LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Senate will come to order. A quorum is present. Mr. Doorkeeper.

MR. DOORKEEPER: Mr. President, there's a message from the House.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the house has taken the following action: The House has passed the following measures, HB13 by Kolkhorst relating to the Medicaid program and also new methods of providing health services to low income persons of this state. HB18 by Eissler relating to elementary schools --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to move to suspend the regular order of business in order that we can take up and consider Senate Bill 9. I'd like to lay this out and take any questions from people. This bill and legislation like it was filed in the last regular session. It has been a contentious debate at times between Democrats and Republicans, but this bill is not about political parties nor is it about race or hate or about fear mongering. I want to emphasize my feelings about this. We're all Americans and we're all fortunate enough to live not only in the greatest country in the world, but in the greatest state in this country. And one of the things that make our state is that it's filled with diverse cultures, vast economy and we have vast prospects of growth because of that. And while we want to welcome all of those who come here to work and raise their families and contribute to our state and country, we would not be the great nation or state that we are without the rule of law. Having said that the federal government has turned a deaf ear to our plea for assistance in securing our southern border and we as state legislators see the importance of a secured border and have made great strides over the last few sessions in doing what we can to provide additional funding and tools to law enforcement to secure our border with our friends in Mexico. The federal government has also failed to reform immigration and citizenship policies. And as state legislators, there's less that we can do about this on immigration, which is a federal issue. However, we must follow the laws that have been set out for us and local law enforcement as well as state officers when sworn into office make the following oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the duties of this office and will do the best of my ability to preserve, protect and defend the constitutions of our laws of the United States and of this state so help me God." The goal of this legislation is to be proactive just to our south. Drug cartels are waging a war with their own people over trade and smuggling routes. The new stories become more frequent and horrifying by the day and whether you're talking about human trafficking, drug trafficking or spillover violence, it's real, it's at our doorstep. And I believe that by taking proactive measures to stand up and fortify fie the laws and enforcement of the laws, we send a loud and clear message to criminal illegal aliens that we will not tolerate their presence in Texas by creating a uniform statewide standard for how this -- how laws will be interpreted, we propagate safer streets and neighborhoods. Many local law enforcement communities have made the argument that by making the job of law enforcement to question immigration status, it will damage the relationship that officers have with their communities. It's argued that this type of legislation could deter illegal aliens from reporting a crime they've witnessed or even reporting a crime they're a victim of. However, officers have a duty to their community, and often there are people within their communities who may be illegal, who have come to Texas to work and provide better lives for their family. This bill does not require an officer to inquire about someone's citizenship status. It also does not provide for any specific action in accordance with a person's citizenship status, rather the option of inquiry would be available to the officer at their discretion when a case or situation warrants such information. El Paso is a perfect example of a time when immigration inquiry could actually be good for a crime victim. In El Paso if a crime is committed against an illegal immigrant, the El Paso police department may help that victim obtain a new visa to stay in the country legally during the term of investigation and the trial. Without the ability to inquire into immigration status, the El Paso police department would not be able to assist the victim in this way. Maria Aguilar, who came and testified before the Senate committee on transportation and homeland security, shared her story about being brutally beaten with her husband and how thankful she was that she called the police when they assisted her with obtaining legal residence in the United States and arrested her husband who's now serving a 15 year sentence. Being able to come forward helped her get the help that she needed and frankly probably saved her life. Some have questioned the effect of this bill (inaudible) what it would have on District Attorneys. However, it is not the responsibility of our local District Attorneys to enforce immigration laws through prosecution. A District Attorney, however, would be in violation of this bill if they enacted a policy that prohibited their attorneys from inquiring into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained or arrested. Immigration violations are civil crimes, they would not be prosecuted at all under state law and they should be turned over to federal authorities for enforcement. In determining a person's lawful or unlawful status in the country would have a great bearing on a criminal case. This bill does not authorize or require or provide for the ability of an officer to check the immigration status on the treat. In the case of a rogue officer, if the officer's choosing to focus too much on immigration status or running searches to the point that that officer is failing to perform other duties, then he or she should be sanctioned for failure to do their job. This does not violate the rule, order or ordinance policy provisions in the bill, as that is specific to one situation. In addition, this is not a consistent action of a policy to prohibit because it is case specific. As a parallel example, and with this argument in mind, if for some reason an officer became fixated with traffic violations, if upper management was concerned with the officer's time management when they explained to the officer that his job is more than traffic violations or other duties to be performed, this doesn't mean that upper management's making it a policy to prohibit the enforcement of traffic violations but just rather there's more tasks that need to be performed other than performing all the laws to some of them. Members, this bill contains three major parts: A policy for prohibiting sanctuary cities in the state, the requirement for secured communities, and the requirement for a lawful present to obtain a state issued ID or driver's license. The sanctuary cities portion of this legislation provides that a local government entity may not enact a policy prohibiting the enforcement of state or federal immigration laws including the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act. If an entity does enact a policy like this, then the attorney general may file a suit against the entity and should the AG prevail, the entity would be subject to the loss of state grant funding. This requirement is in line with the very oath of office that I quoted earlier and every law enforcement officer and state official takes that oath when they're sworn into office. It also brings local policy in lines with local public safety policy and creates a uniform standard across our state for the enforcement of these laws when it comes to inquiring about immigration status. The secure communities program I'd like to comment on for clarity is how immigrant -- immigration status ought to obtained by a local law enforcement agency. This bill requires every person who's arrested in Texas to be run through the federal secured communities program. This program is already in use in county jails in every county in our state, and this legislation would address a loophole where people who are arrested and never taken through a county jail are not run through this program. An example of this would be the illegal alien who ran over the police officer in Houston a couple of weeks ago, who had been in the Houston city jail but not bonded out there -- bonded out there and was not run through the secured communities program at the Harris County jail. The lawful presence for driver's license language is related to the rules the department has currently for driver's license, in particular the requirements to prove lawful presence in the United States is required by 47 other states and there are two more states that are working on changing those rules now. These changes will give the department the statutory authority that they need to implement the rules under which they're currently operating. The change will make a driver's license expire with a valid stay in the United States and further enumerate the authority of the Department of Public Safety to validate lawful presence to obtain a driver's license. Unless the department has information, they will be required to collect proof of U.S. citizenship or legal residence or documentation of lawful presence. If the applicant cannot and will not supply this documentation, the department may not issue the ID. Additionally, with these new security measures around the driver's license, this bill also works to address the concerns about driver's license clerks not knowing what the form of -- what a valid form of temporary visitor identification is. The bill requires that the department designate certain driver's license offices as temporary visitor stations and these offices must have at least two staff members specially trained to identify the 25 types of documentation in the department's temporary visitor issuance guide, and they must also act as a resource for other offices around the state. This expanded program has been completely funded in House Bill 1, the budget bill, that we passed during the regular session. The committee substitute that's before us today removes a couple of requirements from the bill. The first would have allowed DPS to create rules regarding commercial driver's licenses in accordance with federal law, and the second would have statutorily required that the temporary visitor ID look substantially similar to the regularly issued state ID. These were taken out primarily to avoid the possibility of a one subject violation in the bill. Mr. President, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider the committee substitute to Senate Bill 9.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: If I understand your motion, Senator Williams, you want to suspend the printing rule --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Rule 7.12, I am sorry.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Right. And is it still your intention not to go for a vote until the time of the printing or --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That would be my intention.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Whitmire, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Will the Senator yield?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Be happy to.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Senator Williams, before we take this important vote, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions if you don't mind. You cite the oath of office that officers take. Would that also include the oath of office that the police chiefs of this state take?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I presume it would.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: I think you honor the police chiefs and their oaths of office and uphold their duties and the constitution of the state of Texas and the United States. I hold in my hand -- and I don't know if you've seen it, I didn't have the pleasure -- the opportunity to be on your committee, but you do know I chair criminal justice and work very, very closely with law enforcement and rely upon them for their advice and counsel on most criminal justice matters. Are you familiar with my working relationship with law enforcement?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I am.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Very good and productive --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I was vice Chair in my first session of the Senate.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: I have in my hand a letter from (inaudible) police chief and his letter is signed by the Austin police chief, Fort Worth, El Paso, and then I'm certain you have seen the comments by the Houston police chief.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I have.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Where they're very, very opposed to your legislation. If you didn't have the opportunity to serve on the committee like myself, other members, how would you -- how would you reconcile your comments that it is such a good tool for law enforcement when the police chiefs of our major metropolitan cities are asking us to oppose your legislation? Would it not seem reasonable just based on, in all due respect, with your experience in law enforcement and public safety versus these outstanding police chiefs, would it not make sense for me to listen to their advice and counsel over your recommendation?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: And, Senator Whitmire, I don't have any doubt that you're going to take their counsel. I think there's an honest disagreement between my committee and people who want to advance this type of legislation and some, but not all of the police chiefs, and so I respect your opinion as I respect theirs. But I respectfully disagree with their reasoning about why this would be a problem.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Can you give this body a name of a police chief that would support your position?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Whitmire, what I can tell you that --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Any? Just one. It doesn't have to be a major city.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The policy that we're attempting to adopt here, I can tell you what other cities I'm aware of in the state that have similar policies if you'll hang on just a second.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: I was particularly interested in the police chief of any Texas city.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, I think if it's the policy of that city, it would be consistent with the police chief.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Well, maybe. Maybe not.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Yeah, so --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: I got in my hand the major city police chiefs of Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Fort Worth and Houston which would certainly make up a huge majority of our residents asking us to kill this legislation because it will actually interfere with carrying out their duties and providing public safety. Does this not --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The city of Arlington arrests and fingerprints and photographs, they essentially follow the policy that we're lining out here. Corpus Christi says if there is a violation of a law and they make an arrest, they follow this same policy and so there are cities that have different policies and that's actually the purpose of this legislation is to bring a uniform policy to the state that would allow police officers to understand what they can and can't do. And what I want to be clear about and what I think these -- respectfully where I would part company with some of these police chiefs, we are not requiring the officers to make an inquiry, which is when these folks came to testify, that was what their testimony was. They don't want to be required to do this. What we are saying in this bill is that you can't have a policy that prohibits the inquiry. And so I think that there's a big misunderstanding about this. And I think that politically it is -- it's a very highly charged issue, as I mentioned at the beginning, and I think maybe some of those police chiefs are responding to the political pressures that they might feel from the mayor or from city council.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Well, obviously you're speculating why they sent me this letter.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: We had several hours of testimony --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: The letter, Tommy, was dated June 10th, so this is not on the old version, this is directed at our debate today. And they were very familiar with the term. And I would also -- when you mention Corpus and Arlington, that they would fingerprint and do a check on those arrested, you are familiar that that is the current policy in the city of Houston and Harris County, they currently do arrest people, those who go to jail at the county jail, they are fingerprinted, sent and referred to ICE if, in fact, they're undocumented. What you're dealing with is not at the jail level, you're talking about a street cop.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Actually, Senator Whitmire, I would correct the statement that you just made. The city of Houston, their municipal jail, they do not do Secured Communities as you just stated they did. They do not --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Strike the old practice of doing it at the city now because the city jail is so inadequate. You are correct, they will arrest someone, hold them and then they are booked and kept at Harris County.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: So what this legislation does, if someone is lawfully detained, it allows an officer if someone is not able to present identification, to make an inquiry about that person's status if it can't be verified in any other way.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: And before I address that practice, an element of the Houston police chief in opposing this, not only does he believe, according to his comments, it would interfere with public safety, it would be an unfunded mandate. Would you not agree with the police chief from Houston that it's going to cost approximately $4 million to train his 5,000 officers to follow the legislative intent of your legislation?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do not agree with that.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Why would you be more familiar and correct about that than the person in charge of the department?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think the police chief is making his comments that -- they're politically motivated, that he's under pressure from the mayor and city council to make these statements.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Well, obviously I think, and I know you wouldn't intend to question his integrity or his intent --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm not. I disagree that it's going to cost $4 million.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Well, I think most people are going to go with the police chief. Have you ever run a police department?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: No, I have not.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Now, you're saying you're not requiring it, but you can't prohibit under your legislation the questioning of someone that an officer pulls over. Can I go to the next step. If he or she pulls someone over and through your legislation allows them to inquire as to their citizenship, if they find the person is not a citizen or cannot prove his or her citizenship, what does your legislation anticipate the next step would be?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: There's no requirement that they do anything.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: But what would a reasonable person think or what will the policy be next if, in fact, he or she cannot prove their citizenship and --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: -- they're on Washington Avenue in Houston, they're pulled over, they can't prove it, now what would you anticipate -- or what are, perhaps, the unintended consequences, Senator Williams, to that person and his or her family that would be in the car?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire, it is left to the discretion of the officer. There is no requirement that any other further actino be taken after the other.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Well, I think we need to concern ourselves with that because that is a real life circumstance. If an officer chooses, would your legislation allow the officer to apprehend, to arrest someone that cannot prove their citizenship?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Only if there was probable cause for another offense. It wouldn't allow an officer of a state or municipal government to make an arrest for someone being in the country unlawfully. They could refer to that person to the federal authorities, to ICE --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Not there on the street, I assume. So to refer that person to ICE, is it your legislative intent that he, the officer, or she, the officer arrest that individual, take them to jail? Or is it your legislative intent that they cannot be arrested solely because they cannot produce papers proving that they are a US citizen?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire, there is no basis under state law for someone to be arrested because they're in this country illegally. I would think you of all people would know about that. There is no basis for that.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: I understand, but you're proposing a very, very new concept in police work that police chiefs themselves oppose, so I'm trying to get your legislative intent. It's not your intent that someone who cannot prove his or her citizenship to be arrested and taken to jail for the purpose of determining citizenship?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: There's no requirement under this bill that that would done. It would be left to have the discretion of the officer. What I would say, Senator Whitmire, is that I can't imagine the circumstance, a lawful circumstance, where a police officer had -- there would have to be probable cause for some other offense before they could even make this inquiry. I can't imagine the -- a lawful circumstance where this inquiry would be made without some probable cause -- some event whether it's a traffic violation or whatever it might be, there would be no reason or basis for an officer to make such an inquiry until they had probable cause.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Okay. Real life example. Someone turns left illegally. Middle of the afternoon. Female operator of the vehicle, she turns left, officer sees it, pulls her over, today he most likely would write her a traffic citation. If during this traffic citation, if he chooses under your legislation, to ask citizenship paper, if she cannot produce it, what would your legislation anticipate?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire, if in the circumstance that you just gave, if someone had a valid Texas driver's license, their lawful presence in the United States would be presumed by that driver's license and there would be no need for the officer to even inquire about their citizenship status. It would be -- there'd be no reason, he would just write the ticket and let her go on. There would be no other reason --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: What about this real life example? What if, in fact, she cannot provide through a valid driver's license and, in fact, I'll even say she's undocumented, undocumented minding her own business, three children at home -- by the way, she owns her home, pays taxes, but she is not a citizen and she turns left, officer stops her, he cannot produce papers because she's undocumented? What would you anticipate the officer's next action?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think it would be if someone does not have a valid Texas driver's license and they can't produce any form of identification, I think the officer may, if they so choose, make an inquiry about how that person is here. And so it's up to that officer to decide. This legislation does not require the officer to take any action one way or the other. It would be left to the discretion --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: You know what, you know what, I believe -- I trust you, Tommy, in that is probably where you say, I've done my job in setting up a standard for Texas cities. Does it not concern you about the unintended consequences of your legislation?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: It does not.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Meaning you are giving officers the tools and the opportunity to use that left turn illegally in the middle of the afternoon as a reason to apprehend and arrest that woman for being in this country illegally? And the unintended consequences would be instead of --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: The unintended consequences is she's got to pick up three kids at the end of the school day --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: -- she will have a house of children without a grownup there. Does it not concern you that your legislation will implement a policy of checking citizenship which will lead to the unintended consequences of mothers and fathers being split from their children because they're going to be apprehended and taken to jail and not being there to pick up the children and take them home?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire, there is no basis for a police officer in the state of Texas to make an arrest of that woman because she's undocumented. There is no basis for that.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: But are you --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: There would have to be some other reason for him to make an arrest.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: She turned left illegally. That's the reason she has an encounter -- and Lord knows I wish she wouldn't have made that turn and she for sure wishes she had not.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, would that be something --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mistakes are made and that leads to the citizenship inquiry which leads her to go to jail and not be with her children that evening.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think that's a pretty big leap, Senator Whitmire.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Later when I actually speak against this bill, I am going to actually cite you the case and those circumstances. Now, before I sit down for this period of the discussion, let me ask you about border security. I understand the interaction of police departments in the interior, Houston where you and I reside or serve, you're actually proud to be from the Woodlands. How did this -- help me understand this legislation as it relates to border security in terms of the concern that you have over the cartel, criminal activity, perhaps human trafficking. How in the world is it going to create circumstances that would stop people from crossing at the border?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Whitmire, that would be a federal responsibility to stop those people from crossing illegally at the border. There are three components to this bill, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. I think each one of those plays an important part in this whole thing. One would be the Secured Communities program which is in effect all 254 counties of our state. Unfortunately there is a loophole that some cities are availing themselves of that if they're not booking in the county jail, they're bonding people out without which checking their identity and that's led to some unfortunate circumstances like the death of the police officer that we heard about just a couple of weeks ago in our home community. And also I think it's important that we understand that someone be in our country that they have a lawful presence, that same person who ran over the police officer had a valid Texas driver's license that he obtained before these rules went into effect. And so that person had something which most people would consider to be evidence that they're here legally, if they have a document issued by the state of Texas like a driver's license that is assumed to be and should be a secure form of identification. I think all of those things are important. And as I said in my remarks, and maybe you watched in committee and maybe you didn't, I'm less concerned about the people who are economic refugees, that's less who I'm interested in with this bill. I am concerned that people who want to come here and make a contribution, that they should be given an opportunity to do that. Unfortunately that is an issue that we cannot address at the state level. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, and their failure to come up with a reasonable immigration policy has put a lot of these people in a very bad situation, a lot of Americans.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: But you are familiar now, Senator Williams, before you take up this legislation, you cannot get a valid Texas driver's license without proof of citizenship. So if you're trying to fix that problem, it's already fixed --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Currently there are rules in place --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Sure.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: -- that would allow that. There is a lawsuit that's pending now that's attempting to get those rules thrown out. Part of what we're doing in this bill is we're giving the department the statutory authority to enact those rules that 47 other states and soon 49 other states will have enacted.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: So that's been fixed, you cannot get a valid Texas driver's license without proving citizenship. You mentioned the tragedies --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I wouldn't say its been fixed.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: You can't go down today and renew your driver's license. In fact, there's thousands and thousands of folks working in this state with a Texas valid driver's license that cannot renew it because they cannot prove they're a citizen. So that's a policy that's been addressed. The tragedy of Officer Travis Johnson, the widow who testified before your committee, I was at the funeral. It was a terrible tragedy. But the person that shot him, you are familiar, had already been deported twice. And so would you not agree with me that if someone has committed a crime and are criminals, your legislation is not going to deter them? This person had already crossed the border. And you are correct, we have a border security issue. But stopping a person of his nature in Houston through a policy of enforcement would not have prevented that criminal if he's committed to murdering a police officer --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Whitmire --

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: -- how would you legislation have stopped someone who's so committed to crime? And the gentleman -- the gentleman -- the person who ran over the officer the other night, you're saying he was released but that was before the current policy of fingerprinting and checking with ICE as to see that they're an undocumented resident. I'm just concerned, Senator Williams, that as you fight the criminal element that no law -- no law is going to deter a committed cartel member. My concern is -- and I will have a dialogue with you later this evening about the unintended consequences on many thousands of law-abiding, church going, family value people that find themselves here. And the unintended consequence of your legislation is going to separate families and incarcerate people that, quite frankly, came to this country when we had an open border and open arms for their talents and their values that they brought to our state.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Senator Whitmire. I look forward to that exchange.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Uresti, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. President, I rise to raise a point of order against further consideration against committee substitute to Senate Bill 9 in that it conflicts with the Texas constitution Article III, section 35A in that it violates a two subject rule; and Senator Williams, in his opening remarks, this bill had three subjects: sanctuary cities which deals with government code, Secured Communities which deals with criminal procedure -- with criminal procedure and driver's license which deals with transportation code.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Uresti, your point of order is not timely. We are on -- we're not on the bill, we're on a motion to suspend in order to take up the bill. So you can raise your point of order when we're on the bill.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Parliamentary inquiry.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: State your inquiry.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: What rules are we debating to suspend, Mr. President?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The printing rule, rule 7.12.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: May I raise a point of order then that this bill is not timely for debate at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: If you'd bring your point of order forward. Members, Senator Uresti withdraws his point of order. Senator Lucio, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield for a question or two?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: I'm sorry, a question?

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Mr. President, if I could be recognized to ask Senator Williams some questions.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: All right. If we could hold, Senator Lucio, just for a moment. I misunderstood what Senator Uresti was saying.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Absolutely.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Williams, I'd like to ask you some questions about the bill and -- if you have the bill in front of you because I kind of want to go down the bill in certain sections.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Sure. Let me get it in front of me. Okay.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Since I'm not on the committee and I've been studying this bill, I would like to ask you some questions and get some clarification and then, perhaps, ask you some questions once I receive some clarification from you. And just starting out on page one, section 370.031 the first paragraph states, "The government body of a municipality, county, special district or authority" this bill basically deals with those entities. And my first to you would be do you know of any municipalities currently that could be defined as sanctuary cities?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think that you know that -- that in and of itself could be a subject of debate, but what I would say is that any city that has a policy that would prohibit a law enforcement officer from asking about someone's status in a lawful detention, that would be an example of someone who might be considered to have a sanctuary city by some. Others might say, as I would say, that my opinion would be if you have a municipal jail and you're bonding people out of that jail without running them through the Secured Communities program, I personally would refer to that as a sanctuary cities type loophole where you have people -- everyone else who is booked in through county jails in our state would be checked but not necessarily from every municipal jail. And so those would be a couple of examples of what might be considered to be a sanctuary city.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: So those are examples of what might be deemed or defined under the definition of sanctuary cities. But my question is, Senator Williams, do you know or are you aware of any cities in Texas right now that currently fit that definition?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think there are some and the -- you know, we can go down a list of cities here that have different policies. But again, what my goal here is to do is to bring a uniform practice. I think the fact that we don't have a uniform statewide policy for how we deal with this issue is what's giving rise to the confusion over what you can or cannot do. And I think it's caused a lot of -- depending on the local politics and a lot of other things that have nothing to do with good law enforcement practices, different problems have evolved. I'd be glad to go down the list and tell you what those city policies are as they were described to me, and I'll let you make your own conclusion about whether you think they're a sanctuary city or not. If you're asking me to sit here and name them, I'm not going to do that, but I'll be glad to tell you what the various cities' policies are, and I think what you'll see is that there are a number of cities who fall under one or two or maybe all of the things that we talked about.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Well, let me -- Senator Williams, if you're asking us to vote for this bill, and many members will obviously, I have 60 -- I have 23 counties in my district. Number of cities. I think it's incumbent upon you to let us know if there are cities, any city, I mean, pick a city in my district that you think fits the definition. Let me ask you specifically, does San Antonio fit the definition under your bill as a sanctuary city?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: San Antonio, when we inquired with them, they said they have no specific policy; however, if they encounter someone that may have committed a crime related to illegal immigration like human trafficking, they might inquire. That's what they told us.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: They might inquire? I didn't hear you.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: They might inquire. That's the way it was described to us.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Does that fit the definition of a sanctuary city?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'll let you be the judge of that. What I'm saying to you --

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Honestly I don't know, Senator Williams, that your bill --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: They don't have a specific policy is the point. I would say that in the city of Houston they have general order 500-5 that specifically says they cannot inquire about someone's immigration status. So different cities are handling -- they have two major metropolitan areas who are treating this issue differently and I think for the sake of uniformity across the state and, again, unlike many other states who have made this a requirement, this is merely saying that you cannot prohibit someone from asking. And what we have heard over and over again in the committee was that unless there was probable cause for a stop, there would be no reason for an officer to inquire about someone's immigration status, first of all, because there's no state law that would be violated. Secondly, the federal violation of that would be a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty, unless that person had been previously deported.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: I understand that, but you still haven't answered my question. Does Harris -- does Houston fit the definition of a sanctuary city according to your bill?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator, what I told you is I'd be glad to go through a list of what the policies are. I think it is less important to try to label someone than it is to try to publish a uniform policy, which is what I'm doing.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Senator Williams, I think that's true because let's assume this bill passes. How do the senators of this floor go back to their district and tell the different mayors, council members that we all represent, by the way, you're now a sanctuary city. I think it's a fair question, I am not being argumentative. You haven't answered my question, if you give me --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'll be glad to --

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: If you give me an example -- I'm not done, Senator Williams. If you give me an example of a city that you think meets that definition under your bill, it'll help me understand better. You have been working on this issue for five months so you know -- you should know it better than anybody else.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'll be glad to go through the top ten cities of Texas and what their policies are related to this. The city of Houston has general order 500-5 which I mentioned to you before and that actually prohibits a police officer from inquiring about someone's immigration status. The county jail in Harris County used the Secured Communities program. San Antonio does not have a specific problem, although they said, however, if they encounter someone that might have committed a crime related to illegal immigration, they can inquire. Dallas we're waiting for a response from them. They didn't respond to our inquiry. Austin said they have no specific policy. Fort Worth did not respond to us. The city of Arlington said every arrest is fingerprinted and photographed. If a person indicates they're not a resident of the U.S. and they can't produce legal residency, they attempt to identify with federal program and the department also has language services available to assist in translation. Only after the arrestee is transported to the jail are they sent through Secured Communities. It is jail policy that ICE is notified. Some go to the county jail, some serve time and some bond out. Corpus Christi said if there's a violation of the law, they make an arrest, that no person shall be arrested solely on the basis of their immigration status. Corpus Christi's policy mirrors the department of public safety's policy as it was described to us. In Plano officers say they shall not detain persons solely for determining immigration status. After lawful detention, officers may continue to detain foreign nationals for alleged undocumented presence in the U.S. ICE is contacted and can respond and take them into custody within a reasonable time. Officers detaining a foreign national shall notify the appropriate office upon request when the detention exceeds two hours. In Laredo immigration status is not an issue that we focused on. That's what they said. If they're affiliated in criminal activity, they are entered into a local database that sometimes brings their legal status to their attention, their county jail uses Secured Communities program. If they can't identify, they may go the federal route. And so again every policy, every city of these top ten cities that we surveyed they have a slightly different policy or they didn't respond to us. So again I'm going to tell you I'm not boing to put that label. I'll leave that to others. The problem that we're trying to solve here is to come up with a uniform policy across the state and that's what the goal of this legislation does, and I think that's what it accomplishes.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Then what I understand from what you said, Senator Williams, is that there are currently -- at least the list of top ten cities that you polled are not sanctuary cities. So why is this bill necessary? If the top ten cities that you polled are not sanctuary cities and they're large cities, then why do we have this bill?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: As I said, Senator Uresti, they all have different policies, and what we're trying to do is establish a uniform policy for how this issue is dealt with across the state. Many of these cities have different policies with respect to making different kinds of inquiries. We're trying to establish a uniform policy that everyone will know they're operating under state law and they know what -- they will understand what they're -- what they can and cannot do that way.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Senator Williams, if you are not going to put the label on these cities, who makes that determination, who gets to label these cities then as sanctuary cities?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: If there is under the -- under this bill if someone feels -- if there's a citizen that believes this policy is being violated, they bring a complaint to the attorney general's office. The attorney general's office would decide whether or not the claim has merit and from -- if it has no merit, then there would be no further action taken. If there is merit to the claim, then appropriate action would be taken as described in the bill. I'll be glad to go through that with you.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: I would like to get to that. But I kind of got ahead of myself. If we could back to page one and then if you don't mind, if we get to page two we can go through the process.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Okay.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Paragraph two states that any -- that an officer rather employee or other body that is part of a municipality, county or special district or authority including a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney or county attorney and a District Attorney or criminal District Attorney, this also applies to any employee of the District Attorney's office, the police department, a county attorney, regardless whether or not they are sworn law enforcement officers; is that correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That's correct. Most of those people will be sworn law enforcement officers. Some will do criminal cases, and some will not.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But a clerk is an employee of the District Attorney. So a clerk who's not a law enforcement officer can ask somebody about their immigration status, according to this bill, correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Correct.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: That's what I thought. Moving further down, line 137 paragraph C it reads, "An entity described by subsection A may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants for immigration." Does that apply to whether the laws are criminal or civil or is it to one or the other? Is it specific to criminal laws or does it apply to both criminal and civil laws?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think on the face of it, it says either. It would be any law.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And then moving further, Senator Williams, down to line 146 where it states "inquiring into the immigration status of a person" -- let me back up. "An entity described by subsection A may not prohibit a person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity from doing any of the following, inquiring into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained for the investigation of a criminal offense or arrested." So I want to talk to you a little bit about the investigation component of that section. So if a police officer sees a couple of Hispanics outside a store, he or she can approach them, say, I am conducting an investigation, and once he announces that to those individuals, he can then inquire, he or she can then inquire into whether or not -- into their immigration status; is that correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I don't believe so because under the fact situation that you just described that person will not be lawfully detained.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: How is that?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, the way you described it that person would be free to walk away from the police officer.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: So if an officer walks up to you and says, I am conducting a criminal investigation, I want to see some ID, you can just walk away from a police officer?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That is not just the description that you just gave. You said there were a couple of people standing --

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Several people, he walks up and he says, I'm conducting an investigation, you are saying the people can just walk away?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: First of all, the officer would have to have some reason, some probable cause or reasonable suspicion that those people might have information.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Not according to your bill. It doesn't say that. It says lawfully detained for the investigation, not to arrest them but the investigation. See, this is one of the problems with this bill. If you're arresting them, that's a different story. If you have probable cause, you're under arrest, now I am going to ask you for your status. That's one thing. But this bill says, specifically says that they may not prohibit a person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity from doing any of the following: Inquiring into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained for the investigation of a criminal offense. Could be any criminal offense. Doesn't even have to be about what they're doing then and there.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That's correct.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: You know, I am investigating an offense that occurred the other day. Let me see your papers. That's what this bill does. Do you ow understand that, Senator Williams?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And you agree with that?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do. I think if they're conducting a lawful investigation and the suspect is detained, it is a reasonable thing for the police officer to establish the identity of that person who is either the subject or the witness to whatever's being investigated, the crime that's being investigated.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But your bill does not say that. Your bill does not say subject the of or a witness to -- a crime. It specifically says for the investigation of a criminal offense. It could be anything. That's what police officers do. They investigate criminal offenses.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Right.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: So it's not tied to -- that police officer's inquiry to those individuals or that individual about let me see your immigration papers. It's not tied to a specific act that either he or she may have either witnessed, been a part of, been subject to.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Uresti, I respectfully disagree because the language says the status of a person lawfully detained, and that would not be just anybody. There is -- there are -- there's a whole body of case law out there about who can be lawfully detained and it is I think well established in Texas law who can and can't be lawfully detained.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: How long have you been practicing criminal defense law, Senator Williams?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Pardon?

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: How long have been practicing criminal defense law?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: You know very well that I'm not an attorney.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Exactly, I've been doing it for 19 years. I think I know what the law is. I've been doing it for 19 years, almost two decades. That's not what this bill says which you're representing to this body is not correct.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, I disagree with you about that.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: May we turn to page two, please. At the top of the page -- and we talked about this earlier -- paragraph D1 states "an entity described by subsection A or a person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity may not consider race, color, language or national origin while enforcing the laws described by subsection D except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or the Texas constitution." And earlier we spoke about an amendment that I will bring, Senator Williams, that will strike the language that provides for an exception to racial profiling. And my understanding you will agree to that amendment; is that correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Right.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: My subsequent question is notwithstanding that we strike the exception, and I appreciate you doing that, Senator Williams, is what is the penalty though when an officer does racial profile an individual?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Uresti, racial profiling is defined in the code of criminal procedure to mean a law enforcement initiated action that's based on an individual's race, ethnicity or national or written rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as having been engaged in criminal activity. So I think it's important that we know what we're talking about first and that's the definition. So the code of criminal procedure further provides -- hang on just a second. That a peace officer may not engage in racial profiling in article 2.131, it's prohibited and -- hang on just a second. The code of criminal procedure further says that the department has to implement a process by which an individual may file a complaint with the agency if the individual believes that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling with respect to the individual and provide public education relating to agency's complaint process and further requires that appropriate corrective action be taken against the peace officer employed by the agency who after an investigation is shown to have engaged in racial profiling in violation of the agency's policy adopted under this article. There's also requirement for the collection of information relating to motor vehicle stops in which a citation is issued and arrest is made as a result of those stops including the information related to race or ethnicity and whether or not a search was conducted. (inaudible) and it is section 2.132 and it is subsections four and five. So the law requires that the police agency take the appropriate corrective action. So I think that what we've done we have required a penalty but we're leaving it up to the local officials to decide what that is. That's how I read that.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: So there is no penalty then. There's no criminal offense if an officer racial profiles somebody, correct? There's no criminal offense, correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Not that I'm aware of.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And there's no criminal sanction yet in this bill if the city meets the definition of sanctuary city, they will be sanctioned by losing their state grants, correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That's correct.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But if an officer racial profiles under this bill, there's no sanction?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think that it's left up to that local police entity to determine what the appropriate corrective action is.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But the difference is not between --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The action of an agency or a body politic versus the action of an individual person.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But I thought the whole point of this bill is to bring uniformity. So you're saying now we're going to leave it up to all the different departments throughout the state of Texas. That's not uniformity.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Uresti, that's already the law. This bill doesn't change that.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But it doesn't bring uniformity either, does it?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: This bill -- the subject of this bill is about whether we're inquiring about someone's status in the country or not, when that would be appropriate. The bill contains a certain provision that you cited that bans racial profiling. The language I read to you is already in statute and if you would like to change that, I think that that'd be appropriate to do that in a separate bill. But racial profiling is not really the subject of what we are dealing with here.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But it's the effect of your bill.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: No, I disagree.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And that's where you and I disagree. It may not be the subject of your bill, but it's the effect of your bill, Senator Williams.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I disagree.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: If we may move further down, please. Under paragraph E on page two that deals with the state grant funds that I spoke about. Wherein it reads "state grant funds for the entity shall be denied for the fiscal year following the year in which a final judicial determination in an action brought under this section is made if the entity has intentionally prohibited the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal laws." My question is, Senator Williams, is that a judicial determination made by a judge or by a jury?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, the -- I believe what the bill does is it provides for the attorney general to bring forward an enforcement action and it also provides for an expedited judicial process.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: To determine -- I understand that. But is the determination the ultimate judicial determination, because I don't read it in the bill. Please point it out to me if it's in there. Is that determination to be made by a jury -- in other words, an attorney general brings an action if he or she deems that the complaint has merit, files an action, files a mandamus, brings it to court somewhere but is it going to -- does the city of Houston get to request a jury?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, what I would say is that if you read down to line 2-45, section H an appeal of a suit brought under this subsection that you're referring to, G, is governed by the procedure for accelerated appeals in civil cases under the Texas rules of appellate procedure. So I think that what that's telling us is it would be appealed to the court of appeals where there would be a judicial determination.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: That would be if you're repealing it -- the way I read it, it has to go to the district first. So it has to go either to a district judge or -- I don't know if it's in your bill or not -- if the city says, well, wait a minute, I want a jury to decide whether or not we are a sanctuary city and then that decision is appealed by either party, whether it be the city or the state of Texas decides to appeal it, then it would go to an appellate court but before we get there, there has to be a judicial determination. And my question again is, is that judicial determination to be made by a jury or simply by a judge? And I don't know the answer and if it's in there, please --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: It says an appropriate equitable relief in a district court in a county or Travis County which was located to compel the entity that adopts the rule, order, ordinance or policy. To that's --

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: That's not clear in the bill.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think -- if you say it's not clear, I'll accept that, and I'll be glad to take a clarifying amendment.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And that's all I'm trying to do is clarify it because in my opinion -- and there's other attorneys that may see it differently and they're free to chime in and tell us whether or not they believe that the city would have that option and I think the city should have the option.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm not an attorney, but the way I read that is they could have a trial of attorney by a judge or a jury is the way I read it. But if you think it needs clarification, I'm glad to consider that.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Very well. So my next question that follows, what would the burden of proof be? The state of Texas has to come in and they're saying that Houston is a sanctuary city, what is their burden of proof that they have to meet? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt, is it preponderance of evidence, is it clear and convincing? Because that's not in the bill and I think it's important so that everybody knows what that burden would be in the state of Texas.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, I think whatever you see in the bill is whatever it would be with a writ of mandamus that was taken to district court that would be required. I don't know what that is, and if you feel like it needs clarification, I'll be glad to take that.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Well, there's different levels in court. It's beyond a reasonable doubt, in most civil courts it's preponderance of evidence, there are some family law matters that are clear and convincing when you're trying to terminate --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I would think it would be preponderance of evidence.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And obviously I think that's something that needs to be clarified. What if, the attorney, the state of Texas loses their case? In your bill it states that the state can recover reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining relief in this subsection including court costs, reasonable attorney fees, investigative costs, witness fees and deposition costs. Does the same apply to the city of Houston?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The bill is silent on that.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Can the city of Houston recover -- if the jury comes back and says, you don't win, state of Texas, you didn't prove your case, can the city recover their costs?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The bill is silent on that, I believe not. But the bill is silent.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And I'm almost done, Senator Williams. Towards the bottom of page 2 it states a local law enforcement agency is not required to conduct an immigration status for revocation under subsection A of a person who was transferred to the agency by another law enforcement agency if the transferring agency before transferring custody of a person conducted an immigration status verification under subsection A. Is there any paperwork involved in that, Senator Williams?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think it would be whatever normal paperwork would be done when you're transferring a prisoner. The purpose of this would be to -- if a city was going to transfer someone to a county jail, this gives them the opportunity to allow that check to be done at the county jail rather than having to do it twice. That's the purpose of the language, I believe that's what it accomplishes.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: But this -- this is new language, so I don't think that's taking place right now if they're not doing it.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: No, it's language in this bill, and that was the reason we put it in there was, Senator Uresti, a lot of facilities, they might make an arrest, they might have a temporary facility where they take them into the county jail to be booked. We didn't want to create a situation where we were requiring someone who was doing joint booking or they were going to book them into the county facility, they would also have to go back and do the Secured Communities check if it was going to be done at the county facility. So it just merely gives them the option to use another facility if there's one available.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Senator Williams, on the fiscal note, I don't know if you have that in front of you or not. But page two --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Let me get it. I don't have it in front of me. Okay.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Second paragraph -- under local government impact, second paragraph it reads, "However, TAC, Texas Association of Counties, also noted the majority of counties, the majority of counties especially smaller counties could experience a significant fiscal impact to implement the provisions of the bill." Do you know what that significant fiscal impact would be to the counties?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do not. They did not testify in committee about that, and I don't understand why it would be a significant fiscal impact because they're already doing this. Every county in the state is already performing these checks.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: It also goes on to read, "According to the Texas Municipal League costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill could be significant." Did the TML testify either --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: They did. They had someone who testified.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: I'm sorry?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: They did have someone who testified.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: So does it concern you that the majority of counties in Texas, especially the smaller ones like in my district, could experience a significant fiscal impact?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: It does not because I don't believe it will, nor do we have any testimony to that effect.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: How many counties do you represent, Senator Williams?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Six.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: You're not concerned that those six counties are going to suffer a significant impact?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm not. They are already performing -- every county in the state is already involved in Secured Communities program.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: So TAC and TML are incorrect?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: They didn't -- TAC did not testify to this effect in the committee.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And I'm simply reading what the Legislative Budget Board put together June 13th of 2011 and submitted to your committee. Senator Williams, thank you for answering my questions.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Okay. You're welcome.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Lucio, now we're going to go to you now. For what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield please for some questions?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Be glad to.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Chairman Williams, I am not going to be repetitive and go over some of the questions you have already been asked. I realize that no matter what piece of legislation either you and I or others carry in the process, we always want to make sure that we describe and we discuss legislative intent. I think that's extremely important, don't you?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I agree.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: And I appreciate the fact of you trying to set up a uniform system, even though I don't support the bill, I appreciate the approach you have, I was trying to do the same thing with the school start date in terms of uniformity. I'd like to ask you is there anything, anywhere in your bill or was it brought up at any time where a citizen -- a citizen can make an arrest or does it prohibit citizens from making arrests. You know, the -- an arrest by a citizen -- and I'd like to share with you briefly, the 4th Amendment did not apply to a seizure or an arrest by private citizens. However, many states have passed laws that regulate the specific circumstances in which a private citizen may arrest another. Typically a private person can make an arrest when No. 1, a misdemeanor amounting to a public nuisance is being committed; No. 2 a felony has been committed and the arresting citizen has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed in. Now, in Texas in the code of criminal procedure, offense within view: A, a peace officer or any other person may without a warrant arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace. Now, it's not your intent to try to motivate or instigate in any way or encourage vigilante groups, let's say?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, this bill did not create a new offense.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: In terms of the fact that happened -- I mean, let's say it -- somebody's disgruntled, they're fired from a country club and I've played a few rounds of golf here and there and I've seen a lot of workers here and there that are either Mexican origin and I personally don't know, I talk to them in Spanish, the response is in Spanish. I ask them where they're from originally, they tell me the interior of Mexico. What would keep someone in this piece of legislation being able to have raids, let's say, on restaurants, construction sites, hotels, motels, country clubs. Is that something that you foresee happening?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: It could -- this bill -- the language in this bill could not be the basis for such a thing for a couple of reasons. First of all, as I've already stated, it doesn't create a new offense. Secondly, there's no provision in state law that someone who is in the country illegally has violated state law. There is no provision to that effect and this doesn't create that. And so there is no -- there would be no basis. Now, the -- I don't know whether the federal government might be able to do that under their immigration laws and that -- I suspect that they probably could.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Well, I would hope that we -- I would hope that we don't get to a point where there's citizen racial profiling, somebody hear somebody talk Spanish and maybe two or three of the buddies around that person, for whatever reason, and detain that person. It could be that he's a tourist visiting here from another Spanish speaking country and then all kinds of --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Lucio, I would -- I wouldn't -- I would share your hope that that wouldn't happen and what I would say is there's nothing in that legislation that that would be authorized because of this bill --

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: The public has -- the public has to hear it from you. The author of the legislation.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm glad that you're asking. If there is a concern about that, I'm glad that you're asking because I think you know me well enough to know that I wouldn't condone anything like that and I want to make it clear that that's not the goal or the purpose of this legislation at all.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Well, I want to -- I'm glad that I am hearing it on the Senate floor and I am hoping that those that are listening understand that there may be some consequences there if, in fact, somebody goes and hurts somebody in the process in detaining someone, because he or she -- or doesn't think anyone is going to be involved in such action. But feel that there is someone in his presence that is not a Texas citizen or American citizen. That's one thing that I have great concern with. Profiling obviously takes place quite frequently in my point of view. I've kind of seen it, I've experienced it, my family's experienced it, my son experienced it at an airport, my dad experienced it, you know, coming back from a fishing trip. And it just bothers me to no end because he happened to be a great American, a veteran of foreign wars and etc. Very proud of him. And I just don't want to see -- I want to make sure that we discuss that and in that legislative intent it's clear about where you're going with this piece of legislation. Thank you.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: You're welcome. Thank you.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Gallegos, for what purpose?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Will the gentleman yield?

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Be glad to.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator Williams, and I'm not on your committee but I did watch most of the testimony on TV and then I sat the last two hours in your committee.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: We're glad to have you.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: I didn't ask any questions, I just listened and I heard the exchange between you and Senator Whitmire on Chief McClendon, that he had testified that it was going to cause the city of Houston, if your bill is enacted, about $4 billion and you disagreed with Senator Whitmire. And I'm looking at the same fiscal note that Senator Uresti was looking at and, you know, the police chief just went through a budget process and he was given so much money, told by the mayor that he had to adapt to that budget or he would have to lay off police officers. So that's exactly what he did, he scaled down the budget, did what he had to do and didn't have to lay off any police officers. So I figured that if somebody just went through a budget process like that and it's in the fiscal note. Do you have the same fiscal note that I'm looking at, Senator?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: In it he details, you know, by service what it's going to cost. I mean, he goes right down to how much -- you know, how many new officers, guards for additional -- and then beds, ID officers, fingerprint machines. I mean, he tells how much each cost. So you're -- and this is in the LBB and it's got source agency, LBB staff, (inaudible) and ESI and it's in the fiscal note. I would think it's probably true, wouldn't you think, if it was put in the fiscal note and he gave out these numbers, Senator?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think as I read it here, it says they reported the fiscal impact associated with implementing the provisions, it would be minor to significant. Is that what you're referring to on page two of two?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Yes, sir. The last paragraph where it says City of Houston is impacted with implementing the provisions of your bill and what moderate to significant cost that would include and then it gives a breakdown. Exactly the breakdown of what it's going to cost the city of Houston in this fiscal note.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that, and I think that the LBB is merely reporting what the police chief said. I think he's making a good faith estimate, but I would point out, for example, the 100 to 120 additional jail beds. I don't understand where that number would come from because there's no requirement that they jail anybody. He may be correct. But what I would say that if you're going to operate the municipal jail, this is the cost of having a uniform policy across the state to deal with this and if there's that many people who are engaged in criminal activity that are on the street of our city and in the region that you and I live in, then I would think that would be money well spent. Don't you agree? Because what this is saying they are not going to arrest anybody for being in the country illegally. That's not contemplated. There's no offenses created in this bill, and I think that's where if he thinks that, there was a misunderstanding there. But if there are criminals -- that people that they are being lawfully detained and investigated for some type of activity and those folks are going to be brought into jail, I would say that's a good thing.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator Williams, I agree with you, these criminal -- I mean, we need to bring them. Criminals whether illegal or legal, I mean, all criminals. I agree with you 100 percent.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I agree.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: I am just reading what his testimony was and what LBB did on an unfunded mandate, which we don't like to do, I know Senator Ogden doesn't like to do unless we have the Ogden amendment on there. And I don't want to go over what Senator Uresti already said, I am just saying what the chief police, after a tough budgetary process is telling us that it's going to cost the city of Houston if your bill is implemented. I just wanted to go over cost. I just wanted to clarify the debate between you and Senator Whitmire, that he has put it down to a T on how much each item is going to cost in the fiscal note. Now, in the committee, in the committee I had heard some of the testimony, Senator Williams. And one of the ladies that was testifying yesterday really concerned me. And we heard a lot of stories both pro and con, but this story disturbed me. And, you know, especially if your bill is implemented, she had testified that her son had been stopped, randomly stopped because of an inspection sticker that had expired and the -- he was a student at Sam Houston State University on a student visa and he was detained. Well, it came out that he was detained and because of -- he was detained, he had lost his job and consequently couldn't pay his tuition over at Sam Houston State University. And then when it came time to court, they had found the document that the inspection sticker was indeed valid and the lady showed the document there in front of committee, if I'm incorrect please correct me, and that basically that the officer had dropped the charges because they had now found the documentation that the sticker was valid and basically no court. But the fact of the matter is the detention of that young man, he lost his job, couldn't pay tuition, his life was just hanging, in a matter of seconds was just down the drain, down the drain for a suspected invalid inspection sticker. Now, under your bill, Senator Williams, can you guarantee me that that is not going to happen, that that is not going to happen to this young man or any other student with a student visa and then come out that it was wrong or he was just stopped or surely he wasn't stopped because of racial profiling because he was a Hispanic? I'm sure that's not the case under here but can you guarantee me that that is not going to happen if we implement your bill?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Of course I cannot guarantee that, Senator, because it happened. We had testimony to that effect and this bill isn't even in effect. So it is a tragedy, I agree with you, there's nothing in this bill that would create any kind of offense or basis for that sort of thing to happen. Clearly that person was wrong, and it was terrible.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, let me go on and I am going straight off the testimony that I heard in your committee. And there was another -- it was testimony from an officer, I forget where he was from, he was a sheriff's deputy and he had testified for your bill, that this would give him the opportunity to do his duty and basically and he was even describing what he was going to do under your bill and amidst surprise from some of the committee members, and I think Senator Rodriguez asked him, is this what you do on a daily basis? Well, I'll be able to do it even better after Senate Bill 9 is implemented. And so Senator Rodriguez told him -- now, correct me if I'm wrong, correct me if I'm wrong, Senator Rodriguez told him and I quote, I am surprised you haven't been sued. Is that what he said, Senator?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Rodriguez said that -- I think -- may I finish?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Sure, I'm sorry.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: What I would say is that I am not sure you characterized that deputy's remarks completely, although I think he misunderstood what this law would do. This law did not create an offense that a state police officer could use to go and arrest someone. And clearly that deputy was under the mistake and impression that might happen and that's not what this bill does. So, now -- there was a long exchange there, I'm not sure you characterized everything he said exactly the same way I heard it, but I think Senator Hinojosa -- I mean, Senator Rodriguez did express that same surprise, as I was surprised, and I think he misunderstood the intent of this bill.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, then let me ask you this, Senator Williams, and I know Senator Hinojosa had an exchange with the officer and it really disturbed me what he was describing and you wouldn't -- let me ask you. Just the testimony, the way he was talking, the way he was describing what he was going to do after your bill was implemented. You wouldn't characterize that as a rogue police officer, would you?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I don't think that I could say that on the basis of the testimony that was given. I think it would be presumptuous of me to say that.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, let me ask you this, as some of the other committee members have told me, they were really disturbed by his testimony and the description that was given. And even one of the committee members told me, I'm not going to mention who he or she was, told me he would be a prime example, in fact, he told me he would be Exhibit A, Exhibit A on why we should not vote for your bill because of rogue police officers. And let's say alleged rogue police officers and the mentality that this police officer testified in front of your committee, Senator. You know, would you -- is that -- as far as describing his testimony and what some of the committee members thought that this police officer was describing, was these rogue police officers that are out there, that this officer and many others like him out there would not use your legislation to do what they want and be really policymakers and police officers if your bill is implemented. Would you answer that, Senator?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: What's your question?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Is that -- this police officer that testified in your committee --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: It was a sheriff's deputy. A Harris County sheriff's deputy.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Okay. Sheriff. Is that the kind of person you want out there on the street implementing your legislation?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator, first of all, I would not make a characterization of that sheriff deputy based on the brief testimony that we had in the committee as being a rogue police officer or not.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: I said alleged.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I didn't hear you say, but I'll take your word for it. What I would say is clearly he had some misunderstanding about what the bill did and did not do. I think he also had a misunderstanding about what his current ability to enforce federal immigration laws are and I think it's all the more reason that we need to have a consistent and uniform policy across this state so that everyone knows what the policy of the state of Texas is and that we are not going to have state or local police out attempting to enforce federal immigration laws. Their job is to investigate criminal activity. If during the course of that -- whatever criminal or traffic or whatever it might be that they're investigating, if it come to their attention that that person is in the country illegally, then this bill leaves it to the discretion of that officer to decide what to do. And I would hope that they would refer that to the appropriate authorities. Now, when I say that, what I mean is we also had testimony that was much more disturbing to me from Ms. Aguilar about how her husband was nearly beaten to death and her daughters as well and it wasn't until she went to the police and was able to get that protective order and get the status that she needed under federal immigration law to allow her to be protected as a witness and a victim of crime. And so I think there are a lot of people who are suffering under ignorance of what protections might be available to them. And this legislation will go a long way to establishing a uniform policy so that those people can get the protection that they deserve, and there would be no requirement for a police officer to refer those people -- refer a victim like her to be deported. In fact, what happened, and it happens in El Paso all the time, they actually get a protective order and get the person legal status in this country. And that sort of thing is not happening now because of the inconsistent policies that we have across the state and that's what I'm attempting to address. And I hope you would be concerned about women like Ms. Aguilar. And she was one of many, many people who came and testified about that and I think they even had a misunderstanding about what the goal of this bill was. Clearly she thought this bill was designed to have her deported and it's clearly not the intention of this bill.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: You know, Senator, and I appreciate your explanation and I heard those stories and those disturbed me too. But I was speaking specifically on the officer that testified. And it's your judgment that he just misunderstood your bill; is that correct? That he just didn't understand your bill?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Clearly he didn't understand what this bill did.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: I got you. And you make a very good point, Senator, because that's the disturbing part. There's a lot of police officers out there that might misunderstand your bill and even though it's permissive, it's not like the language like from Prop 187, Senate Bill 1070, Prop 187 in California or Senate bill 1070 in Arizona, that they might be misunderstanding your legislation, what you just explained, they might interpret it another way. You know, that concerns me on his testimony and it should concern that committee and it should concern every Senator on this floor. If a police officer like that is misunderstanding your legislation, then that concerns me, Senator. It really does. And that was a thing that I heard on your committee that I wanted to point out and it just -- you know, not all police officers are like that. But I am saying some of them are and obviously, you know, the testimony of this officer was disturbing yesterday and I just wanted to point that out.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator, I share your concern that we do not want to create a requirement where people have to be fearful of the police or sheriffs in our state. They should be glad to embrace those people, and so I understand what your concern. Is and what I would say is that the object of this bill is to bring a uniform standard of how we deal with these issues all across the state. And I would say that even on this floor today I've heard misstatements, inadvertent misstatements, about what policy is and confusion about the policy between the Harris County sheriff department and what the Houston police department policies might be and they are different and they're treated differently and the way people are handled once they're booked into jail is different. And so what we're doing here is we're bringing a uniform policy and I think it would lead and hope it would lead to greater understanding. So the things you have expressed concern about will be minimized rather than multiplied.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator, one final question. On the effective date, if this bill passes, can you tell me if it passes, will it be effective, what, 91 days after the session ends or --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Let me look, I have to look and see. I think that it is if we get -- let's see. This bill takes effect immediately if it receives two-thirds of the members elected to each House as provided in section nine article three of the Texas constitution. If it doesn't, then it would be the 91st day after the last day of the legislative session. So it would be 91 days from the end of this special session.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: But if it passes --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Or if it gets two-thirds --

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: What is immediately, as soon as it's signed by the governor?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Correct.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: And that could be at the end of the session. I lost track of time. July 1st or something like that. The date he signs it, the date he signs it.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think it's unlikely that it's going to get two-thirds.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Okay. So you're looking at what?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Probably 91 days from the end of the session.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Can you tell me, do you think that is a sufficient time if your bill passes, that that would give law enforcement, each law enforcement agency that -- the amount of time to train these officers to train immigrant -- immigration policies? You think that that's enough time to train these officers to be immigrant -- basically under your bill the provisions provided under this bill that that will be enough time to train these officers?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do. I don't think they'll be little, if any, additional training required.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: No training required. Just any police officer out there that, you know, he or she would -- would already know immigration policy and immigration laws and those procedures?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa -- I mean, Senator, they don't -- they are not going to be enforcing immigration laws. I think that's a misconception that, Senator Gallegos, that's a misconception that even some of the police chiefs who came to testify, this is not going to require them to enforce immigration laws. This would merely allow them to ask the question about someone's status. They are -- all of these agencies that I'm aware of are referring people to the appropriate federal authorities when they encounter people who have committed a crime that are in this country illegally and that's when these law enforcement officers will encounter this and that is -- they're doing that now to some extent. The problem is we don't are a uniform policy in the state.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, and I understand what you just told me, but I think these police chiefs would want to train these officers in case they get sued. They stop somebody for the wrong reason and that person is a legal citizen and the police/citizen encounter, you know, turns sour and then all of a sudden there's a potential lawsuit either on the county or city, I would think that that police chief or that sheriff would want to train his deputies or police officers in immigrant patrolling to avoid any potential litigation and obviously potential civil rights lawsuits under this bill, Senator. That's why I believe that that -- I mean, I'm looking at what the police chief of Houston put down. I would think that's the reason he would do that, you don't think so?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do not.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator, thank you for answering my questions.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Gallegos. Senator Davis, for what purpose?

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: To ask the author some questions.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I would be glad to.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Senator Williams, I want to start by following up on some questions asked, and I want to start by following up on the most recent questions that Senator Gallegos was asking and a good example really was that sheriff deputy that came from Harris County yesterday who testified that he believes that this bill is going to authorize him to enforce immigration laws.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I don't believe that was his testimony. I think what his testimony was, Senator Davis, was that he believed he currently had the authority to do that.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: You're absolutely right. He said he believes he currently has that authority and it raises a red flag for a number of us that law enforcement officers might believe they're currently equipped with the ability to do that under the law. Under subsection C on page one of your bill, starts on line 37 an entity --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Sorry. Okay.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: An entity described by subsection A may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigration. If I have a police officer now that works for me or I have a sheriff deputy that works for me and that police officer or that deputy decides to take it upon themselves to begin to enforce federal immigration law and to seek the status of someone who is here in this country and determine whether they are here legally or not and then decide to arrest that person because I believe I am now empowered with the ability to enforce federal immigration law, according to this language in subsection C, the entities that are described above may not prohibit their employee from the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration. So if I had an officer like that, the rogue officer that was described by so many yesterday and the fear that was described by so many yesterday, I really don't have the authority, do I now, after this bill passes, I won't have the authority to tell my employees that they cannot do that?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I disagree with that.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: It says that, Senator Williams.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Davis, we had extensive testimony in the committee including an amendment that Senator Hinojosa is going to offer in a moment that describes, for instance, the Department of Public Safety policy related to this, which is very clear, that the scenario you're describing would not be sanctioned, for instance, by the Department of Public Safety. I think that that would be good policy for us to have for the entire state, and he's going to offer that amendment and we're going to leave it to the will of the Senate to decide that. I think that -- first of all, I would not on the basis of my brief encounter with that sheriff deputy characterize him as a rogue police officer. I think clearly he had a misunderstanding about what his authority is. There is no offense that is created by this bill under state law for someone being in the country illegally. What this merely says is you cannot prevent someone from asking and then making the appropriate referral.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: With all due respect, Senator Williams, that is not what this says. This says an entity described by subsection A. So it doesn't matter if it's a municipality, a county, a special district or authority, none of those entities may by rule, order, ordinance or policy prohibit the enforcement of federal immigration law. It specifically says that. It doesn't say no entity described above may prohibit their employees from seeking immigrant status when conducting a lawful arrest. It doesn't say that. It says they may not stop them from enforcing federal immigration law. So if I'm an employee -- forget being a police officer, let's just say I'm an employee of any one of those departments that's described above, any one of those agencies that's described above, and I take it upon myself to begin to root out and find out who's in the country illegally or not and take it upon myself to enforce federal immigration law, this specifically authorizes me to do it. And if my employer tries to stop me, I will be able to point to this law and say, the state of Texas prohibits you from doing that and I will be successful.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I disagree.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: What do you think that means, subsection C?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I've already stated what I think. I think it means we've had extensive testimony in committee, Senator Davis, and I think you and I disagree about the effect of this language and I don't know that that difference is reconcilable.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: We didn't even talk about that language yesterday actually. Yesterday what we talked about is something I want to ask you about right now. The concerns that I voiced yesterday had to do with subsection D1 which is on page one, starts on line 46. Senator Uresti asked you some questions about this as well, but before I get to that I want to make sure I understand everyone who's empowered now to do this. And basically all of the entities that are described in subsection A which are the governing body of a municipality, county, or special district or authority would be able to do this. I want to ask you what is a special district? What specifically would qualify as a special district or authority?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Davis, someone would have to be lawfully detained and so I believe by that language it's going to be limited to peace officers, for the most part, who are the only ones who can lawfully detain someone. There are many special districts and, you know, we voted legislation out of our committee during the session that allowed for -- in Senator Deuell's district to have the local sheriff office to be able to patrol a municipal water district who had police authority but didn't want to exercise that. Now, there's a whole separate issue there and I don't know if you've heard me speak about it before, but I think we have a proliferation of these small police agencies and that's a whole separate problem from what we're trying to deal with in this bill. But unfortunately there are special districts all around this state. And for instance the Harris County hospital district might be one, they have their own police department, the Transit Authority has their own police department. In Harris County I think we have over 100 separate police agencies and many of them are special districts. As I suspect that probably in the Fort Worth area, some of those special districts have people who are peace officers. So even, believe it or not, the pharmacy board has police officers. So we've got a proliferation of peace officers all over the state and many special districts have these policing powers. And I felt like it's appropriate to apply that not just to municipal governments but to all police agencies.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: When you started the answer to that question, you began with the words "I believe" and you said "I believe that it will primarily empower peace officers who are working with those entities," and a concern that I have is many times in an to questions that we've asked about this bill, you've begun your answer with that phrase "I believe" and I think it's great cause to concern to many of us because many interpretations, I think, can be made of the language here in the bill. And if what we really are shooting for is some consistency across the board with all of these entities, and as you said there are many, I would suggest -- I would argue that there are going to be multiple interpretations of what they are authorized and allowed and prohibited from doing under the language of this bill. It's also the case, isn't it, as Senator Uresti pointed out, it's not just the peace officers of those entities that are authorized to do this, it's any employee?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I would point out that inquiring into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained for the investigation of a criminal offense or arrested.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Correct. It doesn't say the person has to be the lawful detainer though, correct? If someone's been lawfully detained, any employee of any of these agencies could seek their immigration status?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I don't think that a clerk could lawfully detain you.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: It doesn't say the person has to be the person who lawfully detains you. It just says if you've have been lawfully detained, any of these people working for any of these entities now has the authority to eke your immigration status.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: You know that is an interpretation of this. I don't agree that it is as broad as you would believe it to be.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Well, that's what it says, Senator Williams. Yesterday we had testimony on what it meant to be lawfully detained. And Shannon Edmonds with the county attorneys association came and with him to the testimony he brought a book that was about this thick.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Right.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And those of us who are lawyers and took criminal law and constitutional law and certainly those on the floor who practice criminal law, and we have several here, understand that there is a great body of debate about what constitutes lawful detainment. When you started your comments, I wrote down exactly what you said about the purpose of the bill. You said that this bill is directed at criminal illegal aliens and that your goal in the passage of this bill would be to empower and authorize the opportunity for police agencies to be able to fare it out, those who are illegally here and who are engaging in criminal activity, that we're not concentrating on those persons who are here for purpose of doing honest work in our country. We're not directing this at the woman who might complain of spousal abuse, even though she's not here legally in the country. We're directing this at, your words, criminal illegal aliens. My concern about the way that language is written in subsection D1, No. 1, it doesn't require that the person whose immigration status can be sought be the person who has been detained because that person is suspected of a criminal activity. It just says that you may inquire into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained for the investigation of a criminal offense or arrested. It could be the case, and we certainly had testimony on this yesterday, and our law enforcement offers who were asked this question uniformly replied that it could be the case under this language that any person who had been detained for purposes of assisting in the information of a criminal offense could be asked their immigration status under this, including witnesses, correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Right.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And so if the purpose of the bill is to fare out, your words, criminal illegal aliens, why would we want to empower the investigation of immigrant status for any person who might be part of a criminal offense? Because isn't it the case, Senator Williams, that that could include a person who calls the police and says, I want to tell you about this drug cartel that I know is going on in my neighborhood because I am watching the activity, but now I am going to be afraid to call you if I don't have immigrant status, if I don't have legal status in this country? And isn't it the case that there were many people yesterday that testified, including the police officers and the sheriffs departments that were here, many of them testified that the consequence of this broad language will be that those persons will now fear to call the police because your language isn't limited to allowing to seek out the immigration status of the person who's been accused of the crime, it allows to seek the immigration status so long as it's part of an investigation of a criminal offense and it could include anyone including the complainant?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Davis, what I heard was there are a lot of people who currently are those fears even though this law is not in effect. I think there is a lot of misinformation among the people who testified yesterday, many of them thought that what this bill did was create an offense so that they could be deported under state law. That's not true. I think what the issue here is -- what is the situation where a peace officer may use his or her discretion to inquire about someone's citizenship status. What is that situational standard? And I think that you and I have an honest disagreement about that. I believe that a peace officer ought to be able to inquire about someone's citizenship status when they detain that person and before they have enough information or probable cause to arrest that person or see they were in violation of some state law, and I think that in the course of establishing the identity of witnesses, it's unreasonable to tell a police officer, you can't ask about someone's status because just as you -- that same fear that you described, that may be the fear that causes that witness to flee the country so that the criminal cannot be prosecuted. And so by being able to use their discretion and make that inquiry, they can actually offer protection to those witnesses that you are so worried about and I think that -- I share that concern and I think it's unfortunate that there is a lot of misinformation out there in the community of people who are unauthorized immigrants in our country. And so I wish that I could solve that problem. As a state Senator, you and I don't have the opportunity to solve that bigger immigration problem. But I think what this does, the issue here, is the situation when a peace officer can use his or her discretion. And frankly I trust our peace officers to ask the right questions and the right circumstances and to use their discretion. And that's what this bill does, is it merely prohibits a local government unit from banning that -- the use of that discretion. Now, I don't support racial profiling, we have had a lot of talk about that, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but it's wrong. And it's wrong now and it will still be wrong under this bill. So I would argue that this is a step forward to have a uniform standard and to have a better understanding among all the parties about exactly what is the role and to hopefully do away with that fear that you talk about.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Well, Senator Williams, with all due respect, this law -- and you said so yourself, this law is going to prohibit any of these entities now from having policies in place for their law enforcement officers or any of their employees from inquiring into immigration status of a person lawfully detained for the information of a criminal offense. It is not at all, I think, a leap or an unreasonable concern that's being expressed by the community that they now know where it might be the case today that a city like Houston says, you know, we're going to take a hands off policy in asking about immigrant status for people who are calling to report crimes or who are victims of crimes because we don't want people to be afraid to call us. The city of Houston will no longer be able to have a hands off policy in that regard. And in fact under your bill, any citizen -- under subsection F, any citizen that resides in the jurisdiction of Harris County, for example, can actually now file a complaint with the attorney general's office if they find that as a matter of course or if they -- not even find, if they can allege that as a matter of course the police department is doing just that, if the police department is making a habit, a practice, an unspoken policy of not seeking the immigrant status of people who are witnesses to crimes because they are afraid to report a crime, they now are subject to any citizen in that jurisdiction being able to make a claim that they're not abiding by the law. And the attorney general's office will have to investigate it, correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That is correct.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: I think you can understand then, Senator Williams, why so many people believe that they actually are going to be put in a greater position of vulnerability if they are an undocumented citizen in this country, in this state -- excuse me -- and they want to call and report a crime because what this bill is now going to do is open an opportunity for their immigration status to be checked and for the absence of the ability for police departments or county sheriff departments or other policing jurisdictions to have a policy that says, let's not do that. Let's just go after people that we believe are committing crimes in our state or our city or our county. Let's just go after them and we'll seek their immigration status because by God if they're committing crimes, we want them out of the country. I think everyone agrees with that, everyone agrees with that. But the tool that's being authorized here is so much broader than that and I believe -- I have a very strong belief that not only will we have people no longer calling to report drug cartel activity and other activity that they play an invaluable role today in assisting our police enforcement actions against such activity, we also are going to see women like Ms. Aguilar who aren't going to call. When Ms. Aguilar testified yesterday, she told us that her husband got 30 years in prison, 30 years because of his abuse of her and her daughters. And I'm not sure if you understand how horrific the abuse must had to be to get a 30 year penalty. And what she said to us yesterday, whether she understands the intent of your bill or how you hope it will be carried out, what she said yesterday exemplifies what is going to happen in the communication system throughout the immigrant community in the state of Texas. They're going to fear for calling the police and Ms. Aguilar said, I would not have called the police if this were in law. And despite the fact that you believe she may be misunderstanding it, do you not have the concern that that misunderstanding will be widespread and that victims of crime or witnesses to crime will now not call and that crime, the crime that we care about, the reason that we would want to pass this bill, the crime that we care about can now go unaddressed. Do you not have that concern?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do not, Senator Davis. I do not share your concern. And what I would say is that Ms. Aguilar, who had a very compelling story, was afraid to call the police before this law passed. That's what her testimony was and that she finally relented and did that and that I would argue that it is the fact that we have such an unclear policy about this in our state that gives rise to that fear in the immigrant community. When a point of fact, she was received a protective status and was able to stay in the country legally and she would continue to be able to do that under this legislation. So I don't doubt that her fear is there or it is real. But it is unfounded. And frankly I think that it is being fueled by people, who for political purposes are beating the drum and sounding the siren on this where it's not necessary. The door swings both ways on this. There are crimes that are being committed by people who are in the country right now illegally because of the prohibitions that are in place. For example, in the city of Houston and in other cities across our state, and the law enforcement officer who was killed is a prime example, and so we also had testimony about many other people who had been the victims of crime, of people who had been deported and people who were arrested and bonded out of jail because their status was never checked, whether they were here lawfully or whether they'd been deported or even if they had committed any of these other crimes. And so I'm just telling you this -- it swings both ways, Ms. Aguilar was not only victim. I think she would benefit from this legislation, you and I disagree about that. I am sorry that she has an unfounded fear, but her fear was there before this bill passed. And it's my hope that we can step aside from the political rhetoric, which is a lot of what we heard and a lot of what was genned up by the interest groups that brought people to testify and that we can really examine this issue for what it really is. And there is nothing in here that would require any police officer to make an inquiry. It would only give him or her the discretion. Why would we not want to give them that discretion?

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Senator Williams, I go back to the conversation that we began with. Under subsection C of your bill an entity may not adopt a rule, order, or ordinance which prohibits the enforcement of federal immigration law. It does much more than what you are saying. It does much more than what you are saying. It does much more than just say, why shouldn't we give police officers that discretion. In fact, they have that discretion today. And in fact many of them testified yesterday that when they have reason to believe that this person is a harm to the community that they represent, they do exercise their authority to look into that person's immigration status. And in fact, Senator Williams, as you know, many of us on this floor, including myself, supported your original SB9 which gets really to the heart of what you're talking about. That person that's been arrested and before they get to bond out, whether they're in a city jail or they're in a county jail, there's going to be a check run on their immigration status. I supported that, and I think that takes us to the right place. That takes us to the place of making sure that if someone has committed a crime or can at the very least be subject to arrest for that crime, that that person be run through. What your language is going to allow here, however, is any person, any person who's involved in the investigation of a criminal offense to be questioned with regard to their immigration status --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Lawfully detained.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: No, it doesn't say that only the lawfully detained person can be questioned. It doesn't say that. And the consequence of it, I fear, is going to be much, much more problematic than the problem that you're seeking to cure here. The other very real concern that I have is because under subsection F any citizen, this is on page two, starts on line 20, any citizen residing in the jurisdiction of an entity described by subsection A may file a complaint with the attorney general if the citizen offers evidence to support an allegation that the entity has adopted a rule or order or policy in violation of this statute. What will -- what will that evidence be? What will it need to be? What will qualify as evidence to support an allegation?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That is left to the attorney general to decide if there is adequate evidence or not.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Well, actually it is left to the attorney general ultimately to determine whether the complaint is valid, but any person who has evidence to support can file that complaint. Do you have any concern that there may be a large number of complaints, valid or invalid, that are now going to be filed with the attorney general's office?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I don't think so and there could be and I trust that the attorney general can deal with that in an expeditious manner.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Do you think it will cause resources of the department to investigate claims like that?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Undoubtedly it will.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Does it concern you that there's no fiscal note on this bill given now any citizen residing in such a jurisdiction can file such complaints?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I think that the attorney general must feel as if they can handle it within the existing resources or there would be a fiscal note.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And I think you said this provides officers discretion to ask about immigration status. But if I were an officer and I knew that any citizen had the opportunity to file a complaint against me because maybe I am making it a practice to take a hands off approach to ask immigrant status of witnesses who called me about crime or women who are the victims of domestic abuse, what if I as an officer make it a practice to do that and I now know that I'm going to be subject to any citizen in my jurisdiction filing a complaint basically that I adopted this policy or practice, aren't I going to feel actually somewhat of an obligation to start seeking information on the immigrant status?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: If you were a law enforcement officer, no one could file that complaint against you. The complaint can only be filed against the entity for which -- where you're employed, and that -- the requirement is that there has to be a policy or consistent action of prohibiting these activities so --

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Sure.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: -- it wouldn't happen if you were an officer --

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: I could easily -- as a citizen offer evidence to support, it might not ultimately be deemed valid, but I could offer evidence to support that because an officer is routinely doing this, that it's actually a policy of the entity to allow it. Because if it weren't, he or he wouldn't be able to do it. I could easily make up a claim that says that. Do you have concerns at all about what the cost to these local police entities are going to be now that any citizen can file these complaints with the attorney general's office?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do not. I do not believe it's going to be a huge issue. I think it's a big leap you're making there.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Do you have any concerns about the cost? Yesterday we had a great deal of testimony from local policing jurisdictions about the unfunded mandate that's created by this bill, and I think you heard me ask several of them what it meant to lawfully detain someone and different officers gave different answers to that question. And again back to Shannon Edmonds and his book of what it means to lawfully detain and the body of law that's developed over years and years in this country, because it's such a hotly debated topic, do you not have concern about the training costs that these entities will have to undergo in order to train any employee of what it means to lawfully detain someone?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do not. And first of all, I would point out that Mr. Edmonds' book was about warrantless searches. One portion of that book was related to the topic that we're talking about now, and this is an issue that law enforcement agencies have to deal with all the time now is training a law enforcement officer about the circumstances under which they can lawfully detain someone. Those fact -- the -- it is a well developed body of law is the testimony that we had. The fact circumstances are what gives rise to the fact that there are so many cases, and so I think that they're already doing that training and I think that there is an unreasonable and unfounded fear that there is going to be a lot of additional training and that all seemed to revolve around the immigration issue, which there is no training required for that. And the issue that you raise that would be an issue if it was a traffic stop, it would be an issue if it was a murder investigation, if it was a rape case, whatever it was when they can lawfully detain those people in the course of an investigation is there -- those are issues that every law enforcement agency deals with every day and it is part of a peace officer's training and what they would go through to become a licensed peace officer would be to understand those issues.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And, Senator Williams, back to the example that Senator Gallegos mentioned a moment ago. A woman came and testified, I am sorry I don't remember her name, yesterday about her son having been arrested. She had to bond him out of jail, he couldn't demonstrate his legal status, they had to go through all of that and he lost his job, he lost his place in school because he now couldn't afford his tuition. And at the end of the day it was determined that he wasn't lawfully detained. That in fact it was a trumped up charge on which he was arrested and put in jail. The worst thing that happened in that scenario was that young man lost his job and lost a semester of school. But let's talk about the worst thing that could happen if you were not lawfully detained but you have been arrested and you are an undocumented citizen. Let's say you're that mother of those three children that Senator Whitmire was talking about and let's say that we have a police officer. And like you, I agree that most police officers are very trustworthy, good well intentioned people but not all, not all.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that, I couldn't tell that from the point you said previously. I'm glad you said that.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And let's say that a person is arrested on a trumped up charge and while she's in jail her immigration status is checked and that mother of those three kids gets deported and later on it's determined -- and, in fact, we asked about this yesterday of our law enforcement officers, later on it was determined that had she was not lawfully detained. In fact, it was a trumped up charge. But guess what, she's now been deported and her children are left here. And this mechanism allowed that to happen, because as an officer, so long as I can make up a claim that I've lawfully detained someone, then that can be the consequence and even if it's determined later on that that was an unlawful detention, that person is out of luck because under federal immigration law, she has no recourse to appeal her deportation. Correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That is correct. And what I would point out is that that happened before this law was in effect, it's unfortunate that it happened and it is a result of federal law, not anything that we're doing in state law or that this bill does.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Well, I believe, Senator Williams, this bill is authorizing and, in fact, almost inviting a greater opportunity for that kind of activity. I have no more questions. Thank you.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Davis. Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: To ask the author a question.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Be glad to yield.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Senator Williams, I think most of the questions that I was going to ask have been asked, so I just want to focus on one area that's a concern to me, and that's that we're now giving discretion to police officers out in the streets to be able to inquire as to legal status of any person that they detain -- lawfully detain. And we heard testimony from the police chief from Houston that it will cost about approximately $4 million to train the officers on immigration law. And the reason I bring this issue up is because it's important. MALDEF testified that there have been several lawsuits filed against cities that overreach their authority in trying to question or stop Hispanics who are legal citizens. And while most officers we have are law-abiding, we have some that are rogue officers and I'm very much concerned that we put a target on the back of Hispanics, the majority of people who are legal in this state. One of my concerns, I'm going to ask you the concern today is, that the Civil Rights Act, as you well know, there's a cause of action provided. They will award monetary damages against a city or against a police department for discriminatory practices. Are you not concerned about that?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa, it's existing law and those practices that are discriminatory, I think you know me well enough to know that I find those reprehensible and they -- cities or local government units would be subject to those penalties whether or not this law passes, that --

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, but this provides more of an incentive, it provides more authority to law enforcement people to be able to ask about legal status. And I -- if I look at a congressional research paper that says legal training aspects because the bill itself doesn't require any training to police officers even though we're now changing the law on immigration at the state level. That is that it's a high risk for civil rights violation to occur if state and local police do not obtain the required knowledge, training and experience in dealing with -- laws. And to me it's a major concern.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what you're reading there. What is that?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: It is a research report that was provided and done for the benefit of congress in their committees.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Is it referencing this specific law?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Yes, sir, it's talking about immigration law.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: This is not immigration law. How did congress issue a research report on a bill that we just introduced in the special session?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: It's from a topic -- it's on the topic and issue itself.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Okay. I got it.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: In terms of regular law enforcement people, in training, proper training on educational background about immigration laws. When you ask -- (inaudible) a discretion when you ask a person who's lawfully detained as to immigration status, that in and of itself requires a certain amount of training that's not in the bill.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa, I think there's two separate issues and I would agree that the enforcement of federal immigration laws is a complex topic that would require additional training and, in fact, as you well know, Adrian Garcia, the democratic Hispanic sheriff of Harris County has a 287G program in Harris County, I think it's probable the largest one in the country and they -- those officers undergo special training in that 287G program. And they work side by side along with federal immigration officers that are actually co-located in the facility there. I'm sure you're familiar with that. And so the enforcement of immigration laws is a complex area but that's not what this bill doesn't require that or allow it. All it does is it merely says you can't have a policy that prohibits a police officer from making an inquiry about someone's immigration status or a policy that prohibits the enforcement of those laws. There is no basis, as you well know, under state law for local or officer or a DPS officer to try to enforce any federal immigration laws. Those -- their role would merely be to refer that case to the appropriate federal authorities and I believe that law enforcement officers already receive that training because they routinely do that in almost every county in the state.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, actually --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: We're not asking to enforce immigration laws, I would agree, but that's not what this bill does.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, let me tell you. I agree in terms for example having the Secured Communities Act or when you have a law -- sheriff department participate in the 14th program but what we're doing with this legislation is we're giving discretion to police officers out on the streets to make these type of decisions without the training. And to me that will add to more litigation in terms of some of the cities being sued for civil rights violation, one which will end up and costing a lot of (inaudible) moneys in that type of situation. Let me go back, but I just want to ask about five questions to clarify what the bill does and doesn't do. It is not your intention to mandate that governmental entities engage in the enforcement of federal immigration laws?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: It is not, and this bill does not do that.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: And under Senate Bill 9 can a law enforcement officer arrest a person who is not a legal resident?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: For what?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: For being in this country illegally?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: No. A state or local official would not be able to make an arrest of someone for being in the country illegally under this bill. It does not create a new cause of actino.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: And certainly it's not your intent that a law officer can walk up to any Hispanic, African American or Asian and ask about being a legal resident?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I am sorry, I'm going to ask you to repeat that.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: It's not your intent to give the authority to a police officer to be able to walk up to any Hispanic, for example, and inquire as to the legal residency.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa, it is not my intent and I don't believe this bill does that.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Okay. Thank you.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Hinojosa. Senator Rodriguez, for what purpose?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: To ask the author some questions.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I do.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Senator Williams, I know you're getting tired, but I wanted to follow up on a few more questions on what Senator Hinojosa and Senator Davis raised and I think it's (inaudible) but the question from Senator Hinojosa about whether or not your bill is intended to allow local enforcement of federal immigration laws and I think I just heard you say that that is not your intent.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: There is no basis or basis or cause of action under this bill for a local law enforcement agency to arrest someone simply because they are in this country illegally. What it does is it -- if someone is under -- the subject of lawfully detained and they're doing an investigation, it allows the discretion of an officer to make an inquiry, but there is no -- routinely now these matters on immigration are referred to federal authorities, as you well know, and I think that would continue to be the case because there's nothing in this bill that would change that.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: But here's part of the confusion that I see here particularly in light of your comment. What you just said refers to subsection D. The section that contains D1 of inquiry of immigration status of a person, but I am talking more about subsection C which Senator Davis first called your attention to and that section, as she stated and I'll read it again, the entity meaning a county, city or other district may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration. So in short, what this broad language says is that a local law enforcement officer, a police officer, a sheriff deputy may not be prohibited by the city or the county from enforcing federal immigration law. So, in other words, an officer out there on the streets, under this language I would submit to you, an officer out there on the street who determines that a person, after making inquiry allowed under subsection D1, that the person is undocumented, under subsection C that officer is authorized to actually take custody of that individual like an ICE agent would and take them either to a county jail or over to the federal detention centers because they feel under this clear language that they can enforce federal immigration laws. Do you not see that in your language there?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Rodriguez what I see in this language is that if they make an inquiry into the immigration status of a person who's lawfully detained then just like they do now they can take that, they can refer that person over, that means they take them to ICE just like they do now.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: I agree with you that under subsection D1 that exactly what they can do now and you're correctly stating that, but I'm referring to subsection C above.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: But subsection C says that a local governmental entity cannot enact a policy prohibiting someone, an employee, from doing what's described in D1 and so --

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: No, it doesn't say from doing what's described in D1. It says that the county or city may not adopt a policy which prohibits the enforcement of the laws of the federal government including immigration.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: That's correct.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I mean, that is plainly saying to some officer that my city, or sheriff deputy, my county cannot prohibit me from enforcing the federal immigrations law. And I want to suggest to you sincerely that I think there is a serious constitutional issue here with the supremacy clause of federal preemption laws, the only program which you alluded to earlier that allows local enforcement of federal immigration laws is the 287G program, which you described correctly earlier, where a local agency can apply with a federal government under that program to be certified. And to be certified, as you know, they have to undergo training, extensive training by the federal immigration authorities of local law enforcement officers so they can have a better comprehension of enforcing the federal immigration laws. That's the only program that the federal government has that allows, that I'm aware of, local law enforcement of federal immigration laws. But here we are under subsection D under SB9 saying that a local law enforcement officer cannot be prohibited if he decides he wants to enforce federal immigration law, he cannot be prohibited from doing so. So I want to suggest to you that that language is going to create problems in that if an officer goes forth and seeks to enforce federal immigration law, that they're going to be lawsuits filed for violating No. 1, the federal U.S. supremacy clause, constitution supremacy clause and secondly will certainly be seeking damages from the city or county for whom that officer works for having enforced federal immigration law. So I bring that to your attention because, while Senator Davis was trying to clarify that this is going much further than what you intend, I am bringing to your attention some legal considerations here that will flow from that broad language. Now, let me move on to other statements that you made that I wanted to ask you a question about, even before you made the statements. And you responded to Senator Whitmire at the outset of this discourse that you disagreed with some of these police chiefs and sheriffs about their concerns that this legislation will create problems for them in terms of the trust of this bill with community and the reporting of crime. And you said, I heard you clearly, that it is your view that these are politically driven or motivated, I forget what words you used, that the statements on their parts, that they're getting pressure from the city, I believe you said. Now, the sheriff of El Paso as you know is a constitutionally elected officer, just like you and I, so is the sheriff of Dallas county. Those sheriffs have made very strong public statements about their concerns about the impact of SB9 on their ability to maintain a safe community. And I want to -- I think it is important for the record, in light of their comments, to just go over a sample of some of these comments because they made these comments publicly. And I have a transcript of their comments and we should kind of not be confused about what they're saying. Here is Austin police chief Art

(inaudible) at a panel of immigration at the Capitol on February early this year saying quote, "Now you're going to ask us to take on this role, counterproductive, counter intuitive. Although it may be politically

(inaudible) to sell that to a community because they are frustrated because they can't find jobs, at the end of the day we will see crime start to go up. And those that victimize an illegal immigrant today will victimize you tomorrow. If you don't get that cooperation for endangering illegal residents." This is sheriff -- police chief Art (inaudible) from Austin. This is El Paso county sheriff Richard Wiles at the same panel, "Because people are going to be afraid, they're not going to want to work with us and criminals are going to be allowed to move freely because they know that if a person calls in, not only are we going to be investigating that crime, but we're going to be investigating a person's (inaudible)." San Antonio police chief William McManus, who we talked about here earlier here today as well, in the same panel, "In communities in Texas like San Antonio that are primarily Latino, if that community knew at any given moment a police officer could stop them and challenge their immigration status, we would lose whatever trust we had gained in the community. We would be kicked back to the dark ages in terms of our relationship with the public. We need the public to help us solve crimes. We need the public to do community police. We need the community to engage in problem oriented policing. Without them, that goes away." And then finally the Arlington police department. This is deputy chief Jennifer White basically saying the bottom line is that when the police have a need to question someone's citizenship status, then the police have the ability to act legally and properly in conjunction with the federal officials to determine that status. We do not need a bill that inhibits our ability to protect local law enforcement while at the same time eroding the partnerships in the community that we have found invaluable in solving crime that affects us all. So -- and there's some comments here also from the Dallas police chief, but I won't belabor the point. These are the professionals who are at the head of their department and have got years of experience, they're the experts. It is quite frankly confounding to me that I hear statements not only from you but the governor and from others who say that SB9 is intended to give law enforcement the tools they need to make the community safer. Well, the heads of the department, elected ones as well as appointed ones, are saying the opposite. This is going to diminish our ability to provide safety for our community and I would submit it is indeed going to make us more insecure rather than more secure. So I want to have you consider later at the appropriate time an amendment that Senator Watson offered at committee and I believe you heard him say it was the bill that I had introduced that basically would make an exception under SB9 for law enforcement inquiring about immigration status in the case of victims and witnesses to crime, so there is absolutely no message sent to those who want to report crime or who are witnesses or observers of a crime that they can cooperate with a police without fear of being deported. And I hope that I can persuade you to give due consideration to that amendment because I think in light of a lot of the issues that have been brought up here, it's very important to send a clear message to people that if you witness crime or if you yourself are a victim of crime, you should feel comfortable in cooperating with the police. So I will do that. One last comment. And yesterday there was no testimony presented on this point, but it's an issue that I personally am familiar with formally as county attorney of El Paso county since we handle all of the mental health work in the county and I'm aware of similar jurisdictions where similar things have happened and there's been accounts in the media from the Los Angeles Times and others about those who are intellectually disabled Texans who have a mental illness and because of their condition they're picked up by the police at times and they're not able to persuade the police that they are indeed citizens and find themselves deported. We just got a very recent incident where the Los Angeles police department who, by the way, under the guise of a 287G program, a police department of Los Angeles put this individual in their jail and then deported the disabled US citizen because they had the authority of 287 to enforce immigration law. That's another concern that I know a lot of members of the intellectually disabled community have with regard to this type of legislation, that they are going to exposed to increased dangers of their loved ones finding themselves deported. So I hope that you will consider some of these points in working to make this a bill that is more compassionate and more responsive to some of the many, many concerns that people raised yesterday at the hearing. And there were many from the business community over economic impact, from the victims of family violence, from immigrants themselves, some students from UT Austin who were undocumented and were brave to come in and sit next to a law enforcement officer and say that they had concerns about this type of legislation to ordinary citizens that gave testimony overwhelmingly, while there were those that supported it, I think you will admit that overwhelmingly there was opposition to the legislation. So I thank you for your patience and I hope that you will consider the amendment I will offer at the appropriate due time.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez. Senator Van de Putte for what purpose?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Will the Senator yield for some questions?

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Senator Williams. I just have a few questions on parts of the bill my colleagues may not have focused on, and my question has to deal with law enforcement training. To your knowledge right now what sort of TCLOSE training is offered to officers with respect to any of the skill set and knowledge base that they would need to properly enforce provisions of your bill?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, I don't have any personal knowledge of what the TCLOSE training is, but what I would say is we are not creating a new offense under this bill and I think that their training that they have would be more than adequate. Again, there's no offense that's created here.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Well, there's no new offense but according to your bill, the governing -- because we are -- I understand we're prohibiting the prohibition with this bill; is that correct? Okay. So we're prohibiting a prohibition and the prohibition is either an officer, employee or anybody that's part of a municipality, county, or district that they cannot have a policy that prohibits their employees from enforcing the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8UCC section 101. What sort of training since now we can't prohibit them -- so it's a prohibition against a prohibition, so law enforcement officers can use their discretion to enforce U.S. Code. What sort of training do our officers now have in enforcement of that particular code since this is the first time in statute that we're saying we're prohibiting the prohibition. So in prohibiting the prohibition, they're allowing our law enforcement officers to be proficient in this portion of the federal code. What sort of training does TCLOSE have according to that?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, as I've already said, I am not familiar with TCLOSE training. What I would tell you that every major metropolitan area in the state of Texas makes referrals to ICE presently. That's all that's going to continue to happen under this bill. So whatever training they're receiving for that now will be adequate under this bill because there is nothing else that a local or state police officer would do with respect to someone's immigration status other than what they do now which is refer those people to the federal authorities.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: I believe that testimony was given, Senator Williams, in committee, at least from what I saw during this special called session, and also in the regular session with SB9 where our police chiefs and our law enforcement agencies, particularly those personnel that are the employees at our detention facilities, said that at the point of booking and the point of detention, when someone is charged with a crime or they're brought before a magistrate, that they have people that are trained there to enter into the database because many of them already participate, as you've said, all of our counties, do in that program but they receive training. Since your bill now, of course, says that that is the case and I was supportive of SB9 in the regular session, but it also says detention. And detention, I think my other colleagues have mentioned their concerns that it could be someone who's stopped for an expired license sticker or an ordinance in San Antonio, very heavy ordinance, big fine, if you're watering your lawn on the wrong day because of the aquifer, a lot of our municipal ordinances are via transportation that has a police force that it is TCLOSE certified, it seems like bringing open food containers on the VIA bus, those are rules and ordinances that they have there. So this would be the first time that our police officers and those in special districts would, upon lawful detention, not arrest and not when they take them, before could use their discretion, as you have previously said, to inquire about immigration status. What sort of training do those folks have now? Because it's not just -- under your bill, it's not just at the point of arrest or at the detention facility, it is the officer on the street and I think that's the purpose of the bill. So what training do the officer on the street have with respect to the detention part with federal law?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The same training -- for the third time, it's the same training that they're receiving now. And I don't see where there's any additional training that would be needed because they -- in many communities they can ask these questions now and some they cannot, and what this merely does is make a uniform standard across the state. I can't imagine a circumstance where someone was asked to take their food off the bus and that would result in an inquiry about their immigration status. I think that's a real leap, Senator Van de Putte, with all due respect.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Well, we have very strong ordinances.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: All -- all that would be required is for someone to be lawfully detained and if the officer was not able to establish their identity any other way, that would be when they ask about their immigration status. If you produced a driver's license, then there's no need for them to ask for further inquiry because they'll know your status if you have a valid Texas driver's license.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Well, thank you for your answer, Senator Williams. But I am very confused because the testimony that was given by multiple sheriffs and by police chiefs was that it's a huge unfunded mandate. In fact, we've received letters from our local municipalities and TML testified against this, that it would cost them money to train that they don't train now. And so if our police chiefs testified to the fact and we've received letters to the fact that this bill, this language would require them to do training that they don't do now, and yet you've answered that they don't need any more training because we're not really doing anything, how do the people who actually train our officers and certify and go through the police chief training -- I mean, officer training academies to either be a sheriff or -- how can they be wrong? I am confused. They have all testified that this is going to cost them extra money.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, I've got to correct something that you said because the Texas Municipal League testified on this bill, they did not testify against the bill.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: I am sorry, Senator Williams. I may have been -- I may have been referring to --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: As we said and even in the remarks that Senator Rodriguez read from some of the sheriffs that he was quoting, the remarks they said that it's going to -- oh, we're going to go out and start investigating people's immigration status, that's not what this does. There's probably two things going on here, two, maybe more. One would be the misunderstanding about what they would and would not have to do, and as the law is passed into law, and they become more familiar with it, I think they may have a different idea about it. And I think that for at least some of those officials, whether they're elected or appointed, there's political pressures on those positions just like there are on you and me and every other member of this body and I think in part what we saw was a response to that.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Well, I am sorry, Senator, I may have been referring -- the language that was originally in the committee substitute to House Bill 12 by Solomons which was kind of what your filed version was originally, had Shanna Igo, the Texas Municipal League and her testimony states that the different training -- and maybe it wasn't in the Senate committee but it was during the House committee that the Municipal League was opposed to it at that time because of the training it would impose.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Mr. Longley testified on the bill on behalf of the Texas --

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: I am sorry. What we did have though was until the clarification was made about school districts testifying on the bill was Texas Association of School Administrators and Texas Association of School Boards, which I can tell you I'm thankful that that was taken out. While I've got some concerns about the training that -- let me ask you some others about the licenses because this is a little bit different than what we have now and I don't believe any of my colleagues have said it. If you would go to page four of the bill. On line 12 when we're asking the department to include information that the department requires, it says that the department requires to determine the applicant's identity, residency, competency and eligibility as required by the department of state law. In line -- page four line 12, residency is meant as legal status rather than home address; is that correct?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I am sorry, you're on page four, what line?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Line 12.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Under the DPS section, under the sections that we have about --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator, I believe that's correct and this is the same language that was in Senate Bill 9.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Yes, I wanted to make sure that that was correct.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I don't -- I don't believe -- there were two minor changes in the driver's license language from the version that we had in Senate Bill 9 and they were -- one was that they -- we took out the language that had the commercial driver's license conforming to federal law, they can do that by rule. And there was concern that by sticking that federal language in there that we might be creating one subject violation, and so that language came out and then there was also language -- I believe there was language in Senate Bill 9 that talked about the orientation of the driver's license. Right now the people who have a temporary visitor status have a vertical as opposed to horizontal license. I actually, along with DPS, support making that license just like every other license. There's no need for it to be a vertical license, but the language was removed here because again there was a concern that it might be a one subject violation under what we're trying to do with this bill, which is slightly different. I will tell you that I've discussed this with DPS, and I think it's their intent to reorient those licenses so that they're horizontal. They don't really seem to care. I think it was they were trying to follow some direction they received from someone else about that and, you know, I am perfectly fine with it being horizontal as opposed to a vertical license. So those are the only two things that I'm aware of with respect to the language that's changed.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: I'm thankful for that, but I wanted to make sure that was the same thing, it is residency, it's legal status. And I do remember the discussion on horizontal versus vertical, but I think right now our vertical licenses are reserved for drivers under the age of 18 or maybe be under 21, it's whatever they're looking at to readily identify youth for driving purposes and also for the purchase -- that helps retailers for the purchase of lottery tickets, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. So I think that that is the main concern is that we use the vertical license as an age discrimination and not as a -- for one on actually about residency. My last question deals with the ability of a citizen, and I am thankful that it's no longer a private cause of action, if a citizen believes that an entity or a law enforcement officer is not enforcing federal immigration law, now that this had been moved to a complaint to the attorney general and the attorney general, it's explicit here. What happens to a person if they believe that they have even though -- and I'm looking at language on page two -- it starts D1, D1. So this is to make sure that a person is not discriminated against and on this, of course, it says race, color or language or national origin. If a person believes that they have been discriminated against, does that person have the ability to file a complaint with the attorney general's office? I mean, we do on one side with someone who believes that the entity is not enforcing but what happens to someone -- what is their complaint mechanism or how would one the flip side of that, if they believed that they were unduly targeted, even though that the language is -- your language is really clear on D-1, what sort of complaint or redress does a person have if they feel that the entity has not gone by the provisions of D-1?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Are you looking on page three line 327 that -- of the bill, D-1, unless the information has been previously provided to the department?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: No, sir. I am looking at page two on -- page two at the top of the page line three.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm with you now.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: That D-1. I'm sorry, page two line three. Because under the provisions of the bill, later on in the underlined -- on page two line 20 subsection F it says that any citizen residing in the jurisdiction can actually file the complaint and that's I think a great improvement over the original, which might have had a private cause of action against that city or the law enforcement officer. But my question was any citizen residing in the jurisdiction can file a complaint with the AG if they believe that their district, municipality, county is not or is basically -- not doing what they're supposed to do. What happens to a person if they believe that they've been a victim of --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Racial profiling, is that what you're -- discrimination --

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: I guess racial profiling to me, that's the term of art. For most what's going to happen under this bill, it's not an issue of race. I mean, in all essence, the truth of the matter is that of the 31 Senators, there's two senators that are African American and have different race, but what we think what happened is those that might speak a different language or that have a different ethnicity. Same race, different ethnicity. So maybe the term racial profiling here, even though that's the term of art, but what happens to a citizen if they believe that they have been a victim of and not gone under the prohibitions under D-1, do they get to explain or what --

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: They do. And what you've described is what I believe under the code of criminal procedures defined of racial profiling and it's any law enforcement initiated action based on someone's race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity. So the way you described it, it sounds like racial profiling to me, and I read earlier from the code of criminal procedure in article 2.132 law enforcement policy on racial profiling, each department is required to implement a process by which an individual may file a complaint with an agency if they believe that a peace officer employed by the agency is engaged in racial profiling with respect to the individual, and then it goes on to say that there has to be a public education and they have to require appropriate corrective actino, so there already -- and the reason you don't see it in this bill is it already exists elsewhere.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Well, isn't this the first time we're going to add something to the district to attorney general? I mean, it seems like right now what the citizen's recourse is to complain to the very agency they think that has engaged in quote/unquote racial profiling. Would there be any positive outcome since now we're going to move this whole area to the attorney general's office to allow the attorney general just to take in complaints? If we're going to take in complaints from citizens on this side of the coin, would it not maybe be prudent to try to have at least the attorney general, since the attorney general is going to have that umbrella with respect to this bill to at least be able to receive complaints? I mean, it would seem like the citizens have the ability to file an official complaint under the agency of the jurisdiction that they allege, but was there any discussion in committee about given the attorney general so that we could easily discern some sort of reports and see how -- what effect this bill is actually going to have?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator, there was not. And I think the distinction is the actions of an individual officer versus the actions of the department. And so that's what the distinction is. It's something that we didn't explore as a part of this legislation. So --

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. Senator, for your answers this afternoon. And I don't have any other further questions.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you. Members, I am -- is there anyone else in the cue now --

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I'm prepared to withdraw my motion. There's a number of amendments I need to review and maybe we want to take a dinner break for about one hour and give me an opportunity to review these amendments. So unless there's objections, I withdraw my motion and have a staff break and let's give me an opportunity to review the amendments that were filed.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Members, Senator Williams withdraws his motion to suspend the printing rule 7.12. Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire for a motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I would move that the Senate stand in recess until 8:00 clock.

SENATOR KEVIN ELTIFE: Members, Senator Whitmire moves that the Senate stand in recess until 8:00 p.m. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Thank you, members.

(Recess.)

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Senate will come to order. Members, the Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 9. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee substitute Senate Bill 9 relate to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities and to the administration of certain documentation of citizenship status.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair lays out -- the Chair lays out floor amendment No. 1 by Senator Rodriguez. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Rodriguez.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez on floor amendment No. 1. And, members, it's a 16 lines. It's being been passed out as we speak. Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Senator Williams, this amendment is a simple amendment. It seeks to remove the term special districts from section one of the committee substitute for Senate Bill 9. You know, right now your bill removes hospital districts and school districts and junior college districts but in Texas there are over 2,200 special district governments which include agricultural development districts, airport civic center authorities, housing districts, housing authorities, irrigation districts, library districts, MHMR authorities, municipal power, public health districts, regional tollway authorities, regional transportation authorities, river authorities, ports and community venue district, water districts, and many, many more. The language right now is so broad in this bill that allowing so many entities to be able to ask immigration status I believe is dangerous and will likely lead to lawsuits. It also will place a burden on these entities, especially those that have their own law enforcement departments such as Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authorities. I can think of some housing authorities that have some peace officer or security guards. It places a burden on them to be responsible for training their officers in federal immigration laws, the way we're going to be expect local law enforcement to be training. And the question has to be at what cost given another unfunded mandate that would be associated with this bill for these small governmental units. And I assume that's the reason why the language exempted school districts and hospital districts in this bill so why not exempt all of these special districts. So Mr. President and members, I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Before I go to Senator Williams, Senator Uresti for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Mr. President, earlier this evening I had risen to raise a point of order against further consideration of committee substitute to Senate Bill 9 and that it violated the two subject rule and it was determined by the Chair it was not timely and I would like to reurge that point of order.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Please, if you'd come forward with your point of order. Members, Senator Uresti withdraws the point of order. Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 1. Excuse me, Senator Van de Putte, did you wish to speak? Did you have a question?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Yes, sir, Mr. President. I raise a point of order against further consideration of the committee substitute to Senate Bill due to an error in the required printing of bills in 12B.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: If you'd bring your point of order forward. Members, Senator Van de Putte withdraws her points of order. Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 1.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment would remove special districts from those that the bill applies to and have it apply only to counties and municipalities, as I stated earlier in my opening remarks. Special districts have police forces, I believe those forces should be subject to the same rules as a county or municipality. Respectfully I move to table amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez on floor amendment No. 1 to close.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Williams, while I understand your concern about the proliferation of police departments for different small governmental entities like special district, the concern here of course is the increased burden on training and the additional liabilities that are going to be visited to these special districts as a result of potential lawsuits filed. So I would move for adoption of the amendment and, members, urge you to vote against the motion to table.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question before us is the motion by Senator Williams to table floor amendment No. 1, opposed by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table is sustained. The chair lays out floor amendment No. 2 by Senator Uresti. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 2 by Uresti.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to explain floor amendment two.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This language exempts nonlaw enforcement entities and their employees from the provisions of the bill. As -- if you have read the bill, you know in our discussions with Senator Williams that a clerk can inquire into the immigration status of someone they suspect is illegal, and I don't think that's appropriate and I don't think that was the intent of this bill because what we've been hearing about this evening is we need to give tools to law enforcement. When -- so when many of us think about how this bill would work, we envision a uniformed police officer inquiring about someone's immigration status. But again this bill won't do that. It extends to water districts, river authority, sewage districts, airport districts, natural resource districts, to mortgage credit districts. I don't think that's the intent of this bill, but unfortunately that's one of the consequences. And of course it extends to cities and counties. We've already heard countless times from numerous police departments and personnel that they lack requisite training for federal immigration law and so if they're saying that, how can we realistically expect someone that works for LCRA to know what they are doing when it comes to enforcing immigration? And so with that members, I move adoption of floor amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Uresti. Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment two.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, the provision of this bill makes it quite clear that an individual must be lawfully detained in order for an inquiry about their citizenship status to be made. This amendment I believe could also have the unintended consequence of allowing a city to pass an ordinance that would accomplish the same thing that we're trying to prohibit here and get around what we're trying to do by passing an ordinance. Respectfully I would move to table the amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to close.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President. And Senator Williams, I would disagree with you. There's no unintended consequence of this bill. It's not a trick amendment. It simply says that if you're not law enforcement, you should not be able to inquire into the immigration status of an individual. I don't know why we would disagree with that. If the true intent of the bill to allow law enforcement personnel to inquire into their status, then why are we allowing nonlaw enforcement personnel to inquire into their status? That's what this bill does. So if that's your true intent, members, then you're going to vote no on the motion to table floor amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question before us is the motion to table by Senator Williams, opposed by the author Senator Uresti. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nay, the motion to table is sustained. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 3 by Senator Uresti. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 3 by Uresti.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to explain floor amendment No. 3.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This amendment is very similar to my last one although it exempts policy that prohibit inquiry about immigration status of a child who is 17 years or younger and is the victim of or witness to a criminal offense. A child who's just victimized or witnessed a traumatic bout of domestic abuse or maybe even a murder should not have to endure the additional trauma or, Senator Fraser, face deportation. If their mother or father is one of the persons involved in the criminal offense and is being taken away to jail, imagine the additional barriers of verifying their immigration status. This amendment is in accordance with the recommendations put forth by the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force report No. 63 cochaired by Jeb Bush. The report suggests that state and local law enforcement should be prohibited from inquiring into or reporting the status of any immigrant they come into contact with because that person is a victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, or seeking emergency medical services. Even so, and in the spirit of compromise I am not even asking to go that far. I left out any reference to emergency medical services as well as limited it only to minors and again, members, children, especially those who are not of driving age or who may not drive or not likely to have or carry any identification. And so, members, I'll ask you to vote with me to adopt floor amendment No. 3.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 3.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Members, me we had testimony that what is typically done with minors is they are asked where they were born, that's a typical question that a law enforcement officer might ask in the circumstances, and I think it's important that we maintain the uniform standard that we're trying to create in this bill, if you have a minor who has been is a victim of human trafficking, who's been brought here to this country and law enforcement is prohibited from asking this, it's going to have the unintended consequence of impeding law enforcement's effort to get a T visa or some other -- a T visa is a trafficking visa which would allow that person to have a lawful presence in the United States and it could also have the unintended consequence of keeping law enforcement from being able to reunite this minor with their family or their country or family members in a country of origin. So I appreciate what Senator Uresti's trying to do here, but I'm afraid that it has consequences beyond what he's outlined for us and respectfully I move to table amendment No. 3.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to close.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me read this amendment. This section does not apply to a rule, order, ordinance or policy adopted or consistent action taken by an entity described by subsection A that prohibit as person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity from inquiring into the immigration status of a victim or witness to a criminal offense if at that time of offense the victim or witness is 17 years of age or younger. Members, there is no unintended consequence. Let me make sure we have the right one. Mr. President, if I may clarify.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Yeah, please --

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: And I beg your pardon --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: We have two very similar, and I don't know which one that you're talking about. Could you tell me which amendment that you folks got.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: You're right, and I beg your pardon. They're very similar and one amendment deals with just minors under the age of 17 or younger, the other amendment would deal with those that are victims and so the amendment that I should be speaking on is the amendment that deals with minors. And so --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: All right. If I can, members, the amendment that Senator Uresti is talking about has ten lines, the other one that will come up in just a few moments has -- has 11 one lines. So this is 10 lines and dealing with a minor or dealing with a status of a person who's 17 years of age or younger. Is this the amendment, Senator Williams, that you have in front of you?

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Yes.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: If I may again, Mr. President. Members, I beg your pardon. What this amendment does it exempts policy that prohibits inquiry into the immigration of a child who is 17 years or younger. This is necessary to protect our children who should not be subjected to accusations and the trauma associated with having to verify legal presence or face deportation. Children, especially those who are not of driving age or do not drive, are not likely to have or carry identification and it's a very simple amendment and it basically exempts our children. And with that I will ask you not to vote for Senator Williams on his motion to table my amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Williams, opposed by Senator Uresti. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nay, the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 4 by Senator Uresti, and this is 11 lines long. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 4 by withdrew resty.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to explain floor amendment No. 4.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This is the one that's very similar to the last one. It simply exempts policies that prohibit inquiry about immigration status of a child who is 17 years or younger and is the victim of or witness to a criminal offense. It's very simple. If a young child is the victim, let's say, of a sexual assault, sexual assault, and is making a 911 call and an officer shows up, the last thing we want this little boy or this little girl to have to be concerned about is being deported. Imagine -- imagine what would go through her head or his head if the perpetrator or father, another man, the neighbor, whomever perpetrator tells that little girls, if you say a word about what happened to you, I'm going to have you deported. This bill exempts those victims or witnesses to a similar offense or a criminal offense and exempts them from this bill. It's a very simple amendment. Members, I hope you will vote with me to adopt floor amendment No. 4.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 4.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Members, I -- Senator Uresti has described a very horrific circumstances and certainly we don't want that child who is a victim or a witness to any kind of crime to be deported and that actually is not contemplated in this bill. And my concern is the same concern that I had with the last amendment is there's two special visas that a child like this might be eligible for. One would be a T visa, a trafficking visa or a U visa for a victim of a crime. And my concern that if officers aren't allowed to ask where you're born and find out, that this child might not get the opportunities afforded under federal law to allow these people to continue to stay in the country. And so there are a number of visa exceptions like this for people who are the victims of crime or domestic violence and we want our officers to be able to make the determination if someone is eligible for one of those. So respectfully I would move to table amendment No. 4.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti on floor amendment No. 4.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Members, I hope you're listening to this amendment. I can understand if you choose not to vote on the other amendment, but this is a very simple and very serious amendment. Senator Williams keeps talking about the unintended consequences. What about the intended consequences? Think about the perpetrator who knows that -- and tells that 5-year-old little girl, if you say anything, anything, I'm going to deport you back to where you came from. Do you think the perpetrator's going to say, by the way, you have for a special visa you just got to apply for it. That 5-year-old little girl doesn't know what a visa means and so to say that to this body is disingenuous because that 5-year-old little girl doesn't know what a visa is. What she does know is she's being sexually assaulted. And if we cannot stand up and stand for those little children, notwithstanding this bill, then what are we going to stand up for, members? The unintended consequence is what's going to happen to those children. We have a legal, we have a moral obligation to protect them. Let's put our partisan politics aside, and let's just simply do what's right. Let's vote with our heart and let's vote for these children. I ask you not to table this amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Uresti. Members, the question before us is the motion to table opposed by Senator Uresti. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: There being ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator West, for what --

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Since I was on the prevailing side, I'd like to motion to reconsider this particular amendment. And the reason I rise on this motion I can recall, members, day after day when we talk about providing a safety net to children that are victims of crimes. Children. We don't say whether they're legal or illegal. We say children. We talk about how fragile children are. How they're not able to understand or appreciate some of the complexities that adults understand and some of the games that adults play with kids with their minds, etc. I understand the politics behind what we're doing but I also understand and can appreciate that in committee after committee that I sit on education, health and human services, criminal justice, we make exceptions for the least of us, it's children. I can't understand nor appreciate the politics behind the amendment that Senator Uresti, Senator Williams, just offered. I understand the issue of protection of our borders, I understand that but when we talk about not subjecting a victim who's a child to potential interrogation, questioning by an officer about their status, are we going a little bit too far in do -- is that good policy given and is consistent with the other policy, Senator Duncan, policies that we articulate as it relates to protecting our children, Senator Ogden? I don't think it is. And so that's why I voted for the amendment, so we could have a little bit more debate on this issue as to whether or not we want to provide a safety net for our children. You vote your calendars on it. But, Senator Patrick, we are, in fact, our brother's keeper and we're the keeper of all children in the village. And so I am asking you to think long and hard about this amendment and reconsideration of it when we get ready to vote on it. This amendment protects the children of crimes. That's all it does. So, Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was passed.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator West moves for the reconsideration of the vote by which floor amendment four was tabled but it's not a debatable motion. So we're going to go to Senator Williams, and I'm not going to recognize to Senator Van de Putte, I'm going to go to Senator Williams to close.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Members, Senator West has laid out a very emotionally appealing argument and I hope that all of you realize that I too care very much about protecting children in our country whether they're here -- by whatever means they got here, because very often the children that we're talking about here they had nothing to do with the fact that they ended up in the United States. But there is clearly an unintended consequence from Senator Uresti's amendment and that consequence is that those children would not have afforded to them the opportunity to obtain a special visa from the immigration service that would allow them to continue to stay in this country lawfully and that is the reason -- it's not because I don't care about the children or because I'm trying to keep the bill clean, what I'm saying is these policies that some law enforcement agencies have in place, the door swings both ways and it has an unintended consequence when a law enforcement officer is not able to make an inquiry and say, where were you born, where do you come from, where -- you know, to make that inquiry so that the same protections that are afforded to a woman who is being battered, who is eligible for a U visa, anyone who is a victim of crime that happens in the United States, they are afforded special protections under federal immigration law. And so the object here is not to have that child deported but rather to allow them to have -- retain their ability to have lawful presence in the country and to have them reunited with family whether that be here or in their country of origin or whenever it might be. If they're not allowed to ask the question, then they're being impeded in helping that child and so my goal, our goal the same. Senator West, what we're trying to accomplish here is the same thing. I'm not against what you spoke about but what I am saying is I think there's an unintended consequence here and I'm very concerned that a right that might otherwise be afforded to that 13-year-old girl who is a sex slave at some shop, they have them all over, we unfortunately have a lot of them in Houston. The one that just got busted down by the ship channel not too long ago, that if she's here under a human trafficking violation, if they're not able to make that inquiry of that child, then there may not be any way for her to get the protection under federal law that she's entitled to and that's what my goal is here, we have the same goal. It's to protect those children and so I think respectfully we just disagree about that, and I would ask that you vote no on the motion to reconsider.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: I assume I have the right to close on this one, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Well, I'm going to give you that right because I actually should not have recognized Senator Williams.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Thank you very much. Members, this is not just about emotion or passion. I think when we look at issues concerning children we put -- we place them in a special category. We always have and hopefully we always will from a policy standpoint, having been a prosecutor, dealt with some investigations, I have never known an investigation, a criminal investigation where the investigator will ask, where were you born. They normally ask you your age and your address, not where you were born. And so the question is whether or not we have articulated in the past, whether we deal with sex abuse and registry, whether we deal with indecency with a child, all types of crimes involving that special group --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator, I am sorry going to go ahead and ask you to wind up because it's not a debatable motion, please.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Yes, sir. We've always singled them out and placed them in a separate category, so I would ask that we do the same thing with this particular issue as it relates to immigration with children. I'd ask for your favorable vote on reconsideration.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question is to reconsider the vote by which floor amendment No. 4 was tabled. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members there being 18 ayes -- I'm sorry 13 ayes and 18 nays, the motion to reconsider fails. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 5 by Senator Rodriguez. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 5 by Rodriguez.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez on floor amendment No. 5.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, and Senator Williams, floor amendment No. 5 attempts to address the discussions that we had earlier about your intent that local law enforcement not be involved in enforcing federal immigration law. I believe in responding to Senator Hinojosa, you pointed out that that was not your intent and I described to you and I believe Senator Davis did as well that subsection C clearly says that counties and cities are prohibited from passing any policies or adopting rules that prohibit the enforcement not only of state laws but your language is federal immigration laws. So Mr. President and members, this amendment addresses that concern and it clarifies that an employee would be limited to inquiring into immigration status and other actions as described in subsection D of the bill which is what Chairman Williams stated is his intent. So this amendment would strike the language that says -- on page one, lines 3941, the language that begin for federal law relating to immigrants or immigration including the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act and (inaudible) as described in subsection D which is a section that pertains to permitting people to inquire into immigration status in the course of an investigation in a criminal offense. So, Senator Williams, and members, this amendment is intended to clarify your intent to make sure that local law enforcement officers don't go out enforcing federal immigration law. So Mr. President and members, if there's no objection I'd move adoption of amendment No. 5.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez. The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment five.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I want to be sure I got the right amendment because I have several amendments from Senator Rodriguez here. Is this --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: This is six lines long and there's no numbering on the left hand side but the bottom says as substituting as described in subsection D.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Yeah, okay. Members, this amendment would really, it's going to guy the bill. I would move to table amendment No. 5.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to close.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, all this amendment does is seek to implement what I understood what Senator Williams' response to Senator Hinojosa that it was not his intent that local law enforcement have the ability to go around enforcing federal immigration laws. Subsection C clearly would permit that to occur and so this amendment is intended to keep local enforcement from violating the United States supremacy clause, the federal preemption doctrine that says that the federal government exclusively is charged with the enforcing federal immigration laws. It also is intended to avoid counties and cities and other governmental entities, special districts if they're remaining in the bill from being open to lawsuits when someone tries to enforce federal immigration law. So I would urge you to seriously consider opposing the motion to table and supporting the adoption of floor amendment number -- what is this, five or six? Five.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Five.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes -- the issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Williams, opposed by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 6 by Senator Davis. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 6 by Davis.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain floor amendment No. 6.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This seeks to amend subsection D of the bill. If you recall from the questions and testimony on subsection D, although Senator Williams laid the bill out and stated that it was his intention that this would allow a tool for law enforcement to determine the immigration status of criminals, he referred to them as criminal illegal aliens, the bill actually under subsection D does quite a bit more than that. Under subsection D it provides an opportunity under D1 for the agencies that are listed in the bill to inquire about immigration status of any person who is part of an investigation of a criminal offense. Of course that can include witnesses and it can include victims of crime. It also allows that in situations where a person has been lawfully detained. Also in laying the bill out in both committee and today here on the floor Senator Williams has referred to that as arising where a law enforcement officer has probable cause that a person has committed a crime. What this amendment seeks to do is give effect to what Senator Williams says is his intention. No. 1, it would allow that question to be asked where probable cause exists that the person has committed a criminal offense and it also directs the ability to ask someone's legal immigrant status to a person who is suspected for whom probable cause exists to believe that that person has committed a criminal offense rather than to direct those questions to witnesses or victims of crime and rather to do it in such a broad way that a person might be stopped on the street for any reason whatsoever and asked to demonstrate their immigration status as would currently be allowed under the language that was written in the bill. I would move adoption of floor amendment No. 6.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 6.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. We spoke about this briefly early in the opening remarks. The issue here is when in what situation may a peace officer use his or her discretion to inquire about a person's citizenship status and what is that situational standard. I believe a peace officer should be able to inquire to a person's citizenship status when an officer detains that person and before the officer has enough probable cause to arrest that person for a violation of state law. It's not a violation of state law to be in the country without proper documentation, and I want to emphasize again that this bill does not create that penalty. I trust our officer to ask the right questions in the right circumstances and I trust them to use their discretion. From a practical point of view a peace officer should be able to ask a person if they're a citizen in the country. This bill leaves it to their discretion about when to make those inquiries. As I stated before, I don't support the use of racial profiling. Admittedly, sadly, there's going to be officers who abuse their authority and they do that now and then they continue to do so and I will not condone that. I think that authorities should be able to inquire as to a person's citizenship status before they arrest someone. And Senator Davis has throughout the committee hearing -- committee hearings that we had and on the floor today expressed the desire to shift those situational circumstances of when an officer can use their discretion to inquire about a person's immigration status from a situation where a person is lawfully detained to when a person is arrested or detained on probable cause. And basically her argument is that there's vagueness resulting from applying the lawful detention standard to the fact situation that causes harm to innocent people and it becomes a more absolute probable cause as a better situational standard, and respectfully I disagree with her about that. First, lawfully detained and probable cause are not equal elements. It would be more apt to compare lawfully detained with being arrested and probable cause is an element that's necessary to being arrested. And second the argument that she's made against lawful detention standard -- lawful detention situational standard may also be made against the probable cause situation standard. So I respectfully move to table amendment No. 6.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. As testimony indicated in the committee hearing, a person may be lawfully detained if they are a witness or a victim of a crime for questioning. The way the language is written today would allow that person, a witness or a victim of a crime, who's been lawfully detained for purposes of receiving information from them to be subjected to a police officer asking them about their immigration status. While Senator Williams says that there's nothing in this bill that would require an officer then to pursue any kind of reporting of that person to federal agencies, there's also nothing that prohibits it and what this is going to do is against a practice that will allow legally for these questions to be asked and the unintended consequence of that will be an under reporting of crime and victims of crime who will not have any resolution to their victimization including people like Ms. Aguilar who gave such incredibly moving testimony to our committee. I would ask members to think very seriously about the consequences of this language and what it will now legally enable law enforcement officers to do. Not all, of course, would have used this, very few would but the fact of the matter is there are some who will. And as our police departments and our sheriff agencies that came and testified in committee said, all it takes in our community is just one, just one officer, just one sheriffs deputy to do this and we will take a dramatic step backward in terms of victims of crime reporting it and witnesses to crime being willing to come forward and give testimony with regard to what they witness. I would respectfully ask that members vote no on the motion to table floor amendment No. 6.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Williams. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair lays out floor amendment No. 7 by Senator Uresti. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 7 by Uresti.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to explain floor amendment No. 7 which is five lines long.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, earlier Senator Williams and I had a discussion regarding the bill on page two, and the discussion dealt with the racial profiling aspect of the bill and there was an exception that read an entity may not consider race, color, language, or national origin while enforcing the laws described by subsection D except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or the Texas constitution and my amendment simply strikes the exception to paragraph D-1, and I move adoption of floor amendment No. 7. I think it's acceptable to Senator Williams.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 7.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: The amendment is acceptable.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question is on the adoption of floor amendment No. 7. It's acceptable to Senator Williams. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and floor amendment No. 7 is adopted.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Senator Williams.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair lays out floor amendment No. 8 by Senator Van de Putte and Senator West. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 8 by West and Van de Putte.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator West to explain floor amendment -- I am sorry. Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to explain floor amendment No. 8.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, Senator West and I bring you this amendment mainly because we're very concerned about the provisions that have now a new complaint system to the attorney general's office. Senator West has done work in this legislature for many, many years dealing with racial profiling. On page two of the bill, we have -- on line three section D-1 which makes sure that an entity or a person may not otherwise under the direction or control of the entity may not consider race, color, language, or national origin while enforcing the laws. This is what has been called a racial profiling. And under a current law the mechanism about complaints for racial profiling is allowed but only against peace officers. However, then this bill entitles all employees of municipalities and counties to raise the issue of immigration status. What this amendment would do would have the folks who now only have the ability to complain but against a certain peace officer to the agency or the entity that that officer is employed by. This amendment simply allows the citizen to file a complaint with the AG's office should the victim feel -- the citizen feel that they are a victim of racial profiling under section D-1 so that they can file a complaint about a local entity should they be prohibited from questioning immigration status. Members, the reason that I believe that this is important is that right now we are starting a new type of process rather than in the original bill they had a cause of action, but this now allows the attorney general. I believe that this amendment which I call this the complaint amendment would allow the attorney general to at least take some statistics and to take the complaint. They would be able to look and see if there is a pattern of complaint against a certain entity whether that be a city, a certain county, one of these special districts. And the reason that I think that this is important that if you remember, members, several years ago, we did have a rogue police officer. He was a man by the name of Mr. Coalman and he went all over mainly West Texas and under grants and stuff he was able to file complaints against citizens and what happened in that in the town of Tulia, Texas they arrested -- and it is a small town of about 5,000 people but because of his complaints and arrests and investigation, they actually arrested 40 people. If you remember what happened on that, and I filed several bills along with my colleague in the House Representative Senfronia Thompson, it's become a subject of a book and all of those 40 defendants have now been cleared. Not one of those people who this rogue cop filed complaints against and they were indicted, not one has been convicted. And luckily the citizens of Tulia came forward when a fourth of their African American population was arrested. It's the subject of a book by Nate Buxley called Tulia and subject of a movie that will be released later in the year or next year. So we know that these things can happen but this would at least allow citizens who think they might be a victim of racial profiling to actually make a complaint and the complaint would go to the AG because that's the bill pattern now. That's what Senator Williams' bill does, is it has a citizen being able to complain if they think the city is not enforcing federal state immigration laws. The amendment would allow the citizen residing in the municipality, the county or the special district to file a complaint with the attorney general if the citizen offers evidence to support the allegation. In other words, it's not just a complaint, the citizen with the bill pattern would have to offer the type of evidence. And of course as in the original language that Senator Williams has in SB9, the -- if the AOG determines that a complaint filed is valid, then the AG of course can file a writ of mandamus. Racial profiling is already in the book, there's already a section in the code of criminal procedures in the section 2.132 that requires all law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy on racial profiling but this is only a complaint to the entity. This would be is the other side of that flip of a coin, and I think the AG's office will do a good job in just keeping track of the type so we can really see what the effects in our local communities are going to be. And with that, members, I would ask that you seriously consider allowing citizens because there's both sides to this. If you would look at this strongly and have your positive vote for this amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment eight.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, I want to thank you and Senator West for bringing this amendment forward and raising this issue. This is not something that we considered in the committee and I think it has merit and that I hope that we have an opportunity to look at this as a separate bill either this session or during the next session. I do have some concerns and one is that we haven't had -- the AG hasn't been able to weigh in on how this would work and I think that's important that we go through that process. And I would also point out in 2001 we added the language to the code of criminal procedure regarding racial profiling. Now, you were already here in the Senate in '01 but I was still in the House, and I think Senator West was surprised when I filed a House companion bill to his racial profiling bill that he had over here. I was the only Republican who filed a racial profiling bill. This is something that I abhor personally, and what I would say is that we've got procedure here that has been through the committee process that's in the code of criminal procedure, I'm supportive of that. I think that the issue that you're raised has merit but I also believe that it needs to be bedded through the committee process and that we need the attorney general to have the opportunity to talk about the impact on them, on their agency and how this would affect them. And so with that, I would respectfully move to table floor amendment No. 8 and also ask that if you bring this issue forward during this session or another, I'd be more than happy to work with you on it because I share your concern.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to close.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Williams. This is of concern and I would hope that -- I believe in your effort, I can tell you that I know that you filed that companion bill or filed a bill on racial profiling because it's something that I don't think should be tolerated and you believe that it should not be tolerated in this state, but I think we have enough time during the process as this goes to the House and we have the opportunity to visit with the attorney general and as that -- have hearings, it can of course they would have the discretion of taking it out or leaving it in or changing the language but I think leaving it end sends a strong signal that we are concerned and that we want to make sure that citizens who believe that they may have been a victim of racial profiling because right now the law states that they can do if it's individual police officers. This would give the AG that opportunity. I would hope that we could leave this in and work on it on the House side and I'll be happy to work with some of the House members on language of tweaking and AG's office to make sure. But I would ask to vote no on the motion to table to send a strong signal to the House that it is our intent to address this issue and that we must address this as we pass the bill because this is a huge change in procedure and in policy through the state of Texas and to not have that would be some what unbalanced. Thank you very much for your candid assessment and our sentiment that this is truly needed. I would ask that you move -- that you vote no on the motion to table.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte. Members, the question before us is the motion to table by Senator Williams, opposed by Senator Van de Putte. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out floor amendment number nine by Senator Uresti. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 9 by Uresti.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to explain floor amendment nine.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Earlier this evening Senator Williams and I discussed whether or not the city that might fall under the definition of a sanctuary city has the ability to be tried before a judge or a jury, and so the first part of the amendment simply states in a trial under this section the entity described by subsection A subject to the action has a right to trial by jury. Furthermore the amendment reads a court or jury as appropriate shall be determined by a preponderance of evidence which is a typical burden in a civil matter. As you know in a criminal matter it's beyond a reasonable doubt which is a much higher burden, so the burden I chose to put in the amendment is simply preponderance of evidence. I don't know if it's acceptable to Senator Williams or not, but I move adoption.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Uresti. The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 9.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Senator Uresti. I believe it's my understanding that this is already covered under the rules of civil procedure and they are sufficient to govern these kinds of disputes. It's my understanding the writ of mandamus would not normally have a jury trial, it would be a judicial proceeding but the provisions in the bill for other equitable relief would allow for a jury trial. And respectfully I would just like to yield to my colleague Senator Duncan because I think we're in over my head legally on this. He may be able -- I've asked him to look at your amendment. I wanted to be sure we gave it careful consideration. I don't think it's necessary, I'm going to make a motion to table, but I'd like for Senator Duncan to be able to speak to this just to be sure we got all of our based covered.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. And Senator, I think Senator Williams has correctly stated the status of the law and writ of mandamus is obviously a judicial discrimination that is made by a court that is governed by I think civil practice and remedies code probably in the Texas rules of civil procedure. If the attorney general seeks other equitable relief like an injunction or something like that, that would be covered under the standard rules of procedure that we go under and a jury may or may not be available depending on the type of relief that is available there. So I think the statutes and rules that govern these areas are certainly well thought out. The burden of proof would -- with regard to -- or the burden of proof with being the preponderance of evidence would probably be -- would be the standard that would be used anyway. This isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding. So I don't think this amendment is necessary and I think that the -- what you're trying to accomplish is accomplished and well thought out in rules and statutes.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Senator Duncan, thank you. And I just wanted to make sure -- I definitely respect your decision and if you say -- and that's the intent of the bill is to give our cities the option to have a jury depending on the relief that's being sought to have a jury available and the standard theme for preponderance of evidence, then I will withdraw the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Uresti withdraws floor amendment No. 9. The Chair lays out the following amendment, floor amendment No. 10 by Senator Hinojosa. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 10 by Hinojosa.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa to explain floor amendment No. 10.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. One of the purposes stated by Senator Williams for Senate Bill 9 is to have a uniform standard statewide law on how we deal with immigration laws by our police officers. What my amendment does it adopts DPS policy on immigration law enforcement and it doesn't negate in one bit, shape or form the intent of Senate Bill 9 but what it does it provides a statewide policy giving guidance to local law enforcement people how to deal with issue of enforcing immigration laws. And let me read you what the policy for DPS is on enforcement U.S. immigration laws. Section No. 98.01 is members of this department will not engage in the enforcement of federal immigration statutes by conducting road checks for business and resident searches unless assisting appropriate federal officers who have properly requested such assistance. That is article 2.251 of my amendment which states that policy in the legal language adjust it and adjusted by legal counsel. Then we have section 98.03, members will not arrest without a warrant in (inaudible) solely based one suspicion that he has entered the country illegally and that is expressed in law and that is section B which says a peace officer will not without a warrant will arrest a person based solely on the purpose of suspected or alleged violation a civil provision or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration including the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act. Then of course section 98.02, members may arrest aliens under the policy situation concerning a valid warrant and for checking to see if a warrant is current. No. 2, for violation of state laws the same as any U.S. citizen. And that is section C of my amendment that says a peace officer may arrest any undocumented person only if the officer is acting under the authority granted under article 213 of the criminal code of procedure which sets out the duties and responsibilities of a police officer that states as follows. It is a duty of every peace officer to reserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means. The officer shall in every case authorize by provision of this code interfere without a warrant to prevent or suppress crime. No. 2, execute all lawful process issue to officers by any magistrate or court. No. 3, give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officers jurisdiction where the officer has good reason to believe there has been some violation of penal code, and No. 4 arrest offenders without a warrant in any case where the officer is authorized by law in order where they may taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried. And members, I think this is good policy, it will set a statewide standard, the DPS has it as part of policy and I think Senator Williams is going to leave it to the will of the Senate and I will move adoption.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 10.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa, you have worked very hard on this and I really appreciate all your efforts. This unlawful search and seizure as well as unlawful arrest is already protected in the constitution, and I don't think our bill here would in any way prohibit those rights. If a person's committing a crime, an officer has probable cause to stop or arrest them. That's the officer's duty and I don't think this bill creates an offense for immigration violations because that's a power that's been delegated to the federal government. What you just read to us is an excellent explanation of what you're trying to accomplish and it is, in fact, the Department of Public Safety to take statewide. I think the provisions of this bill make it clear that in texas an officer's operating within its rights to ask about the person's citizenship status. I further say that, you know, we work together with the county and District Attorney's Association and make sure the language of this fit in, and we didn't have any unintended consequences. And so I've struggled with this as you know about whether we should take this in or not because I think in some respects it's restating things that's already a part of the law, but I think it does bring clarity to what we're trying to do and the effect of this is to codify the Department of Public Safety policy that is in place, which Senator Hinojosa just read to us. And so I'm going to support this, I'm going to leave it to the will of the Senate, I want everybody to know that I'm going to support Senator Hinojosa's amendment. I think it clarifies and makes the bill a better piece of legislation and I appreciate your effort on this.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa to close.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: I move adoption.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Hinojosa moves adoption of floor amendment No. 10. I believe it's supported by the author. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any -- Senator Patrick objects. Secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 29 ayes and two nays, floor amendment No. 10 is adopted.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa, I hope I can count on your support now to get this bill out of here. So --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 11 by Senator Rodriguez. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 11 by Rodriguez.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to explain floor amendment No. 11.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Floor amendment No. 11 is somewhat similar to what Senator Uresti proposed earlier with regard to minors except that this amendment extends not just to children, Senator West, but also adults and importantly I believe it addresses Senator Williams' concern that he kept raising with Senator Uresti about not hamstringing police from inquiring of children or others for that matter in instances where you may have for example human trafficking or smuggling of persons because the amendment simply says that a peace officer may not inquire as to the nationality or immigration status of a victim of or witness to an offense except as necessary to investigate that offense. So that (inaudible) necessary would address the concerns of Senator Williams has raised. And this amendment, so we can be clear, will ensure that law enforcement is able to continue working with members of the immigrant community to solve crimes. That's the bottom line. Without the kind of mutual trust between law enforcement and members of all communities and their jurisdiction that we have heard about from our law enforcement officers testifying, the chief of police and others, officers lose a powerful tool in preventing and solving serious crimes and that is access to crucial community information about criminal behavior or activity. When neighborhoods become cut off from law enforcement, their residents become easier targets for criminals, we heard testimony yesterday, and more serious criminal activity can develop without the knowledge of law enforcement. And as we heard a lot again in yesterday's testimony many immigrants including victims of domestic violence like Ms. Aguilar that's been mentioned several times here this evening may be less likely to contact law enforcement in fear of being deported. Senate Bill 9 will lead to more likely more women, Senator Williams, in the shadows of women not reporting abuse. The crime rate as we have also heard in the city of El Paso highlights how law enforcement can achieve faster results when they focus their resources on serious and violent crime and reassure community members that their local police officers are not enforcing immigration laws. El Paso has repeatedly ranked as one of the three state's largest cities in the United States and it was ranked the number one Texas city in 2001 in (inaudible). The former El Paso police chief and current police chief of El Paso county Richard Wiles in part attributes its success to the law enforcement in El Paso to this high level of community trust. This amendment would maintain law enforcement discretion to ask immigration status request when relevant to their information, for example, information in human trafficking investigations that Senator Williams referred to earlier. Because the exercise of discretion is essential to a peace officer's duties, this bill would permit immigration status questions whenever they are relevant to the criminal investigation. So Mr. President and members, I hope that this amendment will be acceptable to the author, Senator Williams, I believe it addresses the concerns of law enforcement that we heard about repeatedly in wanting to not break the trust and cooperation they have with the victims and witnesses of crime. I believe it addresses Senator Williams' concerns about giving the flexibility to law enforcement, to inquire about status in those situations where they in their discretion think it is important for that information of that offense like the human smuggling cases and there are others. And so I would hope that this would be acceptable to the author and to the rest of the members here. So Mr. President, I move adoption of the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Ogden, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Ask the author a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Rodriguez yield?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir, I yield.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Senator Rodriguez, I'm really aware of the concerns that you have expressed, but I wonder about is this current law right now a peace officer may not inquire as to the nationality and can you think of any circumstance where this prohibition would be counter productive? I mean, may not inquire so it seems to me like this amendment, is this current law now?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: No, this is --

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: So peace officers can inquire on the nationality or immigration status of victims and we're trying to prohibit this and we don't even do it now. So -- aren't you -- this seems to me like this is going contrary to where most of us would want to be which is to allow peace officers to do their jobs.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, it is

(inaudible) allow police officers to do their job because we have repeatedly heard in public statements and in the testimony presented in the committee yesterday, Senator Ogden, from the chiefs of police and sheriffs department that Senate Bill 9 as presently written, that would allow officers to inquire into immigration status when they're conducting an investigation of an offense or when they're making an arrest that when they do that, that that is going to discourage everyone but especially discourage victims and witnesses to crimes on cooperating. So essentially this amendment is an exception, if you want to look at it that way. It would be an exception to the main purpose of Senate Bill 9 with regard to inquiring about immigration status. It would say you can inquire about immigration status when you're investigating an offense or arresting someone except if that person happens to be a victim or a witness and the purpose -- the public policy reasoning behind it, Senator Ogden, is to encourage victims and witnesses of crime to step forward and cooperate with law enforcement. So I think it promotes safety as the police themselves have said and it also helps maintain that cooperation and level of trust that they have built over the years.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: But this is not current law so that peace officers are allowed to inquire as to nationality, immigration of a victim or witness currently.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: No, they're not.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Yeah, they are. What law says a peace officer may not inquire as to the immigration status of a victim or witness? Is there any law out there now?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: The federal courts have consistently ruled that law enforcement, local law enforcement did not have the authority to inquire into immigration status. Just taking that on its face just alone, just on that point okay? Now, we have had a lot of discussion about traffic stops, about other contexts with the police where the law is that it's during the course of a lawful stop during the course of an investigation.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Are you saying that the federal courts have applied a gag order to our peace officers that they may not even ask the question, are you saying that exists?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: No, sir, that's not what I'm saying.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Well, I thought that's what you said, that the federal courts passed some law that says that you cannot even ask a question, is that what you just said?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: What the federal courts have said is if in the course of conducting an investigation suspect that the person may be here unlawfully, at that point they may contact the federal immigration authorities so they can come over and take custody of the individual.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: So there is no repeal of the first amendment that says you can't even ask question, are you aware of that?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: No, there's no repeal of the first amendment, sir.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: The -- one of the things I think about is if this was reversed and let's say I was a witness or victim of crime in another country. I would kind of want them to know I am an American because I would want to seek out the assistance of the U.S. Consulate or U.S. embassy to deal with this situation, think of circumstances where a foreign national would need to reveal their nationality in order to receive help from their foreign government when they are a victim or a witness to crime. I am worried about the unintended consequence of a statewide prohibition that does not exist right now that says that you may not even ask the question. That seems extreme to me and potentially have huge unintended consequences when you actually prohibit a peace officer from asking a question that for -- in many different circumstances may be necessary in the course of their information.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, that's why we have the language except as necessary to investigate the offense so it is not an absolute prohibition, it allows law enforcement to ask in those instances when they in their discretion think that it's essential to their information. All right? And the example that you give about being in another country is totally different set of circumstances. You would not be in that situation subject to deportation because you contact law enforcement, what we have here and what the law enforcement community has told us repeatedly including testimony yesterday that immigrant victims and witnesses of crime who maybe here unlawfully who maybe here without proper documentation, who may be here even in the instances of adjusting their status but not yet finished the process. Our reluctant -- may be reluctant to step forward and we had a witness yesterday, a victim of violence yesterday, Ms. Aguilar, that in her case she had to think twice before he called the police about the abuse she was subjected to. She ended up doing it but she testified yesterday had this law been in effect at the time she would not have -- she would not have called the police.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Well, I understand that argument, I'm not sure you understand my objection to your amendment. My objection to your amendment that the bill on the floor now is a permissive bill that says you may not prohibit someone from asking a question. You are now prohibiting people, you are doing exactly the reverse of what this bill on the floor is trying to do by prohibiting a peace officer from even asking the question and I think that in a state this big, that prohibition can have serious unintended consequences that not only affect the ability of peace officers do their job but also could adversely affect these victims. So I don't think I can be for this amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 11.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I appreciate Senator Ogden's line of questioning, I think it's important to reiterate that this bill is permissive, it allows for an inquiry at the officer's discretion, it doesn't require that an inquiry take place nor does it require any action be taken as an outcome of that inquiry. Members, what I would say unfortunately there is a fear among some immigrants in our state about coming forward to law enforcement and what I would say is the same things that I talked about with Senator Uresti's two amendments apply. Maria Aguilar would not -- she was very afraid and she finally did contact the police and the result of that was that she obtained a U visa which protected her as a crime victim and allowed her to remain lawfully in this country. There's another form of visa called a T visa that we grant for people who are victims of human trafficking and it's often the law enforcement officers and the members of the prosecution team who get involved in helping to make that happen. And my concern -- what we're trying to do with this bill is break that cultural fear, and respectfully I would say that Ms. Aguilar obviously did not understand the law before and while I know she was concerned about what we're trying to do here, I think she was also misinformed, and it's very unlikely that her decision would have been any different and whether this law would have been enforced or not. And so I respectfully move to table amendment No. 11.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Williams. Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to close.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Williams, I want to -- I want to close by addressing what you just said about Ms. Aguilar. The fact of the matter is that it is not law enforcement that advises women about the U visas and the T visas as they practice. That was an exception and it was a good exception. I'm not criticizing that, in fact I wish that more law enforcement would be doing that. You had testimony yesterday from one of the advocates whose business it is on a day in and day out basis with her organization to advise women on obtaining these visas and in fact if you check with District Attorney Association or anybody else you will find out that it's the advocates that provide the information and that seek the -- help seek the U visas and T visas for these victims of family violence. It's not law enforcement so I want to make that clear because there was very strong testimony about that in the committee yesterday. And with that I would ask the members to consider the pleas of our law enforcement community of our chiefs of police from Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso, Arlington and other jurisdictions that we should be striving to maintain the cooperation with our immigrant community not diminishing or destroying that cooperation especially with the victims and the witnesses to crime including the children that Senator Uresti was concerned about. So I would ask you to seriously consider this and vote no on the motion to table. Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Gallegos, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Will the author of the amendment yield?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator --

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I will, Mr. President.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator Rodriguez, I'm reading your amendment and as your debate with Senator Ogden, I'm trying to look -- all you're trying to do is protect the victim or the witness on this amendment; is that correct?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: The testimony that was in committee Ms. Aguilar went on ahead and found she had an avenue, but what I believe what you're trying to do here, a lot of the victims and or witnesses in this fact do not have this avenue or do not know that there's a avenue that they can file for these visas and get immunity from even though they're here illegally, they don't know that they have that route, so consequently they're in fear, they don't want to go and show up at the police station and testify and testify. That's why you're trying under this amendment to protect those victims and witnesses from any kind of fear or any kind of prosecution as innocent victims; is that correct?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Senator, you're correct. Most victims of domestic violence are not aware of the U visas and T visa. That awareness comes through community advocates who make it their business to try to inform people of those types of visas when people are subjected to domestic violence or family violence and so you're absolutely correct. This is intended not only to provide more protection for those victims including children but also importantly to uphold that trust and relationship that our law enforcement community has built with these victims. We all -- as a county attorney I encouraged people to step forward and seek protective orders against family violence and it is a very difficult business for those of us who have been involved in that and who know about that when people have been subjected to abuses year in and year out and people ask, well, why doesn't she just leave as if it's just that easy. The dynamics are very complex and so this is intended to give reassurance to victims of domestic violence, victims of other crime, that they can step forward, report that crime, report that abuser and not fear that by talking to the police that the police is going to have them deported.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator Rodriguez, wouldn't you -- let me ask you this question. As a former county attorney under your amendment, under your amendment would you agree that a lot of times especially the witness that might be illegal and did not want to come forward that the -- they were the witness but the person that was the victim is a legal resident, is a legal resident and deserves that witness to testify in his or her behalf. Would that be a correct statement?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Sure.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator Rodriguez, you have an excellent amendment.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senators. Members, the question before us is the motion -- Senator Patrick for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Just a quick question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Rodriguez yield?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: I'll yield, Mr. President.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: I've just been listening to the discussion on all these amendments and this amendment. Would you not agree that you wouldn't have to bring forth this amendment, we wouldn't even have to be discussing these issues if the federal government protected our borders and protected the state of Texas as it should?

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Senator Patrick, I think that we all in this body and outside of this body understand that the federal government could be doing more and I think that there's many of us like myself who feel that comprehensive immigration reform is the answer to a lot of these issues. If in fact we had comprehensive immigration reform in this country, that would address these issues of immigration, our broken immigration system, we would not have to be having 50 different sets of state laws trying to address immigration.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: I'm glad you agree that federal government is not doing their job. Thank you.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question before us is the motion to table by Senator Williams, opposed by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table prevails.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 12 by Senator Van de Putte. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment number 12 by Van de Putte.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to explain floor amendment No. 12.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, this deals with our law enforcement training for anybody that is certified through TCLOSE. Members, as you know, our law enforcement officers go through extensive training, and I had been familiar with the types of training that has been prepped by TCLOSE, by the commission because of my work in human trafficking. There were several legislative sessions that I tried to have TCLOSE have a voluntary type training available for our municipal police and our county police so that if they wanted to that they could do that. Now, of course as a part of the recommendations of the antihuman trafficking task force under the counsel of the District Attorney's office. That training is now mandatory. Senator Williams stated that he was not aware of any specific training provided to law enforcement regarding immigration and immigration related laws but, members, I can tell you that if a city or a county, any entity signs up to be part of the federal 287G program, they do receive the training. However many of our law enforcement agencies are not part of that 287G program. Training does exist right now, it is provided to individuals involved with the booking, with -- at the time of charging which has been up to now, the issue where immigration status is raised. Under Senator Williams bill, individuals will now be entitled law enforcement to raise the issue of immigration at the point of detainment and it would seem also prudent to provide them with the same or similar training that their discretion can be really an educated one and informed one. This amendment would have the commission establish a training program on the enforcement of federal law relating to immigrants and immigration but it does not make the training mandatory. I want to reiterate. All this amendment says is have TCLOSE do -- prepare a training program because of the lack of resources and the testimony that was given. This is not a mandate and I did not want to put this as a mandate to require more -- that officers must go through training but I do hope that some of the cities and municipalities and other entities that have TCLOSE officers would have their officers make use of this training program. We believe that TCLOSE can do this. They do this already for human trafficking but this would give our communities that are going to be having a very different public policy the opportunity to have training. I hope that this is acceptable on page -- on the first page of the amendment on line 14 it cites article 2.252 of the code of criminal procedure. Members, that is the Secured Communities Act and that's what's referenced to. Again, this is the not a mandate this just makes sure that TCLOSE establishes the type of training that hopefully our municipalities and our law enforcement personnel from regular districts can take advantage of. It is not -- like I said, it's voluntary that they make use of it but this would have the commission which is most suitable to do at least prep the type of training that would be needed.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams on floor amendment No. 11.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Members, the -- this bill doesn't require enforcement of federal immigration law, I don't believe there's any training, additional training that's necessary. Additionally, I would point out that this -- I raise a point of order against further consideration of this amendment in that I don't believe it's germane to the bill that's before us.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Williams, if you'd bring your point of order forward. Members, Senator Williams withdraws his point of order and the Chair recognizes Senator Williams.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I withdraw my point of order and I think that Senator Van de Putte is going to withdraw her amendment and we're going to offer some language about legislative intent here.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. And Mr. President, I do withdraw my amendment in that it might violate the two subject rule in the House, but I believe that Senator Williams has indicated that he thinks it's probably a good idea for TCLOSE to try to prepare the type of training that would be used to. I would like to yield to Senator Williams for some legislative intent on this particular aspect of training of officers.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, as I said earlier at the podium I don't believe that this bill requires the enforcement of federal immigration law and so as I said I have some concerns about whether mandating any training would be necessary but having said that I know that this is a huge concern for you and others on the floor and out of respect for you and the other members who have expressed the concern, I would lake to state my legislative intent that I think it would be a good idea if TCLOSE came up with a training program that was related to the enforcement of federal law relating to immigrants or immigration for an officer that's licensed under the chapter and that that not be a mandate on any community that they have to have that training. It is my firm belief, but that that training is being provided now but out of respect to your concerns on this, I'm happy for TCLOSE to develop a program. And if we can do that through legislative intent, I think that's -- that would be appropriate that they make this available for those communities for their concerns that the training is inadequate.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Senator Williams. I appreciate your desire to work with us on this, and I think it's especially important particularly in the light of the discussions done earlier today with regard to officers assuring victims of crime and particularly children of the availability of certain visas. They have to be able to know that immigration law to be able to transmit the information properly to victims of crime and or witnesses of crime that would need to have that information so that they feel secure in coming forth to the police. I appreciate your concern, and I do withdraw the amendment.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, could I implore upon you to make a motion to have our comments reduced to writing and put in the journal?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Yes, Senator Williams. I move that our comments between Senator Williams and myself are reduced to writing and spread on the journal.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte, Senator Williams. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Van de Putte. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, and the motion is adopted to admit the journal in writing of the comments between Senator Van de Putte and Senator Williams. Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: I move passage to engrossment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Williams moves the passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 9 as amended. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, Senate Bill 9 as amended passes to engrossment.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President, thank you, members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Williams. Members, the president's desk is clear, are there any announcements? The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger for an announcement.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Senate select committee on redistricting will not meet today on adjournment. Most members of that committee were advised that there was a meeting upon adjournment, that meeting will not take place this evening.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Seliger. Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for an announcement.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, Mr. President and members. I rise today to pay tribute to a young woman from Plano who unfortunately succumbed to a very rare form of -- very rare form of bone cancer last week. My constituent Anna Basco who suffered great pain with tremendous grace was a spirited 18 year old who graduated from John Paul the II high school in Plano at the end of May. She literally inspired a million prayers. Let me explain. In order to tell her story, Anna's neighbor, Mark Hall started a web site called million for Anna. The website encouraged viewers to pray for Anna every day at 12:12 in tribute to Roman 12:12. (inaudible) in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. By June 1st, just one week before Anna passed away from Euwing's sarcoma, this nationwide prayer on line network reached 1 million prayers. Anna stood out in this world, her nature was upbeat and she requested at her funeral there be no one who wore black. Her funeral was today but instead it was an array of bright colors. Her favorite color was purple. She had three best friends and all three spoke at her funeral this afternoon. Anna Basco was a bright light for all of Plano, her family, all friends, all love her and will miss her deeply and an entire community mourns her today and I ask that we adjourn today in Anna Basco's memory.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator, for sharing that with us. The Chair -- the Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I move that the Senate adjourn until 10:20 in memory of Anna Basco.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire, is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the Senate will stand adjourned until 10:20 today.

(Adjourned.)

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the senate will come to order and the secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Members, a quorum is present. Would all those on the floor and in the gallery please rise for the invocation this evening to be delivered by the Honorable Brian Birdwell.

SENATOR BRIAN BIRDWELL: Please bow with you. Father, we humbly come before You this evening asking your wisdoms make wise decisions, courage to make tough decisions, we ask Your blessing upon our men and women deployed around the world in uniform of a nation in harm's way, we ask You to place Your hand of safety upon them and the families they have left behind. We ask this in Your name. In Your son's name Christ, amen.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you so much. Members, Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense with the reading of yesterday's journal. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. If there's no objection I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills until the end of today's session. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, so ordered. Members, that marks the conclusion of the morning call. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 9. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee substitute Senate Bill 9 relating to enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities and the administration of certain documentation of citizenship status.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, before I recognize Senator Williams, I'm going to call on members who wish to speak against the bill. Senator Zaffirini -- I'm sorry, the dean wanted to speak first. The Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Senator Williams, I guess I can say I am glad I wasn't in your shoes tonight, but you've done a fine job of representing your perspective, and I can't think of a piece of legislation that we have considered this session or really in recent history that I believe will be judged to be to unfair and so inequitable as this piece of legislation. And it was so glaring to me when I was watching Senator Hinojosa and you have exchanges because it became so apparent that you will never ever be confronted with the provisions of this legislation. Neither will I, neither will I, Anglo members of this body and the Anglos we represent. It just will be unheard of for someone in Houston on a traffic violation to ask me to prove that I'm a U.S. citizen. We have to slow down and think about what we're about to do if this legislation is approved. Senator Hinojosa, going to Corpus, in a traffic violation, a veteran of the Vietnam War, an honorable member of this body for the first time in our history under state law will have to prove that he's a state citizen. I should be able to sit down right now and that's enough said to stop this bad legislation. We must stop and consider what we're doing. I'll repeat it, Tommy, you and I our family, our children, will never ever have this law used against us regardless of the probable cause for pulling us over. Senator Hinojosa will and I'll discuss more of what it will do to our Hispanic colleagues before I conclude. We have spent practically no time this afternoon, Senator Williams, talking about border security, practically none. We have border cities under attack. Didn't even cross the border as we used to for tourism. This legislation will do nothing to make our border safe. Juarez, Reynosa, Brownsville, (inaudible), they're all still going to be in fear. As long as you have south of the border drug trafficking. Yesterday the Mexican authorities apprehended 119 people at the Guatemala/Mexico border. We haven't discussed those conditions at all. If I and all of us thought that your legislation would improve prove border security, we would (inaudible), but we've spent practically none of the last half a dozen hours talking about border security, the cartel, the arms trafficking, what we have talked about are the streets and cities of Texas. It's amazing to me, Senator Williams, that you trust in your dialogue with Senators, that you trust police officers to ask the right questions. You put great confidence that they will implement and carry out the legislative intent of asking the right questions. Members, you didn't put the same trust in those officers and chiefs in the department administration that said, please don't pass this legislation. You can't have it both ways. You didn't trust them to implement a bad law when they're against the law if the first place. They said it will damage public safety. We must slow down, members. I had members today that said, why do y'all want to talk when y'all know the outcome? Because it's our moral duty. Very seldom, members, do we see a piece of legislation that will impact our citizens, documented and undocumented like this piece of legislation will. It's our moral duty to stand up against discrimination. I can't think in my career something that's close to this, maybe hate crimes and perhaps you can remind me of one. We're fixing to impact every Hispanic citizen of the state of Texas documented and undocumented. We've spent most of our time on the undocumented. But what about the Mexican Americans, what about the Cuban Americans, any Hispanic in the state of Texas, a citizen of the United States is going to have to prove for the first time in our history under state law that they're a citizen of the United States. I must comment briefly on some of the discussion in the committee. Some of the witnesses were challenged because they spoke Spanish, a proud language, U.S. citizens have been speaking it since the Battle of San Jacinto and they were fighting on the Texas side. I go to Capitol Hill, a small community near Brenham, where they still have Catholic services in Polish to honor the senior citizens. I've been a U.S. citizen for 60, 70, years, Senator Williams and they worship in Polish. You go to Fredericksburg, it's German. If you go to west Texas, just north of Hillsborough, it's Czechoslovakia, they speak Czek in their service. Must clarify, if you speak Spanish just means you're proud of your heritage. Let me quickly tell you why I am emotional. I represent the Heights, my office is in the Heights. Young lady named Rosa was taking care of a family's children behind the office. The baby she's caring for, American family, and her 4-year-old would walk by the office, Tommy, try to cross Yale Street and I couldn't stand to watch them cross a busy boulevard on their tricycle. So I ran out finally and said, ma'am, I'm Senator Whitmire, this is my office, you got to pick up the tricycle and walk these kids across. I struck up a conversation, I found out that Rosa came to the United States ten years ago from Mexico illegally, married a U.S. citizen from Peru, Peruvian American. He had left her and she knew I was a governmental official, I gained her confidence and she asked for help. She's undocumented, the sorry husband has left and she's got a 4-year-old. She can't work, she's parking cars at night and doing the babysitting. I think how can I help her Tommy, I'll get her child support, I know the attorney general's office. Guess what, she is afraid to access the courts to get child sport that she's entitled to because she's undocumented. She has got a U.S. citizen 4-year-old Richard and a sorry husband and I have to advise her on the tough decision, can we chance going to court and seeking child support because she's undocumented? What if he shows up, says, oh, that's my U.S. citizen son, I'll take care of him, she's illegal, return her. Think about this law, Tommy, and members. She'd be afraid to go to court mow. We're actually trying to get her child support as I talk to you. Rosa came here when we welcomed immigrants. She has taken care of a U.S. family's baby just as it was hers. Sorry U.S. American husband left her and she didn't seek child support and does part time jobs. Fast forward to Maria. People brought Maria to my office. Maria came 12 years ago with her husband, got three sons all attending public schools in Houston. Maria cleans houses. Maria pays taxes, never files for return on her IRS payment. I alluded to Maria this afternoon, but I didn't go in detail. A year ago last May, members, she owns a home, she's a leader in her church, Senator Patrick. Her and her husband work, pay taxes, property taxes, sale taxes. Guess what, a year ago last May she's turning left at a construction site, is pulled over, doesn't have a valid license, goes to jail. Harris County jail, fingerprinted, determined to be undocumented, last Mother's Day a year ago she was in the detention center near Bush Airport and went six weeks without seeing her children and you wonder, Senator Shapiro, why they compare it with the atrocities of history. They would never reach the levels that you and I know were perpetrated. That's their atrocity. She was kept for six, seven weeks and she didn't understand except she couldn't prove that she's a U.S. citizen. I spoke to her the other day, she's got a hearing in October to see whether she and her family will be deported. I could go on and on. That's the face in the dilemma that we face tonight. I could cite Anna Hernandez's most moving speech in the House where she says as an undocumented house her family would never leave the house together. One, father or mother stayed one behind in case one is apprehended. We just enhanced that a 100 percent of the time. Families are going to be afraid to leave their house. They will all in the morning make provisions for who's going to pick up the kids. But if you're a single mom, like Rosa, she's picked up during the day, who's going to pick up Richard at night? It is a mess, Senator Williams. And I understand the politics of it, but sometimes you just got to do the moral thing. As Sam Houston would say do the right thing and suffer the consequences. This is one of these times. If I can't persuade you and I understand you don't swing a lot of votes with the talk in the Senate, but that don't mean you don't try. If I can't persuade you on the sound policy, the fairness, the equity of the issue, let me appeal to you on our religious convictions. I know we have believers on this Senate floor and you know I don't like to put mine in public. But 1st John 4th chapter, 20 and 21 verse says if you say you love God who you cannot see and you hate your brother who you can see then you're a liar. For how can you love someone who you can't see and hate someone you can see? Senator Estes, I would appeal to our faith at this moment to remember documented and undocumented our brothers and sisters. They're children of God. We're fixing to make a dramatic decision in each and every one of their lives. Let me close in opposition by putting a real, real face on this legislation. We spent most of the afternoon talking about the undocumented citizens and I will quickly mention before I forget it the tragedy of the two Houston police officers, Senator Williams, that you properly paid respect to. Both Officer Johnson and Kevin Will were shot, one shot, one run over by a DUI driver both undocumented. Both had already been deported, one twice, getting back to my discussion about border security. As long as there's criminal and disrespect for the law, you can pass anything you want to. These two criminals would pay no attention to your statute. In closing, we spent most our time talking the undocumented. Let's put a face on the U.S. citizens, the Mexican Americans. For the first time in Texas history, the people we represent when they're pulled over, they're going to have to prove that they're U.S. citizens. It will not affect the Anglo members of this body. Senator Van de Putte, will you stand up, Senator Rodriguez, Uresti, Hinojosa, will you please stand, Lucio, Zaffirini. Take a look at our colleagues, members. Mario Gallegos, retired firefighter, put his life on the line for all of us. Look at these members on the Senate. The first time one of them is pulled over in traffic for any probable cause they will for the first time in their life, a Vietnam war veteran, county official, I can go on and on. Honorable US citizens, Uresti, a marine, this legislation will force them to prove that they're U.S. citizens and honorable members of this body. Proud U.S. citizens, Texans. Members, we can do better. This is a sad day, please realize what you're doing and vote no on this legislation.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Zaffirini to speak against the bill.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, I too rise in opposition to Senate Bill 9, the so-called sanctuary cities bill. Abraham Lincoln urged us to be guided by the better angels of our nature and this is one of those times when we should listen to those better angels. We also should listen to the Hispanic senators. If we truly want to improve public safety, the first thing we need to do is listen to the men and women charged with protecting the public. Law enforcement leaders do not want this bill and have spoken against it repeatedly though respectfully. Do we really want to tell them how to do their jobs and tell them that we know best? Law enforcement leaders from across the state including the Dallas county sheriff, police chiefs of Houston, El Paso, San Antonio, Fort Worth and Austin all have stated their belief that this bill will harm public safety. I believe them, and I wish all of you would. Members, you know that 911 response times are critical and mean the difference between life and death. If your family is facing an emergency and you call the police, you want them to get there fast. Yet clearly if law enforcement officials spend time determining a person's legal status after a traffic violation or other small problems, they may not be able to respond to critical emergencies timely. I know because when one of my staff members and I were in a rural county in our district and we had an accident we called for help. No one could respond, no one from a neighboring county could respond and we asked, what is the problem. They said, they're chasing fugitives. I said, was there a bank robbery? And their answer was, no, they're chasing illegals which is, of course, to me is an offensive word. But here they were the law enforcement officials who should come to our aid were chasing undocumented workers, undocumented persons across two counties and could not do their job. This bill will exacerbate that problem. Experience and research have shown that the best policies for controlling crime are those that reduce fear and establish trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Policies that are based on fear like Senate Bill 9 are the wrong approach. They not only create more fear but also are ineffective at reducing crime. Do you think that a victim or a witness to a crime will call the police if he or she is worried about being deported? Senate Bill 9 will make people afraid to do the right thing. Mr. President and members, this bill only creates unnecessary fears, fear of law enforcement and the fear experienced by undocumented persons. It breaks bonds of trusts between the community and creates more fear by furthering the false perception that undocumented persons are responsible for the majority of crimes in this state. During the floor debate Senator Williams said repeatedly that this does not create a new offense. Perhaps that is true. However, it does create a new weapon and forces law enforcement to use it. This new weapon obviously is the inquiry of citizenship status. The possibility that there will be mistakes in the judicious and careful use of this weapon is a legitimate and serious concern. To assume that it will not result in discrimination against American citizens especially against those of us who are of Hispanic descent or who look Hispanic, it's wrong. I don't doubt your sincere belief, those of you who intent to vote for this bill, that Senate 69 will prohibit sanctuary cities, require the use of the Secured Communities program and authenticate lawful presence when issuing state ID's and driver's licenses. However, please understand my belief, the belief of every Hispanic Senator that Senate Bill 9 inevitably will result in American citizens being harassed and targeted. This is unacceptable and because of it I stand in opposition to Senate Bill 9. When it comes to public safety in Texas we should listen to our law enforcement leaders who oppose Senate Bill 9. They oppose it and so do I. We should listen to the seven Hispanic senators and to those who represent Spanish districts. We oppose Senate Bill 9 and so should you. We also should listen as President Lincoln advised to our better angels. Failure to do so will result in discrimination against Hispanic Americans. Members, I ask you to listen to your better angels, to vote against Senate Bill 9, truly failure to do so will result in your discriminating against us. Thank you, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to speak against the bill.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members. There is no question Senate Bill 9 is bad legislation as Senator Whitmire said. At a time when Hispanics are making their mark as the fastest growing population, as the youngest population, as the future labor force in Texas of the nation as Steve Murdock and ores have told us, this body is passing a law that threatens their progress and harms not only their prosperity but the state of Texas as well. Make no mistake about it, I heard Governor Perry say that Texas was not Arizona. When House Bill 1070 was passed in Arizona, I heard Senator Williams say in El Paso that as long as he was Chair of the transportation and homeland security committee he will not allow Arizona style legislation to pass through his committee. I repeat, make no mistake about it, Senate Bill 9 is Arizona style legislation which will cause local law enforcement to be perceived, if nothing else to be perceived as immigration agents and it will create fear as we heard the testimony yesterday in the community and potential economic chaos in this state as we heard from the business witnesses yesterday. Yesterday we heard overwhelming opposition to this legislation from law enforcement, from the religious community, from cities, from counties, from elected officials, from advocates and from ordinary citizens. This legislation, members, will have unintended consequences. Communities will become less safe and more insecure according to our experts in law enforcement officers. Crime will increase as trust is broken between immigrants and law enforcement. We will have less public safety and more insecurity rather than security. Racial profiling of Hispanics and civil rights violations will occur precipitating civil rights lawsuits, expensive civil right lawsuits. Local taxpayers will foot the bill for police training, for jail costs, as the chief -- as the sheriff from Dallas and the sheriff from or the chief of police from Houston pointed out yesterday in testimony. There will be the expense of lawsuits and other unfunded mandates on local government. And I have to add this has happened in California where the anti-immigrant proposition 187 passed, there will be political backlash in future elections. These are the unintended consequences and there are others. Do we really need to have 50 sets of state immigration laws to address our broken national immigration system? This is a piecemeal piece of legislation. It will contribute nothing as has already been stated to solve our immigration problem. In fact it will only worsen it by driving our immigrant community further and deeper into the shadows. Unfortunately this legislation will brand Texas as worse than Arizona, Texas will be viewed as a nonwelcoming place for all immigrants legal and illegal. Documented and undocumented. And an unwelcoming place for Hispanics at a time when the Hispanics are recognized, as I said earlier, as a future labor force for maintaining the state's and nation's competitiveness in the world's economy. Members, let's make no mistake like Arizona. Let's build Texas' legacy as a state, as a state for opportunity for everyone. Let's vote against Senate Bill 9. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to speak against the bill.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and members, good evening. I don't get emotional very often and I did earlier because when it comes to our children, they simply are my weakness, but we need to slow down, members, just for a moment and really think about this bill. Why is it being brought and what is it designed to accomplish and the effect that it would have and will have not only on local law enforcement but on the fastest growing demographic in our state. The first two questions are the toughest for advocates to answer, there is no sanctuary cities in Texas. You heard my dialogue with Senator Williams earlier, he could not name one city and I asked him no less than three times. No one has yet cited a municipality in this state where undocumented immigrants are sheltered, nurtured or otherwise protected by any ordinance or code. And we've heard a lot of rhetoric and grand standing about drug cartels and so-called criminal aliens, we have all heard the anecdotes that this undocumented person killed someone while drunk driving and that undocumented immigrant did this or that. Members, I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps when I was 18 years old to defend our country. I represent two-thirds of the Mexican border, more border than y'all put together. There's nobody that I know on this Senate floor that doesn't want to protect our Texas/Mexico border but while these isolated incidents might make a good story, the simple fact that numbers and statistics tell another story. So why do we need this bill? And why is this an emergency? Beyond the devices, political ideology, it doesn't work and beyond the fact that some people think they need this to garner both in the primary election, there is no good reason. And I've heard some members well tell me well because we fought for more funding for our children in public Ed now, we have to deal with this bill. That's mean and that's vindictive and it's wrong. And I will tell you right now I will never compromise my values when it comes to fighting for the children of Texas. So the fact that we're here today and if you're using this bill to get back at us for fighting for children, it's not enough. It's on those that believe this bill should be used for payback. Indeed just this weekend we got a bitter taste of the ideology at work of the minds of some of the folks that support this bill. There was a rally in support of this bill and the cofounder of the Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas bemoaned the presence of too many Hispanics in the legislature. She said that's part of our problem and we need to change those numbers. We need to do something about that and though her words were condemned, we were also told that this bill is not about race or politics, it's not about the color of anyone's skin, members. That's exactly what this bill is about. As your colleague and as your friend, I do not want to believe that that is your intention. I don't want to believe that most -- in fact I don't believe that most of you would have brought this bill forward on your own, but intentional or not, regardless of the motivation, this bill and your vote strike at the hearts and the souls of the Latino people in Texas. It threatens their freedom and their independence, any encounter with law enforcement, any herd or glance or misstatement could result in suspicion. And suddenly it doesn't matter where you were born, it doesn't matter where you live, how you make your living, it doesn't matter if you served our country, all that matters all of a sudden is the color of your skin and if you have an accent perhaps. And all of a sudden a new burden of proof is imposed. Members, don't fool yourselves about how this bill would have to be enforced. It opens the door to discrimination against legal immigrants, American citizens, tourists, travelers, anyone who looks look me, Senator Lucio, Senator Hinojosa, Senator Gallegos, anyone who is a member of the fastest growing population in Texas. And I know a little bit about being discriminated against because of the color of my skin. When I was just in PreK, five years old, we were not allowed to speak Spanish in school. My name is Carlos obviously so my teacher said, we're not allowed to say Carlos because that's a Spanish name so we're going to nickname you Charlie. So to this day my family calls me Charlie because we were not allowed to speak Spanish in school meaning I couldn't even say my own name Carlos in school. When I was a young teenager, I had a friend, female friends that wouldn't date me because they told me their fathers told them they couldn't date a Mexican. When I was 2nd lieutenant of the United States Marine Corps back in 1986 basic school, other second lieutenants would -- we could come in from the field, we were sweaty, taking off our packs and they said, look, there goes a real wetback. Talking about me. There was 157 second lieutenants in our class and only three Hispanics, they would point to me and say, there goes a real wetback. They thought it was funny. I didn't think it was funny. It was pure ignorance. And quite frankly I shouldn't have to prove I'm an American citizen. When I was born on September 12th of 1963 Santa Rosa hospital in San Antonio, Texas I proved then I was an American citizen. When I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at the age of 18, I proved then that I was an American citizen. And when I took the oath to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, I proved then that I was an American citizen. Yes, I love the color of my skin, don't get me wrong but I shouldn't have to prove my citizenship simply because my skin is a little darker than yours. So what are we doing here, members? Why is this body so aggressively pursuing a policy runs counter to the best interest of our state and all its people? This bill is hurtful, it's ignorant and it's offensive. I'm going to close, members. I've tried to reach y'all this evening, we've talked about legal issues, emotional issues and as Dean Whitmire did, I want to try to reach you spiritually. A few sessions ago, Senator Patrick with all of us in agreement put those four words up there above Governor Dewhurst that reads in God we trust. Every morning we have a prayer and we ask for God to watch over us as we deliberate and as we vote. Just two minutes ago Senator Birdwell said we should have the courage to do what's right and so I'm going to ask you members to pray before you vote and I'll ask you to ask yourself one question before you vote, what would Jesus do. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio to speak in opposition.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, too, I rise on this very sad occasion. Somewhat angry but forgiving because at my age I guess practicing my faith I've come to a conclusion of being as forgiving as I can to my fellow man. I -- I've lived on the border all my life. Actually fourth generation in that area of the state. My son fifth generation. We're very proud. We didn't have an opportunity, I was pulled off the bus, Senator Uresti, when I was drafted to the Vietnam War because there was a tremendous shortage of teachers then. So I had to stay back to teach our children and I took pride and I passed on to them what I had learned growing up. As a matter of fact at the end of each class I would take five minutes to lecture them on being a citizen, being a good American because that's what I was taught at home. My dad would preach patriotism, Americanism, Senator, and my mom would pitch in with citizenship. I've made a lot of friends over the years on both sides of the border. I can remember one time when I was in Mexico right across from Brownsville,

(inaudible) all of my friends that were congratulating me for my service as a public official and that was a great Mexican, a great Mexican, a great Mexican, that's all I heard from them. Except one guy at the end of the table, he was eyeing me and said after a little bit of conversation, he said Lucio's not a Mexican, he said he's an American. So they all turned to me to see how I would respond, Senators, and I said he's right, I'm very proud to be an American. I love my country just like you love your country, but I can assure you that as I everybody in public office, no matter whether I'm a county treasurer, county commissioner, state representative or state Senator, you can always count on my positions that hopefully will -- speaking Spanish -- which means hopefully impact both sides of the border in terms of our relationship with you all because we are hopefully good neighbors, we want to understand and appreciate one another, we're part of our -- we're part of a culture that's extremely, you know, strong in this area of both countries and we celebrate a lot of important holidays together. I've had a lot of experiences over my years. I'm a senior now and I've talked to my grandchildren and I try to teach them to be good neighbors and to be understanding and to never discriminate no matter what because we are the majority down there. There's 95, 96 kids in our public schools that are Hispanic down there. 95 to 96 percent of the kids are Hispanic and in this state, the majority of those going into public schools are Hispanic. We know that and we need to educate them so they can become good Texans, good American, productive citizens and we need to send the right messages on whatever public policy we pass on this floor. You know, I had to prove that I'm an American citizen twice a week, Senator Shapiro, I have to go through a check point and I don't like it because their line of questioning is just horrible and I get after them and I'm hoping the cameras are on. They say, where you going. I say, I'm going -- I'm going to go work. Where? Well, I'm going to Austin. What do you do. I mean, I shouldn't have to prove, Senator Williams, that I am an American period and they should let me go about my business. They don't even look at my license plate, they look at me, the person inside the car. Anybody else in there? No. Well, the doors are unlocked, take a look. The line of questioning is horrid, that comes from our federal officials and I'll state that anywhere, any time including Washington and my intentions are to do so whenever I get that opportunity. More along the line they are not teaching, they're not going to charm school is what I'm saying. What is going to happen now to other levels of law enforcement with this piece of legislation? Where are we going from here? I cannot hang my faith outside the door, Senator Ogden, I can't. It's impossible for me to separate my faith and my duties on this floor and that means that I have to be very considerate before I vote on a piece of legislation that I think or I know will impact somebody negatively whether it be a stranger in this land or whether he's a citizen. You know, a lot of strangers here, all those documented and undocumented workers they struggled, quite frankly, to get here. I don't condone doing anything illegal but you got to understand what's happening on that border. Thousands of people are getting killed every day. Every day I pick up the newspaper and I'm afraid to read my computer because another 172 graves were dug up and two of them were Americans this morning. There are real problems out there without creating more deviseness, more dissension with legislation such as this and I will say this that all of this is going to be reversed some day. They are going to look back and they are going to see what happened here and the people on this floor will probably grown in terms of Hispanic members and they're going to, including the leadership, and all of this is going to be reversed. But I don't want it to be in a hateful mood and that's what hopefully I will be speaking against, hate, divisiveness, you know, where one (inaudible) family regardless of our culture, background, I have always talked about that in our public schools. Even down south where I'm from, and I just -- I am sitting here throughout this whole debate and I am thinking back of the experiences that we've had similar to some of those that were discussed and shared with us tonight. I remember my son as a college student at Texas Tech being pushed against the wall, pushed against the wall, I came so close in hurting somebody because they pushed my son against the wall because they wanted to know if he was an American citizen. Can you imagine that? I mean, your son pushed against the wall, your daughter or your father being questioned to death because he is on his way back from a fishing trip at Boca Chica beach right close to where we've lived to all our lives from someone who just got in town from up north, what about him after, questioning those in the car. Well, that guy he's -- to us he's an American hero, stable American veteran of foreign wars. Questioning his citizenship. This is going to make it ugly, very ugly in many communities. Senator Whitmire kicked it off perfectly tonight. I've never been so proud in listening to some of you stand up. What you believe is right. You're right, Senator Davis, enough, I'll stop here but when we listen and I listen to our prayer I'm very attentive. It might not suit this, but I prayed three rosaries last night, three for a reason because I love my Texas and everyone that lives here and I love the people that I work with but we're just -- at times we don't feel for the person next to us and I just want you to know that the lowest -- this is really the lowest point of my 24 years of service on this floor.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to speak against the bill.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise to speak against your bill. I appreciate you rising and putting before us your words, I've never had really -- I've had people talk for me and all that but not the way you put it. You put a face to it, you made us stand up and I hope that everybody was sitting at their desk and watching that because I've never seen that done, ever, ever. You know, that the Latino members of this body just get up and we're stating a fact and Whitmire said it, not me. Senator Whitmire said it to the effect of the Latino members on this floor. You know members, illegal immigrants have been coming to this country for over a century and probably even more than that, you know, been coming from all walks of life and all walks of this nation, of this earth. And you know, Senator Ellis, a lot of them they come from the south, they come from the east and west but a lot of them came through Ellis Island in those days when they were fleeing communism, terrorism, tyranny, dictatorship and yes, genocide, that's why they were coming to America. Senator Ellis, you know, when they came in the line they came there at Ellis Island and did we turn them away? Did we ask for their papers? Did we ask for their citizenship? Were they told, hey, you got to get back on the boat and go right back to where you came from? No. We welcomed them with open arms. We knew why they were fleeing. They were fleeing the terror and murder and who knows what is else on that side. That's why they came here and a lot of them are our grandparents, your grandparents, great grandparents, the very roots of probably who sits here on this Senate floor. We never asked that I know of, none of them were ever asked, hey, you got to get on the boat and go right back, we're sorry but show us your papers, show us your citizenship. Never was that asked. You know, members, and I know Senator Lucio said that he had to, every time he goes home he has to show that he's a citizen, that he's an American citizen. And, you know, during session there was an incident, and I've talked with a couple of my colleagues, not everyone knows but I'll tell you tonight because I think it's appropriate. You know, there was one night we were debating until about I want to say it was 9:00 clock at night and the president let us go. The next day I had a meeting at 1:00 clock the next day in Houston so I decided to go home and I took a nap for a couple of hours and then I just decided, you know what, I'm going to go home, be there for that meeting at least rest that morning and be there for that 1:00 clock meeting. So I packed up, drove, I'm not going to tell you where I drove to and the city that I stopped but I didn't have gas. So I had to stop and I gassed up, then went inside at the city that will go unnamed and I walked in and went to the bathroom and there were two police cars out front and I went to the bathroom and one of the police officers kind of nonchalantly followed me to the door and the other one -- I couldn't tell what the other one was doing but I went to the bathroom and those of us that came from the body that I was born and raised, I was dressed in blue jeans and I like to wear a

(inaudible), I like to wear (inaudible) and this was the very shirt I was wearing. A lot of us -- I've seen Senator Whitmire wear (inaudible), that's because of the 100-degrees outside, these are real, real, real cool and. I know a lot of y'all wear them. This is what I was wearing so when I walked out, there was a police officer right outside the door. I mean, he didn't approach me, didn't approach me but I walked out, went and got a Sprite, but I could see the other officer was outside by my truck with a pad and he looked close and unlike you, Senator Lucio, the way he looked at me, they also looked at my truck and yes, they did look at the driver's, the license tag. Thank God, you know, because once he saw it, he didn't see me come out of the bathroom. When he saw it, he turned around to the other officer and started waving like this -- you know. So I can only -- my perception is what were they going to do to me. Were they going to ask me for my ID or ask if I was an American citizen, I don't know, I don't know. But that was to -- members, No. 1, I learned one lesson I will have a full tank of gas before I leave Austin, Texas, I can guarantee you that. But No. 2, you know, it was racial profiling to the max. I mean, racial profiling even before Senate Bill 9 goes into effect if we pass that bill. And you know, I started wondering, well, if I'm wearing these kind of shirts, because I wear other shirts too. You know, I like to wear this shirt. (Spanish). I like to wear this shirt and it shows our Lady of Guadalupe on the back and I'm sure Senator Davis in Fort Worth you have seen this here in Austin, in Dallas, especially in the Valley. And if you look at pickup trucks, this symbol is all on a bunch of trucks, Senator Uresti. I don't mind telling you I do like to wear this shirt and, you know, I am proud to wear this shirt and then I also wear other shirts too when I try to relax. And this is one of my favorites, this is (inaudible) Zapata and, Senator Davis, you have seen these too. And this is what you wear really in my neighborhood. You know, and I'm proud to wear this shirt, I couldn't find -- I tried to find via via but they're all sold out. And I also tried to find you know the Mexican soccer shirts. I see a gentleman up there wearing it but they're sold out. You can't find one in Austin because I looked today. Sold out. This T-shirt sold out. You know, members, and then my little encounter in the small town listening in Senator Williams committee, you know, on this Austin officer that testified and Senator Williams said, well, he misunderstood and he really, didn't know the language in the bill. Well, if that police officer misunderstood, I wonder how many other police officers are not going to understand Senate Bill 9 and the way it works. Then it reminded me of our good friend in Maricopa, Arizona, our good sheriff, Senator Ellis, and let me tell you about his current status, he's currently the subject of an FBI United States Department of Justice and federal grand jury informations for civil rights violations and abuse of power and is a defendant in a federal class action suit for racial profiling. And this is a letter from the Phoenix mayor about the good sheriff. Over the past few weeks Sheriff Paos' actions infringed on the civil rights of our residents. They have put our residents' well being and well being of our law enforcement officers at risk and then the sheriff has always said that he always maintained that his deputies never profile people during his crime sweeps but then he said this. He said, there are certain criteria that we go by, no ID, looking like they just came from Mexico and they admit it, that's enough. That's our good sheriff in Arizona. And it reminded me of that testimony that I heard in Senator Williams' committee. You know, and I was look at all the witnesses, Senator Williams, and, you know, there's a lot -- I'm not going to go through all of them, there's too many, especially against, it's five to one against. I saw a lot of clergy, there's a lot of clergy in here, a lot of police chiefs and persons we heard personal stories from. You know, I just -- you know hearing this bill tonight is just -- I am struck by the question, you know, why? I mean, what's the point, why are we spending more time on this bill? What issues are we hoping to solve? You know, and I heard, Senator Williams, and others that it's not his intent and I believe it. It's not his intent on this issue. It's not my intent on this other issue and a lot of good amendments that went down. You already said it's covered in the bill but it's not my intent to do this but the word I always heard coming up was unintended consequences. Unintended consequences. Now, you know I've got Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona and I looked, I looked at the language, then I also have the language of prop 187. And I look at the language, and then I look at Senate Bill 9 and I look at the language and this bill shouldn't be called sanctuary cities bill, it should be called the unintended consequences bill because I promise you -- it might not be the same language but once the unintended consequences are formulated in, you will get the same results as prop 187. You will get the same result as Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona, you will get those results. I promise you that's what's going to happen under this bill. You know, I think -- I think everybody on this floor would agree with me that our country needs immigration reform. In fact, Senator Williams, I supported your resolution during the regular session calling on congress. I agree that we do that and you asked a while ago about making congress come up with some form of immigration and I agreed with you and I voted for you. But our state is more than some others as Senator Lucio pointed out feel the effects of the broken immigration system in our country and this legislation tonight, I believe, is really going backwards. We are going back to the 50s, you know back in those days, Senator West, and I hate to even say it, but the Jim Crowe days, the fire hoses, the German Shepherds, why don't we bring those out, might as well add an amendment to bring this. That's all this is about when Senator Whitmire told us to stand up. I'd take that, at least I know it's coming. If I try to hide it, the unintended consequences? Senate Bill 9. You know, the police and the sheriffs department, especially the sheriff in Dallas county, Senator West, said that she -- excuse me, she testified that she was against the bill said it was going to bring unfunded mandates and said it was going to cost the city of Dallas, excuse me, the county of Dallas. I mean, police chiefs and sheriffs coming before the committee are saying this is an unintended mandate. Even more so what was pointed out during the earlier debate, Senator Uresti, and kept going to the fiscal note and showing that it's going to affect not only our big cities but small cities also. They don't have the force to pay for this. And, you know, I believe that, you know, they came to testify for a reason, they don't have the troops just like I told Senator Williams earlier that our police chief, Senator Patrick, was given a certain amount of money. The mayor told him, here, you got to work with this, if you didn't work with it we're going to lay off police officers. That's exactly what he was given, so he knows he was given $4 million, the police of Houston police department to implement the same if 9 goes into effect. He knows what that's going to cost and I believe this is an unintended mandate on police departments, sheriffs departments that came to testify that day. You know, members, I could go a long time but I think we've gotten our point across that I have and I wanted to pointed that out because it's not only -- it's not only the fact of the matter that people are going to be asked to how their citizenship but I mean look at the census, you know, of the people that came here, the majority was all Latino. You know, I think that you're going to have consequences like Senator Rodriguez said. You know you're going to have those that don't want to come over here. You probably -- you know, I would venture to say you're going to have some boycotts. Just like they did in Arizona, they boycotted. The city of Phoenix lost a lot of money. But if you look at the buying power just look at the HEBs, the Payless stores, especially in your Latinos communities they're the highest in sales, they're the highest in sales, and at one time with

(inaudible) in my district, in my community in the Latino district was the highest single depositor, bank, single deposit bank in this state, all Latino, 100 percent Latino. That's really what you're dealing with here. We're talking about economic, economic opportunities that Hispanics come here for, their buying power, their money is just as good as everybody else's. It shows up and it's sales taxes just as everyone else. They're at the stores, you can see them, they're at the stores buying and buying and buying and paying their sales tax and I think this bill is going to have this effect on them. They're not going to want to come outside like was mentioned or was mentioned about Anna Hernandez, they had to shuttle. So if one of them got apprehended, at least someone is able to take care of the kids. What are they going to do here after your bill goes into effect? Let me close by saying, you know, I think this bill will be an open season and I see my friends up there from Houston, this will be an open season on Latinos. We're going to -- hey, we're going to stop them, go in my district or any of the other districts here but I am going to tell you if you look at the demographics of my colleagues from the other aisle, your districts are at least 20 to 30 percent Latino too and you know, I think that this bill will only -- will only breed racial profiling, hate mongering and fear, yes fear and it will not serve, it's not going to serve to solve any problems. This bill, Senator Lucio said to the it is the saddest day of his 24 years, it's a sad day for all of us that look like me. This bill is the most racist Latino bashing anti-immigrant bill that I've ever seen and that includes California and prop 187 and that includes Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona. That's why I will vote against this racist bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to speak against the bill.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, I rise to speak against passage of the committee substitute to Senate Bill 9. Members, we have heard a lot about why we really need this bill. It's about border security, it's about public safety but I really believe it's about fear. It's about fear and politics. Nowhere in the discussions have we really focused on the core problems. All of us agree. We wouldn't even being having this debate if it were not for the abject failure of our federal government to do long term immigration reform and secure our borders. It's the abject failure of democratic administration, it's the abject failure of republican administrations. Members, we treasure that we have a free market and a free market society that makes our economy strong. But there's one part about the free market that's very difficult and that is to interrupt and to interfere into the relationship between a willing buyer and a willing seller and nowhere tonight have we mentioned the fact that although the United States only makes up a little over 7 percent of the world's population, we consume as Americans 70 percent of the illicit drugs in the world. Think about the willing buyer. The violence and what we see in the cartels is because we are the purchasers of that product that destroys our families. Today news reports suggested and verified that we sell, that Americans sale to Mexico 70 percent of their arms. 70 percent of their weapons comes from the United States. It's an awful trade. Americans buy the drugs, and we sell them the guns. I don't know that this bill does anything about that trade injustice. We should be focusing on that and we're not. In fact we have heard repeated pleas from our police officers and those in charge of law enforcement that this will in fact set them back. It will harm their ability to keep communities safe. Texas has a very proud tradition and maybe some of you do not know our history as well. We have the portrait of Stephen F. Austin. If you walk over to the archives you will never see a signature of Stephen F. Austin because he never signed it that way. In all the documents he signed Esteban Austin. We prided ourselves on being different from Arizona, we have a collective history. In fact we were Mexico, we were Texas and (inaudible). And sometimes when people still speak Spanish, they do so because of the comfort level of being in the native tongue, much like my husband's grandmother who preferred to speak French with her children and grandchildren because she was too fearful of her broken English and in her home and around her family she spoke French. Senator Uresti, my name is Leticia Rosa (inaudible). But in school I was called Rosie. Leticia was not allowed. So when the phone calls to our office come in and they ask for Rosie, my staff jokes that this is somebody who knew me in school and my family called me Rosie, to not call attention to the fact. I was sent home three times during elementary for speaking Spanish accidentally on the playground, but if you were a boy, you got whipped, if you were a girl, you got sent home. Luckily those days are behind us. Members, let's focus on the injustice of the economic consequences. I know that we are doing this today, it didn't happen during the regular session and it didn't because of the willingness of this body to realize that we could do a lot better and we supported Senator Williams' original SB9 but times have changed, rules have changed. So the economic side of this, and I'm not talking about the trade of guns and drugs, I am talking about agriculture. Today in Georgia, the commissioner of agriculture has joined the governor and the chief of the Department of Corrections to try to sign a memorandum of understanding, the commissioner of agriculture has stated that there are $300 million in crops that will be ruined, the farmers have said that there are 40,000 jobs right now and there are nobody to go get those crops. And so today they've come across a solution, they're going to have criminals pick those crops, much to the dismay of those farmers, they're going to have to pay them or pay the department but instead of having people willing to do very hard work who other than being here without documentation do not break any laws, now, they will have hardened criminals on their farms. Is the economic consequence we want for our state? The economic injustice is one thing and that is what one just example. When Arizona tried to get stronger this year, the business community pleaded with them not to because of the hundreds of millions of dollars already lost and when an attempt like SB9 was made in Florida, it was the Florida Republican business leadership who led the fight against and the Disney corporation to defeat similar legislation. Based on the arguments that it would be an economic injustice and they recognized the problem with it at the federal level. I'd like to speak about the personal injustices. We have a friend named Rudy who lives or at the time lived around the corner from us and Rudy loved to do his own yard work even though he could afford someone to do it for him. One day he borrowed a piece of garden equipment from us, we didn't think anything of it. Imagine my surprise several hours later when there was a knock at the door and there was a San Antonio police officer there with Rudy. And as I opened the door the officer said, ma'am, do you know this gentlemen? And I looked and Rudy had this combination look of indignation yet fear. You see, he was doing his yard and wasn't really dressed for anything like he was in his everyday job and he was returning that piece of garden equipment and since he was doing his yard he didn't have any ID on him and when the officer stopped him, he related the story that he was coming to return the piece of garden equipment. Rudy was a fine man, had the gorgeous dark brown skin color of Senator Rodriguez or Senator Lucio. And when the officer asked, do you know this man, for a moment I thought about saying, hell no, but that's my weed eater. But I said, Officer, what's the problem? And Rudy started to peak and the officer reprimanded him and said, you're not allowed, I am asking this lady. And I said officer, this is Chief Justice Rudy Escabo, the chief justice of the 4th court of appeals of the state of Texas. I said, I can vouch for him and I'm sure if you will travel to him -- with him to his house a block and a half away he can show you proper identification. So members, and you don't think it will happen, it will and it does. Let's talk about what our faith leaders have said. Why is it that we take their words of advice on certain pieces of legislation but when the Texas Baptist Life Commission, the Federation of Jewish Women, the Methodist ministers, the Catholic bishops, and

(Spanish), which is the alliance of Evangelical Spanish speaking churches. All are opposed. It brings great sadness. The faith injustice is when the Senate Bill in Arizona was about to go in effect, when 1070 was about to go into effect. The Catholic bishops told their flock, remove your crucifixes and your saints from your cars, take your (inaudible) Guadalupe from your windows, do not subject yourself. When your faith leaders tell you to remove the objects of your faith then what type of injustice is there? When the Evangelical Christian Spanish speaking pastors said remove any articles in your car because you may have noticed, members, that sometimes Latinos put their family names on their cars. Well, for Evangelical Latinos they put -- speaking Spanish -- on their car. They will put the name of their Evangelical church and big fishes, the Christian symbol. When those pastors s said remove anything like that to I've -- that identifies you as a Spanish speaking Christian from your car, then what does it say about the religious injustice? So we did not listen to our faith based leaders on this. And finally, I want to speak on a very personal note about this. My grandmother was the most wonderful person in our family and although she only had a third grade education, she had a wisdom beyond most people I've ever met. She was born in (inaudible) and yes, came here illegally and yes, never became a citizen. She married an American citizen, she was a woman of her church and her faith and her whole life revolved around her children and her grandchildren, the pride of her gardens in growing lavender roses that were sought after by every floral shop in the San Antonio area. She was beloved, she never drove, she was so skilled as a seamstress, she made all of the curtains and drapes, she made my mother's wedding dress. She made all of my prom dresses. She never became a citizen and for whatever reason we'll never know. But when she was a little girl she always knew that she would come back and forth at the beginning from that border and she was so wise. She would tell us as giving us advice and we could call this in Spanish (speaking Spanish), the little bits of wisdom. When we were getting off track in our lives, she'd come to us and say, check point. Because see when you go through a check point they ask you four questions. The first question at the check point they ask you is who are you, (Spanish), that's what they ask. And for my grandmother that meant who are you, who are you as a person. The second question they ask is what do you have? The check point officers, immigration means what do you carry with you. But for my grandmother what do you have means (Spanish), what sort of qualities do you possess? Are you a person of character? Are you honest? Are you an asset to this family? Are you an asset to your employer? Are you an asset to this community? What you got? (Spanish). The third question at a check point is where are you going and my grandmother always said, you got to know where you're going, you got to have a life plan, you got to set your goals. Fourth question at the check point is what are you going to do when you get there? (Speaking Spanish) -- and what my grandmother meant is what are you doing to do with the gifts that God gave you, what are you going to do with the education that you have, what are you going to do with the love and support of this family, what are you going to do at the end of your life, what are you going to be proud of, where are you going and what are you going to do when you get there. When you get all the skill sets of everything this beautiful country has to offer you, what are you going to do, what are you going to do when you get there? Members, if the state of Texas right now was going through the check point, what would we say on this particular piece of legislation? Texas, who are you? We're a state rich in history and legacy and proud people who have overcome obstacles, who are blessed by our creator with the best national resources and we've exploited them all to get a great economy. Who are we? We're Texans and we're proud of it. Second question at the check point, what do you have? Texas has a burgeoning population. So much so that we are the envy of the country, that we get four new congressional seats, that our economy is the strongest, that we have weathered it, we have weathered it because we have had the people, we have weathered it because we have been strong, what do we got? The third question is where we're going. You see, my fears are overcome by the sense of hope that we are headed as a state with this rich demographic and I don't see it as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. We're headed to success. We are blessed with a vibrancy of people and family of faith and people who love their communities and they love this state. But with this bill, we go backwards, we don't move forward, members. And the fourth question for our state what are you going to do when you get there? If public policy like this is passed, where the future majority of the citizens of this state are treated differently because of their skin color, because of their language accent, then we will have economic failure. We won't have the promise of Texas. How can we treat her upcoming majority in such a different fashion? Members, I want you to look around this room, it's not just about the senators who stood up when Dean Whitmire called us out. I want you to look at your staffs around this room. And I want you to think about what their families and who will be questioned. Who will be suspects, I want you to look at our Senate staff right here and our sergeant at arms, who is going to be stopped here? I want you to look at this media table, who doing is going to be stopped, who do you think will be treated differently? Is this the check point that we want for our state? Is this the type of injustice? Members, the only thing I can tell you is that I am heartbroken that today we are going to pass legislation that would treat my children differently. Because I have children with blue eyes and sandy hair and they look like their Belgian ancestors and I have sons with the proud brown skin eyes and hair and they look Mexican, they look Mexican American and if we're passing legislation that treats brothers so very differently, how can that be right? We don't pass this check point, we go backwards and if those of you who would say I am pulling the race card, it's not about my race, it's about my ethnicity. And I wish I had the grace of Senator Lucio, I wish I could be as forgiving. And insult me all you can, tear and jab at me because I can survive but when you tear and jab at my children, I am not so forgiving. And when you rip apart families in my community and my constituents, I am not forgiving. I will speak out every day and if you think that the members on this Senate floor will be quiet so that we don't make you feel bad about what you think you have to do, then think again. I have yet been blessed with the grace of forgiveness of Senator Lucio. I'm just a very mad (Spanish). I will vote no on this bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Are there any other members that wish to speak against the bill? Senator Ogden, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: To speak in support of the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: I've always been ambivalent about this subject, one of the things I thought about when Senator Lucio was speaking and Senator Van de Putte was speaking there's a comment I made I think it was two sessions ago about Hispanic Texans and the one place they were not under represented in our state was in our military cemeteries, not a more patriotic group of citizens in the whole country than Hispanic Texans. I know that. So I never want to be for a bill that basically impugned their patriotism. My own daughter-in-law who's Cuban American will not drive through Arizona. My grandchildren are light skinned, she is darker complexion, and she says when she goes to Arizona, the police hassle her because they think she's a nanny, so she won't even drive through the state. So I have some personal experience with the fears and the outrage that many of the speakers addressed today, but there still is a problem and that is that most of the criticism of this bill doesn't make sense to me. This bill doesn't do what its opponents accuses it of doing. All it says is that you cannot prevent law enforcement officers from asking a question when they have lawfully detained a citizen or noncitizen. You cannot prevent them from asking a question, that's all it says. It also says is that if you've been booked in the local jail they have to check the immigration status before they let you out and it also says that our driver's licenses need to be reliable forms of identification. That's all this bill says. It doesn't say to racially profile, it doesn't say to -- the Laredo police department or the McAllen department or the Brownsville police department go out there and start hassling all the citizens, turn yourself into a Gestapo force, it didn't say that, it's not going to happen. Most of the -- at least in my ears, members, most of the complaints about this bill sound preposterous to me. This is not going to happen. The examples that people have used in opposition of this bill have occurred before this legislation have even passed. I think about something else and that is what happened on 9/11/2001 and how almost 4,000 Americans have lost their lives. Because of that about and what happened? There were 21 people involved, foreign nationals, most of whom were here illegally that ran around this country for two or three years preparing to knock down the World Trade Center and we act like improving our ability to identify people who are here illegally and trying to do what's harm is somehow bad public policy. It's not. The first obligation of government is to provide order and to protect the citizenry. This bill may not do a whole lot but I think it could provide some additional protection for our citizenry against those people who are here to harm us and members talked about that. I don't like standing in the lines and the hassle of going to the airports, there's a necessary evil in this time. But here's the real reason why I think I have to vote for this bill. And this reason, I didn't ask to be here, I didn't ask to be in special session to consider this but now that I am here it's sort of like an umpire, you're going to have to make the call. All of us on this floor, Democrats and Republicans, Hispanic Texans and Anglo Texans took the same oath. It said we will to the best of our ability to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and of this state so help me God. The laws of the United States in and this state. It doesn't say except for the ones that we find inconvenient, or the ones that we happen to disagree with, it says to the best of our ability to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and this state so help me God and I cannot reconcile this oath that I took in opposition of this bill which is simply an effort to make sure that our law enforcement agencies and our driver's license issuing authorities do a better job of identifying who is an American citizen and if they are committing a violation of our laws to at least ask the question are you here legally or not. And so members, I will be voting in support of this bill not because I particularly want to but because of the oath that I took compels me to do so.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: There's one additional member on the screen. Senator Deuell, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR BOB DEUELL: To speak for the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR BOB DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I wasn't going to speak. Sometimes the way being the majority we know we have the votes, we just sit and listen to the opposition and then with the confidence of numbers we stay silent but I'd like to bring a little perspective to the bill. I think that what some people perhaps don't recognize in listening to the testimony in the committee was that there's not an illegal immigration problem and I think there is. It's probably not as bad as some people think but I also think that it's worse than other people think and yes, the federal government is not doing its job and it's not this particular administration, it goes back and we have had to deal with it from a state level. I think we appropriated over $200 million this year for border security, 9/11 changed a lot of things. Specifically to one of our members but also to this nation and I understand the opposition and a lot of wounds from times passed have be opened in terms of racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination and I appreciate that. We are a nation of immigrants and we have many European immigrants come over to Ellis Island but they were asked questions about where they were from and they were screened and given health tests and -- but they were here illegally. This was a system and we still have that. We're a nation of laws. In some of the icons of justice is a lady blindfolded because justice is blind meaning that it doesn't discriminate and we have this illegal immigration problem and that's what we're trying to address. It just so happens that in this state particularly a lot of the illegal immigrants are Hispanics but the things that we do to address that are not because they're Hispanic, it's because they're illegal and I have many Hispanics in my district even in the Northeast part of Texas. Many more was when I tarted practicing in '86 sat up as a federally qualified health, Hispanic patients were fairly rare. Now, I'm in private practice and I have a lot of Hispanic patients I assume most are legal, perhaps some are not. I don't ask, it's not the place in a medical office, but what's some of the Hispanics have told me and some are not immigrants, some have been here a lot longer than many of us have, certainly me. They resent the ones that of any nationality that are here illegally because it stigmatizes them to a certain degree, I think tonight an example of that. The ones that have immigrated here have done it legally. And they feel like people are competing unfairly, not playing by the rules and one of the reasons that they wanted to come to this country was because we are a nation of law and rules. And you know what's happening at the border and other places, not only in Mexico but in central and South America. My mother and single mom, brother and I came to Texas in 1960, came to Dallas, south Oak Cliff, Senator West. We came from a small town in West Virginia and an integrated neighborhood. The kids that I grew up with, there were no Hispanics but there were black and white, we played together, fought together, called each other names that would get you in trouble now and moving to South O'Cliff, Senator West, I didn't live that far apart. We weren't particularly comfortable with the environment. In fact we were asked to leave a church because my grandmother pointed out in the Sunday school class she didn't see any reason why African Americans couldn't come to our church. People disagreed, thought people would be happier, looked at us as Yankees, asked us to find another church and we found another church. It's not the same type of discrimination but try driving around Texas with hair about the length of Senator Huffman in a Volkswagen bus like I did in the late 60s and 70s and you'll find a certain type of discrimination. But we do have this problem and Senator Ogden I think expressed why some of us are uncomfortable and yet are going to vote for this bill and I'll leave you with a story I heard Paul Harvey tell once and I think you can think of this bill as being sort of the moral of this story. There was a young boy who found a little baby bird that was still alive and he had it in his hand and he walked up to a man and said, well, do you know if the bird's alive or it's dead. Well, the man knew what was going to happen that if he told the boy he thought the bird was dead he would open his hand and how him that it's alive. But if he said the bird's alive the little boy would squeeze the bird, open his hand and show him that it's dead. I think this bill is what we make of it in this state, I think the state has heard the debate. I think this bill is going to pass, I think law enforcement testified against it. Some were for it, I think our law enforcement officers in this state are just as buried as we are in this body, just as buried as we are throughout the state. I think they will listen to this debate and I think, I trust them to act accordingly and show the world that justice is blind and is administered equally. The man's answer to the little boy was is the bird alive or dead is it's as you want it to be and I think this bill will be as we collectively want it to be. I tend to be an optimist and I look for the best in things and I think that this bill if applied in the proper way will be of a benefit to Texas. Accomplish its goal and not bring out the worst in all of Texas. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Patrick, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Stand to support the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Members, like Dr. Deuell just said I was not planning to speak and I've listened to each and every word from Senator Whitmire to Lucio to Senator Uresti and Van de Putte, Gallegos and everyone that's spoke against the bill. And I've been listening to where my Christian heart is since that has been brought up and there is a passage also, Senator Whitmire, that says do not judge, less ye be judged. Each of us have to make those personal decision. There have been other issues on the floor this session where the church wanted us to vote a certain way and some members did and some members didn't. I never looked at others and judged how they voted whether they were more or less of a Christian than I was or a believer. We all answer that question to our God when we meet him one day, for our lives we have to be held accountable, for our folks we will be held accountable. As Senator Ogden said, we have a constitutional duty and so that's why I'm voting for this bill. I also look at this a little bit differently because I want there to be a day when people can come to this country and not have to be afraid to go out together as a mother and father as someone mentioned. I want people to come to this country and be able to work without hiding in the shadows and worrying if they're going to go home that night because they're rounded up. I want there to be an immigration policy on the federal level that allows people to come here without being stuffed in the back of an 18 wheeler. That allow young girls to come here without being raped by coyotes on the border. Allow people to come to this country without being part of a human trafficking ring and have to pay a bounty back to the human smugglers, otherwise their families will be hurt. It is proven sadly that under Obama Administration and under both parties the federal government has advocated its responsibility not just to the border states and to the country at large but really to those people who want to come to this country. And so my hope, Senator Whitmire that this bill and other states who take action and we can agree or disagree do some states take enough or not go far enough, that's another issue for another day. But if states speak out that we have to protect our border and protect our constitution and we have to defend the laws that maybe the federal government will finally act. Whether the same president returns for four more years or a new president arrives, that finally the federal government will act as it sees states act. I don't want people to come here and hide. I want them to come here and be proud Americans or to come here and their family is back home and they send their money home and they go back to build their own country. But to not pass this law would throw our hands up and do nothing. I think our Latino citizens are crying out, our Anglo citizens, our black citizens, all of our citizens are asking us to help and I think in a certain way, members who oppose this bill, those who are here illegally are crying out for help. And will there be unintended consequences? We would all like to hope not but there will be and most of the people who come to this country even though they break the law coming here, they come here for the right reason but there is a criminal element that comes here and I would say, members, that there are not unintended consequences, unintended consequences by those criminals who come in here and prey on our citizens black, white and brown. So will there be unintended consequences if the bill passes? Yes, sadly, and hopefully we can address those and correct those if they happen but if we do nothing, there are American citizens today of all colors who will be the victims of crime, who will turn to us as their senators and say, why didn't you do something to save the life of my husband who was an officer or my wife who was injured or my child who was hurt. Why did you do nothing when you had the opportunity to stand up for the state of Texas and for my safety. So with a heavy heart, for a lot of people, those who hide in the shadows, those who come here across the border in fear, this is a bill that I can support because I feel I have an obligation to our state, our constitution and quite frankly my fellow brothers and sisters no matter what country they come from they have a right to come to this country in a safe manner, live safely and live proudly. So I support the bill. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Senator Ellis, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR RODNEY ELLIS: Briefly speak on the bill, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR RODNEY ELLIS: I will be brief. I was listening to the debate today. I wasn't on the floor all of it, I had a minor surgery this morning so you'll be glad to know it's going to be a brief speech before the painkillers kick in again. I think, members, we have learned a lot during the regular session and this session. I think we've learned to change our language a bit, I haven't heard people refer to people who in this country illegally as aliens as much as I used to hear it sometimes all of us may slip into that but that's not happening near as much. I think all of us have tried to ratchet up the level of this discussion but we still have a long ways to go. I think there are always unintended consequences to any legislation that passes out of any body. Anybody that passes law. A major unintended consequence out of this legislation I think is going to be, Senator Patrick, it's not going to keep more people from coming into this country and I don't think this bill as it is written and is going to pass is going to keep more people from being in the shadows, I think it's going to be the reverse of that, I think it's more people who are going to go into the shadows. I think there will be more people who live on the margin because they will be so afraid of being detected they're going to work cheaper, they're going to take more abuses. I suspect the legislation will be challenged in court and we'll see what happens with that but the biggest consequence of this law I think that instead of (inaudible) the federal government to give us comprehensive immigration reform, this patch work in the various states and jurisdiction really makes it more difficult to get there because a lot of the energy that's being used on both sides of the political equation for these efforts in various stages really detracts from finding a consensus on a federal level. You take a decent human being, Senator John McCain, he was for a reason to compromise before he ran for president and then decided he had to be against it because he had to work his base. Wrong bills like this move us towards that consensus. Hey, this is a big state trendsetter with another governor who may end up running as president. State presiding officer who may well be one of those people who have something to say on this issue when he gets at the federal level or when he gets on the plate, I don't think this makes it easier, I think it makes it harder. Other point I want to make here too I heard a lot of references about Ellis Island and I think it's interesting for all of us to go back and get a quick history lesson. The ancestors of everybody in this chamber, not just the 32 of us who are elected to be here, ancestors of everybody in this chamber, probably came here as an illegal immigrant unless they've been masqueraded as something other than a Native American. You know history is written by she or he who writes it and it's interesting each year when we discuss and celebrate the independence of Texas as an example, very rarely do we go back and look at just what the commitments Moses Austin had to make to the Spanish government to get that decree for the (inaudible) to settle here many this land and then, Leticia, what it took for Stephen F. Austin to move to Mexico, to become very much accepted, to become very much accepted in society in Mexico to get the land grant again that expired because his father didn't use it. Now, one read of history not necessarily my read but one read of history was that the Mexican government when they got their independence from Spain, among other things, declared slavery to be legal, put it in the constitution and they said to the (inaudible), you got to make a number of commitments, a lot of commitments. Three big commitments for people who advocate English only, might I add. You got to lean Spanish, you got to speak Spanish, you got to fake it m. If we show up you got to at least decide if you can't say hello, know how to say adios when we leave. They say it for people who are very much apart of the religion rights. You got to adopt our religion, their religion, they're Catholicisms. And the third one, a major one, said, you couldn't have slaves. Now, most reasonable folks could take a little Spanish you could as a difficult as this land is, I don't think we're going to be going to church every Sunday but that issue of the slave trade was a major source of frustration. All of our ancestors came here as immigrants. Some over 12 million crossed Ellis Island. Only reason that name stands is probably because Ellis' ancestors, probably not mine, I'm not part of that family, probably came here as immigrants as well, I guess that's the good Scottish, Irish name. But initially the Native Americans called it I think Gull Island because of the sea gulls who were settling there. At some point they named it after whatever tree was that they hung people from and then when Sam Ellis got the land from the colonial powers, he was so slick, he tried to sell it. He was a real estate speculator, among other things and that name Ellis Island stuck. Florence, over 12 million people crossed that over 3.5 acres of land which now may be settling in the neighborhood of 20 something. Some of that landfill from establishing the Port Authority of New York went over to expand that island and go on to the next one. Now, I wanted to get give you this little history lesson to just make the basic point immigrants have been the life blood of this land. Whether they were white, whether they were Hispanic or they were, Royce, African slaves who came here and pretty much built the great western empires that have existed all this time. It's amazing what you can do with free labor. A lot of people I think don't really want comprehensive immigration reform because they want people living in the shadows. In A lot of ways it's a new form of slavery. They want people who work cheap, they want people they can push around and they can't do anything about it and they are not willing to draw the line between what is politically right but morally wrong. I don't question anybody's personal beliefs or desires regardless of how you vote for this bill tonight. But all of us who gotten to this level in government, you know, it's not just what's written on paper, it's how it is enforced, and our state as historically had an (inaudible) history when it comes to dealing with issues of race and ethnicity. Only four majority minority states in the country. First one was Hawaii, second was New Mexico, third's California, and the fourth one is Texas and that to me is why passing this legislation in Texas is so bad. Our population is a reflection of what this great nation's population will be in the not too distant future. And that's why, my friends, with all of the great things said tonight -- Dean, far better than I can say it, the emotion that I felt in Zaffirini's voice and Uresti's voice, Senator Hinojosa I saw him on the news earlier tonight talking about his personal story of being deported although he was in this country illegally. It says to me that there only has to be 16 votes to pass this bill and I hope some of you will rethink your position and decide when the roll is called do you want to be on the wrong side of history. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Watson, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Mr. President, I would move that the comments of the Texas Senate on Senate Bill 9, the committee substitute to Senate Bill 9 be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Watson. Is there objection from any member? The chair hears no objection from any member, and the motion is adopted. The Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Move final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Williams. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nays, Senate Bill 9 as amended is finally passed.

SENATOR TOMMY WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President, thank you members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, the president's desk is clear. Are there any announcements? Any announcements? Chair hearing no announcements, the Chair recognizes the Dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I would move that the Senate recess until 2:00 pm Thursday June 16th, 2011, pending the reading and referral of bills, the receipt of messages and receipt of committee reports.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the senate will stand in recess until 2:00 p.m. Thursday June 16th pending the reading and referral of billings, the receipt of messages and receipt of House messages.

(Adjourned.)