know but I'll bet you that a big super Wal-Mart uses about 25 acres or a little less than that probably. That's not a lot of land. That's not a lot of land at all to carve out of something like that and create his own little entity that's going to provide that. And so, you can ask that the TCQ let you out. They shall let you out is what it says in the bill. Now, it also says in the bill that they may -- they may compensate you for your cost. They may compensate you for your cost. They shall let you out and they may compensate you. Now, I happen to believe that TCQ is going to make sure that those people do get compensated. But it's not in the bill. And author said he couldn't put the word shall in there because of some kind of Philadelphia lawyer reasons which I don't know what they are. But I'm telling you that getting out of the CCN is something you have to be able to do because we've got some bad CCN operators. But let me get out with 25 acres just because you don't want to be in there. It's not good public policy and it's reneging on the deal that the State of Texas made with a lot of people that invested a lot of money and a lot of property in order to get a rate of return on their investment to provide water and sewer services. So with that. I have a great deal of respect for Representative Creighton. He did a lot of good work on this and I respect the committee. We looked at this issue and worked it. I didn't expect to be up here to be honest with you. I never expected the bill to get to the floor but it is here and that's a testament to the work that Representative Creighton has done. So I ask you to join with me and oppose this bill. It's not because we should trap them in a CCN but it's because this bill is too liberal and too lenient on what it takes to get out of it, in my opinion. I own property in Medina County. My family owns more than 25 acres in Medina County. They could potentially benefit from this if they chose to but it's not fair to the people that had those CCN's and the water supply corporations and the county that I represent have told me that they are very, very much opposed to this. They've got millions of dollars invested in the infrastructure in northeastern Medina County that they need to try to get a return. So with that, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to vote no on this bill.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield now?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose? Mr. King would you yield at this time?

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: I'd like to ask him a question. Representative King are you aware --

THE CHAIR: Mr. King, would you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: I do.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Are you aware that this bill only applies to the people that are in the bad CCN's, people that are not being serviced? That's what this is about. It's people that are not serviced. It's about primarily the urban and suburban communities where people go out and buy 25 acre tracts and they want to have service with a MUD that's next to them or whatever. And they can't do that because someone years ago went out and drew a line in the sand and said you're in this CCN but we've never spent one dime to bring service to you at all and now you can't get service from anybody else. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: I'm not aware of it because it's not accurate and let me tell you why.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: It is accurate. Have you read the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Many times. I'm on the committee, Charlie.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: That's what the bill says.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: No, sir the bill says --

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Has been serviced.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Do you want me to answer you question?

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: The bill says the owner of a tract of land that is at least 25 acres and it is not receiving water or sewer service, may petition for expedited release of the area.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: That's what I just said. They haven't received service.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Just because they're not receiving it doesn't say it's not available, Charlie.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: It can be available. But you're not receiving it and you can get out. I guess, we're interpreting what's available. To me service is available when it's at your property line. Then it's your responsibility to take it inside the property line.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: The bill doesn't say that. The bill says if you're not receiving it.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: It's not receiving it that means you're not being serviced.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: It might be available, Charlie.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Well, would you like to have some verification, Mr. Creighton, of what that word means.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: They don't want any clarification. I promise you.

RE. CHARLIE HOWARD: Well, I can tell you --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 573. Chair recognizes Mr. Creighton to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, I have a lot of respect for Representative King. He's the vice chairman on Natural Resources with me and I certainly knew that one of his counties, his fast growth suburban county, was within the (inaudible) stopped at his desk to ask him about the bracket. He pointed out Medina County was in it and I even talked to him today about amending the bill to remove which would have been fine. So, I'm not sure why there was such a rub there with the county being included because we had a couple of different conversations. This bill is very much needed and we have lawsuits all over the state that are taking place because the CCN's that are not providing service landowners need options. And it's their private property right to be able to have options. To be able to find someway in the free market and the ability to compete in the marketplace for water service and this bill accomplishes that.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Orr, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Creighton?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Just a minute.

THE CHAIR: Not at this time, Mr. Orr.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: I'm the House sponsor of this bill. Senator Nichols is the Senate author. Senator Nichols has established this bill as one of his most important legislative priorities. He lives in Cherokee County, population 51,000. I live in Montgomery County, population 479,000. So obviously across this state there is a problem here that we are going to address. If there's at water line in front of the property there's compensation provisions in current law that take care of that and land holder will be well compensated for it. And with that I'll yield to Representative Orr.

THE CHAIR: He yields Mr. Orr.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Creighton, just because you say there's a water line there, there's a lot of good CCN's out there. It doesn't mean that they're going to go somewhere else. If they're willing and able to provide water at a competitive advantage of -- say of the city, it's going to allow the landowners -- the landowners going to be able to choose and be able to negotiate with the CCN's and say a city to come out with the best price; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: That's true. And, you know, if there's a waterline in front of your property then the problem's already solved. This bill -- the intent of this bill is if you have a piece of land 25 acres or greater in an area in a CCN area where there is no ability to serve you and the CCN holder is not willing to reach out to you and provide you service. So there's got to be options and right now --

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: This is like free enterprise. I mean in our area with electric utilities we have TXU and we have the co-op. And developers are able to negotiate and work with either one and to make a deal. And this is just going to allow the same thing in these fast growing counties that are growing fast and need water that some CCN's cannot provide; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: That's correct. This will help the landowners. It will still protect CCN holders and IOU's and that is the best possible scenario under any action we can take in this body.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: I think you've got a great bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on Senate Bill 573. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Dinner is served, members. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 661. Representative Davis raises a point of order. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, on 661.

THE CHAIR: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have prepared a binder with several amendments which I was waiting to produce -- I mean to speak to. May I at least present the amendments that I have prepared and stayed up all night working on.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, there's some people in -- two doors out that would love to go over your amendments with you.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I know how they're going to vote but --

THE CHAIR: And appreciate your hard work on those amendments but I think if you go two doors down you'll --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: May I ask that the amendments that I have be presented to the parliamentarian be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

THE CHAIR: I think it would be more appropriate to take them to your office and preserve them in your memoirs. Members, we're going on to items eligible. Chair calls up House Bill 871 with Senate amendments.

THE CLERK: HB 871 by Davis of Dallas. Relating to indigent health care services that may be provided by a county.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The House Bill 871 the Senate put an amendment on and I do not wish to concur.

THE CHAIR: You've heard the motion. Ms. Davis moves not to concur. Is there any objection? And requests the (inaudible) of a conference committee. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any motions to instruct? If not, the chair announces the following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees for the conference committee on HB 871. Davis of Dallas. Chair Coleman, Naishtat, Reynolds, Gooden.

THE CHAIR: Chair calls up House Bill 2170 with Senate amendments.

THE CLERK: HB 2170 by Reynolds. Relating to the rights of a foster child and to assisting a foster child in obtaining the child's credit report.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Raymond to explain Senate amendments and concur.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Members, the bill that we passed -- let me look back. Oh, the bill that we passed provides a third -- a credit report for foster children who are 16 years and older and the Senate amendments provides the pamphlet describing the -- their rights they have to extracurricular activities, to go to church, to whatever medical or dental services are available to them, food, clothing, shelter, general information.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond moves to concur. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Mr. Miller voting aye, Mr. Huberty voting aye. All members, voted? There being 143 ayes zero nays, the motion to concur prevails. Chair calls up House Bill 447. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 447 by Menendez. Relating to the powers of a defense base development authority.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez. Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez. House Bill 447 is temporarily postponed. Chair calls up House Bill 414. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 414 by Aycock. Relating to the regulation of equine dentistry and the conducting of licensing examinations by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Senate in its wisdom added a piece of legislation here. Move not to concur and appoint a conference.

THE CHAIR: Representative Aycock moves not to concur. And appoints -- and seeks the appointment of a conference committee. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is there any -- does any one wish to instruct the conferees. Chair hears none. The following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees for the conference committee on HB 414. Aycock chair, Geren Miller of Erath Howard of Travis, Landtroop.

THE CHAIR: Chair calls up HB 1964. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1954 by Villarreal. Relating to the application of the franchise tax to certain S corporations.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal. Is Mr. Villarreal on the floor of the House? House Bill 1964 is temporarily postponed. Chair lays out House Bill 534. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 534 by Phillips. Relating to the powers and duties to the Gunter Municipal Utility --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There has been two amendments to this. One amendment was I had two MUDs, Gunter 1 and Gunter 2. They combined those on the same bill and then they also added another bill or another MUD or some kind of inner city MUD from the adjoining area that Ms. Laubenberg is. It's acceptable to the author. All three of these passed out as separate bills and come as one. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Phillips moves concur on House Bill 534 with Senate amendments. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There 142 ayes, zero nays, the motion to concur prevails. Chair calls up House Bill 2725. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2725 by Hartnett. Relating to the determination of incompetency in criminal cases.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The Senate made several amendments which are acceptable to all parties involved in the bill. Do not significant change the bill. Move to concur with Senate amendments.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett moves to concur with Senate amendments on House Bill 2725. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Ms. Giddings voting aye, please. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 141 ayes, zero nays House Bill 2725 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 338. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 338 by Aycock. Relating to disclaimers by certain entities promulgating lists of noxious or invasive terrestrial plant species.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The Senate allowed people to use existing pamphlets a required printing to use the ones they have on hand. Move to concur.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock moves to concur with Senate amendments House Bill 338. Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? All members voted. Being 142 ayes, zero nays House Bill 338 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 2604. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2604 by Taylor of Galveston. Relating to solvency accounts maintained by title agents for holding unencumbered assets.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has to do with the bill we passed having to do with title agents and the Senate added one amendment. It changed it from 2 percent to 1 percent and I move to concur with amendments.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor moves to concur with the Senate amendments on House Bill 2604. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 142 ayes, zero nays House Bill 2604 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 254. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 254 by Hilderbran. Relating to establishing the Texas derby.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members, the Senate put on one amendment that consists of one page and basically it was a corrective amendment. We had put an amendment on the floor that was incorrectly drafted and so it's corrected that amendment. I move to concur.

THE CHAIR: Excuse me Ms. Riddle, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Would the gentleman yield. I'm sorry. I couldn't run quite fast enough to get back here.

THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Hilderbran?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Hey, Harvey, you and I talked about this and it sounds good. Just had one question though. Should this go through can you tell us how it's going to be funded? It's not going to take away from the other horse programs.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: No. And, in fact, that's what the correction did. Was unintended consequences in one of the floor amendments. Basically, some money that goes through the commission and into the racing organizations, the horse organizations, the breeding organizations and we corrected that. That's what it did.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. I just want to make sure everybody -- thank you. You've got a good bill, Harvey.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran moves to concur on Senate amendments to House Bill 254. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? All members voted? Being 118 ayes, 23 nays, 2 present not voting, House Bill 254 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 364. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 364 by Turner. Relating to condominiums in certain municipalities, including the exercise of eminent domain authority by those municipalities with respect to certain condominiums.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, members. This is a bill that refers only to the city of Houston only. And the Senate added an amendment that would allow the condominium that was torn down previously by court order to be subject to this bill. And I am moving concurrence with that amendment.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner moves to concur with Senate amendments on House Bill 364. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Being 113 ayes, 30 nays, 2 present not voting, House Bill 364 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 3727. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 3727 by Hilderbran. Relating to the computation of the property tax on temporary production aircraft.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This Senate put on one amendment on this bill dealing with keeping the big line of productive -- manufacturing production for airline in San Antonio and for the great State of Texas. And they put on one amendment that basically corrected some -- and makes sure that we get to keep that company. Move to concur.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran moves to concur with the amendments on House Bill 3727. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Now have all members voted? Being 143 ayes, zero nays, House Bill 3727 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 1610 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1610 by Gonzales of

(inaudible). Relating to employment and termination procedures applicable to a teacher who has convicted of a felony.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Gonzales.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1610 was the bill -- permissive bill that allowed school districts to terminate teacher immediately upon conviction of a felony. The Senate did add one amendment and what they did was they put in language to strengthen the provisions which address the prohibition of improper student teacher relationship and I move to concur.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gonzales moves to concur with Senate amendments. It's a record vote members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? All members voted? House Bill 1610 finally passes. Chair lays out the conference committee report to Senate Bill 28.

THE CLERK: Conference committee report for Senate Bill 28.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to concur. We took out one amendment that Mr. Villarreal had put on here with respect to allocations to schools. He agreed on that. So, we move to concur.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Branch moves to concur with the committee -- moves concur on Senate Bill 28. It's a record vote, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted. Being 143 ayes, 1 nay, Senate Bill 28 finally passes. Members, we're about to go back on the calendar. Chair lays out Senate Bill 978. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 978 by Hinojosa. Relating to procedures for the dissolution of the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr -- Ms. Gonzales, excuse me.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Thank you for the opportunity to lay out this bills that is critically important to my city in McAllen and my county Hidalgo. Senate Bill 978 is a local bill. It's a local bill that allows the state to dissolve one water district Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 upon the passage of an ordinances by the city of McAllen accepting the obligation and the liabilities of the district. Passage of this legislation will eliminate an unnecessary layer of government. It'll eliminate a statutory imposed flat tax that is being charged to landowners. It will save the taxpayers within the districts hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of dollars while protecting water rights and property rights. The passage of this legislation will also very importantly clear clouded real estate titles in McAllen that this water district has created by claiming a blanket easement on properties within district boundaries despite the fact that these liens were not filed of record. Already the district has required people to pay $50,000 to release the lien on their property that they didn't know existed and that they had been paying on for years. This one water district is located in Hidalgo county. The majority of the district is compromised in McAllen with a very small portion in the city of Hidalgo. The two cities, the city of Hidalgo and the city of McAllen support this legislation. It is also supported by the McAllen Chamber of Commerce, the McAllen Economic Development Corporation, the largest landowner in the district, members of the McAllen tea party, McAllen's elected Public Utilities Board, conservative watchdog groups and countless title companies that are concerned about the clouds that this district has placed on titles.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Munoz.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: It's also supported by the TCC. I know that those of you who pay attention and follow your recommendations this is supported by TCC.

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Munoz, for what purpose?

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: Will the lady yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Gonzales, do you yield?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I will yield to my colleague from Hidalgo County.

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: Representative Gonzales, I'm just want to clarify that early on during this process -- I know that this water district pretty much covers two of the cities that are part of my district, right?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct. Hidalgo and McAllen.

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: Yes, ma'am. I know that initially there were some concerns that some of the individuals from the city of Hidalgo had regarding this legislation and how they're going to continue to work with the city; is that correct?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct. In fact, I know that the mayors of the two cities met. Hidalgo wanted to assure that it would have the right to some water and that agreement was made. They had a press conference. They issued press releases. They're all in agreement on this.

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: So at this point in time they've already -- the city of Hidalgo have already addressed their concerns with the city of McAllen. They're in agreement now with this legislation.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Absolutely. They're in agreement and those are they only two cities that lie within the boundaries of this district.

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: And in addition to that there's also been support from the whole Hidalgo County delegation regarding this legislation; is that correct?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct. In fact, you, Representative Martinez, Representative Pena and I all signed the letter saying that this was very important to our county and that we all supported it.

REP. SERGIO MUNOZ: Thank you, Representative.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Riddle.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Riddle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I rise to call a point of order on Senate Bill 978, Rule 8, Section 10B.

THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down to the front.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: -- four, Section 32C.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Gonzales.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Members, I move to pull this down for 15 minutes until let's say 7:20 today May 24th, 7:20 p.m.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the lady yield for a question before she does that?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Thank you. Chairwoman Gonzales, you're aware that I put out a flier in opposition to your bill?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I am.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I didn't bring that to you and that was wrong of me and I apologize. I should have had the courtesy to come to you and talk to you personally about that. And so, I hope you will accept my apologize for doing that. That was wrong.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALES: I do accept your apology and especially --

THE CHAIR: We are pulling the bill down so we can go forward on the calendar.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Until they check the points of order.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Ron. I want to make it clear that I'm not going to continue opposition. I will vote as I told you against it but I'm going to remove my opposition. I just want other members to know that.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I appreciate that. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Chairwoman. It's heart felt and appreciated.

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out -- Chair lays out Senate Bill 1285. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1285 by Watson. Relating to contributions to the retirement systems for certain police officers in certain municipalities.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Strama.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Members, we passed a bill by Representative Rodriguez earlier today codifying a statute that represents an agreement between the city of Austin and the Austin firefighters. Just as every city pension is codified in statute at the contribution rate, this bill does the same for the Austin agreement with its police association and codifies the city's contribution. No benefits increase and it is an agreed to local deal. I believe -- is there an amendment? I hope it's a really good amendment that my friend Representative Orr has about an interim study.

THE CHAIR: Yes, there is an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: But I don't think it's the amendment I want.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Orr.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Orr.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker and members, this -- the bill right now is designed to set in state law the contribution rate for taxpayers of the city of Austin at 21 percent. The state law contribution rate for the city of Austin employees is currently set at 6 percent even though the employees were actually paying 13 percent since October 2007. This amendment would simply update state law for the employees to reflect what those employees are currently paying. The only thing spared is if we're going to be asked to lock in taxpayers of the city of Austin a particular rate then we should also lock in the employees at the rate that they are already paying and I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Strama? Mr. Strama in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thanks. First of all, I want to say I appreciate Representative Orr for the diligence in which he's engaged in this issue from the beginning, from the time we introduced this bill in committee. I'm going to respectfully oppose on one ground, which is that this bill reflects an agreement between the city and the police association and in that agreement they specify that they were going to bring this to the legislature and ask that the employer contribution rates be codified in statute. In that agreement they did not ask that employee contribution rate be codified in statute and for that reason I'm going to oppose the amendment. But I really appreciate the spirit in which Representative Orr's engaged on this issue with me.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Orr to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker members, we've been asked to come in here at Austin to codify all these different agreements. Earlier today we codified the firefighter's agreement and we did it on both sides. The firefighters put in 15.70 percent and the city of Austin has put in 18.05 percent I believe that we're going to codify these agreements they should reflect actually what everybody's paying, no more, no less. They're paying 13 percent. This amendment simply says that they are paying 13 percent. And so, if we're going to -- in all fairness we're talking about the actuaries say that they need to know what the actual agreements are and this will reflect the actual agreements. So, please vote yes for this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Orr sends up an amendment. Mr. Strama moves to table. Okay up or down on amendment. Vote aye, vote no. Division vote. Mr. Orr voting aye, Mr. Strama voting no, Mr. Anchia voting no. All members, voted? All members voted? There being 68 ayes, 53 nays. Motion passes.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you members, move passage of the bill. Move passage to second reading.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Strama?

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Move to third reading.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Strama moves to passage of Senate Bill 1285 to third reading. All in favor say, aye. All those opposed, no. Ayes have it. Thank you Mr. Strama. Members, the Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 1048. Recognizes the clerk to read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1048 by Jackson. Relating to the creation of public and private facilities and infrastructure.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to talk off all the TRB's. They're all coming off this bill so we can keep it clean.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Yes, I'd like to take off the three TRB's that were put on.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I move to withdraw my amendment.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Margo.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: I move to withdraw my amendment.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I move to withdraw my amendment as well.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, are there any other amendments? Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the sponsor -- the House sponsor a couple of questions.

THE CHAIR: In just one second. We're trying to make sure we've got the amendments straight. Okay? Chair recognizes Mr. Davis. Ms. Kolkhorst he does yield to you.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Point of clarification we just had a few tuition revenue bonds removed, is that all of them or did the University of Texas Engineering Building stay on?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: No, ma'am. They are all off. All tuition revenue bonds off. And I apologize to you all. I probably shouldn't put you all through all that. They're all off and the only two amendments were on was my correcting amendment as well as Jim Murphy had one on payment and performance bonds.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Not that I'm against tuition revenue bonds or, you know, I know the University of Texas is trying to share $200 million would like to match it with our tuition revenue bond. Hopefully they'll be able to do that through the permanent University fund as a tool. Let me ask you one more question. There has been some questions about these partnerships having eminent domain authority; is that true?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: No, ma'am. They're the same. It remains the same. Whatever governmental entity that's there, that stays the same.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Then they do have --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: They do. Whatever governmental entity that enters into that partnership agreement that goes with that governmental entity.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Dukes.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Dukes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Presently under state statute any entity that receives more than $10 million in appropriations for the state that has the contract over $100,000 is required under state law to provide a good faith effort plan for historically underutilized business purposes. A vast majority of the state and of businesses in the state are small and historically underutilized businesses. This amendment just reapplies what presently is a requirement under state law, that good faith efforts be made -- the reason that I'm offering this amendment is because this bill as drafted no longer has to follow the requirements of government code under 2155, 2156 and 2166 under the comptroller's provision that oversees historically underutilized business. So it reestablishes that the State of Texas as it presently has in statute to utilize smaller minority businesses would continue that practice. And I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: I'd rather leave it for however the cities or the existing entities work for the states. Okay. That will be fine.

THE CHAIR: The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 1048? Mr. Davis moves passage. All in favor say aye, opposed nay. The ayes have it. Chair lays out Senate Bill 1009. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1009 by Huffman. Relating to requiring public institutions of higher education to notify the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) regarding the withdrawal or nonattendance of certain foreign students.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. Senate Bill 1009 requires public institution of higher learning to exchange business information system known as SEVIS if a student enrolls under a F or M visa withdraws from an institution or withdraws from all courses in which a student is enrolled. No circumstance for the university or college may notify --

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose? (inaudible) pleased -- takes place.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Bring your point of order forward, please. The point of order is temporarily withdrawn. Chair recognizes Mr. Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: I'm going to temporarily withdraw Senate Bill 1009 until 7:45.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out Senate Bill 81. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 81 by Nelson. Relating to food manufactures food wholesalers and warehouse operators required to hold a license.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is an interim charge that we've had in the Public Health Committee where we took a great deal of testimony. I shared this with Veronica Gonzales the chair of our Border Affairs. We worked on this to come up with something that is very simplistic. This is about those are wholesalers where we've had some outbreaks and some problems they aren't licensed. And so, we were able to come up with this compromise bill. I think there are a couple of amendments on the bill.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is what the Public Health Committee has finally called the food's freedom amendment. We worked on this bill in committee and it allows those that sell baked goods of 50,000 or gross income or less to be able to operate from their home. This was a testimony between that and raw milk that took us until 5:15 a.m. in the morning and was well vetted and unfortunately died in the calendar's committee. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection. Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment Rodriguez.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment allows farmers and food vendors at farmer's markets to obtain temporary food permits for up to one year without limiting permits based on the number of days during which the farmer's market takes place. This amendment also allows the DSHS or the local health authority to establish temperature requirements without mandating how food vendors maintain the temperature therefore vendors will follow temperature requirements without having to get costly equipment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Kolkhorst.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This -- the bill that Eddie and the amendment that we're working on went over to the Senate. We have addressed their concerns but I also exempt out communities of 50,000 or less just in case. Most of those don't have local health departments. I put it in as a safety measure. We love these food markets. We want them to be able to operate. Food markets came to us and brought these bills to us and we're happy to help them and help small businesses. I hope it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection adoption of the amendment to the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Does the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I will.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Eddie, the amendment you're putting on allows them to be vendors of food products, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Correct in farmer's markets.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: One thing that raised my concern is that raw product including beverages would that include raw milk unpasteurized milk.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: In my amendment it does not.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I believe if you'll read -- I don't have it in front of me but it relates to raw foods including beverages.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Let me just look through that real quick. I don't --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I request permission for the Committee on Rules and Resolutions to meet while the House is in session at 11:45 today in room 3W9 to consider a congratulatory and memorial calendar.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Rules and Resolutions will meet at 7:45 p.m. today, May the 24th, 2011, the room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider a memorial and congratulatory resolutions calendar.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: They told me to do it again. I request permission for the Committee on Rules and Resolutions to meet while the House is in session at 7:45 p.m. today May 24th, 2011 in room 3W.9 to consider a congratulatory and memorial calendar.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Rules and Resolutions will meet at 7:45 p.m. today, May the 24th, 2011. The room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider a congratulatory and memorial resolution calendar.

THE CHAIR: Members, we're waiting on an amendment to the amendment to be drafted. Chair recognizes Mr. Hilderbran for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider HR 1991 which is the congratulatory resolution congratulating Kerrville Municipal Airport on being the general aviation of the year in Texas.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion is there any objection? Chair hears none clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1991 by Hilderbran. Congratulating Kerrville Municipal/Louis Schreiner Field Airport on being named the 2011 General Aviation Airport of the Year by the Texas Department of Transportation aviation division.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miller of Erath.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, sorry to slow you down. I just wasn't quite prepared for this. What we're doing is striking the word beverage and replacing it with the word juice that's it. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: I believe the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're now on the Rodriguez amendment. Chair recognizes Mr. Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you members and thank you Public Health Committee for your hard work on this interim charge. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Madam doorkeeper for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following action. The Senate has passed the following measures. HB 9 --

THE CHAIR: Chair lays out Senate Bill 1664. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1664 by Duncan. Relating to the powers and duties of benefits available under the employee retirement system of Texas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Senate Bill 1664 clarifies a number of ERS issues within the government and insurance code and enhances the efficient delivery of high quality benefits at the lowest practical cost for active and retired state employees, state judges, elected state officials, and law enforcement officers. It also reduces the frequency with which certain information must be provided to the comptroller in order to save the state money. And there's an amendment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Truitt.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The law enforcement and custodial officers retirement fund known as LECOS is meant to provide a supplemental retirement benefit to our troopers, game wardens, TAVC and prison guards in recognition of their hazardous duty jobs. This amendment simply renames distribution of certain court costs to the LECOS fund that will result in decreasing the unfunded liability in the fund and it is acceptable to the author. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Johnson.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is identical to Senate Bill 371 which passed the Senate unanimously and also passed the House committee on Pensions, Investments and Financial Services unanimously. It's also identical to House Bill 246 which also passed the House committee on Pensions and Investments and Financial Services unanimously. Both of these bills had strong bipartisan support. Senate Bill 331 by Senator Seliger was co-authored by Senators Carona, Nichols, Davis and Uresti. And House Bill 46 was co-authored by myself, Representative Crownover, Sheffield, Lucio, and Farrar and was co-authored by 35 other members of this body including both Republicans and Democrats. This amendment would hold elected members of our states' legislative and executive branches to the same ethical standards that we currently hold our states' judicial branch by disqualifying any state legislator or any statewide elected official who's convicted of certain corruption felonies while they are in office from collecting an elected class pension annuity through the Employee Retirement System. The key points to know about this amendment. One, it's not retroactive. In order for this amendment to apply every element of the offense must have occurred after the effective dates of the amendment. Two, it covers felony convictions involving bribery, embezzlement, extortion, theft of public money, perjury --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miles, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Will my fine friend from Dallas yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I certainly do.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker I'm going to call a point of order for germaneness.

THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order forward, please. The point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: So, I think I left off with saying the amendment covered felony convictions involving bribery, embezzlement, extortion theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy or attempt to commit one of those felonies only. The offense also must occur while the office holder is in office and the offense must arise directly from an official duty of that office. The amendment would not effect any other retirement benefits a person might have such as a teacher's retirement system benefit. Nor would it effect any nonelected class service. Nonelected class service being anytime you might have in the ERS that's not elected class service. Say, if you were a staffer at some point. It also provides for a refund of the contributions made to the system with interest upon conviction and also for reimbursement with interest of any suspended annuity payments to a person whose conviction is later overturned, plus reinstatement of annuity payment upon repayment of any refunded contribution.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you Mr. Johnson. I -- I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this bill I will tell you this at the start. If -- can you tell me -- it's -- I think your amendment says that upon a conviction all of these things occur, right?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And there is a provision in there also that says on appeal and later the appeal is upheld what happens if it's a motion for new trial and the motion for new trial is granted?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: You would not be able to be reinstated into the system and have your money returned to you unless you are actually -- your conviction was actually overturned or somehow you were pardoned or otherwise declared innocent.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, but if you and follow me. If the motion for new trial is granted that means you don't have a conviction.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, that's my question is, what would happen under the bill the way it's drafted if the situation -- the facts I just gave you were -- I mean, actually happened?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Well, my understanding is that if you are not convicted then at the end -- I guess at the end of the process if your case was given a motion for new trial then it's possible under this bill that you would have your payments returned.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would you be reinstated into the system?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: That was my understanding, if you don't have a conviction.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: So, if you don't have a conviction that's right.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, if the jury was out -- let's assume you tried the case.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Let's assume the case is tried to a jury and while the jury is out deliberating your innocence of guilt you resign from office. How would that impact your bill?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I'm not sure.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: How would your bill impact that particular situation?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I'm not sure how your resignation would effect it at all.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It wouldn't effect it or it would?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I'm not sure how your resignation at that point would effect it at all.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I mean, if you resign you're not in office, right?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: But nothing on the bill would turn on you being in office while you're being tried. The offense would have to have occurred while you were in office. So if you commit the offense while you're in office your subsequent resignation I'm not sure that would have any effect on it.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, tell me how it works again? So if the offense happens while you were in office it didn't matter whether you were no longer in office.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, even all of the people all the former members who have now left if somebody --

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: No.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: There's not on a statue of limitations.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: No. That part of -- that is not what would happen.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, maybe I just misunderstood then.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Every part of the offense has to have occurred after the effective date of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: So you couldn't --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I understand that. I understand that. If a person is in office -- well let's just assume they're not in office. Does this bill touch them some side or bottom?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: If they're not in office --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah. If they're not in office at the time this bill goes into effect.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: At the time the bill goes into effect if they're not in office when they commit an offense then they wouldn't be picked up by the bill because they wouldn't be picked up by the bill because they commit the offense while in office. If I understand what you are saying.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Say that to me again. If you are not in office, what happens?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: You must be in office when you commit the offense.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. When the offense is committed not at the time they are tried.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Then that would seem to me would subject all of the people who are no longer in office but the extent that somebody could go back and find some way to bootstrap an offense that occurred during the time they were in office until today they could be found guilty of it, let's suppose, and your bill would effect them would it not.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: If it was after the effective date of the bill. That's true. If it were --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: What?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: If the offense occurred and every element of the offense occurred after the effective date of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Oh, I see. You're saying that -- that if this bill wouldn't effect anybody except those who were in office at the time this bill is in effect.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But even those people if they stayed in office 20 years and then retired, and then someone found something that occurred during the time they were in office even though they had retired they could still be impacted by your bill as I understand.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Assuming they could still be convicted for it. If the statue of limitations hadn't run.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Run, right.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Then, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Then they would -- so it would be a lifetime exposure on the part of any member to the extent that the status of limitations.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: It would be a career exposure.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Pardon.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: It would be a career exposure.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: It have would have had to occurred during your career.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And so --

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: You'd still have to be able to be tried for it?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, let me ask another point I'm going to make. Is one of the new phenomenons in today's climate is a number of people who have been wrongfully convicted. Let's say for the sake of discussion a wrongful conviction occurs and -- and that happens at that point in time.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I'm sorry at what point in time?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well somebody just pointed out to me that on line -- on page 2 of the bill, line 22, where it says -- well, actually starts on line 19 it says this amendment applies only to a member of the Employee's Retirement System of Texas who is or was a member of the state legislature or holds or has held statewide elected office.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So that a the part you're saying is effective only by -- effects only those people after the date of the act.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And only those people who would still be in office at that time.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: What that is saying is, what we have been discussing which is this. You could not be in office at the time you are brought to trial and convicted because you could have resigned or you could have left office but the offense would have to have occurred while you were in office and the offense and all the elements of the offense would have to have occurred post -- after the effective date of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So long as you were -- they could prove each of those elements it didn't matter whether or not; for example, you had been retired for 15 years.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: If the statute had not run its limit and you were able to be convicted of the offense in a court then that is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well let's look at the offenses that you have here. Do you know if there's a statue of limitations on bribery for example.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I'm not sure what the statute of limitations on bribery is.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: How about embezzlement or extortion?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: What I would point out is that these offenses they could be state or federal. So you have to look at the law and see what the statutes were as an ongoing basis. Those things could change.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Exactly. But that could be as you mentioned that could be either a state offense or a federal offense.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Depending on how it was pled by some aspiring District Attorney. They could plead it one way or the other. Depending on which statute might have expired.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Depending on what the prosecutor was charging it could be a state of the crime or it could be Federal.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, let me be clear though. My last question is, even if you're in office and all of the elements occur during the time period you're in office after the passing of this bill it doesn't matter. The only thing -- the only saving clause whether or not the statue of limitations expires on an offense.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: And whether every element of the offense --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's what I said in my assumption. I was assuming every element that occurred during the period of time that person was in office. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes and after the effective date.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And after the effective of the bill, the only saving clause for any member after that point would be -- would be a statue of limitations in regarding a particular offense.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes. And that the offense occurred like you said.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. I think I got it. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield Mr. Johnson?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: What court would this offense be tried in, Mr. Johnson?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I think that would depend on the offense of -- the circumstances in fact were.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Well, are you familiar with the Tom Delay case?

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: I am somewhat familiar with the Tom Delay case.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Delay could not get the trailer moved to a more neutral site and you're aware that it took six years before the trial even occurred.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's timed has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. One concern I have about this is basically we're forfeiting the pension and it's my understanding under Texas law the spouse would have a community one-half interest in the pension that -- to the extent is married during the service. I don't think we want to take away the spouse's community property right. So this is just a fail safe thing that I have written up. If it's not perfect we'll fix it tomorrow but I think the spouse should not be punished along with the perpetrator.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hartnett sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're back on the Johnson amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment, just so you'll know, was actually not done hastily at all. It's a product of over a year's worth of research that looked at the best practices across several states that already have laws like this on the books. And, in fact, Texas and New York are the only two states of the most -- ten most populous states that allow legislators and/or statewide elected officials guilty of such serious crimes to continue to collect a tax payer supported pension based upon there government service. So, again I would reiterate that these provisions have been vetted by the full Senate. It was voted out of committee in the Senate unanimously. It was voted by the full Senate unanimously. It was voted by our Committee on Pensions Investments and Financial Services unanimously. So it's been thought through and looked at by several people and I would ask that the amendment be left to the will of the House. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative -- Chair recognizes Representative Riddle in opposition to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Members, we have heard all of the legal reasoning behind this and I understand why Eric is bringing this forward and I don't think that he has any malice or anything in his heart that would -- that would be negative. But you and I all know that this is a direct hit towards our former colleague Terry Hodge. It isn't going effect her directly but I think that we need to -- to take this into serious consideration and I think that this is a bad amendment. I think it sends a message that we don't want to send. I think we need to look in our hearts and not send this message. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Johnson sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, that's all the amendments. Is anyone wishing to speak -- anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 1664? If not the question occurs on passage of Senate Bill 1664. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. Ayes have it Senate Bill 1664 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on 16 -- on second reading Senate Bill 1605. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1605 by Seliger. Relating to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill has to do -- it relates to the same subject matter as the bill we debated at some length previously that was 1504 which had to do with the low level radioactive waste disposal site out in my district in Andrews, Texas. Senator Seliger also has this bill, Senate Bill 1605, and what it's designed to do. It's designed to set a framework to make the Compact Commission, which is in charge of making decisions of what waste can be imported into Texas and to control those things. It's designed to make that an independent commission to have the people have staggered terms and several other -- several other provisions to effectuate it.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, what this amendment does is it -- the bill says that on February 1st of next year 2012 we would reestablish the board and then it would be done every two years would be the staggered appointment but the amendment moves it to the enacting day of this bill which is September 1, 2011 which is when it always is. And the reason for that is they now need to go out and hire an executive director. And I don't see any reason why you would have board members who will not be on that board moving forward hiring an executive director. The legislature in the previous bill that was passed requires that they report back to us by the next session on many issues that we've raised to the commission on low level wastes. So, I think the greatest opportunity we give these new board members to go to work and do their job the more appropriate. The amendment is acceptable to the author. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Bonnen sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez. Members, we're waiting for an amendment to the amendment to be drafted.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: House conferees for 1811 have they been appointed.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: They have not.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry. What's the process in terms of them being appointed and/or who is negotiating on behalf of the House if they've not been appointed?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The conferees should be named shortly.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The conferees should be named shortly. The items eligible will be coming up after these bills.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So -- okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will stand at ease for five minutes. Members, we're back on the Bonnen amendment. There's an amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez. House come to order. Back on the Bonnen amendment. Amendment to the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Sorry for the delay. We had an amendment unfortunately we had to do this as an amendment to the amendment. And so you don't have the amendment before you that had all of the signatures of my friends. So that's why you have Menendez and friends on the one you have in front of you on your computer. So what the policy question is on this amendment is very simple. As we move forward on this next stage of the low level radioactive compact waste site. Why should the state be just getting rid of the wholesale -- the whole board? Shouldn't we want -- when we move forward to the next stage to hold onto the institutional knowledge and the memory that we have. Why do we not give the commissioners who've all been appointed by Governor Perry and confirmed and ratified by the Senate the right to either resign or serve the rest of their term out? In talking to my good friend Will Hartnett. He thought the conservative position would be not to change the board on a wholesale fashion. So, unfortunately, we're having to do this amendment to Mr. Bonnen's amendment. All this amendment tries to do is allow those commissioners who'd like to continue to serve the state, who are appointed by Governor Perry and ratified by the Senate to continue to serve us as we continue to move forward in this next stage. That's it. Pretty simple. As I talked to many of my Republican colleagues they felt this was a wise policy decision and I still haven't heard a good policy argument to why should we blanket get rid of the whole board. It makes absolutely no sense to get rid of the people who got us to this position as we move forward in the next step. I still haven't heard a good policy argument against it and --

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Explain to me why we'd want to terminate these early?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: I have no clue. I have heard one argument that there's a desire to stagger the new board members as they move forward. In my amendment, as you can see, the first part it says that we'd like to let them serve to the end of their normal terms or resign. And then in the next section we add here so we can still stagger the board members.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So, do you believe that we lose the depth of knowledge that these folks have gained on the board as we vote in the most critical aspect of implementation.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Institutional memory knowledge as you can remember from your days on city council and the commissioner's court is critical as you move forward. You try eliminate some of the traps and some of the mistakes you've made when you have people who have been there. People who know how to negotiate on behalf of the state as best as possible. This is a very complicated matter. This low level radioactive waste disposal compact is a very intense business. It's new. It's very rarely done and it's the only one of its kind in the state. And I think we should maintain the quality of the commissioner's that Governor Perry and the Senate have both appointed and confirmed and given to us and who have been serving the state for a great duty.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: I appreciate your amendment. Thank you.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you.

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

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Representative Menendez, can you tell me the importance of continuity in this board these chairman?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, I think that the continuity in any major enterprise is critically important. Now, when you're doing something for the first time it makes absolutely no sense to me why you would want to get rid of that institutional knowledge. In that --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, can we have order, please?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: So, your question was the continuity importance. This is about incredibly complicated matter. I think continuity matters and is so critical for the benefit of the Texas taxpayers and benefit of the Texas citizens as we bring in and import nuclear waste from around the country.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And I think Representative, it was loud in here so I couldn't really hear. What is the benefit of not having continuity. I can't see it myself, can you?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: I see absolutely no benefit. I don't understand particularly why there was a policy need to take a board that Governor Perry has appointed and vetted and that the Senate has confirmed and ratified and just wipe it out. Before they end there term. I don't understand unless there's particular person or persons they are going after, they're unhappy with. I don't understand why somebody would make that this type of policy decision.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think this decision is very, very important. And I think continuity is very important for the safety here in Texas. And I hope this amendment is acceptable to the author.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: I hope so as well. I don't know if it's acceptable. Unfortunately what this amendment -- since Representative Bonnen's amendment got on the floor would strike his amendment which simply changes the dates -- the effective dates from February to September. All I'm doing is saying let the existing board serve. I had many of you who were my respected Republican colleagues who were with me because, you know, that is good policy decision. And I think that in this body, regardless of what they do in the Senate, regardless of what they say in the Senate we need to protect the interest of our taxpayers. We should never advocate the responsibility of what is doing the best policy on behalf of the Texan taxpayer. We are the ones closest to our taxpayers and we need to respect them and in doing so we need to respect those commissioners who have been serving this state as well as they have. So members, I hope that you can be with me and support this amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, this isn't nearly as dramatic as it was just presented. This board has been around since '08. This isn't that much knowledge because the reality of it is as they came before the sunset commission the summerset we don't really have the ability to do much of anything. I would analogize this to your becoming -- we have a record number of freshman members. Could you imagine being elected to the Texas legislature and being told that for the first year of your service, your first legislative session you have to keep the former chief of staff of the member you just replaced? That would be make a lot of since would it? In essence that is what Mr. Menendez is requiring here. What he's saying is that now that this board is going start having some major decisions to be made, some real work to be done. We're going to leave you there. We're going to have you make the most significant decision you are going to make of all, which is hiring an executive director. And we're going to have a board that won't be the board of the future hire the most significant position that you can have in one of the more important commissions that we will have in the State of Texas. And with that --

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker?

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

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

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

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I would have preferred to finish but I will go ahead and yield.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Dennis, my understanding of Senate Bill 1605 in the section that we've amended, Section 5, it simply to stagger the terms of the commissioners; is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, it's not correct.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: What do you feel it does?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: What it does is it allows for the governor to begin appointing a new board that can then go to work on hiring an executive director and getting in the report that's required in the other low level bill that's already passed both these chambers that it's required to be presented to the House at the beginning of the next session.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: My question -- the next question I have is, if wiping out the current commissioners you don't feel that it's somehow -- it eliminates some of the institutional knowledge that they have, the history they have with --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I don't think they have institutional knowledge with respect to them they really haven't done anything. They haven't had pools, they haven't resources, this has really been somewhat of a inactive commission. I mean they've only been around since '08. And they've had no resources and no real responsibilities because nothing's really been going on. They haven't had an executive director except for voluntary roles. And I think we need to allow people to be there who are going to be the folks who live with that decision.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So now this facility that's being built in Representative Lewis' district. How long has it been -- how long has it been building the facility. I think that they have a history in terms of getting us to this place. Now we're going to move forward.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Not this group. I mean as I said this commission has been around since '08 and they haven't had that much of a role. They came up and acknowledged that to the sunset commission during the interim.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So the last three years since they've been working on behalf of the state you don't feel that that's much of a history.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, not in my opinion it's not. You have got to remember they've had a $100,000 a year to operate with. And they haven't had as I say, an executive director. I think it's very significant that when someone hires your or my chief of staff or in their case their executive director. The folks that are going to be in charge and tasked with the responsibility of these decisions be the folks making those hires. These folks are going to be tasked to do a lot of important things. First let me point out just because the governor appoints these new commissioners it doesn't mean an existing commissioner cannot be appointed. You suggested, well, let them stay unless they want to resign and the governor may choose a point each and every one of them. He may appoint one of them. He may appoint three of them. We don't know. But I think that we need to be sure that creating continuity in the way this is done --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you. I certainly appreciate Representative Menendez's thoughts. However, the problem with this commission is that it was appointed back in 2008. All of them for the same term. This project was delayed so they really haven't been doing very much. And now what's going to happen, this project is going to be just in its initial stages a couple years. And all of them their terms end. These terms were not staggered they need to be staggered now. We need to get this board commission appointed with these staggered terms. And so for that reason I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez to close.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Members, my good friend Dennis Bonnen just made the argument why we should accept this amendment. In essence he said, by passing this bill we wipe the slate clean. All the commissioners are gone. They may reply. And then the governor can reply who he wants to -- he can reappoint whoever he wants to. So, members, it seems to me that this is just a vailed attempt or someway to get rid of someone or someone's on this commission. Because if they are serving the State well, as I believe that they are, we would lessen end their service. I have not yet heard a good policy argument why we should think people who have given three years of their life in service to this state say, and we should just choose to wipe them off and not allow them to finish their six year term it doesn't make any sense. Members, if they're that bad the governor can call them in and ask them to resign. I don't know yet of anybody, for any reason, for any cause that should resign from this board.

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

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Gentleman yields for a question.

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

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So, Representative Menendez, were you aware of any of the members of this commission being considered or perceived or criticized, considered to have done that bad job. I'm not aware of any of them. In fact, I think there's a perception that one member is targeted because he's candid and has relationships with a lot of folks in state government. Is friends, been around for a long time and very successful business and has a lot experience in related fields. And so, I think that's the reason we have a lot of co-authors I think is there's some concern that one person is being targeted and we don't like that.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Representative or Chairman Hilderbran, I have heard from certain

(inaudible) asking maybe to many questions. Maybe arguing positions he shouldn't be arguing. Some people say that he has too much of an environmental bench. This gentleman is someone who works in the waste disposal business. Someone who has expertise. God forbid that we have someone wanting to serve in a position to help our state, you know. I mean, my goodness why else would the governor's office ask him to serve?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: If the gentleman would yield for a question?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Menendez. I want to be clear. I don't believe I've raised in my discussion nor has Judge Lewis in his discussion that there's any specific member that we're concerned with or we believe should be thrown off. We just believe that there should be -- now, that this is candidly becoming a real commission with real responsibility and most significantly hiring an ED that those should be the members that will be there for the long term. And I just think it's appropriate to do that. And I'm just want to be clear that you would agree with me. We're not -- we're not discussing this in the terms of it being a specific commissioner should be thrown off. That's not the way we're trying to discuss it.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: I completely agree that you or the judge have not. But I have heard that from other interested parties. And so I'm not saying that as members, we have to look at -- what is the policy discussion here? Policy discussion is, there's a board in place. It's been vetted, it's been ratified, they're doing a good job, why on God's green earth would you want to cut off their service when they still have six years into their term -- three to four years into their term we can do this at the end. If the governor's not happy with some of them he can call them in and ask them to resign. That's all I'm asking. I ask to vote against the motion to table based on what I believe is good public policy for the state. Thank you, members.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Menendez sends up an amendment to the amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Lewis voting aye, Representative Menendez voting no. Have all voted? There being 81 ayes and 60 nays, motion to table prevails. Excuse Representative Harless because of important business in her district on the motion of Representative (inaudible). Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, Mr. Menendez had an amendment he had to redraw it, that's why we waited which was not his fault. So we were on his amendment to my amendment. So I am now after that vote we appreciate it. I'm not moving for passage of my amendment which is acceptable to Judge Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Bonnen sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker members, move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1605. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1605 passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 978. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 978 by Hinojosa. He is Relating to procedures for the dissolution of the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: When we last left this bill there were two points of order raised by Representative Riddle. One was related to the bill analysis and one was related to the local nature of the bracketed bill. Both points of order are respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes representative Gonzales.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members and thank you for your patience on this. As I was explaining earlier this bill is one that applies to one water district that is located in Hidalgo County. It's located in two cities, both cities are in agreement with this as well as so many others including the TCC. This is a water district that was created nearly a hundred years ago to serve what was at the time agriculture properties. Since then no other part of the state has urbanized more and what was once a necessary water district has now become obsolete. In fact, only a handful of agriculture landowners continue of receive irrigation water from the district and the city of McAllen now constitutes between 94 and 97 percent of the total revenues paid to the district. Without McAllen the water district would go bankrupt and would not be able to operate. However because McAllen needs water to be pumped by the district it has literally been held hostage for years by this district. Nothing depicts that this water district has outlived its purpose better than the fact that Water District No. 3 has been operating in violation of Texas water code. Texas law requires that no less than one-third of your estimated maintenance and operating expenses must come from the flat fee that is charged to the landowners. Well, currently less than two percent of the district's budget comes from the landowners. The only way for the water district to be in compliance with the water code is if it charged the landowners 17 times the amount that they are currently being charged. Let me also outline for you some of the abuses that have been occurring by the district. You heard the Baronet bill. Well this bill, like that one has come about because of numerous abuses that have occurred over the years. For instance, if the city needs to cross over some property near the canal -- because the way this works is water is pumped from the river, it flows through the canal. All the district does is it turns on a pump, it turns on a valve. The water flows through the canal, it irrigates the landowner's land. But as I mentioned most of it is residential property. But if the city wants to cross over the canal the district has charged these outrageous cross over fees. As high as $30,000. No other district does this. Most districts charge $30 a foot for an easement. District 3 on the other hand charges $750 per foot and a $750 base permit fee. The district also charges higher rates than any other district in the valley. It has required the city to purchase lands for outrageous sum rather than grant an easement for a minimal fee like other districts do. What's been really abusive is the fact that when they said rather than grant you an easement you have to buy the land and by the way the land belongs to me, the board member. The city had to pay a $114,000 to a landowner I mean to a board member of the district for a little tiny strip of land rather than be granted an easement. And then they said oh, by the way the other little strip of land belongs to another board member, you must pay a $115,000 for that. And after that happened they said oh, we went back and looked at it and some of this land belongs really to the district so you've got to pay another $2 million. The city of McAllen has paid $5 million over five years to this water district. And I was looking at the financial statement for 2009 of this water district. They claim to have net assets of $8 million in 2009 but today say they have about a money and $157,000. What happened to those millions of dollars. Today they put an agenda item that said we are going to sell water rights. They're going to sell water rights that is so precious to people that own those because they're trying to get money. This bill protects water rights. In this bill we put in so many protections. We said we'll make sure that the flat tax that is charged these landowners will be eliminated. The agricultural landowners will be guaranteed the same amount of water they are currently receiving. Residential and agricultural landowners will be charged the lowest rates out of any of the 26 districts in the valley. We've also said, water rights will never change. They won't change title. If they're adjudicated in your name they are just held in trust by the city. And we've put in another provision that said, if the -- since the state created this district the state dissolves it. So we said if the city agreed to a accept the obligations and passes an ordinance to do it by a super majority, we still put in another layer of protection by saying if 5 percent of the voters petition that they don't want the city to take it over they can force an election and everyone who lives in the district and the people in city of McAllen can vote, can vote to decide whether or not the city takes it over. So this bill has so many protections in it. It has become necessary because of the abuses. The latest of these abuses is the fact that now the district is trying to claim that it has a blanket easement over all the land that is part of this district. And so landowners or people that own property are now saying my title is clouded and when they go try to sell their land they're being forced to have to pay money for that lien to be released. These are the types of abuses that have been happening to a district that frankly has become obsolete and corrupt in my opinion and it needs to be dissolved.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Would the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales do you yield?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I will yield to my chairwoman.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Madam chair I know that we've worked together on committees but you and I have shared some of these stories. For point of clarification, someone while we were visiting earlier in the day asked, you know, was it a water corporation or a water district that you're dissolving. And this is a water district, a governmental entity.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And it was created when?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: It was created about 100 years ago by the state.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: By the State of Texas by this legislature?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: By the State of Texas and that's why the State of Texas must dissolve it.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So, in no way are you impugning any private corporation. I know we've heard bills today on water corporations. There is a distinct difference --

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: -- between a water district and a water corporation. So this is a governmental entity created by this legislature 100 years ago and you're asking because it has outlived its usefulness in a dynamic growth area which I was happy to have visited you twice over the interim. So I know that there's other people want to ask questions but I support bill and I thank you for your passion for the people that you represent on this particular issue.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you Chairwoman Kolkhorst. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Harper-Brown, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Will the gentle lady yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I will yield. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Did I hear you say that this is -- I mean this district is 100 years old, it's obsolete. It was mainly agriculture when it was first organized; is that correct?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, absolutely a hundred years ago the valley was a very large agricultural area and if you visited any time recently you see how much it is urbanized. Especially the city of McAllen which is where the bulk of this district runs. And because of that now about 94 to 97 percent of the revenues that this district receives comes from the city of McAllen. The city is -- it's really held hostage because it needs to be able to provide the water to its citizens. And, in fact, all -- as I mentioned earlier all the district does is it turns on the valves which then gets the water to the city. The city still has to treat the water and then it provides it to its citizens. So, the city has a Public Utilities Board that is elected. They right now treat the water and they provide to it the citizens, they do it for hospitals, they do it for schools, they do it for everyone else. They're fully capable of doing it with the duties of the district. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: And did I understand you to say too that all those property owners that in this -- after your bill, if your bill passes that those property owners, those few ag owners or ag land developers that are still there will be able to have their water rights. They'll still own -- have the same rights in place that they have right now.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Absolutely. Absolutely. They had an agenda to try to sell water rights and they're trying to do it to be able to get money because I don't know what they did with the $8 million they showed on their financial statement. And interestingly none of the landowners -- well, there's only about 13 landowners left. None of those landowners came and opposed this bill. In fact, the largest landowner had her son come with resolutions in hand to support this bill and has been very supportive on this. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: And the mayors all agree on this too. The mayors are in favor of passing this bill as well.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, ma'am, they sure are. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: You're actually going to be protecting the landowners and if I understand correctly you're going to be protecting the -- because right now the -- is overpaying water. Buying the land more than once, the same land for duplicate amounts of money to the board members. So you're going to save taxes. Help the taxpayers.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: They're in favor of the bill because that $5 million that the city has had to have spend over the last five years should go to the taxpayers. The taxpayers who paid for -- that the district currently owns. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 979. If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 979. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 979 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1810. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1810 by Carona. Relating to the exemption of certain retirement accounts from access by creditors.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt. Members, a record vote was requested on Senate Bill 978. Record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 133 ayes and 7 nays, Senate Bill 978 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1810. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1810 by Carona. Relating to the exemption of certain retirement accounts from access by creditors.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill clarifies rather than changes existing law. It makes a co-annuitant or heir to inherit the tax exempt IRA doesn't owe any taxes on that IRA and I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1810? If not the question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1810. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it, Senate Bill 1810 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 407. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 407 Watson. Relating to the creation of the offense of electronic transmission of certain visual material depicting a minor and to certain educational programs concerning the prevention and awareness of that offense.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick. Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill is the sexting bill that's been talked about a little bit. And it came about because a community in my area where two young kids were sexting back and forth and got for sexting. And District Attorney refused to prosecute he said it was going to ruin these kids lives and there was no alternative. In fact, he was going to resign from office before the community decided to back off. And so, Mr. Gallego and I have worked with -- to put this bill together. It goes from a Class C up to a Class A misdemeanor. The DA's that worked with us across the state support the bill as it's written. And we've got two quick amendments.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment just makes it defense to prosecution for law enforcement or school administrators who possess the material in good faith as a part of their investigation and it's a committee amendment and I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is an amendment that was requested to deal with a recent court case. It's actually fairly technical in nature and just a clean up kind of thing. And I move adoption of the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: We move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 407 All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it, Senate Bill 407 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 100. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 100 by Van de Putte. Relating to the adoption of voting procedures, parliamentary and overseas voter empowerment act.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker members, it's a great honor for me to be here tonight to talk about this bill. When I ran for state representative I said the first bill I would file would be a bill that would make sure that our men and women in uniform will be able to vote overseas. I'd like to quote the President of the United States on -- "Many of those in uniform are serving overseas or a part of a country distant from their homes. They are unable to return to their states either to register or to vote. Yet these men and women who are serving their country in many cases risking their lives deserve above all others to exercise their right to vote in this election year. At a time when these young people are defending our country and its free institution (inaudible) to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights that they're being asked to fight to preserve." Now you might ask what president am I quoting, and yes he's a Democrat and it's not Barack Obama, it's not Jimmie Carter, it's not JFK, it's actually Harry Truman in 1952. Because all this time our men and women who are fighting for our freedom can't really vote. And Senate Bill 100 is our answer, our solution tonight that we're going to vote on that's going to finally help our men and women in uniform to be able to vote. Okay. Let me tell you why we have Senate Bill 100. In 2009 the U.S. Congress in bipartisan legislation Senator (inaudible) Senator Cornyn passed legislation requiring that the states allow military personnel to be able to vote and they gave us two basic guidelines that we needed to do. One was to allow active duty military personnel serving overseas as well as U.S. citizens overseas to be able to request and receive ballots electronically. Texas was a ahead of the curve on that. Chairman Frank Court, representative from San Antonio started a pilot program several years ago that has been in operation so we're kind of ahead of the curve on that. The second thing that legislation requires the State of Texas to do is we have to change our election schedule such that we ensure that we can mail ballots 45 days -- transit ballots 45 days before an election. Now, that change is what what's going to cause a ripple effect within our election code. And that ripple effect looks something like this. We need to mail a ballot about 45 days ahead of time, then in turn you've got to actually have a 75 day primary and a 75 day runoff. And in turn -- okay, now you have to have a 75 day runoff. Then you've got to look at our election schedule today. Well, our election schedule is a 60 day primary followed by a 35 day runoff. Neither of which is compliant with the MOVE Act. Now, before -- before -- okay. And I'll just -- I'll point out that all -- many other states are dealing with this. Many other states have already moved their election dates to make the move compliant. We're not unique. We're not special. But how Texas deals with it we're going to deal with it in a Texas way. So, what this bill does is it takes the filing deadline in January keeps it the same and adds on 90 days. So you're primary changes to the first Tuesday in April. And the reason that we've done that instead of having it in the middle -- in the middle of March which will be the middle of spring break, we want it out of the spring break. Then we add 75 days so the runoff is in the middle of June. And that will make Texas MOVE compliant. The whole series of provisions within the bill changing all kinds of deadlines for dropping off the ballot, people die and there are -- and I actually have a series of amendments and if I could I'd like to --

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Of course.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. I support and applaud what you're trying to do to accommodate our military officers but is your version different than what passed out of the Senate -- are you changing the runoff date to the middle or end of June?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Correct. This is -- there is a difference and I'm glad you brought that up. So what -- and let me first off say that this was done with a great deal of contemplation by both the Senate and the House. Senator Van de Putte and I -- and it's been good to work with her. She's a great colleague to work with on legislation like this. Went through approximately 20 some odd different versions of election schedule. So there were a lot of different iterations and changes. The Senate version took the primary date in March and they went 75 days back and they created a filing deadline in mid-December and then they had a runoff date in late May.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. And again I applaud what you're trying to do. But I do have concerns about your version is a little different from what came out of the Senate and the runoff I guess that would be our runoff would be pushed to middle/end of June and kind of an unfunded mandate we're pushing down the local government because a lot of our elections are held in school cafeterias or school auditoriums when in June the schools are shutdown.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: So, I think -- did the Secretary of State mention that this could possibly cost up to the tune of about $200,000 or more?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. The fiscal note -- there is no fiscal note but --

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Well to the state there's no fiscal note but I'm talking about passing the costs down to the local government.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Obviously a bill of this scale and this magnitude, you know, I've been working on this since I was elected to the legislature. I mean this is something -- again, I ran on this issue in this bill that I'm talking about tonight. I -- I have had numerous conversations with many, many of the stakeholders. The plan that I am presenting -- the House plan -- the plan that we're voting on tonight is the preferred plan for the election administrator in your county, Harris County, as the most efficient, most thoughtful plan, the most inexpensive to implement. The one that we -- the one that the election administrators in Texas and not just your election administrator but all the election administrator's that I have spoken to prefer this plan, the House plan. This is the preferred plan for the Texas Municipal League, the Texas Association of School Boards, county clerks, the election administrators, for the all the veterans groups, the Federal voting assistance program sent a letter last night that they prefer. This is the most efficient (inaudible) that we've got.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. I've got it. I've got it. I got that. Okay. I just want to make sure that members are listening to what we're talking about here because this possibly affects all of us that if we're in a runoff. I mean that pushes it to June when people are off on vacation, schools are shutdown and the cost of having to open schools. It may cause some confusion among voters. Couldn't you just change the filing deadline so that the burden falls on us and not the voters.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: The problem -- the reason that all the groups that I listed. All the people that are election professionals in the state prefer the plan that I've laid out -- and I'm glad you asked that question because I think it's something everybody deserves to hear. It actually drives up costs and makes it more expensive to comply with the very important things that need to be done immediately after the filing deadline. Immediately after the filing deadline you have to have ballot drawings. There are lawsuits that take place in every -- after every filing deadline there are lawsuits. The lawsuits that have to take place. All the different (inaudible) in a very short time to prepare the ballots. The Senate version is only 75 days and the problem is -- and a lot of that is front loaded in the very beginning. Once you've got the ballots ready in that 30 day period.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. I know there's some people behind me that want to ask questions. Again, I don't want any confusion here. I do support what you're trying to do but I do have some concerns about these dates and possibly confusion amongst the voters. So I hope we can work this out. Thank you for what you're doing.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure. And I'll point out that Texas has had different election days. We used to have primaries in August between 1960 and 1986 Texas had our primaries were in -- all right. Next -- first amendment.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you members, I think there was just an unintended consequence here. There's the ability for municipalities to have local option elections for alcohol. For a very small amount of cities. And all this amendment would do (inaudible) for the municipality to have it in May instead of requiring it to move to November. They prefer to have it in May. The city pays for that. And it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Pickett sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment strikes a section in the bill that requires political subdivisions to chose between April or November general election date. The bill was -- while this bill was in committee the date of the general elections political subdivisions was returned back to its current form which is a May. Therefore this (inaudible) I believe this amendment is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Smith of Tarrant.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Mr. Speaker and members while the Federal Military and Overseas Empowerment Act requires all cities, certainly most cities in 2012 to have their local elections along with the November partisan elections. What this amendment does is beginning in 2013 general rule and home rule cities that currently have staggered terms will have the option at their local discretion to decide instead to have unstaggered terms in the odd years so that they can maintain nonpartisan elections as they currently occur in May rather than have them go along with the partisan elections in November. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Smith sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Branch Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And I want to also applaud Representative Taylor for his work on this legislation in reaction to the MOVE act. And in order to not only honor our servicemen and women but also to manage our elections here in Texas in a way that's respectful of our current calendar because of the 45 day requirement we do have to move some things. I guess there wasn't an acknowledgment of the runoff period that we have here in Texas which is 30 days. So we have to (inaudible) is it keeps our primary election date the first Tuesday in March. It keeps that where it is and then it pushes up the filing period from around the 1st of January where it is currently to the -- let's see the second Monday in December. So that the filing cut off would come earlier. Primary date would be the same. We wouldn't be pushing into the spring break or into April and then the runoff period would now be the fourth Tuesday in May in order to comply with the MOVE act. I think this would have the least change for the state and for the members in terms of our primary elections.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would the yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield, Mr. Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Branch, would it be your opinion that if we move the primary dates to later in the election season that would even make the presidential primaries in Texas be less significant than they are today.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That would be my sense and also it cuts up the school calendar. You get into spring breaks, you get into Easter, you get into all sorts of issues.

THE CHAIR: Well, it also keeps the runoff from falling into the summer vacations after schools have just let out and people would have the tendency to leave town. Is that not also correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: You'd have a much later runoff and summer would have begun and people would be gone. It's not good for democracy.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Well, my biggest concern is that (inaudible) around now our primary is -- our presidential primary is late enough and it's often decided before they get to us. And I'm afraid if we push it back any later it will be decided before they get to Texas. And Texas will just be another -- a stop that nobody will come to.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I share your concerns. And if you remember we moved the election from the second Tuesday in March to the first in order to get away from spring break. So this would be a significant change moving it to April. And I think this is the approach that sort of does the least harm to our electoral calendar here in Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Well, Mr. Branch, I think it's a great amendment and I hope it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Alvarado, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Would the gentleman yield?

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

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield, Ms. Alvarado. Do you have my phone?

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Yes. No, I have, yeah. Mr. Branch, I'm glad that you offered your amendment. I don't know if you heard the discussion earlier. My concern was while there is no fiscal impact to the state there could be an unfunded mandate passed down to local governments because in June many of our facilities where the elections are held close down in the summer.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Absolutely. And one of the things that we learned in the past is if you try to hold one of these things while the schools are closed like on spring break it costs more money. People are gone and children don't get to see their parents participate in the process. So there was -- and because they're closed it's more expensive.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. Thank you for offering the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Will the gentleman yield?

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

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Representative Branch, as you know I served in the Marine Corp so this is pretty personal issue for me. Right now -- right now --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And we're grateful for your service.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I'm not asking for that. Right now in Afghanistan there are young Texans who are risking their lives to fight for our freedom and right now this state doesn't let them vote. This amendment -- this amendment that you've put up --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Is there a question?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes. Why are you putting up an amendment that strikes at the heart of our ability to comply with the MOVE act. The election administrators, the Secretary of State, all the stakeholders have said that this doesn't work. They don't like it and you've put it up anyway without any warning to me.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Excuse me Mr. Taylor. I've visited with the Secretary of State, I've visited with all the people. I serve on the Elections Committee I happened to have worked in this area. I happen to have spent some time in Florida in 2000 working on overseas ballot recounts. I do know a little bit. I'm sure I don't know as much as you about this subject but it has nothing to do with honoring our servicemen. I am wanting us to comply with federal law. Just wanting to do so -- wanting to do so that is most respectful of our states electorial calendar. That's all I'm trying to do.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Do you realize that this amendment --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: In fact, I wish the Federal law would be more thoughtful in terms of -- what I talked to the military and servicemen and women they want as -- I think we had this conversation they want to prefer electronic and encrypted secure balloting as opposed to having paper ballots chase them around. But we're living under the Federal law we have right now and I'm trying to react to that in a thoughtful way.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. I appreciate that and in the future I hope that some of that thought would come to me earlier. But what is important here are you aware --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Taylor, we've had multiple conversations about this issue.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: You didn't tell me you were going to come with this amendment. But let me -- let me -- it's a reasonable amendment and I'm glad you brought it up.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I thought we had this discussion about this very concept I think on multiple occasions on this floor and in the Elections Committee room.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Is there a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheets, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, Mr. Branch, did you -- as you know I'm a Marine Corp veteran as well and I had the privilege of voting overseas in Iraq while I was diploid. And it was during the presidential campaign, the last presidential campaign. And after I cast my vote I quickly realized that the presidential primary was already resolved for our party. Would your amendment make sure that we're not pushing our primary back even further while maintaining these time limits so that is not the case.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Absolutely. This keeps the same sort of timeframe it just moves the different dates. It leaves constant the primary date but pushes up the filing period and it pushes back the runoff period. So it complies.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: So, we're maintaining the same timelines that we need to maintain and we're not making our primaries more ineffective.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: We wanted to fully comply with the Federal law and honor our servicemen and women.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, sir.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes. Happy to yield to Mr. Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I want to make sure since we had a little bit of a, I guess, a little indignation about your amendment. I want to make sure everybody's aware. I think this bill came over from the Senate looking much more like it would after your amendment would be adopted before it was changed in the committee and came to the floor. But your amendment will make it look a lot like it did coming out of the Senate; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: You make a good point. Absolutely, that is correct.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: It's nothing new we're just trying to do it the Texas way and that's what we want.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: May I ask the gentleman a few questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be honored.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: All right. Chairman Branch, again, you clearly have a lot of expertise. Did you notice that the rest of the bill is designed for a 90-day primary and by shortening the primary time a lot of the filing deadlines, resignation provisions, dropping off the ballot selection, that's all screwed up in the bill if this amendment goes on.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Absolutely. We took a look at that and I am relying on alleged counsel. We've taken a look at that and we're trying to get this closer to the version that came over that you -- Senator Van de Putte.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, that would require probably like 15 or 20 different changes in the bill and I think you've only got three or four.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, if there's some issues that some staff folks feel that we need to look at there will be opportunities in the conference committee to resolve that. But what this amendment does as I'm informed by counsel is, it sets up an earlier filing period. It keeps the primary dates where we have it currently the first Tuesday in March and it pushes back the runoff because we have to have now more time. We can't have a 30-day runoff anymore because Federal law calls for this longer notice period. And so that's what I'm trying to accomplish here, Mr. Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I appreciate that Chairman Branch. And are you aware that for Republican and Democratic party conventions that our parties will be penalized as a result of this discussion.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes, I'm aware. There's at least current rule changes by at least one of the parties, perhaps both of the parties that could create pluses and negative for our national conventions. And I have weighed all that and I taken a look at that and tried to be considerate of that but to me -- more fundamental to us is the Texas electorial calendar. And I am not going to be cowed by a party that's trying to encourage something out of the state and sort of throwing some extra delegates or throwing a pro rata versus winner take all bouquet at us in order -- and move our calendar based on that. I mean -- and I know your one that cares greatly about the sovereignty of the state. And so, I think it's real important -- the first thing we owe is our voters a -- as much as of a constant in an electorial calendar that we can while being respectful and trying to conform to the Federal law changes which is trying to be respectful to our military.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: But you, yourself, authored legislation to change the primary dates, did you not?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes, we did. In 2003 we moved to change it up just one-week Mr. Taylor in order to get away from the spring break. The spring break period was becoming a problem for people voting and they weren't able to vote in the second week in March.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Will Chairman Branch yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Dan, as you may be aware I've had a little bit to do with military voting in the background some place to and doing some of the changes that we did. Particularly to allow military votes to count later when they came in after the election and many things that we've done. But my question to you is on -- on all of the these dates have a --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Members, I'll be brief about this. This is the version that came out of the Senate and, you know, I think that we need to take the voters and put them first and foremost in our minds. The best thing that we can do for the voters -- and I've heard a lot of members, particularly democrats, talk about we need to enfranchise more voters. What's interesting is, we used to have a four month one-week primary between 1968 and 1986 in this state. And the gubernatorial primary -- the gubernatorial turnout during that period was double what it has been since we reduced our primary to a two month primary. Double the time, double the turnout. I submit to you that if we adopt the schedule that I'm submitting to you that turnout will increase. More voters will show up.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Taylor, my question to both you and Chairman Branch was the same thing because there are a lot of dates that flow into this that effect each other.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Some of those are not just the dates of our general elections and our primary, our primary runoff. But also impacted in here are the specific dates that we placed in law for holding our school and municipal elections. There are certain (inaudible) have in the system right now. What does Chairman Branch's -- first of all, since we're on his amendment it's a fair question to ask. What effect does his amendment have, if any, on the municipal and/or school district elections that we would be holding and that they hold now on the May election dates.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure. Right now the bill as it is in front of us allows municipalities to hold elections in May uniform. If this amendment goes on, it will it'll make it virtually impossible for a municipality to continue to have their elections on the second Saturday of May in even years.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And the reason for that is because of the cost that is associated with equipment because they are the providers of the voting equipment, are they not? For both the party elections, the general elections, and the school municipality elections; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes. Basically this amendment would create logistical disaster for the election administrators across the state.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The changes that are in your bill, okay, and the changes that I think were in Senator Van de Putte's bill -- and you may correct me on that both at least took those things into consideration so that we would not have a greater cost to our counties and to our cities and municipalities; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: That is correct. The cheapest most efficient highest voter turnout plan is the plan that I put in front of this chamber and that's why Texas Municipal League, Texas Association of School Boards, county clerks, election administrators, all the stakeholders with the exception of some members of this chamber have decided that this is best, the most efficient, highest voter turnout plan that will enfranchise the most number of our men and women in uniform.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That complies with the MOVE Act, right? Because I think -- I can tell you that they were pretty happy with the date schedules we had before. They did not have the Federal legislation in front of them at that time; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Right. The Federal legislation is finally giving Texas the impetus to make sure that our men and women can actually vote.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Your concern that's there -- I'm not so sure that Mr. Branch's motions in anyway disenfranchise anybody. My concern is that it certainly needs to be looked at. It needs to be understood as this process goes forward whether we adopt the Branch amendment or we do not that we have to understand the placement of all the costs or equipment that is there for our counties and that therefor impact them or would impact the cities and the municipalities if they had to get additional equipment because of requirements to retain some of that equipment. Is there not even after the election to make sure if there are recounts and things like that need to be done.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure. It's not logistically -- when this version passed out of the Senate the election administrators immediately flooded my office and said we can't do what the Senate's asking us to do. Representative Taylor, please, help us. Please, change this. And this is the -- this is the bill -- the product of a lot of hours of a lot of work of a lot of people. It's not a partisan bill. It's just what is logistically --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: What you're doing certainly is not a partisan issue --

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: No. Right time it (inaudible) or John Cornyn and all (inaudible)

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: All of these issues apply to all of us across the board here. I want to make sure -- be happy with what comes out this. Is going to make our school districts -- and I'm not sure they're happy with either of the arrangements, I'll be honest with you, with what they're looking at and what the city would like to have. They've expressed concerns about this legislation also and the cost that it might impact them on both sides. Is that your statement --

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yeah. And we actually have incorporated amendments that Texas business league has asked to help cities and school districts to conform with the MOVE Act with this piece of legislation that was not in the Senate Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you.

REP. JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?

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

REP. JIM JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield.

REP. JIM JACKSON: Representative Taylor, I'm a little confused.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure.

REP. JIM JACKSON: If we leave the primary date at the date it is and leave the city and school districts dates at the dates they are, is that what this would do?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: What it does is you take the runoff and you put it almost exactly on top of the May municipal election and there's no way for the election administrators that are putting machines out for the municipal elections to get them back to redeploy them. And you'll have earlier voting on top of voting with the way this is set up because your early voting for your runoff will be on top of your main municipal elections and I mean it's --

REP. JIM JACKSON: Okay. So it's the runoff that is interfering with the municipal elections?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes.

REP. JIM JACKSON: We're having the municipal election on May 12th and would have the runoff on May 20th.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Twentieth. Yeah. So they would almost be on top of each other. So you can't -- the other problem is there isn't enough electronic voting equipment in the State of Texas today to support a runoff and a municipal election.

REP. JIM JACKSON: So the interference with the municipal election would be the runoff not the leaving the primary where it is. But if you leave the primary where it is won't your runoff or primary be the same date it is now?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. So you --

REP. JIM JACKSON: You'd have to move it back 45 days. That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: No matter what you've got to have 75 -- a minimum of 75 days between the filing deadline and the primary and the primary and the runoff by the MOVE Act.

REP. JIM JACKSON: Under the current law we have the primary on March -- first Tuesday.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: First Tuesday in March.

REP. JIM JACKSON: And then the runoff would be on --

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Second day -- on Tuesday which is five days later.

REP. JIM JACKSON: And then that gives you between the second Tuesday in April and.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Second Saturday in May.

REP. JIM JACKSON: Second Saturday in April and second Saturday in May for your municipal. So it gives you four weeks approximately.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yeah and the election administrators can turn that around today. But once you start encroaching at all on that May uniform it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible for them. I appreciate where this is coming from. I know that our colleagues in the Senate thought this was a good idea but as soon as they did it -- and what's interesting is it's the schedule that the Senate voted on. They never took any testimony on.

REP. JIM JACKSON: So you're -- your bill we would be able to keep the municipal elections where they are. Is that what you're telling me?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative

(inaudible) raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado to speak for the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I want to speak in support of Representative Branch's amendment. I think it has bipartisan support because it does a couple of things. It still keeps us in compliance with Federal law and we're still protecting the -- our men and women in uniform to make sure they can vote and get their ballots in a timely manner but it also minimizes the confusion with voters. I think pushing a runoff into the middle or end of June would be confusing to voters. And I also think that while there's no fiscal impact to us, to the state, that we are possibly pushing an unfunded mandate to our local government because many of our elections are held in auditoriums or cafeterias in the schools which are shutdown in June. For those reasons I ask you to, please, join me in supporting Representative Branch's amendment.

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

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Will the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: All the elections administrators I have spoken to have said the plan that Representative Branch is offering is more expensive. Have you spoken to any election administrators that think that his plan is less expensive.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: No, but I do -- being a person that has been involved in elections and holding elections for many years I know that the bureaucracy that people have to go through in securing locations and the cost that goes into renting facilities to hold elections.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well I certainly value and appreciate your opinion but having consulted with the election administrators and other election professionals around the state the consensus is quite the opposite of your opinion. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Well, we disagree on that then.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, do you yield? Gentleman yields.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Representative Branch, your amendment is not in conflict with the Federal legislation, is it?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No. It's not it's meant to comply.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: And there's nothing in your amendment and the timing is not such that you would in anyway effect the ability of men and women in uniform outside our borders to vote, is there?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No. Not at all.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Are you also aware, Representative Branch, and you may not remember this. I guess it was in 2007 that Representative Leo Berman and I had a bill, which by the way we got out of this House, to move the primary date up earlier. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes. Generally was the last presidential cycle.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes. It was before the last presidential cycle. Prior to the last presidential cycle the only time that Texas had an opportunity to play in the primaries was some 40 years ago. Of course we know there was a difference between Obama-McCain. But we tried and we got the bill out of the House and it bogged down over there. So --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Senator Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: That's right. That was the first time in 40 years that that has happened. But one of the things that your amendment does is it does allow Texas -- if we go back to what we've done for the last 35 years, with the exception of one presidential, to play in the primaries so that our voices and our votes can make a difference.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's right. That's right. So hopefully that's a positive effect. But the main thing for me is that we don't go back to stepping on spring break. That we keep the constant -- our primary dates in the first Tuesday of March and we adjust the filing period and adjust the runoff periods and otherwise we respect the electorial calendar of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would Mr. Branch, yield for just one question?

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

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Branch, it was either last session or session before when we talked moving the primary back into February. So our presidential voice would be even stronger than it is today; is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: And so, if we move it closer to the summertime it just becomes insignificant in a presidential year; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: It's certainly one of the risks, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I move passage of the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Branch amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Branch voting aye, show Representative Taylor voting no, show Representative Geren voting aye, Show Representative Thompson voting aye. Have all voted? There being 122 ayes and 15 nays the amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, this amendment is identical to House Bill 1904 which was passed both out of the House and the Senate. I offer this amendment to make sure that the section code related to the declared write-in candidates in Senate Bill 100 is identical to what is already passed into House Bill 1904. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate --

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to close.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Move passage.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 100. If not the question occurs on passage of Senate Bill 100. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it, Senate Bill 100 is passed to third reading. Members, we're going to do some items eligible. Chair calls up House Bill 447 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 447 by Menendez. Relating to the powers of a defense base development authority.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The Senate did not make any substantive changes to House Bill 447 and I am concurring with Senate amendments.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Representative Menendez moves to concur to Senate amendments House Bill 447. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted. Show Representative Zedler voting aye. Being 136 ayes and zero nays, House Bill 447 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 1315 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1315 by Aliseda. Relating to the use of municipal hotel occupancy tax revenue in certain municipalities.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: I move to concur with the Senate amendments. The Senate added the city of Longview and the city of, I believe, Tyler.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker?

REP. JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. JOE STRAUS: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr -- Representative Aliseda, could you refresh our memories on what the bill does exactly?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: When I originally filed the bill it was to allow the city of Jourdanton to spend their hotel/motel specifically to improve some tourist activities in their community. One of the members here in the House added another city. I can't remember what city it was. When it went to the Senate they added two additional cities and they did that with the agreement of the stakeholders of all these communities as well as hotel motel people.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Do you happen to know what cities they added -- were they south Texas or north Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: I was in the bathroom when they called this up but if you give me just a second I'll go get my sheet of paper.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's okay. If I have an issue with it I'll track you down.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: All right. Thank you. Move to concur.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Representative Aliseda moves to concur on Senate amendments of House Bill 1315. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 132 ayes and 6 nays, House Bill 1315 is finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 1964 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1964 by Villarreal. Relating to certain court orders against, and to discharging through community service fines and costs assessed against, certain juvenile defendants.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, in HB 1964 by Representative Villarreal allowed municipal and JP courts to sentence juveniles faking, class C misdemeanors to more community service hours. And the Senate added language clarifying that the community service was to be for government nonprofit agencies. That the defendant work no more than 16 hours per week unless it would not cause hardship to the family and that the Court may work with the Juvenile Probation Department. They also added language while cities to run the community service programs for those offenders. Currently only counties can do that. I move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1964.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden moves to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1964. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted. Being 144 ayes and zero nays, House Bill 1964 finally passed. Chair lays out -- calls up House Bill 1619 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1619 by Orr. Relating to emergency service districts.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members the Senate put on a couple of amendments that will not work. Not to concur. Move for appointment of a conference committee.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Representative Orr moves to not to concur and appoint a conference committee. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Are there any motions to instruct the conferees? If not the clerk will read the following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees, conference committee on HB 1619. Orr chair, Coleman, Gonzales of Williamson, Miller of Comal, Schwertner.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up House Bill 1942 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1942 by Patrick. Relating to bullying in public schools.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Chair, members, I move to concur with the Senate amendments to HB 1942. These were technical corrections. Are acceptable to the author.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Representative Patrick moves to concur on Senate amendments to House Bill 1942. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Deshotel voting aye. Have all voted? There being 118 ayes and 26 nays House Bill 1942 is finally passed. All items eligible for consideration on page 5. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts regarding a motion to appoint a conference committee on SB 1811.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to grant the Senate's request for the appointment of a conference committee on Senate Bill 1811.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any motions to instruct? If not the clerk will read the following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees, conference committee on SB 1811. Pitts chair.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cain.

REPRESENTATIVE ERWIN CAIN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to instruct the conference committee on House Bill 1811 or Senate Bill 1811 to include into conference committee report on this bill language from the amendment as amended by Cain House Bill amendment No. 45 relating to the language that will clarify the format without change to the substance of that section.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any motions to instruct?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker?

REP. JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Will the gentleman yield for a question. I'll make it brief.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal we're asking for motions to instruct.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay.

REP. JOE STRAUS: No further motions to instruct. Clerk will read the following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees on conference meeting on House Bill 1811. Pitts chair, Turner, Crownover, Eissler, Geren.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, we're on items eligible calendar, calendar two. Page 1 of calendar two. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to grant a conference committee as requested by the Senate on SB 23.

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

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to instruct the conferees on SB 23 to keep the bad actor amendment that we passed last week. The fraudulent act of PBM's and HMO's came too high a price for our citizens to be ignored. Members, you passed this out unanimously last week and I ask you to, please, be in favor of this most important section.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes representative Hopson with a motion to instruct.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I'd like to conference committee on Senate Bill 23 to follow the House version of the bill as it relates to the managed care pharmacy benefit rollouts. We need to account -- the House conferees need to stand up for the protection of House version where guaranteed patient access to willing providers, guaranteed prompt payments to pharmacies prohibit PBM's from excluding certain specialty pharmacies and reclassifying drugs, especially drugs. Prohibits the mandatory mail order prescriptions and requires PBM's to submit the communications to HHSC 10 days before sent out to beneficiaries. Move passage.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any other motions to instruct? If not the clerk will read the following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees, conference committee on SB 23. Zerwas chair, John Davis of a Harris, Gonzales of Hidalgo, Hopson, Pitts.

REP. JOE STRAUS: We're on page 1 of calendar two. Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Members, I move to grant the request of the Senate to appoint a conference committee on Senate Bill 263.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, are there any motions to instruct? If not the clerk will read the following conferees. Is there any objection to the appointment of conferees? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the following conferees.

THE CLERK: House conferees, conference committee on SB 263. Kolkhorst chair, Coleman, Sarah Davis of Harris, King of Taylor, Zerwas.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 809. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 809 by Seliger. Relating to adjudication of certain workers' compensation disputes, including judicial review in district court.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and members. This bill is identical to 1870 which we passed out of the House and basically it -- it brings together the income benefits review, the medical fee review, and the medical necessity review and there's a 45-day period to appeal a dispute.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Giddings.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, what the amendment does is one, there is some conforming language that conforms this language and the language in the sunset bill of workers' comp. And additionally another bill that we passed out of here that had to do with notification of employees by employers in terms of making sure that employees are aware when there is a network has been amended into this bill. Again, it is a billed that has passed out of here without any objections. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Representative Giddings sends up an amendment. Is it acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Giddings to close on her bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I close members and ask you support Senate Bill 809.

THE CHAIR: Members, question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 809. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it SB 809 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of second reading SB 717. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 717 by Harris. Relating to the purpose and duties of the Council on Children and Families.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a Senator Harris bill that encourages the Council on Children and Families to address the communication problems between youth service agencies. The bill charges the council with finding ways to better utilize technology to transfer information more efficiently. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hardcastle? Question occurs on passage -- is there anyone wishing to speak for, on, or against SB 717. The question occurs on passage to third reading of SB 717 All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it SB 717 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of second reading SB 460. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 460 by Seliger. Relating to regulation of the import, export, and management of mule deer; providing penalties.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: This is in connection with the breeders of mule deer. We have one amendment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Waiting for the amendment to be scanned, members. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to explain the amendment.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this bill does is it allows for certain type of permit and what we're doing is with this amendment is making sure that those deer permits -- that they have due process rights. And this is language that we've worked through the committee process came out of committee and headed to calendars. It sets up the due process right. And it has no microchips or anything in it.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I'm actually wanting to talk with the author of the bill.

THE CHAIR: Okay. Mr. Phillips sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Is there objection?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I'd like to ask a few questions?

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Sure you bet.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: This is just popped up and I know that I talked to Chairman Hunter about keeping this bill somewhat clean; is that correct? So is this the dealing with white tail deer?

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: It deals with deer permits. Which is what we're doing to deer permit is what the bill is. And this affords them rights that --

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So we move it to the Texas Animal Health Commission this just pops -- actually it hasn't popped up yet. I'm using somebody else's.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: That's the process -- sets the process by which Animal Health Commission deals with that. (Inaudible) I don't know that it did.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: No. So, I'd like to talk to the author first before we accept this.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Representative Kolkhorst, I'm going to move it -- Representative Kolkhorst is asking me to withdraw it.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is withdrawn.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Members, I told Chairman Kolkhorst and others we're going to keep this bill clean. So we're not going to add the amendments. It will be just as is. It's the deer breeder Harvey and Tracey -- just so it will be kept clean. There will be no amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I have a question.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Sure.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Chairman Hunter. I used to be the chairman of the committee that these kind of issues come through. So you have the experience with other game ranching issues when I ran associations. And I had a member that -- in the panhandle that raised deer and he was pretty successful but just about everybody else had really a poor record of keeping mule deer alive in captivity. So I've got -- I've got some questions about the death rate in captivity. And I want to say that they have a very a fairly large death rate and also a very small birthrate in captivity; is that true?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No. I think that you're getting your information from some groups that are in competition with this group (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: By the way some other folks have questions. I just heard the bill come up and I had some experience and so I'm just asking some things just off the top of my head.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So can you --

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No. I don't agree with what the ranchers in our area, in south Texas own in west Texas and they breed mule -- they want to breed mules just like they bred the white tail deer and they've been very successful.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Okay. And so have you different breed permit, right?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: What's that.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Under a scientific breed permit; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And do they -- where are the deer coming from. Are they buying them from out of state because --

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No. No. Primarily in west Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: In west Texas. Are they native deer.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yeah. Primarily in west Texas. Yeah, absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So we're going to take native mule deer --

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And put them in captivity and (inaudible) a breeding permit program.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: (inaudible) the deer breeding permit program, correct.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Hunter?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Chairman, part of what Mr. Hilderbran was asking are you aware that the volumes and volumes of research including University research on mule deer fawn survival, fawn mortality, dating back to '48 in Texas and the primary reason for fawn mortality including drought, lack of water, lack of food and predators.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: That's what I was told.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: How many mule deer total are there in Texas throughout the

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: I have no idea.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Larson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Couple questions.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Sure.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: We vetted this in our CRT and we had about a two hour debate about it. And the reality is because the Texas drought we're seeing a lot of the population of mule deer decline. And the program that you're laying out is being used in other parts of the country to basically promulgate the genetics to the point that the predators as well as the conditions that were laid out by Chairman Hardcastle will not kill our population. So this is a very progressive way of dealing with the native mule deer population that we've got in the State of Texas. And it is critical that we start this program right now because if we have an extended drought there's a great chance that we will see a further decline in our mule deer populations. So I urge everyone to support this. And I appreciate you bringing this forward.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Thank you very much. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hunter brings up SB 460 to the third reading. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. SB 460 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of second reading SB 766. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 766 by Estes. Relating to the liability of a sport shooting range and the regulation of firearms, ammunition, firearm supplies, and sport shooting ranges.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. SB 766 will provide a mechanism to identify sports shooting ranges whose operations needed to be corrected of closed but would protect those sport shooting ranges who met best practice and accepted industry safety standards. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on passage to third reading of SB 766. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. SB 766 is passed the third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of second reading SB 76. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 76 by Nelson. Relating to certain providers of subsidized child care.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Morrison to explain the bill.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is Senator Nelson's bill. Both regulated and unregulated day care providers can receive subsidies under the Federal Health Care and Development block ban of 1990. In Texas eligible low income parents can apply to receive these funds which are the administered by the Texas Workforce Commission. The purpose of this program is to allow low income parents to be productive citizens in the workforce by assisting them with child care services while doing so. Under the current law the Department of Family and Protective Services requires relatives to provide care outside the child's home to be listed as a family home. But the department does not regulate relative day care provided in the child's home. As a result of the lack of oversight of the latter there have been incidents where children have been left home alone or in some cases left in the possession of convicted felons. The intent of Senate Bill 76 is to better protect children and reduce the fraud in the system. It would require relatives who provide unregulated self managed child care inside of the home to submit background checks administered by the Texas Workforce Commission and direct the commission to implement a number of protocols to combat fraud. And we do have one amendment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miles.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miles to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment will allow the bill and Health Workforce Commission to combat fraud that provide child care, unemployment issues, programs by workforce access to driver's license and photos. This was brought to us by the Workforce Commission and it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Morrison to close on her bill. Representative Miles sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Morrison to close on her bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Will the lady yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Ms. Morrison, I was under the impression that the Workforce Commission could already develop methods to identify and assess fraud and abuse in child care programs. Do they not have the authority to do that already?

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: This is -- this is not child care programs. Basically, these are children that are being kept by relatives. And what this is, there -- if the children are being kept in there home there's not any real checks. But if the child is being kept outside of their home by a relative this is to check the abuse and fraud that's been happening. This is not really daycare centers.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, isn't it -- if they are staying with relatives and the family code requires that they be placed with the, you know, essentially the nearest relative. Then do they already do background checks or is a background check turns out that a brother or a sister or whoever they're staying with may have some criminal background how does that impact it in light of the family code requirements that we try to keep families together.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: These are not children that have been removed from their home. This is basically child care for low income families that they're paying a relative to keep the children. So this is not -- these are not children that have been removed from their homes. This is just parents that are working and their families can actually keep the children they're paid a minimal amount. It's a little over $7 a day. So these are not children that have been removed from their home. These are children that are being kept by relatives but the relatives are receiving the payment for keeping the children.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So you might be staying with an aunt or an uncle or a grandmother and the grandmother's getting paid to take care of the child.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And what this is, if they are staying in the child's home keeping the child then you don't have to go through process they registered as they are keeping the child but you don't have to go through any process. If they're keeping them outside the home that's where the issues have been happening because there could be other people that are staying in the homes and they're have been instances of the children being left alone or someone in the home that has a criminal record. And so there's just been some fraud and abuse. So this is basically to help take care of that fraud and abuse and have background checks and that type of thing, if it is not in the child's home.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: For those -- so, if the child goes I have to picture these things in mind. So if the child goes to the grandmother's home then this would require the Workforce Commission to check out the grandmother's home before paying for that child care.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Just because it's not in the child's home because there could be other people living there in the child's home and basically it's just to conduct a background check to make sure there's not anyone living in the home that is on a registry of neglect or abuse or sex offender registry.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: What other things would keep a grandmother from taking care of that child. I mean I always worry that if --

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Representative Gallego, if the grandmother's not receiving payment from the state there's nothing. But if she is actually receiving money as of -- from the state taking care of the child that's where this kicks in.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. Thank you.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: It's to get rid of the abuse and some fraud. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the lady --

THE CHAIR: Do you yield?

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Yes.

THE CHAIR: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Just trying to kind of -- back here make sure that we understand your bill.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: Uh-huh.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: If -- if a person is using a member of their family to provide child care outside of the child's home, perhaps the child's grandmother or the child's uncle or sister or somebody the -- what would be the requirements for that provider that daycare provider.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: There are no requirements at all unless the person is receiving payment from the state.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. And if the payment -- if the person is receiving payment from the state a mother with a child and the grandmother who doesn't live with the child and the mother is providing the daycare, what then do they have to do in order to be compliant.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: If the child is being taken care of in the child's home and the grandmother, aunt or whatever is being paid for that care then they're just they're just literally licensed but if -- and it's just am registry basically. But if they were in a home that is not the child's and the person is receiving payment from The Workforce Commission then the Department of Family and Protective Services will conduct a background check of who is living there and just making sure there's not a sex offender living there. And that they're actually getting the services and someone's actually taking care of the child. So just basically this is for us to make sure there's someone in the home because it's not in that child's home. To get rid of any abuse.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: One of my colleagues asked me, is this -- and I think got a text from somebody to make sure this is not the fingerprint grandma.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: No, no, no, not at all. This is just basically to make sure that that child is actually being cared for in a safe environment and that they're not just saying the child is being taken care of by someone and getting the payments. That's actually what's going on.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. So then is the state making payments to the grandma, is that what your saying?

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: It's a program, it's a Federal program and the money goes through the Workforce Commission.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: And that's where the money is coming from.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you.

REP. GEANIE MORRISON: I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB 76. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it SB 76 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on a matter of second reading SB 364. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 364 by Ogden. Relating to statistical information on the prosecution of certain offenses relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Brown to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. SB 364 would require DPS to compile information received from law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and courts involved in DUI cases under Chapter 49 of the penal code and report the information to the legislature. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB 364 -- Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Has Mr. Brown yielded the floor?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Brown, do you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Brown just a couple of brief questions as I read the House research report.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: If every single sheriff's department and every single police department every -- every agency across the state who has the authority to arrest for a DWI will have to provide this information to a central database.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: At DPS.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And DPS will have to compile the information -- and is that information -- here's the -- here's the concern that's raised, is it going to show; for example, if we're talking about a particular District Attorney, how many have been arrested and how many have been declined? There is concern that prosecutors decline cases for a lot of reasons and there is a concern that it will look like the prosecutor is declining to prosecute and they will decline a significant number of cases and then their name is doing to be going on some report where it's going to show that they declined. And it's going to impact prosecutorial discretion in the sense that they're going look worse than they really are because there may be some reason that they declined to prosecute that case.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Mr. Gallego let me tell you exactly what it's going to show here. It's going to show the number of arrests, the number of arrests resulting in release with no charges, the number of charges resulting in a plea of not guilty in a trial, the number of charges resulting in a plea of guilty or no contest, the number of charges resulting in a conviction of the offenses charged in the original information, indictment, complaint, or other charging instrument. It will show the number of charges resulting in a conviction of an offense other than the offense charged in the original information, indictment, complaint or other charging instrument. And finally it will show the number of charges resulting in a dismissal.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So if something arrest -- let's say that Joe is arrested -- Joe Dan whoever is arrested for DWI.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And let's say that there is some procedural error in his arrest. Either there's a probable cause issue or something. And so, his case doesn't get prosecuted and then that same police officer arrests Jack and that same police officer arrests Judy and that same officer and every time

(inaudible) with respect to probable cause. So that when that lands on the District Attorney's desk the District Attorney has to say, look you keep making the same mistake I have to dismiss these. And so, then all of the sudden it looks like he's dismissing a lot and it looks like his stats are going to look bad even though he maybe doing a wonderful job it's just that he's enforcing the law and he's declining cases as is his right or her right as a prosecutor. That's the issue with me.

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Pardon me?

THE CHAIR: Isn't it true.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Mr. Speaker members, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on passage to engrossment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The aye have it, SB 364 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out as matter of second reading SB 498. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 498 by Jackson. Relating to the trapping and transport of surplus white-tailed deer.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill relates to the trapping and transporting deer and the permits necessary to do that in the state. And I have am few amendments.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: This is a request by the Parks and Wildlife related to if they -- if they're going to me trapping and transporting they can establish a fee for those who choose to do this. And it also says that any fee that would be charged for any of these permits if they were issued to political subdivision or property owners association if they the deer pose a threat human health or safety that they would not be charged for that. I would move adoption of that amendment. It's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Phillips sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Following amendment -- Representative Legler, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Is the lady starting to warmup from singing?

THE CHAIR: The lady's starting to warmup and I think she may be in the back hall.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this bill does -- what this amendment does relates to when you transfer and transport it allows those breeder deer that are not needed for propagation to be allowed to be sell for venison. So that and they have to comply with the health and safety standards that are set out in statute and the Federal government. As you know right now you can't purchase venison that are whitetail. Now, this does not apply to any whitetail deer that came from the wild this is only those that are deer breeder permitted deer. And it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Phillips sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Hold on. Representative King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: I was going to ask a question.

THE CHAIR: About that amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Phillips do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I certainly do.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Chairman Taylor, what is this amendment?

THE CHAIR: It's Chairman Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes. This relates to the sale of deer --

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: By the way I object to the amendment. So I don't know why

(inaudible) it in. But anyway go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: By the permitted -- for permitted deer this allows for the sale of venison.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Is this the one that allowed to sell the deer meat on the permitted deer?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes, on permitted deer.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: What's permitted deer.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It's deer that you have a permit on. We've heard some testimony earlier or previously legislation related to deer that are raised by people that have a permit to sell -- to have the deer.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Okay.

(Inaudible) are they going to have to meet the health and safety standards of other people that sell meats.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Poultry raisers?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Really?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: And what happened to your bill? It got committee but it never got out of calendars?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: How long was it in calendars?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I'm not sure how long.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: It was there a long time because --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Are you on.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: There were a lot of objections to it.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Are you on calendars.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: I am.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. That may be why it didn't get out.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: No. They don't let you hold a bill like that.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: No. There was people all over the state objecting to this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Did the deer breeders ask you to carry this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I can't hear you -- no, sir this is my (inaudible) Tracy, hold on, Tracy. I sat on that committee for years just like you have and the question always came to, why can't we buy venison. It's healthy for you. It's a cash crop. Why can't we buy venison in our local --

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Well, the reason is because it's a state resource.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: The deer breeder deer -- this is specifically limited to them. It's not deer that you can go out and kill in the wild.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Well, but even though they're in the pens it's a state resource that the state is allowing you to be a steward of.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: The deer breeders spend a lot of money raising these deer and these are those that are not for propagation which they don't use to breed anymore, can be sold and processed pursuant to health and safety regulations. Deer is a very good thing. We have to import -- when we go to restaurants now we have to import our venison from New Zealand.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Well, no there's people that raise venison here. They raise venison here. They raise exotic.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Exotic deer. That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: But now by law in the State of Texas today who owns the wildlife?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Wildlife is owned by by the state.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: And those white tailed deer in those pens, who are they owned by according to law in the State of Texas today?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: They're breeder deer.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Are you sure?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes, that's what they're -- they're permitted deer. That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: They have a permit to raise those deer? They have a permit to breed those deer and they have a permit to transport them but they don't own them.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: They have to permit to let them be shot as well but they -- to be shot but they can't sell them for venison.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: That's what this amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: I know that the organizations that have been involved in raising -- in raising deer and breeding deer for many, many years are very, very much opposed --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: There are those that are very, very in favor of it too.

(inaudible) -- when you're threw.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY KING: They're very, very much opposed to this particular amendment that you put on that allows people to sell deer meat like that.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, again there's a lot of testimony in favor of it too.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I just had a couple quick questions for you.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Why are you going from not charging any fee for trapping and transporting the deer to charging $300 for a permit to trap and transport deer?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: This was a request of Parks and Wildlife.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Oh, Parks and Wildlife wants to charge fees?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: To allow for the process of this and any involvement that they're going to have to be involved with the trapping and transport.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: It seems like going from zero --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Hold on. Let me explain it. Currently you don't can't do this type of trap and transport. I apologize about that that's a distinction. Currently you can't do that. Only municipalities and property associations can't.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I think --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I'd be glad to take that off.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Well, I can't vote for the bill if we're going from zero to $300. I believe ranchers can trap and transport now.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: No, they can't.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Sure?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes. They can't. I'd be glad to take the $300 fee off. I'll take it off on third reading.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I'll hold you to that.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I will. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. The amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: What this amendment does it allows the option for those applying for an issuance of a permit to not just have a one-year permit to have a three or five-year permit. And this is something that the committee worked with and came up with. It's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Larson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: When we talked about -- we spent a couple of hours in CRT going through this and looking at the problem that we've got with one-year permits. The problem is everybody is held in suspense determining whether their investment was going to pay off if Parks and Wildlife made an arbitrary decision that they were not going to renew their license. Apparently all of these assets that these folks have accumulated around this deer population are held in jeopardy. So what we're looking is certainty, a little bit more certainty and that's why we went to a one -- they can still buy the one-year permit and that's for what $400 or they can buy a three year permit or a five year permit. And I think the way that we looked at rolling this out is staggering it. That we could give so many five-year permits, so many three-year and Parks and wildlife is challenged with all the administrative work --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It actually relieves them of the administration work that they need -- that they're having a backlog by doing this roll out at a one, three and five. And the way this amendment is is what the committee process really came with, even when I wasn't there y'all came up with it when y'all voted it out. And I'm just adopting what y'all worked on.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Right. And the way I understand it is Parks and Wildlife they were looking at the this as possibly a less of a burden that hits them every spring to deal with all this. And that's what's delayed issuing a lot of these permits and I think this is just the practical way of dealing with this industry.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It's acceptable to the author.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran, he yields.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Okay. Chairman Phillips I want to make sure, your amendment basically allows for multiple year permits instead of one-year permits, right.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Right. Right.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Okay. And so permits for what? Permits for getting the surplus deer in the cities or permits for all deer?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: All deer permits.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Is that germane to this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: It's dealing with -- I thought your bill was pretty narrow dealing -- as I read the caption it's dealing with related to trapping and transporting of surplus whitetail deer for the ones in cities and other areas these are the states deers and your transporting them taking them to other places.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Right.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So how are the permits -- if the permits that you're talking about in this amendment don't deal specifically with the permits to move surplus whitetail deer out then it wouldn't be germane to the bill to deal with any other permits. I'm going to call a point of order on that.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is withdrawn at this time. Members, we're going to -- Representative Phillips moves to postpone until 10:45 further discussion of SB 498. Representative Gutierrez, Representative Sheffield? Members, we're laying out SB 1009. Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield to explain. I'm sorry. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1009 by Huffman. Relating to requiring public institutions of higher education to notify the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) regarding the withdrawal or nonattendance of certain foreign students.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, again --

THE CHAIR: Hold up. Members, when we last left Representative Gutierrez called a point of order against further consideration of SB 1009. Specifically raised a point of order under Rule 4, Section 32. The bill analysis was materially and substantially misleading. Chair has reviewed the bill analysis and the bill and finds that the it is not materially or substantially misleading. So, the point of order is accordingly overruled. Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Now, it's my understanding from the ruling that the clause that Senate Bill 1009 amends current law relating to the balance of that statement. That ruling is basically stating that -- there's a possibility that we could be amending Federal law. Is that the ruling of today.

THE CHAIR: No. It just states it's amending current law state or federal.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: That could be state or federal?

THE CHAIR: We obviously are dealing with state law here.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I have a whole stack of Federal laws that I might want to amend later on. Can we do that?

THE CHAIR: I'm sorry. Say that again.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I have a whole stack of Federal laws I might want to amend. Can we do that later on?

THE CHAIR: You can do that after June 1st.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So it's my understanding Mr. Speaker that in the future that we're amending congressional law here today as well.

THE CHAIR: I don't believe that's what we stated. Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. Nope, back up all right. The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of -- anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 1009. Chair hears none. Question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB 1009. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. SB 1009 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading SB 472 -- backup. Chair lays out as a matter of second reading SB of 635. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 635 by Nichols. Relating to the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Larson to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Yes. Mr. Speaker, members, what this does -- give you some background under current law, water or sewer utility is allowed to charge proposed rate for both water and sewer even if the rate increase is being protested. So, the three things that this bill does is first, it would allow TCQ executive director to establish an interim rate. Second thing is grant the authority to the -- to the executive director for the uncontested cases to transfer CCN and convert and dissolve a water district. And the last thing it will do is simply allow an exemption for small sewer systems that are already -- that are already provided for the small water systems. And we've got some amendments.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Larson.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Larson to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: This deals with -- with the Senate Bill 1520 that Carly Uresti passed out of the Senate. Deals with the liquid waste and simply gives precautions in the process that will allow TCQ to consider and decide whether or not they approve and permit amendments for these liquid waste processing facilities.

THE CHAIR: Representative Larson sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. There is objection? There is no -- chair -- Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Larson.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Larson to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: This one is a notification of the water changes and I think that Chairman Thompson was making an inquiry about it. This is giving the written notices to folks as far as your water rate charges and the changes. Right now you've got so many folks that are receiving information electronically in lieu of just mailing them out we're going to -- we're going to go ahead and start electronic process. The second part of it will allow us to move from 30 days to 60 days because (inaudible) and during the billing process -- during the billing process if we do it a lot of these surveyors are having to send out separate notice. So it'll allow you to deal with the regular billing cycle. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Representative Larson sends up an amendment. The amendment acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gooden.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gooden explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this just discuss the effected county definition. It's clarify language and it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Gooden?

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Absolutely.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Gooden did you just file this amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: I didn't see it a minute ago. Could you explain your amendment other than mumbling to us.

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Sure. Absolutely. Excuse me. What this does is expands the definition of expected county to one that has more than 3,000 customers in the county --

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Changed from what?

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Excuse me?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Expands what?

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: The definition of effected county in section 13.187 of the water code.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And what is Section 13187?

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I don't have it in front of me.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Well you wrote the amendment. What's it mean.

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: It basically means that under current law an effected county by statute may hire rate experts for rate cases at the TCQ on behalf of the rate payers and be reimbursed by the utility and today only counties on the border with Mexico Nueces county are effected counties. So what this does is it expands to it include three -- counties with 3,000 or more rate payers.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: I raise a point of order according to Rule 7, Section 2 on germaneness.

THE CHAIR: Bring your order down front.

THE CHAIR: Representative Miller withdraws his point of order. We're back on the Gooden amendment. Representative Gooden explain your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I move passage. This is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Gooden sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock to explain his amendment.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment that applies to the LCRA and the TCQ water planning (inaudible) to be a water management plan. This amendment would ensure that the plan makes the farm water customer needs as required by LCRA adjudicated water permit.

THE CHAIR: Representative Kleinschmidt, for what purpose?

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: I have a point of order based on Rule 11, Section 2, Rule 8, Section 10 the various articles of the Texas Constitution.

THE CHAIR: Bring your various points of order down front. Representative Kleinschmidt temporarily withdraws his point of order. Representative Aycock temporarily withdraws his amendment. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Some of you all may have traveled to the District of Columbia and gone to buy something and then they ask you do you want a bag. Somebody may have and then if you want a bag, plastic bag then they charge you a nickel for that plastic bag. And the reason they have that is because we have this island of plastic bags out in the ocean. We have plastic bags everywhere that are not biodegradable. And what this will be do is reduce the number of plastic bags that end up in the stream. And so a person has a choice you can go with your green bag or whatever the bag is the store has that you can bring back over and over again or if you get a bag you pay 5 cents to make sure that that bag is disposed of properly by cities in the State of Texas. By the way the United States Environmental Protection Agency reported that somewhere between 500 billion and 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide wide each year. In less than one percent of those plastic bags are recycled. Plastic bags litter our landscape, they clog our waterways, they endanger our wildlife and they take hundreds of years to decompose. Did you hear that hundreds of years. And the problem with that is that's something that our children are going to have to deal with. And the number of plastic bags that I have in my house -- the idea is nothing that can be done with them. When consumers pay a fee for each plastic bag provided to carry out goods from the retailer or a grocery store that would encourage consumers to use those reusable bags. You know what I'm talking about those kind of Kevlar kind of bags that you can buy at the grocery store for $1 and then you bring them back with you and then you reuse those. So it's encouraging people to reuse -- use the reusable bags that you can get at HEB or you can get at Kroger or Whole Foods or wherever else that is. And so, you know, it's a really good idea. It's something if we don't start doing something about plastic bags we'll be over -- ruin the water system. We will be overrun and it's toxins. You know, we should learn how to make those out of cornmeal or corn syrup that degrade. It is bad for fish, it's bad for everything else. And I know everybody has to be against this amendment. I'm sure they are. We'll actually I like it, too. Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Representative Larson to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: We'll allow the House to make the decision on it. I don't believe it's germane to the bill that we filed. I'm for fish Ms. Thompson. I didn't realize that when they -- the last large water train was pulling out of the station we were going to throw plastic bags on it. So I would encourage everybody to vote against this.

THE CHAIR: Representative Coleman to close.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Members, often times we have an opportunity to make change and an opportunity to live up to the standards that we say we want for our kids. Now, I've heard a lot of people talk about using sanctions in order to make change so to continue to create this garbage of -- out there from every time we walk in and get a soda at the -- at the convenience store. The reality is they have pay to pollute. Children ought not do that. They have to pay to pollute. And this is an individual paying to pollute because the reality is that that's the reason people set up pollution credits. That's what they were looking at. But this is taxing people or this is

(inaudible) reusable bags take it out put it in your hands. Put it in your pocket, put it in (inaudible) but getting a plastic bag and throwing it out there on the ground to be there forever and I'd be happy to yield to Mr. Gallego --

THE CHAIR: Representative Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Coleman, we on a regular basis in the chamber --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I was just told it was not forever only for about 500,000 years.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: We on a regular basis either incentivize or disincentivize behavior to tax policy. And so, what you're seeking to do -- I mean it seems to me that many of the larger grocery stores or other stores are already providing non plastic options for their customers.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And, in fact, where I live in west Texas in Fort Stockton has already completely banned plastic bags.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Wow.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so, what you're speaking to do is essentially to continue down and through that policy do a better job of essentially of recycling and do away with the behavior that, frankly, is probably served its time and served its purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's right, Mr. Gallego. There are options and everyone is trying to reduce the use of our natural resources but also we recognize how long of something stays around. And the more population there is the more we have nonbiodegradable products like these plastic bags. These plastic bags just don't go away.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And you would prefer that customers and business people love used the biodegradable --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right. Biodegradable bags. The bag that you have to reuse that come from the stores that you could purchase for like a dollar --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Does your amendment provides a disincentive for plastic but is there an additional incentive on the other side for biodegradable or is it just the disincentive on the plastic?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: First of all, it is -- I think there's an incentive for -- let me make sure. It goes to a recycling grant program. Compostable bag so it gives an incentive for compostable bag.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm sorry, Mr. Coleman, would you say that again.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: It gives an incentive for bags that can be composted.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. Now, the other -- the other question is how in terms of setting the rate at the 5 cents, how did you arrive at that 5 cents figure.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well the 5 cents itself is equivalent to the cost that each bag in that people would be willing to pay to get a bag but enough to where it matters. So that people would say wait a minute. Every time I go in the store I'm paying a nickel to use a bag and it's just like anything else.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And what happens to all -- how much is that going to generate and what happens to that.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I don't know exactly the amount that it generates. But the amount of money that it does generate goes into the local recycling program assistance account and the local recycling program assistance account is an established account -- general revenue fund and the commissioner or executive director of the TCQ shall deposit revenue received from the fee imposed, the 5 cents to the credit of the account. Money in the account maybe appropriated only for implementation and administration of the grant programs that --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But we can actually help other communities establish recycling programs.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Because there's -- I will tell you Alpine; for example, doesn't have a recycling program because it can't afford it. It has a -- that's not true. It has a recycling program that's a voluntary, all volunteer run which doesn't work well. As some of the more organized city sponsored and of -- you know, aided (inaudible). A lot of cities in the district that I represent don't have recycling programs at all.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, and that's correct. And many municipalities cannot afford to even do a pilot. And most places that have start -- start with a volunteer recycling program. But this allows dollars to go in to help pay for the recycling program. You know, how you have the plastic bins.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: You see them here in Austin. The big blue rollers that helps pay for those types of receptacles. It helps pay for, you know, the extra collections for that those recyclable items. We have a really nice -- it's not as good as Austin. We're having trouble getting that done --

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Coleman? Representative Coleman. Representative Coleman sends up an amendment. It's not acceptable to the author. We'll have a division vote. Members, vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Whatever. It's on the amendment. Mr. Coleman voting aye, Mr. Larson voting nay, show Mr. Lucio voting -- Members, a record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. The vote is on the amendment. Members, on the amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Legler voting nay, show Coleman voting aye, Larson voting nay. Have all voted? 37 ayes, 97 nays, 2 present not voting. The amendment fails.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: As Mr. Dutton would say our main man is him.

THE CHAIR: Well, let the main man in.

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

THE CHAIR: I can't hear you louder, louder.

MESSENGER: Huffman relating to the --

THE CHAIR: Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You may have noticed the water bottles because of the fact that we drink a lot of water out of plastic bottles, also beer, ale, malt liquor, wine coolers, soda, carbonated water, soft drinks and the like. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Representative Hardcastle, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'd be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: I happen to notice that you have a whole stack of folders there.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah, but I didn't file that many amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Oh, I was just checking. If you were going to make this last until midnight.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No. I lose things so I have to keep them in my hands so that I don't leave them. So I can find them so I carry a bunch of stuff around.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Carry on.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, sir. But this particular provision is to reduce the number of plastic bottles that clog again our waterways, that as you've seen those discussions on television that they circle the world 500 times. I'm exaggerating political fact. They don't. I don't know how many times they circle the world but the reality is we have to get a handle on this and if we don't get a handle on it then we'll be overrun by things that sit in landfills or again end up in places where we don't want them to. They're there nearly forever. Okay he is going accept my amendment. Also just so you know that this amendment is actually worth $200 million to our budgets. 200 million, only 200 million. And with that I'm glad that the it is acceptable to the author. I forgot to mention it provides dollars --

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield Mr. Coleman?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Sure.

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Representative Coleman, I heard $200 million.

THE CHAIR: Does Mr. Coleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, I yield.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman, I heard 200 million dollars and I was on appropriations and I'd really like you to expand on that and explain how that would save $200 million.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, if you know you've been to other states. If you have a bottle -- purchase a beverage there's usually like a 5 cents or 3 cents there. And that is paid for up front, right. Then it goes into an account and when somebody brings their bottle back for a deposit, the deposit back they actually get the -- the amount of money back that they were charged in the first -- when they first bought the beverage. Everyone doesn't return the bottles. So there's an amount of money leftover that the consumer spent that is not, you know, that is not redeemed. And then those dollars come back to the state and are used for the expansion of curbside recycling both in glass -- glass as a raw commodity for manufacturing glass as well as plastic for recycling. And so, that's how it comes back into the stream. It's like the unclaimed lottery prize money. People play the lottery and as we've heard on this floor everybody doesn't go and claim their prize. But the one thing we do know is when you have this kind of mechanism people who -- people who -- people who collect bottle and cans, you know, to get -- get -- to help feed their families. These are people who that also creates a new way for people to make money.

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Well I appreciate your diligence for trying to find revenue for the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Schwertner.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Geren, for what purpose?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: The author had accepted but I'll be happy to answer Chairman Geren's questions.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Coleman, what -- I used to be in the beverage business and now I'm in a different kind of beverage business now. But are you aware of the problem this causes grocers and all the cockroaches and rats that this brings in.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'm aware of the challenges that come with the --

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: It's more than challenges, it's incredible costs I believe.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And I'm very I'm very aware of that. And I agree that this is a cost to different people and it causes challenges for grocers on the bags and on the bottles and I'm sure that there will be great debate over this.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Coleman, I really hate to bring this up but the people in the cities and the people that walk their dogs what are they going to do when they have to pick up the poop.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: You know, they can still buy the plastic bags for a dime -- a nickel and pick up the poop but that one already went down. So there will be plenty of plastic bags around for the 1500 years.

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman's point of order is well taken and sustained. It is acceptable to the author. There is objection. There is objection. Record vote's granted. Members, vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Geren voting no, show Coleman voting aye, Schwertner voting aye. All right. Have all voted? 40 ayes, and 101 nays, 2 present not voting. The amendment failed. Chair recognizes Representative Larson for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: I move to accept all the remainder amendments. This is the largest water Christmas tree that's ever been present in this legislative process this late in the game and I'm not real happy about that but that's just the way they go. So I move to me accept them.

THE CHAIR: Is there objection? We have objections. Sensitive crowd. The motion is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Cook.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Cook to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker this is -- this is a bill that -- part of a bill that died in the PC sunset bill today which contains provision to transfers all water and sewage rate making authority from the TCQ to PUC. Members this is part of the sunset review recommendation. It had no opposition and when I looked at the prefiled amendments there were no prefiled amendments on this which also told me that there wasn't a lot of problem with respect to members.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will you recognize me at a time -- at this time to call a question I've got 25 signatures.

THE CHAIR: I believe we only have two amendments left. Let's get to those two amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. I've got 31 signatures.

THE CHAIR: I'm sorry, can't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I've got 31 signatures.

THE CHAIR: You're not --

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: How many do I need?

THE CHAIR: You're not recognized at this time.

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: It's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: All right. Mr. Cook sends up an amendment. Acceptable to the author. Is there any objections.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Miss Davis, for what purpose?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I'd like to ask the gentleman a question? You know, when you were laying out your amendment and I couldn't understand what you were saying so I was trying to understand what your amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: What this does is.

THE CHAIR: Members, can we have order, please.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: It moves the TCQ's existing authority for water and waste water utility regulation, retail, wholesale and submetering rates -- and requirements of -- moves them and complaints from the TCQ's to the --

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Schwertner, for what purpose?

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield.

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: I'm sorry. You're moving something from the TCQ to the PUC.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Water and sewage which was the sunset recommendation which we passed out of the sunset commission. That was our recommendation and that's all we're doing. This was in the PUC sunset bill that went down today. And once, again, there weren't amendments filed on it which means -- and this part of the bill there must have been support because there wasn't anybody that was against it. So that's all we're doing. Just filing the sunset recommendation. Move passage.

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Thank you Chairman Cook.

THE CHAIR: Representative Cook sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Please excuse Representative Villarreal because of illness on the motion of Representative Madden. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, when we last met there was a point of order on the Aycock amendment. The chair has reviewed the point of order and the point of order is respectfully overruled. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock to explain his amendment.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: This amendment is one requiring amount water plant after LCRA and determining fixed and interruptible waters and I thought it was going to be acceptable but I think I see a question coming.

THE CHAIR: Representative Kleinschmidt, for what purpose?

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: A question.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Aycock?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'd be glad to yield.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Mr. Aycock, this process -- this water management plan that your amendment institutes that would normally deal with the stakeholders involved between the firm and the interruptible waters, correct?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes, it is the firm and interruptible water.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Okay. Can you explain the purpose -- what is the purpose of the amendment as far as the desires of the firm water users and interruptible water users.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The firm water users have an adjudicated water permit, they pay $151 per acre fee foot for water and they would like for the plans to not request the firm water customers to consider voluntarily ground contingency until the interruptible waters which only payment $6.50 cents per acre foot until they have been curtailed first. This concept is firm versus interruptible.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Interruptible water users are typically the downstream farmers, correct?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's correct.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: In this case Colorado being the rice farmers --

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's correct.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Colorado and Matagorda areas.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's correct. And it pains me to do that.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Is it correct that your amendment could result in increased level -- lake levels for recreational uses that would causes the downstream farmers to suffer do to lack of water.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The firm water users are generally the city users that go to uses in most cases.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Excuse me. I can't hear. There is a problem.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I said the firm water users are general urban uses, the city uses for drinking and household purposes in most cases.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: All right. That would also include increased lake levels, keeping lake levels up for recreation uses, correct?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The net result would probably involve keeping lake levels higher for longer periods of time, yes.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: So necessarily then there would be less water at times available downstream for the rice crops.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's correct. That's why they call it interruptible.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Okay. If you'd like look on your page 1, line 29.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Oops. I don't have my bill or package in front of me. Go ahead and ask me. I'll see if I can answer without my bill.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Page 1, line 29 talks about project demands. Can you define what level of water use would come under project demands.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Project demands, would be -- no I'm not sure I can answer that question without my book here. Go ahead.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Just my point that's rather vague and ambiguous as far as --

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It's projected demands, I think, isn't it --

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Projected demands.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: -- now then that's a little clearer.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Right. And if I could also draw your attention to page 2, line 67 it appears that the firm uses could continue without even -- without even first trying to look at voluntary drops, contingency measures such as not washing your cars, not watering your lawns, things of that nature. If those curtailments result in problems downstream for the rice farmers. In other words, we shouldn't be using the luxury uses into the cost of the necessary uses for agriculture downstream.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I would submit that the people who use the water in their homes do not consider it a luxury use.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll be glad to yield.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you. I really, really, really hate it when people make the argument that I'm about to ask you about. It's 11:23 on the last night to pass any bill of any kind and we're discussing an amendment that makes pretty significant water policy change.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand that.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: And it's really a bad idea. Would not you agree with that? I know you do.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It's really important to the people in Barnett County.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: But we're going stick it to everyone in every county down south of Barnett, 1right.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: No --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Pretty much.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There are many, many counties in the LCRA.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Pretty much.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It runs all the way to the gulf.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is it accurate that this amendment doesn't require anyone to do any kind of water conservation or any of that. You know, y'all can interrupt our water downstream. Keep washing your car and watering your lawn and filling your swimming pool up to the optimum level; is that correct?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It gives the firm water rights --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: So that is correct.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: First use. It's the firm versus interruptible.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: So the answer is that is correct.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The firm water gets to go first.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: The hard answer to have to give but the answer is, that is correct.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Firm water gets to go first.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, the answer is that's correct.

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Aycock sends up an amendment Mr. Larson -- oh, you want to speak against? Mr. Bonnen wants to speak against the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt to speak against the amendment.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, this amendment is very much more complex than it appears. This process of water use between the firm users which would be the lake -- the lake reservoirs and the interruptible users downstream which are your farmers is an important process. This particular amendment bypasses the stakeholders, those people that the cities, the people that are at the lake levels, those users. It bypasses the input of those stakeholders in the process that's been very well important over the years to the studious use of the water.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Essentially results in irresponsible use of our available --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello, Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr -- for what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Gentleman yield for a question? Mr. Kleinschmidt is in this amendment at the bottom it says insure that adequate water supplies is available to meet the existing and projected demands of firm water customers to the extent is provided by previous adjudicated water rights saying, can you tell me what projected demands are?

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: No. That's a very vague and ambiguous term which would result in much confusion between the parties, the firm water users and the interruptible waters.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you Mr. Kleinschmidt. That's enough reason to vote no on this.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Dr. Zerwas, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield?

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Tim, you and I kind of live down in the same area. We represent the same sort of folks out there. Can you give me the sense of what the real consequences are as a result of not, you know, not having at least a reasonably defendable interruptible waters.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Yeah. One of the practical problems we run into is the rice farmers in our areas effected typically have two rice crops that are very important to them each year. Economic necessities. They always live in risk that they aren't going to get sufficient water for the second rice crop. If they don't get they are impinged very heavily economically. It's very detrimental to their livelihood --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: How important is that to the state as a whole.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Well agriculture is one of the largest industries in this state. And the problem is this bill allows recreational uses and unnecessary uses such as, you know, watering your lawn or washing your car at one level of the firm use to in essence outweigh the economic necessity uses of the rice farmers.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Even in some of the more drier conditions that we have had have we not been able to provide a dependable water supply to these folks that are downstream in order to let these crops --

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Last year LCRA was not able to promise the rice farmers sufficient water to complete their second crop would have had a devastating effect on rice crops in the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: So if we were to allow this amendment to go on it's not only is it going to effect the people that are down in the lower Colorado river area down in there but it's going to have an impact economically on the state also.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I see great. Thank you, Tim.

THE CHAIR: Representative Aycock sends up an amendment. Representative Bonnen wants to speak against the amendment.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I want to make a couple things very clear. First and foremost this is not chubbing. This is a hell of a big water issue. Huge I will quote my friend Mr. Aycock. This is a huge water issue. We don't have a rule but -- not at this time. At this late date at this late moment if you haven't filed a bill which there is no bill that exists with this language as filed. Chairman Ritter got up and spoke at the back mic. This bill never came to his committee because this bill didn't exist. This issue was never heard in his committee because it was never allowed to. We do not have any business. This is goofy. That we would be contemplating such a monumental water issue at now 11:29 p.m. before it ends. I mean this isn't a deadline for a House Bill, this is a deadline for a Senate Bill. We're done. It's not been filed as a bill. It's not been through this process in any capacity whatsoever and it effects a numerous number of members. Mr. Aycock is doing his job. This helps his home county, one county and he's got to stand up and here and do this but, members, this is wrong. He's not wrong. He's doing his job. But we cannot do this at this point in time. I think he needs to use this as his reelection bill and he needs to come back here next session and he needs to file this bill and have a fair hearing. And let's go through the process. Please vote against the Aycock amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Representative Zerwas, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Bonnen?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: I'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Chairman Bonnen. Just as I had the conversation with Representative Kleinschmidt specifically in your area to what extent are the people involved in agriculture industry going to be compromised down there.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Significantly and you, you know --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Typically tell me what kind of agriculture activities y'all have down there.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: We have rice farming, we have cattle. We also, you know, anyway -- Dr. Zerwas you know well -- again, back to the point I was making. You and I have worked really hard and we've worked all session. We worked with the couple hour hearing in natural resources on the issue of the Gulf Coast Water Authority about water, about agriculture, about the rice farmers, about the -- that's how this happens. Crawfish. That's right Representative Larson, crawfish, crawfish. We have crawfish farmers down in our area but this is --

THE CHAIR: Representative Ritter raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Aycock send up an amendment. Representative Larson leaves to it will of the House?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Yeah, this is a highly contentious issue. You heard both sides of it. I'll leave it to the will of the House.

THE CHAIR: Members, question occurs on the amendment. Representative Aycock to close.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll be very brief. They got these rights by adjudicated water rights. They pay $151 per acre foot, the rice farmers pay $6.50. It's called interruptible on one, it's called firm on the other. The firm guys ought to get to keep their water rights first before they are told -- failed. Vote with me.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran, for what purpose?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock, will you yield. He yields.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Aycock.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll be glad.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Aycock, so where do these water rights come from? How do they get acquired in the first place?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They're adjudicated many of the them long ago.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And where are they selling them? What should they be adjudicating these to in other places when they have to --

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There's

(inaudible) water rights called senior rights, junior rights and on down the line and the firm water rights -- my position is that the firm water rights should go first.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Right, you know, that is a good amendment that you protect the firm right holders like it should. Let's do that.

THE CHAIR: Representative Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Does my friend and colleague Jimmie Don Aycock yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: I think he's yielded the floor. He's ready to vote. Representative Aycock sends up an amendment. The question occurs on the amendment. Members, vote aye, vote nay. Show Bonnen voting nay, Aycock voting aye, Larson voting nay. Have all voted? Have all voted? Frullo voting nay. Have all voted? Davis Yvonne Davis no. 11 ayes and 128 nays, 4 present not voting the amendment fails to adopt.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Representative Lucio, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Can you display the seconds on the board up there so we know precisely to the second --

THE CHAIR: I don't believe we can do that.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: All right.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: This amendment, members, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment does what none of the other amendments did and I move passage.

THE CHAIR: All right. Members, you've heard the amendment. Representative Larson to speak. Representative Davis, for what purpose?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Representative Dutton, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.

THE CHAIR: He yields.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Representative Dutton I didn't get to hear your explanation because of all the noise.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I couldn't hear you. Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: I can't hear the. Members, can we have order, please.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: We were -- I was trying to hear your amendment -- what was your amendment and what does it do.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: What this amendment simply does is says that when they're contested case hearings, the rate payers who have been tested, the rate won't end up paying the expenses of the other party.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: For any kind of -- for what rate cases?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: This is attorney fees, legal expenses.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I understand the fees and all but what kind of cases?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Oh, I'm sorry. On the rate making cases on the -- under the water code.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Well you understand that they have an amendment an 80 page amendment on this bill that removes all the rates over to the PUC. Are you aware that they took that amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, if they took that amendment how would your amendment apply to rate making if they pushed rate making from TCQ over to the PUC.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well you still have contested case hearings as I understand it. If I'm not mistaken. And so, as a consequence if it's a contested case hearing at the PUC would be just like a contested case hearing over at the TCQ. And so, right now what happens as you may know is that when the rate payers contest a rate the company then goes into the hearing all of the expenses of the hearing end up being shoved over to the rate payers. So what this amendment does is stop that.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, what I guess my question is, under your amendment would TCQ still be responsible for the rate case.

REPRESENTATIVE ANGIE BUTTON: No. My amendment doesn't touch top, side, or bottom.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So your amendment just says wherever there is case -- a rate case a --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: A contested case, yes.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That your amendment deals with who?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Who bears the burden of the expenses in the rate case. See I didn't think it was fair that you got to pay for your own hanging. And so, it seems to me that if you -- oh, the amendment's been accepted too.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Well he's accepting everything so some of us got a --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Is he? Oh, I got a few more bills I should have put on here.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: -- some of these amendments he's accepting in the blind. While some have given up the government some of us still trying to understand what it is we're passing.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE ANGIE BUTTON: Well, that's what this one does. In this amendment it doesn't it doesn't change this idea of where you have the contested case. It just says that if you --

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: It mentions if you have a contested case at TCQ it wouldn't necessarily apply to contested case over at the PUC or would it apply.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It would apply. It would simply related to contested case hearings. It doesn't matter where they are.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And the rate payer would then be responsible for the cost.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: No. This prohibits that. This would stop that. Under the current law that's what happens.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So who would be responsible for this point under your amendment? Who is responsible for fees.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: The company would be. Responsible for their own fees and they wouldn't be able to pass it through the rate payers.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: The rate payers and that's what your amendment is doing?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And he's accepted your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's what I'm told. It's a good amendment.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Woolley, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Mr. Speaker? Austin Auburn from Austin, Texas is here.

THE CHAIR: Please admit the messenger.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's my main man. Let's don't dis him.

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

THE CHAIR: Thank you for playing.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Come back and see us.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: I accept the amendment. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members you've heard the question on SB 635 --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I wanted to ask the author of this bill a question.

THE CHAIR: Representative Larson, do you yield for a question? He has yielded the floor.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is the amendment before us or the bill.

THE CHAIR: I'm sorry the amendment before us? Is accepted by the author.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: It says the amendment. So he accepted the amendment so.

THE CHAIR: The accepted the amendment and now he's moved passage on the bill. Representative Gonzales, for what purpose?

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALES: We have until midnight tonight for all second readings for Senate bills; is that correct?

THE CHAIR: That's central standard time, yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALES: Okay. I was told that it was by duty as a freshman member of the El Paso delegation to ask to move to it mountain standard time.

THE CHAIR: We'll see where we are on the calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to speak against the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I appreciate and I regret that I'm up speaking against this Senate Bill but I think it's important that we not lose focus when we're passing bills that will impact people's lives and to the extent that we are to take and just throw on amendments without even discussing what these amendments are. What these amendments will do in the various districts that we represent. To just throw them on and just casually tell us that you're going to just take all of them. That's irresponsible. And I know everybody's got bills and I understand the need to have these discussions and dialogue. And I know there was an issue in trying to move up the veteran's wives bills for their tax relief. And all that's important. But to sit here and take a bill and let an 85 page amendment get on the bill that does not even get discussed is ridiculous. And with all due respect to all of the chairman who've heard this and who know what this bill is or who have seen this bill before. For those of us who have not seen it that's disingenuous to put an 85 page amendment on a bill at 11:00 p.m. when the session ends at 12:00 a.m. And so I rise to speak against this process. This started out being a bill about tires I rise against all these ridiculous amendments that have been placed on it carelessly. And I just think we ought not being doing government like this. It is not my intent it was not my intent to talk to 12:00 to try to kill this bill or any other bills but I do think that we should do a little bit better with regard to how we're taking these amendments and how they're being put on here. I take it very serious when somebody puts an 85 page amendment on a bill that talks about rate payers, it talks about costs to consumers and not knowing what the impact and how it's going to be implemented. Maybe it's good. Maybe it is but because you didn't lay it out because it was not discussed we aren't able to tell that. So I think if we don't do anything else we ought to at least know what it is we're going to go home and pass. Today somebody said, well, I think PUC bill the problem with that is there are those of us who have been sitting here being a part of this process not being able to offer legitimate concerns and issues of fixes for legitimate concerns and issues because we're part of the minority. Well, I want to tell you that doesn't mean you get to run over us and do anything and shove anything down our faces. And that's what this does when you do it this way. And I'm just think this is wrong. It's the wrong way to make policy. It deserves a better approach to it. And I would ask that the members recognize that in this day and time we can I'll afford to send bad government back to our districts. Less government is what you-all talk about as conservatives. Then certainly less government will be more beneficial to our constituents.

THE CHAIR: Representative Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Would the lady yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I do.

THE CHAIR: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you Representative Davis. Did I understand you correctly are you suggesting that you are speaking as much against the process in what we have observed not only tonight but maybe all session long is you are against this bill and how it's been Christmas treed up.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's exactly what I'm speaking against. The process that would be so lax and so carelessly handled that we would allow these amendments to be put on like this.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Why do you think that this bill tonight is different from everything that's been happening all this session long.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, I think it's not any different than we've seen all session long but what this does is it shows the arrogance of how we're continuing to do business. I just think it's a wrong thing for us to do the last day of the session to bring a bill that's had maybe some good intent to get it relegated to a Christmas tree and just throw anything that comes up on the counter. Just float it up on the bill and accept it without even discussing it. It's particularly when it deals with the quality of life or the folks we represent.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: How do these nine or ten amendments that have been added --

THE CHAIR: Representative Flynn raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman's point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Larson to close on his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Well, I just first of all, I have a lot of admiration for Representative Davis and I watched her work through this process. I want to explain that I do understand the 85 page document and I close.

THE CHAIR: Members, question occurs on passage to engrossment on SB 635. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it. Record vote. Record vote's requested. Record vote is granted. Members, vote aye, vote nay. Show representative Larson voting aye. Have all voted. Have all voted? There being 100 ayes 38 nays, 2 present not voting, Senate Bill 635 is passed to engrossment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make a motion to reconsider the vote by which SB 542 was passed. We actually needed to include a sunset provision and that's what we're trying to do.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair lays out Senate Bill 542. Clerk read the bell.

THE CLERK: SB 542 by Heger. Relating to the regulation of law enforcement officers by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Members, Mr. Speaker, this again is including the sunset provision. I move passage. And it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I'm sorry Senate Bill 542 is.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Is a office of training and what we're trying to do is -- I included amendments that was passed unanimously out of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. It passed unanimously and what we're trying to do is provide a sunset provision for the training that law school or not law school, school officers get.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading Senate Bill 542. The final passage of Senate Bill 542. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show representative Walle voting aye. There being 141 ayes zero nays, Senate Bill 542 is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 472. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 472 by west. Relating to voting practices and elections of property owners' associations.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings --

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill which passed out of local and consent in the calendar requires any votes cast in an election under the Texas Residential Property Owners Act to be in writing and signed by a member and move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 472. The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 472. All those in favor say aye. Record vote's been requested. Record voted's granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 103 ayes and 40 nays Senate Bill 472 is passed to third reading. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, I'm going to try to make this real quick. We visited with several of you. I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider Senate Bill 516. Senate Bill 516 is a Senate -- Representative Fletcher's bill. The enabling legislation was passed much earlier this evening. This is the bill that allows the surviving spouse of veterans to keep their homestead exemption and it's appropriate that we get this bill tonight. We have passed the enabling legislation. I don't want to say much more. You know what it is. It's to support our veterans who have given so much. So I move to me suspend all necessary rules and pull the bill up.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and zero nays, motion is adopted. Chair lays out Senate Bill 516. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 516 by Patrick. Relating to the exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the appraised value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Amendment is withdrawn. Question occurs on passage to third reading Senate Bill 516. All those in favor say aye. A record vote is requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show representative Ritter voting aye. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 516 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 548. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 498 by Jackson. Relating to the trapping and transport of surplus white-tailed deer.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: That is the bill --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?

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

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: No.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Just a question. How many clarifications did you try to put on this bill, Mr. Phillips?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: There's only one amendment on there.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And what is it.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I'm not putting any more on there.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: No more amendments?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: No. We're not putting any on there. They asked me to pull them all down.

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

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I was going to ask somebody a question but I don't know if anybody's down there.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 498. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Record's vote's been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Representative Fletcher voting aye. Being 133 ayes and 11 nays, Senate Bill 498 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 975. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 975 by Hinojosa. Relating to the operation of dropout recovery programs by certain public junior colleges in partnership with school districts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Munoz.

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This allows the community college partner with school districts for the dropout recovery program. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading and Senate Bill 975. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Record vote's been requested. Record vote's granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted. Being 94 ayes and 50 nays Senate Bill 975 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1360. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1360 by Harris. Relating to continuing education for physicians and nurses regarding the treatment of tick-borne diseases.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: This was the Lyme disease we passed it in the House. Move passage. Lyme disease this was approved by the TMA --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, I believe we took this bill out of order. Backup. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1130. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1130 by Heger. Relating to the exception from required public disclosure of certain records of an appraisal district.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, this allows individual property owners to get comparable information on comparable sales. Move passage.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Garza.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Members this was passed through. Senate Bill 1576 relating to low income -- housing. Acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Garza sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Withdraw.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment's withdrawn. Question occurs -- question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1130. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it, Senate Bill 1130 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1360. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1360 by Harris. Relating to continuing education for physicians and nurses regarding the treatment of tick-borne diseases.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: This is the Lyme disease bill. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading Senate Bill 1360. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it, Senate Bill 1360 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out Senate Bill 1560. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1560 by Allison. Relating to liability of certain local emergency management or homeland security organizations.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: (inaudible)

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Emergency service organizations (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker? Would the gentleman yield for a question? Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I'll yield for a very quick question.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm sorry you were going so fast that I couldn't quite hear what your bill --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: (inaudible) community homeland that we get rather first responders. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Something about first responders. I'm sorry what was that?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: We're giving the same type immunity that we give to our first responders.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Giving the same immunity --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Limited liability. To first responders like fire department --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Protecting them from liabilities, from what?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: From liabilities.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: From what kind of circumstances.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Within their duties.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: When they're acting on behalf of community or emergency response teams, fire corps, medical reserve corps and volunteer and police service. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1660. A record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Aliseda voting aye. Have all voted? Being 139 ayes and zero nays, Senate Bill 1560 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1617. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1617 by Harris. Relating to the discretionary transfer from a juvenile court to a criminal court of certain alleged offenses arising out of a single criminal transaction.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Seventeen -- 1617 allows court to reconsider certifying a person as an adult. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1670. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it Senate Bill 1617 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1843. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1843 by Carona. Relating to investigations of certain offenses involving the Internet-based sexual exploitation of a minor; creating the Internet crimes against children account to support those activities.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: This is the law you passed 138. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1843. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it, Senate Bill 1843 system passed to third reading.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Record?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1001.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose, Mr. Miller?

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I would like to raise a point of order Rule 8, Section 13C in that we have passed 134th day of the calendar and no Senate bill or joint resolution shall be considered 135th --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I'm sorry I can't recognize you --

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: 135th day.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Now I can. Now I can. Point of order is sustained. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House.

THE CLERK: SB 32, SB 54, SB 77, SB 86, SB 141, SB 116, SB 149, SB 150, SB 152, SB 187, SB 189, SB 192, SB 193, SB 226, SB 260, SB 290, SB 335, SB 482, SB 494, SB 496, SB 512, SB 519, SB 530, SB 544, SB 629, SB 690, SB 743, SB 796, SB 811, SB 851, SB 855, SB 867, SB 886, SB 899, SB 957, SB 1002, SB 1043, SB 1103, SB 1159, SB 1228, SB 1292, SB 1361, SB 1404, SB 1421, SB 1431, SB 1510, SB 1513, SB 1610, SB 1613, SB 1638, SB 1662, SB 1698, SB 1751, SB 1887, SB 1907, SB 1914, SB 1927, SJR 16, SCR 16, SCR 11.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. It's been a momentous day and I would like to end it on this note. No, I'm not going to sing. But I do think it is important for us to take a moment to think about and pray for the people of Joplin, Missouri where more than 122 lives have been lost. There's been more than $3 billion in damage. Representative Todd Smith of our House lost his uncle yesterday in that storm. And that when we retire this evening that we keep the people of Joplin, Missouri in our thoughts and prayers and just consider our humanity. We get really wrapped up in what we do hear. What we do here is very important but we're all human beings and we're all part of this great state and this great nation. And I just ask us to keep that in mind this evening.

THE CHAIR: The House will observe a moment of silence. Thank you members. Representative Sheets for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: What was the last bill that was passed.

THE CHAIR: We're getting that information for you Mr. Sheets.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement. Members, any other announcements bring them down front. Representative Workman moves that the House stand recessed pending the reading and referral of resolutions until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

THE CLERK: HR 97 by Craddick. Congratulating Joe and Sheila Matlock of Midland on their 45th wedding anniversary. HR 96 by Craddick. Congratulating Wesley and Donna Teague of Lamesa on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 2299 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford mayor Leonard Scarcella for his 42 years of service. HR 2300 Reynolds. Commending Donald Bankston for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2301 by Reynolds. Commending Emmanuel Barnes for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2302 by Reynolds. Commending Evelyn Barnet for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2303 by Reynolds. Commending Skip Belt for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2304 Reynolds. Commending Cynthia Bennett for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2305 by Reynolds. Commending Jacqueline Booker for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2306 by Reynolds. Commending Clifford Brown for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2307 by Reynolds. Commending Shirley Connally for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2308 by Reynolds. Commending Wintress Cornish for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2309 by Reynolds. Commending Margaret Darby for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2310 by Reynolds. Commending Wanda Davila for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2311 by Reynolds. Commending Andrea Downey for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2312 by Reynolds. Commending Iris Galvan for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2313 Reynolds. Commending Ted Garcia for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2314 by Reynolds. Commending Cynthia Ginyard for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2315 by Reynolds. Commending Alvin Gipson for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2316 by Reynolds. Commending Dana "Bart" Gohr for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2317 by Reynolds. Commending Rodney Griffin for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2318 by Reynolds. Commending Debra Hill for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2319 by Reynolds. Commending Dorothy James for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2320 by Reynolds. Commending Barbara Jones for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2321 by Reynolds. Commending Connie Meisgeier for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2322 by Reynolds. Commending Doshie Murphy for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2323 by Reynolds. Commending Rosemary Parker Hogue for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2324 by Reynolds. Commending Lela Pickens for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2325 by Reynolds. Commending Mary Ross for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2326 by Reynolds. Commending James Scott for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2327 by Reynolds. Commending Farhan Shamsi for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2328 by Reynolds. Commending Constance Simpson for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2329 by Reynolds. Commending Vivian Singleton for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2330 by Reynolds. Commending Donna Thomas for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2331 by Reynolds. Commending Rose Wall for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2332 by Reynolds. Commending Janie Warstler for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2333 by Reynolds. Commending Christine Washington for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2334 by Reynolds. Commending Gerri Wells for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Fort Bend County. HR 2335 by Anchia. Honoring the Reverend Albert K. Haynes, Sr., on his 40th pastoral anniversary. HR 2336 by Taylor. Honoring Jenny Rebecca Sykes for her service to the Republican Party of Texas. HR 2337 by Riddle. Honoring Michael Christopher Riddle, Jr., on his graduation from The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. HR 2338 by Pena. Commending Maricela De Leon for her service in the office of State Representative Aaron Pena. HR 2339 by Pena. In memory of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Derek Hernandez of Edinburg. HR 2340 by Madden. Commending Sheryl Mills for her service to the Collin County Republican Party on the occasion of her retirement as its executive director. HR 2341 by Torres. In memory of Humberto Lozano Lopez. HR 2342 by Pena. Honoring the Garcia family of Rio Grande City. HR 2344 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford City Council member Ken Mathew for his service. HR 2345 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford City Council member Wen Guerra for his service. HR 2346 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford City Council member and mayor pro tem Felecia Evans-Smith. HR 2347 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford City Council member Robert Sorbet for his service. HR 2348 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford City Council member Cecil Willis for his service. HR 2349 by Reynolds. Honoring Stafford City Council member Fred Woolridge for his service. HR 2350 by Burnam. Honoring Mayra Mendez as a participant in the 2011 Moreno/Rangel Legislative Leadership Program. HR 2351 by Sheffield. Recognizing June 9, 2011, as Food First Day. HR 2352 Sheffield. Congratulating George and Frances Svatek of Temple on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 2353 by Sheffield. In memory of Mamie Sue Moon Zabcik. HR 2354 by Sheffield. Commending Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone on his command of III Corps and Fort Hood and congratulating him on his promotion to the rank of four-star general. HR 2355 by Strama. In memory of U.S. Army Sergeant Mario Rodriguez, Jr. HR 2356 Strama. Congratulating Bobby Spisak on his 2011 graduation from the Texas School for the Deaf. HR 2357 by Hunter. In memory of newspaper publisher and philanthropist Edward H. Harte. HR 2358 by Elkins. Congratulating Ashley Williams on placing second at the African American National Spelling Bee Championships. HR 2359 by Elkins. Congratulating Niaha Dyson on placing third at the African American National Spelling Bee Championships. HR 2360 by Elkins. Congratulating Mary Bello on winning the African American National Spelling Bee Championships. HR 2361 by Raymond. In memory of Maria Hermelinda Saenz Perez of Laredo. HR 2362 by Larson. In memory of Louis Herbert Stumberg. HR 2363 by Naishtat. In memory of Margaret Johnson Herman of Austin. HR 2364 by Branch. Honoring Wade Emmert on his election as chair of the Dallas County Republican Party. HR 2365 by Lozano. In memory of Fernando "Freddy" Ramirez of Raymondville. HR 2366 by Kleinschmidt. In memory of Bastrop County commissioner Lee Edward Dildy of Elgin. HR 2367 by Elkins. Commending Robert L. Garner, Jr., founder of the African American National Spelling Bee Championships, Inc. HR 2368 by Woolley. Congratulating LaKesha Hammonds of the Memorial Villages Police Department on being named a 2011 Telecommunicator of the Year by the Commission on State Emergency Communications. HR 2369 by Woolley. In memory of Charles Richard Bergstrom III. HR 2370 by Woolley. Congratulating Anne Marie Kight of Houston on her graduation from Memorial High School. HR 2371 by Woolley. Congratulating Courtney Corinne Wood of Houston on her graduation from Memorial High School. HR 2372 by Madden. Congratulating Robert Michel Delcambre of Richardson on achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. HR 2373 by Martinez-Fischer. Commending chef Chris Carlson for his contributions to the success of the Sandbar Fish House and Market in San Antonio. HR 2374 by Gutierrez. Congratulating Velma Sue De Leon on being elected president of the Texas Funeral Directors Association. HR 2375 by Quintanilla. Congratulating Jesse Guerra on winning the UIL 2A state singles tennis championship.

THE CHAIR: House stands at recess until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.