REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, if you would bow with me. Father, we are grateful for the privilege of serving in this body. It's kind of been a long six months, and I know we're very, very ready to get this over. I just pray that with you're blessing that we could all wrap this up hopefully this week, and we pray that if we do so, that we could get to the work of the state done that the work that you want done. I think we all want to go in the same direction. We have difference -- differences of opinion and ideas on how to get there, and I just pray that you would help us come together. Help us to see what is the right way, the proper way, and in all things we do help us to do it with a manner of graciousness and courtesy and fellowship; and always with your will for what's best for Texas, as our heart. We again thank you for the privilege of serving in this body, and we pray that we would always do it in a way that honors your name. In Jesus' name. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lavender to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: Will you please join me in the pledge? [PLEDGE]
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Keffer today, tomorrow and Wednesday because of a death in the family, on the motion of Representative Aycock. Excuse Representative Mallory Caraway because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Gonzales. Excuse Representative Woolley because of important business in the district for the remainder of the week, on the motion of Representative Geren. Excuse Representative Castro because of important business, on the motion of Representative Walle. Excuse Representative Larry Taylor because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Crownover. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative Farias because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Deshotel. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're about to go on the calendar. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 26. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 26 by Madden. Relating to the containment of costs in the correctional health care system.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is our bill we had up on last week of correctional health care. There's one correcting amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Members, this brings the bill in line with what we passed in Senate Bill 1, it has the committee doing the contracting in our bill, in Senate Bill 1 we moved that to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. That was a recommendation of the auditors, and this does the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against final passage of House Bill 26? If not, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 26. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 124 ayes and 14 nays, House Bill 26 is finally passed. Mr. Huberty? Mr. Shelton? Dr. Shelton? Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 20. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 20 by Huberty. Relating to the notice required for termination of a teacher's probationary contract or nonrenewal of a teacher's term contract.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, I move to postpone this bill until time certain 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 22nd.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on -- as a matter of postponed business House Bill 21. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 21 by Shelton. Relating to the reduction in force of teachers employed by a school district.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we postpone House Bill 21 until Wednesday the 22nd at 10:00 o'clock.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 79. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 79 by Lewis. Relating to fiscal and other matters necessary for the implementation of the judiciary budget as enacted by HB No. 1, Acts of 82nd Legislature Regular Session, 2011, and to the operation and administration of, and practice and procedures in courts in, judicial branch of state government.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I members, thank all of you for being here today to consider this bill. This is the same bill as it was the conference report on a court organization bill that was passed out of the session. We came back, it was ready to be considered by you on the conference report. It sets out -- And then we didn't -- we didn't make it before midnight. But basically it sets out the court organization and administration standards. It modernizes it and codifies it and simplifies those standards. This is the work of about three sessions for our courts. I do have an amendment that I wish to have placed on with regard -- because I'm staying -- and I'll get to you in just a minute, Randy, what I'm saying it's the same as the conference report. That's with one exception. In this bill there's an additional mediation that allows mediation in certain circumstances in criminal cases, but having looked at that, there were some problems with it and some perhaps unintended consequences. And so I've decided to take that off, and I'll have an amendment to do that. But otherwise it is as it came before you.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'd be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Judge. You know, I raised a lot of questions at the first time this bill came out and it never got a vote.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And with all due respect to my fine colleague, which is retired from the bench, Judge, are you aware that about ten years ago most of the tenured and the seasoned Justices of the Peace -- Are you having trouble hearing me?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I can hear you fine.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You can hear me okay? Okay. Are you aware that about ten years ago most of the tenured and seasoned Justices of the Peace formed a new organization that was strictly for Justices of the Peace and did not didn't include constables; did you know that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I know that that is group of Justices of the Peace that is different from the Justice of the Peace and Constable Association. I do know that.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: These --
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Were you aware that they focused strictly on JP -- for the most part JP's issues, and they had only six hundred members?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Randy, I'm not -- I'm not familiar with that. The -- I did not -- I do not -- it's not my knowledge that they have anything like that membership.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, that's a fact. They did organize. They are strictly about Justices of the Peaces. There are over six hundred members, by their count. I'm advised they -- do all of their education of air organization, did you know that they do it without public funding and they do so that they can be more professional in their job, did you know that, judge?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'm not familiar with the circumstances that you're talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Well, the reason I'm bringing that up is because this organization has sent a letter to the House where they basically say they believe that they represent the true Justices of the Peaces, if that's the proper terminology. Did you know that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Justices of the Peace.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Justices of the Peace. There you go. They are working -- Sure, Judge you're aware, Judge, that they are worked on the front lines every day with rank and file Texans, you would agree with that, wouldn't you?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I worked with our Justices of the Peace frequently and they do a great job and.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And they work with the rank and file Texas on the front lines. Now, that group as I just described, are you aware that they are adamantly opposed to any efforts to abolish small claims court?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I know that there are a few Justices of the Peace who do not like the provisions of the bill that deal with Justices of the Peace court.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You say a few individuals, and yet I'm bringing to you an organization that was formed ten years ago and claims that they have over 600 members. I would say that's more than a few, wouldn't you?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: If that is their claim, and if that claim is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Sure. You bet. Is it not a fact, Judge, that today small claims court today in Texas are free from the complicated rules of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Evidence; is that a fact?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. Small claims courts have different rules than the normal rules of civil procedure that govern say the district courts, the county courts at law and Justice of the Peace courts presently.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And when -- When the Texas Legislature established the JP court, the small claims court, wouldn't you agree that it was their intent for it to be a layman's court, a layman court?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: In large part it was designed to be a more informal court. And, Randy, it's worked so well that that's why in this bill want to expand the small court informal framework to be -- to be the standard for all cases in Justice of the Peace, whether they're filed as a quote, small claim, or they are just filed in that court; so you don't have two different methods of procedure, you'll have one and it's going to be based on the small claims, informal procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: But Judge their concern -- Do you remember or were you aware that the concern they raised that once those procedures have to be followed that now those who hire attorneys will have an upper hand, would you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I would not agree with that at all. The idea, and what's set out in this bill is that the informal procedures will now be standard in all cases involving Justice of the Peace. So all cases, with three exceptions, that are -- the present law does -- not change present law with regard to collection cases, cases in which the claim has been assigned, or for a debt collection in term of loan debt collection; the law will not change. It will stay the same with regard to all of those. But all other cases, they will now be in-informal. They will now be laymen, where they need to file in small claims, or just, you know, filed in the wrong place, Justice of the Peace. Those layman will now be treated under the small claims rules.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It's much better than way than it was before.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: According to this large organization, and if you have got two organizations that don't agree, and we all hear about unintended consequences, wouldn't you agree that before the legislature changes this, with this much disagreement; and I'm aware that this organization was initially in favor of Senate Bill 1717, but when the language got added to change the J -- the small claims court like it did, they became adamantly opposed. Now, before this becomes the attorneys' full employment act in the State of Texas, we've got two groups that are adamantly -- or adamantly, on both -- either side of the issue; wouldn't you agree that it's better not --
THE CHAIR: (Inaudible) raises a point of order. The speaker's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Judge, did we fully vet this bill, including the JP issue in committee?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, we did. After extensive hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: And when we talk about the kind of JP court we're going to have, on page 46, just as Representative Weber is saying we should have, it says formal proceedings other than the statement are not required. The hearing is informal with the sole objective being at dispense -- to dispense speedy justice between the parties. So this is going to be an informal court. You don't need a lawyer and it's very plainly outlined in the bill that this is an informal court where people can come and have a people's court, is that not right?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir. That's exactly correct. What it says is that so we can have uniform rules so, the Supreme Court will write rules. But the Supreme Court required to keep the framework that's set up for small claims and make that applicable to all claims filed in JP court. But the rules of pleading are -- can be informal. The proceedings themselves, informal. The discovery, only that the Justice of the Peace allows. So in every way what they're doing is making a small claims procedure be uniform. Now, as far as I know, it is a very small group of officials who don't agree, and that's going to be true if it's something that affects the district courts, the county courts, anybody else; there's always going to be somebody who doesn't agree.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Now, we had -- we -- As we discuss it earlier, the Supreme Court can write rules for courts now, can't they?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: The Supreme Court has that authority under the constitution. What this bill does is say that there's certain rules -- they've got to follow certain guidelines in establishing those rules that keeps these courts an informal court.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yeah, that's right. Because what you're doing is before you had Justices of the Peace following standard, civil procedure rules and they're not going to be anymore; you've got to have some rules, even if it's going to be informal. Just some rules. Again, what's really important to emphasize here, the small claims courts are not going away, they're just being merged under the same judge that is doing them before, the Justice of the Peace. Before the Justice of the Peace have two docket books, have a regular docket book and have a small claims docket book.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Thank you, Judge.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: They have two. Now, like every other judge, but the rules are going to be the small claims rules. But the -- It's the same procedure -- for the same judge, you're just not calling it two different dockets anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Thank you, Judge.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I certainly will.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you. I'm wondering about the parts of this bill that says it's regarding suits affecting the parent child relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Go ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Can you get to that part?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Perhaps. Which part are you talking about?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It's -- Well, actually, I'm looking at the analysis. I have lost my page.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: If you tell me what the subject is I might be able to respond.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It's the one regarding suits affecting the parent child relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Any particular part of that or --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, yeah. I wanted you to tell me what we're doing with that. I mean what are we doing with -- For example, are we extending the court's -- it looks like we're extending the court's jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Foster children. Okay. Here's -- Here's -- I think -- Here's -- See if I'm getting at where you're going chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: What we are doing is under present law, when a foster child hits 18 --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: -- they're dropped. Eighteen year-old may still be in high school, they are dropped from any court supervision, any court help. And the -- What this part of the bill does, it allows the judge to extend the time of supervision so that the foster child can have maybe a supervised time of independence, but not lose supervision of them. And because we're -- It's a real hard time for these foster children when they hit 18 --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: -- to just go off the cliff.
(Inaudible) you don't want.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But there's nothing in here that changes the state's responsibility for those children, is there?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. They'll still get services. And, chairman, I'm so glad that you brought that up. Here's one reason that we have to have this change, and it's a real good change. Under present law, we're extending some services but it's not under court supervision. It doesn't meet the federal guidelines for funding. So we're losing about two to two and a half million dollars every year because we're not just extending that jurisdiction of the courts to be able to have jurisdiction over those kids. So we're losing all this money and having to try to fill the gap for general revenue, that otherwise this supervision was to be paid for with that money.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, thank you. Do we do anything -- We're changing the consideration that's given to foster children who --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's it.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- who are receiving, for example, I think the state pays part of their college education. We don't do anything with that, do we?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, no. It only assists in that. In fact, because we'll be getting that grant money the TANF dollars will go farther and can be used for other things, because we'll get money that we weren't getting before.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Let me -- Let me change the topic and I think you've been talking with Mr. Weber about earliest, and that's regarding the JP courts.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Tell me, are the courts are going to be empowered to develop rules regarding evidence in the JP court under small claims court?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: How about limit -- How about the the statutory limit, is that going to change?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: The statutory, the ten thousand dollar statutory limit won't change?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Really everything stays the same, except you won't have those two docket books anymore, and since you'll just have one and you're not just going to have the rules of procedure anymore except in those limited cases I mentioned; the Supreme Court will do some procedural rules to just outline -- outline the small claims procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And is it your anticipation that what the Supreme Court what will do is just make all of the JP courts subject to the same rules of civil procedure that you and I follow in non JP court?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, sir -- No, sir. What they will do -- The law says -- What this bill says, I'm sorry. That those rules of civil procedure that are going to apply to JP courts will now be basically the small claims structure, and -- and it will be that they can't have any -- a formality of pleadings or formality of the procedure itself in the hearings, and the JP will be able to control the discovery and the JP can ask questions. So it's all -- It's all the small claims structure, and it's just enough rules to give us -- fill out that structure.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So you don't think that what this will lead to is, you know, we now have JP courts that are manned by nonlawyers. We're not moving in a direction that's going to result in only lawyers being able to be JPs, are we?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. It's nothing like that. It's just -- It goes the opposite way, and it even makes more of the claims subject to small claims type rules.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: (Inaudible).
THE CHAIR: Representative Price raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired the point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, is appropriate to ask that this bill, which is now more than -- more than 150 pages; that we could ask to extend his time for the moment?
THE CHAIR: This is the second request for an extension of time.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Oh, you had one before?
THE CHAIR: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that.
THE CHAIR: We have amendments, too.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. All right. Thank you. All right.
THE CHAIR: Please excuse Representative Phillips because of an illness, on the motion of Representative Geren. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair announces the following signing in the presence of the House:
THE CLERK: SCR 1.
THE CHAIR: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Lewis.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Members, what this amendment does, as I mentioned to you, the bill, as it comes to you is exactly as it was before you on the last night and time expired. There was before you on the conference report, the House Senate conference report; except there's one provision here that had to do with mediation, and it had to do with mediation in criminal cases being added. And what this amendment does, it deletes that. There were some additional problems with that, that it needs other consideration. So this amendment deletes the additional language, and I move passage. It's acceptable to me and I move passage.
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Speaker Craddick?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, the freshman delegation is sitting over here are concerned about you being on the podium too much, and they want to know if you're now designated to represent all of them.
THE CHAIR: No, sir, I am not.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Okay. I just wanted ask because they wouldn't ask. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Dutton?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield for a question, Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm not sure I quite understood the amendment, but I did have some other questions that I wanted to ask you about with respect to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: With respect to the amendment? Okay, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It could -- and this has to do with the provision in the bill that refers -- that relates to referral of cases to alternative dispute resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And it looks like now we're going to -- we're really going to refer criminal cases to the AVR?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, sir. What this will -- What this will do is to delete that whole section that was added that would add criminal cases to possible mediation. This amendment takes that off.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Oh, so the amendment actually took that off?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. You don't have --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's what the amendment -- the amendment does, it takes that mediation of criminal cases, that whole section off. That's about two whole pages.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So now we're left with only referral to ADR of noncriminal cases?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And it does not change that at all.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: So ADR is not affected by it now.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: All right. Okay. The other question which, you know, probably only relates to the bill probably more than the amendment, is there is a number of provisions in here where commissioner's courts can appoint associate criminal judges and associate civil judges --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: They don't appoint them, but they pay for them.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: They don't appoint for them but they pay for them?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. They authorize them, but they don't fund them.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's what I mean. They authorize them. So how do they -- how do the associate judges get there?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The -- If it's authorized, which will of course it's going to be in the county budget, and a lot of these exist now
(inaudible) associate --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: -- judges, masters --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: -- magistrates and all sorts of things. If the -- and the -- And so they're authorized now under a particular statute, the county commissioners decide they will fund them and then the judges appoint them. But basically what happens under this is all these titles are made uniform, associate judges, the powers are made uniform. For each type, criminal, civil --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Irrespectiv e of (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right. And then the judge, if it's for one court, the judge appoints it if it's for, you know, for several courts, and by majority they appoint the person. So it's very much like I guess a magistrate in federal court would be selected.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right. Do we change anything regarding the makeup of the courts of appeals throughout the state. Any --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, that's not affected in this as far as any -- what areas are in which court of appeals. The -- There's some appellate rules that are affected but nothing to do with the courts of appeals themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And I guess my final question is is this bill in the call at this point?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir. I feel that it in the call. It's -- The call has to do with fiscal matters and as you know, the courts are a small portion of our budget. They're getting smaller.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And because of that, we have things like this foster child matter that you brought up that otherwise would be losing that funding and we need to get that funding. We have matters such as these associate judges. We need -- We really can't keep creating new courts, we're probably going to have to go to more use of associate judges to help the Judges that we have, because they're expensive. And so, the fiscal matters -- everything in here just about relates to making things more fiscally sound, easier to do and cheaper.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Gonzales, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: I'll let the gentleman finish on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you. I move passage of the amendment. It is acceptable to me to delete the mediation.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Gonzales, do you have a question regarding this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: I do not.
THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lewis sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Workman?
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Will the author of the bill yield for some questions?
THE CHAIR: Representative Gonzales, we're right in the middle of the amendments and we're about to move on to a resolution, so if you could hold your questions until we get back to the amendment or when we get ready to close?
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Smithee because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hopson. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Workman for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker and members, I just got goosebumps all over again, because it's my privilege to welcome to this House the Texas A & M mens' and womens' track team, who have won their third consecutive national championship. And they, by the way, are the first university ever to have accomplished this feat. The latest championship for A & M was won earlier this month in Des Moines, Iowa. In winning their third national championship, each team battle came down to the final event, the four by four relay; in which the Aggies won each race to secure the team titles. With intense competitive spirit and team work, the Aggies finished the competition with a total of 55 points; 1 ahead of Florida State and 2 ahead of Florida. As a proud A & M alumnus I am extremely glad to see the Aggies reach this level of success as the university's track and field team continues to set the bar higher for all NCAA student athletes. It is a testament to the hard work, perseverance, discipline and commitment to excellence by these student athletes. We have on the dais today a number of members of the team, and I'm going to try to read them off. Hopefully I've got them all here. Part of the men's athlete. P.J. Hardy, wave if you're up there. Tran Howell, all right. Sam Humphries, Bryan Miller, Gerald Phiri and Michael Preble. And from the women we have Jessica Beard, Donique Flemings, Emalie Humphries, Natasha Ruddock and Jeneba Tarmoh. Did I say it right? No. How far off was I? Jeneba. That's what it says here. What did I say? Included with them are the coaches, Pat Henry, the head coach. And I think he has his wife with him, thank you for being here, Ms. Anderson. And Juan De La Garza, and Jim VanHootegem; is that right? All right. We also have some more in the gallery, I think. And we appreciate having them here. Thank you for visiting with us and I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: All right. I need to correct. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 141.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 141 by Dukes. WHEREAS, Both the men's and women's track and field teams of Texas A&M University won national titles at the NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships, and in so doing, became the first school in history to sweep the men's and women's championships for three years in a row; and. WHEREAS, The dramatic conclusion to the meet, which was held June 8-11, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa, demonstrated the steely resolve of these exceptional competitors; both squads clinched their victories in the final event, the 1,600-meter relay finishing in first place to edge out their closest competitors; and WHEREAS, Other highlights of the meet included second-place finishes by both of the Aggie 400-meter relay squads, a gold medal for Jessica Beard in the 400-meter dash, a silver medal for Jeneba Tarmoh in the 200-meter dash, a bronze medal for Sam Humphreys in the javelin, and a bronze medal for Julian Reid in the triple jump; The A&M athletes also scored points in a variety of other events en route to claiming their dual championships; and WHEREAS, Each member of the men's and women's squads can take pride in their contributions; in addition to Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Reid, the men's roster for the NCAA Outdoor Championships included Michael Bryan, Wayne Davis II, Melvin Echard, Prezel Hardy, Jr., Tabarie Henry, Tran Howell, Bryan Miller, Gerald Phiri Demetrius Pinder, Michael Preble, Joey Roberts, and Tyron Stewart; And WHEREAS, In addition to Ms. Beard and Ms. Tarmoh, the women's roster included Laura Asimakis, Ashley Collier, Dominique Duncan Daphne Fitzpatrick, Donique Flemings, Emalie Humphreys, Sasha-Kay Matthias, Gabby Mayo, Ibukun Mayungbe, Natasha Ruddock, and Andrea Sutherland; and WHEREAS, These skilled athletes were under the direction of head coach Pat Henry, who now has 33 national titles to his credit; Additional guidance was provided by assistant coaches Vince Anderson, Juan De La Garza, Alleyne Francique, Jim VanHootegem, and Dan Waters; and WHEREAS, With this unprecedented third consecutive double championship, Texas A&M has further distinguished itself as one of the premier track and field programs in the nation, and all those involved in this outstanding achievement are deserving of special recognition; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature, 1st Called Session, hereby congratulate the men's and women's track and field teams of Texas A&M University on winning national titles at the NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships for the third consecutive year and extend to the athletes, coaches, and staff sincere best wishes for continued success; and, be it further. RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the teams as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, the track team will be available in the back hall for photographs, if anyone who is interested. Representative McClendon moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Branch?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Are you aware that we've had some discussions in higher education about completion this session?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, sir. I do recall that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: It seems to me that the Texas A & M University track and field team has had no problem completing their assignments, so congratulations are in order.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if I could have your attention, please, because I believe your judiciary would really like for you to consider this amendment. Essentially what this amendment does is it allows for judges to pick their bailiffs. Right now the jurisdiction in most counties, at least it is in my county, is that the Sheriff's Department has administration over the bailiffs. And as you -- as you may know, those of you who're around the courthouse or practice law or are in some way ever been in the county administration, that's a very intimate relationship between a judge and a bailiff; especially along the border, where we're having so many border security issues and issues where we are prosecuting the golf cartel. And there's -- there's concern regarding the safety of our judges. They want to have a very intimate, very secure relationship with -- with their bailiffs. And this will allow them the opportunity to do so. Almost any other position regarding a judge's staff in the courtroom is completely within their discretion, this is one of the only positions where it's not. And I assure you, if you were to have a conversation with your judiciary back home they would agree with me. And I will yield to my friend, Representative --
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hughes, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lucio, thank you for yielding. I'm familiar with the matter you are talking of. I have a question.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: There are some district court who by specific statute already choose their bailiffs, is it your intent with this amendment to have an effect on those courts that already have a procedure in place for this?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: If there is already a procedure in place I don't believe that that applies to any of the district courts or county courts in my area because otherwise I wouldn't have been brought this amendment by my judiciary back home. It's not high intention if they're already given this jurisdiction in other parts of the the state to change. All I'm saying is that it's -- I think it's good administrative policy that we do this and I would ask, you know, the body to consider this. I don't think it's acceptable to the author, because he wants more time to vet the issue and he's actually going to try to punt this to the Senate. And with all due respect to the Senate, my father serves over there, I grew up around the Senate, but I don't want to leave anything in the hands of the Senate for the remainder of this session or special session. I think I'll go ahead and take the reins on it.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Deshotel, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I just want to get a clarification. Is your intent that if this amendment goes on it will be for future hiring of
(inaudible) my question is basically there are a lot of bailiffs who are now retired, maybe from the sheriff's department and are assigned, you know, to the -- and would this allow them to all be wholesale termination of bailiffs across the state so they can go hire their own bailiffs?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: No. And I don't want to affect either the civil service or a bailiff's retirement. I mean I would like -- My intent is moving forward more of a input standpoint from the judiciary, to be able to select who they have in their courtroom protecting not only themselves, but attorneys, staff and members of the community. So there's an issue regarding any civil service or is there an issue regarding retirement is not my intent in any form or fashion to affect that.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheets, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Just a quick question. As far courts, is this district or county courts?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: This would be district courts.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Yes, sir. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Members, this is really a big issue within the judiciary and it's a constant back and forth between the county commissioner's courts and the sheriffs and the judges. It is very controversial. I knew when I was a judge I had my preference on this, but the main thing is this is the kind of thing that ought to be decided on a bill in a regular session that's coming forward. And with the sheriffs able to come give their sides, because I know that, you know, they have problems, and the county commissioner's court and the judges who all come forward testify and let you know their thoughts. It's not the kind of thing -- because it is a very big and contentious issue within our county governments, it's not the kind of thing to say on an amendment, with no notice, at the last -- at the last second. And so with all respect to my good friend, I do move to table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio to close.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Members, think about exactly what you are voting on right now. Imagine your state office not having the ability to have control over who you hire to maintain your office. Think about not being able to have a power to assign your chief or staff or hire your chief, or someone else in your office, your policy coordinator. This is an important decision regarding the jurisdiction of the judiciary. So with that, I ask you to just keep in mind -- keep that in mind --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Who is it that furnishes the clerks in the district courts?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Furnishes the clerks in the district courts?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: The clerks.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: The clerks? In my county I believe it's -- all hiring of clerks, court staff is done by the judge themselves in that --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Not the district clerks?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: The clerks or the court coordinator?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: The clerks. The clerks are hired by the district clerk?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Well, the clerk's office is a completely separate office than the
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: And the people who are in the courts administering all the paperwork are district clerk employees?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: I don't believe so, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I believe so
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Hold on. I'm answering your questions, let me have an opportunity to respond. Mr. Chairman, I respect you tremendously. The court coordinator and the court clerks, not the district clerk, in that office of that judge in that courtroom are employees of that particular judge of that -- the judge that hires them. And the person administering the paperwork at the courthouse in the clerk's office when I go file something, yeah, that's the district clerk. But they're not in the courtroom intimately involved with the judges.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: If they're not -- if they're not, you have a very unique county. Because in all the counties I know of in Texas, the clerks and the judges' office they're taking care of -- there's a court reporter hired by the judge that, in some counties, they have court coordinators hired by the judge. The bailiff's hired by the sheriff. The clerks are hired by the district clerk. And so you're talking about fundamentally restructuring county government.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: So, no. Absolutely not. Actually, if you look at my amendment what it's seeking to change -- It says, right now, what it is I am trying to change is the court coordinator and court -- or administrative assistant; which are under the statute, under the judge's jurisdiction. What I'm asking to add to that would be the court reporter. You didn't ask about the court reporter. You asked about the --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Court hired by the bailiff (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: About the court clerk. The court clerk is under the judge's jurisdiction. So that's what you asked. Court clerk --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Court clerk administrator is under the judge's supervision.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Now, you're doing two things: Your clerks of the court are the district clerks.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: No. The clerks of the district county are -- through there's -- there's a position known as court clerk or court administrator --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: There is a court administrator. The district clerks are the clerks of the court.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Right. Right. I -- Court clerk --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I am told that the district clerks (inaudible) place -- the courts place a person in the court. But that is a district -- district clerk.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lucio sends up an amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. This on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Lewis voting aye. Representative Lucio voting no. Show Representative Aliseda voting no. Representative McClendon voting no. Have all voted? There being 88 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment strikes a portion of this bill that would decrease the minimum amount of time a former or retired judge of a statutory probate court is required to serve before he or she becomes eligible to receive an assignment by the presiding judge to be a visiting judge. Currently, the -- the you have to serve for six -- or eight years. This section of the bill lowers it to six years. Members, this was a bill that was brought before our (inaudible) committee and civil jurisprudence and we did not vote it out of committee. So, I am moving to amend this bill because I think that the testimony was that it actually only affected one judge, and I don't think it's appropriate that we pass legislation to the benefit of one judge. And I believe that during the last legislative session, the term -- or this requirement was actually increased for budgetary reasons. And I think we all know that we are currently in a budget crisis. So, I see no reason to lower that term requirement now. I do believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Is this an amendment brought by one of the committee members for this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It wasn't me, was it?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: But it was one of the other members who specifically is an expert on this area of judicial practice in this area of the courts; is it not?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I don't know -- I know he practices probate law.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: He does a lot of probate work, does he not?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: And I believe he --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: This specific judge is basically -- this is one judge in Dallas county, is it not, that this really applies to; and only one judge?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I believe that exactly -- that was the testimony, and I thought that it was inappropriate to bring a piece of legislation to the benefit of one judge. And I also believe that if we start doing this now that every --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: But we have done that -- It's not just for one judge, because there could be other judges in the future who would need this requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: And it will become even more expensive for the counties then, as they reduce the -- reduce the term requirement --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You'd have to say that this was only expensive for one county right now.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Under the legislation as this got, this may have an expense for one county.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: This legislation is not specifically bracketed for one county.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: But you said that this one bill, this amendment was brought or put in the bill specifically deals with one judge?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's what the member -- that's what their testimony, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Okay. Yes. I got you. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I'm going to temporarily withdraw this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: I rise to raise a point of order against further consideration of this bill on the grounds --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is respectfully overruled. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Anderson of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Anderson of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I just want to -- What this amendment does, this amendment removes Article 5 from this bill. What article 5 is, Article 5 is that portion of the bill that deals with small claims courts and JP courts. The reasonable that I have suggested remove is that this affects every single one of us, it affects every single one of our counties and what it's going to do is -- I'm going to read a portion of this that I've highlighted, Section 27.060 small claims. And this is something that's very important for anyone who wishes to go to small claims court from this point forward. It says a justice court shall conduct proceedings in a small claims case as that term is defined by the Supreme Court in accordance with the rules of civil procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court. Now, what that tells me is someone who is not an attorney is that I am going to have to have a
(inaudible) small claims when I (inaudible). You can call it small claims court, you can call it a justice of the peace court, but it tells me that I am going to have someone to represent me, otherwise I may be in violation of the rules of civil procedure; which I guarantee there's a whole lot of other people that have no idea what that means.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. As I understand you, the amendment is going to take the section out that does away -- it makes that -- that poor change in -- regarding small claims court; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I wouldn't -- I don't know whether it's a poor change or an expensive change. To me, it looks like it's going to be a very expensive change --
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: -- to go to claims court.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Are you -- are you aware that Texas is known around the county as having the best -- the state with the best tort reform?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, sir. I am.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And in Texas, are you aware that we like to them pride ourselves on having some down home good ole fashioned what I call -- my grandfather called horse sense, or common sense?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Well, yes, sir. I am.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And in Texas when the legislature created these courts they wanted to keep them small and close to the people, common sense. Let the JP's make decisions; is that not a fact?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And we're fixing to change that if this bill goes through.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: If this portion of the bill goes through I do believe that's what -- and that's why I am striking -- this amendment seeks to strike only that portion that deals with small claims courts.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So Texas being known as the best state for tort reform with our legal system -- if this legislature -- if this bill gets its way, it's going change that?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You have a good amendment. Now, Judge said a while back on another amendment that he offered, that in the bill -- are you aware that in that bill that they were going to mediate criminal cases, are you aware that that was in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I have reviewed that and heard the judge say that, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Do you know how many pages are in this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: 146 pages.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And 146 pages of changing our judicial system, and we were going to give criminal cases mediation. So what that got down to was what Mark Twain said, isn't it a fact that whoever -- a jury was a group of twelve, usually men and women picked to decide who had the best jury. And if you were a criminal and you had a darn good mediator, you'd come out well.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Absolutely .
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: And that was in this bill. And that was in this bill. Do you -- do you believe that this bill has been thoroughly vetted before we vote on 146 pages to make sweeping changes?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I do not recall personally having seen this in the six months that we've been here.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, I think you've got -- I would have to say that you've got a good amendment, and I hope this -- that this body of members will pay attention -- if we get a record vote, strict enforcement, and that we go on record as saying that we're for or against messing with our legal system.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That's your call.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Anderson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, I will defer to the senior member of the Anderson caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you. Representative Anderson, are you aware that the Texas' justice, Court Justice Association is against this legislation as written?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I am.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: And that the primary reason that they're against that is that -- because it abolishes the small claims court?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I would assume -- I have not seen the letter to which you are referring. I've just heard talk of it here on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Are you aware that that there will be some changes to this small claims court predicated by the Supreme Court?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, I am. But it does not say what those -- it just says that there are certain rules that they have to apply, but it does not limit what the Supreme Court can come back and say that these requirements are. It just spells out on page 46, it says here are six different items that have to be included. But it does not -- it doesn't limit those rules. And so it could very easily wind up being where -- where you have to have an attorney that shows up in small claims court.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: That's my concern, if you take a layperson or a plumber or a carpenter or -- comes into small claims court, now they may have a trouble interpreting the -- the rules. I'm also concerned, are you aware that the JP's are not attorneys?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Most of them are not, in fact.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: And so there's a possibility there, although we trust our Supreme Court in the State of Texas, there's a possibility that these JP's themselves may have a problem interpreting the rules?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That is correct. One of the -- Doc Anderson, one of the things that I have a concern with is the fact that you have JP courts oversee eviction. And folks that are being evicted normally don't have money as it is. They need to be able to come in and represent themselves without having to go through the expense of an attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Well, I think that's a very good point. I'm very concerned that this may have a adverse effect on the common man, and I think you have a good amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Anderson, you read a certain portion of page 46 a while ago.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: And you didn't continue to read the rest of it.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Because -- I will be happy to read the rest of it.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Won't we read one through six, what it says.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: How about two through six. Section 27060. Small claims. A justice court shall conduct proceedings in a small claims case as that term is defined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the rules of civil procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court to ensure the fair, expeditious and inexpensive resolution of small claims cases. The reason I didn't --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Continue reading.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: B, except as provided in Subsection C, rules of the Supreme Court must provide --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Go ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: -- that if both parties appear -- I would be happy that the -- I think everyone here can read these six.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: You didn't need to read just part of it, let's read all of it. And
(inaudible) this out of context.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: The context is right there that says it's to provide a fair, expeditious and inexpensive resolution of small claims cases. But --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Let me help you --
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Represent ative Jackson, respectfully, this does not limit what the Supreme Court can say. The Supreme Court could come back and say under Number 7 that you must have an attorney to represent you in order to comply with the rules of civil procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Are you knowledgeable that the Supreme Court has constitutional authority to do this anyway?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I am not advised, no, sir. I am not (inaudible) (inaudible). That's part of the problem, Representative Jackson, is the fact that people, when they want to go to small claims court they need to be able to go and represent themselves without having to have an attorney represent them.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: You need to read the Constitution. Number one, they can do that anyway. But let's see what it does. It limits what they can do. It says formal proceedings, other than the statements that are not required, the judge, shall hear the testimony of the parties and the witnesses that the parties produce and shall consider other evidence offered. The hearing is informal. The hearing is informal.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: With the sole objective to dispense speedy justice between the parties.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: But does it say that you do not have to have representation to follow rules of civil procedure?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: There's nowhere that they have to have representation. Q. (BY )
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Then why do we have to have the rules of civil procedure indoctrinated within the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: The JP court is under the rules of civil procedure now, although many of them don't know it. Small claims court's not. So this combines the two -- courts so they will only have one docket.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: But the one docket that takes -- that takes the higher --
(inaudible) (inaudible). The higher --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I don't think that's right. I don't think you've read the whole bill. But let me address one other thing. You've said you've never see seen this bill before.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: It's not that I have never seen this bill. This has not been vetted on this floor. I believe it was 1717.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: So it was 1717.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I haven't seen that on this floor.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: We passed 1717 on this floor. If you haven't seen it (inaudible) and you didn't know it was vetted on this floor then you must have been absent that day.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Well, I guess 1717 (inaudible) -- Then I stand corrected, Representative Jackson. I do not recall seeing 146 page bill on this topic.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: We passed 1717 and the bill was vetted in committee, in fact, we had a subcommittee that spent many hours working on this bill with the Senate. So we reached a consensus bill, and then we bought to the floor. But 1717 has been on this floor.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Representative Weber asked for strict enforcement; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: And did he ask for strict enforcement on the amendment or on the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I believe he intended that for all future votes.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: All future votes, including the bill itself? Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: In order for a bill to pass on second reading, is it majority present and voting, or is there -- or is it majority of the House?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Majority present voting.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: And so there's no floor as to how many people have to be here in order for it to be present and voting?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: A quorum is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: And parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: In order for there to be a quorum, for a bill to pass or for there to be business in front of the House, does the number have to be one hundred?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: So if we vote, and there is strict enforcement on this amendment, and there's not a hundred members here; a point of order would be, I guess, sustainable for a lack of quorum?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Okay. I'd like for a record vote on this amendment, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheets, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Anders on, in the Texas rules of civil procedure, where in there does it -- anywhere in there, does it say an individual cannot not represent themselves in any court proceeding?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Because I am not an attorney I have not read the rules of civil procedure. I do not know if it has it there or not.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: So if I told you that Texas rules of civil procedure don't have any -- such rule in there would you believe me?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I would absolutely believe you.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, sir. Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Members, as much as they explain this, and I'm not going to go over this too much again, but there still seems to be a misconception. And the misconception is that somehow we're doing away with small claims court, or we're doing away with the rules of small claims. And, in fact, it's totally the opposite. Right now there's a Justice of the Peace, he's the head of that court. He's got two docket books. Small claims and regular procedure. What we're basically doing away, is that -- except for a types of cases, with those cases that are under the rules of civil procedure now. All the cases will now be small claims rules. But because you're now depriving those people of the regular rules of civil procedure, you need to have some framework of rules for them. So what we're doing is the Supreme Court's going to redo those rules so that they fit the small claims framework, so you'll have no rules of pleading, no formal rules of pleading, no formality in the court; only the discovery that the JPs allows and will allow in the case, and the JP be able to help resolve the things just like now.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: So there's a misconception on that, and there are, unfortunately, a small group of Justice of the Peace who are very motivated.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Callegari, for what purpose, please?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Will you yield for questions, Mr. Lewis?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'd be honored to yield to Chairman Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Thank you. I'm know you are trying to explain, but I'm looking at the HRO report and it makes a statement that as of May 13th, 2013, all small claims courts would be abolished; and the docket could be transferred to the presiding Justice of the Peace to a justice court. Can you explain exactly what that means and are the small claim courts being abolished?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: All it means is where now you've got one Justice of the Peace and he's got a small claims docket and a regular docket, regular rules of civil procedure docket, that will no longer be true. When you say small claims is abolished it just means we won't use the term small claims as a separate court designation for that one JP anymore. His docket will be one docket. That's all that it means. And it will be the small claims rules with some -- with some rules that the Supreme Court, in conjunction with the Justice of the Peace, will be formulating so that we can have a framework for the informal that we have
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Going forward after that day, if a person has a small claims court can you gives you some idea -- I mean case, can you gives you some idea how it would differ from how it is happening today?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right now today, if somebody comes in into the JP's office they've got to say okay, do I want to file this small claims or do I want to file this regular rules of civil procedure? And they've got tell the JP, if they know to ask and if the JP asked them. Most people don't know the difference. Very few know the difference. After this bill passes, with this language in it, they'll just go into JP and file the case. And the same rules of procedure -- the same procedure that's now under small claims will be what dominates. So we're expanding the informal procedure to be the fallback, the default of all the cases under that Justice of the Peace. That's the only difference that it makes.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: And that JP would still make the decisions?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: JP will make the decisions, will make it under the same basis that they are making it now, under the small claims framework. They'll just be some rules of procedure that will be formulated so that people can look and see what they're supposed to do and not do.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: So a lot of small a lot of JP's right now are a number of them -- are not lawyers, is that going to make a difference?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It will make no difference. It will be an informal method. They won't have to be lawyers. The JP's now have a docket in which they have to follow the rules of civil procedure, except for three very limited types of cases. That'll no longer be true. Everything will be under small claims court under this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: But the court designation, small claims court designation, will go. But the procedures will be uniform for all cases in small -- in JP court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I will, surely will.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Tryon, is it my understanding that under these new rules that you're proposing, that there will be rules of discovery?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I doubt -- I doubt if there'll be rules of discovery. If there will they will be very limited, because the all the discoveries under this, it has to be subject to what the JP will allow. Now -- now, there are three limited cases that are not going to go under this that would be under the old rules, that types of case. But otherwise what we're talking about, it'll just be whatever they propose.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: All right. And so -- So this, I'm sorry, I got somebody asking me a question. So under your scenario the rules of discovery apply. Because the rules of evidence don't apply in the justice courts; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: In -- Right now they don't apply in small claims courts, and under this bill they won't apply in any cases except for those limited three areas.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Will people will mandated to do discovery?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, the rules of discovery as we know them now, and they are applicable in JP court cases now will be gone. It will be all like the Supreme Court -- pardon me, it'll be all like the present small claims rules will be the uniform default rule. No discovery. And that will be no discovery mandated. The JP's under this can -- they can allow some discovery but it'll just be up to whatever the JP thinks is --
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I'm not trying to be argumentive, I just want to get some things resolved for some folks in the room. Now, with regard to lawyers and them having to bring in lawyers, the are lawyers going to be required? Will people still have access to the courts?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It will be the same framework -- Again, you don't have formal procedures, you don't have formal -- formalities of hearing, and you have very limited discovery whatever the Justice of the Peace wants. And the Justice of the Peace can participate. Ask questions. So, it is really just like it is now, just like it is now, lawyers are not required. You do not have to have a lawyer because you have informal proceedings.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Maybe the appropriate question would be to Representative Anderson as to why his understanding is that lawyers are required. Do you know why they might be his interpretation?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: You know, I could not speak for Representative Anderson.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: But they are not required.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It is a small claims procedure without the name small claims, and the procedure will be true of more cases than it was before.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The justice -- the difference between Justice of the Peace and small claims will now be gone. It'll all be a small claims --
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And you're not shutting down access to the poor folks that want to go in without a lawyer?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It will be easier and better for that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And, you know, I have an amendment on truancy that we'll be discussing later, and I'm sure you will be supportive of that as well.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'll certainly listen, as I always do to you, Roland.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Sheets, for what purposes?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Will the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Will you yield, Representative Lewis?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I might also -- I don't think I said move to table, but I do move to table and I do yield.
THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Judge, I just want to be clear on this. By no means are you trying to exclude someone from representing themselves pro se at a small claims or Justice of the Peace court?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. There's nothing that this bill changes that at all. Like I said, expands the -- the what will be the small claims procedures will be universal now, except for three limited exceptions; whereas now they're not -- they're just part of the docket.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Okay. And it's your intent to get rid of the confusion. When you go to a small claims court the clerks will ask you whether or not you want to be in the JP court or the small claims court?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And the people don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And the next person asks well, what is the difference?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Sometimes they ask and sometimes they don't ask.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Right --
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Come in and sign it.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: You just can't tell them the difference, anyways. That the basic difference is they can't give them any legal advice, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And the sign there that says clerks cannot provide legal advice, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right. The small claims procedure has worked out well, and we want to make that the default for all the cases in that court, and that's all it amounts to.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And this will also create uniform standards for everyone, so when they go to a JP court they know what to expect.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And so we won't have one JP who has one set of procedures different from another JP?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right. And even though -- say Supreme Court writing the rules they'll get a committee together, that committee will include Justice of the Peace throughout this state, and all the best practices of the Justice of the Peace courts is what they have, and that's the way it will be.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And this is to make our JP courts more efficient so that they can take care of our Texas residents and get their cases heard quickly and in a formal matter, correctly?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And are these courts going to lose their informal nature at all under your provision?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last question.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Are these courts going to lose their informal nature at all under your provision?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. They'll expand the informal procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yeah.
THE CHAIR: Representative Davis?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield.
THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield for a few seconds, I presume?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'd be pleased to.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Judge. You know, there's been a lot of confusion. I actually heard some people ask me whether or not this is the same judge. So does everyone understand, a small claims court judge and the JP judge that we're talking about is the --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Same guy or same lady.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Or lady. So that's just one person?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: And so it's not your intention to make it any harder for someone to bring a lawsuit without a lawyer?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, that's exactly right. It's just instead of having two docket books, and trying them two different ways it will be tried one way and it will be basically small claims procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: And as a lawyer, of course --
THE CHAIR: Representative Kolkhorst raises a point, the gentleman's time is expired. The point well taken and sustained. Mr. Anderson to close.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to be very brief, because one thing I heard, and from the remarks in the back is that there -- right now there is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply in small claims and JP courts. But there is no prohibition about the Supreme Court of Texas putting that into this requirement. All I am asking is that we remove this small section of this bill so that we have equal access in our JP courts. And I close. And I vote motion -- I vote no on the motion to table.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Doorkeeper?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE CHAIR: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following actions: The Senate has passed --
THE CHAIR: Members, strict enforcement has been requested. Representative Anderson sends up an amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. Vote is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. Members, you must vote for yourself, from your desk. We'll give you time. Strict enforcement. Have all members voted? We'll give you a moment. Don't hurt yourself. We're holding the vote while people get to their desk. Strict enforcement. Have all members voted? There being --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: There being 42 ayes, 54 nays, 3 present not voting and 51 absent; the motion to table fails.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a point of order that that we don't have a quorum, we can't do business today. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Verification. Mr. Speaker, I move for verification.
THE CHAIR: Members, stand by a moment. House will stand at ease for two minutes.
(Whereupon, the House stands at ease.)
THE CHAIR: Members, are there announcements? Representative Jones McClendon for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you, Mr. Speaker and members. The House committee on Rules and Resolutions will meet tomorrow, upon
(inaudible) breaking for lunch at my desk, so that we can consider a calendar for the rest of the session. So tomorrow is going to be June the 21st, year 2011, upon lunch recess. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Members, please excuse the following Representatives: Representative Christian on important business in the district. Representative Martinez Fischer on important business in the district. Representative Driver for business in the district. Representative Cain for business in the district. Representative Driver for business in the district. Representative Flynn for business in the district. Representative Miles for business in the district. Representative Patrick for members in the district. Representative Brown for members in the district. Representative Villarreal for business in the district. Representative Bonnen for business in the district. Representative Truitt for business in the district. Representative Giddings for business in the district. And Representative Turner for business in the district. Representative Lyne for business in the district, by Representative Hardcastle. The rest of those are by a group of members, and I will put my name on accusing all of them. Representative Hartnett for business in the district, by Representative Weber. Representative Davis of Harris for important business in the district, by Representative Thompson. We got more coming, I think. Representative Margo Martinez and Representative Munoz for business in the district. Representative Elkins for important business in the district, on his own motion; I presume. Members, there are no further announcements. Whoops, more announcements. Amazing. Representative Gallego for important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hochberg. Representative Giddings for important business in district, by Representative Hochberg. Representative Miller of Erath on important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Callegari. Representative Angie Button on important business in the district, by Representative Doug Miller. We will excuse Representative Elkins on his own motion, who is now here. Please excuse Representative Dukes for important business in the district, on the motion of Representative McClendon. Members, are there other announcements? Please excuse Representative John Garza for important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Simpson. Representative Zerwas on important business in the district, by Representative Hamilton. Representative Veronica Gonzales, on the motion of Representative Dawnna Howard, on important business in the district. Members, if there are no further announcements Representative Lucio -- One more? Hang on. We're going to get it. Representative Howard of Fort Bend on important business in the district, by Representative Smith of Harris. Are there further announcements? If not, Representative Lucio moves that the House stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Do I hear objection? The Chair hears none. We stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m.
(The House stands adjourned.)
