REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. And Chair recognizes Representative Hughes to introduce our pastor of the day.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm so pleased to present to you a man that's well known by many of us. Don Garner is in his second session as State Director of Capitol commission. Of course, they're active in about 20 states, and Don is a full-time missionary to the Capitol community. Supported by the Lord to the Lord's people his background is in the (inaudible) and he grew up in the Dallas area, and with us again for the last two sessions. And over 50 members of this body have enjoyed at least one of the -- or I should say you have been to at least one of the bible studies, and we've enjoyed
(inaudible). And Don is going to offer the invocation for us. Please welcome Don Garner. Pastor: Let us pray. Father, we take just a moment to pause and acknowledge our dependence upon you. Father, we are needy people and, Lord God, those that fill this chamber right now have some -- some needs that I know you alone can meet. Father, you refresh our spirits and these are in great need of refreshing. This has been very long haul and, Father, they have been under a great deal of pressure. And, Lord God, at times it has been draining in every way imaginable; physically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually. So, Father, just renew them, restore them and the inner man right now. Father, for many of them, although this will represent some form of closure as this session comes to an end, Lord God, there is still much to be done, not only from a legislative standpoint but also as they head back to their districts and try to pick things up again with spouses, with children, with business demands that have been piling up now for months that they will have to go back and address, and a whole other set of pressures that have been building back in their districts. So, Father, I pray that you would give them divine enabling with an extra measure of your grace in order to face these special pressures. Lord, today they face demands as they do the business of the state on this floor, and I pray that you would (inaudible) for all that lay ahead for them even today. And, Father, we thank you for them, we thank you for all that you do through them, as they are ministers for good to the people of the State of Texas. Lord God, lavish your blessings upon them. We pray in the mighty name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cain to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE ERWIN CAIN: Mr. Speaker, members, honored guests, please recite with me the pledges to our country and our State flag. [PLEDGE]
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair gives notice of the introduction of the following privileged resolutions. Clerk will read the resolutions.
THE CLERK: Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2697, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 213. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2689, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 2327. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2688, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 362. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2684, suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 100. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2666, suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 1420. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2690, suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 1198. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2692, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 2439. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2691, suspending the limitations on the conferees for HB 2457.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up Representative Menendez for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to move to suspend House Resolution 2531, but in light of this special motion and this special good news that you are going to get to join me in, I can't be surprised. I'd like to speak before we actually lay out the motion, because the guests who are here with us are not aware of the fact that they are being celebrated. Mr. Speaker and members, in the gallery, joining my lovely wife, Celia, next to her ask is my good friend and legislative director, Hector and his mother, Maria and Hector Morales who, next month, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary on June 24th, 2011. And please stand up and let us congratulate you on this special milestone. Mr. and Mrs. Morales were married in Monterray, Mexico, in 1951. They emigrated to the United States in 1967. They have worked in various positions, including the Federal Reserve Bank, the South San Antonio Independent School District, and operating a producing farm as they reached their goal as becoming naturalized citizens. They worked extremely hard, raising three very successful and accomplished children, Hector and his two sisters who are now passing on their same passions for education, hard work and public service, to their now grown grandchildren, who are all in the gallery. Joining them as well is the grandson-in-law, son-in-law and her other grandson. Members, in all the years, so many of my constituents, I have found that I haven't found any other family that values their family, their community, their country, more than the Morales family. It's a an honor and a privilege to welcome them to their Capitol today and for me to congratulate them on their anniversary and their great success in truly realizing and living the American dream. And I want thank you for joining me in this happy surprise for the Morales family.
(Speaking in Spanish.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion to suspend. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2531 by Menendez. Honoring Hector and Maria Morales of San Antonio on their 50th wedding anniversary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative McClendon moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Huberty. Please give your attention to Representative Huberty for this announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Members -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could just get your attention for one quick second. Last night, in Houston, Texas, we had a police officer that was killed at 3:00 o'clock in the morning by a drunk driver. Thirty-eight year-old Kevin Will leaves behind two children, his wife is six months pregnant and I just want everybody to realize that as we go into Memorial Day this weekend the action that does have -- unfortunately a very negative reaction. And we just want to keep Kevin and his family in our prayers. And if you'll just join me in a quick moment of silence for him. And may God rest his soul.
(Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.) Thank you, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 263.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution to be read in full.
THE CLERK: HR 2623 by Raymond. WHEREAS, The Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program, created by the Texas General Land Office under the leadership of former commissioner Garry Mauro, is marking its 25th anniversary in 2011; and. WHEREAS, A volunteer effort first established in 1986, the Adopt-A-Beach Program strives to raise public awareness about the importance of keeping Texas beaches clean and safe, an endeavor that affects the $7 billion tourist industry and the nearly $2 billion commercial fishing business; to date, more than 400,000 Adopt-A-Beach volunteers have picked up more than 8,000 tons of trash; because tidal patterns make trash dumped anywhere in the Gulf likely to end up on a Texas beach, past volunteers have gathered information about the debris they collected, and the data they have compiled has been instrumental in the passage of international treaties and laws aimed at reducing the amount of offshore dumping; and WHEREAS, Garry Mauro, who founded the Adopt-A-Beach Program after taking part in a coastwide beach cleanup, served as land commissioner for four terms from 1983 to 1999; recognizing the heavy environmental and economic toll resulting from trash on Texas beaches, he initiated a study of the sources of beach debris and proposals for remedies; the Adopt-A-Beach Program grew out of those efforts; and WHEREAS, Through the contributions of county coordinators community leaders, private sector sponsors, and concerned citizens, and the ongoing oversight of the General Land Office this worthy program is continuing to address a major environmental hazard and to keep Texas beaches clean and safe; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Adopt-A-Beach Program and honor its founder, former Texas land commissioner Garry Mauro; and, be it further RESOLVED, That official copies of this resolution be prepared for the Adopt-A-Beach Program and for Mr. Mauro as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, last session, with almost unanimous support from you all, I was able to pass a constitutional amendment that was approved by the voters of Texas; putting into the constitution that our beaches would be open to the public in the State of Texas forever. And, as someone who did not grow up on the coast, I learned -- I came to learn what a valuable resource that was, what a gem that was from the State of Texas. I learned that from Gary Mauro. And there are many great things Gary Mauro has done for the State of Texas. Not only recovering millions of dollars into the permanent school fund, that would not always happen. Not only bringing some focus to compressed natural gas and opening up tremendous new markets for gas production in the State of Texas, and not only focusing on the environment in general; but one of the things that he did was recognize that plastics, when they were invented and began being thrown overboard all over the world, tons of those plastics were ending up on our beaches. So Garry, Commissioner Mauro, began a program called the Adopt a Beach Program. Twenty-five years ago this year, almost to the month, we celebrate the 25th anniversary. And I was there with Gary, because I worked for him at the time we began that program. And it is a wonderful example of how you can get communities and volunteers to get involved in helping something that's helping our environment, it helps our economy. Those of you who are close -- on the coast or close to the coast know that our tourism industry brings in billions of dollars into the State of Texas, and a big, big part of that is our coast, our coastline. And through the years, as we have mentioned, this program that Gary Mauro began, which is a volunteer program, volunteers have collect over 8,000 tons of trash that have ended up on the coastline in the State of Texas. And because of Gary Mauro, this state and our coastline will be preserved for generations to come. I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize him for that. In addition for that, members, you need to know there is a worldwide international treaty that addresses the issue trying to prevent the -- the pollution of our oceans. And it was an international treaty that Gary Mauro almost single handedly got passed by going over and working with the United States Senate, getting the United States to approve it, getting Great Britain to approve and, it eventually getting over fifty-one percent of the world's shippage tonnage, of countries who represent with over fifty percent of the world shipping tonnage to approve it, and making it international law. So, members, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to do this. Gary Mauro's family is here today with us, and with Gary is his daughter, Alexandra, who just graduated from college in Columbia University of New York. His son, Dominick, Andrew, Frank, and their friend Jackson Crawford. I also want to recognize, if you will stand, in the east gallery, his oldest son David Mauro, who just returned from teaching in South America and Chile and is headed to the London School of Economics this fall. Members, I move adoption and I want you to say thank you to Gary Mauro for what he's done to make this state the greatest state. Move. Adoption, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Taylor moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Gonzales of El Paso.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales of El Paso.
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules take up HR 2655.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following resolution, the clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2655 by Marquez. In memory of U.S. Army Corporal Eduardo Pedregon of El Paso, who died while fighting in Korea in 1950. FREEˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ FREEˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS:
THE CHAIR:
THE CHAIR:
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALES: Move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Sheets moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative White.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 2563.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2563 by White. WHEREAS, GEAR UP, or Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, has contributed greatly to the success of the 2011 graduating class at Lufkin High School; and WHEREAS, This federally funded grant program prepares students for college entrance requirements, introduces them to the application process, and provides guidance about financing their studies; and WHEREAS, Members of the Lufkin High Class of 2011 have been involved with GEAR UP since they were in the seventh grade, and the program's long-term approach has paid rich dividends; each of the school's more than 500 graduating seniors has been admitted to a university, college, vocational or technical school, or a branch of the military, and collectively, they have earned more than $3.6 million in scholarships; and WHEREAS, This exceptional class has received able guidance from GEAR UP coordinator Jennifer Williams, College Go Center counselor Lyndia Austin, Lufkin High School principal Mark Smith and Lufkin ISD superintendent Roy Knight; and WHEREAS, The GEAR UP program has provided important resources to students at Lufkin High, enabling these outstanding young Texans to fully explore the opportunities available to them and to look to the future with anticipation and optimism; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor all those associated with the GEAR UP program at Lufkin High School and extend to the members of the 2011 graduating class sincere best wishes for continued success in all their endeavors; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the school as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives. Chair recognizes Representative White.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, all the members in the gallery -- visitors in the gallery understand that over the past session it's been very challenging as we deal with issues of education, but Linda Austin (inaudible) director of Lufkin High School, along with Jennifer Williams, they stayed true to the course, didn't listen to a lot of the dismay in the media, and I'm proud to say over five hundred students graduated Friday from Lufkin High School. They all had plans to attend either to a two-year, four-year college, vocational school or technical school, or serve our country in the military which amounted to over $3.4 million in scholarships. Thank you, members, and join me in thanking these great Texans on the dais today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative White moves adoption. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Representative Geren moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Geren, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker, would you recognize me to move to suspend Rule 8, Section 13 of the House rules and all necessary rules to allow the House to consider each item eligible on the day there is two eligible calendars? In other words, midnight doesn't count.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Geren, I will recognize you for that motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I so move.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker, I'd move to suspend Rule 8, Section 13 of the House rules, and all other necessary rules, to allow the House -- If you don't mind, I'll finish the motion and I'd be happy to yield. -- allow the House to consider each of the items eligible in the days there are two items eligible calendars.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliament ary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: What is the effective impact of what Mr. Geren just moved?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, the impact is, as Mr. Geren stated, that the midnight deadline would not apply.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So Mr. Speaker, if a bill is on the calendar at a late hour, it would then be impossible for that bill not to come up at a time when it would not be eligible to be passed? In other words, whenever it would come up even if would not get that bill -- Let's say there's a bill toward the items eligible list, this would mean that regardless of when we get to that bill, be it before midnight or after midnight, the bill is still eligible for consideration and does not require a two thirds vote in order to pass or are to be taken up and considered?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Thank you. Well -- Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Geren, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Why would we do that, Mr. Geren?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Hochberg , there's a lot of things on the calendar that are very important to all of us, and I'm just -- I think that it shows that we're willing to work to get this state's business done.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Geren, we have rules that deal with when committee reports -- conference committee reports have to be turned in and published, and deadlines that members are well aware of. And I believe that in the past we have taken up items after midnight on a case by case basis. If the body is willing to suspend on a case by case basis with a two thirds vote; we have suspended those rules.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: That is correct. I was just going to get that out of the way now, Scott.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I would -- I would much -- I would personally much rather we follow the other procedure and vote on them on a case by case basis. Unless -- I mean, I guess the only other way to do it would be to allow members to flag bills that they would not like to make subject to your motion. But I don't see any reason why we can't follow procedure as we normally have in the past. Those bills that are late, if they have two thirds, they can move on. If they're not, they can't.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Well, Scott, I'd urge you then to vote against the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Geren. I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I would gladly yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Geren, this is the 139 day of the session.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: That's correct, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: For 139 days with the exception of two times, I mean we have adhered to the House rules. I'm trying to understand the necessity of changing the House rules on the 139th day.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: This is part of the rules, Mr. Turner. And we have suspended on more than one occasion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: There were a lot of bills, Representative Geren, that died --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Sylvester, I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: There were a lot of -- there were a lot of bills that died on the House calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, sir. I had several of them --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I appreciate that. (Inaudible) there was not a motion to suspend the rules and those bills died.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I know, I had some that died.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that is correct. And many other members that had other bills that died, and that was the nature of the House rules. I'm at a loss, Representative Geren, to understand on the 139th day why we would suspend the midnight rule and for it not to apply now.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I'm hoping that it won't apply anyway, Mr. Turner. I'm hoping that we'll get the state's business done well before that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But I will tell you, I have objected to the House Bill or whatever it is -- 1811 coming up before the time eligible. I have placed that notice on the chairs on the parliamentarian's desk. And the reason why I did that, Representative Geren, is because of other than the appropriations bill, that is the most -- and second most important bill of this session.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I would agree with you, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I
(inaudible) to extend your motion and the speaker adheres to your to your motion? Are you also willing to remove all time constraints as it relates to debating House Bill 1811?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: No, no, sir. I'm not, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, that's what I'm having a problem understanding. You're willing to suspend the rules in order to take up 1811 and others, but you are not willing to suspend the rules to allow this House to debate the second most important bill that has not gone through the committee process, that has not gone through any debate on the floor --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I move to extend my time, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules to continue the dialogue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, there's a three minute pro-and-con time limit on the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm not understanding. I move to suspend the rules in order to continue this discussion with Representative Geren. Mr. Speaker, it's the 139th of a 140 days, and it is about suspension of the rules I'm not understanding where we're going right now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, would you bring your motion down front?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not. Not if the Chair is going to consider Representative Geren's motion. If the Chair is going to recognize him for this motion then I would like this discussion take place so that everybody in the State of Texas can be aware of it. I'm not interested in a private conversation --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, I was going to recognize you for your motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The motion is --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: To extend the time.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: My motion is continuing the conversation with Representative Geren, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I believe he said he recognizes your motion, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I did not understand that. My apology. Representative Geren, the point -- the point I am making -- Will you agree with me that House Bill 1811 is the second most important bill behind this --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I've already agreed with you on that, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And would you agree with me that it has not been on the House floor as it relates to the school's financing portion?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I would agree with you, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And will you agree with me that 95 percent of the people on this House floor were not a part of the agreement that was reached as it relates to school finance?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I would agree with that, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And would you agree that we are talking about a bill that is approximately 350 pages long?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: That's correct, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the request -- and my request of you, to the extent -- 395 pages -- to the extent this House is willing to suspend the rules, the midnight rule, in order for some of you to get whatever bills you want through; I am asking you to suspend also the rules, so that we can fully and adequately discuss and debate 1811, which includes school finance.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: That is not part of the motion that I have up, Mr. Turner. You might ask if you could do that. I am not making that motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are you willing to accept an amendment to your motion that we have all -- ample time --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: You'd have to define ample, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, Mr. Geren, if I knew that you were going to be making your motion I would talked to you ahead of time.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Turner, you weren't on the floor when I got here, and I -- I only saw you coming in just a few minutes after I spoke on the back mic.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will you be willing to pull down your motion so that we can talk about it and then bring your motion back at another time.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I would be willing to do that, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I would appreciate it, Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The motion is temporarily withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 2706.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Members, this is a memorial resolution. Please take your seats or your conversations outside the rail. This is a memorial resolution. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2706 by Bonnen. WHEREAS, Family and friends will long cherish their memories of Melissa Susan Mitchell-Manning of Houston, who passed away on January 29, 2011, at the age of 55; and WHEREAS, Melissa Mitchell-Manning was born September 30 1955, in Columbus, Ohio, to Vincent and Loretta Hickey; she grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and graduated from Wissahickon Senior High School in Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, In the early 1980s, she moved to Texas, where she raised her five children and later spent time with her grandchildren; she coached soccer, basketball, and Little League and served as a parent-teacher association president for two terms in Houston; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Mitchell-Manning enjoyed traveling with her beloved husband, Robert Manning, as well as shopping, cooking, and baking; she was dedicated to her work as a homemaker and to her career with First American Title; and WHEREAS, An exceptional woman, Mrs. Mitchell-Manning was respected in the community for her many accomplishments, and her courage during the course of her illness was an inspiration to others; known for her integrity, strength, and generosity, she gave unselfishly of her time to others, and her wisdom, warmth, and valued counsel will not be forgotten by those who knew her; and WHEREAS, Melissa Mitchell-Manning treasured the time she spent in the company of her family and friends, and those she leaves behind will in turn cherish their memories of this kind and caring woman; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the life of Melissa Susan Mitchell-Manning and extend deepest sympathy to the members of her family: to her husband, Robert Manning; to her five children and two grandsons; to her sister, Anne Grzanka; and to her other relatives and many friends; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for her family and that when the Texas House of Representatives adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Melissa Susan Mitchell-Manning.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I actually never got to meet Melissa, but I'm here and Sid Miller is here with me today. Her son is Steven, and Steven has worked for me two different times in the legislative process. He has been beyond outstanding and he is currently working for Chairman Miller. But this is Steven's mother, he lost her after a very courageous multi year battle with cancer at the beginning of this legislative session, and we wanted to honor her today and honor him, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. Motion is unanimously adopted. Representative Miller moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair gives notice of the following privileged resolution:
THE CLERK: Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13, Section 9(f) of the House Rules, the speaker announced the introduction of HR 2703, suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 1320.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I wish to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 5, honoring the 50th anniversary of the election of Senator John Tower.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 4 by Branch. WHEREAS, May 27, 2011, marks the 50th anniversary of the election of John Tower as the Lone Star State's first Republican United States senator since Reconstruction; and WHEREAS, Born in Houston on September 29, 1925, John Goodwin Tower became active in the Republican Party when he was an assistant professor of political science at Midwestern University; he served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1956, and in 1960 his party nominated him to run for the U.S. Senate; and WHEREAS, When Lyndon B. Johnson resigned from the senate to assume the vice presidency, Senator Tower won the seat in a special election on May 27, 1961; many hailed this event as heralding the advent of two-party politics in Texas; Senator Tower was reelected three times, and over the course of his 24-year career in Congress he wielded enormous influence in a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues, particularly through his service on powerful banking committees and on the Senate Armed Services Committee; moreover, he took a leadership role in Republican politics at the state and national level; after retiring from the U.S. Senate in 1985, he went on to serve as the nation's chief negotiator at the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks in Geneva, and he led the group known as the Tower Commission in an investigation of the Iran-Contra affair; and WHEREAS, Senator John Tower perished in a commuter plane crash in 1991, but his accomplishments have resonated through the years, and his election to the U.S. Senate continues to be regarded as a turning point in the political history of Texas; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate the 50th anniversary of John Tower's election to the United States Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it's an honor to recognize this anniversary and the 50th anniversary of the election actually took place, I guess, yesterday; on the Saturday, 50 years ago. At the time, President Johnson had been put on the ticket with President Kennedy, and so he had been able to run as both the Senator and as the vice president. When he acceded to the vice presidency, shown by at name of William Blakely, there was a special election, 70 candidates and ultimately people like Jim Wright, Henry B. Gonzales, the Attorney General Will Wilson all in it, and Senator Tower got into the run off you and then beat Mr. Blakely in a very, very close election. Served from 1961 to 1985, served on the armed services committee for twenty of those years, and chairman from 1981 to 1984. Also served as chair of the republican policy committee for over ten years, and continued to serve our country even after he left office in 1985. He was our state's chief negotiator for the talks in Geneva, the strategic arms reduction talks, and also chaired what is now known as the tower commission, which studied the actions of the national security counsel during the Iran contra affair. He was nominated, as many of you know, by President Bush, George H.W. Bush, never confirmed for secretary of defense. And it's been my honor to represent his family, his two daughters. Tragically 20 years ago, this year he was -- we lost him in a plane wreck, along with his daughter Maryanne (inaudible). And it's been my privilege to represent both Penny Tower Cook and Jean Tower Cox in Dallas. President Reagan honored Senator Tower when he served in multiple capacity for him. He was a great leader for our state. I had the great honor to get to work with him, along with the speaker, and perhaps others in this chamber. And, he along with Senator Benson, in the '70s and '80s, represented our state very well in the U.S. Senate. So, for me, it's an honor to recognize this individual who brought two party politics to the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lyne, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I would be happy to yield, mayor. By the way, I thought your remarks last night were outstanding.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: The -- You know, being from Wichita Falls, which is the -- as a correction to the resolution, Midwestern State University, not Midwestern University.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: You're correct. I'm sorry for that.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: It happens all the time, and we debate whether we should change the name of the university from time to time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Now, the home of the Mustangs.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Mustangs, right. The --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Did you guys copy the Southern Methodist University, his other school?
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: No. We like to think that we're independent. We have three mustangs on our logo, not just one, because they do run in packs. But, that being said, senator John Tower, if we remember, his starting point was as a college professor who brought something unique to Washington, D.C. at that time, and he has been a great leader for our country his family's been great. He turned things in a different direction, but he supported all Texans. And I just want to make sure that people understand that, you know, we start out with some of the greatest people that come out of our college universities, so I just wanted to make that point and I'll sit down.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: We have a close connection. I got to do the commencement at your fine university in Wichita Falls a few years ago, and was reminded of his start there. And, also, he was I guess a radio disc jockey and learned some of his speechifying in your hometown. And so there's a strong Tower connection between Wichita Falls and Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. 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 actions, the Senate has passed the following measures: HCR 126, Thompson. Sponsor Wentworth --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 1331.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for SB 1331.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is Mr. Gallego on the floor of the House? Is Mr. King of Parker on the floor of the House? Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 1600. Clerk will read the report.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for Senate Bill 1600.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, I move to adopt the conference committee report on SB 1600.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against -- if the -- vote on the conference committee report adoption of Senate Bill 1600. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 134 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 1600 finally passed. Chair calls up conference committee report of Senate Bill 1331.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for SB 1331.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, 1331 deals with possession of consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor. We went to conference because there was an incorrectly worded amendment on this, and that has been fixed. So I would move that we adopt the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the motion? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1331. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 142 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 1331 finally passes. Chair lays out Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 341.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 341.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 341 is a bill that creates an opportunity for change for the rate payers of water districts. As you may remember, we had a discussion last Saturday and I moved to accept all the amendments that were left on the table in order to save this body from spending several hours debating this local issue. The conference committee report reflects the compromised bill that allows the customers of Bexar Met to vote on whether or not they want to retain the current Bexar Met water district or change course. Members, the amendments that were contained in the conference committee report provide more protections for contracting parties, and ensure the election provisions of the bill are as tightly constructed as possible. There were some amendments that were just not feasible for this bill, either, because they would have imposed an illegal mandate on home room municipality or violate our bond covenants. Others were just premature at this juncture, and I think the ideas of adequate infrastructure already called for in the bill. Members, this bill gives the voters at Bexar Met a vote to decide their water provider. And I move to adopt this conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the motion? The question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of Senate Bill 341. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Gallego voting aye. Show Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? Being 118 ayes, 20 nays, Senate Bill 341 is finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 1103.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for House Bill 1103.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. In conference we stripped out language that Representative Miller had an issue with, it went back to the House language. And, with that, I move to adopt the conferees and adopt the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the motion? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 1103. It's a record vote. The clerk will read the bill. Have all voted? There being 132 ayes, 12 nays, House Bill 1103 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1588.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for Senate Bill 1588.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, Senate Bill 1588 is the funds consolidated bill (inaudible) the only changes made a conference committee report was to remove some non-germane floor amendments. I move adoption of the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the motion? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1588. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 132 ayes and 15 nays, Senate Bill 1588 is finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on HB 1286.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on HB1286.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The conference committee report takes HB 1286 back to the original version, which passed the House on Local and Consent. The bill requires the University Interscholastic League to prepare a fiscal impact statements prior to any action by UIL legislative counsel on new or proposed rule.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Gonzales?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Will the lady yield for a couple of questions?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Ms. Howard?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Of course.
THE CHAIR: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Can you tell us what those three amendments are for that are now out of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, we had we had some amendments that would have allowed private schools to compete with the UIL system. We had one that would have prevened UIL from charging a fee and from registering officials, and the third one was -- I'll have to remember now. Sorry. I just came out of a meeting. I apologize for not remembering right off the bat.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Because you and I have talked about these, so I'm just trying -- making sure, because I had expressed some concerns about I think two of the three.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Oh, I'm sorry. The third one had to do with steroid testing.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Okay. You're right. So -- so just to be certain, the UIL participation for private schools is out?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: The steroid testing is out?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: And the not charging for UIL registration for officials is out?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: You're welcome. Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members, Ms. Howard moves adoption on the conference committee report on House Bill 1286. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 116 ayes, 30 nays, 2 present not voting; the motion prevails. Representative Gutierrez?
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker --
THE CHAIR: Chair lays out -- Excuse me Chair recognizes Mr. Gutierrez.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 2532.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The clerk will read -- Members, this is a memorial resolution. Would all members please take their seats? The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR at a 32 by Gutierrez. In memory of Monica Lisa Reyes of El Paso.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Gutierrez.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This session we've learned about how important parents and education are to our lives, and we've had these discussions over the last several months and we're going to discuss some more today. Throughout this session I had the pleasure of working with a fine young man from El Paso, one of our scholars, Jorge Reyes, who's in the east wing with his family. I learned that Jorge's father works in the local utility department to provide for his family, and also serve the people of El Paso. I learned that his mother, Monica Reyes, can't dedicated her life to her family. She worked tirelessly as a para professional for 11 years. And she worked with the PTA for another five years. I also learned at 49 she was diagnosed with cancer. At that time Jorge was in law school, and he took himself out of law school to be with his mother in the last years of her life. She passed away on October 30th, 2010, probably too young. I think it's important that we all honor the lives that we have loved and those parents that have made us to be who we are today. It's also other parents that make our lives better by providing us the opportunity to meet incredible people like this fine young man. For those of you who have met Jorge you understand what I'm talking about. His family is in the gallery on the east side of the chamber, his aunt, would you please stand? His uncle Mark Reyes and their daughter Ashley have joined us today. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to have the Texas House honor the mother of -- honor Monica Reyes, your mother. Jorge, thank you for everything. She is very proud of you. Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members that is memorial resolution all in favor, please rise. The resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Marquez on House Resolution 2655.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This was a House Resolution, a memorial resolution that was previously adopted. And I welcome my delegation to come up here and meet with me. The family will be viewing this online. It is my pleasure to honor an El Paso U.S. Army Corporal Eduardo Pedregon, a Korean War veteran whose name was recently discovered fifty years after his death. Corporal Pedregon began in the Army in 1948 when he was just 17 years old. He served in the Korean War in the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat (inaudible). For Eduardo began on November 26th, 1950 and ended in early December, but his brother was nowhere to be found. Corporal Pedregon was last seen alive on November 30th and he was officially listed as missing in action. His mother, Juanita Pedregon never gave up hope that her son would be found. Before she passed away she provided the Department of Defense a sample of her DNA to assist them in the identification process. His loved ones went more than fifty years without final word on his state. But in March 2011, Army officials notified them that Corporal Pedregon's remains had been recovered and identified in Korea. A memorial service is expected to take place in El Paso following the repatriation, and the family hopes to ultimately have their loved one buried in Arlington National Cemetery. It is such an honor to have a small part in honoring Corporal Eduardo Pedregon. His family sacrificed greatly and I hope that after fifty long years they find some closure and peace. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. This is a memorial resolution. All members rise. Representative Pickett and the entire El Paso delegation move that all members' names be added. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Thank you, Ms. Marquez. Members, we're on page one of calendar one. Members, we're fixing to take up House Bill 2605, but first we need take up the privileged resolution HR 2648. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2648 by Taylor of Galveston. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. HB No. 2605.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 3605 is a sunset bill on the Division of Worker's Compensation. And the conference committee requests permission to go outside the bounds to make a technical change to the bill. The Senate adopted a revision on the floor that has duplicative, conflicting language in another section of the bill to do with medical necessity
(inaudible) for employers of political subdivisions. It conflicts. So we do -- the change will omit conflicting language in Section 504.055 in the Senate version of the bill and replace the language with reference to Section 504.054. I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor moves passage of the privileged resolution. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 148 ayes and 0 nays, motion passes. Chair calls up the conference committee report for House Bill 2605. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2605.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, this sunset bill for division of Workers' Compensation. The conference committee adopted the following changes that were not adopted by the House, and that is in the Senate -- Provision to authorize an employee who is required to be examined by a designated doctor to request a reexamination from the treating doctor. That was actually a Zedler amendment over here that was tabled and was added in the Senate. The conference committee made a slight provision to the first responder provision to clarify the division insurance carriers of political subdivisions must accelerate benefits to the full extent authorize by current law. And that was a Senator Lucio amendment, and was also adopted by Representative Deshotel on this side. The conference committee also adopted clarification (inaudible) of the sunset recommendations in line of the appeals process of a medical necessity dispute is aligned with all workers' compensation claims, including political subdivisions. And finally, the conference committee removed a couple of provisions that were added on the House floor. Removed my own amendment, I don't know how that happened. A provision regarding local venue and substantial evidence review for district court appeals of medical necessity disputes. And that was not a sunset recommendation. The committee also removed the requirement for at divisions to solicit proposals or applications when contracting for designated doctor training and test providers. The division's already moving to implement those by rule. And the committee removed the provision that would have allowed doctors previously removed from the approved doctor's list to be reinstated by the workers' compensation (inaudible). And then lastly the conference removed the following provision added on the Senate floor, and that was the cardinal amendment. I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor moves to adopt the conference committee report for House Bill 2605. Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Mr. Bonnen voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2605 is passed. Chair calls up Senate Bill 542.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for SB 542.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Fletcher.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move the House adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 542. The conference committee removed the House amendments, one was mine, that had been passed independently of the bill on continuing education for second in command. And the other was Representative Walle's, which required school district peace officers to complete 16 hours. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Fletcher moves to adopt the conference committee report for Senate Bill 542. Members, This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 542 is finally passed. Members, we're about to take up Senate Bill 652. We will first lay out the privileged resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2647 by Bonnen. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction SB 652.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the conference committee requesting permission to go outside the bounds to make several changes of the sunset schedule. The Railroad Commission and the Public Utility Commission need two years in this bill, because they don't appear to be passing. We are putting the Office of the Public Utility Counsel off for 12 years, and we are providing for review of archive whenever PUC is up for review, except in the next two-year cycle. And then we will set a review of the Port of Houston consistent with House Bill 2770. And then the sunset review of the Regional Education Service Centers in 2015.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Olivera, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Does the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Glad to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Representat ive Bonnen, I'm sorry. I think everything you just said is very, very important, and I couldn't hear it. PUC sunset did not pass, is that what you are saying?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yes. Well, I'm saying -- Well, I'm saying it will not likely won't likely pass coming outside the bounds of --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: So let's start over, if you would. Please, what are you asking us to do and suspending here?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, we're not suspending, but I'll say again --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Limitations outside the bounds?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, no. What we're doing is the outside the bounds resolution, which is normal and customary with all sunset scheduled bills, because you don't know what agency bills will or will not pass. So what we're simply doing is continuing the Railroad Commission and continuing the Public Utility Commission, and putting them under review, as we normally do, in the next cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Okay. Do you mean by the next cycle in the next session, or do you mean the ten-year cycle?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Okay. So then those us of us that come back, or care to come back, or aren't defeated or whatever, would be dealing with the PUC and --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And Railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: And Railroad. Right.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, sir. And then also, in regard to PUC, we did some other things. The public utility counsel, we (inaudible) them not until 12 years, because there's no reason to look at them again, I believe their bill did pass. Then what we also did, with ERCOT is there's really no need to re review ERCOT because we put ERCOT off, but said that they need to be rereviewed when PUC is rereviewed. We paired ERCOT and PUC.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: So you're talking about the next session?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, but I want to be clear. We chose not to put them in to the next session, because there was no real interest in ERCOT and we didn't feel there was a need to have them rereviewed with the --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Well I won't speak for all the people on state affairs committee, but there was certainly was an interest in ERCOT and reviewing what they do and what they have done and what they have failed to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: So how long are you putting that off?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well it would be put off until when PUC is up for rereview. Now I'll remind you, Chairman Olivera, that any member can come forward next session with a bill dealing with ERCOT in any capacity that they felt necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Okay. So again, I'm sorry, I'm hearing inconsistent statements. You're saying you're doing it at the same time as the PUC, but it's not going to be to be up next session for --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Correct. What I'm saying is that we created a paying with PUC. What we're saying is that when PUC is normally in the cycle up for sunset, ERCOT should be paired with them. But we did not put them up for a rereview with the PUC this go around.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: So do we know then that PUC will come up, if you've broken the pairing here?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: When will that be?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Immediately?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Up for review, not immediately, next session.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, I mean the sunset commission's going to go to work on that.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Okay, so the sunset commission will start working on PUC, but they will not be looking at ERCOT?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Correct, because we just finished doing that with ERCOT.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Would the gentleman yield for a couple questions?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be glad to yield to a question.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Chairman I think there has been some discussion putting UIL in the sunset cycle. Were you able to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Unfortunate ly, that was not successful.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: How did we fail in not doing that?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, it just -- weird things happen on the way home some of the time.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So there is some interest by this body to look at UIL and some of the -- I know that Ms. Howard just passed a bill on impact statements, on impact that they have on that the public school systems, since they really aren't under any review of this body; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, you know, I've actually had some members tell me that they were one time many years ago appointed to a legislative oversight of the UIL, and have never, ever had a meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Very interesting. Thank you --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chairman Hochberg's waving at me confirming that, and I know Representative Flynn, our friend, is also on that oversight. And they -- I guess they should be proud though, it's one of those great positions you never have to meet with.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Chairman, I know that you are slated to be chairman of sunset commission, and congratulations on that. So as we look at the next cycle, there is a possibility we'll start to put an end so our cycle of agencies and --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I don't want to overstate it, but I desperately would have liked to having UIL under sunset in this cycle. And I'm frustrated that we missed one or two opportunities that were available.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Chairman Bonnen, we had a couple votes on the House floor related to the North Texas Authority going into sunset review, that was on the TexDOT sunset bill. It was passed with over a hundred votes in this body. Went back over, I understand, for a brief period of time it was in the scheduling bill, until it got into conference. And, just to confirm, it is not in conference right now despite the support of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It is not in conference -- not obviously (inaudible) to have this discussion, but it's not part of the privileged resolution we're doing. No. The North Texas Toll Authority, in fairness, when it came through we changed it, I chose to change it in the state affairs substitute that we did, it passed this House without really any discussion or concern. And then when it went back to the Senate there were multiple members of the Senate who had significant opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Now it's my understanding that the county judges in the area have gotten together to do a local review of the North Texas Toll Way Authority. If that proves not to be a substantial review or an in depth review, would you join with me next session, assuming we come back, and work on a getting them through state sunset?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Anchia, I will tell you that I was actually beyond convinced in the conversations that I had with House members about the necessity for North Texas Toll Authority to be under review and so, absolutely. If the decisions that have been made do help remedy the concerns that some of the members have they are not successful, I will continue to be committed to ensuring that we will bring them under review.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Cook, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: The gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be glad to yield.
THE CHAIR: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Dennis, just going back to UIL's, would it be safe to say that most of the House members that are on the sunset commission would've dearly loved to have UIL under the sunset review?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I think it's not only safe to say that, but I think it's safe to say that there's a huge number of members within the entire body who were very strong in their desire to see UIL to go under sunset. And I think their reasons why the top eight salaries are over $100,000 a year. The top 20 salaries are over $80,000 a year. Their overall payroll is $3.65 million, and they have a legislative review committee that never seems to meet.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: And aren't there a number of pending lawsuits that the AG is having to defend right now?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: My understanding, and I want to first say I may be incorrect, but the last knowledge I had was that there are six pending lawsuits that our State Attorney General, Greg Abbot is having to spend our taxpayer dollars to defend the UILN. Which is ironic, members, because the UIL likes to say that they are not a state agency, until they have to get the state to defend them in a lawsuit. And then they are a state agency.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: I just want to support your position. I am extremely disappointed that we don't have them in the sunset review, and I hope that you're table accomplish that in this next go around.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I know with your help we will get it done.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: (Inaudible).
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Gentleman yield for a quick question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be glad to yield.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Dennis, since NTTA was brought up I just want to express that I don't agree that NTTA needs to be subject to sunset reviews. The board are appointed by local governmental entities. It's controlled, essentially, by local governmental entities and I think that the sunset business is a separate agenda, unrelated to the quality performance. So just expressing my opinion on that.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you very much, Representative Hartnett. And you can let them know that y'all have prevailed and they are not under sunset at this time. And if they can work together in the process they've set out to ensure that they are running an effective organization, they probably won't find themselves there. But, certainly, the opportunity is still available if they can't take care of business.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: I think we've gotten their attention.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen moves to adopt House Resolution 2647. Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes and 2 nays, House Resolution 2647 is adopted. Chair lays out Senate Bill 652. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 652.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is actually the sunset schedule bill. There are a couple of things I do want to point out, that the membership is aware of. We had a very, very good discussion on the privileged resolution that we just passed. But one other -- one or two other things I do want to mention, the Port of Houston will be under sunset. The Windham schools in conjunction with TDCJ gets a special mention that we do a specific, thorough work at the Windham schools. And also Chairman Eissler's cohort in the Senate, Chairwoman Shapiro, asked that we do a full scope review of the 20 education service centers in 2015. I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen moves to adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 652. Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Bonnen voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes, 1 nay, Senate Bill 652 is finally passed. Is Mr. Guillen on the floor?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? I see him right there. He's right there.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Keffer. You can go sit down now. Chair lays out conference committee report for House Bill 3726. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for House Bill 3726.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. HB 3726 relates to the preservation and maintenance of the Alamo. As I mentioned, when we moved to go to conference committee, this has been a long process. The House, the Senate, the General Land Office and the Daughters of the Republic of Texas have worked together with some feedback from the AG's office to create a conference committee report that you have before you. HB 3726, the conference committee report for HB 3726, establishing an agreement between the GLO and BRT that is modeled on the nonprofit agreement between the Texas Historical Commission and the Admiral
(inaudible) Nemitz Foundation at the National Museum of the Pacific. This does not remove the DRT from the role of the custodian, rather it defines and clarifies the responsibility of the State of Texas as the custodian of the Alamo. The conference committee report allows the GLO to participate in the establishment of and partner with a qualifying nonprofit organization for the express purpose of raising funds, which the DRT has had difficulty doing for the Alamo complex and its much needed repairs. The conference committee report also allows the GLO to establish the Alamo Preservation Advisory Board, compromised of DRT members, state, city and county officials to provide advice, proposals and recommendation to promote and support the Alamo complex.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Guillen?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Guillen, I fully understand the conference committee report and I support it. My question has to do with we voted on the resolution to go outside the bounds. To my knowledge that resolution, never came back before this body. Is that resolution still in effect?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: That's probably a better question for the parliamentarian or for the speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Speaker? Parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: If I'm not mistaken, this body took a vote on a privileged resolution to go outside the bounds on this particular bill yesterday, or the day before.
THE CHAIR: That's correct, Mr. Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Is that resolution still in effect?
THE CHAIR: This is a new conference committee report. No portions of this conference committee report are outside the bounds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Is it our resolution --
THE CHAIR: The previous conference committee report was outside the bounds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So is that resolution effectively withdrawn then, if we adopt this conference committee report?
THE CHAIR: That resolution would have no affect on this conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Larson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Yeah, Ryan, we appreciate the work that you've done over the last three months. The AG launched an investigation about a year ago looking into some issues with the Alamo and how it's being run, the financial issues, the preservation issues; and I think all of us have come together in the House and the Senate to help the DRT. And with the Land Office being put in charge of oversight, along with the all the other committee folks that you've laid out for the first time, since 1905, the city and the county are actually going to participate in working with the Daughters and all of the surrounding areas around the Alamo. This is a great opportunity for the state to help the Alamo. In 2007, there was a master plan that was laid out by the -- by an architect firm that indicated that we have $5.1 million worth of preservation needs at the Alamo right now. What we did see in this investigation is we have not -- we've not had an opportunity to raise a lot of money with the AG report being -- with the AG report. My understanding is that -- that the AG, with the legislative intervention that you've brought forward, will allow everything to work its course; is that your understanding?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: It's built into this bill. It's built into the conference committee report. We allowed the GLO to participate in the establishment of and partner with a qualifying nonprofit organization for the express purpose of raising funds, which the DRT, as you mentioned have had difficulty doing for the Alamo complex for its much needed repairs. So built into this bill we're providing that opportunity to raise more money.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So the two things right now is preservation of as well as the financial issues. They're going to be responsible for giving an audit statement every year to the General Land Office, is that your understanding?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes, and that was part of the House Bill that's passed that's still within this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. I appreciate your leadership on this.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Will the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, just to be sure, and we had the discussion yesterday about this bill, didn't we?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And, you know, that I had a conversation with the AG's Office about the bill, and I've heard from the President General. And part of the concern that was brought up and the language that was put in when it went outside the bounds, was a concern about the fact that the the trustees or the Daughters of the Republic of Texas might not live up to the agreement, or might not be able to come to some agreement; is that your understanding?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: The outside the bounds resolution, what it was for was to allow the GLO to contract with somebody else, if and when they couldn't come up with an agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: And so -- But that, we completely took out. This is the new conference committee report that omits --
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Absolutely. And I think that what point is, just to go what you just said, and my point is see if you agree with me just for the record, is that by us taking that out that this House has made a decision to give them an opportunity to work this out. And there is an opportunity, a two-year window here that if this doesn't work out that that is property of the State of Texas, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Always has been.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Always has been, always will be so. We've got a little faith commitment here. But in two years old can I have your assurance and the other people's assurance that, if not, we will take back this and give the GLO the opportunity to take care of and preserve this institution?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Well, let me emphasize that the intention of this legislation is not to take the Alamo away from the Daughters. They have taken care of the Alamo since 1905 without costing the state additional money from GR, and we're grateful for their service. And we expressly have put into this bill the guarantee that the GLO will go into contract with the DRT to be the custodian of the Alamo. So we've got great faith that the DRT is going to continue to do what they need to do, and we're just -- with this legislation, we're just making sure that the Alamo is going to be a place that for generations to come, a place that our future generations can visit and be proud of.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Absolutely. And we are so grateful, as you said, for that. But as President Ronald Reagan said: Trust but verify. So we'll be back in two years to verify whether this worked out, right?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Well, we will be back every two years.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Absolutely. Thank you for you bill and I hope this all works out well for everyone concerned.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you. And I move to adopt the conference committee report.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen moves to adopt the conference committee report for House Bill 3762. Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 3 nays, House Bill 3726 is passed. Chair lays out House Bill 753 with conference committee report. Clerk will read the report.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 753.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Raymond.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill deals with recruitment or retention of certain case works for the Department of Family and Protective Services. We passed this bill. The Senate added an amendment creating a task-force, and in conference we removed the Senate amendment that agreed put back to the original bill. I move adoption of the conference committee report.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond moves the adoption of the Conference committee report for House Bill 753. Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 116 ayes, 27 nays, House Bill 753 is passed. For what purpose, Mr. Howard?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I'll wait for the next bill.
THE CHAIR: Members, Mr. Howard, can we take the Senate messenger?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose?
DOORKEEPER: I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE CHAIR: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate --
THE CHAIR: Members, we're on page two. Items eligible at 1:40. Chair lays out Senate Bill 1816 with conference committee report. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 1816.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond. For what purpose, Mr. Howard?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Well, I want to ask the gentleman a few questions. Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Do you
(inaudible) -- members, 1817 -- I'm sorry 1816 was the
(inaudible) legislation the task force during the interim that came up with some recommendations agreed to by the task-force, by the Governor's Office and by the Texas Association of Builders, and when we passed the bill on third reading Representative Guillen added an amendment which is bill he had passed earlier in conference committee. We removed that amendment so it's back to just the original bill that was passed on second reading.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Representa tive, my understanding is that what we're doing here is we're extending the authorities of the counties under Section 2, No. 3, which applies to who can be under this code. It says a county in which commissioner's court by order has adopted the model and rules adopted under Section 16343 water code. As you're probably aware, that code was adopted primarily for the area down around the border, do you recall that?
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: And the way I interpreted this bill, and I have a letter from the attorney from the Builders Association, and they're not very happy because they interpret this to say that any county can now have these division -- model subdivision rules apply to them. Are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: The only way they could have them apply to them, Charlie, is if they applied for EDAP, the economically distressed assistance program. That's the only way it would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Well, that's not what this bill says. It says if they -- a county in which the commissioner's court, by order, has adopted the model rules under this section. And these rules -- Are you familiar with those rules at all?
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Represent ative, to some extent, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: You are aware that the rules do not allow any sales of any lots for one hundred percent of all improvements therein. You can't even advertise if you're going to be building lots and, really, that would basically shut down development. I've been in real estate development for over 40 years and we always advertise our lots, we always resold our lots, and that's the only way you can get financing. This (inaudible) in here. Also, are you aware that all of the leaps and bounds under these subdivision rules have to be in Spanish? I know that would be helpful to you, but it wouldn't be helpful to me and it wouldn't be helpful to a lot of engineers who have to put somebody else on there to meet the leaps and bounds in Spanish. It's just very cumbersome, are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Let me tell you what I'm aware of, Charlie, I'm aware that we worked very closely with the Governor's Office, these rules are fairly benign. I believe that what you're describing is not what we're doing in this bill, but I also know that you throw up enough red flags it doesn't matter if the Governor's Office threw out this bill, it is exactly what they want. It is exactly what the Texas Association of Builders want. What I am aware of is if you throw up enough red flags this bill might not pass. If you start (inaudible) and written Spanish, I'm not going to argue (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: (inaudible) .
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: No, Charlie. The Governor's Office on this -- These are benign regulations, this is a benign bill dealing with the Colonias, if you think it does more than the governor thinks it does and y'all want to vote against it --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I do. And I will be voting against it, because what I think it does, I think it expands the authority of counties to enact subdivision -- (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Well, we're going to disagree with you on that, Charlie. But --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: But it's what it says. It's in your own bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: If a county -- if you have (inaudible) (inaudible)
(inaudible) if you create a Colonia and the county applies to eat that fund, they have to adopt the model subdivision rules that's what it says.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: What it says is, prior to this bill the only counties that applied to were within 50 miles of the border, or 100 with a municipality of over 250,000. That's what it was for --
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Or counties that applied for EDAP. Economically distressed assistance program (inaudible) (inaudible) that's current law. And we have counties right now that are already on that list, Charlie, because they have already have applied for, because they've got unincorporated areas that are being -- that are being plattered to be sold, et cetera. Now, if you want to make a -- I know -- Let me just respectfully say I know this is something you've looked out for, you know, every session because you want to make sure, just as I want to make sure that we're very careful in any additional regulatory powers we give to counties. So I can't convince you, okay. I can convince Rick Perry, but I can't convince Charlie Howard that it's not doing what you are saying, Charlie. And if that's what it's going to be let's just vote. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Okay. Let's vote.
THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of this committee -- conference committee report to Senate Bill 1816? Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 56 ayes and 87 nays, the motion to adopt fails. Chair calls up Senate Bill 1664 conference committee report. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 1664.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the conference committee simply removed the House amendment and I move adoption of conference committee report on SB 1664.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Truitt moves to adopt the conference committee report for Senate Bill 1664. Members, This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 128 ayes and 17 nays, Senate Bill 1664 passes. Members, we're about to do House Bill 2457. Chair lays out the privileged resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2691 by of John Davis of Harris. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, H.B. No. 2457.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The reason for the resolution is to add language to the financial disclosure statement, and also, based on recommendations of the State Auditor's Office 2547 adds a requirement that the emergent advisory commission file financial statements with the Office of the Governor, and also the new language will add to the governor's -- if they inform and provide the
(inaudible) to amend grants to the Lieutenant Governor and to the Speaker.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Davis moves to adopt the House Resolution No. 2691. Members, this is a -- this is privileged resolution. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, the motion passes. Chair calls up House Bill 2457 with conference committee report. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for HB 2457.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to concur with the Senate amendments that came from this bill. We added some stuff on the enterprise and emergent tech fund, which requires that the --
THE CHAIR: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman is finished I was going to ask if the gentleman would yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Go ahead.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Davis, the Senate amendments, as I understand it, for the first time makes the -- Do they make both funds subject to the State Auditor's Office, or what is the -- what is the impact of the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: What we're doing is we opening up on the emerging tech fund to where you have adding four folks -- four -- they have their 17 members on the emergent tech fund, we had 13, we had two were put on by the -- we added where the Speaker can appoint two members to the advisory committee, as well as the Lieutenant Governor can appoint two members to the advisory committee for the 17 member panel, where they can have them on the committee as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: How does that tighten up the process with respect to -- One of the issues is the issue of favoritism and the fact that people were getting money and not necessarily providing a very good rate of return for the state's investment. How does this impact that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Well, we want to have more eyes on and it and have the governor have complete control on who is on the advisory committee, that's why we're having the House to appoint -- the speaker can put two members on there as well as the Lieutenant Governor can put two members on there. Also, what we did, we took the auditor's recommendations on the financial disclosures that they have to submit their financial statements to the Governor's Office. Their personal financial information as well -- and if that information would be available to the auditors upon their request to work with the Governor's Office to give them information on them. We also on the -- on the grant process where the governor did not have to -- when they amend these contracts, the governor did not -- could just do it on his own: But we have it now where the governor has to notify the speak -- the Speaker, as well as the Lieutenant governor, as well as chair of the environmental -- eco development on the House side. As well as the Senate side (inaudible) make any changes to amend these -- these grants because it has more public disclosure as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And, Mr. Davis, is there any current -- or what -- that the bill gets signed, or is allowed to become into law? Are you under the impression that it's not going to get vetoed?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: I hope not. That's what -- We're doing our best to -- we worked hard, with Chairman Strama. We came together to work through it to make sure there's transparency in the process. We worked with the Governor's Office as well. They had objections, but we worked with them to compromise to where they realized it's important to have transparency, not only to protect him but to protect the whole process. That's why we worked hard with them, Chairman Strama and I did. We felt like we came up with some good compromises that will help us to make sure that there is a good openness and transparency in this process that protects everybody. Because they are important tools, and important tools to be used. But we have to make sure that we're being up front, transparent and shine some light on those funds and how they operate.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I guess that really is the bottom line of my questioning, is you worked with the Governor's Office?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And the Governor's Office is also in accord with these changes, to the best of your knowledge?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Yes, sir. They are.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so they have agreed to meet the legislature somewhere in the middle with respect to how that fund is spent, and to make sure that the taxpayers get essentially the best bang for their buck as possible?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: That's correct, Chairman Gallego. We sure did. And we worked hard and long for a period of time. We worked with Senator Watson, worked with Senator Jackson over there, and Chairman Strama and I worked together and worked with the Governor's Office and say this is fair and --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: -- save taxpayer's money. Thank you, Mr. Gallego.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Davis, Mr. Speaker, will Mr. Davis yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Davis, will you yield for Mr. Keffer?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: It'd be my honor to yield.
THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you very much. And I appreciate you and Mr. Strama working on this. I don't know if you remember but I had the honor of working and being chairman of economic development when we first set up the enterprise fund. And the goal of this fund, since its inception, was transparency; was to work and make sure there was a payback and a -- when we invest in these companies, to make sure that there is, as Mr. Gallego was saying, that they did a taxpayer's investment, there is a return on the investment. And I think that has always been the goal. And I appreciate what you've done with this bill to make it -- to shore up any deficiency that we did have, you know. Some around here call it corporate welfare but, in all reality, it is competing -- it is allowing Texas to compete with these other third world states that we have to around here to either keep business or bring business into our state that brings jobs, and what we need to do to keep the economy going in a positive direction. So I thank you for you work and look forward to this continuing being a successful program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you very much, Chairman. And I look forward to working and to useful tools to bring jobs to Texas. And I want to thank Chairman Strama for his help with me in this process as well.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Strama, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you. I just want to thank the Chairman for his work on this bill. It does a lot of to improve the operation of the emergent tech fund, along the lines of the state auditors (inaudible). There's some things you and I hope we can do to improve even further in the next session. So I hope we get to work further in this biennium. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Chairman Strama. I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Davis moves to adopt the conference committee report for House Bill 2457. Members, this is a vote, electronic vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Record vote. Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes, 0 nays, house Bill 2457 passes. Chair gives notice of the introduction of the following privileged resolution: HR 2721. Clerk will read the resolution for -- and the privileged resolution HR 2723. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, chair announces the introduction of HR 2721 suspending the limitations on conferees for SB 40. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F Chair announces the introduction of HR 2723 suspending the limitations on conferees for SB 1811.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. One of the privileged resolutions that we just laid on your desk is a privileged resolution for House Bill 1811. The rules call for a three-hour layout, so at 6:18 I'm going to be ask to be recognized for a motion to be take up HB 1811 out of order. Excuse me, Senate Bill 1811. At that time, I will ask to be recognized to take it up out of order.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentar y inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Just so we're all on the same page, the vote requirements for the passage of such a resolution would be --
THE CHAIR: Pursuant to Rule 14, Section 5, standing rule of the House and affirmative a vote is two thirds of those present.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Two thirds of those present, not a hard hundred, but just the two thirds of the members that are present?
THE CHAIR: Two thirds of those present.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. And with respect to the resolution has to pass with a two thirds vote, and assuming that it does that, we would proceed directly to Senate Bill 1811?
THE CHAIR: One moment, Mr. Gallego. We're checking that.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's my -- my parliamentary quandary.
THE CHAIR: State your --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Geren's to bring up the privileged resolution in three hours, that applies only to bringing up the resolutions, not necessarily bringing up 1811 itself; or does it apply to bringing up both the resolution and 1811?
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Resolution
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Resolution will be eligible after three hours. After the resolution is done I'm going to be asked to recognized to bring up house -- or Senate Bill 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. So the resolution and 1811 will follow immediately thereafter?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I don't know that it will, Pete. I'm just going to be asked to be recognized for that.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Geren. Mr. Speaker? Assuming that 1811 comes up right after the resolution does, what are the time limits of debate with respect to 1811?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, it will be ten minutes to open, the parties may speak for or against.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And those parties -- There's ten minutes to open and that is the only part of the -- that is allowed for question and answer? Because at that point the authors of the bill would not be at the microphone; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In terms of getting the bill out of order, would that apply -- is there any -- is the Chair intending to recognize any motion to push the (inaudible) deadline further back?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I don't believe that's Mr. Geren's motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It is not, Mr. Speaker. But, with respect, there is other stuff on the calendar, and it's very eligible very close to midnight, and I know there's been conversations about suspending the rules for the -- so that we will be able to consider stuff after midnight. Is it the Chair's intent to recognize anybody for that motion?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair would have to consider that motion when it is made.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 158.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, SB 158.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move the House adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 158. The conference committee removes the Salvia amendment by Representative Doc Anderson. They declared that this amendment violated the one subject rule. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Fletcher, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Fletcher , as I read your conference committee report, Section 1 of the conference committee report adopts the House Resolution; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And the issue of the Salvia was in what section of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I'm not -- I don't have it in front of me, Pete. But I know there was an amendment added by Doc Anderson and we actually changed it from a Class A to a Class B. They talked about taking it to a class C, and then they decided to strike it on a point of order that it was violating the one subject rule.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The issue for me is, with respect to Mr. Anderson's amendment, you know, he's been working on Salvia.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: For years, yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: For years, and that was a big deal and this is his last opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: This session. I'm sure he'll take care of it next session, Pete.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. Mr. Fletcher, well, thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Thank you, Representative Gallego. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the motion to pass Senate Bill 158 conference committee report? The question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 158. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Torres voting. Aye. Show Representative Isaac voting aye. Show Representative Lucio voting aye. Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and 2 nays, Senate Bill 158 finally passed. Members, this is a privileged resolution on House Bill 1517. Chair calls up House Resolution 2550.
THE CLERK: HR 2550 by Isaac. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, HB 1517.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is just a resolution to fix a couple of typos, and I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion for the adoption of privileged resolution. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Isaac voting aye. Have all voted? Being 145 ayes and 0 nays, the motion is adopted. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 1517.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, HB 1517.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The conference committee report made a couple of revisions. We added a ten-year sunset to House Bill 1517, and also just corrected to make it an opt in for the counties that are involved. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report. The question occurs on adoption of the conference committee report to House Bill 1517. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? There being 140 ayes and 3 nays, House Bill 1517 finally passes. Chair calls up the conference committee report of House Bill 628.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, HB 628.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to accept the conference committee report on House Bill 628. The committee report removes two amendments that were added in the Senate (inaudible) contractors eliminated (inaudible) another amendment was germane. The other one retains the amendments
(inaudible) on the floor. The other (inaudible) one city and the third -- I guess that's it. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the report? The question occurs on the conference committee report on House Bill 628. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 628 is finally passed. Members, this is an item eligible at 3:40 this afternoon. Is there objection to calling up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1134? The Chair calls up at conference committee report on Senate Bill 1134.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 1134.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, we put three amendments over here on the House side. The Senate kept two and took one off, they took off the pipeline amendment, and that's it. And I move to concur.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Speaker Craddick, you are one of the folks that is really well versed in the rules and in the potential for opportunities in conference. And so I'm -- As you know, there's been some issues with respect to Brewster County and the water districts.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: That's the next bill, not this one.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: That's not in this bill; is that correct? This bill is only petroleum and natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude petroleum pipeline, refined petroleum pipeline, natural gas transmission, natural gas transmission industries.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I think it's a permit by rule.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Is there a --
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Next one.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I move adoption.
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 the conference committee report to Senate Bill 1134. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Torres voting aye. Being 138 ayes and 4 nays, Senate Bill 1134 is finally passed. We're on items eligible at 5:10 p.m. Is there objection to bringing up Senate Bill 1420 and its privileged resolution? Chair hears none. Chair lays out the privileged resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2666 by Harper-Brown. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, SB No. 1420. Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'd like to make a motion to adopt House Resolution 2666. This is to go outside the bounds on the TexDOT sunset bill. Removes the provisions in the House version that the bill created an independent -- an office of independent inspector general, and replaced them with provisions that establish a compliance program at the department. Basically, it's the same thing with the same name. Clarifies provisions relating to the county transportation reinvestment zone, that's conforming language, and clarifies provisions relating to the transfer of oversized and overweight functions to clearly define the functions that the executive director of TexDOT retains. And to add transition language for a transportation project in the north Texas area, the Tarrant County area. And I move passage of this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Weber voting aye. Show Representative Eiland voting aye. Have all voted? Being 144 ayes and 1 nay, house Bill 1420 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 measures, the Senate has passed --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Parliamenta ry inquiry.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Where the rules require the speaker to take a particular action, can the speaker give that responsibility over to someone else?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Could you repeat the question, please?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Where the rules require a speaker to perform a particular action, do the rules provide that the speaker can delegate that responsibility to someone else?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, I believe some portions of the rules would allow delegation.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Is there a way to know which ones, Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, do you have a particular rule in mind? We can look at that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I do. I just didn't want to disclose it until I got the answer, though.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Would you like to bring that rule down to discuss?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: All right, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I just saw the report that Dallas CBS affiliate is reporting that Governor Clements died. That report came out at 2:58. He's 94 years old and has been in failing health for the last year after a stroke. And I would just like to ask all the members to join me in a moment of silence and a prayer for him and his family. Thank you.
(Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up the conference committee report, Senate Bill 1420.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 1420.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1420, which is the TexDOT sunset bill. As I mentioned when I laid out the bill, TexDOT sunset underwent sunset review last session but the bill didn't pass. So this is the culmination of four years of work. The conference committee agreed on several provisions that are important for the continuation of the agency and it's administration, and I want to thank the conference committee for all their hard work. Throughout the -- Specifically, this bill strengthens TexDOT's internal control to improve accountability and transparency by requiring the chief financial officer to ensure the financial activities are conducted in a transparent and reliable manner. Including certifying that contracts won't create a state liability that is greater than the department's cash flow. It strengthens the lobby prohibitions for TexDOT, including prohibiting the department from spending any of the appropriated money top select, hire or retain a lobbyist. It requires TexDOT to complete a detailed independent financial audit prior to each of the department's future sunset reviews. It implements and enhances complaint tracking systems, including an opportunity for individuals to provide in-put online, and it establishes a compliance program to prevent breaches of department policy fraud, waste and abuse of office, including act of criminal conduct within the department. It will also oversee the ethics outline. It has an expedited environmental review process, comprehensive planning system, designed bill contracting which allows for competitive procurement process. So, the integrity of the project are maintained while allowing projects to proceed more quickly. It clarifies language improving the implementation of county transportation reinvestment zones, and the transfer of the oversight -- the oversight and overweight permitting from TexDOT, to the department of motor vehicles. It also authorizes TexDOT and our regional mobility authorities to enter into eleven CBA projects that have already gained local support. So we're not creating any new opportunities other than those that have local support. It also maintains the current five member governor appointed transportation committee and
(inaudible) department for four years. And so those are many of the amendments that were put in on the House floor that are still there. Of course, some are not. But the final provision, the rural commissioner is still in there. The requirements of the rural commissioner, which is now less than 150,000. And it also eliminates the Trans Texas Corridor. That amendment is still in there, and it allows the department to designate emergency wildfire evacuation routes. So that amendment was put on in the House floor, too. And the provision is also there to name the rest centers after John Kuempel. So it's important to John to raise -- for Edmonton to name the rest centers after Edmund Kuempel. So it's a strong framework and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the lady yield for some questions? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes, sir. I will yield for some questions.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And, Linda, you and I had this discussion and for the purposes of legislative intent we wanted to get this on the record. My question to you is State Highway 288 and U.S. 290, Hempstead, are those projects both included to be developed as a CBA? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes, they are. Senate Bill 1420, Section 223201S6 and 7 to the transportation code authorizing TexDOT to enter into a CBA for those projects. Those projects are also included in Section 228011A of the transportation code, meaning that county acting under Chapter 284 of the transportation code has primary responsibility for the financing, construction and operation of those projects. The addition of those projects in this bill is intended to implement and to require the applicable counties, and TexDOT, to comply with the requirements of Section 228.001 E and F of the transportation code. Therefore, if the county declines to develop the project or failed to enter into a contract for the project, as required by those sections, TexDOT would have the opportunity to enter into a contract to develop the project.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Thank you for that legislative intent. Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I would move that the comments between Representative Harper-Brown and myself be entered in the journal for legislative intent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you. Thank you, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Would the lady yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Harper-Brown, do you yield? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes, I will yield for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you. Thank you Representative Harper-Brown. I'd like to go over just a couple of things. I know that some of the provisions were kept in and I want to thank you for that, the rural definition, the LAR that TexDOT commissioners actually get to see now. Some other things, but I want to specifically go to some of the things that were taken out of the bill that I think we fought pretty hard for. Starting with the -- the CDA. How many CDAs do we have in this bill now? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: There are only 11 that are left in the bill and they've all been approved by the local entity.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. One of the things that I think we ran across was -- and I just want clarification. Does it give express consent for a noncompetitive facility agreement to expand north Texas (inaudible) projects to give the contracts to the year 2061 without bids? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Not until -- I'm not sure about the date. The language that was put into the bill when we went outside the bounds was language put on by Senator Nicols that limits that project to only the same number of years, no more than 50 years, from the same number as when the project originated. To it cannot extend beyond the years of the initial phase of the project.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And was that project bid? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: That was a CDA project, yes. That was --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So I just want to make sure that we're not starting a new trend here in Texas, where we give no bid projects -- REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: No. This is limited only to that project. And the CBA language in the -- in the bill does call for -- I'm sorry, that's the design build project. The design build calls for a competitive bid process. And I can't tell whether 121, how 121 was bid originally, that NCE project.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: We're also looking at -- I'm looking at the -- Ms. Davis and I had -- Representative Davis and I had some amendments that, when we signed these half century projects we'd like to see someone a little bit responsible, like elected by the people, to sign these agreements. I notice that that was -- was dismissed by the conference committee. You want to comment about that? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Well, the Attorney General's office will still review the CDA's they just will not sign off on them. And the -- also the LBB will also review the CDA's.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: But not the Comptroller's Office -- So. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Unless your bill, if you already passed you bill though I believe the bill --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: No. We put it in -- it's worth noting that no one that's elected wants to sign these half century contracts. And I just want the body and the people of Texas to know that no one is willing to put their names on these projects, only appointed -- those that are appointed by the executive branch. And just one more thing, does the bill weaken the lobby restrictions by using less specific guidelines in the conference committee report, and does it remove Representative McClendon's prohibition of marketing funds that could be used to spread public opinion on toll roads? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: The amendment by Representative McClendon about the advertising on the toll roads and things is not in there. But the lobby restriction that was placed on the Appropriations Bill, as a rider, is still included in this bill. So they are prevented from lobbying.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Reynolds, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes. Will the gentle lady yield for a question? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes, I will yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Ms. Harper-Brown, were you aware of the disparity study that the comptroller conducted last year? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I'm not sure which study you're talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: With respect to the HUB program. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I'm not sure about the one that the comptroller did. You said the Comptroller's Office did?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I am aware of the problems that were shown in the TexDOT Grant Thornton audit in regard to the HUB.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Right . Is your understanding that the TexDOT was basically not meeting their -- the HUB goals for minority participation -- REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: It is exactly my understanding, from the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Right. And was there anything done to correct that? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Well, that's one of the best things that we did was in this bill, while we did go outside the bounds, and that resolution was just to prove taking out the inspector general by putting the compliance office in. The increase office is now going to be looking at all of these things, including the use of the HUB, and enforcing those laws to assure that TexDOT does enforce the laws and follow those laws, federal laws as well as state laws. It's a very good office that now will be created within TexDOT.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And -- REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: So yes, it is in the bill now.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: And when will that be implemented, take effect by TexDOT? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: If we -- if we pass this bill by two thirds vote those will go into effect immediately. Otherwise, I believe the date is a September date.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady's time's has expired. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? Chair recognizes Representative Pickett to speak on.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I want to let Ms. Harper Brown know right off the bat that I'm voting for this bill. I worked a lot with Linda, but I want to take the opportunity to just to remind the members of some things. I know this session has been very, very contentious. We've talked about the budget. Yesterday, when we passed HB 1, there was more borrowed money. Mr. Pitts mentioned he was helping transportation, that's correct, but it was borrowed money. I want to remind you of some numbers. The current debt that we have for transportation is about $11.4 billion. After the budget that passed and over the next couple of years that debt is going to be $17.3 billion. And for you conservatives that are keeping track, that 17.3 is going to cost your constituents $31.1 billion to pay back. And the Appropriations Bill there's debt service of $1.6 billion. Now, if I was able to get a bill out here on the floor that raised the gas tax a nickel there would have probably been a 150, maybe 160 votes against it because somebody would've leaned over the rail and registered no. But the equivalent that y'all voted for in the Appropriations Bill is the same as a ten cent a gallon increase in taxes. Our debt service is $1.64 billion. Ten cents gas tax would raise about $1.5 billion. I just want to you keep that in mind. This bill is also a comprehensive development agreement bill. Usually at a time like this you would have a TDA bill and a TexDOT sunset bill, but we have one and the same. So even though we are decreasing our debt, there is going to be billions of dollars that the private sector will be lending your communities, and you would be paying that back in the form of the borrowed money that's in the Appropriations Bill, and the coals that will be collected in your area. There are certain circumstances, too. And, Mr. Callegari, I hope your committee will take this up soon. There is some toll situations in the State of Texas where 45 percent of all the money that comes in -- let's say you pay a dollar toll, there is some situations where it's costing 45 cents out of that dollar to collect the toll, operate the toll, enforce the toll. 45 cents out of a dollar. That's not very good. That's not much money going back into these transportation projects. Let me repeat myself, I'm going to vote for this bill. I think we have to do this. I just want to remind you that over the next two years we've got come up with a little better system than keeping borrowing money and increasing other folks to borrow money on our behalf, and pay it back with borrowed money. With that, Linda, I've never seen anybody work so hard on a transportation bill and it does have a lot of good things. What Ms. Harper-Brown mentioned, it does. It bothers me a little bit that the executive director and the assistant deputy director are retiring in August, not because they really wanted to. And what's going to be a new executive director and a new deputy director, and it's not going to change much across the street in the Greer Building. It's the leadership on down. Those gentlemen did what they were told to do. Nothing more, nothing less. So, Mr. Speaker, show me voting aye for Senate Bill 1420, even though it sounded a little mixed there. Thank you, members, for the few minutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report Senate Bill 1420. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 118 ayes and 26 nays, Senate Bill 1420 finally passed. Ms. Crownover, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker? Would I it be appropriate at this time to thank Linda Harper-Brown for the years of work and diligence and responsibility that she's put into this?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It certainly would. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, Chair announces and introduction to HR 2730 suspending the limitations on the conferees for Senate Bill 23. Pursuant to a statement previously made by Representative Geren, in Rule 14, Section 4, the Chair makes the following announcement: The Chair will recognize Representative Geren for a motion to suspend the rules on the regular order of business to take up and consider SB 11 out of its regular order.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: With the notice you gave us, I wasn't paying attention. I was talking to a colleague. Was that under Rule 4 -- Rule 14, Section 4?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Now, I don't understand the reading of the rule -- parliamentary inquiry -- does this notice have to be given every time we're going to be taking something out of the regular order of business?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, this motion was specifically for one bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: For one bill? So as far as -- Parliamentary inquiry, as far as this notice is concerned, it's limited and tailored to this one bill, so if it's -- the Chair's desire so recognize at a future point to be very specific as to what bill at what time and the notice and --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So in following up on -- Parliamentary inquiry. In following up on Mr. Martinez's Fischer's question, you've not made a determination then with respect to moving back that midnight deadline; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The only motion before us is the motion --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (Inaudible) on 1811, and that's it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 1335.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HR 1335.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is eligible at 5:20 p.m. Is there objection to bringing up the conference committee report on House Bill 1335? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 1335.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 1335.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Allen.
REPRESENTATIVE ALMA ALLEN: Members, HB 1335 passed on Local and Consent Calendar. It came over with two amendments that were non-germane. The conference committee report stripped those two amendments, and I move passage.
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 on House Bill 1335. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 137 ayes and 6 nays, House Bill 1335 is finally passed. Mr. Gutierrez? Members, this is eligible at 5:20. Is there objection to the House calling up the the conference committee report of House Bill 1400? Chair hears none. The Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 1400.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 1400.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the public improvement district bill that the Senate amended to permit the city of Dallas to form (inaudible) to facilitate economic development. The amendment was added to the Senate that limited the ability of most cities and counties to do public improvement districts. We went to conference and stripped it off and now I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 1400. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Howard voting aye. Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 1400 finally passed. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House:
THE CLERK: HB 3, HB 308, HB 326, HB 351, HB 422, HB 550, HB 590, HB 630, HB 680, HB 811, HB 968, HB 1040, HB 1090, HB 1111, HB 1199, HB 1224, HB 1234, HB 1334, HB 1371, HB 1495, HB 1504, HB 1638, HB 1658, HB 1759, HB 1760, HB 1768, HB 1821, HB 1904, HB 1907, HB 1960, HB 2004, HB 2015, HB 2017, HB 2102, HB 2169, HB 2172, HB 2203, HB 2207, HB 2265, HB 2277, HB 2284, HB 2313, HB 2408, HB 2449, HB 2592, HB 2594, HB 2596, HB 2655, HB 2662, HB 2663, HB 2717, HB 2903, HB 2909, HB 2947, HB 2999, HB 3002, HB 3111, HB 3133, HB 3278, HB 3333, HB 3771, HB 3819, HB 3827, HB 3828, HB 3845, HCR 1, HCR 84, HCR 167, SB 76, SB 81, SB 144, SB 156, SB 197, SB 221, SB 223, SB 249, SB 263, SB 313, SB 332, SB 377, SB 385, SB 425, SB 462, SB 469, SB 563, SB 647, SB 767, SB 773, SB 776, SB 803, SB 875, SB 932, SB 1068, SB 1170, SB 1179, SB 1234, SB 1285, SB 1286, SB 1338, SB 1413, SB 1416, SB 1422, SB 1489, SB 1546, SB 1616, SB 1620, SB 1733, SB 1736, SB 1760, SB 1810, SB 1909, SB 5, SB 49, SB 71, SB 78, SB 209, SB 222, SB 303, SB 321, SB 322, SB 391, SB 407, SB 480, SB 498, SB 502, SB 573, SB 594, SB 629, SB 663, SB 731, SB 736, SB 760, SB 809, SB 844, SB 859, SB 924, SB 942, SB 943, SB 978, SB 981, SB 988, SB 993, SB 1003, SB 1035, SB 1048, SB 1094, SB 1178, SB 1185, SB 1196, SB 1209, SB 1216, SB 1233, SB 1250, SB 1271, SB 1449, SB 1551, SB 1605, SB 1636, SB 1649, SB 1732, SB 1796, SB 1920.
THE CHAIR: Members, the House will stand at ease until 4:15.
THE CLERK: The House will stand at ease until 5:00 o'clock.
THE CHAIR: Madam Doorkeeper?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE CHAIR: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following action, the Senate has taken the following measures: HCR 144 by Parker, sponsor Corona, designating June 2nd as Italian Heritage Day for a ten-year period beginning --
THE CHAIR: Austin, at least you're working.
MESSENGER: The Senate has adopted the following conference committee reports: HB 362 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). HB 753 (29 Yeas, 2 Nays). HB 1400 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). HB 3328 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). HB 3726 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). SB 8 (23 Yeas, 8 Nays). SB 660 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). SB 1198 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). SB 1717 (31 Yeas, 0 Nays). Respectfully, Patsy Spaw, Secretary of the Senate.
THE CHAIR: You did that very well. Chair recognizes Mr. Berman for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, we're bringing the Vietnam Monument that's going to be built on the Capitol grounds in through the Sergeant's door, and it's going to be in the back of the room. If you would just please go back and take a look at it. It's a beautiful monument. Money is being collected, not now, but we have the funds for it. It will take two years to build on Capitol grounds and you can see it coming in in the rear corner of the House now. It will be there for one hour and then it will be removed. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: All right. The House will stand at ease until 5:00 o'clock.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Truitt?
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Parliamentar y inquiry.
THE CHAIR: I'm sorry, the House is at ease.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: I can't ask a question?
THE CHAIR: You can come down here.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: (Inaudible).
(The House stands at ease.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: House come to order. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 2817.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2817.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Members, thank you members, this is the Secretary of State's clean up bill that was lit up like a Christmas tree when it was brought to the floor. After going through the Senate and the conference committee process, we lost 15 of those amendments. The Senate added three things: It changes the retention period of records for none federal elections from 22 months to 7 months. The federal elections remain at 22 months. Clarified which types of elections
(inaudible) early voting ballots and other materials applied (inaudible). Also designates the Secretary of State as the coordinator between military and overseas voters and county election officials. And the conference committee also made the following changes from the Senate version, and returned to the House version the language of submitting a vote by mail application via fax. And it added back provision that volunteer deputy registrars could not have been convicted of the offense of fraudulent use of possession of identifying information, otherwise known as fake IDs.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor. Do you yield? I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. And I know you worked with me on this, and I had one of those lights on that Christmas tree that seemed to dim by the time it got to the other chamber. It had a little power shortage over there, I think.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: That was a beautiful light, by the way.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. You and I -- I think both had the opportunity to see the objections that were raised by either the Governor's Office or the Secretary of State's Office, and we were never able to be sure about that. But do you remember what the bill was about that we added to your legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Yes, your amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: -- had to do with the electronic voter registration through the DPS web portal.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. And you saw the the reasons for the concerns that had been passed to us through the Governor's Office.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Yes. I did hear about security concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And so was it -- Do you agree with me that what they were concerned about was that, amongst other things, the DPS driver's license system might not be secure enough to handle voter registration?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: You know, you're more of an expert than I am, Scott. But that's what I was aware of, that they were told -- I was told -- the Senate was told by the Governor's Office that they had security concerns. And I know from talking about to you that there's a number of other states that do this in this manner, and they think it's a great system and had no problems. So maybe we will take it up again next time and --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And you're aware that we talked to the Secretary of State's Office, a number of other states, and some of them almost laughed at us at the thought that their driver's license system was so insecure that we might be worried about a problem on driver's license -- on voter registration?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Well. I didn't take it personally that they laughed at us.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No, no. I understand. Well, wouldn't you agree with me that the -- if the driver's license system is potentially hackable in the manner they were concerned about, that somebody who would hack in would have a lot greater profit motive to do other things than registering somebody to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I would agree with that. Like I said, I'm not sure what all security precautions they have over there, but I would assume it's pretty good. We have our brightest and best working. But, like I say, I would have supported you in your amendment. I'd like to get it done. Maybe work on it in the interim and get it done.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And I appreciate that. I appreciate all your help in trying to get it on and moving it across the best you can and your cooperation on this. And I'm going to vote for your conference committee report. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Scott.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I move passage, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 2817. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Keffer voting aye. Being 123 ayes, 25 nays, House Bill 2817 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 5126.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 516.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move that the House adopt conference committee report on Senate Bill 516. The conference committee removed the amendment by Representative McClendon. This amendment would have required the surviving spouse to annually renew a home study exemption. I move adoption. And I'd like to take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate the House moving this forward the other night for our veterans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 516. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 147 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 516 finally passed. Members, the conference committee report on House Bill 414 is eligible at 5:30. Is there objection to bringing it up now? Chair hears none. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 414.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 414.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to add two members' names and to suspend all necessary rules to add two members' names to the joint author sheet. Those names being Representative Hardcastle and Representative Sid Miller who worked on this bill. Really hard to bring -- to bring agreement over a long period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this House Bill 414, this is a bill that adds licensing for horse dental floaters who file teeth off of -- shorten points off of the horse's teeth. So don't vote nay, don't vote nay, vote yea. Move passage. Move adoption of the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of HB 414. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Hardcastle voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Veasey voting aye. There being 140 ayes and 4 nays, House Bill 414 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 2380.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2380.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The conference committee removed a non-germaine amendment. So the bill is exactly as the passed in the House. I move that we accept the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 2380. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? Being 144 ayes and 2 nays, House Bill 2380 is finally passed. Members, we're on items eligible at 5:40. Is there objection to calling up conference committee report on House Bill 3246? Chair hears none. The Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 3246.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 3246.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill we passed over the session of chapter 372 of the local government code. The Senate added an amendment that -- about public utilities, limiting the size. There was a lot of opposition. We stripped the amendment and now we're back to the way the bill originally passed the House. Move passage.
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 on House Bill 3246. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. There being a 146 ayes and 2 nays, House Bill 3246 finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I call up Senate Bill 316 which we had gone to conference on. You may remember that we have -- we had a conference committee report in the House voted not to adopt it. We have now gone back in and the Senate has concurred in the House amendments. And so I would move to discharge the House conferees.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego moves to discharge House conferees on current Senate amendments. Representative Gallego moves to discharge House the conferees on this bill, 316. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 140 ayes and 0 nays, the motion is adopted. Is there objection to calling up the conference committee report on House Bill 2093, it's eligible at 5:50? Representative Taylor of Collin raises an objection. Is there objection to introduction of privileged resolution on House -- Senate Bill 100? There is objection. Members, we're on items eligible at 6:20p.m. Is there objection to bringing up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 472? Chair hears none. The Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 472.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 472.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with the House recommendation, the Senate added new language to secure the integrity of the ballot and they removed the Bohac amendment that had to do with disabled persons, which we firmly supported but we couldn't get it in. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 472. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 77 ayes and 65 nays, Senate Bill 472 finally passed. Members, this items eligible at 6:40 p.m. Is there objection to calling up conference committee report on House Bill 3109? Chair hears none. The Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 3109.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 3109.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, this started out as a simple census population change in the City of Midland, and it put an amendment on in the Senate. We accepted it at first, not realizing what it did, and it affects the water availability for Odessa (inaudible San Anglo, Abilene. Any way, we went back and went to conference and took the amendment off and it's bark where we started. I move to concur with Senate amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 3109. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 148 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 3109 is finally passed. Next item eligible at 6:40, Senate Bill 660. Is there objection to the bringing up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 660? Chair hears none. Clerk will read the following privileged resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2659 by Ritter. Suspending limitation on conference committee jurisdiction of SB No. 660.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this privileged resolution allows us in Senate Bill 660 to put back in the existing language that's law on VSE appeals. And I move adoption of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, it's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes and 0 nays, the motion is adopted. Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 660.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 660.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, in this conference we agreed to take off the tracking language that was put on in the House, and removed the DSC appeals that I just talked about. And I move to adopt the conference committee report for this Senate Bill 660.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on Senate Bill 660. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Mr. Hilderbran voting aye. Being 147 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 660 finally passed. Members, the next items eligible until 7:10 p.m. Is House Bill 213 -- Is there objection -- Chair hears none. Chair lays out the privileged resolution 2697.
THE CLERK: HR 2697 by Rodriguez. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction HR 2697.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a resolution for suspending the limitation for conference committee report for House Bill 213. The Governor's Office requested language to be deleted in those versions of the bill that were not in agreement by other chambers. The language that needs to be deleted pertains to private causes of action by the borrower (inaudible) (inaudible) action against the servicer. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 213. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Being 146 ayes and 3 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 213.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 213.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill levels the playing field so that mortgage services that handle home loans that are not federally related have to provide basic information to home owners similar to other services regulated under federal law. This includes basic information like receipt of payment requested, annual accounting statements, pay off statements. The changes in the Senate included exact language that Chairwoman Truitt passed out in her committee (inaudible) in another bill, Senate Bill 319, which was the deed in lieu of foreclosure, with one exception requested by the Governor's Office. The Governor's Office requested language to be deleted and both versions (inaudible) may bring legal action against the lender, with the change that we deleted only the AG can bring such actions. This is supported by the members of the Banker's Association, (inaudible) association, mortgage bankers and title (inaudible). Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Elkins, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Eddie, on that bill, I know that an amendment was added on in the House that would allow on -- if you are servicing a loan, one of the concerns that was raised was that if you do owner financing of homes, you may not be able to service your own loans. And you now created a new cause of action. What happened to the language that the House but the put in on the House side?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That language was deleted. If I may further answer that question, it was an negotiation between myself and Representative Tracy King. We were trying to work some things out. I had offered initially something that said if you had five or fewer, so if you were the owner of the mortgage and you decided to service that mortgage, we were trying to compromise on that. We ended up compromising on the language that he provided. That was removed in the Senate because there was too much opposition to that bill listed on there. And working with the Governor's Office, this is basically the way we can get this through. And it has support of both -- and I can read (inaudible) list again, but I can answer questions --
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: So right now, on this amendment that was put on, we now have a new cause of action by the Attorney General?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: No, I wouldn't -- I don't think that's accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Okay. So now if you have more than five homes, if anyone or any person in the state has more than five homes that have owner financed, they have to be licensed to service their own loans?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: They're going to be required to do certain things, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: I'm going to speak against it.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Truitt, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Eddied, this bill came through the Pensions, Investments and Financial Services Committee, yes?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And it was pretty well support there, was it not?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And if you'll allow me to read again, so for the members to hear. Texas Bankers Association (inaudible) a letter of support that was sent to your committee. The Land Title Association, the Governor's Office supports this bill without any of the language yet to remove language that we put in the House for him to support this. And, of course, the Local Housing Information Services --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: So I think -- I didn't hear the entire dialogue, but I think Mr. Elkins said something about the cause of action. You and I have had that discussion. I had an issue with the cause of action.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And so did the Governor's Office, right?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's absolutely right.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And you removed that controversial language, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I intentionally removed that controversial language.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And so we have buy offs from the Governor's Office, we have buy offs from the mortgage loan people, we have buy offs from the Banker's Association, the TBA, we have buy offs from the Senator's office and so --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: This is an agreed --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Do you know of any remaining problem with this bill, because I don't?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think Mr. Elkins might have a problem with this bill. But, other than that, no, I don't. This has been a long negotiated bill --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And once in a while, when we were listening to the testimony in committee, the problem was that people, even when they were trying to get information from the entity servicing the mortgage, the owners of property could not get the information; right?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Basic information they could not get.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And so people have actually lost their homes because they didn't did not know -- they lacked the information, you know, sometimes people thought that their mortgage was paid off and -- and the servicing entity would not provide the information. And because of their ineffective nature of handling things, some people had lost their homes unfairly, right?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: You are right. And, Chairwoman, the problem is that a there's a smaller group. The majority of mortgage services have to provide this information because they are federally related.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And all we're saying is what you're trying to do is the ones who operate here in Texas, outside the federal law, have to provide the same sort of information that's available from others?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Basic information from -- This is a protective -- consumer protection that we're trying to make sure that anyone that has a mortgage is being treated equally --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And if you were about to lose your home and you wanted accurate information about what had been covered or not covered, or what was outstanding on your mortgage, wouldn't you want the mortgage service or organization to provide that information? And it's not information that they have had to provide, routinely, it's only upon request, if there is a problem, right?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Only upon request if there is a problem. Certainly if meant me losing my home and me not getting information that is due me, I feel that is due me, then I request this information right now some of these folks, the ones we're trying to get (inaudible) deny this basic information that may cause me to maybe lose my home.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Do you think it's too much to ask the organization servicing that mortgage to provide accurate information if you are about to lose your home, and you don't have access to their documents, for them to be able to provide those documents?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's not too much to ask at all.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: I don't think it is at all too much to ask. And if you care about people losing their homes you'll support your bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ms. Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose, Mr. Aycock?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Will the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you. If someone has rental property and they suddenly decide to sell off their rental property and they got more than five under your proposal, would they be allowed to service those loans themselves or would they have to --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: No. They would be allowed to service it themselves. All this would do is to say since they're not federally related they would have to provide information, if I request it. Let's say your selling it to me or I am renting from you and you decide to sell to me; if I asked you for something like if I pay you a mortgage payment, that if I say hey, can you send me something that says I paid you this month? That you would have to sent that to me if I asked for that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. So a certain person who is doing -- fix up houses and has more than five of those loans, say they're buying a house, fixing it up and reselling it on their finance. What would your bill to those situations?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: They would just have to -- They would just have to give me certain information on just about every other mortgage
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Only a process of loans and sales would not have to be licensed or go through a servicing center of any kind?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: No. It's just about information that I would need o get from you and if I asked you for the information that you would provide it to me.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. How would -- how does your bill as it is written out from the federal law? I have a constituent that talked to me, just a couple of years ago, about a federal law that (inaudible) the state had a provision in there if you owned homes and told them and financed them, and once you got to around five or some number, less than -- ten or less, that you had to become a licensed mortgage broker.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: This doesn't -- isn't talking about licensing or any of that. This talks about information that you and your -- if you are holding a mortgage and owner financed, that I would -- If i wanted to ask you for certain information, you would have to provide that to me.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So you don't have to be licensed, like some of the other similar legislation in the past years; but if you have a situation where the consumer, on the end of a transaction was owner financed, requests information then the owner finance lender would have to provide that information?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Right. This has nothing to do with licensing, it's just about the information. I move personal knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 213. It's a record vote. The clerk will read the bill. I'm sorry, members, back up. There's someone that wants to speak in opposition. Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill has some serious major unintended consequences that I want everybody to think about. The arguments that Chairman Truitt made, they're right. And what the big guys, what the big institutions, you should have this; but when we -- when this bill left the House we had an amendment in the House that protected the little guys, the owner/financiers. Many of you in this room may have owner-financed homes. Now, you're going to come under new regulation that you weren't thinking about, because you're going to have to comply with this new bill that's bringing in individual investors, not just big institutions. Many of you -- Many of us have constituents that buy and sell homes and owner finance that. It's a way for a lot of people to get access, to be able to home ownership. Now, we're putting a new burden in, a new cost up on the people that are doing owner financing. So -- and so what I would ask you to do is I would ask you to vote against the adoption of this committee, because the House language that states the protections to the individual investors, the protection is gone. So now everybody that's going to home mortgage or owner financing is now going to come under new scrutiny and new regulation. I ask you to vote no, not to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to speak on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, having served as chair of financial institutions, been on it for years and also having done a number of real estate transactions over the years. And, as you know, let me just tell you what the real problem is from the title (inaudible) standpoint and from people's standpoint. When you -- When you're making loans and doing seller financing, and you make over some amount, whatever the number is. I don't know f five is arbitrary or not. But you are sort of in the business of making loans using real estate as an investment tool to make loans. And the problem is -- is when you do that, there are times when it's very hard to get payoff information. The title companies are very concerned about that. It holds up closing, it makes it very difficult, it puts the seller of property in a very precarious position about having to either file suit and hire somebody like myself or somebody else to try to get this done, try to find out if you can get a closing taken care of. The -- When I worked on the mortgage safety act, we did put some information in there. There was a number of various federal requirements. I think the reason you have five in there is basically because that's sort of what the feds sort of look at as whether you're in the business of truly making loans using residential real estate as your security. I don't know that -- I don't know that much about the cause of action issues in connection with the Attorney General's office; but there has got to be some way for sellers to be able to get their property sold, get accounting information when they're making payments, and going through this process of being able to finally sell their homes and get the payoff. So I think Mr. Rodriguez, with the help of Ms. Truitt and Chairman Truitt, and a variety of industries have sort of settled on this as a mechanism. If the mechanism doesn't seem to work very well, I am sure that at the end of the day there'll be some tuning up to that, maybe next session. But right now it is a real problem right now.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm not quite ready, Gary. But it is a real issue that goes on all the time about trying to get accurate information and pay offs and find out how much you really paid on the property. Because, you know, if Jerry Madden's over there and he's making a loan on a couple of houses, he's not in the business of making residential mortgage loans and using that as a security, but if you're in the business of making a number of loans and you had business practices that prevent you -- prevent a lot of their folks from getting their property paid off, the accounting for it and that sort of thing, you're operating with somebody who is in the business. If you're in the business, you ought to basically have a process by which you conduct business in a reliable manner. So that's all I really wanted to say about the bill. I mean I really don't know how you all feel about it, but it is a real problem out there for a number of people.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the question.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'd be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: My good friend, Mr. Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Okay, Burt, let's talk about individuals that are quote, in the business. If you're an individual and you do a mortgage loan in the business it was your service and your loan. I don't think anybody that you've owner financed has any questions as to who is servicing that loan and who owns the loan; do you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Do you mean generally know who is servicing loan from the seller related standpoint, because they're not selling -- they are not selling those in bulk, they're not trying to use professional mortgage service processers.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: The knowledge of -- this bill is not just five, it's one. If you're an individual investor you're down to one now with new regulation. If you owner finance, under federal law now there can be -- you cannot allow for a prepayment penalty. So, the payoff has to be known to the person buying off any time they want to know.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: If the problem -- You know, generally you will get -- I mean somebody whose who's really -- you either know who to ask for or a good seller finance person who is in the business will give an (inaudible) schedule and basically people can check off and see what they're doing. But, at the end, if you are escrowing along with that, because you know as well as I do a seller can escrow taxes and insurance, and you want to make sure that accounting mechanism is correct. I've had clients come to me in the past, say they can't get accurate information. I have had title companies call and say (inaudible) closings because we can't get accurate information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: But also, when you owner finance, you're required every January to send the borrower a statement of the interest paid for the deductibility of 1099 --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: You're supposed to. If you're doing it over five, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: I know. But most of the people that do owner financing are doing that. And now you're bringing individuals that are quote, not in the business, they are not licensed by a -- they're not a financial institution, they're not Fannie Mae, they're not selling their loans to Fannie Mae or Fredy Mac or FHA, they're owner financing and now we are bringing in this whole new unintended consequences of a whole new set that we had fixed when the bill left this House, but the individuals would not be --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right. And some members will really have a problem about it. But I didn't want there to be any confusion. And you may be right about what you are saying. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. I didn't want there to be confusion about what really happens in the real world about trying to get the accurate information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Well, I want to make sure that the body is not confused that there are major unintended consequences for individual investors in this bill. And that's why I'm asking the body to vote no.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: That's okay. Sure. Whatever the body wants to do is fine. But, in the end, there is a problem out there and I think Mr. Rodriguez is trying to address it. Whether the body thinks this is the correct way to do it, that'll be up to the body. But he is actually trying to make a good faith effort. The legislation is supported by a number of groups and, you know, it may or may not be something the body wants to go with. But I didn't want there to be confusion that there's not a problem out there, because there is a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this just got a little bit more complicated than it should be. This is really about accurate information to people that have mortgages. The problem is you have a relatively small want of servicers and a they tend to do this only for mortgage services. The problem is that sometimes people aren't getting the information that they need is, and because they don't have this information they're potentially losing their mortgage, they are losing their home. All this does, and it doesn't apply to family members, if you own a home and you want to sell to it your brother or you sister and you want to hold the mortgage, this doesn't even talk about you, or family members. All this is saying is these things: Service providing receipt for payment upon request. Upon request. If I ask for that. Annual accounting statements. Payoff statements. Information regarding any kind of dispute. It's just for information. It just tells someone who has a mortgage to get information from them -- from the mortgage services.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield? Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Is there any new licensing regulations required?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: None, whatsoever.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: My concern, colleague, I shouldn't say that anymore, actually. My concern, Representative, is the idea that Mr. Elkins brought out, that Representative Elkins brought out. So now if I sell my home to my cousin and I decide to owner finance that transaction, I have to register?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: No, this has nothing to do with registering or any of that at all.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I thought you just said there is there three things I had to do and one of that was one of those three things.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: The only thing is information that you would have to provide to say I am your cousin, and you're selling it to me, and if I say primo, can you give me information on you annual accounting statement? Doesn't even include you because we're family.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: So I have to have an accounting -- Me, as the mortgagor, actually the mortgage -- mortgagor, the mortgagee, would have to give up an accounting or keep an accounting, and have that available to whom?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: To the mortgage' a person --
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And do I need to file that with some kind of state agency?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: If I ask you that information you give it to me, that's all.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Is there anything in this bill that requires me to file it with the state agency?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Not in this bill, no.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Okay. And what --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: -- doesn't require you to file anything with a state agency. That's already in state law.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I don't know if Mr. Elkins can come back and yield for a question. My concern is that there -- and there are people, and that there's a little bit of a quandary about what's going on in this bill. I'm a firm believer in people's ability to contract, and it's my concern that if I decide to hold the note that I now have to give the State of Texas some information on basically what comes down to a private (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: This is about giving information to -- to me, not the state.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Rodriguez, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Rodriguez, I want to make sure that everyone is clear. When this left the House there was a provision that this applied to anyone that was servicing five or less mortgages, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Was that --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Okay. When it left the House there was an amendment by Representative Tracy King that said that any -- that an owner finance mortgage does not apply. In the Senate that was removed.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Okay, so now, if there's someone like me that has a mortgage that I have financed, then I have to go through all of those -- the disclosures? I have to tell them here's how much you paid, here's when you made you payments
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: If I asked you, can you tell me that you got my payment this month?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Then you would have to tell me that.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I have to give a receipt then?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Members, move passage. This is about consumers, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report House Bill 213. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 63 ayes and 83 nays, conference committee fails to adopt.
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Madam Doorkeeper?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate has passed the following measures --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Members, I'd like for my daughter, Devin, in from Denver, Colorado stand up, with her friend Erin. Welcome back to Texas. Hadn't seen her in a while. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Senate Bill 89 is eligible at 7:30. Is there objection to calling up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 89? Chair hears none. Chair calls up conference committee report on Senate Bill 89.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 89.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: This is not a mortgage servicer bill, members. Mr. Speaker, members, this bill re codifies statutory reference to summer food program, which makes a few small changes to increase the number of sites that serve food through the program and the number of students that are ultimately served. This bill passed the House on Local and Consent. Consistent with federal rules, Senate Bill 89 requires districts with 50 percent or more students that qualified for free or reduced price lunch meals to offer summer food service. Current state law is 60 percent. Under this legislation current criteria to request a waiver will remain consistent. Plus, it includes an additional waiver option should a school district finds that federal funds are insufficient. Again, the waiver option will remain the same. So we're not telling schools they have to do this. We're just simply trying to increase participation and prompt more dialogue between a (inaudible) and the school district, since the program does not have to be administered on school grounds. Members, there's some misunderstanding on the funding for this program. The program --
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hardcastle , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Rodriguez, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Rodri guez, did we doublecheck and triple check your bill; even though it was written with the help of the commissioner of agriculture staff, to make sure that it had more ways for schools that couldn't find a way to do it to get out of applying for federal funds and using this great program?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And is it not true that 95 percent of this program is paid for every year by federal funds, and the schools and the -- all urban schools and rural schools love the program?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Yes. That's accurate. We got $52 million from the federal government last year based on this program.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And is it not true in some of the areas where they don't get enough federal funds, that the faith based community has picked up the five or ten percent so they can still have this program in a lot of communities in this state?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. We have a lot of support from the faith communities.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Rodri guez, I think you have a great bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Patrick, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Yes, I wanted to clarify. Does this program cost the local school districts any money? How is it funded?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: It's funded a hundred percent by federal funds. And every school district has the option now to opt out of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: And I understand from talking with my school district that I represent, Arlington, that that money covers not only the cost of the meals but also the labor cost and other associated cost; is that true?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: And also, could you tell me who is in support of this? Because sometimes we have issues and differences. I represent a suburban area. Can you tell me about the schools and types of schools that might be supporting this?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Well, we have support from both urban and rural. I have support of the Texas Association of Rural Schools. Also the Christian Life Commission is in support of this as well as the Texas Catholic (inaudible) is in support of this as well. And many school districts have expressed support for this.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: So this would not be considered an unfunded mandate because again, the costs are covered per child?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: The costs are covered per child. It's all federal dollars, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: And so what this bill does is allow more children to participate, because what it says is that currently 60 percent of the students would have to be eligible in a district, but now you are saying 50 percent?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: 50 percent , that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: And because the additional number of children would generate more revenue from the Department of Agriculture, that would not be a cost to the district?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you. I'm in support of this bill. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Landtroop, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Thank you, Eddie. I know we worked on this a little bit throughout the process. I'm just have a few questions.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: You know, first of all, I think we do both agree that the summer food program is a worthy and noble program.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: And, you know, I have no problem that any school that wants to do this, I have no problem at all. I don't want to do anything to hinder anybody that wants to be a part of this program. But I do have a couple of questions for you, and it's my understanding that the federal money, that goes to reimburse for meals; but the cost like associated with opening up the school and running the air conditioner and all that kind of stuff, that's not reimbursed?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Under this bill --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: But can I just finish that real quick?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Then -- There are many times in the summer that it is -- Some of them are off site, even, to bring the kids meals. And there's a lot help from the religious communities as well, and other nonprofits to try to totally minimize the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: And that's great. I have no problem with that at all. I do want to make that clear, because I think the nonprofits is where it should be anyway. But the --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Well, the nonprofits -- I have to disagree with you, because I think we need to have that, Howard. I don't know how many nonprofits in Texas have $52 million to give to Texas right now, in this program. We have that money --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: I understand. Like I say, any school district that wants to do this, I don't have a problem with them. The bill, the way it works, is that if a school qualifies for a waiver, they can request a waiver but the language in the bill says that the Department of Agriculture may give them a waiver?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: And there have been some instances -- I know, you know, very small very, very, very few. I'll grant you that they were denied a waiver and they were required to do this --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And can I give you some status on that -- like for -- for last year, for this year? Actually, there's been a 130 waiver requests in Texas, a 113 were granted, 17 were denied. I just talked to -- I just talked to the Department of Agriculture today, and those denials were based on inconsistencies, they were based on outside --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time's expired. Chair recognizes -- Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker, members, there may have been and may still be some confusion on this bill. It came to the Ag Committee. Basically we're expanding the waivers. We left the word may in there to request the lege counsel. But if the Department of Ag things you came forward to do the program or you don't have a community based service to do the program, they can let you out of the program in a heartbeat. And they oversee all the money. It's paid for by federal money. It's basically the summer lunch program that we've been doing in a lot of communities for the last ten years. It's meals for kids. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move passage and I vote aye.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, as we're all aware, Texas is a donor state. For every dollar that we spend at DC we receive about 70 cents back on that. This program is going to gives you an opportunity to receive and bring more of our federal tax dollars back into this state. The analysis that I look at, it does cover some of the operating expenses. And if there's a school district in my district that wants out of this, and is not getting that help, then our office will help with the Texas Department of Agriculture. This is a good program for the Texas children and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, again, this is about thousands upon thousands of kids being malnourished in Texas. Vote aye on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 89. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Hardcastle voting aye. Have all voted? Being 121 ayes and 25 nays, Senate Bill 9 finally passed. Members, pursuant to previous announcements, Chair's going to recognize Representative Geren for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I move that we take up Senate Bill 1811 out of order. In the motion I would move that there -- we extend the layout period from ten minutes to forty minutes so the education portion can be discussed more fully. And I also move that the closing be limited to 45 minutes for and 45 minutes against.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Record vote's been requested. A record vote is granted. Show Representative Geren voting aye. Mr. Keffer voting aye. The Chair voting aye. Being 100 ayes and 50 nays, the rules are suspended. Chair lays out the following privileged resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2723 by Pitts. Suspending limitations --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker? Members, Mr. Speaker asked for verification.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Olivera, I can't. Mr. Oliveira, the vote was not within five -- difference.
THE CLERK: HR 2723 by Pitts. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction SB No. 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Parliament ary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, state your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, this is the first and the only time that the Chair has cast a vote this session.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No, it's not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No, it is not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Do you recall what other votes you've cast?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I voted yesterday, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair voted yesterday.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Oh, thank you.
THE CLERK: HR 2723 by Pitts. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction SB No. 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm sorry. Parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Sir, state your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I was not the one who asked for a verification, but I heard that there was one asked for. And it was my understanding that this was a two thirds vote. So was it not in order to ask for that? I think you said that it wasn't within five but --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct, Mr. Hochberg. It was not within five votes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But it was within five votes of failing, was it not? Could there never be a verification vote on a 100 vote on a two thirds vote?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, this has come up this session previously.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: And the Chair -- We ruled there was no verification if it wasn't within five votes.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Five votes of failing?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Five votes between the ayes and the nays.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So you can never verify a two thirds rule?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, this vote does not require a verification.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: This vote does not require a verification.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I guess nothing requires a verification, right, but --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair has previously ruled that the vote difference vote has to be five votes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So that means that under that ruling you could never have a verification of something that required either two thirds of those present and voting or two thirds of the membership? It's five votes -- typically, typically, historically, I believe it's been a five vote margin of what it needed in order to pass. And this was, I believe, right on what it needed in order to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, this has come up previously this session and our interpretation is the same.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, with complete respect Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I have never seen it happen that way in 20 years. And -- What does the rule say? Okay. Rule -- Rule 5, Section 55, when the result of a yea and nay vote is close, the speaker may, on the request of any member, order a verification vote or may do so on his or her own initiative. How much closer can it be than exactly right on the number you need it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, would you -- Would you come down front and discuss with me, please?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Sure. But may I ask that we not move forward until we resolve this because --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: If you'll come down and discuss this we won't move forward.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Verification has been requested and verification is granted. Members, please take your seats.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: This is my first inquiry, so please bear with me. But under Rule 5, Section 55, the last sentence on page 82 says the verification may be dispensed with by a two thirds vote; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Verification will pursue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, please take your seats. Chair will begin by verifying the aye votes. Members, please take your seats.
THE CLERK: Aliseda, Anderson of McClendon, Anderson of Dallas, Aycock, Beck, Berman, Bohac, Bonnen, Branch, Brown, Burkett, Button, Cain, Callegari, Carter, Chisum, Christian, Cook, Craddick, Creighton, Crownover, Darby, John Davis of Harris, Sarah Davis of Harris, Driver, Eissler, Elkins, Fletcher, Flynn, Frullo, Garza, Geren, Gonzales of Williamson, Gooden, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardcastle, Harless, Harper-Brown, Hartnett, Hilderbran, Hopson, Howard of Fort Bend. Huberty, Hughes, Hunter, Isaac, Jackson, Keffer, King of Parker, King of Taylor, Kleinschmidt, Kolkhorst, Kuempel, Landtroop, Larson, Laubenberg, Lavender, Legler, Lewis, Lyne, Madden, Margo, Miller of Comal, Miller of Erath, Morrison, Murphy, Nash, Orr, Otto, Parker, Patrick, Paxton, Paxton, Pena, Perry, Phillips, Pitts, Price, Riddle, Ritter, Schwertner, Scott, Sheets, Sheffield, Shelton, Smith of Tarrant, Smith of Harris, Smithee, Solomons, Taylor of Galveston, Taylor of Collin, Torres, Truitt, Weber, White, Woolley, Workman, Zedler, Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Proceed to verify the no votes.
THE CLERK: Allen, Alonzo, Alvarado, Anchia, Burnam, Castro -- Burnam?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Strike the name temporarily.
THE CLERK: Coleman, Davis of Dallas, Deshotel, Dukes, Dutton, Eiland, Farias, Farrar, Gallego, Giddings, Gonzales of Hidalgo, Gonzales of El Paso, Guillen, Gutierrez, Hernandez Luna, Hochberg, Howard of Travis, Johnson, King of Zavala, Lozano, Lucio, Mallory Caraway, Marquez, Martinez, Martinez Fischer, McClendon, Menendez, Miles -- Miles?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is Mr. Miles on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.
THE CLERK: Munoz, Naishtat, Olivera, Pickett, Quintilla, Raymond, Reynolds, Rodriguez, Simpson, Strama, Thompson, Turner, Veasey, Villarreal -- Villarreal? Vo, Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is Mr. Burnam on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily. Is Mr. Miles on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily. Members, the motion passes by a vote of 100 to 48.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Parliamenta ry inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: As I read the Rule 13, Section 9G2, it seems to require that a privileged resolution specify in detail the specific limitation or limitations to be suspended. Is that the way the parliamentarian reads Rule 13, Section 9G2, also?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Parliamentaria n reads Rule 13, Section 9, he reads the whole thing together and the resolution in Rule 13, Section 9, subsection G has requirements in it.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And 9 -- Rule 9, I mean, I'm sorry Section 9 of that rule, 9G2, seems to require at least -- that it has to specify in detail the specific limitations to be suspended. Is that the way you read it, also?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It requires -- it's to explained limitations that are to be suspended.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And do they have to be in detail, I guess is the question, Mr. Speaker? And to what -- I don't know what that means, necessarily -- maybe I should do it this way, Mr. Speaker. Why don't I raise a point of order against further consideration of House Resolution 2723 on the grounds that it violates Rule 13, Section 9G2?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Excuse Representative Burnam because of illness in the family, on the motion of Representative Todd Smith. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative Miles because of important business, on the motion of Representative Farrar. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker members, HR 2723 is out of bounds resolution on SB 1811. Most of the items concluded in the resolution relate to provisions that we've added that were not included in either the House or the Senate version. The most noticeable of those items is on article on school finance. Other new language in the conference committee report includes provisions on Article 3, which is our fiscal matters bill. For Article 3 provisions allow to change the state contribution rate for ERS and
(inaudible) language that removes the comptroller from the board of the Texas guaranteed loan corporation board, a provision that requires DPS to make a study language that creates a constitutional amendment that authorizes the goods and transit property tax exceptions, a provision that allows UIL to require background checks on sports officials, a provision changes how often certain agencies to transmit data relating to individuals. It takes unclaimed property to the Comptroller. A provision that defines apparel rental stores as retailers, language that reduces the reduction of a school district financial entitlement, by the amount of a district has deposited into a
(inaudible) account. A provision that redefines the position of state University mineral proceeds. A provision that addresses a problem created last session relating to the ability for school districts to collect target revenue hold harmless. The resolution also points out the provisions of the bill where the conference committee compromised the language that was already in the House or the Senate version of the bill. The provisions include the comptroller's procurement authority. It had some Senator Watson's language concerning budget transparency provisions. It brought in the Texas Enterprise Fund and the emergency technology fund that Representative Davis and his Senate counterpart worked out. And it also brings in the small business franchise tax exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: In a May 28th letter you explained to the body what is inside Senate Bill 1811. And one of the statements is that Senate Bill 1811 does not include any new fees, is that accurate?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I believe that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Are you aware that it contains new fees to oil and gas in order to pay for the regulation of oil and gas?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I thought we put general revenue in that.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Then I guess that is not correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. And it is accurate that we are eliminating an exemption for the sale or resale of items by certain vendors?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I beg your pardon? I was trying to find out about that Railroad Commission. Because that was Ms. Crownover's area. Go ahead, what was your question?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: We are eliminating the exemption to vendors that purchase goods and services for resale.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Sale and resale? We -- Oh, that was worked out language with the industry and we did do that.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: The TRS changes that are temporary?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Can you explain what changes those are?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I believe that those changes are TRRS state contribution that from 6 percent and went back to 6.5 the second year.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. Which is where it is today, before the passage of this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Basically that's where it is today, Mike. You know, we tried to get that 13th check last time, or part of that 13th check so that (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yeah, I just wanted to (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is what it is today, it's 6.5. And for one year we're doing it 6 then --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Then we're going to move back to our --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Qualifies and second (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. The change in school finance that I think is fundamental, where today if we shortchange a school district --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mike, I'm going to let Representative Eissler answer questions on school finance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I think we're accomplishing a really fundamental change on how we fund schools. It has to do with the state's obligation on making school districts whole. From the
(inaudible) say that we should be paying them at a certain level, and if we underestimate our obligation the next budget cycle we're stretched to come clean and settle up with them; that is no longer the case, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible) settle up is still in there. There still is a settle up. We're not changing the formulas in this plan at all and we are -- we are reducing the funding that was determined by House Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: We -- My understanding is that the funding formulas will function like Higher Ed, where they do not set -- they do not obligate us, as a state, to a certain level of funding per school district, but rather represent how we are going to distribute money, school district to school district.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I think the distribution is still valid. The formulas are valid --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No, no. The distribution is valid, but they do not have the effect of obligating this state to a certain level of spending. That decision will be -- that budget cycle, the budget cycle, dependent on what the appropriations committee decides to do.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. That's past this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Do you agree with me that that's a big change, is that not?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: There's a change in entitlement, but it's still -- I think it gives the appropriation process more validity.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Going from an obligation to a non-obligation is a big deal, is it not?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's an obligation.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I see in the description --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The gentleman's three minutes of time is expired. Would anyone like to --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Three?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ten minutes is expired. Anyone wishing to speak against the resolution?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Parliamen tary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I think there are other members behind me and I thought questions -- I think I'm figuring this out for myself. I'll be able -- And we will be able to ask them when we get to 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct. Forty minute layout.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak against? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of House Resolution 2723. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 92 ayes and 51 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out Senate Bill 1811.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, Senate Bill 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, this is a fiscal matters bill that includes a variety of other cost savings and nontax revenue measures. As I mentioned during our discussion on HB 1 yesterday, the nontax revenue raised through the bill is assumed in the budget. Passage of Senate Bill 1811 is necessary for the comptroller to certify our budget that we passed yesterday. Setting it by the school finance and the FST, deferral section of this bill, let me talk to you about other things that Senate Bill 1811 does. Many sections of this bill are technical clean ups that the comptroller has requested which have no fiscal impact. The conference committee report pertains to sales and alcohol and motor fuel speedups that we negotiated with the various industry groups this session. All of these industries have sent letters of support for this language when it first appeared in House Bill 3640. Members, Senate Bill 1811 does not include a franchise tax speedup. This bill does not alter the sales tax holiday. We took language out during the floor debate last week about keeping the sales tax holiday. However, it does still include language to index the timing of the sales tax holiday to start at the beginning of the -- the start of the school year. I am proud to tell you that we took Chairman Hilderbran's recommendation concerning the small business extension from the franchise tax that is in this bill. While this exemption does cost the bill a $150 million, I think we can all agree that it is imperative that we continue to encourage growth of small businesses in Texas. Senate Bill 1811 has sufficient revenue to address this cost. Members, we had -- originally we had a fiscal matters bill for each article of the budget. However, we decided to incorporate aspects of those bills into this one. Again, these items are all assumed in this budget. And, members, I'll decide if you don't remember those fiscal matters bills (inaudible) for all the ones that I postponed during this session. Lastly this bill includes the deferral of the August 2013 Foundation School Program Payment, which includes our FST cost by nearly $2.3 billion. And that is the number that was given to us by the LLB. Members, we have done this before and it's something that I felt was necessary to free up money to give more money to our school districts throughout the state. Members, there is a lot of smaller items contained in this bill. However, I know that the main interest in this bill is to have a school finance solution. And I will turn this the mic over to Chairman Eissler to discuss the school finance
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, school finance provisions in 1811 reflect a combination of proration and Senate Bill 22. The bill uses two levers to reduce current law entitlement by 2 billion a year. A regular program adjustment factor, and I have to say a regular program is after allotment and waste are paid, which provides an across the board reduction. And a Senate reduction to target revenue hold harmless. As a compromised solution, which reduces current law entitlement by 2 billion dollars in fiscal year 2012, using only the regular program allotment. This means an across the board reduction to school district funding: We reduce current law entitlement by 2 billion in fiscal year '13 using that Senate Bill mix of one quarter of a reduction from the regular program across the board mechanism, and three quarters of reduction from target revenue hold harmless. Future reductions, whether across the board or through target revenue hold harmless, are not addressed in statute but left to the next legislature to decide in the appropriation process. Requires a joint legislative committee to review public school finance and includes intent language that in the future we continue to reduce hold harmless levels in the system while increasing the basic allotment.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the Chairman yield for a question, or is there more layout that you wanted to finish?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I just have just a little bit more. And to ensure future legislature take this seriously, target revenue is repealed in 2018. And I want to add that this proposal reflects the decisions this body adopted in HB 1 and under that budget we were required to reduce spending on education by $4 billion. Over the interim, the House will have an opportunity to have input in how the formulas could -- will look for the 14-15 biennium. And now I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will Chairman Eissler yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Chairman, let me ask you first some process questions. Because, as you know, I sit on the committee you chair.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We talked a lot about school finance in the committee. Did we ever discuss a proposal like either the one you carried as an amendment or filed as an amendment on this bill originally, or the Senate proposal?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Did we never discuss anything like proration in committee?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not as a committee agenda. But I think in passing it came up on what happens under current law if no school finance plan is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We discussed the deficiencies in the current law, but we didn't look at any runs, any printouts, any effects on districts?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Was that -- and you brought this amendment -- you have been carrying the school finance -- you have been working on school finance and working on a school finance proposal, and you held a meeting of the committee to discuss that after my bill had already been passed out. Was the proposal you brought to the committee to discuss anything like this proposal?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: When we came to the floor with 1811, you had an amendment. And you filed that just before the prefiling deadlines before those amendments; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And at the time I believe you had runs for that proposal or some Senate numbers for that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Can I ask how long you'd been preparing that before you shared it with the rest of us, since you seem to have runs?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not very long.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would five minutes be appropriate?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not quite. Not quite appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Not quite that long?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, I wouldn't say it was not that long. I would say it was a little sooner than that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So in general, the committee nor this House has ever discussed what became the House proposal in conference committee?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, when that amendment was -- was -- was put together, if nothing was going to pass, that was -- that was set as a, in fact, that was part of the talking point is that -- that was a fall back position.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But if it became the position, didn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It ended up that way.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It was the position that was in conference committee presented as the House position?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think all three were looked at, including yours.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I was never asked to present anything to the conference committee so if they were looking at it I'm not sure how long or in what detail. Let me ask you about this proposal, though, now that we've talked a little bit about process, you said a few minutes ago a something about there would still be settle up. Are you maintaining that you're not changing settle up at all?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Of course -- It's my understanding that it is, just as it is now, with formulas and current law; that is a reduction plan.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: This provision says that if it turns out that there isn't enough money -- Well, let me ask you first, this change that you've made to the reduction plan, is that only in effect for this biennium or is that permanent?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: This plan is -- This biennium, with the intent to reduce hold harmless and (inaudible) basically by 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Mr. Chairman, let me rephrase my question because I don't think you understood I was asking. You made some significant changes to the provision in here on proration?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Those changes are permanent changes, right? Those do not have an expiration or sunset date?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And under those changes, right, first of all, under current law if we come up short -- if we estimate the foundation school program and we come up short at the end of two years, what happens to the districts that are shorted? How are they treated?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, three things will happen and --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Under current law?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We typically just settle up in the following biennium, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. And that was designed, I think, for a small proration and I believe that's happened in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. Under this proposal that you bring forward I read it says a school district is not entitled to reimbursement in of the subsequent fiscal year of the amount resulting from the adjustment authorized in the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And so does that apply, that settle up will not happen as long as the total amount of settle up puts us in the hole as a state?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It becomes an appropriation process.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No, this says they're not entitled to it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In this biennium that's true.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I just asked you (inaudible) I just asked you if this was this biennium or if that was permanent. And you said this was permanent. I don't see anything on there that makes this just a one biennium change. Am I missing something?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, this -- this is set up to take the IOU out of the current proration law so that once we do the reduction we don't start the next biennium with a 4 billion-dollar IOU.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Or a $1 billion IUO or a $500 million IOU or a $30 million IOU?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's right. And the permanent is that appropriation process will determine what level of funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. So if, next biennium, we come back here and in all good faith we appropriate a certain amount of money for schools based on our estimate of student growth, based on our estimate of property value growth, based on our estimate of tax response, and we don't appropriate enough, as it turns out because those estimates are low. Under current lawsuit, the districts still entitled to make up that money the next year because they've already paid their teachers or signed their teachers up for contracts, they've already got their classrooms assigned. If, in the middle of year you find out the state is short, because there's more of those, or there's less property value growth we still owe it to those districts. But under this doesn't it change it so we no longer owe it?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct. But the appropriations, the legislature is then on the hook.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, we're not on the hook because we don't have to pay it. Currently we're on the hook because the statute requires us to pay it. So would that not allow us to routinely short fund --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That would allow us to, but I don't see that happening.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. So we're not going to be -- does it -- Let me ask you this: Do we have a similar set of formulas for junior colleges?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Branch is smiling because he knows we do.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You've made that argument before, and the difference is junior colleges can charge tuition.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right. Well, that may be a difference. But let me ask you a question: The question is do we, if school districts can raise taxes, Mr. Villarreal reminds me; and probably will. (Inaudible) situation for junior colleges where we have a formula and then we come in here and we say oh, we'll get about 80 percent of that or 70 percent, or 60 percent whatever it is; right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think -- I think the legislature has -- has shown its priorities in terms of public education, and the portion of the budget that we spend on (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: This is not a good year to make that argument, Mr. Chairman. But I'm just -- Will you agree with me -- Will you agree with me that that is a major change in the way we deal with districts in a year of estimation of what it's going to cost?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. Let me ask you a question about the formulas, and then I'll yield to some of my colleagues. And I understand that is a blend of two different spreadsheets. And I'm going to ask you a question because a number of members have come to me with this question: The losses that you see with the first year for districts are separate from the columns for the second year, in other words, where you see like an 8 percent loss in the second year, that's that district's loss versus the current year; that's not a cumulative thing?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay that's what I thought. But there was some question on the floor about that. Now, the way you have this set up, understand that under the Senate proposal they pay particular attention to the lowest target revenue district or the formula districts. They essentially had two different proration amounts. They've got a -- the 7 percent, or something like that and (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: 7.0 to 7.6 percent depending upon how much above the formula revenue is.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. If they're not on top, target revenue they're just losing that 2 percent amount, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. And that's after -- after the -- the -- it's a regular program so that's after the allotments are paid based on the full allotment, based on the full basic allotment.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No, actually it's based on the basic allotment but none of the weight. That's a whole separate question. But here's what I want to point out to you and ask you if you consider this, your first years proposal basically cuts everybody across the board. Flat 6 percent, right? And let's not talk about
(inaudible) jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. The second year poor districts are treated much better than wealthier districts, right? That's the way this Senate Bill 227 is set up?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. I'm --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm looking at -- I'm looking at one of my districts and it's a formula district, and in the first year, it loses, even with Edu Job it loses $10 million dollars. In the -- It was about 3 percent, Mr. Branch. In the second year it loses only 5 or close to $5 million, which is about 1.4 percent. And what I'm asking is why does that make sense? Because what it looks like -- I mean when I worked on my proposal and the Senate worked on its proposal, there was concern that when you take people down -- if you're going take people down you take them down in a progressive manner. And this seems to go upside down so that my district is going to have to go out and fire a bunch of teachers or lay them off now, cut programs, eliminate programs, only to come back a year later and have a bunch of that money restored. Shouldn't that work the other way around, and was that considered when you were trying to put this compromise together?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It was.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I think just the language and the -- the intent in Senate Bill 22 was easier to go along the -- through 2018 just for the reduction of target revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, the districts that are Devin -- even -- that are recognized under your plans to be the ones who are most in need of additional help or least cuts are the ones that have this -- are the that actually bear the brunt in the first year, a greater brunt in the first year than the second year, and so -- first they have to let everybody go, and then they have to go out and try to get everybody back in the second year? And they're the ones that are the districts that are the in the most trouble already?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In those cases, yeah, they do lose more in the first year than the second. When they are closer to formula. Because they'll lose less in the second year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. Okay. And they lose the same amount in their first year percentage-wase as Highland Park or Northwest or wealthy districts, don't they?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, percentage but it's also based on target revenue, which if you look at the summary it's a (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: In the first year it's based on basic allotment, not target revenue?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, it's based on --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I thought you -- it's based strictly on target revenue?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: All right. If you look at this summary you'll see that it varies on wealth in the first year from a 158 per WADA for the poorest districts, up to $244 per WADA for the district subject to recapture.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Okay. So there's less than about a hundred dollars difference between the two?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Per WADA.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Per WADA? How much difference is there in the amount of make up those districts actually receive or keep between those two, isn't it thousands of dollars per WADA?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It can be.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, in the ones you're giving the example of, so you're saying it's appropriate from an equity standpoint to cut them essentially the same when they vary now by thousands of dollars in the amount that they have?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, that's why -- That's why we had the compromise. One is across the board, the other is a WADA or a whole harmless driven one.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But the position you represented this House as taking was the across the board?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's right. Because it was -- it was -- it was the lowest that we could get for everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Regardless of where they started out?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, it was. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my colleague.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Ask the gentleman a question.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Eissl er, I -- I would like to think that the House would go into negotiation with the Senate when it comes to school finance, and be a champion for the little guy. It appears that you were actually fighting for plan that favored the districts that are receiving more money per WADA than the vast majority of school districts. To give you an example, I represent San Antonio ISD, mostly. But I also represent a part of Alma Heights. San Antonio ISD received about 60 percent of the funding that Alma heights received on a per WADA basis.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: The Senate's plan would have brought more justice to school finance by decreasing the equity, the inequity in the current target revenue system. Yet you seem to have fought for a plan that does the opposite, why?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, we had -- two -- we had two different approaches to this 4 billion-dollar hole. And it took attention for both ends to get the votes to get it.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: But this isn't -- so -- The vast majority of districts are on the low end of the spectrum. Why would you have lacked the votes to bring more equity to school finance?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, the idea is to get more equity. And when we look at --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No, no. You mitigate the attempts of -- you are narrowing the divide in how the state treats school children.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In current law --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Rob, this isn't like negotiation between, you know, different interpretation, this is right or wrong here. It is wrong to treat children differently. If there's ever a place for equity, it should be in our -- in how we treat children. How the government treats children. How can you justify not -- how can you justify having the school districts that are on the low end of the school finance spectrum, financing more of the cut?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But they're not. On that end (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Any of any, any, any of the cut.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Which was the same percentage which was a different dollar amount. In fact, if you look at current law on this summary, a 124 districts are on formula in 2012. Just with that first -- that first across the board cut you put a 159 districts. Now, current law in 2013 is a 192, which will grow under this plan to 649 districts on formula.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: We needed to cut $4 billion from our formulas. There is 5.5 billion dollars in target revenue hold harmless. Why couldn't we have seen the cuts there? When we know that the schools that are not on target revenue, that are on formula, are receiving less than an equal amount? They are in the low end of the scale. Why didn't we choose to do this?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, part of it is what we did when we compressed the tax rates, when we asked the school districts to lower their tax rate by a third, and we told them that we would make up the difference with state aid or additional state aid for tax reduction. It's called ACETAR*. And what we did is we promised them if they lower their tax rates, we would fill in the difference. And the school districts -- the school districts that did that, some of them had very little state aid and a lot of local revenue, which was a big number. Okay? And we also had a lot of school districts that were mostly state aid that had very small number. So one-third of their -- of their small local revenue was not much, so they were low ACETAR, okay? The other districts who -- who gave up a lot of money had that ACETAR, and to just take it completely away, right away, was unfair. It broke a promise. And, in essence, that's what we're doing, long-term, on the high target revenue districts. Now, we are looking for equity and this body has decided that equity is more important than that. That's what this decision has been. The decision is also that we're a 4 billion-dollar cut. And, by the way, it started out at 9.8. I know Scott Hochberg's first plan took care of that, and reflected that, and that was a sticker shock. We got it down to 4. Now, how we do that is that is take care of the promise or get equity. And that's what this compromise is, is to try to hold on little bit to the promise but also taking care of the equity. Because both years do address equity, one to a much larger scale, okay. In short fund --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: What year does the target revenue go away?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: 2017-2018 school year. And the reason -- (inaudible) the reason for that is, you are right, it's a 5 billion dollar cost. So, to just do that (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: By that time my soon to be kindergartener is going to be in sixth grade.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well that doesn't mean education -- And public education in Texas is not going to die. I understand that. But I think --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I think we can do better.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Let's look at it another way. Since 2006 we've been on this target revenue plan, so --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I have a few more questions and then I'll give up the mic to my colleagues behind me. Real quick. One big complaint that my locals have is they are writing larger checks to the school district, but the growth in their payment in property taxes to support our schools is not being seen to the benefit of local school districts. Because of the way our target revenue system and formulas work, it really benefits the state. Before this law, the rise in property values would have increased the basic allotment. With this bill, you make a disconnect so that there is not a requirement to increase the base allotment on the property value.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Based on the increase of property value, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That's correct. So that we don't even cure the original problem, we actually make it worse. The next question, final question that I have -- I think that's it. I'll hand it over to the others.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Parliame ntary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker, I was taking a look at Rule 13, Section 9, I wanted to see if I understand the rule correctly. It says to me that general terms let's just take Rule 13, Section 9 2, it says the conference committee shall have no authority with respect to omitting text which is not in disagreement. Did I -- I guess the disagreement is between the two Houses; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Rule 13, Section 9 says the conference committee shall have no authority with respect to any bill or resolution to change alter or amend text, which is not in disagreement to add text to any matter which is not in concluded in either the House or Senate version of the bill or resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you. And does it also say, Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, that this rule shall be strictly construed by the presiding officer in this House to achieve these purposes?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It does say that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: And following it, Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, with -- when I look at Rule 9, Rule 13, Section 9D, you don't want conference committee reports on appropriations bill. I see a similar language at sub one, where it says that an item of appropriation appears in both House and the Senate versions of bill, the item must be included in the conference committee report? That seems pretty similar to Rule 13, Section 9. I am reading that correctly, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: And following that spirit, Mr. Speaker -- parliamentary inquiry -- with respect to conference committees on tax bills, on Rule 13, Section 9C1 it states that if a tax item appears in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, the item must be included in the conference committee report; is that correct, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: And one last thing for you, Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that the only way you can correct that change would be pursuant to Rule 13, Section 9 subsection F that calls for the provisions -- excuse me, the limitations imposed on conference committees by provisions of the section may be suspended in part by permission of the House on privileged resolutions that are passed by a majority vote of the House?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: If it was one of the items in subsection A.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'm sorry, sir? If it's one of the items in subsection A.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Is there any way other than a privileged resolution, to affect a change in a conference committee report?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: If you are adjusting the differences between House and --
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: On matters that are not in dispute, I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: This is the limitation, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: The only limitation we have is the privileged resolution, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, is there a specific question we can answer?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well, I guess what I'm getting at is the rule -- Rule 13, Section 9, lays out the rules and it instructs the Chair to strictly construe these rules, and then the rule further says that the only way you can change it is by a privileged resolution. I just want to make sure that there's nothing else in the rule that allows you to change language or amend language or omit language that's not in dispute, other than by privileged resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Rule 13, Chapter C rules deals with the conference committee and conference committee reports.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Rule 13, sub-C?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chapter C.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Chapter C? Okay. That gives the conference committee reports on tax bills, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It deals conference committee reports on everything.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order on SB 1811 in violation of Rule 13, Section 9A2 and that the --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: That the
(inaudible) not in dispute.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the Chair has reviewed the point of order and both House and Senate versions of the bill. Including the floor amendment 3 by Representative Isaac of Senate Bill 1811. Chair finds that the bill is within jurisdiction and the point of order is respectfully overruled. Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay, Mr. Eissler, we talked about this during the break so you should be ready, okay? We keep saying that we are $4 billion short on public school funding but the more accurate statements for these members when they go home is that we are $4 billion short in the formulas, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Because there was last session one.-- approximately 1.4 billion in grants that went to our school districts, whether it's for pre-K or technology or all kinds of good things that are not included in the formulas.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So when members go home and look at the district runs that have been provided to us, those may not be accurate for their districts depending on how much grants they have been receiving, which could be in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct. And -- and -- you bring up some good points Craig. And, in fact, you reminded me of something. The whole idea in the interim is that people saw this budget shortfall coming. I mean, and you saw -- you saw reduction in grants, $1.2, $1.4 billion and there was some books that aren't bought. But the whole focus was on FST. The whole focus we've goes got to protect our the maintenance and the operations of our schools, what we're spending in the classroom, what schools operate on. So you're right, a lot of the peripheral money was cut. TEA lost a lot of jobs with cuts focused as much money on SFP. Now, you also mentioned technology, which I also thought was the interesting. House Bill 6 is coming up later this evening which provides and is funded about $900 million. So two thirds of those grants will be restored through the the instructional materials allotment, which is the combination of the technology allotment and like half of the text books. So if you would like to see most of those grants, two thirds, three quarters of those grants restored, please vote for House Bill 6 this evening.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: But that is still included in the 4 billion-dollar reduction?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, that's outside the 4 billion-dollar reduction. That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Now, if you look at the -- the Article 69 and it talks about the state compression rate, and this is from the privileged resolution which is now in the bill. And it says if a school district adopts a maintenance and operations tax rate that is below the rate equal to the product of the state compression percentage, multiplied by the maintenance and operations tax they adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year, the commissioner shall reduce the district's entitlement under the section and in proportion to the amount by which the adopted rate is less than the rate equal to the product of state compression percentage multiplied by the rate adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year. And the reduction required by this subsection applies beginning with the maintenance in operation's tax rate adopted for the 2009 tax year. And it says as an explanation, this change is necessary to provide for a reduced amount of additional state aid for tax reduction to a school district that adopts the rate lower than the applicable compressed tax rate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And I'm glad you pointed that out earlier, because that is a fix. Because what was done before, TEA had about six school districts that lowered their tax rate and thought that they would lose all of their additional state aid for tax reduction. What this does as a fix to make that proportional, so however much you lower your tax rate that will be the percentage loss of your additional state aid for tax reduction. It's a fix because there was on some interpretation from the agency that you might lose off all of that aid. So this makes it Proportional and it's a fix.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So if you reduce your tax rate by five percent, then you're going to have reduced state aid by five percent?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct. It's a maintenance of effort.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir. I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Eissler , as I read House Bill 1811, there's I guess there's several -- I don't know what you call them, taxes, I guess, in that -- in that bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Several what?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Taxes. I mean it seems to impact state taxes somehow or another in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I mean I'm not sure I'm reading that right, but when I read it I think that seems to be the case, where it creates an impact on state taxes of some sort, either based on what school districts do or fail to do and some kind of impact on state taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And if that's the case I'm the wondering was there a -- was there a tax equity statement collected on this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Now, there is a summary that you got with the printouts. People say We shouldn't talk about runs, we should talk about printouts.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And is that what you're referencing as the tax equity statement?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it's the first page. Actually, it's the first page before you get to the district printout.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. So that's not at LBB reports it's --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: This is LBB.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. And is it your understanding that the tax equity report and the LBB report are something different?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Are you talking about a tax equity statement in 1811?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay. I -- Where is that here? I'm here on the public ed stuff.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I know. But I'm asking in terms of how -- public ed is the largest portion on 1811, and what I'm trying to figure so, I looked for the tax equity statement. I didn't see one. And I don't know if that was a -- because I noticed that the Senate -- the Senate did request a tax equity statement, but I didn't notice one where the House did the same.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I don't know where that would be, other than the LBB statement on school districts that -- well, it would be under formula as an equity statement.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, okay. I'll wait until Mr. Pitts comes back and asks my question. Thank you. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you. Chairman Eissler, I'm just want to go very quickly; following up on the process argument itself. Because I know school finance is a major issue and it's about $37 billion in the State of Texas, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir. Actually, with all funds and all spending a it's about $52 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And there's no question we've lowered it by 4 billion and, this is a new school finance proposal that is before us right now?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Let me just let me just ask, for my edification. With regards to the House, did any -- did any of our school superintendents testify on this -- on this proposal?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You talking about on this combined proposal?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: On.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not in any -- any meeting. Are you talking about any input from school superintendents -- reaction from school
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In reference school superintendents, whether they're from rural Texas or from --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I've heard from many, many of them.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Because they get an opportunity to come here and testify in the -- before your committee on this proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not in my committee, but I believe they testified on Senate Bill 22.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, there is -- this is -- this is -- this is the Eissler's proposal and Senate 22.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: This is a compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct. And with respect to what we're doing, did any -- was any parent, for example, did any parent get an opportunity to come and testify with respect to this school finance proposal that would be affecting their children in the public school system? Any parent get an opportunity to come and testify?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: At a hearing for this --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, we didn't have a public hearing for this.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's precisely my point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I thought that's where you were going.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I think process is important.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I believe it's critically important when we're talking about changing the public school's finance system in the state of Texas. It's no question. I'm critical of us doing this the day before the session ends and the question -- I mean that I would have, to what degree, other than the few people who struck this deal, other than those few, how many other people were included in this -- in this -- in this decision making that has brought us this proposal that would fundamentally change the way that we will be financing public schools over the next five years?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Actually, to answer your question, we had inputs from plenty of members, informally not in a formal process.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: When you say plenty of members what do you mean? As of yesterday there were members on the floor of the Texas House not knowing what the proposal was. And I would venture to say about 95 percent of the members did not know what, in essence, this proposal was. Now, let me further ask -- Now I'm a member of the conference committee on 1811, okay. I'm a member of the conference committee on 1811. And with respect to the deal that was struck, I was not advised and not -- and was not a part of this deal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But you were in the meeting with the Lieutenant Governor --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I see the speaker is standing. Somehow I just always get the bad luck of the draw.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well -- Mr. Speaker? So maybe it's my luck.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, I believe, when that motion to suspend was raised it pertained to the clock as well. So, the clock has stopped for right now. Now, Mr. Speaker, you're not going to count the time that Representative Martinez used on the point of order?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No, sir, we stopped the clock.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You stopped the clock?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I would like to say this proposal reflects the decisions this body adopted in House Bill 1. Under that budget we are required to reduce --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But let me just ask this last question before going (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I think all of us understand the first year in proration. All of us understand the second year. But what the members need to understand for years three, four and five that the decision for our school financing will be solely an appropriations decision, which means --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: By both bodies of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Which means that if we decide not to fund public school system to any reasonable level, that is a decision that we will make. Right now, it is driven by certain standards and formulas.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: When you talk about -- And it will continue to be driven by standards and formulas. And if I might add, I don't know a member of either body, Senate or this House, who is not interested in getting the most for public education.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Eissler, we are cutting school finance right now by $4 billion. If you just look at the --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, we are. And over the interim the House will have an opportunity --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'm just trying to understand your ruling, and I had to educate myself on the Isaac amendment. And my understanding that the point of order was overruled because of a floor amendment offered on Senate Bill 1811 by Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct. The Isaac issue put the issue of payments into a matter of contention between the two house.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: That's the payment from the school foundation fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Payment in the foundation school program.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Right now, you Mr. Speaker, you understand my point of order was dealing with the amendments to the foundation school fund not from the foundation school fund. I believe the Isaac amendment talks about what you do with the money once it's received. The section that's in dispute is whether or not a section of a payment to the school fund is in dispute. And I'd like to argue that again, under Rule 13, Section 982, which is strict construction.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The point of order has been overruled. Thank you. Bring your point of order down front. The point of order is respectfully overruled. Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker? I'd like to raise a point of order against further consideration of the conference committee report to SB 1811, under Rule 8, Section 3 and Section 35 of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Members, there's 45 minutes to speak for or against. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira. Mr. Martinez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Parliame ntary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: The resolution that was passed, it included new material and new provision not included in the House and Senate version; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: So any new provision in the conference committee report must be reflected in the resolution to go outside the bounds; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: (Inaudible) disagreements between the House and the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Well, I'd like to raise am point of order against further consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira. May we have some order please? Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I rise against Senate Bill 1811 for several reasons. And I'd like to begin with talking about the nearly five million school children that are depending upon us now in what we do. Representative Lyne asked yesterday how much is enough? I thought his remarks were quite insightful. I thought he raised some challenges to us. I thought he pointed out that we need to have some questions answered. Well, I'm here to answer one question for you, sir, and I believe for all of us that this bill is not enough. This is not enough for public schools it is not enough for public school finance and it is wrong today, because what we are doing is we're going to cause and create and many of our 1,000 some odd school districts a tax increase. For those of you who find out word so horrendous, think about it. Because you are voting for a tax increase today. When school districts have to make up that money, they're going to say we did it because of our legislators in Austin to who failed to adequately fund public education. For those of you members who have not been through the school finance fight, let me remind you of what our Texas Constitution requires. Our Texas Constitution requires that the state must establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools. We've been to the courthouse so many times and the State has lost so many times that I'm not surprised in this year of our Lord, 2011, we're going be facing more lawsuits when we leave here. And the biggest problem, it's not just the lack of adequate funding, it is the equity gap that continues to grow. When we froze -- when we froze the amounts in 2006 and left many districts, many poor districts, and many what I might call middle income districts in a situation where they would not be able to close that equity gap, we froze up and made it a permanent equity gap. And today we make it even wider. Today with -- across the board cuts you only exacerbate it and it you only invite meritorious lawsuits against the State of Texas. Because again, we inadequately financed public education. It is -- public education -- it is the most important thing we do. It is the great equalizer. The great equalizer among all of us of whatever color, race or creed is the public education. My parents taught me that, my grandparents taught me that and they said go to school. Get the best education you can. What we are doing today is making our system, not just less equitable, but we're going backwards. We're going backwards in time, so that all the gains we have made in education will be challenged. And I don't know why. We have -- we are going to cut $4 billion when we have, according to the comptroller about 6.3 or 6.4 billion in the bank. How do you go back? And they will tell that to folks back home? How do you face the teachers that are laid off, the classrooms that you're going to go speak to or read a book in. The classrooms now, 25 or 28 or 30 to 1. How do you think that that's a quality education for our public schools? I don't see it. We talk about repealing this whole system of public education and we talk about the -- inequity. And I want to talk about a moment for the target revenue issue. Because as it was frozen in 2006, I watched Senator Dole the other day in the Senate do a breakdown based on the target -- targeted revenue hold harmless about the gap between the lowest district and the richest district. For those who live in Senator Eltife's district, the gap between the lowest and the richest is $3,092. That is per child. $3,092 per child. So one classroom of 25, multiply that 3,000 by 25. One classroom. If you live Representative Doules district it is $1,747 per child. If you -- if you represent part of Robert Nichols district it is $3,147 per child. If you are in Tommy Williams district it's $2,149 per child. This is the gap that we'll be talking about at the courthouse. And Senator Ogaden's difference, it is $4,096 between the lowest district and the wealthiest district. And Senator Patrick's district is $1,252. And Senator Shapiro's district $2,224. And Senator Harris' district it's only $870, but that's a big amount when you do it per child. In Senator Davis' districts is it's $2,083. So for those of you who are following this, that's who your Senator is, if you know how your districts are. I can go on to Senator Nelson's district, it's $2,280 per child. Senator Ellis, $400 per child. Senator Watson here in Austin, $1,180. Senator Whitmire, $1,572. Senator Corona $1,076. Senator Huffman $2,072. Senator Hagar $3,125. Senator Urestes, $7,975 between the lowest and the richest. That is the education gap we have and that is the education gap we are adding to today. Senator Hinajosa in the valley, $4,780 between the poorest and the wealthiest. Senator Zaffrini $6,302. Senator Birdwell, $3,632 dollars. Senator Fraser, $2,963. And again, members, this is per child. The grand -- the grand --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Grand number is.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I do not yield at this time. The grand amount is Senator Robert Duncan at $8,589 per child. Senator Seliger at $7,955 per child. Again, a difference of a thousand dollars per child can pile up quickly. I point this out to you because the disparity is going to widen as a result of Senate Bill 1811. When you do across the board cuts all you do is create more inequity, because the wealthiest don't get the same cuts. Now, a few things that are also very clear about -- about this bill. When we start talking about how much we're going to do per child and about class sizes, probably having to go up and about cutting back here and there, and we think about the five million school children. Nearly five million of our state. We have education and wealth being decided by your zip code. If you live in a certain area you get more money per child and you do better. There's no question that the that the school finance system of the Senate Bill 1811 would enact for the next two years will put many districts in serious financial trouble, and will prompt those tax increases. If we looked at the bottom one-half of the districts, 512 districts with more than 2.6 million children, about 60 of all the children in public schools; what we see is they're going to be losing about $300 per WADA, also. If you look at the top districts you see that they're only going to lose $400. So when you're trying to close that gap you never do it and we don't do it with this. Now, my good friend Chairman Eissler says that we'll start looking at doing away with the hold harmless and revenue agreements in 2018. Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be a lot of people that want to keep this inequity going here in this great state, and I don't think that's right. It's not right for the poorest child to get a lesser education as compared to the wealthiest. I ask you to -- to think about these things today, because not only is it politically difficult to go back home and talk about why you cut public education, but it is also an immoral thing to do. All our children deserve the same from us. All our children deserve the same basic, good quality public education. The Constitution requires we do that. The Constitution does not require us to do it in the waning hours of the legislature with no public hearing. We're not going through the proper process, and by making a vote that we could really, really regret. I ask you all to please consider voting no. We're doing something here that was only unveiled yesterday, has never had a public hearing, hasn't had any questions asked about it; or any public input or scrutiny. I've heard a lot of discussion this session about the rights of Americans and about voting rights. What about the rights of these children? This will be the first school finance plan passed in modern time without a court order. I predict that the next school finance plan is going to require a court order. For those of you pledge (inaudible) known taxes, you violate your pledge today, because the yea vote on this bill will force that type of taxation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Members, I'd ask you to please vote against Senate Bill 1811 and give us a chance in a special session do a better job. Our children deserve it. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Farrar?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Parliament ary inquiry.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Are you aware whether this bill creates any new taxes or fees?
THE CHAIR: The Chair is not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: On page 99, starting at line 22 there's a change in the lobbyist's registration and renewal fee. Are you aware of that, Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: I am not advised, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: It appears that we're increasing one fee from a hundred dollars to 150, a second fee from 50 to 75, and a third fee from 500 to 750. Are you aware of that?
THE CHAIR: Not advised, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. It appears at least a 50 percent increase in this fee and registration, depending upon where they fall in the internal revenue code or Section 305.004 of the government code. Are you aware of that?
THE CHAIR: Not advised, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Is this an increase in the fee? Do you see that as I see it?
THE CHAIR: We do not have the bill in front of us.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. And well, I'm having difficulty because there's no tax equity statements available to us. Therefore, I raise a point of order under Rule 13, Section 10D.
THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down. Members, Ms. Farrar has raised a point of order under Section 13 -- Rule 13, Section B. The point of order is respectfully overruled. Representative Farrar inquired whether is there a tax equity note and there is not. Ms. Davis?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentar y inquiry.
THE CHAIR: Do you all have the same rule book we have? I believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you I'll be real brief. Senate Bill 1811 has been through a lot of trauma, as you can tell from the members who have raised points of order. But I want to talk about something else and that is this: Is that one of the principles that people get mad at us about is the fact that we don't live, or sometimes we don't want to live under the same laws and rules that we project on them. Let me tell what that has to do with Senate Bill 11. It's apparent, if a parent decided, who had a court order, that they were supposed to pay child support to their child, to their child, and they said well, I'm not going to pay it because I lost my job. But I got $6,000 in the bank over here but I'm not going to touch it. I'm not going to touch my $6,000 in the bank, and I'm going to show up in court and I'm going to explain to the judge. Wait a minute judge. I lost my job I can't pay the rest of it, but I got $6,000 in the bank but I'm waiting for an emergency. I'm waiting for really a rainfall to occur. I don't know. Do you know what a judge would you say to that person? That parent? You must be out of your mind. In fact, that's what most people probably think about us when you go home and you vote for this bill and you cut public education by $4 billion and you tell them but we had $6 billion in the bank and yet I cut $4 billion out of public education. Well, members, most of you were weren't here for (inaudible) wood one. Some of you were, like me you have been here for Edgewood two and Edgewood three, but today what you are voting for is Edgewood four. I guarantee it, because if you'll go back and read the opinion, which I have several opinions in Edgewood three, we're doing exactly what the courts admonished us not to do. That's what this does. And so, I know most of you decided that well, I came here because my folks in my district wanted me to come here and cut the budget in Texas. Well, I think that's because you and the folks you represent didn't know much about the budget in the State of Texas. But if you had known what the budget in the State of Texas did, 30 cents out of every dollar we spend on public education. That's 38 cents. That's almost half the budget we spend on public education. And then when you look at how much money we actually spend per Texan, then you have to recognize that Texas is not a state where we had a budget that was out of control. And so when you start to cut the budget this time, members, it's I think I have said this before but let me say it again because it bears repeating; that all of us go through financial crisis. We all go through -- we've had our ups and downs and especially if you're in a business and if you happen to be a lawyer, like I have, for the last more than 20 years, you have ups and downs. But, you know, during my down years, you know, it boiled down to this. If I didn't -- If I had three pork chops and five kids, I didn't get rid of two kids. But that's what this budget does. This budget says, look we're just going to ignore all of these children that the Constitution of Texas obligates us to educate. And you can do that if you want to, you can do that if you want to. But I guarantee this, not only will you end up in an Edgewood lawsuit again, but we're going pay for it in the future. We're going pay for it because there will be a whole bunch of children who grow up to be adults who we have failed to educate. And we failed to educate them because, today, what we've decided is that we'd rather have money in the bank than education in the classroom. And having education in the classroom today to me would be far superior. So that's why members, I'm going to go home and tell the people in my district that I voted no on Senate Bill 18 -- 1811. Because I believe that 1811 actually goes backward. It puts Texas backward. It takes us back to a time when we didn't have to educate everybody. There's a consequence -- there's a consequence to us voting for this bill. There's a consequence to us voting not to pass this bill on, I understand, but it (inaudible) we'll have to come back for a special session. And God knows, I don't want to come here for a special session. My law firm is just about -- I'm the last one to get laid off. And that's probably imminent. But the point is that look, I signed on and came here because I wanted to help not only the people in my district but the people in Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes, I would be glad to yield, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: He yields, Ms. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Dutton, in this bill are we requiring businesses to pay taxes in advance?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And to the extent we're doing that, we're going to ask them to do something we're not willing to do; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, yeah. Because what we're doing is we're deferring our payments
(inaudible) we're going to defer our payments but we're going to require them to pay theirs earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And in this bill there's a penalty if they don't, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: We're not only not funding education, not meeting our obligations, we are not going to penalize those who will not pay -- who does not pay -- who does not pay -- who won't pay theirs in advance; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, that's, I think for the people that vote for this bill, they're going to have to explain that when they get home. I think Chairman Turner yesterday talked about them writing a check. Well, this is an NSS check, members. It's an NSS check. Because what's going happen is I think that in the future, that somehow or another when you look at Texas in the year 2040 somebody will look back on this day and say, you know what, those educators there -- those legislators there weren't too concerned about public education. But, you know, what -- You know what's interesting about that? Every member in this House when they campaigned they talked about how they going to improve public education. There's no -- not one member in this House that didn't say they were going come here and they were going to improve public education and I'll bet you not one of them campaigned on the fact that they were going to come here an reduce the spending on public education. I'll bet you there's not a person who did that. And yet today it's time for you to step up to the plate and acknowledge that, wait a minute, while I may have run on a campaign that I was going reduce the budget in Texas, I don't intend to do that on the backs of school children, I don't intend to do that on the backs of public school teachers, I don't intend to do it that way. And yet, if you vote for Senate Bill 1811, that's exactly what you're doing. And Mr. Speaker, with that, show me voting no.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Show me voting no, too, Mr. Dutton. Let me give you four reasons why: First of all, one very, very, very, very important reason is we're making a very big change here without any discussion. And the big change is that we no longer owe school districts anything in particular under this bill. There's a lot of estimates that go into figuring out the what the foundation school number should be. And our school board worked very hard to get us there but as we've seen in this last two years, and we see every two years, we can't perfectly predict student growth, we can't perfectly predict property value growth; but we've always made a promise to the school districts that we if we screw up and don't appropriate enough then you're entitled to that money, we will back and provide it for you. Because what happens if you don't? One of two things happens. What happens is one is that the school districts really can't hire the teachers they need, because they don't know if they're going to be able to pay them until March. That don't make sense. The other thing that happens is what happened back before we had this ration provision that Mr. Eissler is attempting to change. And that is the school districts would chase each other up a ladder to make sure that they got their money before those cuts came. So what they do is they would run their tax rates up so they can get a little more off the state system. They would run their tax rates up and we had a spiral effect that went up. And we finally said we got to stop this. We got to make a promise to you that if we bid shorter you're not all fighting over the same pie. We're going to come in and do it. We had huge property tax increases before we put this stabilizer in. And we also had a whole heck of a lot of lawsuits. We talk about lawsuits. (inaudible) school finance lawsuits. You know, I've been here almost twenty years now. There's only been one lawsuit during my time here. And that was when everybody got up to the $1.50 level. It's been pretty stable and it's stable because we have a system in place. It's not subject to the wills of each and every one us each time and who's ever sitting on the conference committee of appropriations. Those of us who have done higher ed know that higher ed is given out based on the conference committee at appropriations. The public schools don't work that way. We have a stable system. We can go into the courts and tell them that. This bill undoes that, and we never talked about that on committee, we never talked about on this floor, and they never talked about it in the Senate. This appeared a couple of weeks ago. Something we haven't talked about tonight is that this bill significantly changes the way we handle waste. Now, I put in my proposal a couple weeks ago, when I was really short on money, something that effected a career in technology weight and something that affected the gifted and talented weight. And boy did I hear from people. From some of you on the floor, and from a lot of people back home. This bill changes the way weights are structured. By saying that we can put more into the system and not put more money into the corresponding weights at the same time. Those of you who are concerned about the gifted and talented, those of you who are concerned about career and technology, those of you who raised those concerns with me should be absolutely concerned about this bill. We talked some about equity. Members, Mr. Eissler said that this House wants equity and we need to give it equity. Well equity means that two districts that are roughly the same and have the same tax rates, ought to get the same money. And certainly the district with more money ought to get cut more. And Mr. Eissler said in the second year we do equity. Well, Rob, you're looking at different printouts than I am. I just pick up the printouts and started going through them, and I didn't have to go very far. I'm just, you know, just pick a random page. Page five of the printouts, I've got Buena Vista and Buffalo. I know where Buffalo is. I don't know where Buena Vista -- who's got Buena Vista? Mr. Gallego's got Buena Vista. Buena Vista spends 72 -- close to $7,300 per child, Buffalo spends about 6,000 they each have the same tax rate. And Mr. Eissler's equity proposal on the second year, the district is spending 7,300, loses a lower percentage in the district that's spending 6,000. How is that equity? That's only equity for Pete. That's not equity for everybody. That's not a rare example. Where's Rob, our friends in Canadian, Texas who we know. Our friends -- It's because you're a boiler, Mr. Gallego, that they get extra money. In Canadian, Texas, they have a tax rate of 96 cents, they raised $7,500. In Canton, that's the next one on the list, the current tax rate, they raised $2,000 less. Canadian is getting cut $6,000, Canton is getting cut $400. All right. That helps equity a tiny bit, but not an awful lot. Not enough to say that this is an equitable plan. Carolton Farmers Ranch? Who's got that now? Ms. Truitt? Who has Carolton Farmer's Ranch. Somebody here does. Carolton Farmer's Ranch and Carthage. Carthage gets a $6,700 a kid, Carolton Farmer's Branch gets 6,000. Carthage is going to lose a lower percentage than Carolton Farmer's Branch, even though their tax rate is 26 cents less. So let's not kid ourselves about equity. Equity, as I was just discussing with Mr. Taylor, has some very important economic factors. Here is what happens, you have two districts sitting next to each other, one has a -- and one gets more money from the state than the and other, they have the same tax rate but they got to hire the same teachers. So one with more tax -- it's getting less money has only one choice, they got to raise their property tax rates, what happens as soon as they raise their property tax rates, what happens to their economic development argument compared to the guy who is sitting in the richer district? Same facility, same school, same everything else, and I'm going to pay a higher property tax rate over here. That's what got the court got concerned about, that's the system that we're perpetuating in this bill. Members, y'all probably know how you'll vote, but let me tell you if you don't have any other reasons to vote against this you should vote against it because of process. We have a tradition and a rule in this House that says that when there are House Bills to be considered we consider the House Bills and we come out on this floor and we fight and we amend and we talk and we battle back-and-forth and we end up with a House product. And we send it over to those guys and we say this is the best we can come up with, you come up with yours and then we'll fight over them. We never brought up a school finance bill to the floor this session. Never. My bill sat in calendars and didn't get on. It was set up as an amendment. Mr. Eissler had a bill that was set up as an amendment. Never got heard. We never got to discuss it. And then all of a sudden this other proposal shows up, and it's a House proposal. Nobody in here gave that conference committee the authority to negotiate that proposal. Nobody. Because we never voted on it, we never looked at it, we didn't know it existed until 20 minutes before the prefiling deadline for amendments on that bill. And now we're being told, at 8:30 on the night before -- on the night we have to pass it, that we better the heck pass it or we're going to be in a special session. So close your eyes and hold your nose and vote for it. It's not the way the House should work, members, it's not the way the House should work. We do our best work when we work together. We do our best work when we work, when we all work on it and we do our best work when we have a hundred amendments and we come out with a better product. We haven't done this on this. And for that reason alone, even if your school district does better, even if your school district is telling you they like it, I would urge you to vote no. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, very briefly, I'm want to give you two thoughts that I think will have some persuasiveness from a conservative point of view. I think that what is before us tonight violates two principles of conservatism that should give you a pause about this bill. First is that my understanding of conservatism is that you keep your promises. Mr. Eissler, earlier this evening, described the 2006 tax package in which we made a promise to school districts that by reducing their tax -- their local property taxes, we would hold them harmless. We would provide state aid to make up for the amount of money that we were foreclosing them from accessing in their local property taxes. Promise isn't the word I use. Promise is the word Mr. Eissler used an hour ago in describing that deal. This bill violates that promise. And it does so by reducing education funding. Now, I think it's contrary to conservative principles to break that promise on its own. I think it's contrary to common sense that we would cut our investment in public education at a time when that investment, and the students that we're investing in, have never mattered more. The second conservative principle that I think is violated by this bill is the principle of transparency. One area in which we do not have adequate transparency here is the fact that we haven't had time to vet this bill. It's not even eligible under the rules until 10:00 o'clock tonight. It's been printed and distributed for less than 24 hours. It's over 300 pages, it's extraordinarily complex and there's a lot in it that's very hard for anybody to fully understand in the limited amount of time we've had to digest it. Furthermore, it contains in its sweeping changes to policy that never passed, either chamber of this legislature, that are being introduced in a conference committee report; not having been vetted by committees, not being subject to amendments, either in committee or on the floor of either chamber. It violates all of the principles that govern procedure in this House, because the happens to be in the case in our rules that a simple majority can go out of the bounds of a conference committee report. Probably a flaw in our rules. And the other respect in which it is not transparent, and I think this would be the part that is most offensive to conservatives, is the shell game it plays with taxpayer's money. We have the deferrals. We have speedups. We have everything we can do to leverage the little bit of revenue that we have to spend relative to the expenditures we are making in House Bill 1. This bill is full of the accounting tricks and chicanery that your voters said they had enough of. And why? Because somebody at the beginning of this session, for reasons that I can not understand, decided it is better to play a trick on the voters than to spend our reserve fund. I don't understand the policy reason for that. And I'm especially at a loss to understand the political reasoning behind it. Because you now have a vote for a budget that probably does spend the entirety of the Rainy Day Fund before this biennium is over, but you want to claim that you didn't. You will be campaigning saying we didn't spend the Rainy Day Fund, but we leveraged this state beyond the revenues we anticipate taking in, well beyond what's in the Rainy Day Fund. That's going to be very difficult to explain to voters who want more transparency, not less transparency from this state government. So from those -- I understand that there's a principle ideological disagreement about government and the role of the government, and I don't expect that we can bridge those differences in the time remaining in this legislative session. But I do not understand how conservatives could support a bill that breaks a promise that we made in 2006, so that we can reduce our investment in the future, and that hasn't had the procedural vetting that we subject legislation to; and that on at bill that hasn't had that type of vetting, that subjects the taxpayers to this shell game we're playing with their money. And so I urge you to vote no.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker? Two questions. Would the gentleman yield for just a few comments, few questions?
THE CHAIR: He will. This does take time, though.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Just quick. You did say, Mr. Strama, and I just want to point this out, that we're laying out a bill here, committee substitute or whatever -- that makes sweeping changes. And the last three days, members have repeatedly come to the back mic asking the speaker to slow down so that we can vet all these conference committee reports that were so important that they didn't make any changes that aren't laid out in committee as individual bills, so on and so forth. And I think that's one of the just from a procedural standpoint, one of the most important things that you laid out.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: And make sweeping changes that are not susceptible to amendments in either chamber. It is delivered to us in take it or leave it.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, guests. You know, first of all, I'd like to thank the speaker for allowing us to get to this point today, and certainly appreciate his leadership during the last couple days here. But I stand before you here today, a freshman member of this House, on Senate Bill 1811. There's many provisions of this bill that I want to focus on. One thing in particular which is education. Ten years ago I became extremely involved in our school district and in politics as a direct result of what I thought was a deficiency in the education system within our community. While our school district did do a lot of wonderful things, there were issues that I thought needed to be addressed especially as it related to the financial responsibility of the school district. Knowing that my children would be part of the educational system in Texas, I first ran for office to make a difference to my kids, and in my community. It just happens to be a little surprise, my kids are actually watching me give a speech in the gallery tonight. So when people stand here and we talk about kids and what the impact is going to be. I know what's the impact's going to be. I know what's going to happen, because what we're about to do tonight is going to impact my kids. So, I get it. I spent many years being on and running the school system in the State of Texas and I learned two things. Number one, people will never agree with the decisions that you are going to make when it impacts their children. And number two making tough decisions about what is good for the whole system, not for just one school or in our case today about our individual districts. The reason I got involved in politics is for my children, and everyday I get up and I go to work, I think about the decisions I make and how it will impact my kids. I ran for this office to make a difference in my community and specifically with public education. We had many contentious issues this session, and I really did try to work on a bipartisan level with many of our other legislators to make sense for our schools. In some cases we did repeal some legislation. Over the last several months and certainly yesterday and today we're hearing people's opinions about the impact our vote will have on our children and in our schools. I do not take this vote lightly, nor should you. When the times are tough businesses and organizations will find a way, by necessity to become more efficient. Candidly we need o ask ourselves isn't that what we want, more efficiency in government? Isn't that what we're here for? I've been coming to Austin for many years advocating on behalf of our schools and explaining earlier -- explaining --
THE CHAIR: Mr. Huberty? Mr. Huberty? One second. Can we please have order in the House and listen to the speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been coming to Austin for many years advocating on behalf of our schools and explaining why we need to have equity in our system. I come from a low wealth, fast growth system which is very a dangerous recipe when we're talking about school finance. I listened to hours of testimony this session and we did hear school finance legislation. We heard Mr. Hochberg's bill. We talked about people coming in and talking about what the issues were, and it came down to several things. Number 1, we know that our funding system needs to be resized. And while we have different views on how to fix this system, everyone agrees it needs to be fixed, needs to be more equitable and needs to have mandates in our system. Over the last several weeks I have visited with many of you about various runs we've seen and I know we are hearing from many our members tonight that we haven't seen runs or what runs will be out there. Runs have been out for the last week or two and we've talked about the runs that are out there. And I know that many of my freshman colleagues came over to visit with me about the runs for their district, asking me to explain what the proposal meant to them, what it meant to their individual districts: Which one was better? And while there have been some plans that were discussed that are much better for some of my district and others, those plans have a devastating affect on other members' districts. I can tell you that the plan we're about to vote on, in my opinion, is fair, it is balanced and more importantly it creates the blueprint, the blueprint for equity in our system for the future. While it is our responsibility to advocate on each of our district's health and well being, it's equally as important to make sure our children in the state are treated in a similar fashion. This plan will start that process, will allow us the opportunity to work during the interim to find those solutions. Before this session started, every school district knew that times were going to be tough. I know that because I resigned from the school board and I knew we were planning for this legislation about 18 months. School district have been planning and should have been planning for these reductions last couple years. In fact, the fund balance for school districts increased by more than 1.8 billion dollars, $1.8 billion in the last few years. That is not an accident. As a result, school districts will by commission rule now be able to them spend down some of their fund balance to mitigate those cuts. It is indisputable that school districts have internal resources to maintain and in some case enhance the quality of education through their local funding sources. And they too need to make some tough decisions. But this plan will allow them to manage their business during the next few years allowing us to work to find a long-term solution. Today as you cast you vote I ask you to please vote for this plan so that we can continue to work to create a long term solution for school finance, while allowing school districts, certainly for this biennium, so that they can pass their budgets and get on with the business of educating our children. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hochberg?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield for a brief question?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Representa tive Huberty, thank you for your dedication on the public education committee. You're -- For those who don't know you, they should know you're a hard worker and really care about the kids and exhibit that every day. You're also a former school board member and I think you represent the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: If I remember correctly, Lumber* ISD is capped out now, aren't they?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes, we're capped.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So they're at a dollar seventeen?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Under this plan from the runs I read, even with the edge jobs money, which really just replaces federal money that was there last time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Even with the edge jobs money we are over $10 million down in Lumber ISD the first year?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: In the second year you're about five million dollars down?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Your district doesn't have any ability to raise its tax rates?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Excuse me?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Your district doesn't have any ability to raise its tax rates? You just came from that school board, so I assume you did an excellent job of making it into a efficient school system.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I'd like to think so.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: You have got a list of where they should start?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: They have a list, we had -- There were some areas to cut. Keep in mind, we had a 260 million-dollar budget so, you know, when you're talking about the reduction you're talking about a blended -- about 3 percent cut. They have the ability to deal with that. I'm not saying that we want to, as a community. But, you know, I -- every time I have a discussion about this the fact of the matter is the unemployment rate is still at 90 percent, we have diesel fuel at $4.25 cents. We are just coming out of the recession, so I think people understand, and certainly in my community they understand that we do have to make reductions along the way. But we also have fund balance. Our fund balance is a direct result of the commissioner rule that we had to have 17 to 24 percent of our fund balance.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And we are able to change that rule.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: And we are going change that. So those fund balances increased significantly over the last couple of years. We'll be able to pull that down. I've been working very close with my superintendent and certainly, you know, we had discussed your program and your plan and -- and --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And I just remember that you were a big advocate of my plan.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I was, and -- and we're dealing with a -- unfortunately, it also took -- it made Houston take a big hit, and when I mentioned it in my remarks, I think that the big districts, it created a lot of problems for those district. And so we have to -- we have to get an to equity system, and I think what we're talking about doing is creating the blueprint to get us there. Yours got us there very quickly. We need a program that gives us a little more time to get there. And I discussed this with my superintendent and he's comfortable with the program that we've laid out, and they've got programs that will help us get there.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And they're -- and they're -- the concern that you have that they weren't going to be able to raise their tax rate because of where they were (inaudible) (inaudible) cause problems.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I think that might be a issue altogether. So -- And there's 220 school districts that have the same problem, but there's 800 school districts that haven't dealt with that yet.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Huberty. I think you do a great job representing your school districts. I appreciate the the way that you approached this. I look forward to working with you in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you. I appreciate everything that you've done as well. Members, I think that this is an important decision, this is an important vote and school districts have to pass their budgets starting in about 30 days. So we need to give them certainty just like we need to have certainty when leave. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, before you vote aye on this bill, I would encourage you to make sure you know what is in this very large bill that came out of the conference last night around 9:40, but did not come to us, as members, until around 10:40 this morning. And a scanned format that we have to read. We can't search for it, for key words. Some of the columns in there that explain the differences are very difficult to understand. But I would like for you to understand at least this much: That even though language, that was not in the House version or the Senate version of this bill, provides that the real ID act, that language that could implement it was added on page 28 and 29 of the privileged resolution. And it talked about implementing a study and for procedures and requirements necessary or advisable for the security, validity and efficiency of driver's licenses and personal identification certificates. But it goes on much further.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Simpson, excuse me one second. Members, please have some respect for the speaker. Take your conversations outside the rail. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But it's not just a study. It goes on to say, and I quote, to implement any procedure or requirements the commission finds are necessary or advisable. I'm quoting from page 28 of the privileged resolution for SB 1811. It's also been stated to me that there's no funds available for this. How could we implement a real ID program that would basically institute a national ID act by sharing our state information, biometric information, possibly, on our driver's license with the rest of the state. Well rider -- the rider in the appropriations bill, in Article 9 rider 1807 makes $27 million of appropriations in 2012, and $35 million in 2013. Increases FTE's 112 in year 12. And 361 in year 13. This bill is a large bill and most of us haven't had time to read it or to study it. It has tax revenues in it, speedups as well. And it does some things with the enterprise fund that you ought to know about on page -- it's Article 54, which is in pages 140 and 41. I'm going to vote against this bill. I urge you to do so as well. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I rise to support House Bill 1811 and I'm going to use a different tack, I'm not even going to talk about money. I want you to think about a year ago, a year when our schools had the money that we had given them for the last several years. You know, exactly what I'm talking about. When you went by a school, when you saw a signs that said exemplary or recognized, do you know what that meant? I went into a school one day and asked them how they became recognized or exemplary, and I found out that 40 percent of the kids in that school passed the TAG test. That's how they became recognized or exemplary. I also found out that kids that got a zero on the TAG test were passed, because three years from now they were expected to pass that test. The kids had graduated then and went off to college. In my town, I'm sure just like your town, they went to a junior college, they went to a senior college; and 50 percent of them, 50 percent of them needed remediation in math and English before they could even start college work. And each of my colleges spent over a million dollars a year to bring them up to the standards they needed to start doing college work. And I look at Utah, and Utah is just spending two to three thousand dollars less per child than we're spending here in Texas, and every one of their kids are going to school. They're going to college, and they're prepared for college. And finally, let me just say one thing, and I'm going to be very quick, about higher education. Yesterday I heard we need more money for grant money. We need more money for TEG money. TEGs. I'm on a board of a historically black college that needs TEG's. I can tell you where you can find a hundred million dollars right now to put into our grant fund. We're giving that money to illegal aliens here going to our schools instead of to our U.S. constituents, your constituents. It takes $50 million to upgrade them from out of stat tuition to instate tuition, and in addition they're getting grants and loans and everything else we could give them; while our U.S. students are not getting everything. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I'll be very short. To every mom who aspires for her child to have a better life to retire. This bill is a betrayal to you and your children. This bill, a part of our budget deal, is an accurate reflection of this legislature's values. And let me tell what it does. It values your children less. It harms the quality of their education. And, worst of all, it changes the obligation of the legislature to fully fund public education formulas into the future. That is a dramatic departure from public policy as we know it today. We are currently ranked 44th out of the 50 states in public ed funding. With the passage of this bill we will drop two steps lower to 46th. This is the exact opposite direction we should be going. We are a state that is growing rapidly more diverse, more urban and unfortunately, less educated. This bill represents our greatest challenge, and that is to educate our people. And it also represents maybe a larger challenge, that is a failure of leadership at a time when our governor and our other state leaders should've said this is a time to check your political ambitions and your partisan ideology at the door. We need to do what is right for Texas. Instead they took an opposite course leading an agenda of divide and conquer. My friends, please join me in voting no on this bill so that we can come back and do what's right for the women and families of Texas.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have -- I have five to six minutes left. This is the first time in 22 years and this is the first time in 22 years on such a major matter that we have limited the time as we are doing. This whole is process wrong. There are 38 new members in this House. There are 101 republicans in this House. And one of the reasons why I think the change took place is because of -- because people in the State of Texas said government wasn't listening, government wasn't transparent, government wasn't above board and government had become so arrogant that people in public office would do whatever they wanted to do irrespective of what the people wanted. This is the second most important bill of this session, and we are dealing with it on the last day of the legislative session. Our constituents happen to be parents. No parents have had a say on this bill. No teachers have had a say. Educators haven't had a say. Business leaders have not had a say. There has been no amendment offered in this House, and on the last day of the session we are placed under time constraints on a bill that would impact every school child in the State of Texas. This is so wrong. And in Harris County alone, if you're in Aldean you're going to lose $32 million. In you are in Klein you're going to lose 23. If you are in Cypher you're going 58 million. If you represent HISD, Representative Davis, we will leave here a couple of days or 30, Houston will lose $200 million. If you are Spring Branch we're going to lose 33 million. If you are Spring, Representative Riddle, we're going to leave here -- we got to justify why we are cutting 18 million away. And in Katy, Representative Zerwas and Representative Callegari, when the high school students in Katy a month go ago left out of their classes because they were concerned about the teachers being cut, laid off; Katy will lose 57 million. 57 million dollars. Representative Berman, I heard what you had to say, that it's not all about money. You're right, it's not all about money. But let me tell you, when the comes to educating our kids and keeping Texas at the forefront it's about quality education. This process is so wrong. It's -- and you know it's wrong. You know it's wrong. No one outside of this Capitol has been given an opportunity to come here and testify. No one. On the next to the last day of this session. Let me just close by saying this: The people in the State of Texas must say whether you -- what is happening here is right or wrong. The press hasn't had an opportunity to scrutinize this bill. At some point in time there is day of reckoning, there is a day of reckoning. Parents should be appalled, business leaders should be concerned and Texas voters should be outraged. I love you all. I am so angry with what you-all are doing. I am so angry at what y'all are doing. And parents and Texas voters should be even more angry, and they should have their say. Take -- yesterday you voted on HB 1. Today you are implementing the cuts in your district. You are signing your name to reducing the money that's given to your district, and your constituents should have the final say. And I believe -- and I believe they will. Today's process is wrong.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia. Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is about our budget that we passed yesterday, to fund our budget. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of Senate Bill 1811. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Keffer voting aye. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 84 ayes, 63 nays; Senate Bill 1811 finally passes. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, may I please have your attention? I would like to respectfully give the House notice that it's my intention to move to suspend Rule 8, Section 13A, which is the midnight rule of the House rules, and all other necessary rules to allow the House to consider, immediately following the time of the motion, House Bill 6, followed by House Bill 23. And there's a privileged resolution, House Resolution 2730 that goes along with that. I'd like to me give the House the one hour notice of making that motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be glad to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Bonnen, and why are we going to do this?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The reason we'd like to do this is a couple of reasons here. First and foremost, we want to make sure the members that have worked hard and got their bills on these calendars before, that they have the opportunity to do that. The reason I'm asking to move House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 23 and the privileged resolution 2734 is that my understanding is in visiting with members is that those are the two bills left that people may have some real interest in, debate and discussion on, so I want to make sure the members have the appropriate opportunity to have that discussion without killing other bills that maybe aren't as controversial or concerning to the membership; and to have their opportunity. And we can go beyond the midnight hours if people are willing to have that discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Bonnen, today this House is has voted to limit debate, cut off debate. We've done that repeatedly. You just did. You just did it. It's 140 days in session, we are recognizing 140. That is true. This is the 139th day. Now, rules are meant for something. Don't you agree that rules have a purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I do believe they have a purpose, and I apologize. I don't have the exact history here, but I do know that this is a rule that we have historically suspended. It's obviously in your rule book --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Bonnen, let me just correct you. Let me correct you. We have never done this. We have never suspended the midnight rule.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I believe we have at least for individual bills, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The midnight rule, Representative Bonnen? We have suspended within the day, with have suspended within the day. And if a bill was eligible, for example, at 4:00 o'clock and we went 2:00 o'clock, we have suspended to get it earlier. I don't have a question that, a problem with that.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But I cannot recall, and I stand to be corrected by anyone who may know better -- but I cannot recall when we have ever suspended the midnight rule.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And we may have to disagree on that, and we could probably find it out factually, but I believe that that has occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I wonder if it would be possible to have someone at the legislative counsel. It's my recollection that we've never gone beyond midnight since these rules were implemented in the 1993 session. And as one of the authors of that original rule, because we had so many large bills that were being considered in the last few minutes of this session, and the purpose was to move all that up front so that wouldn't happen. I'm not aware of that midnight rule ever being suspended. And if it has been suspended I'd like to know that, if it would be possible to have that research done.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We'll research that for you.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I imagine that Representative Bonnen made his motion pursuant to Section 14, Section 4 -- Rule 14, Section 4. Is it the speaker's understanding that that can be done as a global motion for a number of bills, or does it have to be done for a single measure as suggested in the rule itself, when you are taking up a measure out of this -- out of the regular order?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It's our understanding that Representative Bonnen's motion is twofold. It's to suspend Rule 8, Section 13, the House rules for every item on the items eligible calendar remaining. And to take up immediately following the motion, House Bill 6, followed by Senate Bill 23. And it's a privileged resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: But under Rule 14, 4 is not just for one particular bill at a time? More specifically, Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, the rule suggest --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The rule suggests.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: If you'll allow me for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The rule suggests the business to take up a measure out of order, and then it later suggests that the person -- that the member's name and the bill number will be submitted into the journal. It's only suggesting in the singular and not in the plural, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: This is a point I raised a little bit ago, and I think you corrected it by making a statement about under Rule 14, Section 4, whether it requires the speaker actually to announce to the House about the --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair intends to give that notice.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And as I understand it, that is a -- is that considered a special -- or a special motion or something?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, the Chair is intending to note that items that Mr. Bonnen --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would you take those out of order, Mr. Speaker? Is that what he's doing?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you read Section 6 of the rules, I don't believe that can be done in terms of multiple motions. And particularly if you're going to take it out of order, if I might read the rule to you, really the way I read the rule is it says that a member can only do that once, and he can't do it again -- or she can't do it again until everybody in this House has had an opportunity to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I'd be happy to look at that rule with you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, would you come down front and look at it with us?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I will, if y'all need some guidance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out the privileged resolution HR 2654. We're picked up Representative Coleman's House Bill 3275.
THE CLERK: HR 2654 by Coleman. Suspending the limitations of conference committee jurisdiction HB No. 3275.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this privileged resolution does is it indicates provisions that are outside the bounds of the conference committee report. One of those is to allow a municipality to designate a tax increment financing (inaudible) that encompasses additional area or it changes the boundary and the existing zone to encompass additional area. Provision also is put in to modify the (inaudible) of the particular special districts, and provide the appointments in terms of directors of that district. A provision (inaudible) and number three in the provision to provide the section 3.11.011 as the tax code is added in this session, which relates to considering as estimates an amount contained in the project plan for reinvestment zone, financing -- financing plan. Basically what it does is take it back to current law. And that is what is in the outside of the bounds resolution. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Coleman voting aye. Have all voted? Being 134 ayes and 6 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 3275.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, HB 3275.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what the conference committee report does is again look the those particular Senate amendments that grant state legislators with the authority to be non voting (inaudible) of members of a reinvestment zone and to grant the city (inaudible) this was an amendment by Senator Watson and Representative Strama. This provision that increases the (inaudible) of the land within a city that can be within a tax reinvestment zone. And a provision that resolves an issue with estimates contained in a project plan or reinvestment zone by removing conflicting and confusing information. And that is what is in the conference committee report as well as the outside bounds of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Represe ntative Coleman, I just want to make sure when you were talking about your -- privileged resolution to go outside of bounds, you mentioned some names of some individuals names?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Would you go over (inaudible) the reason you do that before we can have an election or whatever.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: All right. This is the Greater Southeastern Management -- Southeastern District, which is in my legislative district. And this is the slate of board members --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Tempora ry.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. Board members for that particular management district.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: That's what I wanted to make sure I understood. Because there are some questions about why some people (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: (inaudible) .
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: That's temporary directors that we commonly do when we set up districts to get them started, and that's what -- we do it with water districts.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. It's the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Were you able to accommodate Mr. Veasey on this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: His bill actually passed on the other side, which is on this side, which was good with you. We discussed about putting that language in this bill, and the some of the other language in the bill is redundant language for a bill that Representative Davis passed, okay. With that, I move passage of the conference committee report on HB 3275, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 3275. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 86 ayes, 60 nays; House Bill 3275 is finally passed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Inquiry, please.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: On Mr. Bonnen's resolution, a few of us were talking back here. And just to be clear on what his resolution that he did actually state a few Senate Bills and a resolution. Now, it is the intention of this resolution that we're going to look at in an hour or so, to finish the calendar out and go past midnight, if needed, to finish out the calendar that we have before us, not just those bills?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Keffer, you're exactly right. The intention is to go through the entire calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: All right. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Miller for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Members, I'd like to move to suspend all necessary rules and take up House Resolution 1174.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2174 by Miller of Erath. WHEREAS, June 4, 2010, marked the 50th wedding anniversary of State Representative Bill Callegari and his wife, Ann; and WHEREAS, Natives of Cottonport, Louisiana, Bill Callegari and the former Ann Roy began dating as sophomores in high school where he was a star athlete in football, basketball, and track and she was the president of the Pep Cheering Squad; they became engaged during his freshman year at Louisiana State University and married on June 4, 1960, at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Cottonport; in the years that followed, they became the proud parents of four children, William "Butch" Callegari, Jr., Robert "Robby" Callegari, Richard "Chip" Callegari, and Cherry Callegari Bull; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Callegari worked to help put her husband through college, and he graduated with a degree in agricultural engineering; his employment with Caterpillar Tractor Company took them to Peoria, Illinois, for several years before family ties drew them to Houston; while employed by Shell Pipeline, Representative Callegari attended the University of Houston at night and completed his master's degree in civil engineering; he started his own environmental firm, AM-TEX Corporation, with the vital assistance of Mrs. Callegari, who contributed her flair for marketing and customer relations while also managing their busy household; and WHEREAS, Growing up in the family business, the Callegari children learned to read water meters and then progressed to such tasks as repairing utility lines and working in the office; this upbringing prepared them well for future success, and today, Butch is an attorney with a corporate practice, Robby owns a consulting firm, CMA Engineering, Cherry is a special education teacher, and Chip is president of his own utility management firm, TNG (The Next Generation) Utility Corporation; and WHEREAS, Representative Callegari sold his business in the mid-1990s but stayed on as president for a few years until his retirement; following two years of traveling, home projects, and raising and showing horses, he accepted a position as president of a national water company and then, in 2000, he decided to enter public service; with Mrs. Callegari lending her support, encouragement and irresistible charm on the campaign trail, the Katy resident was elected to represent House District 132 in the Texas Legislature; He is currently serving his sixth term, and Mrs. Callegari has become a mentor and friend to the spouses of new legislators; and WHEREAS, In celebration of their golden anniversary, the Callegaris traveled to Europe with their eldest son, Butch daughter-in-law, Denise
(Bordelon), and grandchildren, Will Callegari III, Michael, John, and Elizabeth; their son, Robby Daughter-in-law, Allison (Freeman), and grandchildren, Doug Emory, and Annie; their only daughter, Cherry, son-in-law, Robert Bull, and grandchildren, Derek, David, and Dylan; and their youngest son, Chip; the devoted couple renewed their vows on that special day in June in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican; Continuing to set an example of strong faith, they attend Mass together every Sunday; and WHEREAS, The more than five decades of marriage that Bill and Ann Callegari have shared is eloquent affirmation of the meaning of love and commitment, and their enduring union is an inspiration to all who know them; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate the Honorable Bill Callegari and Ann Callegari on their 50th wedding anniversary and extend to the sincere best wishes for continued happiness; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the Callegaris as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and fellow members, I'd like for you to join with me in congratulating two of my deerest friends on their 50th anniversary, and we're fortunate to have the two lovebirds here tonight. They're up in the south gallery, I will ask them to stand up Representative Bill and Ann Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: When the first resolution was first being read and they were going through the attributes, and Mr. Callegari
(inaudible) sports. Did I hear him say basketball?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, I think that was a long time ago.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Must have been a real long time ago.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The hoop was lower then. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Anderson moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Pursuant to Rule 14, Section 4, the Chair makes the following announcement: That the Chair would recognize Representative Bonnen to suspend Rule 8, Section 13 of the House rules and all the necessary rules, to allow the House to consider immediately following the time for motion to take up and consider House Bill 6, immediately followed by House Resolution 2730, Senate Bill 23; to take up any remaining bills remaining on either of the items eligible calendar without regard to the midnight deadline. The time is 9:30. Chair calls up the conference committee report House Bill 2093.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report for HB 2093.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker and members, this is a continuation of the
(inaudible) fund that was started back in 2003, and this conference committee report provides the -- is built on the past targeted reform effort by ensuring that each party to a construction contractor is liable for their own fault or negligence. Were will also provide for the protections of liability from indemnification of another person, negligence during the statute of re-prose period and during the construction process. Each party to contract should be responsible for the incident arising from their own fault or negligence. The Senate put on an amendment, if we went to conference committee we got the language worked out. And now the bill does not have a point of order. And it covers the insurance of, consolidated insurance and indemnification for those persons who are -- enter into construction agreements. It exempts out cities and home builders. Mr. Speaker and members, I move passage of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes, will the gentle lady yield for a quick question?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: The Representative yields.
THE CHAIR: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Just to be clear, the bill as it was engrossed and passed out of the House was an obligation to ensure, to only sell an insurance product that had a minimum duration of three years; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Yes, it did.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order under Rule 8, Section 3 of the house rules that these bills cover --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I apologize. It covers a period of repose up to ten-year period and the point of order that you're talking about doesn't exist. We went to conference committee and took care of all of that.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: We'll have that conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Is this another freshman with Ms. Thompson?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order -- Point of order is respectfully overruled. Mr. Taylor raises a second point of order. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Mr. Taylor's point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, after three points of order being overruled I move aye.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, would the gentle lady yield for a second?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Ms. Thompson , I know a lot of members. I know there's been a lot of attention focused on this vote, and we've got competing interests with a lot of money, apparently, I believe a lot of money's at stake here.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: It is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: And there has been I would say more misinformation and disinformation put out on this piece of legislation than on any legislation I've seen this session, and as to what the amendment, the Duncan amendment that was put on in the Senate and you went to conference on, as to what it actually does. And I believe this is the bill that the -- the offensive material came out on. It came out of the Senate 31-0, I believe, and this is the bill on which that flyer came out on the other day --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Two of them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: And I know, as offensive as those pictures were, and they were offensive, I was also offended by the misinformation that was included in that flyer. As I read through there, none of it was true. And I followed this issue fairly closely. I filed a bill that dealt with this subject matter, and I'm concerned. And I know you are, too, about the misinformation that's been put out on this. And, in fact, I got an email from the conservative coalition that says vote against this bill, and it just tracks these -- the misinformation that's been put out by some of these lobby groups. And, for instance, they say it includes language from indemnification provisions that referred to the House insurance committee. As you know, I chair that committee. And I can tell you that your language in that conference committee report was never before the insurance committee, by any bill. It's different from anything. And secondly, it also says that your bill would needlessly regulate contracts. And I would take issue with the needlessly there, I believe it's very necessary. Would you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Absolu tely.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: And it also says that contracts are freely entered into by the contractors and subcontractors. Well, these contractors, as I understand, are contracts where a small mom and pop subcontractor is required to take responsibility, not only for their actions if they do wrong, but they are required to take responsibility for actions that the bid contractor does, is that how you understand it?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: It is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: In this age when we are urging our children to take personal responsibility for what they do wrong, do you think we're sending the right message when we tell businesses and contractors that you can bully your way out of your personal responsibility?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: No. That is the wrong message. And, Representative Smithee, you know, there's been some conversation that this message has been debated on the floor. But I think that you can agree with me that for the last eight years, we've been talking about indemnification on this floor. You've carried some bills. Craig Eiland has carried some bills. Representative Solomons has carried bills. Several people has carried some bills on indemnification. And all we're saying is if you are negligent, be responsible with your own negligence. But don't force me to be responsible for someone else.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, Ms. Thompson, you and I have been together here a long time in the legislature, and we disagreed on a lot of things. But I have always found you, number one, to support fairness. And I found you to support trying to help the little people when they're unnecessarily bullied by bigger people, more powerful people. And I think that's what you're doing with this legislation and I appreciate you doing this and standing up for what I believe is the right and defensible position.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Thompson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: On one condition. You haven't given me an (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I can rectify that, Ms. Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I'm not only going to do that, but I am going to vote for your bill. And you'll recall that originally I came to you with that ill fated flyer. I never paid any attention to the goofy intent they had behind the picture, but I brought you the flyer because I wanted you to know that we had been advised to oppose it. But the more I talked and the more I dug I realized, and I share with you that an air-conditioning contractor like me would be indemnifying a big general contractor and a big factory, for example, even if they were negligent and if something happened. I had -- all the responsibility was on me. We have we had that conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: We did.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And so I appreciate you bringing it up. I'm going to vote for your bill. I appreciate you bringing up. I think you've got a good bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Senfronia, you've been famous on this floor for saying let the little dogs eat.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: This is a little dog bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: For small business, letting them have a feed at the table.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Absolu tely.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: You've got a great bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I was just --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Madam Chair, you've been around this body a long time.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And you have, too. Because if you remember, the last eight years or so we have debated indemnification. We've been trying to give the little persons an opportunity to stop being bullied by the big contractors, and only be responsible for their own negligence and not to have to pay for the negligence for the big guys upstairs.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: We've actually passed this bill -- the bill before on this House floor, haven't we?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Severa l times.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you. You've got a great bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Member s, I ask you to vote aye on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Members, I'm sorry to take a little bit of your time. This is important, this really is. We have been -- this state has created more jobs than all the other states combined over the last three years, and part of the it is people keep bringing jobs here. My city, the City of Plano, they oppose this bill. The city of Dallas opposes this bill. The city of Houston opposes this bill. The Texas Association of Builders opposes this bill. The U.S. Hispanic Contractors opposes this bill. The Texas American's Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill. This bill hurts small contractors. This bill will drive up construction costs. This bill is bad for the future of our state because drawing up more construction cost makes it more expensive for companies to come here and create jobs here. This is a bad bill. This is a bad idea. This was not -- this could not get out of the insurance committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: (inaudible) .
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: My understanding is that the CCR exempts city projects.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: It still hurts my city.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Exempts city projects.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: No, it hurts my city. Because my city, the city of Plano is an employment center. We employ more people than live in my city, and we have major international corporations that move to my city all the time. And they're building, they're doing major construction projects. Right now, in the city of Plano, we're building a million square feet to move, in Canada's international headquarters in Plano, to build two thousand jobs in this state. And they can do it because we have a lower costs of doing business. This increases the costs. The Texas Conservative Coalition opposes this bill. I encourage you to vote no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 2093. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Harless voting aye. Show Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 121 ayes and 21 nays, House Bill 2093 finally passed. Members, there's a privileged resolution for SB 100. HR 2694 by Taylor of Collin. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. SB No. 100.
(Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Members, we had to go outside the bounds for SB 100 in order to allow school boards to have staggered -- to have staggered terms, which was an amendment by Representative Sheffield offered in committee. We missed that. We needed to make an amendment on the education code. I move passage. Members, that is vote to suspend limitations on House Resolution 2684. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Huberty voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Gallego voting aye. Have all voted? There being 144 ayes and 0 nays, resolution is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, members --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up conference committee report Senate Bill 100.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 100.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, this conference committee report passed out of the Senate unanimously. This puts Texas in compliance with the Move Act, and will ensure that our men and women in uniform will be able to participate in our elections for the future.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: The gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: This will leave the primary election date, the first Tuesday in March, as it left this House; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 100. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Marquez voting aye. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 100 finally passed. Chair recognizes the conference committee report on House Bill 2608.
THE CLERK: HB 2608. Conference committee report for HB 2608.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to make a motion to adopt House Resolution --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out the privileged resolution, HR 2686.
THE CLERK: HR 2686 by Harper-Brown. Suspending limitations on conference committee report jurisdiction, HB 2608.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This resolution goes outside the bounds on the TDH sunset bill. Clarifies in subchapter 10-1 outlines the long-term disaster recovery plan does not create a public or private cause of action. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, wait a minute. Excuse me.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentle lady yield for a question? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I will yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. And would you just (inaudible) was trying to listen for you to tell me what you did with regard to the
(inaudible) authority. Does it go over to the
(inaudible) department or TDHCA. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: The bonding authority in this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I know there was a bill -- Yes. Did you move it over to T Shack or did TDHA (inaudible) by another authority? Do they do any bonds or is it all of it T SHACK? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Let me look just a second. Because right now we're on the out -- resolution to go outside the bounds. We're not on the bill yet.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Harper-Brown moves to suspend the limitations of House Bill 2608. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 143 ayes and 0 nays, resolution is adopted. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 2608.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report HB 2608.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the sunset bill on TDHCA. There is no bonding authority in this bill. We do not talk about the bonding authority. What we did do in the conference committee report is we maintained the letters from state legislators on the House side, the senators decided they did not want to do the letters, so the senators letters there are -- there's no requirements of the letters of support from State Senators, but there are requirements of letters of support required from State Representatives. When it removed the amendment that they put on on homeless housing and services program, and we kept the basic education requirements for manufacturing housing licenses from 20 to 8 hours, since they had changed that. We moved the -- removed the -- part of a provision that added on the Senate version about the low income housing plan, to give the specific people, the special needs population, special consideration in that. But we did leave the part about the veterans and the use. And so basically the plan, the bill is the same as it left the House. We just stripped off most of the Senate amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Harper-Brown do you yield? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I'll yield for some questions.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Representative Harper-Brown, on the weatherization program, what does your bill to the weatherization programs? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: The weatherization program I think was not -- let me look at this side. I believe that the weatherization, as amended, is out of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So does the permit (inaudible) extension on the weatherization program? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: No, no. We didn't move their jurisdiction. I think there was some added requirements as far as the weatherization. Let me see. What they had put in was -- this part is still in the bill, but they have to consult with the -- or they have to add energy efficient standards to the list of items under the disaster recovery program. There is --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Did we move or alter the existing weatherization program that currently TDHA administers? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: No, not in the sunset bill.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Did we change the ability for TDHA to do grants with say Habitats and Humanity or the homeless or did we alter any of the authority for -- for, to do grants with those -- those entities? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: No.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: You indicated the Senate changed the requirement to do programs below consider -- for the low income; is that correct? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: What they were doing was they had a specific program that they were supporting in the bill for homeless. And what we did on that is we removed that amendment, because it's in another bill. It was in 1811, which passed tonight.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So the amendment that you changed from the homeless does what? Does it eliminate funds going into the homeless program? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: It -- The conference -- it contained a provision authorizing the homeless housing and services program and allowing the enterprise fund to be used for that program. But that amendment was also in several other bills --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I mean -- the enterprise fund monies are going to be used to provide funding for homeless, is that what you are saying this bill does? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Not in this bill, because we removed that amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So the -- The money for homeless, I think it came -- Housing trust fund money, was that money left in there? Did you all -- did you all alter the housing trust program at all? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: No. All of that money is still in there. The only thing we altered was that was more on the contractors' side, we actually moved their tax credit award from two million to three million. But placed a 2 million-dollar cap on individual projects to make sure that developments remained reasonably sized. So we did not change, though, any of the requirements as to how they designate or award those and --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: The Senate took out the score -- the requirements for letters that gave scores, but you left in a provision for House members to have to give letters for scoring; is that correct? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: That was the compromise that we made, because on the House -- in the original bill, we took the scoring, we took the letters out entirely.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Right. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: The House members wanted their letters left in, so we had to put that provision back in.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Wait a minute, just a minute, you said that the House took them out but you wanted -- but the House wanted it in? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: The House, sunset, in the original bill wanted it out, wanted all the letters out from senators and House members.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Right. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: So when we brought it to the committee and into the floor, the House members wanted their letters to still count. They wanted to be able to do the letters and have them still count. So in conference, the compromise was the Senate would not do letters, but the House members could still do the letters, but it's still left up to you as to whether you wanted to do them or not.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And will the projects be scored differently based on whether they get the letter or not? That's the question. Because I know many members wanted an option to not have to write those letters, so I'm just curious. Did you leave the House amendments an option, or is not -- or not? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: The letters from the state representatives will still be scored.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. The last question I wanted to ask you about is I want to reiterate my question with regard to the Habitat for Humanity and other kinds of programs like that, nonprofits that have the ability to get grants and TDHCA. Are they still able to get those grants to build homes? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes. They are still able get those -- that -- they still have the opportunity to build those homes. It was not taken out.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Has the gentle lady from Urban yielded the mic? I'd like to --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: I will yield for some questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative Harper-Brown. I'm sorry, I was off the floor and I heard the conversation regarding these letters. I know that a lot of members of the House do like to write these letters, as it relates to the projects that are being offered up in their districts. I'm on the other side of that question. I don't like the letters. And what I'm trying to make sure of is the persons who were trying to put a project into District 109, where I don't like letters, will they go into the process, 11 points or 14 points, or whatever the points -- whatever the score is; below someone who comes in with a proposal from another district where the state rep does write letters? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: That's what -- That's what it does, the state reps still write the letters.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: But I'm trying to find the balance in the fairness. I would not want to take away the right of those members to write those letters who want to write them. But, at the same time, there needs to have been an alternative process for the proposer to make up those points by perhaps going to a council person, going to a county commissioner or whatever else. Because I do not like to write letters, people who are putting projects in District 109 are automatically -- what is the point? Is it 12? Whatever the number of points happened to be, they are automatically down ten points when they start, through no fault of their own. I've never written a letter. I don't ever intend to write any letters. But -- And so -- but at the same time, I do want to see some fairness in the scoring and in the district projects that come through my district. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: This bill also allows for a -- instead of the neighborhoods being allowed to write letters and have points, that the municipality or county, the City Council or county commissioner's court can write a letter for or against the project.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: State reps?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady's time has expired. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: No. The state reps are accounting toward the project.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 2608. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative -- There being 144 ayes and 3 nays, House Bill 2608 is finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1543.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 1543.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Larson.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the bill dealing with school districts investing the court bonds, and we set down with the Senate folks. They want to put back some provisions that we had taken out, primarily dealing with the seniors. The secured definition on the corporate bonds, also allowing the school pools, investment pools, to invest in it. They struck that out as well. So, with that, all the stakeholders came to agreement. And I move adoption to the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1543.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report Senate Bill 1543. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 140 ayes, 6 nays, Senate Bill 1543 is finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1788.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 1788.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We went to conference on this bill. There was a non germane amendment that was pulled off, and the rest of the bill was left intact and was passed out of the House. I move to accept the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on the adoption of conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1788. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 144 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 1788 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 300.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 300.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. When we went to conference we were really focused on one word, and that was the word authorized version permitted in the sale of information. The Senate had changed to it permitted. As I believe, kind of created the circle of nothing around the sale of protected health information. We were able to negotiate that and get it back to authorized so that we could go home. And tell our constituents that we are protecting their health information as it is in the electronic form. It's a good beginning, members, and I think really the nation will hopefully follow us and we will continue to get better about this. I move passage.
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 300. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 145 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 300 is finally passed. Chair lays out the privileged resolution HR 2688.
THE CLERK: HR 2688 by Solomons. Suspending the limitations of conference committee jurisdiction HB No. 362.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. First, I'd like to add Representative Workman as a joint author, so I'd move to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to suspend the rules necessary to bring up privileged resolution on House Bill No. 362.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes and 0 nays, resolution is adopted. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 362.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on House Bill 362.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we went to conference and this has been gutted out now. What we did is correct a typo. We exempted a (inaudible) period, which is really the right thing to do because usually the builder and developer are moving in marketing and pest control over their homeowners property owners association. And we also added some language making sure we wouldn't have litigation issues if the criteria was met, and we added the adjoining landowners to be able to be approving the request for solar panel or roofing material, or solar panel. So 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 on House Bill 362. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 143 ayes and 1 nay, House Bill 362 finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett for a motion to discharge the conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill of calendar two. The Senate has blanked and concurred on the House amendment, so there's no longer a need for conference committee. I move to discharge the conferees to Senate Bill 1198.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion to discharge conference committee. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the privileged resolution HR 2689.
THE CLERK: HR 2689 by McClendon. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, HB No. 2327.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Memb ers, this is the resolution to go outside the bounds, then I remove the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 101 ayes and 40 nays, resolution is adopted. Chair calls up conference committee report on House Bill 2327.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 2327.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Mr. Speaker and members, the other day Representative Zedler raises this question on Friday concerning whether the MTA's were forced to implement the program. The MTA's and the four counties where these pilot programs will be implemented, Bexar County, Travis, El Paso and Tarrant County all asked to be a part of this trial program. I have worked with Representative Zedler to clarify and the conference committee report and this bill is now permissive and it says that it is. And I move --
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. McClendon, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: I certainly do.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Ruth, I understand that initially Denton County wanted in, and then they asked you to take them out and now they're out; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Yes. Originally Denton County wanted to be in the bill, and so they came and told us that they wanted to be out. So we amended the bill to take out Denton County to take them out of the pilot program. They are out of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: So right now it's just Bexar, Travis, Tarrant and El Paso county; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: That 's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And right now it is permissive and it's a pilot program?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: It's permissive and it's a pilot program.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And you've got a good bill. Thank you, Ruth.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman -- does the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Yes, I yield, Mr. Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You know, some understand maybe this bus park on the side, because he had a flat tire. What would happen if a fire truck had to go around him? Is that what would happen?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: I can tell you what it does, but if you would move over and let Ms. Riddle come to the podium, because Ms. Riddle has experience in driving emergency vehicles. And there's a word that they can use.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So they just call her?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: They just follow her.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah, so I think you got a great bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Riddle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes. Ruth, in order to clarify that, you and I discussed that didn't we?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: We did.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes. And we discussed what is typically done is called contra flow. And so there's an easy solution, it's not a problem and, as a matter of fact, it's done all the time.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Abso lutely.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes. You've got a good bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? The question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of House Bill 2327. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 114 ayes and 30 nays, House Bill 2327 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 2357.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 2357.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a vehicle title registration bill. The only things that came off this, there was several amendments that were full bills. Those bills have passed. They've been removed. The Senate added one additional amendment for dealers. If you buy a car, used car, an automobile dealer, the registration begins new. The Senate tried to add southbound checkpoints on the bill. That's not germane, that's been removed. I move passage of the committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 2357. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 139 ayes and 6 nays, House Bill 2357 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 2770.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 2770.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, members. The Senate added an amendment that went back that sun setted the Port of Houston twice and him do two or three audits. So we went back and only sunset it once and only had one audit. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of House Bill 2770. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2770 finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 293.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 293.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we had a -- Dr. Schwertner had added an amendment that included telemedicine for our sunset provision in 2015. And that was an unintentional. So we striked telemedicine to the telemonitoring bill, which makes it all good. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report of Senate Bill 293. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Workman voting aye. Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 293 is finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report for Senate Bill 1010.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 1010.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker and members, this is a bill we talked about the other day, and the Senate side discovered a drafting error and so we had to send it back to conference committee and strip out all the amendments. So this bill is back to the original Senate Bill, which only provides that a -- a victim is notified prior to a plead -- plea bargain being entered. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: In Senate Bill 1010, is the word propane used anywhere at all?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: It's on there, you just don't see it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on Senate Bill 1010. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 147 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 1010 is finally passed. Chair calls up the conference committee report on House Bill 242.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, House Bill 242.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the bill that we talked about I guess day before yesterday. And this is the bill that is now on this public safety bill. It takes in the texting, the Texas Ranger amendment that Mr. King and Mr. Miller had. Takes in the retired peace officers, and the reckless driving amendment and the DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Now this bill has the outlawing of reading, writing or sending text messages; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: And we had -- we had kind of a fight on a similar measure and we took out the reading part?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: And that was by a vote of 85 to 54 to take out reading.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I guess. I'm sure that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: And so if we pass this measure, any reading of any text message or email on a cell phone while driving a car will be a crime?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: They're not able to read, write or send text messages. It's manual only.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: So, the reading, the reading is the key. This will criminalize the reading of any text message while you're driving a car?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I have a parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: On Senate Bill 1581, I believe did we not send back that bill to the Senate Bill to higher education bill, fiscal bill, because they had attached the personal protection for campus act on it, because it is a two subject bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes Mr. Simpson, that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And if the parliamentarian keeps from putting similar language on Senate Bill 5, that would have provided for similar campus care legislation on that bill when it was here, because it was a two subject bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair is not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Beg your pardon?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair is not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Okay. I'd like to raise a point of order against House Bill 242. Under Rule 8, Section 3 and Rule 11 --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Craddick , on this bill we had the very discussions Mr. Hartnett brought up. And we, you know, we went through the whole issue of having a device in your hand. Phones do a lot more these days than just have phone conversations. And you remember that conversation?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: And the texting. And I don't think there's anyone out here that disagrees that the act of typing in a message while you're driving is terribly distracting and making someone a terrible driver. But I think we made it pretty clear, if you'll remember, when we had this discussion before about the idea of just so much as looking at your phone and being subject to being a criminal, basically. Being subject to being pulled over, getting a ticket. And I think this body spoke pretty clearly when they voted 85 to 54 that this bill was not right without that exception for so much as reading the text. And I respectfully have to disagree with bringing it back to this House without taking out the reading section.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Well, you know, Mr. Taylor, this bill passed the Senate Bill 28 to 3 with it in there. And we went to conference and they wanted it in there. And let me ask you this, Mr. Taylor, do you think there's anyone in this House today that tells their teenage children to text and to read texts while they're driving?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I don't think anyone is telling their child to text while driving in the car. But as far as the Senate voting 28 to 3, I've seen some of the worst bills come out of this session come out of the Senate with 31-0. I'm not sure if they even know what they were voting on. So I'm not going base my vote on the House side, based on what the Senate did. I just think that it's unfortunate that this has been done. I think this body was ready to pass a bill that disallowed the actually actual act of texting while driving, but this body was not ready to pass a bill that didn't allow you to so much to look at your phone. That could be a useful tool. And it can, in fact, make you a safer driver. If somebody can send you a short text that just says the place you're looking for is next to the Kentucky Fried Chicken, while you're driving around at night and trying to sit there and slow down and look at every street as you're driving around in the dark. It may actually be safer in a strange sense. I use the GPS on my phone, when I travel I had the GPS on it and that makes me a safer driver at night.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Taylor, since you brought that up, if you'll look at bill, I don't know if you have it or not.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I don't have it.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Okay. The use of the G.P.S. voice operated technology, hands free, for making a phone call is all exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Craddick , would you not agree that look we at the gauges in our car all day long. And the fact is that if a policeman is driving by and he sees that phone glowing at me, he doesn't know what I'm doing on that phone. Now, if he's sees me weaving around the road I think he has every right to pull me over and ask me what I'm doing on my phone. But if he so much as sees me looking at the glow of my face and a car at night, and has the opportunity to pull me over just because of that; I think that's wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Well, Mr. Taylor, you know, the law enforcement people in this state, the DPS and the Attorney General last week came up and in supporting of the texting bill and saying it was needed in the state. And TexDOT came out, like I said the DPS has. And I think -- so I think we've got o to give our law enforcement people the tools they need, and they think this is needed. There are now 40 other states, there was 32 when the session started, that have done it. And, you know, I think that we need to give them -- we've got to be confident in our law enforcement people that they'll look at it right.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker -- Dean Craddick, was it the conference committee report or was it the Senate amendment that included the texting language back in the bill? In other words, the House Bill had the texting language, the Senate Bill doesn't, or does both of them have it?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: The Senate Bill put it on in the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So the Senate added it -- the Senate amendments that added texting back --
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Both bills went to conference.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So if you concurred with Senate amendment, you would be getting texting also?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Speaker Craddick, I have received a request from a close friend of mine to support your bill on texting, because he had a teenage niece who about a month ago was rendered paralyzed because she was in a car in which the driver was texting and they had a severe accident. This is happening time after time after time. It is one of the most risky -- pardon me, one of the most risky activities that we have on our roads. And I certainly hope that your bill passes.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thanks a lot.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cook to speak for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: When we started -- when we started this session I believe Chairman Phillips had eight or nine texting bills in his committee. And Larry and I talked about it and we thought it would be appropriate, since the Dean had a -- had a bill, that we would all get behind his bill and try to get this legislation passed. And I made a commitment to Dean Craddick that I would continue to help him throughout this process. And I got to tell you, I understand the concern about, maybe the issue with reading this, but honestly, I find it hard to believe, I think it's a stretch that anybody's going to be stopped and arrested for reading. But here's the real issue, if we have a chance to save lives. And, Mr. Lewis, I want to make sure my two daughters are as safe as they can be in the car. And the reality, the fact is it's not only them driving that I'm worried about. I'm worried about that other person that may run into them and cause an accident. And I want to remind you of the lady that I visited with that said at the time her daughter was killed she was texting. And we have a chance -- we have a chance to save lives. So it would be nice if we were all convenience with respect to the issue of reading. But I would much rather to err on the side of saving lives, and we have an opportunity to save lives. And we have an opportunity to save lives. So I hope that that's what this body will do, is we'll vote for this bill. Because I guarantee, if you'll vote for this bill, we are going save lives, Wayne. We are going to save lives if we vote for the bill. So put your personal interests aside and support saving lives. When -- As a matter of fact, we've heard that all session. Saving lives. And we have a chance with this bill and so just please, and ask you to vote for this bill, because I promise you it will save lives. And I'm going to vote for it because I know we can do that. And I don't want one more person to get the call that the lady I talked to and others have, with respect to losing a loved one who was killed at the moment of texting. Thank you members, and I hope you'll vote for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Cook, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I'll be glad to.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Just briefly, Byron, you were on the conference committee that created the reported we were about to vote on, right? And you could have taken out the word reading from that conference committee report and still had the bulk of this bill ready to go, right?
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: It would have been nice if we could have done that.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: And so you-all wanted to keep the part that we rejected in this conference committee report?
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Once again, what I want to do is pass this bill, Will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to draw your attention to the actual amendment that Senator Zaffirini put on. If you look at the Senate amendment, and if you look at page nine, look at page ten. Because I know that many of you are rightfully concerned that you're going to unnecessarily criminalize some of your constituents. Members, this bill is a small step forward. And I'll tell you why. On page ten it says here on all of the things an operator is not - on line seven, not subject to prosecution if the operator uses a handheld wireless communication device to read, select or enter a telephone number or for the purpose of making a telephone call in conjunction with a voice operated technology or hands free device, to navigate using global positioning systems. Also if it's being used to relay information between the operator and a dispatch, in the course of an occupational duty, or affixed to the vehicle. Members, if you read this, our constituents have many ways out of getting in trouble. No one's going to get criminalized. All we're trying to do is pass the state law that says to our young people is do not text and drive.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely I --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I do yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I want to -- I want ask you a question about what you just read. I'm very confused. I don't know if the other members are, but I'm being told that you cannot type a telephone number into your phone under this law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: It's incorrect.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Okay. That -- That's incorrect? You can dial a number while in the car?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I'll read the amendment again. On line -- it says here, line seven, it starts an operator is not subject to prosecution under Subsection C 1F, and if you skip to line 11, to read, collect or enter a telephone number or name for the purpose of making a call.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Okay. So you are allowed to do that --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: -- but is it only through voice technology or through hand technology?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Let's look at this. Using a hand held wireless communication device, then be it says in conjunction with a voice technology or hands free device, or C to navigate a global positioning system. It's giving you three ways.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So I want to be clear. So for legislative intent you are allowed to dial with your fingers or thumb a phone number?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: It says it right here in black and white. It says on page -- ten of these Senate amendments, line 11. The -- Let's start on page 7, on line seven. An operator is not subject to prosecution under subsection 1-1 if the operator uses a hand held wireless communication device to read, select or enter a telephone number or name for the purpose of making a call. It's pretty clear.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, and then it says in conjunction with voice operated technology or hands free device.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So under B it says if you're using a hand held or wireless or voice operated device, that's another way out. And No. C is you will not be subject to prosecution if you're using a global positioning system.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, Representative Menendez, in all sincerity, I'm really concerned here. Because I've got a crowd of members around me saying that you must use the hands free device, and you are saying -- or voice activated, and you are saying that you can use your hands on the phone to dial a number. And I don't know who is right. I want to be very clear. I do not know who is right. But I don't want take this vote tonight until we're certain as to which one is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: On line three it says you can't -- we start with the texting is on line three. Operator may not use the wireless device to read, write or send a text based communication. So then you start on seven, all the ways you are not subject to prosecution are under line 177.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Menendez, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Abso lutely.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Leaving aside this ambiguity, which I think is dangerous if we're trying to have criminal -- the whole voice (inaudible) vagueness notion in criminal law. Under these exceptions, if one were driving and received a message from say one's spouse that a family member was -- had a heart attack or in trouble, is there an exception where you can read that message from your spouse saying that your father had a heart attack or is that a criminal act?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I don't know if there's an exception --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, there doesn't seem to be an exception for that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: (Inaudible) I think if you got pulled over and you --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I was for the bill, without the reading. And as you said worked with you, haven't we worked on the school zone?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: We have.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I think that's a sacred area. But here this seems to go too far.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: But Chairman Branch, here's the situation. School zones, I agree you have to be safe. Why? Because there is children around, right? But why is it that we -- it's okay for us to be less safe while driving on the rest of the road?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, because I think you have to read your dashboard. So to criminalize reading and to not allow our citizens to have the judgment to make good decisions about whether to glance at a device, I think goes too far.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, I can understand your feeling on that. But I think we need to make a decision, do we allow texting or not allow texting. And I think that that's what this bill is about. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a quick question? Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Just to be crystal clear, if we pass this bill we have outlawed the reading of text messages on cell phones, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I just want to bring to your attention that over the last three sessions a gentleman from my district has been coming up here to testify in front of the transportation committee in order to get a bill passed, which is a provision of this bill regarding reckless driving. His daughter was killed in Haze County over six years ago, by someone that was charged -- by someone that was charged with reckless driving and received a two hundred-dollar fine. A two hundred-dollar fine for the offense of reckless that driving that resulted in the death of someone else. The provision in this bill would simply raise that fine to $2,000. The $200 is laughable for reckless driving that results in someone else's death. I ask to support this bill as it is. It seems like the texting provision is the, I guess, most controversial part of this. But it's something that cities throughout this state have banned for our own public safety. Something that I have learned to get in a habit of is actually setting my phone down while I drive and waiting until I get to a traffic light, somewhere where it's safe to actually read a text message. But it's very clear in here about making phone calls to me. The operator uses a hand held wireless communication device to read, select or enter a telephone number or name for the purpose of making a telephone call.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield for a quick question?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Now, Jason, you were on the conference committee that created the conference committee report we're about to vote on, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: And you could have taken out the word reading and left us a good bill, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yeah. The conference committee could have done that, but I respected the intent of the author. I would appreciate your support.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Members, just very briefly, the purpose of --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Let me make my statement first and then (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: All right. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This body represents 25 million people. We're 150 members. And I believe our primary role is to punish the wrongdoer. And then really to get out of the way, to simplify Jefferson and his first inaugural speech. Our penal code provides right now for a penalty for reckless driving if someone causes damage to property or injury to a person. And that is right. And people should be punished if they cause harm or damage. But the legislation here that is before us will criminalize simply reading your cell phone, reading a text from your wife or your son or your daughter saying take exit 46 -- that will become a criminal act if you read that while you're in your car or at the wheel. I don't think that should be a criminal act. If you cause harm, yes. If you cause damage, yes. But simply reading a text, members, this should not be punished by this body and I urge you to vote against this. I'd yield to Representative Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Simpson, you're against this, as I understand it. And the part of this that bother me is it provides another opportunity for stops based on probable cause. Are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I think that's a good point.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah, but now what can happen is sometimes lawyers have an opportunity to challenge a stop on the basis that it violated probable cause. But not now, when the officer says I thought he was texting or she was texting. Are you aware that what that does is provides an opportunity now for everything after that to be legitimized on the basis that the officer thought the person had a cell phone and thought they were texting. And even if you were just holding your phone up -- my question is how do they know whether you are texting, talking, reading or just holding a cell phone?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's right. It was a good point.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So I don't know if you know the answer to this, and maybe somebody else does, but I join you in your opposition to this is what I wanted to tell you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's good. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Menendez?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker, quick question. And, you know --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: And Mr. Branch asked me a question earlier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quick question. Mr. Simpson, I understand that you feel this is necessary. A question came up earlier about when we have to read the dash. But when you look at your dash when you're driving your vehicle, do you, are you -- do you hold your dashboard with your hand? Do you hold you dashboard with -- do you hold in from of you?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I don't always hold my phone, either.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: You don't hold your phone? So if you don't hold your phone then you can't read your text, correct? No, I can read it if it's on -- held by -- by a hanger or some kind of device.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: If it's held up by some device. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, could we have some order, please? Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, remember why we were discussing this at all. This is about saving lives and preventing accidents. I had a case a year ago and we were claiming that a Lexus rolled over because of a car defect. The lady was on the phone. You cannot believe the government studies that were introduced into evidence showing that if you divert your attention away from the road and what you're doing, how much you increase the likelihood of an accident. It doesn't matter if you're looking at a phone, a book, the newspaper, doing your eye makeup. If you divert your attention from the road you increase the likelihood of an accident. And if you look over, if you've almost ever been sideswiped, and you look over and the person is on the phone and they're looking at something, and you sit there going you shouldn't be doing that. So remember why, Mr. Craddick, Dean Craddick brought us this bill in the first place. It's to save lives, to prevent accidents.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Would Mr. Eiland yield for a couple quick questions?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Eiland, you know, I respect you, as most members do, as one of the smarter attorneys here in the chamber. And I was asking you a moment ago about the confusion -- We're going out later. We're got going out later, members. Anyway --
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I believe that the language --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Please explain that.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: The language of the bill, you can dial your phone. Period. It may -- could have been drafted better, but you can dial the phone under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So you, with your hands, your fingers, your thumbs, may dial this phone and you are not breaking the law when this bill passes?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Craig, you know, a lot of what we do here is we draw lines. We try to do the best we can to balance the public and safety and interest all the time, right?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: So under -- If I hear what you are saying is we shouldn't let anybody do what they're doing in a car besides have their two hands on the steering wheel?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That is not what I said. That is not what the context of my --
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: What we're getting at is you can't drink a Coke, shouldn't eat a hamburger, shouldn't do your makeup, shouldn't
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: You should not do your makeup while you are driving. Especially you.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Isn't that right? Well, that's true. Fortunately, I don't do that. But you shouldn't put a CD in your player, shouldn't turn your head to talk to your kids in the back seat?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I believe that all depends on the duration and of the focus of what you're doing.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And I -- REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, I yield. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you Craig. One of the things we do here so many times are the unintended consequences. And I remember Ms. Dukes brought up in a women's luncheon that we had at the very beginning of the session a very interesting fact about a study that had been done that once we -- that they had banned texting, that what the kids are doing is instead of holding their phone up with where you can see it, and try to look at the phone at the same time that they were actually holding the phone down now and taking their eyes off the road so that they could text down low and it was actually causing more accidents. Have you heard about that study that was done?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: No. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: All right. This I just verified with Ms. Dukes. It was a nationwide study done by one of the universities and it added those facts were found to be true.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And I think that in every accident investigation these days people try to verify and determine if somebody was on a phone, that they were texting. Which you can do. So please vote aye.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, when this was in the House a lot of people had a lot of fun with it, thought it was funny. Mr. Taylor went back and said well, I can't read, I can't do this, whatever. You know, the bottom line on this deal is when you have testimony from the law enforcement people in this state to say texting, and that includes the reading side, is 20 times more dangerous than driving drunk in the car. And you have people that came to these hearings to talk about their children, their relatives that were killed texting. It becomes more prominent every day. You can laugh and joke and say well, I don't want to be held back for reading, I don't want to be doing this, or I'm not going to do it myself. But the bottom line, the legislature, it is our responsibility to give law enforcement the tools they need to make the highways safer for all of us.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: The gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Jim, let me just finish then I will. There are other things in this bill that I think you need to be aware of, and I know different people's said it, and there's been a lot of conversations going on. The reckless driving bill is in this bill. The retired peace officer bill is in this bill. The Texas Rangers, that gives the right for the Governor to call out the Texas Rangers in this state on necessary duty is in this bill. It was all put in this bill. Still didn't start out as the texting bill. It was -- there was another bill. If you look at the bill and read what it says, it tells you these are not -- an operator is not subject to prosecution if you use a hand held device to read, select or enter a phone number or a name for the person making a phone call in conjunction with voice operated technology or hand free device, G.P.S. So I think there's this blown out of proportion that no one is going to be able to text. No one's done this. You have cities around the state that have passed this and put it in effect. You live in west Texas, you drive to San Antonio you can't do this. You drive to El Paso, you don't can't do this. You drive to Dallas, you can't do it. So I think it's a serious situation and when he need to address it, and I think this is the way to address it. I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Dean Craddick, I went out to a high school last year to a rally where they were rallying for this. Met a woman who had lost her daughter and she made me promise to come down here to support this. I'm wondering, do you have any idea what I can go back and tell her if I didn't vote for this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: I don't know, Mr. Jackson. We had some people here that brought a car and parked over here on the side of the Capitol.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I just hoped I never saw her again.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: And, yeah, that lady and (inaudible). I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 242. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Menendez voting aye. Show Representative Anchia voting aye. Have all voted? There being 80 ayes and 61 nays, House Bill 242 finally passes. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I gave the notice about an hour and 45 minutes ago. I now move to suspend Rule 8, Section 13 of the House rules, and all other necessary rules, to allow the House to consider immediately following the time of this motion to take up and consider House Bill 6 immediately, followed by House Bill 2730 and Senate Bill 23. And that the House also take up any remaining builds remaining on either of the items eligible calendars without regard to the midnight deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Point of inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We just finished, I believe it was House Bill 242, or Senate Bill 242. Can you tell me, please, how much time did we spend on texting versus the -- and the point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, this House voted to limit our time on school financing. And I have sat here and listened to you-all talking about texting. Not one person went to the mic to cut off people's right to talk or to limit debate. And I'm trying to understand where the priorities of this House is.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: To make a motion about your ruling, about my point of order on the previous bill. I'd like it reduced to writing. I'd like to make it at the right time, any way.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Parliamenta ry inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: If I understand Mr. Bonnen's motion correctly, that means you will get through all of the bills that are on the calendar?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Could we just vote on them as a group and go home then?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Members, if you will recognize me for that motion I'll be glad to make it. It sounds like I got a few seconds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I would like to make my motion that we pass the bills on the calendar in one vote.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: We'll go back to the original motion, members.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliament ary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: As I understand -- and I'm tired, so I may not have heard this. But as I understood the motion, Mr. Bonnen has asked us to essentially keep going past midnight, but also then take a couple of bills out of order, and I guess my we question is if we're going to take -- I thought the purpose of taking the bills out of order was to make sure we got to all the bills. But if we're going keep going until past midnight to get to all the bills, why do we need to take them out of order?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yeah, Mr. Hochberg, we actually -- it was over a hour and a half ago when I first made this notice on this.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I know.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And the reason we -- no, the reason we did that is that we believed that these were two bills that people had a particular interest and wanted to discuss. I would be more than happy to revise the motion and leave it that we just suspend the midnight deadline and we just move the through the calendar on the items eligible list, if that would make --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I think it would accomplish the same purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It absolutely would. So I'll simply make the motion to suspend Rule 8, Section 13 of the House rules, and all other necessary rules, to allow the House to consider all the bills on the items eligible and suspend the midnight deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote on the -- The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Being 94 ayes and 53 nays, the motion fails. Notice of introduction of privileged resolution pursuant to House Rule -- Rule 8, Section 9F, the Chair announces the House Resolution 2703 pending.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Conferees for Senate Bill 20 -- 14 (inaudible). Mr. Gallego?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentar y inquiry.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So since that motion failed, does that mean -- what does that mean about midnight?
THE CHAIR: It means we're in the order of the calendar and that we will be done at midnight.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 2703 by Gonzales of Hidalgo. Suspending the limitations of conference committee jurisdiction for SB 1320.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales of Hidalgo.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I make the motion to suspend the limitations on the -- on Senate Bill 1320. This resolution was necessary to include language that was requested from the Governor's Office. This bill is one that prohibited the use of deeds in lieu of foreclosure at the time of closing. Not prohibit them altogether, but only at the time of closing. We replaced the ability of an individual to bring a civil action for damages with the Attorney General. The Governor was concerned about lawsuits being filed and people getting damages. So an individual can bring a claim to void the deed, but the Attorney General can bring one for damages. And the resolution also allows us to go outside the bounds to give notaries the ability to use a passport issued by a foreign country in the identification of a residential transaction. This was done for the title industry with approval by the Governor. And I move for adoption of the resolution.
THE CHAIR: Members, the question occurs on House Resolution 2703. Suspending limitations on conferees on Senate Bill 1320. Record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Mr. Eiland voting aye. There being 117 ayes, 11 nays, the resolution is passed. Chair lays out House Bill -- Senate Bill 1320. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 1320.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Members , the conference committee adopted the following changes. First it was the section providing for a civil action for damages was replaced for the ability for the Attorney General to bring the action. So a borrower -- Right now, a purchaser can go ahead and void the deed, but they can't -- the only thing they can recover would be reasonable and necessary attorney's fees. They would not be able to get civil damages. The Attorney General, if there's some pattern that's going on with people doing this in violation of the law can bring an action. We also gave the notaries permissive ability to use a foreign passport in the identification of an individual for residential transaction. This is approved by the Governor's Office. It's the same language that we passed in House Bill 22, which is the 2115. And those were the changes to the conference committee report. I move to adopt the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentle lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I do think that we heard your bill in Business and Industry, and it was a very clean bill. It was good. It does handle a particular problem. I was just curious that if someone -- if that scenario does take place and you void the deed --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: -- can a -- and you said you would get reasonable attorney's fees, in connection with it.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Can you get basically get it back to being whole?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes. There won't be any penalties. The original bill considered it like a DTP violation and had that the person could recover the damages and (inaudible) damages. But the governor's office doesn't want that and said simply you just void the deed and you get your attorney's fees.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay. But otherwise it's trying to address a particular issue that goes on sometimes in seller finance situations?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Where they get the deed -- they get the deed basically at the same time --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Absolut ely.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: -- as security for possibly a breech. But, at the end of the day, it really is something that is used against that person who has made payment (inaudible) particular fall they won't go through the regular legal process?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Correct . You and I both know and, in fact, probably all of us here who have gone through a closing know that you're handed a stack of papers and you sign and you sign and you sign. You never imagine that the day that you are signing to purchase your personal property, you are also signing the deed to deed it back in the event that you should default on that same day. This bill just says you cannot do that at the time of closing. Now, if two months later, let's say two months down the road, you've noticed that this person you will have sold the property to has a tendency to be late, and you think you will might end up trying to foreclose on it, you can bring them in and you can say in a (inaudible) transaction, you can say, sign this deed and (inaudible) foreclosure because I've noticed that we may both have to go to court, we may both have to suspend attorney's fees on this. So it doesn't -- it doesn't mean you can never do this, you can't do it at the time of closing.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Elkins to speak on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I don't want to take up too much time, but I do just want to make the body aware. I had intended to speak against this bill this evening but I just decided to inform the body on what we're about to do. First of all, one of my major concerns is that we extended the power of a cause of action for the Attorney General. Now, let me tell you what the real affect is on individuals. This particular bill addresses mostly owner financed home situations. And a lot of people will make an owner financing to people with a very limited amount of a down payment. The affect -- and they'll do that because they can get a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Now, the reality is they're going to have to add that cost in the effect of doing business. And it's going to end up giving to people a foreclosure, instead of just really getting nothing with the deed in lieu of foreclosure. So I think the unintended consequences on this bill is that, again, this is the government interfering with free markets and, at the end of the day, the consumer is hurt by our actions. That's going limit the amount of homes that people are able to finance. Just six years ago, David, when he was here, we outlawed contracts, we can no longer sell a house on a lease of an option to buy. And now, when this goes into effect, you will not be able to do owner finance.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: I'll yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I think you're aware that this has nothing to do with deeds in lieu of foreclosure, or it has nothing to do with what we did on contractor deeds. We can go back and fix contractor deeds, but her bill, Ms. Gonzales' bill, has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the idea that someone gives a deed back as part of a closing package, as additional security, dated the same day so that they don't have to go to foreclosure. And that's -- that's what she's really trying to get to.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: The -- Attorney General's issue is a probably a good one, because someone who does litigation in context would see that and possibly even try to get a lot of more out of the party whose doing this versus trying to get people get back to the hole and basically say that deed is void. And then you have to go through foreclosure if you're doing this as a pattern and you can actually prove it, then the Attorney General steps in versus some trial lawyer.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Exactly. I specifically talked to Representative Gonzales earlier this evening. And her issue on this was just the point of getting the deed in lieu of foreclosure at the point of foreclosing.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: You can go through three days later or four days later and get it and there's not a violation, if I understand it right and --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right. That would be deeds in lieu of foreclosure. And the context is, though, at the time of the closing. That's what she's trying to get to. And I don't know that there's anything wrong with that.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: I don't know that there's anything wrong, I'm just saying the practical effect in the real world is that now people that would maybe get into a home with no down payment, low income people that just would like to have ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Now the person that's doing this is going to have to anticipate $3,000 to $4,000 of foreclosure costs for an attorney, because he may or may not get that deed in lieu of foreclosure back in the event. Now he's got to go through foreclosure. And the effect is so that we were closing up, now get the foreclosure and I can tell you once that happens, their credit's ruined. It will be a long time before --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But I do some foreclosure. And on a residential deal it does not cost $3,000 or $4,000.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: I know the members want us move along. So I just ask you to vote your conscience on this. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales to close.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you. And thank you chairman Solomons for helping to clear that up. Members, again, this is a bill that's already passed. This is just saying at the time of the closing you can't trick somebody by sneaking in a deed in lieu of foreclosure. If you want to sit down with the person a few days later, and negotiate one, well then you can. But it's not stuck in a stack of documents. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on Senate Bill 1320. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Kleinschmidt voting aye. Have all voted? Show Mr. Dutton voting aye. Mr. Ritter voting aye. Mr. Eissler voting aye. Have all voted? Being 112 ayes, 15 nays, 2 present not voting; the conference committee report is adopted. Chair lays out -- Well, first, members, we're now on the top of calendar two. We lay out conference committee report for Senate Bill 1130. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report SB 1130.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, the two bills were added on this were stripped off in committee. It comes back to us in the same form as it was from the Senate to the House. And I move to concur with the conference committee report.
THE CHAIR: Question occurs on conferring with the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1130. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Kleinschmidt voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Show Mr. Flynn voting aye. There being 140 ayes, 0 nays, conference committee report on 35 -- or SB 1130 is passed. Chair lays out on House Bill 3025. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on SB 3025.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the same thing we sent to the Senate except we stripped the out a non-germane Senate amendment. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Question occurs on adoption of the conference committee report on House Bill 3025. Record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Branch voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 144 ayes, 0 nays, conference committee report on House Bill 3025 is passed. Conference committee report on Senate Bill 694. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report --
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you. Members, we conferred with the Senate and took out the cash provisions. You have to be a registered scrap dealer. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 694. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Dutton voting aye. Mr. Smith voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Mrs. Crownover voting aye. Being 118 ayes, 21 nays 2 present not voting, Senate Bill 694 is finally passed. Chair lays out conference committee report on House Bill 3328. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report --
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Keffer.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. The Senate added language that explicitly defines (inaudible).
THE CHAIR: Mr. Veasey?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Yes, I will.
THE CHAIR: Gladly.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Chairman Keffer, may I ask you some questions regarding the legislative intent, please?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Yes, sure.
REPRESENATIVE MARK VEASEY: Is it correct that under this bill that the Texas Oil and Gas Commission -- I'm sorry, the Texas Railroad Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Unfortunately , you're right.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: -- must be ruled (inaudible) no later than July 1st, 2012 for most of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: And also is it correct that for Subsection E of the bill, relating to the disclosure of non NSBS chemicals a rule making month be done no later than July 1st, 2013?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: No later than, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: And also is it correct that nothing would prevent the Railroad Commission from completing rule making for all of the bill, including Subsection E, before July the 1st 2012?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Yes, in fact, I'm visiting with Chairwoman Jones and Commissioner Porter to ensure that all provisions will be in effect before July 1st, 2012, and that is all. And is absolutely capable of ensuring well before July 1st, 2012.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. Good. Good. And so is it correct that it is possible that the rule making could be complete by the date specified in the original bill passed by the House, which was January 1st, 2012?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Yes, in fact, the rule making was very well straightforward. And is no reason that it could not be completed by January, 2012 or sooner.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Keffer, thank you for answering those questions. Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose? You want legislative put in the journal?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes.
THE CHAIR: You got it. Anyone else -- Record vote on conference committee report House Bill 3328. The clerk will ring the bell. All voted? Have all voted? All voted? There being 137 ayes, 8 nays, house Bill 3328 is passed. Chair lays out conference committee report on House Bill 335. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on House Bill 3325 (inaudible).
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senate put on three amendments. We took off one and accepted two of Senator Ellis' amendments. We accept the conference committee report.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the gentleman yield for a few questions?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield for some quick questions?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: I will.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman does.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Dr. Shelton , could you describe now after -- at this stage in the game what the bill does exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Okay, at this stage in the game, Senate Bill 335 tells state agencies that they must report their expenditures related to the affordable care act. In addition to that, it grandfathers any expenditures from the portable care act --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: The portable care of federal health care law?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: What does it exactly tell them to do again?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: What exactly is it telling them?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: The state agencies to do?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: All it tells them is that they have report to the LDD what it's costing the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. And what would the main points of contention between your version and the House and the Senate version be?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Well, I think the main point of contention was that in the original version of the bill that passed the House they had to report their expenditures, prior to implementing those federal laws. And that language was modified to where they would just record it, the impact on the agency.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. And now you said there were two amendments that came on or there were --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Yes. We accepted the -- Senator Ellis' amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. And what were those exactly, just what you described?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: There was another described about -- about the grandfathering and also about just reporting -- reporting fire implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Move passage.
THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of House Bill 335. The clerk will ring the bell. Record vote. Have all voted? 139 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting; House Bill 335 is passed. Chair lays out conference committee report on House Bill 2568. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report --
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Chair, members. This bill relates to assessment of public school student for college and developmental education courses to prepare students for colleges or more course work. In the conference we stripped out all the amendments because they were not germane. I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Question occurs on adoption of conference committee report on House Bill 3468. The clerk will read the bill. It's a record vote. Have all members voted? All voted? 141 ayes, 1 nay, House Bill 3468 is passed. Chair lays out conference committee report for Senate Bill 8. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report --
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mrs. Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Parliamen tary inquiry.
THE CHAIR: Please state your inquiry, Mr. Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Earlier you offered a motion to bring up earlier a bill that I believe was related to our budget package.
THE CHAIR: Yes. But we amended that motion and that was not a part of the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And also understand that there is some interest in bringing that motion back or bringing that bill out of order.
THE CHAIR: I'm not advised. Thank you. Chair recognizes Mr. Mrs. Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is the bill that we passed on Tuesday and on third reading on Wednesday. SB 8. We went to conference, it was a short, very short conference. There were, some of the amendments that were accepted by the Senate that we negotiated, for those of you that voted for the Chisum amendment, that stayed in. So I'd be happy to go through each amendment if you'd like.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And the reason I ask, this is a significant piece of legislation and I know it's late in the hour. Those of us in the body didn't have control of the timing. Can you explain what the amendments are; what stayed on, what came off?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: The first amendment was correct -- a technical correction amendment. The second amendment was the TDI technical correction amendment to the amendment. And then the third one, those all three were perfecting amendments, was the institute review amendment that I put on, which was amendment number three. The Fourth amendment, which was the amendment that I was going to allow the -- I was working to let the HHSC and the institute collaborate with our higher institutions, because I feel like it's a whole workload to be able to make a lot of these recommendations to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And what
(inaudible) collaborating in certain areas or just generally or --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: No. To help us with the institute in getting the information. And then section two of the bill that it allows it to collaborate with them. It doesn't mandate it. But I do think that we have a lot of health related institutions that can help us with some of that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: This fifth amendment again, the author's amendment, being mine, was a study on how we put more of a patient centered -- where we make it more patient centered with health savings accounts or high deductibles. University of Houston, Patty Gray's group had just come out with an article. I think that was a good language. Chairman Zerwas' covenants did not compete, reduction is not in. Chairman Hughes' end of life treatment reporting is not in the bill. Chairman Truitt's amendment to the amendment of Hughes was not needed, because the other one was taken out. Representative Brown's HHFC or HHSF eligibility oversight was withdrawn. Representative Shelton's chip pilot program was withdrawn. Representative Hardcastle's was withdrawn, which was the charge base reimbursement for ambulatory surgical centers. The health care worker vaccines, which was really SB 1117, is in this conference report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: What does this one do?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That is the one where the hospitals will be requiring nurses to get vaccines that we debated on this floor. It came out of the public health committee. Supported. Representative Creighton's amendment and amendment to the amendment, which says that no one is forced to buy into the health care collaborative is included. The TDM audit was not included. Representative Eiland's silent PPO was not included. Representative Kings' data notification was not included. Representative Zerwas' trauma GME was accepted. The health care contact was accepted. Representative Truitt's amendment to Sid Miller's amendment was not included because there was no need. Representative Chisum's SB 1001, the smaller portion was that was accepted. Representative Thompson's imaging study, although I fought hard for it, was not accepted -- we weren't able to -- and I did -- The Truitt amendment was not needed, because the Miller amendment didn't go on. And then Representative Laubenberg's was an amendment to the health care worker vaccine which was allowing it to (inaudible) and TMA and hospitals really wanted to keep that as (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: First of all, thank you for going through those. Especially right now. I just have one more question and we I'll yield to whoever's back there. The end of life amendment, Representative Hughes' amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: What was the discussion on that amendment about in the conference committee, and how did you guys resolve to take it out?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Well, there was a lot of confusion because Representative Truitt's amendment to the amendment was supposed to strike his language and put another study in place, although there was a drafting error. And that's really how she -- if you'll go back and look at the tapes, that's how that was sold. And so although it was a drafting error and it didn't strike Representative's Hughes' language, I think as a vote, the impact vote was respected by not putting the end of life study in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the chair lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Surely.
THE CHAIR: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Kolkhorst?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Was it Senate Bill 5, the compact bill, was that added --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: House Bill 5.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: House Bill was 5, that was added?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: It was adopted on this House floor in third reading, amendment was included and it was added to this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now that is the compact bill, and specifically that is for the various number of space coming together. Can you tell me a little bit more about that one?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Sure. We debated on this floor twice now, we had a two and a half hour hearing, and one of the committees -- that is asking it is -- the compact is allowed by the constitution where you come together to the state and you ask permission from Congress if -- if they would allow us to have consolidated funding streams on medicaid and medicare. They have to specifically grant that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now does that require consent from both Congress as well as the Senate, and as well as the the executive branch?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So it must be approved by all three?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Madden raises a point of order, that the lady's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak for or against conference committee report on Senate Bill 8? Mr. Coleman would like to speak on it. Chair recognizes Mr. Coleman on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, you know, this is -- we've gotten to a time of importance in this legislature, with 30 minutes to go on -- there are 26 minutes to go on Sunday night. We've seen a lot of things where there were people who asked for the body to be understanding of their concerns, particularly on public education. And although I think Senate Bill 8 is a good bill, in terms of the compact language that's in it, this is the last time that all of us have an opportunity on that. And it may be misconstrued that by voting yes on SB 8, then people will believe that the members of this House actually approve of, particularly those who don't, approve of the language in HB 5, which is the compact language. And you know, quite frankly, when one looks at the idea of the use of compacts, one of the challenges with it is is that it's used for something like burying nuclear waste. We've had that conversation. We know there's a compact between Vermont and Texas. But the idea with trying to use it with health coverage, particularly rolling in streams of funding that go outside of just Texas medicaid; I don't believe that that's something that I could personally ask members who are opposed to do. The compacts themselves are not necessarily positive in another way. And the block grant, as you know, the block grant is taking the amount of money that Texas spends and says here you are, Texas, that's the money that you can spend from now on. We've had a discussion about Rhode Island. I think Rhode Island is about as big as the neighborhood I live. And that's fine for them to experiment. But when we have 6 million uninsured Texans I don't think that that's the best way to go, particularly if we use regular inflation.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to yield.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes. Can you explain to me how the compact works, Mr. Coleman?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, supposedly a state will go and agree with another state or group of states, and then they come to an agreement to pool -- take the money that comes from the federal government -- either, I don't know, I can't remember if this has medicare in it, but it's usually medicaid. And then they agree upon themselves as to how they will operate their health care programs. Just like we agree with Vermont on how we'll store their waste and we have a compact to store their waste.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But we won't have to send our patients to them, will we?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No, my goodness, no.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So do they send doctors us or something?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No, they don't do that either. The theory is, and this is the theory which I disagree with, is that the Congress approves compacts, and that the executive branch does not approve compacts. And so it's a way to wire around the affordable care act, and use the compact as the way to say that states don't have to comply with the affordable care act.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, do you get better health care out of it?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No. What it is does is it brings quote, unquote, flexibility. And we all know what that means.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: No, tell me what that means.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: It means flexibility to -- some states -- or to diminish the benefits package for those individuals in medicaid. So services that would be guaranteed under the law, the federal law, which could be eliminated under a health benefits package under a compact.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But does the federal government have to approve the compact?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, the theory is that only the Congress has to approve it, not the executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: But I think that folks would -- there are plenty of people that would disagree with that notion in that compacts themselves were not intended to be used for -- for health care.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Now the bill talks about, there was a section on the bill regarding concurrence of the attorney general. What does that mean?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I think that means that once the compact is done, it's the attorney general has to actually say this is okay, and all these provisions between these two states are okay. And that would create the compact itself, being -- being validated by the Attorney General. And they also can write --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, the sole reason, other than health care, is to save money?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah. I guess. If the argument is that we need to save money on what we provided children and the elderly and the disabled, because that's who is in medicaid now. And if you add medicare screens, we're talking about our seniors, and the idea would be that it saves money by giving them less care.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And that is the only way you can save money in this bill, right?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right. And again, you know, we've seen this before, Representative Dutton, Chairman Dutton, that clearly when the discussion has been about saving money, that discussion means less services. We just had a discussion that you were eloquent in, and everyone else, on public education. And the idea on public education is that we can cap the spending and actually reduce the base. That spending on public education. Well this, when a block grant is a done that is essentially what it does. It says you're stuck right here and we can get regular inflation, but, as you have seen, the inflation rate is very low.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, maybe we need a compact on education.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I think we need a compact on education, health care and what we're going to do in a society that falls below every other industrialized nation in the world; because we have health care that doesn't work, a system that doesn't work. And also an education system that doesn't keep up with the needs, because it's all about the funding mechanism. And I know there are ways we can save money, but in the final analysis, and I think that one of the challenges that I have is, in listening to that debate earlier, it tells me when the State of Texas is in control of something, that the very thing that people want to do is literally cut the program. And I just don't think that at this point that is something that we could afford.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, explain to me what the bill labels health care collaboratives, what is that?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: The health care collaboratives in Senate Bill 8 are when a hospital, physicians and other potential health care providers come together and create an organization that runs a hospital, physician services and the like. Some people might think of (inaudible) as that. I mean when those things come together it creates an economy of scale that saves money, because it takes out the middle people and -- but doesn't cut care, it only takes out the separate billing portions that create administrative (inaudible). It's sort of like our mandatory organizations. When we have too many of the state has actually created ten administrations, so you don't really save money, because the administrative costs are increased by the number of actual organizations that there are. So this takes out the doctor billing separately, the hospital --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So you don't have -- We don't have any collaboratives existing today?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No, they don't exist today. There is a pilot in the affordable care act. The reason they don't exist today is because there's some questions about whether or not this is --
THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor of Galveston raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Chair recognizes Representative Dukes to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You know, Senate Bill eight in and of itself is not a bad bill, as Representative Coleman explained to -- to the body. The real issue is that when Senate Bill 8 came up a second time, there -- many of us were off the floor, in session, honoring Representative Turner. And we didn't have an opportunity while we were upstairs during the discussion of Senate Bill 8 to discuss our concerns about House Bill 5 that was amended to this bill, and House Bill 13, I believe it was, that was amended to the bill. The measures were certainly issues that were contentious earlier in the session. And many of us registered no votes on House Bill 5. House Bill 5, as has been explained, creates a completely different structure that changes -- would change the way we focused on health and human service eligibility and needs in Texas. It would change the way we would be able to provide the children's health insurance program, or the Medicaid program, or the medicare program. And, you know, it's troubling because we are one, in a tough budgetary time and there have been efforts to change eligibility requirements. And knowing that in 2003 where, there were difficulties with the budget, measures were placed into statute to reduce and change eligibility for individuals to be able to be qualified for waiting lists to get into our ISCMR facilities, to be able to receive services from the Department of Aging and Assisted Rehabilitation; to be able to receive the children's health insurance program, or even to have the opportunity at prenatal care. Many people were injured by the changes made to eligibility for foster care. No longer being able to -- to have access to services that so many Texans need. And while we are having a very tough economic time, so are regular Texans. And if we put into place block grants with measures that change what individuals would be eligible to receive, we will be hurting even more, over and above the fact that we are killing them in education, we're going to be killing them without the ability to have medical services. House Bill 5 could be very dangerous to just go in and eliminate procedures and eligibility requirements without studies that would help us in being able to ensure we're providing the services that our constituents need. So we need to make sure that what we do --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Villareal?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Would the lady yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Lady yield for a question? Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Represent ative Dukes, how exactly was House Bill 5 added to Senate Bill 8?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Through an amendment, while Senate Bill 8 was up for discussion and at that time -- at the time.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Were you on the House floor?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: No, I was not. I was in a reception in which the legislative black caucus was honoring Representative Turner on the third floor.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And there are a lot of us that were in support of Senate Bill 8, but in opposition to House Bill 5; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And many of us were absent from the floor because of that reception organized by the caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is correct. And our only means to be able to show our opposition was to put a statement in the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And wasn't it true that the members got pretty advanced notice of that reception, that it was going to be held on the third floor?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I think maybe a week or more. I would have to ask Representative Allen. We had how much time? About a week's notice. Two weeks notice?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Do you think that that spare place in passing House Bill 5?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Excuse me?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Did you consider that fair play in passing House Bill 5?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Well anyone can amend a bill, as long as it is germane. However, I mean we just had a very, very long discussion on what, 242, on texting; where there was great concern about measures that were kept in that bill that this body had not wanted in the bill. I think the biggest problem is with House Bill 5 was that there was great opposition to it on this floor, from at least the -- our side of the aisle. And we would have wanted to have an opportunity to discuss those measures that we were so greatly opposed to that are very partisan in nature.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And Senate Bill 8 was different than House Bill 5 in that it enjoyed bipartisan support?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, it did. And we were just totally caught off guard and made unware of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Do you think if Senate Bill 8 did not contain House Bill 5 that it would continue to enjoy bipartisan support?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Absolutely. I believe that it would.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And the reason for that is that House Bill 5 contains this compact language.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes. The compact language is what is questionable. It takes away many of the measures that we've worked so very hard on over the years to ensure that we had very specific and studied measures for eligibility for individuals to be able to qualify for children's health insurance programs, for medicaid, for medicare, to just make sure that the populations that were in need that will be in a greater need with the economy and what we've been through, would be able to have the services that we so desperately need. Many of the services, the majority of them, are for children. And without being able to have these services, you know, they won't be healthy enough to go to the schools that have now been underfunded by $4 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And it's important to know the context, isn't it, that is a state that is currently failing to adequately provide access to health care for our children?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That's the irony.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: To the extent that there was a lawsuit that the state settled, called the True case, that the state tried to back out of that settlement. The Supreme Court has ruled that that settlement is binding and that the state must make progress towards providing health care and dental care access to poor children.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: And Austin
(inaudible) approved recently plaintiff's return to the courts to ask for a redress of the issues. And the courts, once again, sided with the plaintiffs that the state needed to do more to address the dental issues.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And it's your belief, is it not, that the contact language would actually prevent this state from making progress towards the kind of basic preventative health care services for our kids?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Well, let's put it this way, if the state was doing the correct thing then we wouldn't have to prove litigation. One. Two, we wouldn't have had litigation last session against the the Department of Aging and Disabilities over our state supported living centers. There would not litigation presently that is being filed against the state concerning our child protective services system. So if our state was doing such a great job that we would be able to have the luxury of eliminating the requirements or baseline eligibility from the federal government, we wouldn't have so many major lawsuits having been filed against our state.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And I've heard from some members on the floor that the compact language would support essentially more flexibility in that, in fact, Providence Rhode Island has found more flexibility and has seen more adequate and more efficient delivery of health care. Don't you think Providence, Rhode Island -- don't you think Rhode Island is different than Texas in terms of its ability to provide access to health care for its children?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor of Galveston raises a point of order, that the lady's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I just want to raise some issues for the membership. We had a conversation the other day about Senate Bill 316, and each of you got a call, or many of you got calls from your district attorneys with respect to what I would consider to be somewhat of a turf battle between the District Attorney and the Attorney General's Office. And I would point out that same issue exists in this particular legislation, for those of who have an interest in that. Because this legislation provides some additional attorney, some additional authority for the Attorney General. And, in fact, it allows the Attorney General to make decisions on concurrence. There's a question as to whether or not the Attorney General is a civil lawyer, the state civil lawyer, or whether he's in real terms a criminal lawyer with criminal jurisdiction. Some of the legislation, some of the provisions in the legislation as I review it, have the opportunity to create within the Attorney General's Office essentially an additional law enforcement function that I don't think is the intent of the legislation. If you look with me at page 48 of the bill, page 48, there's a section entitled 848205. And 848205 provides for the independent authority of the authority of the attorney general. And in that provision it indicates that the attorney general may investigate a health care collaborative with respect to any competitive behavior contrary to the goals and requirements of this chapter. So, the Attorney General is allowed to investigate a health care collaborative, not because there's an alleged violation of law, but because there's a alleged behavior that is contrary to the goals of this chapter; the goals of this chapter. Not necessarily, again, to the law itself, but simply to what the legislature is trying to do. That is at huge change in terms of what the practice of the legislature has been. It gives the Attorney General a lot more authority to act than he's ever had before. And, frankly, I would think that you would be getting a lot of calls from your District Attorneys with respect to the independent authority of the Attorney General. Again, the question is whether the Attorney General is really a peace officer or a law enforcement officer, or whether it's he's a state civil lawyer, and what the limits of his or her ability are with respect to investigation. Again, what is particularly troublesome is that the Attorney General now would have authority to investigate not a violation of the law, but a violation of the goals of the statutes. And when you violate the goals, and that frankly has the -- the impact, you don't ever want a law enforcement authority to investigate you simply because of your goals. If you're to be investigated, you should be investigated essentially because of what you have done or what you have failed to do. An act or a omission under the law, but you cannot be prosecuted or investigated because of your intent. Just simply because you thought something or because you intended something, you have to actually act or you have to actually do what we refer to in the law as an omission. Under -- And again, members, I would direct your attention to page 48 of the bill. Line 19 -- line 18 and 19 and 20. Lines 18 through 20, which specifically provide that the Attorney General may investigate a health care collaborative with respect to anticompetitive behavior, because it's contrary, because that behavior would be contrary to the goals -- to the goals and requirements of this chapter. And that, frankly, is treading on new ground, Mr. Speaker and members. Because we've never had that kind of authority in the law. We've never given any statewide official the ability to investigate you because of your goals or because of something that you intended to do. I really do -- I really do need to speak with respect to this issue of goals, and how it is that -- that we would provide -- in this statute we would provide the authority for a statewide elected official not to investigate you because of something that you did or because of something that you didn't do, but to prosecute you because of something that you intended to do or to investigate you because of your goals. Think of this in terms of your own business and your business plan, and think about somebody coming in to get you simply because of your business plan. That, for me, is the worst part of this legislation in that it provides for the independent authority of the Attorney General to investigate a health care collaborative with respect to anticompetitive behavior. What is anticompetitive behavior? We don't know that. We really ought to be -- this is one of the situations where there ought to be state website.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'd like to raise a point of order against further consideration of this bill on Rule 8, Section 13F.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Legler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I'd like to move to make a motion to reconsider the vote by which Representative Bonnen's motion failed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Bring your motion down front. Members, the --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: According to the -- According to Mr. Legler's motion, I believe he was on the prevailing side. I would like to substitute his motion for me making the motion that we reconsider the vote by which --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your motion down front. Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, will you recognize me for a substitute motion to adjourn?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your motion down front. Chair recognizes Representative Castro's motion to adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Hold on, members. Members, the clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 46 ayes and 100 nays, the motion fails.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: My understanding is the last bill failed because there was a point of order raised against that bill. And you've granted that motion, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well then, what was the basis for the granting of the motion?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Legler asked to reconsider the Bonnen motion?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: No, I'm talking about Mr. Tray Martinez's Fischer's motion where he raised a point of order against the bill. And I believe you granted that motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct, Mr. Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And what was the basis for the granting of it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Violation of Rule 8, Section 13.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And that is 13F, as I understand it; correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And when you granted that motion, that motion says that if you would -- you did that on the basis that it violated the rule based on that it was after midnight, I assume?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Even if I assumed de facto, you basically then gaveled the day to a close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That is not correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Tell me why that's -- Well then how could you rule in favor of Mr. Martinez Fisher? That would have -- That would have affected the whole calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, the Legler motion --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Not the Legler motion. I'm still on Mr. Tray Martinez Fischer's motion that he made which terminated the bill we were on at the time. You granted his motion or his objection, based on Rule 8, 13F. And if that's the case, the only reason that motion -- or he could have prevailed, is because you were making an acknowledgment that the session was now over, because it was past 12:00, past midnight. It wouldn't have been valid if it would have 11:00 o'clock. So since it was midnight, I assume that's the only basis upon which you could grant it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So do we need a motion now to go back a day?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The only motion we need is Mr. Legler's motion.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But his motion is on the next day.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That was to reconsider the vote by which the Bonnen motion failed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But that requires -- That requires -- So he didn't do that before midnight, and so what day, legislative day is he doing that on?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, we're still on the same legislative day.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And his motion, does it include the bills that you gaveled off when Mr. Martinez Fischer was here?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, it includes that bill, too.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It includes that bill, also.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm a little confused, and maybe it's easy on 12:00 o'clock at night. But I don't understand if you gavel in favor of Mr. Martinez's objection, that now we're back to the same calendar, how we could get back to the same calendar if you gaveled the session to a close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, the motion before us is to take up every single item eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Could we take up also the ones that failed?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I believe his motion was every item eligible that has not passed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And there's no requirement to give notice to that motion, I assume?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It's a motion to reconsider.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And is there a requirement to give notice to reconsider?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: There's no notice requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry? No notice is required to give a motion to reconsider on this vote?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And, as I understand it, Mr. Legler made the motion; is that correct? And he was not on the prevailing side, as I understand.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, Mr. Legler was on the prevailing side.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: He was on the prevailing side? And there was a motion by Mr. Legler then to reconsider the vote, and Mr. Legler, I assume, then voted no on the previous motion?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Is that correct? And that would put him on the prevailing side? I'll let somebody else answer the question, but we are really torturing the rules of this House and I believe that's -- that's going come back to haunt all of us.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Parliame ntary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Bonnen made -- Representative Bonnen made a motion to suspend, to take up all of the remaining -- to take up bills passed past midnight, and that motion was made prior to midnight pertaining to those bills that were still eligible to be considered prior to midnight and that motion failed?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. That motion failed. The motion to reconsider was not made prior to midnight. And, at midnight, Martinez Fisher raised the objection in terms of considering Senate Bill 8 or House Bill 8, whichever it was; at midnight. And the Chair sustained it on the basis of Rule 8F. And I believe that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Legler.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker members, I move to --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I raised a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yeah, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: As I understand it, and based on the rules, not only did the Rule 8F apply to the bill that was being heard at the time, but Rule 8F applies not only to that bill but to any other remaining bills on the calendar. That is my understanding. Because all of the bills that have yet to be heard, that had not been heard prior to midnight, subject to Rule 8F at that point in time. And so when you sustain -- when you sustain Representative Fisher's motion, you not only sustained as it related to that particular bill that's been being heard at that time, but you also functionally sustained it as it relates to any other bill that had yet to be heard --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, Representative Legler's going to move to withdraw his motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And then are we going to be through for tonight, Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Legler.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to withdraw the motion for which you will consider.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, therefore, Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, I therefore move to adjourn.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner moves the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Is there objection? Members, there is objection. Members, there are no other matters to take up at this time. House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an announcement that the House democratic caucus will meet tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. in the old Supreme Court room.
(The House stands adjourned.)
