REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? Quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to introduce the pastor of the day.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Today I'm honored to introduce the pastor of the day, the Reverend Eric Folkerth, senior pastor at United Methodist Church. Since joining Northaven in 2001, Reverend Folkerth's leadership and dedicated efforts have; led to an addition of 220 members and the construction of a new church building. Prior to his service at Northaven, Reverend Folkerth was associate pastor at Highland Park United Methodist Church for 11 years. He has volunteered self-lessly to build homes in the community in partnership with Habitat for Humanity. And, in addition to these important pastoral duties, Reverend Folkerth has facilitated several mission trips around the globe to such places as Mexico, Haiti, Russia and Nepal. He is also an award winning singer and songwriter, his first CD was released in 2000. Most importantly, Reverend Folkerth resides in Dallas with his wife, Denise Garcia, State District Judge in Dallas County. And their beautiful daughter, Maria. There's a special note to Reverend Folkerth in that his wife Denise, he and I, were all resident assistants at Southern Methodist University together in Bose Hall. So I've known Reverend Folkerth for a long time and I'd ask that you welcome him to the House of Representatives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and fellow members.
PASTOR: Thank you very much. Let us pray. Holy and gracious God, we come before you on this day in the final week of the 82nd session, and as we pause before you in prayer, Holy God, we give you thanks for each of these esteemed members of our state government, for their families, for their communities for the life experiences that have led them to these honored positions. We know and we understand the personal sacrifice that goes into being a public official, the time away from home, the long hours, the stress of the public spotlight, but we give thanks oh, God, that those before us this day have answered the call to public service and we ask you to bless them. But God, on this Memorial Day, we are also keenly aware that we are in the presence of even greater servants, those who serve our country, our nation and our military. Those who are family members who are here this day on this Memorial Day. And we who serve government in other ways, we truly and humbly come before them with great humility. We give you thanks for the service of all of these. And, God, we ask you to allow them to know how grateful we are for their service, and we ask you to make your presence and your spirit known to them, so that they might feel your healing presence. And we ask that you be present, and that we may all be reminded of the scripture that one day nation shall not rise up against nation. Help us toward that vision. In great humility, Oh God, we recall how you call us to be a holy people. So, God, during the work of this legislature here, let these servants of the State of Texas be holy people; let them leave partisan politics at the door. But also, God, help them to make Texas a holy people, who you call us to account. And we remember in your parable of the last judgment, that it is a judgment upon the nations of the earth. And so make us a holy people. Make us a holy people, oh God, like Israel, whom you challenged to treat immigrants as if they were native born. Make us into a holy people like the Church of St. Paul, who championed care for widows and orphans, the most marginalized of his day. Make us into a holy people, oh God, as Jesus taught, that we might care for the sick, for those in prison, for those without clothing and shelter, for the least of these. And let us be reminded each day, as Jesus taught that when we care for others we are truly caring for the face of God into the world. Make us into the holy people, oh God, for we know when we search the scriptures that this is the holiness God calls our government, our people to achieve. And, God, when this session is finished, when the final bill has passed, when the gavel comes down and these servants are back in the quiet of their homes, praying to you in the privacy of their own hearts; accept their prayers of forgiveness for all the ways in which they will have fallen short of your holy vision. In all these things we pray in your most holy and gracious name. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Please join me in the pledge to our country and our state. [PLEDGE]
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Dr. Shelton to introduce our doctor of the day.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to recognize our doctors of the day. We have two. Two of our own. Dr. Aycock and Dr. Anderson. And for those of you who don't know, Doc Anderson has another name, that's actually Charles, in case you don't know. And I looked up in the dictionary this morning and veterinary medicine means working animal doctor. And these two guys are two working animals in our House, or are they just the doctors that we need in the animal house? Both of these guys are good aggies, and welcome. If you need any help today we'll send you over to Dr. Anderson and Dr. Aycock. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will stand at ease pending the arrival of the Senate.
(The House stands at ease.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning. We're not quite ready to start, but we would like to see if you're ready to start taking your seats and accommodating both the Senate and the House members here. And the families, you are welcome right here in the middle. We've got plenty of time. Come on in. And the senators that are here, if you will just go ahead and take a member's chair, wherever you are, and the members, have already agreed to shift as needed for senators. So take a House members' chair wherever you can find one, please.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, the program is about to begin. Please, take your seats.
THE CHAIR: The Senate will come to order. A quorum is present.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. The quorum is present. The House and Senate are meeting in a joint session today, pursuant to HCR 163 in memorial observance to honor all soldiers from Texas who sacrificed their lives during the global war on terror. Welcome everyone to this joint session of the 82nd Legislature. We are gathered here today to pay solemn tribute to the Texas military heroes who gave their lives serving our country. We are honored to have with us today the Governor, members of the Legislature, state officials and members of the judiciary. We are especially privileged to have with us the family members of those fallen heroes whom we honor today. Thank you all for being here. An article I read earlier this month had a quote that stuck with me. Dan Shanower was an intelligence officer killed in the Pentagon on September 11th of 2001. Years earlier, he had written a paper about two of his colleagues who were killed in a training mission, and he said that each one risked and lost his or her life for something they believed in; leaving behind friends, family and shipmates to bear the burden and celebrate their devotion to our country. They knew the risk they were taking, and gave their lives for something bigger than themselves. He said I'll never forget them, and I'll never forget the day that I learned freedom is not free. Generations of brave Americans have paid the price of freedom to liberate oppressed people and defend this country from our enemies. Many here today bear the scars of sacrifice, while others carry with them the memory of the valiant men and women who will never return. The work we do here at the Capitol is only possible because of the courage of those who have served as soldiers, sailors, airman and marines in the United States Armed Forces. They are the ones who should be remembered for their actions, for they are the heroes of a grateful nation. Today we salute their service and we offer our profound gratitude and our deepest sorrow to their families who have given so much to our nation. The Chair now recognizes Representative Pickett, chairman of the House Committee on Defense and Veterans Affairs.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Governor, Senator Ogden, members of the Senate, members of the House and honored guests; I'm honored to be a part of this ceremony as chair of the House Committee on Defense and Veterans Affairs. I'm joined today by my counterpart, Senator Laetitia Van de Putte of San Antonio, who is chair of the Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs and Military Installation. Ladies and gentlemen, would you please stand for the presentation of the colors, the national anthem, the pledges of allegiance and our invocation? [National Anthem.]
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [PLEDGE.]
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: Let us pray. Loving Lord, you have taught us that no love is greater than that which gives itself for another. We honor these fallen soldiers who gave their most precious gift that they had, life itself, for loved one and neighbors, for comrades and country, and for us. Let these brave men and women be an example to us in the House of Representatives, and may we serve our state and nation with the courage and strength befitting of their sacrifice. In the name of Jesus we pray, amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Please be seated. Please allow me to recognize some of the individuals and groups that have contributed to our ceremony so far. I would like to thank the Texas National Guard for presenting the colors. Lieutenant Colonel Deon M. Green from Fort Sam, Houston, who sang the national anthem. Thank you, Colonel. I also want to thank Senator Hinojosa of McAllen for leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance, and my colleague, Representative Kuempel for leading us in the pledge to the Texas flag. And the invocation was from one of our own, Representative George Lavender of Texarkana. I want to thank the members of the House Defense Veterans Affairs Committee, Representative Sheffield from Temple, Leo Burnam from Tyler, Representative Farias from San Antonio, Dan Flynn, Van Taylor of Plano, Jim Landtroop of Plainview, Charles of Lubbock and Connie Scott from Corpus Christi.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett to read the following memorial resolutions in full.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Concurrent Resolution previously adopted, No. 163. WHEREAS, for well over a century Americans have set aside a time to honor those members of its military forces who have died in this country's service. And WHEREAS, originally called Decoration Day, this special remembrance was first observed in 1868, and flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate solders. And by the end of the 19th century Memorial Day ceremonies were being held on May 30th throughout the nation. In 1971 Congress designated the last Monday in May as Memorial Day. And WHEREAS legions of Americans have stepped forward to serve their country in times of conflict, and more than a million have made the ultimate sacrifice, they gave their last full measure of devotion on their native soil, in foreign lands and on seas around the world. And on this Memorial Day as Texans pause to remember we commemorate with fresh sorrow, all Texans who have been killed in combat. And WHEREAS second only to Vietnam as the longest sustained U.S. military operation in history, the global war on terrorism has claimed the lives of nearly 6,000 American service members, including more than 500 Texans. Today we want to pay homage to those brave fallen soldiers and the families they left behind. And. WHEREAS it is a grateful nation that reflects on our American Heritage and recognizes the extreme sacrifices made by all who served in the Armed Forces now. Therefore be it RESOLVED by the 82nd Texas Legislature that the Senate and House Representatives of the State of Texas meet in a joint memorial session in the hall of the House of Representatives on Saturday, May 28th, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., for the fallen heroes memorial service to pay tribute to all who have died in the service of this country, and to honor especially the Texans killed while serving in the global war on terrorism. And be it further RESOLVED that the Honorable Rick Perry Governor of Texas, all Texas State Officials and the family members of those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be and hereby are invited to attend the joint memorial session. And be it further RESOLVED that the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate Memorial Day, 2011, and express deep appreciation to all men and women who have served our great country. Today is a day to remember, reflect and honor those who gave their lives for us, not knowing our names or the places we come from, in an unselfish act of protecting our freedom. It's only right we speak publicly their names for all to hear. Ninety-six names will be spoken, each distinct and individual, connected to a grieving family. And after each individual name is read, an immediate thought and echo of their loved ones' names will still come to mind for each family. Those of us here honoring the brave souls who gave their lives, we will hear ninety-six names. The families here today will be reminded of their loved ones ninety-six times. We will now hear the service medley. Will the members of each respective military service please stand during the playing of their service's song or hymn? [Hymns and songs playing].
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair now recognizes Senator Steve Ogden, the President Pro Tem of the Texas Senate, for introductions, and the introduction of our keynote speaker.
SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: On this solemn occasion we remember those who sacrificed their lives and had to forgo the promise of America, so that millions would be free to pursue it. And we honor them with these words that are chiseled in bronze at the National Cemetery in Sharpsburg, Maryland, Antietam: Rest on, embalmed and sainted dead, dear as the blood you gave. No empired footsteps here shall tread the herbage of your grave. Your own proud land's heroic soil must be your better grave. She claims from war her richest spoils, the ashes of the brave. As we observe Memorial Day may God bless the families and friends of those whose memory they hold dear. May God bless the men and women of our Armed Forces, and may God continue to bless Texas and the United States of America. At this time I have the privilege to recognize some special guests on the House floor. Please hold your applause until the end. And the guests, would you please rise as your name is called. Our Governor Rick Perry. Texas Veterans' Commission Chairman P.P. Mahoney. Railroad Commissioner David Porter. State Comptroller Susan Combs. Brigadier General Orlando Salinas, on behalf of our Texas Adjutant General. And Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hicks. We also have many services joining us in the gallery today. If you are representing a veterans' organization please stand and be recognized. Members and guests, it's a distinct honor and it is a privilege to introduce a fifth generation Texan who has taken an extraordinary journey from a farm in west Texas to the governor's office here in the state capitol. Rick Perry, following in the footsteps of his father, a World War II tail gunner. After graduating from Texas A & M University, he has led a life of public service starting in the United States Air Force, where he flew C130 technical airlift aircraft, and continuing today through two decades in elected office. Ladies and gentlemen, the 47th Governor of the State of Texas, the Honorable Rick Perry.
GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Thank you. Senator, thank you very much for your friendship and for your service in the United States Navy. And, in particular, raising a fine member of the United States Marine Corps. His son, Michael, is a Marine Infantry Officer. It is a pleasure today but more so it is an honor to be with you all every session, members from both of these chambers, both sides of the aisle; for that matter. They take some time to set aside their differences, gather here in memory of those who have fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq, anywhere our forces have engaged in this war on terror. This global war on terror, it started in response to an unprovoked attack, an attack that was designed to demoralize this country as much as destroy our way of life. And they miscalculated. They miscalculated our ability as a nation to rise above the ruins, just as they miscalculated our resolve to continue the battle wherever it takes us. Our determination to bring to justice every organization and individual plotting death and against the citizens of this nation, there we will go. Already this month United States scored a major victory in that war on terror, with the main architect of the September 11th attack -- actually, the global face of the jihadist movement finally met justice at the hands at the United States Military. Once again, to the great credit of the bravery, the hard work and determination of our men and women in the United States Armed Forces and, I might add, right or wrong side, those individuals in our intelligence community. These are people who have spent a great deal of their time in the last decade on the front lines pursuing, hunting down this man. However, the death of Bin Laden is not an end to a larger war. The struggle to protect our homeland is going to continue. So, we will continue to call upon the best and the brightest to stand between us and those who would do us harm. They will join the long lines that have taken up arms to defend us and defend our way of life. Many of them, many that I've visited with over the last decade will come home facing a long road back from some debilitating injury. Some injuries that you can see, some that you can't. All too many will not come home at all. As we honor these brave Texans who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we will continue to offer our heartfelt condolences to those who love them. It can be no easy thing to balance the admiration for your fallen warrior with the realities of a life that continues to unfold one challenging day after another. Please know that the people of Texas genuinely appreciate the service and the sacrifice of your warrior and of our military personnel, and we lift you up in our thoughts and our prayers. As President Abraham Lincoln so eloquently wrote almost 150 years ago to a mourning mother, he wrote: I pray your Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of a loved one, solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. In the days to come I encourage you to live your life fully, because you know -- you know better than most that each day is precious. And be assured that the cause for which your loved ones fought and died is still a just and a noble cause. All of us in Texas must endeavor to live our lives in a fashion worthy of the sacrifices of your loved ones. God bless you and, through you, may God continue to bless the great State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte, chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and Military Installation.
SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Members and honored guests, we will now commence with the reading of the names of those fallen soldiers that are not represented here today. Senator Brian Birdwell of Grandbury, Representative Leo Berman of Tyler will now begin reading the names of the fallen. Senator Birdwell.
SENATOR BRIAN BIRDWELL: Staff Sergeant Jesse W. Ainsworth, United States Army. Private First Class Adriana Alvarez. United States Army. Lance Corporal Christopher S. Baltazar, Jr. United States Marine Corps. Staff Sergeant Clayton P. Bowen. United States Army. Staff Sergeant Scott H. Burgess. United States Army. Sergeant Brandon C. Bury. United States Marine Corps. Specialist Matthew R. Catlett. United States Army. Petty Officer First Class Sean L. Caughman. United States Navy. Specialist Joseph B. Cemper. United States Army. Senior Airman Matthew R. Courtois. United States Air Force. Sergeant Zainah C. Creamer. United States Army. Sergeant David A. Davis. United States Army. Specialist Joshua R. Farris. United States Army. Staff Sergeant Esau S. A. Gonzales. United States Army. Sergeant First Class Alejandro Granado, III, United States Army. Specialist Jarrett P. Griemel. United States Army. Sergeant First Class Calvin B. Harrison. United States Army. Reserve Specialist Joshua L. Hazlewood. United States Army. Captain Jason E. Holbrook. United States Army. Private First Class Kyle M. Holder. United States Army. Sergeant Jay M. Hoskins. United States Marine Corps. Major Matthew P. Houseal. United States Army. Staff Sergeant Quadi Shareem Hudgins. United States Army. Staff Sergeant Jesse Infante. United States Army. Staff Sergeant Richard J. Jordan. United States Army. Lance Corporal Mark D. Juarez. United States Marine Corps. Representative Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Private First Class Ira B. Laningham, IV. United States Army. Lance Corporal Brandon T. Lara. United States Marine Corps. Corporal Jacob C. Leicht. United States Marine Corps. Staff Sergeant Edwardo Laredo. United States Army. Lance Corporal Jose L. Maldonado. United States Marine Corps. Specialist Pedro A. Maldonado. United States Army. Lance Corporal Shane R. Martin. United States Marine Corps. Staff Sergeant Chauncy R. Mays. United States Army. Captain Joshua S. Meadows. United States Marine Corps. Staff Sergeant Joshua M. Mills. United States Army. Private First Class Diego M. Montoya. United States Army. Staff Sergeant Michael C. Murphrey. United States Army. Private First Class James J. O'Quin. United States Army. Specialist Jerod H. Osborne. United States Army. Lance Corporal Christopher Rangel. United States Marine Corps. Staff Sergeant Jason A. Reeves. United States Army. Lance Corporal Matthew G. Reza. United States Marine Corps. Specialist Andrew J. Roughten. United States Army. Sergeant Cesar B. Ruiz. United States Marine Corps. Private First Class Colton W. Rusk. United States Marine Corps. Sergeant Jose L. Saenz, III. United States Marine Corps. Sergeant Jorge A. Scatliffe. United States Army. Sergeant Omar Soltero. United States Army. Specialist Riley S. Spalding. United States Army. National Guard Staff Sergeant Chris N. Staats. United States Army. Lance Corporal Cody R. Stanley. United States Marine Corps. And Sergeant Kyle B. Stout. United States Army. Senator Van de Putte.
SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Staff Sergeant Leston M. Winters. United States Army. Hospital Corpsman Third Class Zarian A. Wood. United States Navy. Sergeant Vorasack T. Xayxana. United States Army. At this time we will begin reading the names of the fallen soldiers whose families are with us today in the chamber. Will the families please walk forward to receive our Texas flag and a copy of the memorial resolution when your name is called? The members of the House and the Senate who have fallen soldiers from your district, please begin to line up in the south part of the chamber. Senator Craig Estes of Wichita Falls, and Representative Dan Flynn of Vann will now begin reading the names of the fallen. Senator Estes.
SENATOR CRAIG ESTES: Staff Sergeant Omar Aceves. His wife, Leticia Aceves. Private First Class John E. Andrade, Sr., United States Army. Betty Martinez, his mother. Elizabeth Andrade, his wife. Second Lieutenant Darryn D. Andrews, United States Army. Sondra Andrews, his mother. Andy Andrews, his father and Jarad Andrews, his brother. Lance Corporal Travis T. Babine. United States Marine Corps. Alice Babine, his mother. Staff Sergeant Carlos A. Benitez. United States Army. Suzanna Benitez, his wife. Imelda Castillo*, his mother. Private First Class Cody A. Board. United States Army. Christopher Board, his father. Aaron Board, his brother. Staff Sergeant Bryan A. Burgess. United States Army. Terry Burgess, his father. Linda Pierce, his mother. Sergeant John P. Castro. United States Army. Carmen Castro, his mother. David Castro, Sr., his father. Private First Class Benjamin G. Chisholm. United States Army. Amber Chisholm, his wife. Linda Reynolds, his mother. Private First Class Peter K. Cross. United States Army. Terri Kohler*, his mother. Sergeant Fernando de la Rosa. United States Army. Rolando de la Rosa, Sr., his father. Staff Sergeant Bradley Espinosa. United States Army. Maggie Espinosa, his mother. Maria Espinosa, his wife. Gabriel Espinosa, his brother. Technical Sergeant Michael P. Flores. United States Air Force. Dr. Leopoldo Flores, his father. Emilia Flores, his mother. Lance Corporal Garrett W. Gamble. United States Marine Corps. Troy Gamble, his father. Dana Helmer*, family friend. Sergeant Christian A. Garcia. United States Army. Elenor Villanueva, mother. Angela Garcia, wife. Airman First Class Devon J. Harris. United States Army. His family could not be with us today. Oh, I'm wrong. Lance Corporal Shawn P. Hefner. United States Marine Corps. Robin Hefner, his mother. Patrick Hefner, his father. Lance Corporal Derek Hernandez. United States Marine Corps. Virginia Raina, his mother. Erica Hernandez, his sister. Corporal Jeffrey W. Johnson. United States Marine Corps. Jerry Johnson, his father. Katy Anguish, his wife. Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Specialist Joseph M. Lewis. United States Army. Represented by Mike Lewis, his father and Pam Lewis, his mother. Specialist Alexis V. Maldonado. United States Army. Represented by Irene Butterfield, his grandmother. Robert Butterfield, his grandfather. Sergeant Kenneth B. May, Jr. United States Marine Corps. Represented by Karen May, his mother and Crystal May, his wife. Staff Sergeant Mecolus C. McDaniel. United States Army. Represented by Antonio McDaniel, his brother. Sonia McDaniel, his mother. Staff Sergeant Shawn H. McNabb. United States Army. Represented by Mark Chelsea, family friend. Corporal Tevan L. Nguyen. United States Marine Corps. Represented by Amy Nguyen, his mother. Cam Nguyen, his father. Sergeant James M. Nolen. United States Army. Represented by Kim Roberts, his mother. John Nolen, a brother. Private First Class Matthew D. Ogden. United States Army. Represented by Charlotte Ann Taylor his mother. Corporal Nicholas Aikman, his brother. Airman First Class Corey C. Owens. United States Air Force. Representative by Chris Owens, his mother. Steven Owens, his father. Sergeant Gregory Owens, Jr. United States Army. Represented by La Dawnna Owens, his mother. And Sharon Owens, his sister. Specialist Bobby J. Pagan. United States Army. Represented by Peggy Pagan, his mother. And
(inaudible) Pete Pagan, his sister. Captain Paul W. Pena. United States Army. Represented by Laetitia Pena, his mother. And Catherine Pena, his cousin. Private First Class Joel A. Ramirez. United States Army. Represented by Gunther Ramirez, his father. Irma Ramirez, his mother. Sergeant Mario M. Rodriguez, Jr. United States Army. Represented by Mario Rodriguez, Sr., his father. Senior Airman Daniel R. Sanchez. United States Air Force. Represented by Christopher Taylor, his uncle. Montica Taylor, his aunt. Staff Sergeant Jeremy D. Smith. United States Marine Corps. Represented by Rachel Smith, his wife. Mike Whip, his father-in-law. Private First Class Austin G. Staggs. United States Army. Representated by Kay Jordan, his mother. Calum Staggs, his son. Airman Darren E. Tate. United States Navy. Represented by Barbara Tate, his mother. Larry Tate, his father. Corporal Jorge Villarreal, Jr. United States Marine Corps. Represented by Raina Rodriguez mhis wife. And Yolanda Villarreal, his mother. First Lieutenant Robert F. Welch, III. United States Army. Represented by Jerry Smith, family friend and father of fallen service member, Jeremy Smith. Corporal Charles J. Wren. United States Army. Represented by Clarissa Lynn, wife. Mike Rodriguez, a family friend.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Again, we are honored to have with us the families of the fallen soldiers who valiantly served their country. As Texans, we have come together to honor their memory and their ultimate sacrifice. The House and gallery will please rise for a moment of silence. [Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.]
SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Please remain standing for the singing of Amazing Grace. Please prepare for the cannon salute and the playing of Taps.
LT. COL. DEON GREEN: I may need a little help singing this, because those who served and those who have people who served know that but for the Grace of God, there go I.
(Amazing Grace being sung.)
(Trumpet playing.)
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: Let us pray. Father God, we pray and worship your Holy Name. As we leave this place today we pray for the peace that passes all understanding to guard the minds and lives of every family member and friend of these fallen soldiers. We also ask your richest blessings and favor upon them and all in this chamber today. We ask your continued blessing and favor upon our country, our state, and all that call upon your name. In the Holy Name of Jesus. Amen.
SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Please take your seats. At this time, please help us thank Lieutenant Colonel Deon M. Green from Fort Sam, Houston, who sang Amazing Grace. We'd also like to thank our Texas National Guard Salute Battery for the cannon salute, and Chris Wright for the playing of Taps. Let us also extend our gratitude to Representative George Lavender for the thoughtful benediction. On behalf of my House colleagues and my dear colleagues in the Senate, we want to take this opportunity to humbly express our sadness and our compassion for the families of Texas who lost a loved one. I'm especially blessed to chair the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and Miliary Installations, and to be joined by members: My vice chair, Senator Bryan Birdwell of Grand Berry, Senator Craig Estes of Wichita Falls, Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, and Senator Jose Rodriguez of El Paso. War is a terrible thing. Young men and women in uniform are killed, are permanently disfigured in appalling ways. Yes, war is a brutal force but the purpose of this ceremony today is to allow us the opportunity to stand united in appreciation of those who voluntarily confront its dangers on our behalf. This is also a time for us to reflect upon the most admirable of human qualities, of bravery, of honor and the willingness to fight for a cause that is greater than your individual existence. The family members we have met and the babies we have hugged today that have never known the loving embrace of their daddy, each represent a human being now departed who represented the very best of us. A person whose last act on this earth was, in essence, an act of devotion to each one of us who gather in our Capitol today. Every time a solder, sailor, airman or marine is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other place distant from the home shores of America, someone back here in the United States forever loses a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a parent or a spouse. We try to imagine with inexpressible anguish the pain that so many of these family members have felt when first notified of their loss. And I have to admit I have no idea what it would feel like to lose one of my children, in circumstance so frightening and with me nowhere near to safely usher them into the next world. My friends, when this nation engages in war it does so with the consent of the governed. Those who selflessly don the uniform of the United States of America and fight for our national ideals do so as messengers of our will and as embodiments of the values we consider non-negotiable. During times of war, the citizens of this country send their countrymen and women into harm's way to protect their interests and to defend the way of life that we hold dear. The men and women of our military deserve our deepest appreciation, not only for the remarkable qualities that they possess, but for what they are on a very real and simple level. They are representatives of each and every one of us, military and civilian. Those who wear the uniform of the United States of America and travel to far off lands, who may never return home as a result of their service to and for us, deserve more than just our respect or even our eternal gratitude. Their sacrifice made in our collective name demands our remembrance of their act. And when a military member takes his or her oath, whether upon enlistment or accepting a commission into one of our branches of the Armed Forces, he or she does so with the strength and support of this country. And when that solder, sailor, airman or marine falls in service, he or she does so with the knowledge because of acts of remembrance such as the ones we are carrying out today, that his or her sacrifice will never be forgotten. So yes, it is most certainly an unimaginable and boundless sense of sadness that we all feel here today. For these families who lost someone that they raised and nurtured and loved and watched deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, never to come home again, except in spirit. But we are to be brave and lifted at the sight of this gathering today of individuals coming to together to communicate that the sadness inherent in war's ultimate consequences can be met with an honest grace and yes, true empathy. Because we all stand together when this nation goes to war, and so must we stand together to acknowledge its real life impact in our families and our Texas communities. This ceremony today is a way of letting those families so deeply altered by war know that we are here with them, and that their sadness and their sacrifice made real by each of us who consent to send our fellow Americans into harm's way is shared by us all, and will be remembered for as long as freedom requires the blessings of her patriots.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Let me thank all of you who have participated in and attended today 's tribute. Thank you to all of our dignitaries and our special guests for joining us. I would especially like to thank Senator Van de Putte and Representative Picket and their staffs for their dedicated efforts in arranging today's program. And also our thanks to our House Sergeant-at-Arms Rob Welsh, and all a of the sergeants who have helped with today's arrangements. But we would most like to thank our fallen Texas service members and their families. Words cannot express our appreciation for your sacrifice. Thank you.
SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: The purpose for which this joint session was called, having been completed pursuant to a motion previously adopted, the Senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. today.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The purpose for which this session was called having been completed, the House will stand at ease pending the departure of our guests.
(Whereupon, The joint session is concluded and the Senate and the House stand at ease.)
THE CHAIR: House will come to order. Chair gives notice of the introduction of the following privileged resolutions:
THE CLERK: Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 19F, the Chair announces introduction of HR 2572, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 2694. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 2571 suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 2499. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of the HR 2659, suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 660. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces introduction of HR 2647, suspending the limitations on conferees for SB 652. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 2648, suspending the limitations on conferees for HB 2605. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces introduction of HB 2611 suspending the limitations on conferees for SB 1834. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 2654, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 3275.
THE CHAIR: Members, it's the Chair's intention to recess until 3:15 this afternoon. Are there any announcements? Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The Republican Caucus will be meeting in the Ag Museum at 2:30 this afternoon.
THE CHAIR: Members, are there any further announcements? If not, the -- the House stands in recess until 3:15.
(The House stands in recess.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you should have all received an email from House administration, it says information 1811 from Chairman Pitts. That email has your school runs in it. You've have to scroll far enough down. That -- that is your run, the correct runs for 1811. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House:
THE CLERK: HB1046, HB1071, HB1080, HB1113, HB1528, HB1568, HB1622, HB1756, HB1757, HB1758, HB1797, HB1822, HB1844, HB2047, HB2096, HB2104, HB2193, HB2238, HB2469, HB2784, HB2819, HB2972, HB3085, HB3161, HB3324, HB3421, HB3422, HCR115, HCR165.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hilderbran?
THE CHAIR: Chair lays out privileged resolution HR 2518.
THE CLERK: HR 2518 by Hilderbran. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction SB 1087.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this privileged resolution carves out for cities in the state, basically removes them from the bill. And was this was the final sort of our compromise on the conference committee, and basically secures that agreement. And so we need this resolution in order to pass accomplishment and forward that's been agreed to by all the interested parties and the stakeholders. Move adoption of the resolution.
THE CHAIR: Members, we're going to need a record vote on this. You've heard the motion. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Go ahead. Being 142 ayes, 0 nays the motion is adopted. Chair calls up the conference committee report on SB 1087.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 1087.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, Senate Bill 1087, we have accomplished (inaudible) that basically we -- the House Bill originally, we did not keep all the Senate amendments. I think we kept about half of them. We had about three outstanding issues in conference to work out between the conference and the Senate. We were able to do that by the main, primary one being that we carved out four cities: Corpus Christi, Irving, Dallas and Lubbock. So they will continue to keep their local franchise agreements with video providers. And the -- but for the rest of the state we would have, the rest of the state be able to have those cable providers being able to opt in to the state certificate franchise authority. So I would move adoption of the conference committee report.
THE CHAIR: Members, the motion occurs --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a quick question?
THE CHAIR: Representative Menendez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Just a quick question.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I yield.
THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield for a quick question? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Harvey, I'm the just curious and maybe a little bit paranoid. This one does not have -- (inaudible) none of these bills have that set like that.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I never did this intentional. That's the thing I stood up against -- voted against. So it was never part of the House version. And so the conference committee adopted the House version of that, which means no contingency and no new tax.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption of the conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Madam Speaker, can I ask one question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Do you yield for question? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Did you just say Harvey that there's no tax on cable; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: The only tax is the current franchise tax that you pay. The whole issue is about allowing all video providers to be able to opt in at the state level, so it's one time. The fees continue to go back to each of the respective cities, but the issue is whether you have to go and file with each city; or you do like the other video providers do, and that's follow the state one time. That's what the issue is about. And there was some other issues about making it contingent on satellite tax, and we stopped all that.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: So this requires that we file one time with stages; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: With the exception of the four cities that we talked about, which was Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Dallas and Irving. And they have -- contracts will be allowed to continue. They're about three to five years, you know, each one. They're on the tail end, and they have special circumstances, some requirements that they have worked out that they want to preserve. So, the rest of the state will be statewide. Those four, when those contracts expire, they will become statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you, Harvey.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption of conference committee report on --
THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1087? If not, the clerk will ring the bell. This is a record vote, members. Members, we're on items eligible one -- calender one, page one. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 146 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 1087 is finally passed. Is Dean Craddick on the floor? Chair recognizes Representative Craddick for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 2668. This by Representative Darby and I, honoring the 50th anniversary of the Catholic Diocese of San Anglo.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2668 by Craddick. Congratulating the diocese of San Angelo on the 50th anniversary of its founding.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dean Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The resolution is adopted. Is Ms. Thompson on the floor of the House? Chair calls up House Bill conference report on SB 144. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 144.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Madam Speaker and members, this is a conference committee report I'd like to ask you to adopt. We're correcting a drafting error that was made in the bill.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Thompson moves to accept the conference committee report on Senate Bill 144. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 144 has finally passed. Members, we are on calendar one, page one of items eligible. We would like to take up Representative Sheffield's House Bill 2560. It is 3:45. It's not eligible until 3:50. Is there objection to taking it up five minutes earlier? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Bill 2560. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 2560.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill was 2560. When it went over the Senate they added an amendment on there which I really was not too satisfied with because it changed the bill a little bit. So, we went to conference and changed it back to the original form, the bill. And, of course, basically it's just the way the bill was originally. So, I ask to concur.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Sheffield sends up a motion to accept the conference committee report on House Bill 2560. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 2560 is finally passed. Madam Doorkeeper, for what purpose?
DOORKEEPER: Mrs. 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 that the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate --
THE CHAIR: I can't hear you so -- Is Mr. Ritter on the floor of the House? Chair calls up conference committee report for House Bill 1732. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 1732.
THE CHAIR: Members, this is on page one, calendar one at the bottom of the page. Chair recognizes representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you Madam Speaker. Members, I'm going move to accept the conference committee report on House Bill 1732. We had one amendment that was put on in the Senate that actually was kind of a duplication on data, on reporting for state water plan. So, with that, I move to accept the conference committee report on House Bill 1732, Madam Speaker.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Ritter moves to accept the conference committee report on House Bill 1732. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Marquez voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 1 nay, 2 present not voting, HB 1732 is finally passed. Is Representative Cook on the floor of the House? Is Mr. Geren on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Geren for a motion on House Bill 1616.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Madam Speaker and members, I'd like to move to discharge the conferees on House Bill 1616 and accept the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments give us a little more lee-way in voluntarily correcting our reports with that commission.
THE CHAIR: Chair lays out House Bill 1616. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 1616 by Geren. Relating to reporting of political contributions and expenditures.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Geren has moved to discharge the conferees, the House conferees on House Bill 1616 and concur on the Senate amendments. This is a record vote. The clerk will read the bill. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 4 nays, House Bill 1616 is finally passed. Members, we're on page one of calendar one. We're going to take up House Bill 2499. Members, the resolution for House Bill 2499 is not eligible until another five minutes. Is there objection to taking up the resolution now? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Bill -- House Resolution 24 -- 2571. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2571 by Cook. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction HB No. 2499.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Cook.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you Madam Speaker. This resolution is for House Bill 2499, which is the Department of Information Resources sunset bill. We, the conference committee, has added two provisions that are in neither -- that were not in the bill. The first one would require the sunset commission review the transfer and present a report to the 84th Legislature. This would be a sunset review only. The second provides that the comptroller's ears office provide regular reports to the LBB and the legislative leadership on the efficiency and implementation of the transfer. And this would have a four-year sunset. We thought this was extremely important to make sure that the Comptroller's Office is doing a good job. So, I move adoption of House Resolution 2571.
THE CHAIR: Members, you have heard the motion. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 143 ayes, 2 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out the conference committee report for HB 2499. The clerk will ring the bell.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2499.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Cook.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you Madam Speaker. Once again, this is the sunset legislation on DIR. I think with the resolution we just passed, this dramatically strengthens it with respect to Senate amendments. We did remove the Senate amendment that had a $900,000 fiscal note on it. And the other changes were really clarifying amendments. So, with that, I move to adopt the committee conference report to House Bill 2499.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Cook has moved to accept the conference committee report for House Bill 2499. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 2 nays, the conference committee report for HB 2499 is adopted. Mr. Smith of Harris? Members, Representative Taylor is going to move to dismiss the conferees and concur on Senate amendments on House Bill 2194. Chair calls up House Bill 2194. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2194 by Taylor of Galveston. Relating to the conduct and administration of elections.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you Madam Speaker. On House Bill 2194 the Senate added a provision to prohibit performance based compensation for
(inaudible) voter registration. They also require regular and volunteer deputy registrars to meet the requirements to be a qualified voter. Removes the need for a registration omissions list. Voter a photo ID. Expands the countywide precinct program, and makes it a technical in conforming changes. And I move to discharge the conferees and concur with Senate amendments.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Strama, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Can I ask the gentleman a question?
THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Hey, Larry. Just talk to me about the -- I wasn't sure whether you were saying the amendment regarding performance based compensation based for registering voters came off or whether that's what we are now --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: That's for -- the Senate added that on there.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: -- and so by discharging the conferees we're -- so what were the contents of that amendment? Can you give me a little bit more specificity about what it is? Did it prohibit or did it --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: It prohibit s. It prohibits (inaudible) getting paid based on the number of --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: (Inaudible) how many?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: -- voter registrations they put in.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: So I don't have incentives out there for people falsifying and making up names so they can get paid more.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: I understand, yeah. And then was -- Can you -- Forgive me, I don't have the bill in front of me right now. Can you read the caption? I'm trying to remember if this was -- Can you read the caption on this bill? You got it with you?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I don't have it in front of me. As relating to the conduct and the administration of elections.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: And so now I remember this bill from when it was on the House floor. So there were a lot of House amendments?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: No, actually, that was another bill. That was 2818. This was a much smaller bill that the Senate added a few amendments to.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: And the underlying bill (drop) what did it do before we sent it to the Senate?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Well, what I was doing originally. Let's see. Let's go back and find out what the original bill was saying. Some things my local county had asked me to do. It had to do with the county wide precinct program. You know, there were a couple pilot -- three pilot counties and this allowed them to continue to do that. Galveston County being one of those that continued in that program. That was one of them. Announcing unofficial results of an election, you couldn't do it before the last polling places closed. I believe that's that was the other one that was in there.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: That's a statewide provision (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Yeah. But they didn't want people announcing early returns while people were still voting. (inaudible) I think it also allowed -- Let's see. That wasn't it. I'm trying to think. Maybe this is the one that had the thing that you couldn't have people that were related working as poll workers, because it's so difficult to get poll workers. We have a lot of husbands and wives work together on elections.
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: No nepotism requirement?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Right. And, you know, up to then we've always been doing that. But they're requiring no nepotism from the employees down to the people who we do pay, but they're just there for a short-term basis, taking care of the election process. So we're allowing that not be applied -- the nepotism not to be applied to those poll workers.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you. Thanks for answering my question.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mark.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Madam Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Larry, I just wanted to ask you about the countywide voting program, or I guess the extension of early vote into election day, essentially. Is it still a pilot program or have we made it permanent?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: All this does is it extends those counties that are already in the pilot program the opportunity to keep continuing doing it if they choose to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: But perpetually or just election cycle?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I believe it's perpetual. But let me see if that's correct. Because I know in Galveston County they love it, so they want to be able to continue doing that program. There may have been some other counties that had problems that stopped doing it. But for those that are in the program here like it.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Does it still require them to go and make application before the Secretary of State in order to continue?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Bear with me one second.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: It says each county previously participating in a program in this section is authorized to continue to (inaudible) future elections. If the commissioners of the county court approves the county's participation in the program the secretary of state determined the county's participation in the program was (inaudible) so there's the Secretary of State checking in.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So in the past they had make application to the Secretary of State and become approved by the Secretary of State. Do the -- The way I'm hearing it, it says if the Secretary of State determines that in the past they ran it successfully than they continue to do it in perpetuity, right? So they don't have to come back every time and ask the Secretary of State and be approved?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I believe that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: One of the issues that came up in one of the north Texas counties was that -- that there were concerns about public participation. What does the bill do with respect to public participation and the stakeholder process?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I'm not following the question.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So there was a requirement in the past. I know two sessions ago the I was the House sponsor of this legislation along with Senator Duncan in the Senate, and there was a public participation process of the front end, before you implemented the countywide precinct arrangement. And what are we doing for public participation?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I'm not familiar with that part. It's a level you are in. I don't think we made any changes to that, that I'm aware of. It just requires the county court -- commissioner's court of the county to continue to use the program.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So is it now five, or is it -- have we added three more? Is it eight?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: It says six. Only a select to participate in the program, six counties. And it was three. So the Secretary of State would have to expand it to some others. But I was trying to get (inaudible) to line up Galveston to continue in the program doing what they're doing.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So Galveston -- is Galveston, under this legislation, is definitely in?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Or will they have to go back to the Secretary of the State?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Well, the Secretary of State has to determine that the participation of the program has been successful.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Rather than that they continuing (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So, the three -- the three that participated previously were Lubbock, Erath County participated, Collin County.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: In my understanding Galveston County, my understanding Collin County didn't have a good experience of whether or not they (inaudible) chosen. Let me read that paragraph so I can be totally accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: The only state (inaudible) participating in the program. Six counties with a population of a hundred thousand or more, and four counties with a population of less than a hundred thousand. So there used to be three and two and now it is six and four. So I want to be clear in what I told you about that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So ten total for the Secretary of State --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Just like the program the way it was.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: And, to your knowledge, there's no change in the public participation requirement that existed in the previous law?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: All this -- the only change I made in this only applied to those who are already participating in the program. You're welcome to look at the wording I have here. But it's specifically all the new (drop) only applied to those participating in the program. Anyone new the Secretary of State wants to bring in will have to go by the old law of this.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you. I move adoption to my motion.
THE CHAIR: Members, this is House Bill 2194. Representative Taylor has moved to dismiss the conferees and concur on Senate amendments. This is a record vote. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2194? This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 2 nays, Senate -- House Bill 2194 has finally passed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Hughes for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask the members to welcome with me some friends from back home. Mike and Amy Ward. Amy grew up around Austin and is living in east Texas for the last several years. She and Mike are back at the Capitol with son Cameron and daughter Kelly. It's their first visit to the Capitol. They're at west -- That is at east there. Would you guys stand up? The Ward family, let us recognize you. Members, please join me and welcome these folks to our Capitol. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a privileged resolution on House Bill 25 -- 2694. Chair lays out HR 2572.
THE CLERK: HR 2572 by Smith of Harris. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction HB No. 2694.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, whenever we passed the bill in the House we had some changes in the water assessment fees. We made -- We didn't make the changes that we needed to make, and it went to the Senate, and the Senate couldn't make those changes, so we went outside the bounds and combined them together. It means that the water assessment fees for water districts for water supply corporations will remain the same as they are today. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, is there any objection? This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes and 2 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out House Bill 2694. The clerk will read the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, members --
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2694.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you Members, this is the sunset bill that we passed out several weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago when it went to the Senate. There was some minor changes, some modifications, burden of proof, there were some issues that changed. Conference committee has met and we've agreed to them. So I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Smith, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Be glad to.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Chairman Smith. When the bill left the House, there was an amendment placed on the bill related to the switching -- changing of the burden of proof for -- for communities that were impacted by applications for water or air permits; did that stay in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: No, it was changed back over at Senate. The burden of proof now belongs to the person making the application for the permit.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So that was stripped out?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: That was stripped out.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: All right. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Question occurs on adoption of conference committee report House Bill 2694. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 2694 is finally passed. Is Representative Davis of Dallas on the floor of the House? Members, we're on page two of items eligible. Chair lays out conference committee report House Bill 200. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 200.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill that we originally passed that will save about $80,000 regarding electronic notification. The Senate put an amendment on it, it was not germane. We made a modification in conference and now will move to the adopt the conference committee report for House Bill 200.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against adoption of conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on adoption of the conference committee report of House Bill 200. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Dukes voting aye. There being 149 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 200 is finally passed. Chair lays out the conference committee report on Senate Bill 156.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 156.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 156 there were a couple of amendments that had been added on. One was Representative Fletcher's, on the Texas (inaudible) disorder. So it was kept in the bill. The other one was the ambulatory surgery centers not having to comply, and that was carved out of the bill because the -- so many associations had opposed the carve out. And I ask to adopt the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on adoption of conference committee report. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? Being 97 ayes and 45 nays, Senate Bill 156 is finally passed. Members, we're going to go back to page one. Items eligible at 10:40 a.m. Chair lays out conference committee report House Bill 871. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 871.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, members, the conference committee report for House Bill 871 removes the non-germane amendment that was added by the Senate. At this time, I'd like to move the adoption of the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 871. The clerk will ring the bell. Record vote. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 79 ayes and 68 nays, House Bill 871 is finally passed. Members, Representative Lyne wants to discharge conferees from conferring Senate amendments on House Bill 3268. Chair lays out House Bill 3268 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB 3268 by Lyons. Relating to permits (inaudible) emissions, natural gas and using it in combined heating and power systems.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lyne.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Originally we had a conference committee set up and they withdrew some things and said they wanted to move so the amendment are okay, that the Senate put on and I move to concur.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard Mr. Lyon's motion to discharge House conferees and concur on Senate amendment on House Bill 3268. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Riddle voting aye. There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 3268 finally passed. Mr. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Parliament ary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Could you mind telling us what page these particular issues are coming up on, because we're going back and forth and it's taking us a minute or two to find them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Howard, this was a discharge of conferees.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Yeah. I understand but --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It was not on your calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Okay. But some of these others are, if we just know what page they're on.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Sure will.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this will be the third bill on page two of calendar one. Chair calls up conference committee reported Senate Bill 377.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on Senate Bill 377.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Members, I move that we adopt the conference committee report on SB 377. All we did in conference was remove the amendment that Representative Dutton added. It was our agreement here on the floor that we remove it if it was problematic for the Senate. Senate said that it was so, now that amendment is gone and we're back to the original bill. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Riddle, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'd be delighted to.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, thank you, Representative. Did you change the age at all from -- I think it was nine and under, that you had last time in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: No, the bill as it was, stayed. The only thing that we changed was we removed the amendment that Mr. Dutton had, which was regarding disabled children.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And what was the conversation on that decision? I mean how did y'all come to that decision?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: The -- Mr. Dutton agreed that if the Senate found that is problematic, that was going to create a problem with the Senate, and in fact it did, that we agreed to go ahead and remove that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Marquez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Would the gentle lady yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Of course I would.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: What was the amendment that was stripped out that was added on here in the House and voted on and then taken out in the Senate?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: The amendment was that in addition to having capital murder for murdering a child that would be nine and under, that it would add disabled children up to 17. I did not really oppose that amendment. I was concerned that it was kill the whole bill --
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So it would just include disabled children or was it going to also include disabled, disabled community, it didn't matter what the age was?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: It was age specific. Mr. Dutton is right behind you there and he can explain his amendment as well. But it was specific for disabled children.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you very much, Ms. Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes, absolutely. For my friend, Mr. Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Ms. Riddle. The amendment I put on over here, I agreed with you that if the Senate absolutely wouldn't take it I wouldn't leave it on to try to kill the bill. Do you know what the Senate's argument was against my amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Harold, actually I have their argument in writing, but it's in my notebook. I don't have that with me. But I can give that to you in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I just wanted the members to know, Ms. Riddle --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: They said that they --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- what their problem was.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: They thought that it -- that there may be a constitutional issue with it, and there were some issues with it that they did find problematic. That being one. So I'll be happy to give you the information --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah. I just wanted the members to know. First, the Senate says it's unconstitutional. And do you recall what the other problem of it was? It just -- Because what the amendment does, I don't know where they got the constitutional question that they were raising in that regard to it, but I -- I did some checking myself and there's several other states that have essentially the same provision in their death penalty statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I actually like your amendment and I liked what you were trying to do with it, and I'll tell you, Mr. Dutton, next session would you allow me to work with you to get that bill passed?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah, because, essentially, as I understand the nature of the bill you had --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- it was really trying to protect a group of people who --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Our children. Our children that ought (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Who are less than ten years old. And what my amendment did is said okay, we're going to extend that protection to children who are disabled.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Up to 17.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right. Who couldn't protect themselves as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I think one of the things that the Senate had an issue with was the age of 17. I didn't have a problem with that, but they apparently did. But, at any rate, you know, it's important for us, Mr. Dutton, we don't necessarily get everything we want all at the exact time that we want, and sometimes it takes several sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, especially working with the Senate like we have.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Exactly. And so I think that next session we're going to need to worker with our brethren on the other side of the rotunda, and I look forward to working with you to get that done next session.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I absolutely -- Again, I thought the amendment was -- not because I had it, but I thought it was a good amendment because --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I certainly agree.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- there are far to many times where a disabled person -- Actually, I thought we ought to protect all the disabled people, but I limited to it children --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I would take it even further. I would say murder one is that of a child of any age, but the Senate did not want to take it beyond the age of zero to nine --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I still never was quite able to determine what their constitutional arguments were. You know, one of the things around here that you probably experience is where members don't have a reason to be against something, so they throw up the constitution and suggest that it violates somehow or another the Constitution and the principles therein.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Well, as you know, Mr. Dutton, some times when -- when something goes over there in the form of an amendment, they may gives us a reason or that we may or may not agree with, but sometimes in order to at lease move the ball, maybe not all the way to a touch down but to just get a it a little further down the field, we have to go ahead and acquiesce to removing an amendment. So I think this bill is so important --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Oh, I agree. I don't disagree with it (inaudible) you don't disagree with you in the respect. But it seems to me that the House probably does that more often than our brethren across the rotunda, that we seem to always be the ones that having to take less and give more than they do --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: However, if you go and check with them, and they tend to think the same thing. They tend to think that they're the ones that are having to, you know, pull back a little bit. So maybe it's just from our own perspective that we have over here. And maybe if we were on the other side we would have a different perspective.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: You know, but this is about the second or third time I can recall this session, in the last three or four days, where what we chose to do at the House was just concede to the Senate and give them what they wanted. And we just kind of, you know, had to go home and say well, we'll try to do it next time.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Well, at least we made some progress. But I know one thing for sure, my daughter in-law says one thing for sure and two things for certain. I look forward to working with you next session on making your amendment on this, that we're having to take off a bill for next session and get that passed into law. But I do appreciate you, Mr. Dutton --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, thank you for working with me, too. I just regret that -- because I thought -- actually, I thought my amendment, not because I did it, but I thought the amendments made it a better bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: You know what, you and I agree.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, hey. You're my -- you're my sister over here, and so I'd love to just run over to the Senate, but I'll go back to my desk and thank you for working --
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Well, I appreciate being your sister. You're my brother by another mother --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, you're a kind lady for saying that. I think if we go back far enough back we are related.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. I would agree. Thank you. Except you're taller than I am.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of conference committee report to Senate Bill 377? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report. It's a record vote, the clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Riddle voting aye. There being 132 ayes and 14 nays, Senate Bill 377 is finally passed. Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 647. Conference committee report Senate Bill 647. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the conference committee just removed one amendment that the Senate did not agree to. And, with that, I move adoption of the conference report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of Senate Bill 647. It's at record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes and 2 nays, Senate Bill 647 is finally passed. Members, it's now 4:33. Representative Madden's bill is eligible at 5:10 p.m. Is there objection to calling up conference committee report on Senate Bill 1489? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 1489. Conference committee report Senate Bill 1489.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, that is the truancy bill. The House added three amendments to it, one that dealt with juvenile case managers, the other one dealt with fiscal court. Both of those were acceptable to the Senate. We also added one note that deleted 18 to 21 year olds from the bill, the Senate did not accept that. We have accepted that and I move to concur with the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of Senate Bill 1489. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 1489 is finally passed. Members, we are at items eligible at 6:20 p.m. This is on page two. Chair would like to call up the conference committee report on House Bill 2048. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair lays out conference committee report on House Bill 2048.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2048.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lyne.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Members, the conference committee took off one amendment that was not germane, and the only change to the bill and I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak for or against? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 2048. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes and 1 nay, House Bill 2048 is finally passed. Members, other than items eligible at 6:40 p.m. is there objection to bringing conference committee report on House Bill 2729? It's on page two. Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 2729.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2729.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members, I move to adopt the findings of the conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report to House Bill 2729. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2729 is finally passed. Members, other than page two of the calendar items eligible at 6:50 p.m., is there objection to bringing up conference committee report on House Bill 2226? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 2226.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2226.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the conference committee simply removed the amendment added by the Senate that was not germane to the bill. And, therefore, I move adoption to House Bill -- the conference committee report to House Bill 2226.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report to House Bill 2226. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? Being 148 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 2226 finally passed. Members, we're on items eligible at 7:00 p.m. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair lays out the conference committee report of Senate Bill 875.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 875.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hancock.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 875 would simply remove the Bonnen amendment (inaudible) that went back to the original bill. We did leave the Chisum amendment requested.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report of Senate Bill 875. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 135 ayes and 7 nays, House Bill 875 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, lege counsel just informed me that there's a bunch of viruses flying around on the computers so be very, very careful where you go. If you have any questions you go to the south corner over here, the printer, the lege counsel people can answer them a whole lot better than I can, as you might well imagine.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is items eligible at 7:00 o'clock. Is there objection to bringing up the conference committee report on House Bill 1338? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 1338.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 1338.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
THE CHAIR: Members, I move -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to accept the conference committee report on House Bill 1338, and it -- what we do is restore the Friends of the Capitol, so we can start raising private money to do things around here. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report to Senate Bill 1338. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 1338 finally passed. Members, at the bottom of page two, items eligible at 8:20 p.m., is there objection to bringing up House Bill 2734, the conference committee report? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on 2734.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 2734.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill had to do with parole and dealing with people who are who were sent for deportation on parole. Senator Williams added what amounted to sanctuary city language. The conference committee, because that was not germane, removed all of that language from the bill. So we've gone back to the original bill as passed by the House. So I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representa tive Madden, can you --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'm sorry, say that again.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Can you refresh our memory as to what the House version looked like?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The House version, what it did is for those people who were given patrol by the board of pardons and parole --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Uh-huh.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: -- and were sent for deportation, this allowed us, if they were not deported, to be brought back to TDCJ for their parole.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And under what circumstances might they not be deported?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There are several cases where ICE does not send people outside the country. There are cases, for example, that we're very well aware of, that deal with drunkenness, DWIs, that may very well haven't been deported. About five percent of those that we send over there for deportation are actually not deported.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Under the law now, if they're paroled with the intention that they're deported and they're not deported, then they would go back into --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Under current law, what they would be is they would still be on parole and out wherever ICE let them go. Under this legislation we would, in fact, bring them back for a violation of their parole.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 2734. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 2734 is finally passed. Members, we're on page 3, items eligible at 8:40. Is there objection to bringing up the conference committee report on House Bill 1178? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 1178.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 1178.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Members, this was a reemployment for protection of soldiers returning from military leave. And the Senate put on an amendment for women veterans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 1178. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 1178 is finally passed. 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 --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're on items eligible at 9:00 p.m. On page three. Is there objection to calling up conference committee report on House Bill 1951? Chair hears none. The Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 1951.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 1951.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we'll pick that up in a moment. Is there -- We're on items eligible at 9:00 p.m. Is there objection to calling up the conference committee report on House Bill 2490? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 2490.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 2490.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomon.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm going to adopt and concur with the conference committee report on this bill. Basically it became sort of the Senate version, a little bit softer than what we had passed in the House. The Senate made some -- redefined the terms in connection with crafted precious metals and the dealer issue. We went from a licensing deal down do a registration, and it seems like it works pretty well. And I understand there's some legislative intent that Mr. Deshotel wants to ask me.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Deshotel, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Just a couple of questions with legislative intent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Solomons , one of the things we're trying to accomplish with this bill was protection for consumers from fly by night operations that go to hotel rooms for buying precious metals; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir it's very much a law enforcement type of issue with those fly by night operators.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: One of the things that we've given authority to -- rule making authority to Finance Commission, and we'd like to see in those rules a requirement that a receipt be maintained that includes all the pertinent information of the transaction; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir we're trying to trying to make sure there's copies of the receipts and there's a prescribed form for that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: And that those receipts be maintained by the vendor, as well as given to the consumer?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right. Well, it will be given to the --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Seller?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: They'll keep one, they'll send one to the OCCC. And then, basically what happens, is the person would have more of an opportunity to get an a receipt. And in that rule making authority they may require a receipt as well. That's the intent, making sure everybody had a copy of what transacted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you. Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Yes, for what purpose Mr. Deshotel?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I'd move that the comments between Representative Solomons and I be reduced into writing and placed in the journal for legislative intent.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you. Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Can I ask a question, please?
THE CHAIR: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Chairman Solomons, the amendments that the House put on that bill were they kept in committee --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right. I'm about the coins and the gold medallions? Yes, that was. And the redefining of it, they basically -- it was other than a coin bar for medallions. Yes, that was all kept in there.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Very good.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you very much. I move to adopt the --
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Alvarado, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: I'd just want to ask my desk mate, at the end of the day, what does this bill actually do?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This bill protects consumers. And we can get to hopefully have some better law enforcement and be able to ensure that these fly by night operators who come in and buy and sell precious metals, crafted precious metals, will have at least some -- will have some idea who's really doing this.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Mr. Solomo ns, at the end of the day --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: At the end of the day, I appreciate it. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion of Representative Solomons' to adopt conference committee report House Bill 2490. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Torres voting aye. Members, have all voted? Members, Have all voted? There being 146 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting; the conference committee report at the end of the day is adopted. Members, we're on items eligible at 9:00 p.m. It is the Chair's intention to call up HB 90 -- 1951 conference committee report by Taylor of Galveston. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair lays out HB 1951 conference committee report.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 1951.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor of Galveston.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the department of insurance sunset bill. The conference committee adopted many provisions that the House had on the bill. We also removed a couple of House provisions that we added because they were passed on separate bills while the sunset bill was in conference. The conference committee includes the following provisions that were passed by the House: It provides for a sixty day notice of premium increases and enhanced consumer information for HMO plan policies. Individual actions in health (inaudible) as well as small employer benefits plans. Conference committee maintains language added in the House that specifies that property and casualty rate fines and any supporting information filed is public information subject to the state's open records law, including any applicable exception from a required disclosure, rather than open to public inspection as of the date of filing. I guess that was Hartnett's amendment. Report also includes language that creates an insurance adjustor's advisory board, appointed by the commissioner. (Inaudible personal property (inaudible) from reporting to a claims database inquiries, unless a claim has been filed. That was Vo's amendment. It also prohibits managed care plans from applying to a therapeutic optometrist or opthalmolgist as a condition to being on a panel or plan to participate in particular vision panel that they did not wish to participate in. It also includes language that increased liability on (inaudible) bonds of a hundred thousand to a million dollars from requiring reinsurance. That's Representative Truitt's amendment. And also it includes language that amends the entrance exam requirements to be come a residential fire alarm technician, which is Bohac's amendment. And finally, the conference committee also accepted two provisions added by the Senate relating to rules on child only health plans and (inaudible) the exemption from agent licenser. The conference committee removed language that was added by the Senate that changed the way the interest on policy refund payments was calculated. And, finally, most important, conference committee report continues TDI for 12 more years.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I yield.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So as I get it, all of my amendments are stripped?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: That's pretty much what (inaudible) when we got to the E's we took all those out.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thanks a lot, Craig.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zedler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I yield.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Representativ e Taylor, would you go back and reread that part about the optometrists and therapeutic optometrists?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Ophthalmolog ist.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Oh, was it ophthalmologist? There should be --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Well, it talks about optometrist. Hold on, it's therapeutic optometrist or ophthalmologist.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: And what did it say?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: It prohibits managed care plans from requiring that a therapeutic optometrist or ophthalmologist, as a condition to be on their plan has to participate in a particular vision panel. They don't have -- so the product that the claim requires to be on there to be able to do them to do the therapeutic things --
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Okay. Got you. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Galveston of Taylor moves to adopt conference committee report of 1951. Mr. Taylor of Galveston moves to adopt HB 1961 conference committee report. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Carter voting yes. Show Representative Torres voting yes. Members, have all voted? Members, have all voted? Members, Have all voted? Representative Eiland voting no. There being 143 ayes, 5 nays, 2 present not voting; conference committee report of HB 1951 by Taylor of Galveston is adopted. Members, we are on items eligible at 9:00 p.m. It's the Chair's intention to take up SB 563, conference committee report by Torres, Representative Torres. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 563.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Torres.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Mr. Speaker and distinguished House members, in this conference committee there was only one word change to the bill. The word applied to the pilot program established within the Texas Workforce Commission. That word change was the word audit was replaced with the word report instead. The Workforce Commission has agreed to participate using all existing resources, the commission shall submit a written report or electronic report to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker, as well as the Senate committee on government organization, House government efficiency reform committee and the House and Senate committee on state affairs. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Torres moves to adopt SB 563 conference committee report. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? Members, have all voted? Representative -- There being 148 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting the motion prevails. Members, we're at 9:00 o'clock. Chair's intention of bringing up House Bill 1773 conference committee report by Gallego on page three. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The clerk will lay out the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 773.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain conference committee report SB 773.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the legislation that clarifies that a federally qualified health center service delivery site is eligible for the telecommunications discount and extends the telecommunications discounts that are now set to expire in January of 2012. The conference committee report goes back to essentially the clean version that the Senate had passed with the House amendments that came off. And I'd move that we adopt the conference committee report.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Gallego moves to adopt conference committee report SB 773. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Raymond voting aye. Members, Have all voted? Have all voted? Members, Have all voted? Members, have all voted? There being 109 ayes, 37 nays, 2 present not voting, the motion prevails. Members, we're at 9:10 p.m. It is the Chair's intent to call up House Bill 1711 conference committee report by Davis of Harris. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 1711.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Harris to explain conference committee report HB 1711.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And I move to that we adopt the conference committee report on HB 1711. The bill came out of the conference identical to the way it passed in the House chamber. So I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Davis of Harris moves to adopt conference committee report of HB 1711. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Members, Have all voted? Members, have all voted? Members, have all voted? There being 146 ayes, 1 nay, 2 present not voting; the conference committee report is adopted. Members, we're at 9:10 p.m. It is the Chair's intent to call up SB 747 by Hamilton to -- Is there objection? Chair hears none. The clerk will lay out the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 747.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to explain conference committee report of SB 747.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, we added on an amendment to this which would -- a deal that was extra, just to see if it passed. It passed. Now we're taking the amendment back off. Move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Hamilton moves to adopt conference committee report of SB 747. The clerk will read the bill. Members, have all voted? Members, have all voted? Members, have all voted? There being 140 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting; the conference committee report SB 747 by Representative Hamilton is now adopted. Members, this is on calendar two. It's the only item on calendar two. It's eligible at 10:30 p.m. this evening. It's the Chair's intent to bring up conference committee report SB 1534 by Davis of Harris. Is there any objection? Again, members, it's SB 1534. It's the only item on calendar two. Chair hears no objection. Clerk will lay out the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 1534.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to explain conference committee report of SB 1534.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And 1534 is related to the operation and certification and accountability of career schools and colleges. We added a bill from Senator Zaffrini, which is Senate Bill 38. We passed the bill. It was passed out higher ed, Chairman Branch's bill, and then it died on calendars. Senate Bill 38 would amend the higher education code to require hire ed coordinating boards to include within the board's higher education (inaudible) Schools and colleges offer a degree programs. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Davis of Harris moves to adopt conference committee report of SB 1534. That's SB 1534. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Members, have all voted? Members, have all voted? Members, have all voted? There being 147 ayes, 0 nays, the conference committee report SB 1534 by Davis of Harris is adopted. Members, the House will stand at ease until 5:16 this evening, 5:16 this evening. Five minutes. Chair lays out House Resolution 2558 regarding House Bill 1. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HR 2558 by Pitts. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. HB 1.
THE CHAIR: Representative Davis of Dallas raises a point of order against further consideration of Resolution 2558. House will stand at ease.
(The House stands at ease.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker? We seem to have someone from the Senate at the door of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit the someone.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate has granted the request of the House --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis raises three points of order pursuant to Rule 13, Section 9 on House Resolution 2558. The points of order are respectfully overruled.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker? Representative Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentar y inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I appreciate your ruling on this, I don't necessarily agree, but I need to ask a question about it. In the rule book it says that this is in this section it seems to be exact words, and now what you are saying is it's not required to have the exact language in it? If you look at it, it says this rule shall be strictly (inaudible) by presiding officer (inaudible) these purposes, so over on Section D, No. 1 it says the exact language of the matter or matters proposed to be considered needs to be in the resolution. And so you, the parliamentarian acknowledges that this is different. It says the Chair's supposed to rule with strict -- construed strictly. I'm just trying to understand how we make this determination if that's not a good point when, in fact, we realize it's not construed, it's really not exact language. And if you acknowledge that it's not the correct language, then the question is are you determine -- are you making this ruling without considering the rule that says that it should be strictly construed, or are you just ignoring that part of the rule?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, the Chair has reviewed your point of order, the resolution and the bill. And finds that it's compliant with Rule 13, Section 9.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I was just speaking specifically about -- I get that you've overruled me and I appreciate that you are reiterating that. I just wanted to understand about the limitations on jurisdictions. It says that this rule shall be strictly construed. My question is based on this determination in your ruling. Are you acknowledging, or would you acknowledge that you're not construing -- using strict compliance to this rule?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, ma'am, sir? No, ma'am, you're not? Or are you -- I didn't understand what no, ma'am meant. I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We are construing it according to Rule 13, Section 9.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And the last question I'd like to ask, parliamentary inquiry on, is it says exact language of the matter of matters proposed to be considered. We know that that is not in the resolution exactly, so are you not recognizing or acknowledging that that rule that says exact language has (inaudible) resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No, ma'am, we're not acknowledging that.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Your lack of acknowledgment does not necessarily mean that it's not necessarily that way though; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, the chair has ruled and the Chair will be happy to move that your comments be placed in the journal. Chair lays out House Resolution 2558.
THE CLERK: HR 2558 by Pitts. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, House Resolution 2558 is the out of bounds resolution for House Bill 1. We traditionally have to go out of bounds from the budget conference committee report, and a resolution like this is required to make and form changes. Every budget that I've ever voted on has required one of these types of resolutions. Were any change to conferees made beyond what either the House or the Senate version contained has to be listed in a resolution. Obviously, there are several changes. Rather than go line by line, I would give you a summary of the some of the most significant changes in House Bill 1. There are several changes in Article 9. Because of the time constraints of the conference committee, many decisions had to be put in this article to allow the remainder of the budget to go to print. We made all those decisions concerning the general obligation bonds for every agency in Article 9. You will see it, both items listed in the resolution. We gave $60 million to the Facilities Commission for deferred maintenance. We gave $20 million to the Historical Commission for courthouses. We gave $20 million dollars to the Department of State Health Services for critical repairs to their office buildings. And we gave me $32.4 million to the Parks and Wildlife for repairs and maintenance to the parks. One of the final decisions we made in the conference committee is the listing of contingency riders. Members, let me explain to you what a contingency rider is. Many times, when we do the Appropriations Bill, we put it contingent on House Bill such and such passing. So before the conference committee's is -- work is complete, John Otto and one of our Senate counterparts, went over all of the bills that have been passed -- that are passed, are in conference or the likelihood to pass --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Not at this time. We wait until the last possible opportunity to see what legislation is still moving through this process to complete that list. You will see all of those contingency riders listed in this resolution. In higher education we decided to create a new research funds, goal to show the existing appropriations for the Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund and the Research Development Fund. Moving this fund into that new goal is reflected in this resolution. In order to make significant rate reductions in medicaid, the conference committee put a larger portion in the medicaid funding in the first year of the biennium. That's also reflected in this out of bounds.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: In higher education groups of insurance --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'd just like to ask about a contingency rider. Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Let me finish. In higher education group insurance, the conference committee settled on a process that combines the different methods used by the House and the Senate, and that is reflected in the out of bounds resolution. Those are the most significant changes in this resolution. Without this resolution, the changes to conference committee made are out of order. Once we adopt this resolution, we can move on to discuss the budget, House Bill 1. Mr. Speaker, I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Pitts, I'm just wanted to find out if there was a contingency appropriation for the movie industry grant program in your bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay. Can you describe what you're talking about?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: The contingency, we're talking about contingency riders, and I'm just wondered if there was a contingency appropriation for the movie industry grant program. I think it's in Article 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There is an appropriation to the movie industry, that the amount is determined by a no cost that the comptroller gives us.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: This is a grant program, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I believe it's a grant program.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And was that contingency rider in the Senate Bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I couldn't understand.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Was that contingency rider in the Senate Bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I might let Representative Otto --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Ms. Davis, are you talking about the in-strategy A14 of the trustee program to the office of the governor, there is 16 million appropriated in each year. Are you asking if there is an contingent appropriation above that 32 million?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, sir. Is there one that represents a strategy A (inaudible) and it I think it says for 11 million, it's a contingency appropriation (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Can you tell me -- Are you looking at something in the going outside the bounds --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: It's on page 1-4 of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: You're talking about the contingency appropriation for the moving image industry grant program?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That is an additional $11 million each fiscal year, subject to the fact -- What the comptroller did is she said she would no cost this if additional revenue came in.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And so, the question I was trying to ask is if, in fact, you had that in your resolution and so you do, right? It's correct that it is in the House Bill --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: It is, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And it was not in the Senate text, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so I had raised a point of order with regard to this information being in there, it would be accurate that it is in there, is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Now you're asking me to going back and saying -- you are saying House Bill versus the Senate Bill.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm saying in terms of this resolution, I just wanted clarification, because I raised a point of order based on text being in a resolution. And I just wanted to make sure --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not sure that this was in the House Bill as it passed out of the chamber, I would have to go look at my riders to see if that contingency was in there.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Okay. But as it stands, it is in the resolution, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: It is in the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, I move to adopt the out of bounds resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against adoption of the resolution? Question occurs on the adoption of HR 2558. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 100 ayes and 46 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair calls up the conference committee report on HB 1. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, when we voted out House Bill 1 of the House several months ago I promised I and the conference committee would work to bring you back a better budget. I think what you have before us today is a better budget. The conference committee made significant improvements on the budget this chamber passed almost two months ago. It reflects this chamber's commitment to meet the state's most essential needs. The conference committee substantially increased funding in public education. Between the foundation school program, TRS, text books and other programs in TEA; we added nearly $1.2 billion. The conference committee added funding in higher education and critical needs. We increased funding for financial aid to ensure more than 33,000 students can receive help seeking a college degree. The conference committee added funding to community colleges to ensure that they will not see a reduction in formula funding compared to 2010 and 2011. Members, we added funding to minimize formula funding cuts in our general academic and health related institutions. Combined, we increased funding for higher education by more than $850 million. We added funding to ensure DPS has the tools and the manpower it needs to make border -- make this border secure. We also added funding that the department of criminal justice to ensure we have the necessary level of capacity to house dangerous criminals. We also ensured that the initiatives we began two sessions ago to divert low level offenders into drug and alcohol treatment programs continues. Combined funding for critical public safety and criminal justice programs increased nearly $370 million. Some may argue that we have not added enough money. Some may argue that we added too much. But, in reality, that budget that we passed in April -- April, dangerously underfunded critical parts of state government. In truth, that budget makes significant -- The truth is that this budget makes significant cuts in spending. We cut our budget from the last biennium by over $15 billion. When we passed this budget, it would be the second session in a row we have cut state spending by more than a billion dollars. That has never happened in this state's history. But, let me tell you about what this budget also does, it funds the core area Texans expect their government to provide. It may not be as much as some would like, but it meets the needs with resources we have available. This conference committee report reflects the will of this chamber across the board. It cuts spending, it reflects desire for a leaner, more efficient government; it reflects our commitment to public education as a top priority for state spending, and it doesn't raise taxes. But it also does this in a reasonable and responsible way. This budget doesn't hurt our economy. In fact, the investments we are making in higher education, transportation funding and cancer research alone, over -- will create thousands of jobs within the next biennium. Your vote on this budget, members, should not be a party vote. It shouldn't be doing -- it should be about what's doing right for Texans and for Texas economy. Members, I listened to members in this chamber. I'm probably color blind as far as party affiliation, because I don't think that the issues of a budget should be one party against the other. Mike, I heard what you and a lot of members told me about your concerns about student financial aid, and because of Mike Villarreal and many other members, we added $283 million for student financial aid. Members, when we left this chamber we did not fund financial aid for graduating seniors or for juniors in high school. We added $283 million so that our graduates would have an opportunity in our universities and our community colleges. I heard the concerns of many members in this chamber, both Republicans and democrats, about nursing home funding. In fact, if there's one item that I heard more about, it was we want to take care of our elderly and the fragile. Members, we added $173 million so that the only reduction that our nursing homes have received is the 3 percent reduction that they took in 2010 and 2011. Members, the conference committee heard the concerns of Debbie Riddle and many of the legislators along the border about border security. We added $151 million to this area in our budget. Members, we heard the cries of nearly everyone in this chamber about the cuts to our public schools. Since the introduced bill that I laid out to you back in February, we have added $5.8 billion to our public schools. Is that enough? Some will argue it's not, but I have some newspaper clippings from the Austin American Statesman, and from the Dallas Morning News, and I think that one thing that stood out in my mind is when I saw the Austin paper and when it said the worst is over, there's no more layoffs. And it really got me when I looked at the Dallas Morning News and saw an what an area school district did by hiring three new administrators. Each administrator making in excess of a $150,000 each. We are only now making our way out of the worst recession since the great depression. When we convened in January, the outlook for this budget and what it would do to Texas was not good. We have come a long way since then. This is a budget that expects this state to live within its means, but also provides the means for this state to continue to grow and to continue to prosper. Members, that is a budget that is the product of a lot of hard work by a lot of people. And the conference committee that's to my left, and Sylvester and Myra is sitting at her desk, have worked numerous hours and we brought in Drew Derby and other members of the appropriations to help us with these critical issues. And we have spent many hours. I personally have worked on this budget since last October. We have listened and this is a result of what we heard from members of this chamber. This is a remarkable achievement to me, considering what our state has gone through the last two years, and we are facing -- what we were facing at the beginning of this session. Members, I have asked the parliamentarian that I would take questions and I would extend my time for an additional ten minutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield, if he's finished with his lay out?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for you hard work and I won't take too much of your time, so if other people want to line up behind me, they are welcome to. I just wanted to ask you about one set of numbers, because I wouldn't want anybody to leave here with the wrong impression. And that's with regard to the student financial aid. And I remember you said that we have added a certain amount of money to student financial aid; but you didn't mean to imply that we've added to financial aid over what we have provided in financial aid in this biennium, did you?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I hope I didn't, it was not -- my intent was not to be misleading.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: My intent was that we were able to add money to financial aid and we were able to allow 33,000 additional students to get financial aid that was in our budget that left this floor back in April.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. But you would agree with me that that number still is substantially below the current biennium number of students receiving aid? And I don't know if you have those numbers, but let me just -- if these sound reasonable to you and Ms. Crownover, because I looked at last year's performance measures and this year's performance measures; and so what I see is a projected number of students receiving financial aid through Texas grants in the first year of the biennium is roughly 60,000, compared to almost 78,000 in the current biennium. I see 49 -- about 50,000 in the second year, compared to 68,000. So it is accurate to say then that Texas grants, the number of students receiving aid from Texas grants, despite the work that Mr. Branch and others did to reallocate that, is still a smaller number of students getting benefit; is that true?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And that is true.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And can I ask, I don't know if you know this but this or not, but right below that it makes a projection of how many students receiving Texas grants are going to get a baccalaureate degree within either four or six years. I understood -- I thought from the legislation that Mr. Branch passed that we were trying to improve that number, and I see that you have actually set lower goals. Do you know why that might be?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So we're going to have fewer students receiving the grants, and we're going do expect fewer of them to actually achieve graduation, which seems like a strange direction to be going. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you. Thank you, Scott.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villareal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Does the number 43,000 sound right as the number of students who will not receive financial aid because of this budget, relative to the levels of service we were providing in the prior budget?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mike, I don't recall. I don't think I have those numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That is the number that you (inaudible) compile, based on all of the merit and need based scholarship programs that we previously funded, so that in community colleges and four-year institutions, 43,000. Yesterday there was a conversation about an LBB presentation on education funding, and there was some internet traffic trying to present or trying to interpret this report as saying education funding, specifically public education funding has increased. Is it not true that to get an accurate picture of public education funding you need to look at both Article 3 and Article 9, general provisions?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And when you combine the two what you realize in -- let's say all funds, is approximate reduction by 3 billion?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mike, I don't have my calculator up here, but Article -- Article 3 reflects the deferral that we've -- that we passed. And Article 9 takes it away.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And it's about 2 -- 2 billion dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Which is about 2 billion dollars. And an assumption that local property values are going to rise by 300 million?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Something like that, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. Okay. It is true we do better for nursing homes. However, they will, number one, have to live with a three percent cut that happened last year?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Furthermo re, medicaid, the fund that pays nursing homes, is going to run out of money four months early?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Furthermo re, other health care providers are going to see an additional 27 percent cut relative to current service funding that was in place before this budget?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm going to ask Dr. Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mike, share with me the specific providers --
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: We looked at, overall, Article 2 funding that this budget provides for, relative to what a current service budget would have provided for under -- before this session. So last year's budget adjusted for population for --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, let me -- let me just share with you what is not in there. There is not a cut, what was originally proposed out of this chamber, an 8 percent cut to the provider network to physicians and so forth. That was erased. So the physicians and dentists do not have a cut imposed on them in this biennium budget. But there's a 1 percent cut for some providers in there, the pediatric private duty nurses and home care is not cut at all, it's maintained where it is as of August 31st. There is a 1 percent home and community based service cut on the 2011 level, and there's 2 percent cut to nursing facility related hospice intermediate care facilities for persons with mental retardation. And those are all the cuts that I have. Now I'm not sure how you -- how you get a 27 percent cut.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I'll come back with those numbers. I appreciate that. Women's health and family planning services --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: My understanding is that the cuts that were implemented through amendments on this House floor are named.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And when you aggregate what the change is in -- that's worked with these programs overall, there's a drop of about 66 percent?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's correct. We moved about $60 plus million to other strategies, out of B13 and (inaudible) strategies.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: My understanding is that the estimate, the measurement of how many women will not be able to access these preventative health care services is about 280,000.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It's a significant number. If we consider about anywhere from $200 to $230 a person who access those services, via that specific strategy.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And health and human services already estimated the number of unplanned pregnancies that will come about is to the tune of 20,000.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I'm not advised on that.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Which will cost us in providing medicaid -- more medicaid spending for their births, is that accurate?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I'm not divided on those numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Pitts, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chairman Pitts, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I yield. Chairman Pitts, I'm sure you were here this morning when we had that ceremony for the fallen soldiers, and there was a lot of speeches that were very compelling, very sincere, from the heart, in reaching the -- all the family members that we hear of fallen soldiers, which is about 93, I believe; would you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I had a young man from may district that went to Waxahachie High School that was killed a month ago. We honored his family and his memory today.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And it's not losing anybody that I advocate for veterans and their families and members of the military, I've been local about that since I've got here. But I've added an amendment to House Bill 1 that would (inaudible) per year and 1.2 million for the biennium for the Office of State Federal Relations, and give to the combat tuition reimbursement program. And this program is for members of the military who are away at war, and we actually provide tuition for the children that are left behind to attend public institutions. And we have to agree, I believe, if you would, please, that $600,000 a year is not a lot of money when it's compared to the billions that we are allocating to everything else. And so I understand that 600,000 and the 1.2 million was stripped from the budget. And I would like to know, did this money go back to the general fund and used for something else, or is that 600,000 per year allocated back to the Office of State Federal Relations?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, I think you had -- and I'm not familiar with your amendment. I think it went into Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: No, I believe it's Article 3 on page 35.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay. If that -- We did not appropriate that amount in our budget that we're bringing to you today.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Where did that money go --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, you know we appropriated -- we had a goal to appropriate, of state money, $80.6 billion, and that's what we appropriated throughout the whole -- the whole budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And I understand that. But where did the 600,000 actually go? Was it put back into the lobbying arm of Washington, D.C. and not to the veterans? Did that money go back to them, since the money came from that to that article, and that page -- Did that amount go back to the general fund, or is the lobbying -- state lobbying arm in Washington, D.C. still funded? Did the money go back to where we --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I guess I'm not clear on what you're asking. You'd have to show me your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: All I'm asking is that we took $600,000 per year from the -- from the State Federal Relations, okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It would say in the --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Off of the State Federal Relations. We took that money from there and appropriated that to the Combat Tuition Reimbursements. That's where we pulled the money from in that amendment that was passed by the House and approved by the House. So my question to you is, did that money -- since it was stripped, where did that 600,000 go --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I would imagine state to federal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I cannot go through every line item --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: I understand. Okay. It was shifted to other areas of financial aid.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: It went into other areas of financial aid? So, the lobbying arm in Washington, D.C. was not funded?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: The lobby on the state federal license is not funded?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yeah, were they funded? Because that's where the money came from.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is the Senate had them funded and we funded them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: So it went back to the same --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not going to say your money went back to --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Well, I'm just saying the money that we removed from there went back to them.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: But state federal received an appropriation under our budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: They received the money that -- or that they had requested, the 1.2 million? It was like a hundred -- at one point 8 million, and then we took 1.2. So that's like 600,000 or whatever it was.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm just going to say state federal received funding. It's not may be what they asked for, but they did receive --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: But they did receive the money and the combat tuition reimbursement --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Went through other (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. I guess the question is so these children are not going to receive money for their tuition; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Various financial aid --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: But not through this program?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Probably not in that program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Pitts, I want to be very clear in my mind with respect to higher ed and public ed. That additional money has been appropriated. But what you're talking about is additional money from the bill as it left the House?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Every number that I gave was additional money from the House version as we passed it back in April.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But it's not additional money if you compare to it the Senate, or if you even compare it to the last biennial budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, it's additional money from the budget we passed here.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So is there
(inaudible) public schools in this state now, than there were two years ago. But the public schools of this state are not getting more money?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Public schools were funded over $5 billion more than what the introduced bill that we did -- $2 billion (inaudible) and then we added money.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I understand that. But the question is, there are more kids in the public schools of the state now than there were two years ago?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But there's not more money going to the public schools now than there was two years ago?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And it costs more to run school buses because of the cost of gasoline or the cost of electricity, the heating and cooling in the classrooms, and there's not more in the funding formula to cover any of those additional costs for those additional kids; there's no funding for enrollment growth in your bill, is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, I don't think, Pete, to -- we've never ever said. And I think we'll address some of these issues tomorrow in Senate Bill 1811 if there is a 4 billion-dollar shortfall in current services up for our public schools.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. And with respect to the other items of appropriation on the higher ed side, it is essentially the same, saying the additional revenue is -- there's going to be -- the goal is to get more kids to college, but there's still less money available now than there was two years ago?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct. We made some major cuts. We cut $15 billion from our budget.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: $15 billion from the overall state budget --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: From the overall state budget.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. And so every -- I don't want folks who are listening to be under the impression that we've done -- And I don't envy your job, Mr. Pitts. I will tell you I'm sure incredibly difficult. But I don't want to give the impression that we're adding additional revenue over and above what they had before. At the same time, we're cutting 15 billion dollars out of the state budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There is cuts everywhere in this budget.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I guess what I find difficult, though, is we are doing funding in -- as I understand the way the conference committee approached it is it agreed, it came to an agreement on all the articles and it left Article 3 for the end; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And Article 3 is the education article.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Education.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So you came to an agreement on the spending for everything else, and then you've decided on public ed and higher ed last?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So it would seem to be that what happens is you decided how much to spend on everything else, what was left over is what public ed gets. As opposed to the other way around, where we would decide what we needed for public ed first. Because while I understand, for example, the idea that we would want to fund courthouses -- as you know, I authored the courthouse bill that allows that after the courthouse in Del Rio collapsed. But I would much rather pay at a time like this for public schools than spend additional revenue like this on courthouses, as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: See --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And how much money was in for courthouses?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It was the bond. And I think the debt service is about a million. The bond is $20.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: $20 million?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- the total bond is the debt service (inaudible) it's nothing like that.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So we authorized 20 million in bonds and the debt service is 1, or is that previously --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Something like a million.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You know, I appreciate --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We tried to create jobs. But, you know, we always had our eye on where we were wanting to put the education dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will Chairman Pitts yield? Chairman, I know that you've stated that this budget, despite the fact that it cuts about $15 billion from the last biennium budget, is a fashion of living within our means; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: By living within our means, you mean the political will that exists in this House, (inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No (inaudible). When we started here we had a parameter and that was so -- it was a desire not to raise taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And whose desire was that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think it was the members of this House, the majority of the members, of this House desired not to raise taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: How did y'all discern that desire without taking -- Well, maybe the second vote on this budget -- How did you discern that that was the desire of this membership?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, I -- I heard the election results in November, and I heard the members in this House that came to me, and it was that we do not want to raise taxes. That we are not in the position, the economy in Texas, to burden our citizens with additional taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. And I know that as chairman of the committee it is your duty to stand up here and present the budget bill. And, as representatives, it's our duty to vote on it. And assuming it passes it will be a stamp of -- the legislature's stamp of approval on the budget. So you're saying that it was your interpretation that the people of Texas wanted $4 billion cut from public education, a billion dollars cut from higher education, and lots of money cut from the nursing homes --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Texas sent us to create a budget to live within our means.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, and I guess -- I guess part of the question that I am asking you is we had -- we're passed this now, but we had the legislative tools to go in another direction, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We had a lot of bills. You'll see some of those tomorrow in 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But the final result is that we're slashing the budget by at least $15 billion?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: $15 mil lion of (inaudible) funds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Now, I have a few general questions. I know that Representative Farias asked you about some line items, and you mentioned not getting into the specifics. So I have a few general questions for you. Do you know how much new revenue was raised in -- by new fees?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, the question was asked to us about new fees when we left here, and so we heard the -- this chamber with an instruction and I think an amendment about fees. We had a lot of good programs that came to us by the Senate, and good programs that Will Hartnett brought to us that increased a lot of fees and increased court costs, and increased fees on traffic fines. Very good programs. We did not do those fees. The only fees that we increased since we left this chamber through the conference committee was bills that passed this -- this chamber and bills that passed the Senate chamber that increased fees to pay for certain projects. And I think it was about $23, $25 million.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. So aside from that $23 to $25 million, you're representing to the body that this bill -- this legislature has not raised any new fees to raise revenue to soften these blows in other areas?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Joaquin, I didn't say that. I said since we left this chamber with House Bill 1 that we passed in April, the only additional fees that was added was bills that passed -- pieces of legislation that passed --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: For the conference committee report?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- during the conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: What about House Bill 1 --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think I've said on the front mic at that time that we increased fees by a little over 100 million dollars. And most of those were fees that the Attorney General requested us to -- to raise fees for -- to improve their -- their computer system to improve their collection of child support, and then there are some fees that Article 8 agencies asked us to do --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But as far as you know, there are no fee increases to stem the blow to public education, to medicaid reimbursement, to higher education or anything like that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: What about closing tax loopholes, tax exceptions. Do you know the total amount of revenue that we've generated by closing those?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not chairman of Ways and Means. You will have to ask Harvey Hilderbran of this legislation.
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time's expired.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Are we able to continue with this discussion or --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts has been speaking for over 30 minutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Is that a no?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is anyone wishing to speak for or against conference committee report? If not the question occurs on adoption -- Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, before I go any further I want to first of all, say that we should all commend Chairman Pitts and the conference committee for the hard work, the sacrifices and the diligence, the hours that they expended working on HB 1. So Chairman Pitts and the conference committee, thank you very much. Now, I also know that as a freshman member I think it's often been said that it's better to be seen than heard. And while I may partially agree with that, when I saw HB 1, there was no way that I could remain in my seat and remain silent with the type of budget cuts that we're about to undertake. Our constituents elected us to represent our districts by setting priorities and doing what is the best interest of our state. We aren't here to cater to any special interest groups. And yes, that does include the Tea Party; we are here to govern and be statesman. The 82nd Legislative session has been a challenging one due to the budget crisis we find ourselves in. The challenge of working through our problems, however, has been compounded by the refusal by some members to step up to the plate and make tough decisions that are in the best interest of our state. We have had all session to deal with the crippling multi billion dollar budget shortfall. But instead of dealing head-on with the real financial problems of the state, we have chosen to shift the attention to the divisive, hot button partisan issues like voter ID, Sanctuary City, the sonogram bill and yes, the so-called tort reform. Issues that have no bearing upon what Texas cares about the most. As this session -- session approaches an end, we actually have two days left, we are finally talking about school finance. Why wasn't this declared an emergency item? Rather than taking a hard look at the long term solutions for our fiscal crisis, we chose instead to look at short-term solutions and gimmicks, using Band Aids and chewing gum, along with Enron style accounting to get us through this session. We are, in essence, kicking the can down the road. The House version of the budget HB 1 passed earlier in this session was hailed as a victory by many conservative and Tea Party advocates. However, those cries of victory came to an screeching halt when the Senate adopted a version of the bill that spent 4 billion more on education over the next biennium. One important issue to keep in mind is how we ended up in this situation in the first place, and ill designed tax swap in 2006, which reduced property taxes by replacing the franchise taxes on business has fallen far short on projections, creating a structural deficit that accounts for about a third of the deficit within our budget. The legislative budget board and independent nonpartisan arm of the state, predicts that the proposed House budget would result in a projected job loss of thousands of Texas jobs, including teachers and state employees. The practical reality of the House's 4 billion cuts to public education is a reduction of approximately $450 per pupil in funding, which equates to roughly a ten thousand cut to each public school classroom. It ignores the 160,000 new kids who will enroll in Texas schools over the next two years, and I believe that's what Chairman Gallego was trying to make a point of. While the compromise with the Senate helps provide additional funds for our schools, it still does not help the state meet its obligation to adequately fund public education. The leadership continues to reiterate that we cannot use the Rainy Day Fund, the state savings account created by Constitutional Amendment in 1998 -- 1988, for financial situations like the present one. This is despite the fact that the same legislature appropriated all of the Rainy Day Funds in 1991 and 2005. As of today, the fund contains upwards to six billion in reserves. Extreme cuts to public education pose a great threat to the future prosperity of our state. We need to make Texas school children a priority, and it is economically shortsighted to increase class sizes, fire teachers and underfund classrooms. Education is the key to innovation, as the technology jobs of tomorrow require students with strong backgrounds in math and science to compete in the 21st Century global economy. The result of the drastic budget cuts, many fear, will be closure to neighborhood schools, elimination of art and vocational programs, and the elimination of access to prekindergarten education for thousands of children. Currently, Texas ranks 44th out of 50 states on per-pupil spending. 44th out of 50. And with this budget we're likely to be dead last. As of today, we're currently ranked near the bottom on graduation rates and in the top in dropout rates. We are last in the nation in the percent of our population over the age of 25 with a high school diploma, and we haven't ever widened a (inaudible) gap. The cuts to education stand to further put our kids' future at risk, accelerate the path to failure, and will drive industry out of our state in the absence of an educated workforce. Any attempt to move backward and balance the state budget without using the Rainy Day Fund creates a Doomsday scenario. It's unrealistic, and it's not representative of a government that places value on securing the future of our children. It is incumbent upon us as state legislators to move forward by tapping the state savings account and make more resources available to fund public education. The most recent revenue estimates by the comptroller predicts an additional 1.2 billion will be available to the state over the next biennium, and forecasts an additional 300 million will be available for the Rainy Day Fund for appropriation. If we're going to do what's just and right we're must close corporate tax loopholes and make sure businesses pay their fair share. We have to uphold our statutory obligations to properly fund our state programs and not shortchange our future opportunities for development and business growth. Finally, we must implement limited responsible cuts to the budget, protect important priorities like public education and jobs, and avoid a deepening of this economic recession by spending more of the Rainy Day Fund. Members, we're all here to represent our district, and I totally, wholeheartedly agree with Chairman Pitts. This is not a partisan issue. Public education is a fundamental issue. It doesn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican, if you come from a urban school district or a rural school district, or you live in a suburban area; public education is and should be our number one priority and this budget doesn't do that, because we have available funds in the Rainy Day to appropriate, to minimize the cuts that we make to public education. One of the reasons why we're gaining four congressional seats is because of the explosive growth that the State of Texas has had over the last ten years, and we are not accounting for that growth in this budget. And that is the reason why I urge you to vote no. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak in favor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is my fourth session in the Texas House, so about half of you here have been here longer than I have. I have witnessed more things on this floor than and about half of you haven't. But I recall when I first came here in 2005 this legislature, two years prior. Had come through a ten billion dollar shortfall, and they were notified I think about the week they showed up. And in 2005, when we came back, the economy in Texas was doing well, and we were actually able to reduce some of the deferrals that had been used. Not all of them, but a great majority of them. In 2007 we came back to record revenues in this state. Sales tax were growing at a double digit rate year over year. Times were good. In 2009, just last session, we were in the beginnings of what has become the worst recession since the great depression, as everyone has said. We also, though, received about $12 billion, roughly, in federal stimulus money that was spread throughout the budget; and allowed us not to have to make the hard decisions that now face us today. If you look at what's being reduced, there's an 18 billion-dollar drop in federal funds in this budget. About 12 billion of that, obviously, is probably the stimulus money that's not here this time. The other part is not only have we lost the higher F map on Article 2, Dr. Zerwas tells me we're even now below where we were because we're prospering at a rate that some of the other states are not. So our F map has actually dropped percentage-wise to the state dollars, the GR dollars that we put up. This has been probably -- This is my third session on Appropriations. This is, by far, the most difficult budget that any of us on Appropriations has worked on. All of us would like to see public education at a higher level of funding. What the House accomplished in conference, in my opinion, is the best that we can do on the priorities that are important to this House with the resources we have. My constituents sent me here to make the hard decisions, just like they sent you here. They also sent me here with the expectation that we would live within our means. I remember (inaudible) Chairman Bernanke at the Southern Legislative Conference this past spring warning states that you had better find new sources of revenue for your Rainy Day funds, because the volatility that we were beginning to see, he expected to continue. All of us hope that we are coming out of this recession, there are positive signs that we're coming out of this recession. But there are also fears on the horizon about interest rates and what we will do if the economy turns downward. I think that this budget is a proven budget, it's one that I can report and it's one that I can go back home and explain to my constituents. And that's why I will be voting for House Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Texas and Texans deserve the best. I raised a point of order on resolution -- House Resolution 2558 to try to stop the bleeding. Well, I knew it was the time of the session and I knew it was going to be overruled, but I thought i important to raise it, because I think we need to really take a minute to look at what we're doing to Texans. There's no question that we have limited resources, and no question that we have to make hard choices as legislators. I fought several bills during the session to help raise revenue, because I came here with the same expectation that every member did. How do we make Texas stronger? How do we make it better? How do we make Texans stronger? And how do we get the best that they have to offer? Those bills were not considered, because someone made a decision that we would not have new revenue on the table. Well, I understand that we probably passed bills that have a hundred million dollars worth of fees on them to the citizens of this state. We keep saying we're not raising revenue but we are feeing them to death. We've talked about not spending the Rainy Fund, we need to hold and reserve some money for the Rainy Day Fund. It's flooding here. I don't know why everybody's not clear about that. It's flooding and we need to be using those monies so that we can save the integrity of our state. And I just rise to say to you -- I know many people said why did you raise a point of order? And I just found myself limited in terms of what options were available to stop the pain. You know, I heard a lot of folks talk about less government is better, less government is what we should be aspiring for. Well, I took a new tune. Less government means less pain to our citizens. And so I submit to you that Texas and Texans deserve better. HB 1 provides nothing but pain, and we are to be ashamed that we couldn't figure out better ways to get there. You know, in 2006, the comptroller then told us we should expect this fiasco, this fiscal fiasco. We new we built in a structural deficit in our budget. We knew that. Everybody that was here during this time, they are not surprised that there is a structural deficit. That's never been a question, that there's a structural deficit. We voted on it. I voted no. But many of you passed it on, and so it faces us today. We talked about the taxes and exemptions that are out there. We said we don't want to raise taxes. But, in fact, we've given those exceptions and are reluctant to review if there's a value to the State of Texas. But we passed the pain over to the citizens. And now I would submit to you that as you vote for HB 1, I suspect it will pass, it will pass without my vote, obviously; I think we ought to take a -- stop and take a real look at what it's doing to people, what we're doing to Texas, and what we're doing to Texans. We got ask ourselves is this the best we can do? And if you think this is the best we can do then you are going to vote for this bill, I suspect. But if you think that we can do better by Texas, that Texas deserves more from us, and that less government will mean less pain; then you'll join me and vote no on this bill. This is not -- this is not a budget that we can be proud of. We ought not put our children, our seniors, our services, we ought not make them second -- secondary. We ought to be proud of what we say Texas is about. But how can we be proud and then undermine them by not funding it to the level it needs to be funded, so that, in fact, we provide the services our citizens need. How can we go away knowing that we cut 15 billion and we left corporations making hundreds of billions in dollars from not paying taxes while citizens are struggling to pay their taxes? How can we be comfortable with that inequity? How can we say we are doing the best we can when we're leaving money in the account, it's called the Rainy Day Fund, and not filling those gaps in our budget for children, for seniors, for education, for scholarships? How can we be comfortable with that? So I would just tell you that while I did my best by raising a point of order and stopping it, thinking less government would mean less pain; I accept that we have to vote on this budget, and I accept that it will probably pass. And I will tell you, members, that many of you, when you get home, will be asked the question couldn't we do better? I hope you'll take some time to think about it, so that next year, next term, when we come back; or if it's in July or August, we make the commitment to govern Texas like we really are proud of it, and to govern Texas like we want it to be this great state that we often talk about, and to support those citizens that we call our constituents in a way that we'd have them support us. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.
REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Thank you members. I would like to agree with everything Representative Otto said. I was on the Appropriations in 2003, and that was my first bite at that interesting apple of Appropriations. And it was a scary time for all of us. And as we walked through that, the process, there were articles in the paper how Texas was just going to fall into the slump; everyone was going move away from Texas and there would be nothing left but old, dying people. And, you know, you know, the story. That didn't happen. We held firm, we did the right thing, we steadied the course and we were able to reap the benefits. Here we are, 2011, in an unprecedented, by anyone's term; an unprecedented economic time. And we are trying to adjust and do the smart, wise, prudent thing in these unprecedented times. I'm looking here at the hand out are all funds cost -- all funds will be cut by 8.1 percent. Our general revenue will be cut by 2 percent. And I want you to sit and think, how many of you have been in businesses that had a bad year? Have you ever had a year where you were ending up with less than 50 percent of the revenue you thought was coming in? I bet there are a lot of people here that have done that. And what you to do is you buckle up and make it work with every ounce of your body. I know my church has had challenges. And there are programs that we have not been able to do that we wished we could have done. And we look forward to restoring those as soon as possible. So I think I have to applaud Chairman Pitts and the hard work the whole Appropriations Committee has done. I think this is the right thing for Texas and I will be voting aye.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And before I begin, certainly, like everyone else here, I applaud my good friend, Jim Pitts. We're not just friends in session, we're friends out of session as well. And I know his heart, I know how conflicted he is. And I'd like to applaud as well the work of all the Appropriations Committee. And likely, at the end of this bill, after our vote, I will be delighted to stand up and give him a nice round of applause along with the members of Appropriations Committee. All who have worked extremely hard. Like most of you, I have absolutely no appetite for a special session. At the same time, I have even less of an appetite to have our state lower standards in education. Education is a must, it's always been a priority for us here in the State of Texas. Right in our constitution, in Article 7, Section 1, we are directed to make suitable provisions for the support and the maintenance of our public schools. And I don't think that we're doing this in this bill. I don't believe we're making suitable provisions. For public schools we're cutting the per pupil rate by about $400. As a result, Texas, which already ranks 43rd in per pupil spending, will likely fall even lower. The short changing of our school children is, in my opinion, irresponsible and reckless. In higher education a near 30 percent reduction in the amount of students receiving Texas grants is nothing less than appalling. Thankfully, we will renew grants for the students who currently receive them. But we're drastically reducing the number of new recipients. To know that we are facing and placing a financial burden on some 40,000 working class families across this state who want their children to achieve and surpass them in life, and to support this budget is not only irresponsible, as far as I'm concerned, but unconscionable. These cuts will prevent students from being prepared to be productive citizens and leading the kinds of lives that their parents dreamed for them. I think it's sometimes believed in this House that most of these Texas grants must go to students who live in democratic districts. Well, that's not exactly the case. I speak and I work to make these grants available for students throughout the State of Texas. And District 109, which I represent, in '09 there were 244 students that received Texas grants. And if I go down the list and look at the some of the other districts that we think of as republican because they are headed up by republican members of the House, we would see that District 35, 528 students in that district. And again, District 109 is 244. We would see District 57, Representative Beck with 786 students in that district. My district, 244. District 113, Representative Driver, 629. My district, 244. Jim Jackson, District 115. 509. My district, 244. Jim Landtroop, District 85. 630. And I could go on and on. But the point to be made is these are all our children, and it shouldn't matter whether they live in districts that are so called democratic or republican. They are all our children and it's in our best interest that all of these children and these students have an opportunity to get a good education. And what makes this so much more difficult is that we won't see the harm that we're doing right away as we slam the door on these students. Things will appear to be fine on paper, but if we don't reject these invasive cuts to our education system, once the problem becomes clear to us, we will have lost a whole generation of Texans. Most of us know that this bill is wrong, in my opinion, with funny money. Why are we depending on waivers and health and human services that we always been denied? The economic stabilization fund was put in place for a time such as this, when working families have wage earners that have lost their jobs, when unemployment is high. You may say unemployment is only around 8 percent in our state. Well, guess what, to a person who is unemployed through no fault of their own and who wants to work, unemployment for that person is 100 percent. We talk a lot on the House floor, and I would never reveal what House members say to one another on the House floor, but I will say that the scorecards are causing some of us to make really bad decisions. But our legacy, and that gap between the year that we came and the year that we left, will not relevant the scorecard. Our legacy will center around the folks that want go to college and we slammed the doors in their faces. The children whose exposure has been limited and they need pre-K's to catch up. And we said no. That will be our legacy, and the score cards can't erase that. The words of Dr. King have been used on this floor many times before, and to paraphrase what he said is it's not what we do in those moments of convenience, but it's what we do in those moments of challenge and controversy. He finally said, in that famous quote, that conscience always asks the question: Is it right? Is it the truth? And I trust the conscience of each and every one of the members of this House. The it those people outside this chamber with the score cards that I don't trust. My request that each and every one of us simply vote our conscience, and I know we'll get it right if we simply vote our conscience. The people who send us here deserve that, and that is all that they ask for.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members. We keep hearing that public education and other areas in the budget are getting more money. But I guess you could say that. You could say that if you are comparing it to the original version of HB 1. It might also be true that if you are including federal stimulus dollars, and GR, which were also doing; might also be true if you think that a responsible budget does not look forward to enrollment growth in public education, as we are not; to growth in colleges and universities, community colleges, medicaid case loads and department of family and protective services case loads. If you're not accounting for those things then you might think yeah, we're saving money. But we're not, because we are not looking forward. You wouldn't say, for instance, that your own personal budget is balanced if you deferred your car payment from this month to next month, because what happens next month? You owe this month and this month next month. And that's sort of what we're doing with this budget. Let me share with you some of the accounting tricks that we're dealing with in HB 1. Some of them I mentioned before, and I'm sorry if I'm repeating some, but we've got 4.8 billion in unfunded general revenue for medicaid. We're only funding medicaid for 20 months. We are deferring $2.3 billion of public education dollars into the next budget. We are also speculating $800 million worth of property taxes will return to us at greater than projected levels. We're using GR dedicated dollars for general revenue. But let me tell what we're going to face in two years. We've heard this before, deja vu all over again. Well we will face that but it's going to be on steroids because what we're doing is we are making the minimum payment today. What we'll face between now and the next two years is a shift, it's going to be a shift to the local tax payer. And so what we're doing to our constituents is, instead of spreading the burden over the entire state, our local taxpayers will be paying for things all by themselves. You know, I just wish we'd just be straight with the people of Texas. Nobody likes taxes and we all -- well, I guess the majority of folks here campaign on no new taxes and so on. But here's the thing, things that our constituents want cost money. I saw a bumper sticker one time, maybe you've seen it before. That if you think public education is expensive, try not -- not spending on it. Our constituents expect us to be good stewards of public dollars. And just because we don't make an expenditure, just because we cut something doesn't mean that the cost goes away. We -- It's our duty to spend money wisely, to spend it up front when it's cheaper, than to spend it on the back end when it's more expensive. And, unfortunately, that's what we continue to do. We need to have the courage to have sound fiscal policy, which we are not doing here in HB 1. I would encourage you to vote no on HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, members, the budget that we're about to vote on is the worst Texas budget in more than a generation. I asked the question while ago of Chairman Pitts about how we arrived at this budget. Again and again I have heard over the course of this session this idea that we're living within our means. And I would submit to you that budget is not about living within our means, but more a budget that's trapped by a certain ideology. We had, during this session, the legislative tools to make another choice. That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to raise taxes, which is why I asked the question about fees, I asked the question about closing tax exceptions. I find it odd that part of the justification for the budget, for cutting 4 billion dollars from public education is that is what the people of Texas asked us to do. If you sincerely believe that, if you believe that the people who elected you in November sent you down here to cut $4 billion from their public schools and a billion dollars from higher education, then I hope that as the fall and the spring and the summer and the next fall come along, that when somebody in your district comes up to you; a middle aged woman who tells you that her mom can't afford to go to nursing home and ask you why that is, that you will look her dead straight in the eye and your answer will be, because that's what you sent me here to do. That's why I passed that budget. Or when a 40 year-old mother tells you that she and her husband are having trouble sending their kid to college, because they can't afford it, because tuition has gone up about 75 percent or more at public universities since 2003, and this budget further cuts financial aid and cuts funding to universities, and she asks you why that is, I hope that you'll have the same bravado that you will when you vote in a few minutes; and you will say because that's what you elected me to do, you elected me to cut you son's financial aid. And that's why I did it. I don't believe that's why they sent us down here, and I don't believe that that's the message that they were sending us. That is an ideology. That is not practically what people want in the State of Texas, and we have the tools to do something different and refuse to do it. Others have mentioned that we are if not the fastest growing state, one of the fastest growing states in the nation. In fact, the governor often brags about that, and if he enters the race for president I'm sure he'll brag about that even more. That we've recruited in the last ten years seven hundred thousand jobs to Texas. But there's some context to that fact, and I doubt that those facts, those lesser known facts, will be discussed by Rick Perry. And that is, of all those jobs that we've created, including the well paying ones, that a significant portion of those jobs have gone to those people that have moved here from out of state. Who have moved here from California or Colorado or other places on the east coast. And the reason for that, I believe, in big part, is because we aren't building what I call that infrastructure of opportunity. We're not funding our public schools and our universities properly. In other words, we aren't preparing and training our own people in the State of Texas to assume these new jobs are being created; so the jobs come to us and they are filled by other folks. And with a budget like this, that will continue to happen. I am also disappointed that there weren't other ways that we considered raising revenue. I know that many of you from both parties support gaming. Gaming is not a mandatory way of raising revenue. It's still a voluntary thing. That never had a serious discussion in this legislative session. All around, this budged is both a betrayal of the public's trust, and a failure at its highest level. And, for that reason, when it passes today, it will be the worst budget in a generation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. You know, this is tough for everyone, and no one wants to go home knowing that the budget isn't good enough for their constituents. I just want to talk about a couple of things: One is that if you take this budget and you look at current services, the state should be spending to maintain services, $99 billion in general revenue. Instead we're spending 8 -- $80.7 billion in general revenue, which means this budget $18.3 billion short in this -- 2012 and 2013. And I want make that clear, because when we talk about whether or not we're funding something appropriately, you have to look at the people who need the funding to do the things that they have to do. And what's common in this budget is the belief that the people who actually need the services now, and in the future, are not included in this budget. The growth of the State of Texas is not included in this budget. So when this budget goes forward, it doesn't include any growth of any number of -- any people who will be living in this state in the coming years. And that's a problem. Because you can't stop people -- you can't stop growth. The other thing is that with deferring 10 billion dollars into the next biennium, with the structural short falls that I like to call it, which is $10 billion; we're looking at starting the 2013 session with a 20 billion-dollar plus shortfall. That's exactly where we are today. All of you know when the LBB, the Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor all looked at this session, and started in May looking at -- putting together the legislative appropriation request and what needed to be funded. They sent out letters. First thing was let's do a 5 percent cut. And then a 10 percent cut. And that added up. That's a 15 percent cut. For a year from now, in May, the amount of cuts in this budget are going to grow. Because a letter is going to go out that says agencies, cut your budget by 5 percent across the board. Agencies? Oh, that's not enough. Cut your budget to 10 percent across the board. So that the amount of a money that is short coming in to the beginning of the next biennium, that's a shortfall, so that shortfall can be brought down. These cuts are just hidden, they're just pushed off to the start of the calculation for what's needed to fund the next budget. Now, when someone says that we're actually doing better, no, we're doing worse; because most of the cuts that were asked for during the making of this budget, those across the board cuts, are cut from the baseline of this budget. So they're cuts. They're there. As a matter of fact, I think I saw a press release saying $15.5 billion in cuts. Isn't that wonderful? Now, just a few more things: It's really more than a billion dollars cut to higher ed, because we -- the state needed 700 million more dollars to actually fund higher ed appropriately. And so the cut of 332 added to that 700 million is a billion. And when that billion is not appropriated, that means tuition will go up. And we've calculated, we believe that tuition will go up over a thousand dollars a year, and that's if you just held that constant over the next year that's a five thousand dollar increase in sending our kids to college. And most people would you say, you know, we don't -- is this about poor kids? No. This is about our kids. Because the money that is actually saved through -- either that is added to the -- to give out the scholarships through increases in tuition, somebody making $60,000 or $80,000 a year, which a you all know is not a lot of money, has to pay full freight. And they can get no financial aid from anywhere. Try sending three kids to college at a total cost of about a $150,000 maybe more, over four years. That's $450,000 to a state school where you live. So this just continues those trends. I guess the last thing, when you look at people with mental illness; and I talked about this a lot, we have an opportunity to actually fill-in all of the cuts to people with mental illness, but we're not going take that opportunity to reduce the number of people who would not be cared for under this budget, and that disappoints me. That really, really disappoints me. Because even Ronald Reagan said they are the truly needy, and this budget doesn't even fit his standards. So I end with we can do better than this, we have done better than this. And, in my 20 years here, I've seen people rise to the occasion that would have been defeated at home because they actually did something different than what they were told. I've done that, too. I signed on a conference committee report that has House Bill 5 in it, and I'm adamantly against that. But I signed on it anyway, because I think the bill, the overall bill, is good. So when I look at those people who have grace, I think of Lieutenant Governor, who went to do the things that made a difference to all Texans in every district, and he didn't fear for his political life when he did it. So I'm going to vote no on this budget. But I really think what we ought to do is think about this over the interim. Because, members, when we come back -- and when we come back we'll be facing a 20 billion plus dollar shortfall. And the angst that you're going through today, I hope, will be the same angst that we will all go through in the next session, writing a budget for it by the next biennium following this one. I want to thank all the people who have done their good work. This is hard, and this is not a reflection on them. It's a reflection on the times that we are in. And, for all of us, I think we have to dig deep down inside and say what is important to us? What is important to the state of Texas and can we do better? I think we can. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. First of all, I would like to them start out by saying Mr. Pitts is a nice guy. He really is a nice guy. I think he's a nice guy. But now let's talk about the budget. You know, we hear that the reason the budget is the way it is is because of November 2010. The reason the budget is the way it is is because of election 2010. But I remember in 1993 that I was told you get elected and then you come here and make decisions. And I was told that 95 percent of what we do is not democrat or republican, it's good for the State of Texas, and in that 95 percent is the budget. So we had the election in November, then we come here. And I kept hearing a lot, a lot, a lot, that the election said cut, cut, cut. But then -- but then we had tons and tons of people come to this Capitol, had protests, had marches, make their comments and had visits to our districts. And in that discussion were those people coming to the office. They said no cuts, no cuts, no cuts, no cuts, no cuts. After they started hearing about what was going on they came back and they would say no cuts, no cuts, no cuts. People have come to my office, whether it was health care, whether it was education, higher ed. They said no cuts, no cuts. I said see the sign? It says no cuts. But it's not me you have to convince, it's the rest of the folks in this Capitol. The rest of the folks in this Capitol. And they did. I think they did. They came to visit each and every one of us and they said no cuts, no cuts, no cuts. I don't think -- I don't think we heard from anybody that said cuts. In fact, the ones that were asking for cuts didn't even come, because they thought they had made that decision in November. But the people that did care about no cuts, no cuts, no cuts; came to visit. And, you know, members, it's hard -- it's hard to come because it's long way from El Paso, it's a long way from (inaudible) it's a long way from Longview, it's a long way from Brownsville, it's a long way from El Paso; it's a long way from a lot of places. But my main topic is about the cuts. And what does that mean? It means that family planning services are being cut by 73 million, 66 percent. It means that chronic disease prevention programs are being cut by 47 percent. It means that HIV, STD prevention programs are cut by 28.5 million. It means that we have 5 billion in cuts for (inaudible). It means that 85,000 new students will not be helped because they will be cut. It means that $4 billion to the foundation school program will be cut. It means that in higher ed over 1 billion dollars will be cut. So there's tons and tons and tons of cuts. But then the question becomes, do we have the resources? Do we have the resources? And the answer is yes, we have the resources. How and where do we get those resources? One, we have the Rainy Day Fund. Now, in the discussion -- in the discussion, in the discussion we would say we're not going to use the Rainy Day Fund. But, in the discussion, as an example, when the wildfires happened the governor said that's a disaster, let's use the Rainy Day Fund, right? Right. But don't you think that not funding 85,000 new students is a disaster? Don't you think cutting 4 billion for schools is a disaster? Don't you think cutting 1 billion dollars in higher ed is a disaster? Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. I will terminate this conversation by saying don't forgot, don't forgot, don't forget. And we will say that the decision was made in November. And to all of those, to all of those, to all of those that I know I told, you decide. We are just here because of you. Right now the we that are here believe that you out there wanted us to do the cuts. I think that you believe in no cuts. But that's out for you to decide. And like the way we're deciding is by election. I will end by saying, and one of our newspapers said Texas needs leaders who value fiscal posterity, low taxes and limited government. But, we also need those who recognize the fundamentals, such as public schools and college aids can't be sacrificed without damaging every aspect of our state and future. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to also first recognize the efforts of our chairman, Mr. Pitts. The speaker, the conference committee and all their staff. I know this is an effort that takes a lot of people and involves a lot of time and they put in a lot of work. I want to make three points very clearly. This budget is a betrayal of Texas families, especially women, especially women and children. Number two, because of this budget Texas will lose jobs today and, worst of all, it is going to put us in a weaker position to compete for jobs in the future; because of less educated and less skilled workforce. Finally, this legislature had other options. We had other choices that we could have made but the legislature failed to have the courage to do what's right for all of Texas. The budget cuts will have a dis-proportion impact on women. There will be millions of women harmed by this budget. Here is one woman's story, as she wrote in a letter to me: My name is Danielle Hernandez. I reside in San Antonio, Texas. I'm a single mom, an employee, and a full-time college student. I attend Our Lady of the Lake where I am pursuing my teaching degree in special education. I'm going to school in order to provide a better life for my son. I'm aware that tuition equalization grant funding and Teach grant funding may be decreased or eliminated. If there is no funding available then I cannot continue my college education. Please help me be the first person in io family to obtain a college degree. She goes on to write: My health has not been too good lately either, but I push myself in order to provide for my son with a more stable life. God bless. Danielle, I'm sorry to tell you that we did cut TEG and other state college grants and scholarships. You may be one of the 43,000 Texans who will not receive help from the state to become a teacher. Even worse, this budget cuts education, and thousands of jobs for teachers which will make it harder for you to find employment once you do complete your college degree. Even worse still, the education your son is receiving, the quality of it will be harmed with fewer teachers and more students. Classrooms will obviously be more crowded. Please take care of your health as best as you can, because this legislature has also gutted women's health care and family planning services by 66 percent. When the House debated the budget in April republican legislators spent hours attacking women's health and family planning services, and the women of Texas now have to live with those cuts. Basic preventive health care that might have been there for you will not be there for you, Danielle. Please take care. The legislature could have done more to protect innocent children from being hurt by this budget. Let me tell a little sorry about a young lady named Kira. She is three years old. She lives in Burlisson, Texas. Her grandfather called me. He loves her so much he wanted to tell me about her pre-K program that allowed her to mainstream with other three and four years old. You see little Kira is suffering from Down Syndrome. She's living with Down Syndrome. But this public pre-K program has meant a lot to her, it's allowed her to advance in her social skills and her learning. As it stood then, the district would be eliminating full day pre-K for Kira and her classmates, as a direct result of this legislature planning to eliminate public pre-K grants and, of course, cutting public education overall. Roger, if you're listening, I had hoped little Kira and thousands of others would be spared. Unfortunately, this legislature failed to act. They will lose their access to full day pre-K. I wish we had used some of the Rainy Day Fund for the next two years or cut back on some of the corporate tax giveaways to help your granddaughter. This legislature felt differently. Please try to find a way to provide Kira the professional services she will need. As you know, if she does not receive them as an early age, because of her condition she will live a much harder life. The Sisters of San Antonio wrote to me begging me to stop health care cuts for the elderly, and to understand that they are not statistics. They are real people. They told me a special story about one of their own, Sister Winifred, a woman who dedicated her whole life to carrying for others. The sisters are very concerned for their Sister Winfred, because their community is aging themselves. And if Sister Winfred loses her spot at the nursing home they won't be able to take care of her properly and take her in. Sisters, if you're listening, we did make progress. However, I'm sorry to inform you that this budget leaves in place the cut to nursing homes that was implemented last year. And cuts in our overall health care budget are to the tune of 30 percent. Please prepare for the worst, sisters. Because in 2013 our health care budget that makes payments to homes and other health care providers runs out four months earlier. You see, this budget is hard on women in a lot of ways. If the state is not doing to be there for vulnerable children and elderly, it will most likely be women who pick up the pieces, who will have to change their lives dramatically to step in. Carol Poor has an 83 year-old mother who lives in an Alzheimer's unit in Gunther, Texas. Carol said she would have to resign from her secretarial job to care for her mother if she were to be discharged. Neither of the women is able to pay for a nursing home or a home health care nurse. Here's another story. Janet in San Antonio. She has a 23 year-old son with severe autism, he cannot communicate. Sometimes he's aggressive. He requires 24 hour care. If he loses his group home slot she, too, will have to leave her job because she cannot afford to care for him and pay somebody else the professional that he requires. She fears she'll be reliant on public assistance. Let's not talk about jobs. Make no mistake, this budget will impact all of us, because it impacts our economy. The LBB, the keeper of the numbers that we rely on to estimate our price tags on every single budget and to tell us how the numbers add up, they did their own independent analysis and found that House Bill 1, earlier in the year, would cause this state to lose 335,000 jobs and an increase in unemployment of 2 percent. Now, I know there's a lot of debate on this report, but here is one thing that we cannot debate. That is that those in control of state government should have seen this coming since 2007. In 2007 our budget shortfall was 8 percent. You might ask how do you pass the budget with an 8 percent hole? Well, we used money from a prior budget cycle, a fun balance. The following budget cycle, when we got together in 2009, that hole nearly doubled in size to 14 percent. We were fortunate to have stimulus dollars to help us bridge this budget hole, or to sew this budget hole. Of course, in 2011, the hole again nearly doubled to 27 percent. How are we solving this now? Through a cuts only, an accounting tricks approach to the budget. My friends, we can do better. We have to do better than this. Texas cannot grow itself out of this problem. It cannot, because our population is growing less educated, our population is growing less educated because we are failing to educate them. It doesn't have to be this way. The Governor and the legislature made a choice to do this. They could have chosen to use the Rainy Day Funds to pay for the next few years; they chose not to. They could've chose to close tax loopholes and make all corporations pay their fair share; they chose not to. They could have chosen to fix our broken business tax; they chose not to. Instead, this legislature chose to balance the budget on the backs of vulnerable Texans and women.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you. Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members. Thank you, members for your patience. Particularly, since I think we all know the outcome. So thank you for patiently listening, as those of us on my side sort of got our last shot at this. And I don't have any charts so -- and I think Mr. Turner is coming up shortly after me, so you may end up forgetting what I have to say anyway. But, first of all, it's been fascinating to watch the last couple of weeks. You know, when we sit up here and pass HB 1 the first time I said this is your school finance vote, members. Don't get on my back when I lay out a plan based on these numbers, because this is your vote. And it's been fascinating watching these past few weeks because we've had these battling plans. With my plan or plans, or dozens of plans, and Mr. Eissler's first runs and Mr. Eissler's second runs, and the Senate's runs and the leadership's runs. And everybody running warned these runs saying hey, Hochberg, this is unacceptable to my school district. Look, this other school district is losing less. This is unacceptable, because the other school district's losing less. Well, if it's unacceptable for your school district it should be unacceptable for the other school districts and for every school district in here. And the only way you fix that, other than me taking from yours and you taking from me is put more in. And so when you look at those school finance runs tonight or tomorrow or whenever, and you see that Mr. Smith's district may be losing more than Mr. Quintilla's district; it's not just unacceptable to Mr. Smith's district and we should take it from Mr. Quintanilla and give it to Mr. Smith, the reason it's unacceptable is because it's unacceptable because there's not enough money in the deal. And that could have been fixed pretty simply, logistically, because we're now to the point where the deficit in school funding is far less than the amount of money that is in the Rainy Day Fund or that we anticipate to be in the Rainy Day Fund. I'm convinced that those numbers are unacceptable to many of us, republican and democrat, and that's one reason for me not vote for that aggregate number and not to vote for this budget. But I think the bigger reason for me not to vote for it is because I fear that my friend, Mr. Otto, is correct. John has said many times we shouldn't use much more of the Rainy Day Fund, or any more of the Rainy Day Fund because we're going to come back and have a worse problem. And I think he's right. I'm convinced he's right. Because we can't even get back to this funding level without more revenue. We're at this funding level because we have used every trick in the book. If anybody had another one out there that we didn't use, you know, bring it forward now. And I think there's some people who would like to add it in in some conference report somewhere. I'm sure we could find a place for it. But we've practically used every trick in the book. As you can't use those tricks twice. So, next time, just to stay where we are we're going to have to find new revenue to replace those tricks. Look at schools. Jimmie Don, you and I know that one of the first things we said is we can hold that August payment off until September. We have done that before, schools pretty much okay with it, they get the. It is worth $2 billion. We can't do it the next time because it's already been deferred. So just to get back to where we are we got to find $2 billion more just to pay for that trick. And, by the way, somehow in the budget, Mr. Pitts, y'all managed to caught call it 2.3 billion. So the foundation school program is really short another 300 million, because the 2.3 is isn't the right number to use for that referral. But whether 2 two or 2.3, it isn't going to be there next time. Since we all seem to agree on a that, republican and democrat, what I'm disappointed about and what I can't figure out is why we have done nothing about that. Not a thing. We see the train coming, we're standing on the tracks. We're not telling anybody to slow down. We're not getting off the tracks. We are just saying well, here it's coming. Better save the Rainy Day Fund. And we will back here next time with exactly the same problem, only the money will be bigger and the tricks will be gone. And then what do we do? The fact that we haven't done anything convinces me that this is not a one-time budget cut, that it is the desire of this legislature to keep cutting and to keep going down further. And if you want to see unacceptable school runs they're going start looking like the ones we saw at the beginning of this session when we were down 9.8. This is a rich and wonderful state. It's a state that I love. It's the state of my birth. My parents took me away from this state for a number of years when I was a kid, but for the last 40 years I've been back here. And I came back and stayed back because this was a place where we could do anything. Texas was the biggest, and then we learned about Sarah Palin and she had another state. But that's -- We don't even -- They're too far away. They're next to Russia. We're still the biggest, as far as I'm concerned. We're the biggest and we're the best, and we were the greatest and we set our goals high. We reached for the stars, literally and figuratively. We built with tax dollars great institutions of higher education. We built in the district I used to represent the greatest cancer center perhaps in the world. I think like to think it's number one. I have a hat in my office signed by two Nobel Prize winners at a university that is admittedly a private university, but it still receives huge amounts of federal and state money for research and it works with the Texas Medical Center that has huge amounts of state and federal money for research, because we set those goals high. We said it's not good enough to be like every other state, we need to be better. If we give up that quest, we might as well take our names off the license plates, because we'll be like everybody else. That's not why I came back here. It's not what I wanted to build here. We can do better, we must do better, we must do better soon. Thank you, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, we're in a state of emergency. A state of emergency that we had to pass the voter ID bill without proving voter impersonation. A state of a emergency that we had to pass a sonogram bill that is a intrusion of government. A state of emergency that we had to pass a sanctuary city bill that not one person could define or even tell us where one was located. Well, what about the true emergency? What about our children? What about education? Our seniors? What about health care and the jobs that will be lost? This bill betrays the trust of the people of Texas, knowing that we have billions and billions of dollars left in our state savings account, but failing to utilize it for the betterment of Texans. And all of the of us knowing that we're ranked 44th in education and having one of the most uninsured populations. Not living within our means gives away our future, members. Some things haven't changed since 2003. The legislature starts with the easiest target first. By not showing we can afford the care for our children, they are yet again the biggest losers in this budget. But, members, what we can't afford is a budget that does not provide our children with a future. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lyne.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Members, I hadn't planned on speaking when I got up this morning to do this. I wasn't even sure how I was going to vote on the budget when I got up this morning. But I'm going to speak for this budget because it is the what the people of my district sent me here to do. Everywhere I went people said, cut the budget, cut the budget, cut the budget. And I preach from this book that all of us have seen, the Fact Book of Texas. And I'm not sure that they knew that Texas wasn't Washington, D.C. That we don't spend money like Washington, D.C. That we are -- I mean you look at the rank, that we don't spend a whole lot on a lot of things. Half of our budget is federal funds, and we want them to cut federal funds. We have to be, as I tell people at home, we are responsible for us. We have to take the time to get involved. Wichita Falls is a great place to live and that whole country out there is a great place to live, because people are engaged. We have people who give generously. We talk about spending down here. We're not spending enough, we're spending too much, we're taxed too much, we're not taxed enough. I can tell you this: There is never enough. Never. There will be needs if we spent every dollar in this state. I told my community when I was Mayor, we could hire a police officer for every person in the city and there would still be crime. We have to be responsible. We have to be engaged. Every generation has cultural shifts, we're in one of those now. We have a lot of single parents, a lot of single mothers especially. Young. They need help. It's easy for me to say well, there's help out there, they need to go get it. My wife and I argue about this sometimes. We need to educate. We have problems that currently exist that we have to take care of, but we have to stay -- also, we have to start somewhere. I don't know much about how everything works down here. I've been in politics most of my life, around it. I've seen it, I've been in DC, I've been here, I've been in community. In all politics, all government has some really weird stuff that goes on and we have heard a lot of those stories today. We have an education system that I flat out -- I looked at the funding, I've been through it at least a dozen times; I couldn't tell anybody at home how we figure out how much money they get. And I guarantee you they can't look and find out how much money they get. Now I figured the out the numbers a little while ago, based on the numbers coming out, how much we're going to spend and how many students, 4.9 million students, 3 billion something, 30 billion something that's $7,500 a student. Yet we have -- We give from $3,000 to $13,000 per student, depending on where they live. And I've told them, we can't just divide it up and five the money out. It's not how it works. There's special needs here and special needs there, and rural's different than urban, and poor's different than this. And we can argue all about that. But I guarantee you, when you get right down to it, that equal funding works a heck of a lot better all the way across. Who do we tax? Not enough taxes, not enough people paying taxes. I was told by one of my University professors you're not taxing business enough. We're letting business get off scot-free in the State of Texas. Well, I got down here and I listened to other people. Shoot, businesses are paying more than their fair share. But half the businesses aren't paying. We think we're overtaxed because we write that property tax check every year, we see it; it's big. If we wrote a check for everything we pay to the federal government we'd go nuts, but we don't see that. It gets taken out. I've heard all my life, don't cut mine. Every program, and we've got hundreds of them, the federal government's got thousands; they're all incredibly important to somebody. So don't cut mine. Don't tax mine. Don't tax me. Don't tax me, tax the man behind the tree. And this year I got to hear don't cut you, don't cut me; cut the guy behind the tree. I told the speaker and several other colleagues that I can cut budget, that is not a problem I've done it. I have had a lot of businesses, I've had great successes and I've had some failures. I hate letting people go. But when you put faces on those cuts it makes a difference. And I've been fortunate in my life to work with a lot of nonprofits, a lot of poor, a lot of struggling, a lot of poor educated and there'll always be those folks. But we have to be responsible for us. I suggest in the interim that a lot of you pick up this book and look at it. Talk to your neighbors. Because I came down here, as I said, at the beginning I did what the people sent me to do from my district. But I guarantee you there are a lot of angry, unhappy people in my district. Because they didn't want to cut theirs, but they didn't want their taxes raised, either. It puts us in a weird dilemma. And we are elected to make those decisions. I'm as conservative as can be but I got a big heart. We don't pass mental illness on down, it just goes to the county or the city, mainly to the jails. Boy, do we cut the budget. And you're going to ask me, it doesn't sound like you're speaking for this budget very well. This is the budget we have. This is what we knew coming in. This was what it was going to look like, it looks a whole lot better than when we came in. But this is what we knew. This is what the people who voted for the majority of the people here want to see. But I promise you, they don't know what gets spent in our Texas legislature and how it is spent. That's our responsibility to teach what that is. It's easy to say cut government spending, cut the waste, cut the fat. Show me where it is. Show me where it is. I work in the energy business and I was talking to some people a little bit earlier. I can tell you, as an operator, the Railroad Commission doesn't have enough people in the field to do their job. That's just a fact. But we don't want to increase the budget. There is never enough money. I've never met anybody yet who said hey, I'm overpaid and underworked. Here's some money back. Anybody overpaid in here? Let me look up there and make sure. No. That just doesn't happen. We would all like more. Our communities are the future. That's where the rubber is going to meet the road. We have to engage our communities regardless if it's a hundred people or four or five million people. That's where the activities are going to take place, because we are not going to have enough money. That is just the way it is. We're never going to have enough money. Texas has been blessed to be given a huge natural resource, energy resources. And it has paid for universities, for schools, for students all along. A hundred years. We haven't had to pay because those resources were there. And we're taxed to fund those things. We've gotten off cheap, folks, because we had an industry and a mineral industry that created a huge amount of revenue. Our whole Rainy Day Fund is based on that. What other business do we tax that flows into the Rainy Day Fund? None. We have to get behind this budget because this is what it is today, but we have to look in the interim at who we tax, how we tax. And the one discussion I've noticed we never have, collectively, how much do we need to spend on education? What does it cost to educate a student? What does it cost to take care of health care? What does it cost to take care of criminal justice? Do we want a lot of non violent offenders stuck in jail, or do they need rehab? We talk individually about these things in our committees, but, as a whole, do we share what that is? We have to have the conversations. We have to make that decision. I've seen schools that cost 20, $30,000 a year, high schools. Kids got educated real well, they're smart. I have seen schools that don't pay hardly anything and they get educated well sometimes. I don't know how much is enough, but I am tired of hearing it's not enough. But you won't tell me what enough is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raids a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I will tell you tonight, I will be brief, only because I want to reserve my comments for tomorrow when we deal with 1811. Mr. Speaker, you appointed me to the conference committee. I have enjoyed working with all four members of the conference committee, and you appointed me to the conference committed, the only democrat on the committee; and I've hand excellent time working with all four, with the other four. Let me just tell you, members, this is my third term in the Texas House. Just checking to see if you were listening -- give or take a few. My third term, give or take a few. Mr. Speaker, I do want to report on the conference committee. As you know, I was very critical of the budget at the very beginning. When on the conference committee. And I believe I did my best to represent the House. I put on my lawyer's cap in representing the house, my lawyer's cap, with the House being my client. And, at the same time, with the goal of trying to make the product better than when it left the House the first term around. With regard to the budget itself and the conference committee report, I want you to know when it comes to Articles 1, general government, Articles 4 on the judiciary, Article 5 on public safety, Article 6 on natural resources, Article 7 dealing with business and economic development, and Articles 9 on general provisions and 10 with the legislature, I voted yes on all of those articles with reference to the conference committee report. With respect to Articles 2 on health and human services, and Articles 3 on education and Article 8 when it deals regulatory services; I voted no. With respect to this budget, and I want to echo just a few things that have already been said. I don't believe this is the final budget, and I don't believe that the numbers that we are seeing today over the next two years, are going to remain etched in stone. Last time, when the budget was passed from this House, over the interim; we had, like Representative Coleman indicated, we had some reductions. Leadership asked for a 5 percent reduction initially, then a 2.5 percent reduction because of budgetary short falls. I believe -- I believe that because this budget in large part is based on deferrals, based on some (inaudible) and based on deficit spending, that this is not the real budget. In Article 2, in health and human services, yes, we are keeping the nursing homes open. We all recognize that's a big deal. But with respect to what we are leaving behind on medicaid funding, and Dr. Zerwas will tell you, come May of 2013, this budget, in Article 2, will run out of money. In May of 2013. Providers in all the hospitals will not be paid. And what we have done, members, what we have done, and I want you to understand what we have done; because this is a conservative state and this is a conservative House, and there are 101 republicans and 49 democrats; but what we have done in Article 2 is that we have placed $4.8 billion on what I call -- what I call the medicaid Mastercard. $4.8 billion. Which means the State of Texas is obligated to pay it. You will pay it, you will pay it in one form or another. The State of Texas will either pay it through the Rainy Day Fund, or what will a happen over the interim when we leave here is that the leadership will instruct the agencies to start cutting back on their budgets over the next two years, recognizing that this budget, HB 1, in Article 2 alone, in Article 2 alone, is carrying forward $4.8 billion that you are placing on the medicaid Mastercard. For all people who are conservative and for all people who talk about deficit spending, and for everyone in this session who has criticized Washington, D.C. you are implementing what folks are talking about across this country with regard to deficit spending. $4.8 billion. And no one, not the conferees, not LBB, not the Senate; no one would disagree with it. And I'm going to leave it alone. That's on Article 2. And Article 3 on education, on education. There are over 4.5 million kids in our schools. 4.5 million. In the current law we've established a foundation school program on formulas. We are intentionally, intentionally underfunding the foundation school program by $4 billion. Factually, no one is questioning that. No one. LBB, the conferees, the Senate, no one will question the fact. And the reason why I'm going to reserve most of my comments until tomorrow is because tonight, if you should vote for this budget, then tomorrow night you will have to implement your own cuts. And you will sign your name when you vote up here, sending a reduced check to every one of your school districts. Every one. Because you are giving them a haircut of $4 billion. 4 billion. When you combine what's happening in Article 2, combine what's happening in Article 3, 4.8 billion on a credit card, 4 billion in Article 3 on education, sending it now to your local school districts. And tomorrow, in 1811, because of what you're going to do in HB 1; you must pass 1811. You must reduce what you are going to give to your local school districts in rural Texas, suburban, urban Texas; and you will have to sign your name to it because that's what you are about to do in HB 1. And so my friends in rural Texas, when you vote on HB 1 and you vote on -- tomorrow on 1811, you are taking another step forward in going to the consolidation of your schools. Because, eventually, the money will not be there. We are moving in that direction. I simply raise that tonight. This is a serious matter. And really, I don't have any tiers for you on tonight on this one. I am all tiered out. And the reality is we all know what we are doing. We all know that. I've heard people talk about no to deferrals. There were 2 billion dollars on deferrals in this bill. Are you going to vote for it? No, to deficit spending. 4.8 billion. And really the agency says that number is closer to 5 billion or more. Health and human services, medicaid waiver. Representative Kolkhorst? $700 million. This budget is built on. LBB says you didn't get it from President Bush, do you think you're going to get it from President Obama? 700 million. Don't count on it. This budget is shaky at its best. It's shaky at its best. And for all of my conservative friends, no taxes; true, no Rainy Day Fund; true. But deferrals, deficit spending some speedups and funding; that's questionable. All exist. I have never come to this session believing that you could not change people's votes on this floor. I'm one of those eternal optimists. The moment I conclude that people cannot change their votes and they that the outcome will just be the outcome is the moment I simply take my seat and say nothing. I simply don't believe that. And my faith doesn't tell me do to believe that. And I do believe truth will set us free at some point. I do believe that. And at some point I simply pray that this House and individual members will have the courage of their convictions and to say publicly what they have said to me privately. It might not happen tonight, it might not happen tonight. But eventually I am convinced that your votes will catch up to you. I am convinced tonight, may not be tonight, but tomorrow you will sign your name to the check you give to your districts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I ask for you support in adopting the conference committee report on HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (Inaudible) Before we divide on the question I wonder if we could agree on all in congratulating Mr. Pitts and thanking him and the conferees for the work they've taken up.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Pete.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Gallego. Representative Vo, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HUBERT VO: Mr. Speaker, if I could have all the remarks to be recorded and to be reduced to writing?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 1. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Representative Laubenberg voting aye. Show the Chair voting aye. There being 97 ayes and 53 nays, House Bill 1 finally passed. 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 Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate has adopted the following conference committee reports: HB 1, 20 yeas, 11 nays. SB 341, 30 yeas, 1 nay. SB 563, 31 yeas, 0 nays. SB 875, 23 yeas, 8 nays. SB 1087, 28 yeas, 3 nays. SB 1534, 29 yeas, 2 nays.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, in a moment I'm going to recognize the following members for motions to discharge their conference committees and concur on Senate amendments: Representative Madden for House Bill 2847. Representative Cook for House Bill 90. Representative Branch for House Bill 1000. Representative Branch for House Bill 2910. Representative Madden moves to discharge the conferees on House Bill 2847 and concur on Senate amendments on House Bill 2847.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, Chair lays out House Bill 2847.
THE CLERK: HB 2847 by Madden. Relating to the use of video teleconferencing systems in certain criminal proceedings.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Video conferencing for our judges. We thought we could do some clean up with it a little bit with the Senate Bill, but it appears that the Senate Bill is actually right on. So I move that we discharge the conferees and concur with Senate amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, that is a motion discharging the conferees and conferring with Senate amendments on House Bill 2847. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Madden voting aye. Show Representative Paxton voting aye. Have all voted. There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2847 finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 90 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB 90 by Cook. Relating to (inaudible) requirements necessary to obtain a hardship license.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cook?
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cook moves to discharge the conferees on House Bill 90 and concur with Senate amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, the Senate made one -- one amendment with respect to a moving violation, and I'm going to move to discharge and concur with one Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cook moves to discharge conferees on House Bill 90 and concur with Senate amendments. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes and 2 nays, House Bill 90 finally passes. Chair calls up House Bill 1000 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB 1000 by Branch. Relating to the distribution of money appropriated from the national research university fund and to one or more audits an the information necessary to establish eligibility for that distribution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to discharge our conferees and concur on Senate amendments. I visited with the various universities. This is our tier one effort. And after visiting particularly with Texas Tech and the University of Houston, Representative Coleman, Senator Ellis and visiting with their president; they were happy with the formula that was slightly different that came back from the Senate than with ours. It was still on 4.5 percent and still will be a big win for our tier one universities that go into the national research university fund first, which we think will be the University of Houston, Texas Tech and the University of Texas, Dallas. And I thank Representative Coleman for his support and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speake r, before the chairman gets away. Chairman Branch, thank you for everything that you've done for the universities in this state and your hard work to make sure that we improve the terms of our excellence. And I really thank you so much for that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you Garnett, appreciate it. That was great work by our committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Branch moves to discharge all conferees and concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1000. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 148 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 1000 finally passes. Chair calls up House Bill 2910 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB 2910 by Branch. Relating to agreements between the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and certain organizations for increasing degree completion rate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Again we looked at this and walked through the various issues that we thought we might be able to consider, and it considered a capital funding scheme. And, ultimately, it just didn't make sense at this time at this place. And so we're going move to discharge our conferees and concur on Senate amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Branch moves to discharge conferees on House Bill 2910 and concur on Senate amendments. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. There being 148 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2910 is finally passed. Is mr. Isaac on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Isaac for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a corrective resolution. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR No. 176. It's a corrective resolution to fix a typo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following resolution. Clerk, read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HCR 176 by Isaac. Instructing the enrolling clerk of the House to make corrections on HB No. 1517.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Members, this just fixed an issue on the bill where two words were inadvertently left out on House Bill 1517.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 149 ayes and 0 nays, motion is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Members, Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 2395, HR 2290, HR 2355, HR 2600. Four memorial resolutions for fallen U.S. soldiers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following resolutions, clerk will read the resolutions.
THE CLERK: HR 2395 by Eissler. In memory of U.S. Air Force Captain Nathan J. Hylander of Hockley. HR 2290 by Lewis. In mother of U.S. Army Sergeant John Paul Castro. HR 2355 by Strama. In memory of U.S. Army Sergeant Mario Rodriguez, Jr. HR 2600 by Martinez. In memory of U.S. Army Sergeant Fernando de la Rosa.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miller? Mr. Gallego? Members, if you have any announcements bring them down front. Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we're going to have a rural caucus meeting in the speaker's committee room ten minutes prior to gaveling in tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, particularly members of the corrections committee, and that means Mr. Hunter back there in the back and others; the band is warming up and the meal is ready and our committee party will start as soon as everybody can get there.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miller? Chair recognizes Representative Miller for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Concurrent Resolution 168.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HCR 168 by Miller of Erath. Honoring John Cowan on the occasion of his retirement from the Texas Association of Dairymen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, this honors John Cowan who led the Texas Association of Dairymen for many years, and we're honoring him in his retirement. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. If there are no further announcements, Representative Kleinschmidt moves that the House adjourn pending the receipt of messages from the Senate until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. House stands adjourned.
THE CHAIR: Members, the House stands adjourned finally until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.
(The House stands adjourned.)
