REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members, and guests. Let's pray. Most gracious Heavenly Father, we just thank you for the God that you are and we thank you that you are our first and last breath, and that the comfort in knowing placing our hope and faith in you is something that's not taken lightly. I just ask that as we make the laws of the land that governs this state, and the people that are in it, that we remember there is one supreme law and that's your (inaudible) every law we do measures up to your standards. I ask that you, if it's in your will and your wisdom, that you just give us rain and relief from the heat. It is just unbearable in some parts of this state. Water's short, people are anxious, and crops and the agriculture industry is (inaudible) needed. But we just ask that if it's in your will that you do that for us today. We just pray that you continue to be at this House, for stability (inaudible) and concern for each individual here in this House and those that we represent would be a priority. Be with us with in each and every thing that we do today. That know that (inaudible) be God honoring, and thank you for the peace and security that comes from your son, Jesus Christ. In Jesus' name. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members and honored guests; would you please join us in our pledge to the nation and our state flag? [PLEDGE]
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Mallory Caraway because of important business in the district, on the motion of the Representative Turner. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the House introduction of HR 197 suspending the limitations on the conferees for Senate Bill 2. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 198 suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 6. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 199 suspending the limitations on the conferees for Senate Bill 8. Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 200.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR 200.
THE CLERK: HR 200 by Deshotel. WHEREAS, Hilton Kelley of Port Arthur has been named a recipient of the 2011 Goldman Environmental Prize, an accomplishment that is truly worthy of celebration; and WHEREAS, Created in 1990 by Richard and Rhoda Goldman, the Goldman Environmental Prize honors individuals from around the world who are working at the local level to protect and enhance the natural environment; through their grassroots efforts, these community leaders have helped to empower their fellow citizens and have inspired many to stand up for their rights; the prize is awarded annually in April to one individual from each of the six inhabited regions of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South and Central America, and the islands and island nations; in addition to providing the recipients with enhanced credibility and international recognition for their causes, the prize includes financial support of $150,000 to assist them in pursuing their work, making this the world's largest award honoring grassroots environmentalists; and WHEREAS, Hilton Kelley was recognized with this prestigious accolade for his efforts to fight pollution in his community and to secure environmental justice for residents along the Texas Gulf Coast; a Port Arthur native, Mr. Kelley was raised in the city's West Side, a predominately African American neighborhood that has long stood in the shadow of the area's many oil refineries and chemical plants; after graduating from high school he enlisted in the U.S. Navy; his service took him to the San Francisco Bay area where he remained after his discharge from the navy as a petty officer second class; based in Oakland, California, he found work as an actor and stuntman in television and the movies and was admitted to the Screen Actors Guild in 1991; he also served his community as a youth activist and helped lead efforts to end gang violence; and WHEREAS, On a visit to his hometown in 2000, Mr. Kelley found his former community in steep decline, wracked by poverty and rampant crime and plagued by pollution; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has noted that Port Arthur has some of the highest levels of toxic air releases in the country, and the companies operating the plants have been cited with hundreds of air pollution violations; the effects of the emissions have been particularly evident in the West Side neighborhood, where Mr. Kelley discovered many people ill with a variety of maladies and suffering from some of the highest asthma and cancer rates in the state; with few job prospects, however, and with property values that have plummeted due to the continued expansion of the chemical plants, most West Side residents have had no avenue of escape; faced with these harsh facts, Mr. Kelley was inspired to move back to Port Arthur to help its citizens rebuild; and WHEREAS, Since returning to Port Arthur, Mr. Kelley has launched a number of initiatives that have had a significant impact on his community; he realized early on that the city's severe environmental problems would have to be addressed in order to improve economic and social conditions; to this end, he established the Community In-Power and Development Association (CIDA), an organization that strives to empower citizens by training them to monitor emissions and air quality and by educating them about pollution and their rights; CIDA also advocates in behalf of the community by pushing for stricter environmental regulation and by challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to enforce such existing laws as the Clean Air Act; and WHEREAS, Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Kelley led a campaign that resulted in the Motiva Refinery installing state-of-the-art equipment to reduce emissions when it expanded its facility; he also helped negotiate an agreement with the company that included the provision of three years of health coverage for people in the West Side neighborhood and that led to the establishment of a $3.5 million fund to spur community development and provide job training; in addition, he guided the successful effort to prevent 20,000 tons of toxic chemicals from Mexico from being brought to Port Arthur for incineration; and WHEREAS, Along with overseeing the work of CIDA, this notable Texan serves on the EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, and he speaks extensively on the environment and social justice; he has been the recipient of numerous honors, including the 2003 Environmental Justice Award from the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, a 2004 Ben and Jerry's Award for Environmental Activism, a 2006 Houston Hero Award from the Citizens League for Environmental Action Now, and a 2009 Houston-Galveston Environmental Research and Outreach Award from The University of Texas Medical Branch; and WHEREAS, With his continuing advocacy for clean air and environmental justice, Hilton Kelley has made a positive difference in the lives of many Texans, and he is an inspiring example of the exceptional good that one person can accomplish; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature, 1st Called Session, hereby congratulate Hilton Kelley on receiving the Goldman Environmental Prize and extend to him sincere best wishes for continued success in all his endeavors; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Kelley as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it is indeed an honor to recognize Hilton Kelly and his wife Marie. It's not often that individuals who have other choices in life, particularly glamorous choices to stay in Los Angeles and Hollywood, working in the movie industry, to give that up because of a visit to their hometown and saw the dilapidation that was going on, and the odor in the air and the high pollution in the west side of Port Arthur, decided to stay home and begin a battle to clean up that area and clean up that neighborhood. He was recently awarded a very prestigious 150,000-dollar award that's only given to one recipient on each of the six continents of the world. He received that award this year, in recognition of his work in the environmental issues for the west side of Port Arthur and all of Texas. His work has resulted in numerous changes to the way business is done in many of the refineries, and has cleaned up much of the pollution in southeast Texas. I would ask you members to please welcome Mr. Kelly and his wife, Marie. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up to -- to take up and consider House Resolution 180, House Resolution 181, and House Resolution 182.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolutions.
THE CLERK: HR 180 by Sarah Davis of Harris. Commemorating the dedication of a historical marker in memory of Texas pioneer Obedience Fort Smith of Houston. HR 181 by Sarah Davis of Harris. Congratulating Ronald G. Girotto on the occasion of his retirement as president and CEO of the Methodist Hospital System in Houston. HR 182 by Sarah Davis of Harris. Commemorating the dedication of Evelyn's Park in Bellaire.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, I move we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution No. 196, honoring the intellectual entrepreneurship consortium at the University of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Resolution 196.
THE CLERK: HR 196 by Dukes. Honoring the intellectual Entrepreneurship Consortium at the University of Texas at Austin for its innovative leadership in the realm of higher education.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, I'd like to direct your attention to the east gallery. I'd also like to recognize Representative Dawnna Dukes, who couldn't be with us this morning, and Donna Howard who is with us. And -- and Representative Mark Strama who is with us. Today I would like to recognize the intellectual entrepreneurship consortium, founded by Dr. Richard Churwitz* at the University of Texas at Austin, and the groundbreaking work that he and many others have dedicated themselves to since 1997. Intellectual entrepreneurship is an initiative stemming from the division and diversity and community engagement. The commission is to educate citizen scholars, individuals who creatively utilize their intellectual capital as a lever for social good. Programs include the pre-graduate internship, the project interpreting, the Texas Pass, the IE undergraduate mentorship course, and the McNair Scholar's Internship. IE has won numerous awards, received national recognition and garnered praise from educational readers across the country. In the gallery this morning we have Dr. Rich Churwitz. IE founder and director. And would all of you please stand up? Dr. Tommy Darwin, director of the IE pre-grad internship. Dr. Martha Norcunez*, director of the IE interpreting the Texas Pass project, Mr. Michael De Leon, assistant director of the IE pre-grad internship, and Mr. Justin Jefferson, former IE student and mentor and member of UT's IE citizen student scholar organization. Please let us recognize and give everyone with us today connected with the intellectual entrepreneurship consortium a round of applause for all their hard work and dedication in educating and preparing the scholars and leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for being with us.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to bring forth and consider House Resolution 138.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 138 by Zedler. Commenting Bill Carlisle for his 14 years of service as an officer in the Arlington Kiwanis Club.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of House Resolution No. 138.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Lozano for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution 167.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 167 by Lozano. Congratulating Elizabeth F. Springs of Kingsville on her participation in the NASA High School Aerospace Scholars Program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Munoz moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution No. 207. House Resolution 207 honors Joyce Lindsey, who's a very long -- in fact, one of the original employees of the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, that many of the lawyers know as
(inaudible), who is retiring after a, long, long, long
(inaudible) service to the organization.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion to suspend all necessary rules. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 207 by Gallego. Congratulating Joyce Lindsey on the occasion of her retirement as the associate director of the Texas Access to Justice Foundation.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, as I indicated, Joyce Lindsey has been with the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation for about 20 years, one of the original employees who was Director of Finance before becoming Associate Director. She's been Interim Director, she's really held the organization together for a very long time. And those of us that have had the privilege of being a board member, and I will tell you that those of us who serve with her are going to miss her greatly. So, Mr. Speaker, members, I would move adoption of the resolution.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Martinez moves to add all members' names to the resolution. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is Mr. Hilderbran on the floor of the House. Representative Hilderbran? Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 208. This resolution is congratulating, welcoming and wishing a happy birthday to a 90 year old lady in Kerville.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following resolution, clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 208 by Hilderbran. Congratulating Dorothy Grace Turner Jenkins of Kerville on the occasion of her 90th birthday.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption of the resolution.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer for a suspension.
REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 201. A memorial resolution.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the resolution. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 201 by Martinez Fischer. In memory of Ralph M. Lazarine of San Antonio.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Munoz moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to give a quick update to the horrific fire that we had in Grimes County that I think will be termed as the worst fire in southeast Texas, probably in the history of the state. But it is completely under control. We did lose 30 homes completely. I was in the area. When I say we lost them, they are rubble. I know another 35 or 40 structures were damaged. But I want to tell you that I want to give compliments to the DPS and to the Emergency Management Division. We also had the federal government there, the NIMO Unit. We had a lady from Alaska who was doing a lot of the coordination. Of course, the Texas Forest Service are champions. TDCJ helped us. The Sheriff's Office in Grimes Country and all the local fire departments. I want to thank Montgomery County, Waller county, they came from Brazos County, they came from all over and helped us out; and that just I think speaks volumes for who and what Texas is. And the coordination. And I just can't tip my hat enough to the Emergency Management Division of VTS and the Texas Forest Service for their coordination and saving lives. We did not lose one life in that fire. And is -- it was what they call a -- a plume fire, where it's one of the most dangerous fires that we've seen. And thank you for your prayers, and thank God for the rain.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Perry for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Chairman, members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 179.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 179 by Perry. Congratulating Wendell D. Moore of Lubbock on being recognized by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy for maintaining his CPA license for 50 years.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members, this is a local colleague of mine there in Lubbock. Is a CPA -- been a CPA there in 50 years founding had been of one of the premier firms in the area: I just wanted to recognize him for his service as a community leader and a great person. Thank you. Move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the resolution. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to bring up HCR 22.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HCR 22.
THE CLERK: HCR 22 by Madden. WHEREAS, Access to the courts is crucial for individuals seeking justice, such as victims of domestic violence, veterans wrongly denied their benefits, and families improperly evicted from their homes, and the integrity of the civil justice system demands that this access be available to every Texan, regardless of individual financial circumstances; and WHEREAS, Today, some 5.7 million residents of the Lone Star State, including many who are elderly and disabled, qualify for legal aid, yet funding serves less than a fourth of those in need; and WHEREAS, Members of the Texas Supreme Court have strongly advocated for adequate funding to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the civil justice system, and their efforts have increased awareness of the importance of legal aid and the necessity for coordination and support of pro bono work by members of the State Bar of Texas; and WHEREAS, These endeavors are greatly benefiting innumerable Texans and advancing the cause of justice throughout the Lone Star State; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas 1st Called Session, hereby commend the members of the Texas Supreme Court for their actions in support of legal aid services and honor them for their work in promoting access to justice for the state's most vulnerable citizens; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the Texas Supreme Court as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives and Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, we're honored to have the Supreme Court of Texas here today. And particularly to do this concurrent resolution commending them for their actions in support of our legal aid services, and honor them --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, let's have order, please.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Members, we're honored to have our Supreme Court here today. We're honored here to commend them for the work that they've done and their work on legal aid services and honor them for their work they are doing in promoting access to justice for those people that are most vulnerable in our state court system. I'd like to ask Representative Hartnett to introduce the members of the court.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it's a rare treat to have almost the entire panel of Supreme Court Justices. We have, of course, our great Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, we have Justice Nathan Hecht, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Paul Green, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice Don Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrman. Could we give them a round of applause for being here with us today?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Hartnett moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair calls up House Bill 3 with Senate amendments. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3 by Smithee. Relating to the operation of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association and to the resolution of certain disputes concerning claims made to that association; providing penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to not concur on Senate amendments on House Bill 3 and request an appointment of a conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you members, Mr. Speaker. I move to not concur on Senate amendments to House Bill 3 and request the appointment of a conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any motions to instruct the conferees? Chair hears none. Clerk will read the following conferees.
THE CLERK: House conferees conference committee on HB 3: Smithee, chair. Hancock, Taylor of Galveston, Thompson, Scott.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up the conference committee report on Senate Bill 7.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on SB 7.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 7 includes the cost containment measures that are necessary to achieve the savings that are assumed in the budget adopted during the 82nd Regular Session. Includes measures designed to improve patient outcomes in medicaid and the children's health care insurance program and across the private health care industry. The bill contains significant protections for various interested parties including pharmacies and the valley. On the House floor there were a multitude of amendments that were added. Some remain, and some were amended, and some were removed all together. Those remaining include Dawnna Howard's amendments on objective assessment. Fred Brown's on the pharmacy benefit management protection. Representative Hughes SQ HC amendment was included, related to family planning and prioritization of funding. Representative Menendez' amendment relating to the reporting abuse and neglect in nursing homes is included. Chairman Kolkhorst's amendments related to the health care compact are included in this, as well as the global medicaid waiver, as well as all the work she did on the original Senate Bill 7 and 8 during the regular session. There is the chiropractor amendment brought forward by Representative Chisum, that has Dr. Schwertner's amendment on it. Representative Hardcastle's amendment creating a state regulation for our (inaudible) adults stem cells is included. And Representative Christian's abortion related amendment is amended to further define medical emergency and remove some charitable contribution language. Senate Bill 7 is supported by a broad based coalition of the individuals and groups including the Texas Conservative Coalition, the Texas Alliance to Life, the Texas Right to Life, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the Texas Association for Business, Texas Association for Health Plans, the Hospital Association and the Medical Association. And, Mr. Speaker, with that I would move the adoption of the conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If the gentleman will yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Dr. Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Dr. Zerw as, you mentioned the compact language, that amendment is in Senate Bill 7?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That was an amendment that we added to that compact that passed out of the House overwhelmingly, with 130 votes, that says that the legislature may not implement the interstate health care compact in any manner that negatively affects or impacts any entitlement to medicare benefits to senior adults in this state. Is that amendment on or not on?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That -- I don't believe that language is in the current -- is in the current provision for the health care compact that's in there.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Because, you know, we were concerned that -- that -- that -- the measure could -- could negatively impact the medicare entitlement program to seniors.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: The medicare entitlement program or the medicaid provisions?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I guess would be the medicare medicaid benefits to senior adults, as it relates to the compact; to the compact itself.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I think I understand what you're bringing up, and I share that concern. But I do have a sense of confidence that the state is going to take care of all the people that have a need related to health insurance, as it would occur during a health care compact. The relations with regard to the senior benefit in the medicare program, I think clearly there is a sense that that is a program that if it was actually seeded to the state we would say look, federal government, take care of medicare program, we in the State of Texas need to take care of our medicaid program.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right, but the compact language, that's working in conjunction with like Georgia and Oklahoma, right? I mean with the compact language we'll be working with other states as it relates to the composition of this -- this new entity, whatever it may be. Is that --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: In other words, for the compact to be viable in that the congress, as I understand it, and Chair Kolkhorst can corroborate this for me; but as I understand it, that language has to be nearly identical with another state, or multiple states, in order for it to be a viable option in the congress.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Can you help me though, to understand why -- why we would not want to include this language that -- that be compact would not negatively affect or impact any entitlement to medicare benefits to senior adults in this state? Help me understand why that -- why that language would be harmful to this compact.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I think the main harm comes in the form of having language in there that would not allow us to make this a viable option in the Congress. Now, if we did that, as I understand it, we would have had to have gone outside the bounds in order to for that to actually be included in -- in SB 7. And so -- so this was the language that the Senate and the House conferees came up with that they could agree upon, and did not require us to go outside the bounds.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Now, you are aware, though, that when that amendment was put on, that 1 32 people in the Texas House voted for that -- voted for that amendment to be placed on that compact? I mean my concern is that you all are asking us to vote on a conference committee report that drops a significant amendment that protects its seniors in the State of Texas, and where 132 people voted aye and only 8 people voted no. And that amendment has -- is not -- is no longer attached on this conference committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I think, Representative Turner, that amendment may have been on HB 5 when it was considered as a stand alone bill, and not on the amendment to SB 7. Am I correct on that?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. But Senate Bill 7 now has HB 5, in large part, attached to it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It has, it was amended to SB 7, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And are you aware that Senate Bill 5 is coming out at any point in time? I mean is that gone, not to be appealed, not to not to show up again?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I'm not advised as to where Senate Bill 5 is in terms of beings
(inaudible) in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. My only concern is that when this House takes a vote on a an amendment to another bill that shows up in another bill, and especially when we're talking about protecting the rights of seniors in the State of Texas, and we pass that amendment by 132 votes and 8 no's, that I just believe it is -- it is -- it is proper and appropriate for that -- for that amendment that's attached to this bill to carry the amendment that was attached in this fact -- I mean, that is my concern.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I share your concerns with regard to taking care of seniors. That's a lot of work that we did in the budget that is specifically addressed for the seniors, and making sure they've got a very respectful way. And to promote independence as much as possible among our senior population. But I think our point is on this that HB 5 passed after SB 7 passed, and was considered as a stand alone bill. And so when that bill went forward with that amendment on it, I'm sure the chair would like to have that amendment and that bill passed in the Senate in that regard. But with regard to SB 7 and what we had to work with as an amendment, and not -- not to go outside the bounds and really make this a viable -- a viable bill. Because, you know, it's an omnibus bill. There is a whole bunch of stuff in this bill. It is primarily a fiscal matters bill, and so it's one that is absolutely needed in order for us to balance Article 2, specifically, in the budget. And so that's -- there's a whole lot of other things that you know, that have come along with this bill as a result of that, and an amendment which mirrors HB 5 unamended is in there. And so I do share you concern about wanting to make sure the seniors are taken care of, and I think that's reflected not only in this bill but also in HB 1 as it was passed during the regular session.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, unfortunately, I hate to do it to you because it isn't your bill. But, you know, I don't like voting against you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I know it's hard, but because any of my bills or subcommittee bills, I understand that, Chairman Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Woolley, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Will the gentleman yield for some questions to establish legislative intent?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Representa tive Zerwas, the bill you bring to us today for concurrence contains an amendment by Representative Hardcastle that creates an autologous stem cell bank; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: I'd like to establish legislative intent pertaining to the creation of this bank. Do you agree that autologous stem cells are blood forming stem cells, cells which are -- which all blood cells develop, are removed from an individual, stored, and later given back to the same individual. And that no other stem cells fall into this category?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Do you recognize that Texas remains a national leader in breaking new grounds in treatment and cure of horrible diseases and injury with this autologous stem cell?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Texas has made great strides with the use of autologous stem cells.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Do you recognize that the state has made a significant investment in the area of stem cell research, because we know that this is a promising and hopeful therapy for health concerns, such as heart disease, stroke and repair of brain injury to children?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes. There's been some great early advancements in the use of autologous cells in brain injury of children, as well as heart disease.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Given the nature of these treatments, do you recognize that there is currently significant regulations by at least the Federal Drug Administration, which guards the safety and interest of the patients and the public?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Correct. There's I think significant regulation at the federal level in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Is it your intent to delay or impede the promising research in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: No. Absolutely not. If anything, we want to continue to promote Texas as a great place for autologous stem cell research to occur.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Is it your intent to further support the physicians and researchers in Texas who are leading the discoveries, by not including them in your potential rule-making requirements?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I'm sorry, I'll need a little clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Is it your intent to further support physicians and researchers in Texas who are leading discoveries, by not including them in your potential rule-making requirements?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Our intent would be to include all the individuals, the appropriate stakeholders, in order to continue to develop a robust amount of research in Texas on autologous stem cells.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to establish legislative intent. Is it possible for me to just ask a couple more questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Woolley, Representative Zerwas will be back to close.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLY: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, thank you for your -- your input and your patiences with the --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: -- particular bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Doctor, you know, I gave you a copy of some questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: May I ask those to you? May I ask those questions to you?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Oh, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay then. Does this bill still contain language that was added as an amendment by Representative Hardcastle that's created an autologous stem cell bank?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That is -- I think those are the same questions Chairwoman Woolley just asked me, and I think probably -- I think there's a couple more that she has there that you might want to follow up with her yourself.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Is it your intent that the commissioner looks carefully at the practice of an autologous stem cell bank that would be subject to rule-making under this chapter to ensure that any potential regulations that might impede on that treatment development throughout Texas, and bring Texas
(inaudible) patients in need.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: The intent is to continue to involve all the stakeholders in any rule-making that might be involved in terms of the advancement of autologous stem cell research. And so if I understand the question correctly, it's not the intent to box out anybody who has a stake in terms of the research that goes on in terms of autologous stem cell research.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: So you're answer is yes?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I believe that's yes, correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And do you agree the bill has no effect on the umbilical cord blood bank that operates in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It has no effect.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And, Mr. Speaker, I move that this discussion, including the questions and the answers, be recorded in the House journal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Zerwas. First of all, good work on all the things that you've done this session.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you. Thank you for you help and input on -- A lot of people made of some great contributions, including yourself, and so --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: My pleasure. First of all, does this bill include savings for the budget; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And how do we come about those savings? What are the provisions that actually give us, the state, have us spend less money than we would otherwise?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: The single largest provision comes in the form of the -- of the movement of managed care and the medicaid program into the valley. And that's about a three hundred million dollar estimated savings that's in there.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And that comes from the -- the premium tax and reduction in cost, or premium tax alone?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It's actually a reduction in utilization. There are a reduction in costs. Probably some -- some pharmacy benefits that would be incorporated into that, and there is a premium tax that comes back to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Okay. And are there any other places where managed care will be rolled out, other than south Texas, under the budget in this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Managed care is going to be rolled out across the State of Texas in some form or another. It may be a -- an exclusive provider organization or an ETO as they might call it, as a way to do, whereas a typical managed care model may not work, and in the rural environments typically. But the intent is there to be an effort to have managed care and in some form or another in every part of the state in order to try to rein in the costs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: In this particular bill, or the other bills that have passed, what in terms of waiver language -- Is there a waiver language in this bill, other than the compact language?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes, there is a global waiver that is, I believe, what would have been HB 13; which has a -- an overall sort of guidance to the commission on how to approach a global waiver and some of the things that would be expected to come along with it. There is also within HB 1, which is already passed, there is a waiver provision in there, in one of the riders, that talks about various things that the commission should pursue in terms of getting a global waiver that might benefit the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: How much of the savings to the state, other than going to managed care, is based on the approval of one of -- some form of global waiver?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: $700 million.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: $700 milli on? Have you gotten any indication that the federal government is going to approve any form of that waiver, particularly one that, as 13 and 5 do, block grants and medicaid potentially combines the streams of a medicare and medicaid in a block grant to this state?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Not officially from the commissioner. I think most of the information I gave is sort of similar to what you hear throughout there and the news media coming out of congress, in that they're looking for ways to try to rein in the cost. Part of that discussion centers around the universal block grants to the various states.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Wouldn't you agree it's kind of tough to people to get approve things when people speak with ill will and unkindly
(inaudible) to the people who have to make that decision?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I'd -- I'm not sure I can speak to that. I think that there certainly are some tense times and there's a lot of perspective that people have in terms of the best way to achieve high quality, cost effective care.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I only say that because we've been hearing a lot around here about how the current administration who put together quote, unquote, "Obama Care", is being mean to Texas. I was just curious. Do you think they have reason?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I think we can all draw conclusions as to whether, like you said, quote, unquote, are being "mean" to Texas or not. You know, but, you know --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Do you think Texas has been nice the other way?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, you -- I can't speak to that, whether we've been nice or not. I think that we have had some efforts to try to do some things in Texas that we haven't -- haven't been allowed to say --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: You know -- You know what they say, it's better to attract bees and flies with honey than vinegar; right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Got you.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I just want to make sure that everybody understands that no one is doing anything to anyone that hasn't been brought upon themselves, and I think it's time for us to start saying good things like Ms. Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Chairman Coleman, I appreciate that. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I would just express my thanks to the members and to the many individuals, especially the conferees that were intensely involved in the discussions with regard to this report and the efforts to try to come to a reasonable place. It is a bill that I think is landmark legislation, and each and every one of you can take great pride in contributing to that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Munoz, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Dr. Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Dr. Zerwas, I just want the body to know, because we talked about the waivers and so forth, that we're going to be applying for. But, in reality, what happens if we're denied that waiver? Where does that leave us here in the legislature or the state, in terms of not being granted a waiver? I mean, we're still going to be then responsible for the amount.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's a good question, Sergio. The waivers, when LBB does their estimate how much money we have available in order to pay for the medicaid program, they take various things into account. One thing they don't take into account is the anticipated savings from this waiver, and so the expectation that medicaid will be funded based on current growth estimates through May 1st are there, regardless of whether that particular waiver is achieved or not.
REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: But any project savings that we get upon hearing because of certain waivers that the state is going to be applying for or going for with some of the legislation that's been brought. In reality, though, if they are denied those waivers then we're back to pretty much (inaudible) being that we have to continue to fully fund it,
(inaudible) that we have, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's correct. There are some things that will have to be taken into consideration if we aren't meeting certain marks as we go along the budget process.
REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Thank you, Doctor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Dr. Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you Dr. Zerwas. Thank you for all your work on this bill and for trying to find a way to create some savings. All of us are in favor of that. But the other thing that I think all of us are in favor of is an absolute guarantee, in fact, to our senior citizens that we are not going to do anything that would negatively effect their coverage. And that's what the amendment that we're talking about that had all the votes did. And I'm just curious, what did this conference committee find objectionable about that? Since it is not our intention to negatively effect our seniors and their eligibility, what did the conference committee find objectionable?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It actually, Representative Giddings, never came up in the conference committee, because that was not an amendment to that particular amendment. Chair Kolkhorst offered up an amendment, which is basically the mirror of HB 5. There was not an amendment to that amendment that was within the conference report. When HB 5 was debated and laid out here on the floor, I believe that's where the amendment got put on to the bill. And so that was not part of what discussed in the conference. It would have been outside the bounds for us to go and do that so it really never came up in the conversation. What I will tell you, though, is there has always been, in any discussions around a block grant, whether it be for the children, or whether it be for the elderly or the disabled; there has always been the steps take care of those --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, sir. We must do that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you. And, Mr. Speaker, I would move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Van Taylor because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Tryon Lewis. Excuse Representative Lucio because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hernandez Luna. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Brown to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a sad day for me, because I tell you what, three different times on three different occasions, 99 percent of you that make up this body has said we do not want fraud in the State of Texas. Three different times we voted on this, three different times we sent it to the conference committee and again, it comes back with no teeth in it. Let me tell what happened to this amendment. It says that unless you are convicted, you cannot do business with the State of Texas. That's 1 percent of all the business done with PBM's HMO's, and NCO's in Texas, 1 percent. Because these companies are big enough that they'll just pay their penalty and their fines and go on. And --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Would the gentleman be kind enough to yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Brown, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Let me see if I'm following what you're telling me.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Are you saying that a conference committee has defrauded the State of Texas, all though they have been sanctioned and they paid a penalty for that illegal conduct?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: As long as they have been not been convicted of the offense, even though they have committed fraud then they can still do business with the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: We don't allow ordinary citizens to do that, do we?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: No, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: But we allow this in the companies? Why are we making this distinction?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: I have no idea. And, in addition to that, it now allows if -- if a company has defrauded ERS or TRS, then they can come back and do business with HHSC, because they have never defrauded and been convicted with HHSC.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Is there a cutoff amount of money that they have to have been paid -- defrauded and paid a penalty for?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am, half a million dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Half a million?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Half a million dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Half a million dollars?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am. Half a million dollars. If they defraud the state for a minimum of half million dollars and they cannot -- they cannot bid on the state's business or do business with the state for three years.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I don't know about you, but half a million dollars is good money.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Dr. Zerwas, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Brown, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, sir, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you. And Representative Brown, Chair Brown, thank you for the work that you have done in this. Your sense of wanting to be sure that we don't go down the road and repeat the same mistakes over and over. Are you aware that if we had actually incorporated the specific language that you had brought to us, that it would probably prohibit us from being able to work with any pharmacy benefit managers, as well as some of the managed care companies that we currently work with? Are you aware that that would be the impact of the language if it was taken verbatim that you provided us?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Well, if that was the case, that means that all of those companies that have defrauded the state in the past, and if that's the case, then I'm sure some good company would surface that would take that business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Now, when you say defrauded, would you also be using that in the same frame that if a company has incorporated in its contract with the State of Texas, whether it be ERS or TRS, and there is something that they are founded in fault of and that has a provision for a fine to be paid; would they then be prohibited from working with the State of Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: If it was over a half a million dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Correct. And so in that circumstance, even though it's put in the contract that that's the case that they would have, by basically remedying what the problem is, paying the fine, that's already recognized as that; then there would also be the default position they would no longer be able to do business with the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: That's correct. For three years.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And are you aware of the fact that ERS and TRS have been in contract with Express Scrips and Chair Mark and there have been those circumstances that have arisen where they have had to pay a fine, they have remedied the situation that led to the fine, and they have gone down the road. And are you aware that ERS and TRS is still very comfortable and pleased with the service overall, but recognizing that there are those things that happen that periodically that lead to a fine having to be paid?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Dr. Zerwas', where -- you're talking about an industry that is totally unregulated in the State of Texas. And the problems that we see in Texas are the same problems that are happening all over the country. They just take advantage of state agencies and state business as long as they possibly can, or until they get caught. And then when they get caught it's easier just to pay the penalty and pay the fine and go on.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: But you would -- But paying a penalty and paying a fine, are you using that same situation as if they were defrauding the client?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes, sir. They are defrauding us.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And I think we have to differ there, because in fact we had this same kind of language in all of our managed care contracts with the various insurance companies that are out there. And there is a very significant oversight by not only the commission but by the Attorney General's Office and the Office of Inspector General. So I think if somebody has truly has committed fraud, and it's been determined in a court of law, we shouldn't do business with them. And, in fact, that's what it says in the -- in the bill here now.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes. But that excludes 99 percent of all the providers that are out there.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: But if we take your -- If we take your particular language, we exclude 99 percent of all the people that are out there from being able to do any business with the State of Texas or otherwise. And so if I could, you know, just read to you what is in there. And it says the commission may not contract with a managed care organization, including an HMO or a PBM if in the preceding three years the organization or PBM in connection with a bid, proposal or contract with the commission, was subject to a final judgment by a court of confident jurisdiction, resulting in a conviction for a criminal offense in the State of Texas related to the delivery of an item of service. Okay? If you are convict of that that in a court you shouldn't do business with us. If it's related to neglect or abuse of patients, you shouldn't do business with them if that's determined in a court of law. This provision --
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: But --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Let me just -- The other two things here. If it's related -- a felony related to a fraud, theft, embezzlement, breech of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct; and that is proven in a court of law we should not be doing business with them.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: But that -- That's the caveat right there, they have to be convicted in a court of law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Correct. That's what all of us would want, is a court of law, ultimately wouldn't we? To determine if I'm going to be accused of fraud, which is the language you're using, here even if they have -- even if they pay a penalty for some error that occurs in the management or the provision of their services, telling me that I've committed fraud outside of having been convicted in a court of law is unjust. That's basically accusing anybody for any circumstance, before they've had their opportunity to be heard in a court of law.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: They have to pay a penalty of over half a million dollars. Now, to me, that shouldn't have to have a court conviction. If you have defrauded the State of Texas for over half a million dollars, then we shouldn't be doing business with you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: No, the actuality is a half a million dollars is the fine that's paid. What they will do is they will go back, and they periodically audit these things, and they'll say Chair Mark, Express Scripts, you have done so and son in this regard and you've actually got to make restitution of over a million dollars as a result of that. And you have to pay a half a million dollar fine. And that is all the provisions in the contract. So if we have set up a contract that automatically accuses somebody of committing fraud, then we've violated basically their right to have that heard in a court of law. That's a decision that ought to be made in a court of law. It shouldn't be made as part of the contract that says if X, Y and Z occurs you automatically are convicted of fraudulent activities.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: But what we're saying -- what we're saying now in this piece of legislation, the way it's been rewritten, is if you defrauded the State of Texas, but you don't have to go to court and you don't have to be found guilty, then you can continue to do business with the State of Texas until you're found guilty of defrauding the state. And that could be never. But you still could pay your half a million dollars, and all your penalties and fines and overcharges that you've had; but you've never been convicted, so we'll keep doing business with you over and over and over again. And, in addition to that, it says that if you defraud TRS or ERS, then you can still bid on HHSC's business and they have to totally disregard their previous business experience with ERS, or CRS. That's not right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: --
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: And I'm not up here trying to kill your bill, I'm just going to let the whole body know that on three different occasions we've tried to put enough teeth in this to protect the fact that the taxpayers of Texas, and every time it came back diluted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It came -- I appreciate that. And I know you and I have had six months of nearly ongoing debate about this. And I'm very sensitive to what the body as a whole -- And when it comes ultimately to the point how can we continue to do business, not just with the PBM's, but with a whole number of other people that the State of Texas contracts with, we have to be in a position to say that if you are convicted of fraud, convicted of fraud, not based in a contract activity, we should not do that. And that is in here. And so that -- (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Absolutely. And one percent of the total number of companies that are out there that we can do business with, and we know from past experience that the same thing has happened in other states, and it doesn't weed out the bad players.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Right. And I think what my position on this would be is that if we're going to assume that paying a penalty for something that's already embedded in a contract, then we ought to be stronger about going to court and -- convicting these people of fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The gentleman's time is expired. Excuse Representative Anchia because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Farias. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report of Senate Bill 7. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Sid Miller voting aye. Show Representative Fletcher voting aye. Have all voted? There being 96 ayes and 48 nays, Senate Bill 7 finally passed. Mr. Bonnen? Members, it's the chair's intention to shortly to break for lunch. The conference committee report to Senate Bill 2, 6 and 8. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR 26 and HR 212.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolutions.
THE CLERK: HR 212 by Bonnen. Congratulating the Danbury High School softball team on winning the UIL 2A state championship. HCR 26 by Bonnen. Congratulating the baseball team of Brazoswood High School in Clute on winning the 2011 UIL 5A state championship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members. Thank you for your time this morning. The HCR 26 is congratulating the Brazoswood Buccaneers on winning the class 5A state baseball state championship. We're having very proud of them, and I look forward to being in the parade in early July, I believe July the 11th honoring the Brazoswood Buccaneers on their state title, which they seem to do rather frequently. And then House Resolution 212 is congratulating the Danbury Panthers, Lady Panthers softball state championship for 2A state champions here in the State of Texas, which they also seem to frequently win that state softball championship. So I'm proud to pass these two resolutions for Brazoswood and Danbury.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up HCR 25.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
THE CLERK: HCR 25 by Zerwas. Instructing the enrolling clerk of the Senate to make corrections in S.B. No. 7.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, in the -- in the fury to kind of get things done as we do here at the end, there are some -- one technical correction that needs to be made to SB 7 that was just passed, in terms of the conference report. And it has to with the insertion of some language in the very last section which just says that the commission will pursue waivers or state planned payments to prepare the necessary documents in order to carry out the provisions of SB 7. And I would move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: (Inaud ible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules for the House to take up and consider House Resolution 209.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 209 by Thompson. Congratulating June Lohman on the occasion of her retirement from Comcast.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a congratulatory resolution on a person's retirement. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Dallas for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 177.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 177 by Davis of Dallas. In memory of civil rights activist and former Dallas City Council member, Al Lipscomb.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Alonzo moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I move to reconsider the vote on HCR 25 as we need a record on vote on this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're on HCR 25, a correcting resolution. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 139 ayes and 1 nay, the resolution is adopted. Members, if there are no further motions, the House will stand in recess until 1:15.
(The House stands in recess.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House.
THE CLERK: SCR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out House Resolution 197.
THE CLERK: HR 197 by Pitts. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction SB 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, HR 197 is the out of bounds resolution on Senate Bill 2. HR 197 (inaudible) will be added to Senate Bill 2. We added contingency that are in Senate Bill 1, relating to the governor -- the code, Texas Department of Rural Affairs, and we moved that function to the Department of Agriculture. And we also, because of Linda Harper Brown's amendment, was put on our guarantee is charter schools bond. We had to put that on as a contingency. They were not previously put on Senate Bill 2 and it was necessary they were put on as a floor amendment. Texas continues to be devastated by wildfires, and the cost of fighting them continues to grow. We added additional funding for the Texas Forest Service to address these costs at $40 million. We're also seeing increased violence from the border, including a shootout between DPS and members of a Mexican drug cartel earlier last week. To help address this situation we added additional funds for border security, for both DPS and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. We have appropriated unextended balances for the JET program, which is the jobs in education for Texas, which is approximately $5 million. And we reallocated existing funds at UT Austin, for the -- for a digital literacy program beginning -- that was begun last session. I move adoption of HR 197.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If the gentleman would yield? Chairman Pitts, I (inaudible) the gentleman with the wildfires. I think it was the third item that monies were --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: DPS?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Border Security.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Border Security?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: How much was added there?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: 2.2 million.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So the total amount added in HR 197, over and above the original appropriation bill, is how much?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Over the original Senate Bill 2 that left the floor?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Or the amount that's included.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We added $40 million for wildfires, we added $2.2 million for the Border Security, and that was the -- that was the amount that we added.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So, okay. So, the total amount of HR 197 would be?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, Sylvester, it's just the out of bounds resolution and the dollar amount that was -- was added.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Now I'm just trying to get the total amount in 197.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, you know, I don't know if you're talking about unexpended balances. There's five million dollars of unexpended balances. There is a reallocation of money that went to UT Austin, which is a million dollars. The JET program was unexpended balance of 5 million. The Border Security was 2.2 million. The wildfires was 40 million.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Are you saying unexpended balances -- I'm trying to find out where the money is coming from to do all of these -- to do these things.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: The comptroller's not costing us the $5 million that's unexpended balances. It's not new money, taking out of our general fund. It's unexpended balances. The 1 million dollars for the digital literacy program is out of funds appropriated to UT. The only new money, if you want to call it new money, is the $40 million for the fires. And, frankly, Sylvester, we either pay it now or we pay it in a supplemental bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No. I'm just trying to find out where is it coming -- where the new money's coming from. I mean where's --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We just checked with the comptroller's office and they said it would be available.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Did the comptroller tell you how much new monies -- And the reason why I'm asking you if, if there are things that we are cutting out, I mean teachers, for example. Let me just focus on that. I mean, if they're -- I think all of us would like to know how much unexpended monies there are.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We are talking about unexpended -- unexpended balances of a job on Education for Texans to get Texans back to work. Sylvester that's the unexpended balance. The 40 million is new money.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right, I got that, that the comptroller says is available. And I guess the question is that I'm raising is how much -- how much more monies are available that we have not expended?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not advised, Sylvester. I don't know. I will say I asked the question about the $40 million, and I said do we have the money to pay for the wildfires that hit Lois Kolkhorst's district and other people's districts in the last month? And they said we had the money to pay for those wildfires.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I guess -- Mr. Chairman, no disrespect to you, I'm just having a hard time understanding how -- how we -- on one day we don't have it, on the next day we do have it. On the one day the comptroller's saying we don't have it, on the next day we do have it. And then based -- I mean bills go to conference committee, new things are added and then all of a sudden there are new monies available. I'm just having a hard time understanding how -- how we are legislating and appropriating based on -- based on these type of decisions being made. I mean at some point somebody has to tell all of us if I'm writing a check for my account I want to know what the balance is that I'm writing the check from.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I understand.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, can somebody tell us what the balance is? As we -- I mean, I know we'll we are all out of gas on these final two days, and I'm ready to go home more than anybody else; because this is like a bad movie that just won't end.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It sure is, Sylvester. You and I can agree on that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But I will tell you --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: But I will say that I was out of breath when I came here, I filed Senate Bill 1 conference committee report, so that's the big day --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Big man on that one (inaudible). But let me just stick -- Can any -- Mr. Chairman, if you will, could you just find out from the comptroller how much -- how much monies are available that have not been expended?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'll give her a holler.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I just think everybody's entitled to know that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you. Thank you. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question occurs on the adoption of House Resolution 197. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Charlie Howard voting aye. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Show Representative Riddle voting aye. Have all voted? There being 98 ayes and 40 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair calls up conference committee report of Senate Bill 2. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report on Senate Bill 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, conference committee report on Senate Bill 2 makes necessary corrections to House Bill 1. Greetings, Ms. Howard. -- of the budget bill we passed during the regular session. It's a technical correction. It's always been a technical correction to the House Bill that we filed, that we passed during the regular session. And, members, House Bill 1 had references to Senate Bill 1811. And Senate Bill 1811 did not pass during regular session, that's why we're here today. And so we had to change those contingencies of Senate Bill 1811. A lot of references during the -- in the House Bill 1 referred to regular session, rather than any special sessions. We have to change the wording for that. In our negotiations with the Senate, we removed provisions that we felt had embedded in the
(inaudible) between our budget process in the regular session. And one of those items was what Representative Howard had. And Representative Howard had a good amendment, a good, thought out amendment, to take additional money out of the Rainy Day Fund that many members, both republican and democrat, got on the back mic and spoke for that amendment. So, frankly, when we were dealing with the Senate we could not get an agreement on the amount or whether we should use any additional money of the Rainy Day Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you. Chairman Pitts, we had lots of discussions about this and I would like for you, if you don't mind, to take a minutes to kind of explain about the Rainy Day Fund; what what's in it, how it's being pledged, if you will, to the next biennial budget; what will replenish it. My point, what I'm trying to get at here, how was the decision made about where the line should be drawn in the amount of Rainy Day Fund that could and should be used to help cover a shortfall in vital state services, primarily public education; looking at a 4 billion-dollar reduction?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Let me kind of -- Because we've gone over this during the regular session. But let me talk about the Rainy Day Fund. When we came in it was -- when we came in January it was expected that we would have a little over $99 billion in the Rainy Day Fund for use by the next -- by the next biennium. We used, about a lot of hard work by members of this legislature, to convince the Senate and convince the governor to use $3.2 billion of that Rainy Day Fund to balance our budget for this current biennium. Our current biennium, we did not have the cash to pay for our bills, and the state government would not have been able to pay their bills starting in July. Starting in just a few days. And we were able to pass House Bill 275 to use part of the Rainy Day Fund to pay for those current bills. Now, we used the 3.2, approximately, and -- so we would have approximately 6.2. And these are estimates, I don't have the numbers in front of me.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I think it's about 6.4.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Maybe 6.4. We did use some of the Rainy Day Fund, additional Rainy Day Fund for fires. We used about $80 million -- $81 million for fires in east Texas on an earlier bill that we have did. I think it was our supplemental bill, that we did use part of the Rainy Day Fund for that. So let's say we still have about 6.4; is that what you said? When we passed House Bill 1, we realized that we do have a hole in medicaid services. That we tried to get at least until -- until May of 2014, so we'd have the benefits to come back in session to be able to use the Rainy Day Fund for -- to take care of our medicaid shortfall. We also did --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Representati ve Pitts, may I ask you about that? And then if it's about 4.4 billion at this point, I understand, is what we're guesstimating we may have underfunded medicaid. So, if indeed we are setting aside the Rainy Day Fund to cover that, is that not, in essence, already spending and pledging that amount to 6.4 that's --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Donna, it's not unusual to -- When you're taking -- When you're looking at medicaid, and I've been on appropriations for many years, you are taking a snapshot of what the demands from the medicaid would be needed for two years in the future. And it's -- it's always a guess. This time it was a pretty -- I guess you'd say a very conservative guess. And it's probably our estimation it may be over -- close to $4 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: But whatever the number ends up being, is it not correct that we are planning to cover that expenditure, which we will be making in the next biennium; but which is not totally funded? We will be guaranteeing that the services will still be provided, and covering it with money from the Rainy Day Fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: If you, and every member of this legislature, wants to be able to pay for those individuals that show up at our doctor's offices, our hospitals --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I agree.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- and what services that they're entitled to --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: But we have done that with Rainy Day Fund money; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I would say, and I think you've heard, that we need to keep money in the Rainy Day Fund to be able to pay for that shortfall if -- if that shortfall actually exists.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And in the best guesstimate at this point is it that shortfall will occur, and that it could be in the range of $4 to $5 billion. We don't expect that there will be no shortfall do we?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, you know, I will tell you that a year ago when we started talking about this current budget, we thought we would have a shortfall in medicaid. We thought we would have to do a supplemental bill for that shortfall in medicaid. And do you remember our supplemental bill which was, I think, House Bill 4 did not include a shortfall for medicaid. So it's something that, you know, you just have to kind of wait and see if and we are predicting something that's going to happen in, you know, 24 months, and it's just something that we'll have to wait and see.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And I -- I --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- we wanted to keep that money there --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- to be able to ensure that those services --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Right. So what you are saying is that keeping it there to ensure that we have the funds to cover this potential shortfall, but if indeed we have a situation like we did this biennium, where we didn't end up having the shortfall that we thought we would have, we would still have that money there. So we're protecting this -- this certain amount of money to cover something that may or may not be there. Okay. Then what's the difference in protecting that --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Then in Senate Bill -- What we have done in a lot of bills, including Senate Bill 2, I believe, is we did a deferral. And that is our deferral in our public schools. This is something that is very common, that when we did in '03 and we're (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And it doesn't require that you have to come back immediately and cover it with Rainy Day Fund money --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And what that deferral does is it defers one month payment to our school districts to September. So in October -- in August, the payment that normally is made say the 15th of August will be made the 1st of September. And that's about two billion dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Right. And so that gets us up to about the amount that we have currently in the Rainy Day Fund that we are setting aside to make sure that we have it there in the event that we need it when we return in January of 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Do you anticipate, based on what you've seen with the revenue coming in in the past year, that we could indeed see greater revenue streams coming into our state budget than were previously estimated in the comptroller's biennial revenue estimates?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I cannot. You know, we cannot get an answer from the comptroller --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: But have you looked at it, though, looked at the numbers, and seen that we've had 14 months in a row of higher than expected sales tax? And with we are actually -- I think it's about -- at least a third greater return than has been estimated by the comptroller at this point in time, as of today?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I will -- I will tell you that I hope for the budget riders for the next biennium, that there will be ample funds in the Rainy Day Fund to help balance the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Is there really, in some kind of reasonable practical, rational reason that you can give me, that we would not use monies in excess of what's currently in the Rainy Day Fund to help offset the cuts to public education?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Do we think
(inaudible) votes?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Can I move to extend the gentleman's time?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, in the last days of the special session the time may not be extended.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? Chair recognizes Representative Howard to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, since that was the closing I have no other option to ask questions, so I'm just going to take a second here to make a couple of closing comments. We all know what happened with this amendment, we all know that it was presented and approved in this body without objection when it first came up. Because indeed we're talking about taking a rational, reasonable compromise here to preserve and protect what's currently in the Rainy Day Fund. But use any excess above that to help offset the severe reductions that are going to be felt by our school districts across the state. I'm very disappointed that the things happened that made people change their vote after that point in time, but that's the way politics works. I think it's important to note that our revenue streams have been increasing steadily. There's no reason to think that they will not continue to do so. We have more among money coming in in this particular biennium, that we're currently in. That's not what the revised revenue estimates that we got from the comptroller was for next biennium, not even this biennium. And we're going along ending it with more money than we expected to have. We need to be thoughtful about using the Rainy Day Fund, and we also need to recognize how it's replenished and there seems to be confusion in here about how that fund even operates. And I would implore you, we don't have an opportunity to vote on my amendment today, but I want to implore you to look at what the Rainy Day Fund is about, how it's replenished and what to expect over the next biennium, because I know there's a lot of confusion in here. And the fact is that the money is coming in more than we expected it would be. We are ending this biennium with more money than we thought we would have, and we're not addressing how we're going to even use the funds that are coming in in this biennium. We've appropriated money out of the Rainy Day Fund, but we're going to end up with more money in this biennium than we thought. What does that have to do with Rainy Day Fund? Why is that not an issue that anybody's brought up? And the fact is that in the next biennium we are setting aside money to cover underfunded appropriations for medicaid, we're covering the deferrals. I understand that. There's enough money there to do that. We were simply talking about using the money above and beyond to help pay for the schools. And I really hope that you guys will pay attention to what we're doing here and understand that this choice was made, a choice was made when we had money in the bank so to say no, I'm sorry, we're not going to appropriate any more here for our schools. And, in fact, I talked to the governor's office, our House leadership and the Senate about even further compromising and going to 1.2 billion instead of 2.2. But even that wasn't good enough. Even that was too much money to take out of the Rainy Day Fund. We're going to leave billions of dollars in the bank when we're asking our schools to cut. I don't know why we're doing this, members. I don't understand how this happened, and I don't understand how you're going to go back to your districts and explain this. I'm very disappointed this is happening and, unfortunately, I'm going to have to vote against this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Will the Representative yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Donna, isn't this the bill where we discussed the fact that every public school teacher, every public school staff person in the State of Texas, every member of a school district, board of trustees, all of these people, everyone, would support your amendment and would like to see that language included in Senate Bill 2; isn't that true?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: That's true. And I would add soccer moms and soccer dads and all the other folks out there that care about having quality public schools in their neighborhoods. Indeed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on Senate Bill 2. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 89 ayes and 55 nays, the conference committee report is adopted. Mr. Eissler? Chair lays out HR 198.
THE CLERK: HR 198 by Eissler. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. SB No. 6.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the out of bounds resolution for Senate Bill 6. Conference committee had to go out of bounds three times, adding language
(inaudible) IMA on salaries for employees. It's a court technological equipment who are involved in student learning. And the other two reflected two bills that had already passed. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 136 ayes and 1 nay, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 6.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is Senate Bill 6 which creates the instructional materials allotment, a combination of textbook funding and the technology allotment. It's very similar to the bill that left this chamber. All the assessment language was removed because of the Senate not considering it germane. And, as I said before, this is the bill that moves Texas into the 21st century, and it provides educators with the flexibility to instruct students with dynamic content and tools. I'm asking for a record vote so that the bill would take immediate affect and districts can have access to this allotment for the 2011-2012 school year. And I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker? Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Eissler. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you for working with me on this. And it's your understanding, along with me, that there was an LSG initial rating of unfavorable. But they have, upon reviewing the amendment that you accepted, that was put in the conference committee report, that you have decided a favorable vote that they recommend on this?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, that's what I understand. Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, anyone wishing to speak for or against? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee -- Mr. White, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: Yes, I have a question for Chairman Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Does the conference report, Mr. Chairman, have anything to do with the State Board of Education oversight?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Okay. Could you -- What is the character of that oversight?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Let's see, current law which is the initial text book or instructional materials rating. There's a commissioner's that would add 20 to 90 days to reject. And then there's open source, which was an amendment we took on the floor that allows review and comment, and attachment to any open source information for curriculum that gets out.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Riddle voting aye. Show Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 142 ayes and 1 nay, Senate Bill 6 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Resolution 199.
THE CLERK: HB 199 by Eissler. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. SB No. 8.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the out of bounds resolution. Conference committee had to go out on two issues: The amendment by Representative Villarreal, regarding teacher preservice needed to be revised to reflect language by the stakeholders, as well as Mr. Villarreal and the conference committee. And the conference committee added language specifying that a furlough date does not constitute a day of service for
(inaudible) purposes in order to not create a cost for the bill. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, anyone wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the resolution? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of HR 199. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 93 ayes and 50 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out the conference committee report on Senate Bill 8. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: Conference committee report, Senate Bill 8.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a conference committee report for Senate Bill 8, which will provide our districts with flexibility to manage our operations. Very similar to the bill that left the chamber, with a few exceptions. The provision authorizes commissioner to consider reductions in funding when granting class size
(inaudible) labor is no longer in this bill. And a few floor amendments that were unacceptable to the Senate have been removed from this bill. And, members, especially in these troubling and challenging budgetary times, limiting mandates allow our schools to focus on the core mission of educating students. This bill is about maximum flexibility for our local school districts to save teachers' jobs, while prioritizing what is best for students. And I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hancock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: I'd like to ask a question of the chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Eissler. Just for clarification purposes, there's provisions in the law regarding contracts. We can already change procedural things such as timelines within a contract, but would you agree with me that the legislature, by statute, cannot impair substantive rights that are vested under the existing contract?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct. It's prospective, not looking to invade the current contracts. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Patrick?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Chairman Eissler, thank you for your work on this bill. I would like to clarify legislative intent. On page 13, line 19 of the conference committee report, it states the board of trustees may not implement a furlough program or salary reduction until the district has complied with this section. And it's my understanding that the intent is that the district shall comply with this section before. In other words, this is not permissive for the district board; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. As long as they conform with this, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: So, in other words, they may not or they shall not is the intent?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: It's not a choice for them to do or not to do the following steps, if they do implement a furlough program?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. There are requirements for a furlough to occur, among them being a level of funding equal to an 11 and a public hearing, I believe. And I think that's what you're looking for, right?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Well, what I'm referring so to specifically includes the involvement of the district professional staff, and provides district employees with the opportunity to express opinions. That's the section I'm referring to.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And yes, and also to -- You're looking at a couple of amendments that you, yourself added.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Yes. But I just wanted to clarify that a may or a shall is troubling. That we mean -- we do mean shall, there's not a choice?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, let me first ask that was there was an amendment that dealt with the administrators and teachers, that what was done to the teachers was to be to be done to the administrators; do you remember that amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. I believe we had, in fact, a couple of amendments. One of them was Mr. Callegari's amendment, was that was even written -- if there's a pay cut it will apply to administrators, as well as other professionals. And I think that was Mr. Callegari's amendment. And then there was on one of the superintendents that Marissa Marquez I think had.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct. Are those two amendments -- are the substance of these two amendments still in the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The substantiative are yes. Both. Now, on Ms. Marquez' amendment, we didn't go directly at the contract, because of what you just heard from Mr. Hancock. But there is -- when they both agree, some terms can be changed under ample financial exigency. So yes, to answer you question.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I don't -- Now then, I am not quite sure I understood your answer to that. There may be references to those two amendments, but are the substance of the amendments in Senate Bill 8?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, the substance of those are in. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, let me ask you another thing, because Senate Bill 8 is directly tied to the financial cuts that we're making for all the public school districts. Can you quantity -- can you quantify a savings in terms of dollars and cents to the local school districts, as a result of the implement -- as a result of Senate Bill 8?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's a good question. I think you are talking about potential savings, and I'm buying time to figure this out.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Because the reason why I oppose the question is that we are dealing with Senate Bill 8, reducing the minimum salary schedule for our teachers, furloughing teachers, interfering with their contracts; we're doing all of that because of the financial cutbacks that we are making to public schools. So my question --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I got you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: My question --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I figured that out. And I'll give you something. The kinds of numbers I'm trying to work out in my mind, our payroll annually for teachers is $16.7 billion. So take -- let's say you take -- let's say you take five furlough days out of 186, that would be 6, that's 130, let's say 3 percent of 16.8 that's about 400 -- that's a half a billion dollars right there. Enlarging one -- enlarging classes by one saves a billion dollars a year throughout this state. And I don't see a lot of school districts looking to do a lot of those in combination. I think some school districts appreciate the flexibility, and might do one or two of those things. I know so far, anecdotally, I have heard about many of those school districts are not going to do any of it, because the number is 4 billion. And it started out, earlier in this session, at like 9.8 billion. So it's a lot smaller cuts than I think most school districts were anticipating.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, if smaller being considered that where we were at the beginning, which was close to 9 or 10 billion, but I don't think we need to pat ourselves on the back when we're cutting 4 billion dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I'm not. I'm just using that to point out that a lot of school districts, especially when they didn't have any of these tools and I know --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But when you say tools, you're referring to reducing the minimum salaries for teachers, furloughing teachers --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We're not reducing the minimum salary. The salary, in fact, you brought up that point, the salary schedule is still there.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then what are we allowing school districts to do?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Let's see. Chapter 42, 400D had a prohibition against teachers being paid --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Uh-huh.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- less this year than previous year and --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We are allowing school districts --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Districts can lower that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But that's in essence the same. Yet we're saying the same thing, we are allowing school districts to reduce the minimum pay salary schedule for teachers. We're allowing them to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The way you're asking that, that's not true.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, you may not like the way I'm asking the question but the impact remains the same.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, technically they can't go below the minimum salary schedule or $800 above the minimum salary schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Tell me what Senate Bill 8 -- what Senate Bill 8 allows them to -- allows school districts to do.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: To lower the pay that --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Say it one more time. I didn't hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: To lower the teachers' pay to save other jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It allows the school districts to lower the teachers' pay. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask you this: Because I have not had one school teacher, and I know Representative Crownover may be different in her district, I have not heard from one teacher that has applauded us for doing this. Now, have you heard from -- have you heard from teachers, Mr. Chairman, that say that what we are doing is a good thing? Whether they are democratic teachers, republican teachers, independent, tea party, rural, urban, regardless of where they come from; have you heard from teachers who are applauding us for what we are about to do?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I have heard positive comments from teachers that think that these are good things to do, because most teachers care about each other, and they want to do a good job. And if they can save jobs by taking a day or two of furlough, or even if a slight pay cut because it saves their colleagues' jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, Mr. Chairman --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I have heard --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have heard that from them as well, Mr. Chairman. I haven't heard any of that from my end. If you heard that, I applaud you for it. But I don't think that there are too many teachers that I know of -- certainly none that I have heard of, applaud us for what we are -- what we are considering in terms of furloughing them and allowing the local school districts to reduce their payment. Now, I have not heard that. Now are we limiting this for two years or is this an ongoing open window?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The pay situation is ongoing. The furlough is dependent on the level of funding reaching or not reaching the current 10, 11 funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So basically, from this point going forward, from this point going forward, superintendents, local school boards for example, can lower the payment schedule for teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: As long as they do so among themselves, and with others. And I say that by the Callegari amendment, I say that by the Patrick amendment. So, yes, they can. They can lower pay as long as it's really across the board.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Eissler , I had a question asked me over the weekend and I wasn't sure how to answer it. But how does a district's declaration of a financial exigency relate to its payment under our Robin Hood system?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Payment under our what now?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Under our -- under our Chapter 41 and Chapter 42 system.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It doesn't. You still get back paid what they're due under the formulas and the finance laws. Their financial exigency is something that they declared and something you and I discussed here it seems like only yesterday.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right. So your intent is that the any -- any adoption by the school district of a financial exigency won't effect any payments that are due as a Chapter 41 --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- school district. That was a question asked, and I was not -- I'm not sure how to -- maybe I'll talk to Scott about this; but I was trying to figure out why that would be the case. Let me ask you. The financial exigency language that we -- that bill that left here, as I understand is still there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And so, as I understand it, the commissioner will basically provide the game rules for a district who seeks to declare a financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. Thanks to your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Now, the flexibility you're talking about though, that school districts have under Senate Bill 8, that's flexibility to reduce salaries?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Or furloughs, or have -- have other mandates reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah. Beyond teachers, as I mentioned before, administrators and even superintendents.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Say that again. I didn't hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The provisions of the bill actually call for others to -- Yeah, everybody in the district other than hourly employees, I believe, can have the pay reductions spread amongst all of them.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So it extends all the way from the superintendent, but it stops and stops short of the hourly paid workers?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And they won't -- their -- they won't be furloughed or they won't have their salaries cut?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And other than the provision where we give the authority to the commissioner, is there any direction we give school districts on how to go about employing this whole idea of a financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Their practice has been to declare it when they saw fit. But this bill, if passed, will give them obviously a lot of direction once we set parameters, or the commissioner does.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And my final question which was asked me is can a school district have a huge reserve balance and still declare a financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That doesn't seem to be a --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would that be inconsistent?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, that would be inconsistent.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So, the effect of passing Senate Bill 8 and employing the financial exigency language will now require school districts -- as I think I heard you say, they would end up having to spend their reserves before they could get to that point?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I would say if that's part of the new definition, yes. But I imagine that would be part of it. But the TA has certain guidelines on how much reserve to keep and, you know, they may go below that or once they hit that then the exigency may -- I mean I don't know what he's going come up with.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: The, I guess the other questions that it begs is that a lot of school districts who have issued bonds have done so on the basis of being able to pay off those bonds and had, as one of the considerations for payment, a reserve account. But if they are required to spend it before you get to the financial exigency part of this, have we calculated what that could cost school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We have not, and I imagine that would be part of the discussion. And I know that something we talked about last week is one of the reasons that a school district wouldn't call or declare a financial exigency out of hand, just because, it does affect what their credit worthiness is. And if they're going to declare that they don't have the money to handle their obligations.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Because it could potentially significantly increase their cost of bonds and other --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It just, I guess -- I'm sorry to raise all this now, but it's things that I was thinking of over the weekend about how a district might do this and how it might affect the district. So, all right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker, would the --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miles, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Chairman, we've talked a lot about, on this bill, the budgeting problems in the State of Texas. Would you expect for the --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Patrick, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I would like to ask that the comments by Representative Hancock and me be reduced to writing and entered into the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Doorkeeper?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate has passed the following measures: HCR 18 Hughes, in memory of Drill Sergeant Joshua David --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I want to share a few thoughts with you before the vote on this bill. And as most of you know, I've been here for quite some time, and I've always thought that public education, besides being our constitutional mandated obligation, was also the most important thing we could do for our state; with nearly five million children in our public school system. And as we all know, we all say it in speeches, they are the future of our state. What we're doing to them today, and what we're doing to our teachers today is nothing more than an assault on public education. It seems like some of us are almost gleeful that we only had to cut 4 billion. It seems like we keep ignoring the other 1.3, 1.4 billion that was cut in the TBA budget that was money for teachers that they got in stipends, in merit pay and in pre-K programs and other things. So it's really a cut in 5.4 billion, not 4 billion as we continue to see this number. We did this while leaving 6.4 billion in the bank. Yeah, maybe we all know secretly that oh, that's really going to cover the medicaid thing that's in our budget, but we didn't fund that hypocrisy that's in our budget. But we did it while not addressing gaming, which could have brought in additional revenue and jobs to our state. We did it by leaving billions of dollars in exemptions that the committee I chaired for the last session found there were billions of dollars in exemptions that should be reviewed. We could find the money, we could have avoided these cuts but we didn't. I think Mr. (inaudible) of the state I think wrote an article about how we tilted the playing field in this bill, about how we changed the rights of teachers contractually, how we did way with seniority preference, how we did away with basic teacher rights. How we we've now created furloughs and people that are going to get cut when we have a financial exigency which we still have yet to define. It is ultimately going to lead to litigation as well, when it happens. When you look at all these problems and you put our best and brightest teachers on the chopping block, which is what we're doing with this bill today; I think we've committed an atrocity. I think our teachers shouldn't be asked to be happy with a choice of well, I will sacrifice my salary, I will not be able to have take care of my family as well; and you can cut my pay so my colleague can have a job. That is not a real choice. That is not something we should be offering to our teachers who take care of a children and are part of our Texas future and economy, nor should they even be asked to do that. And that's what we're doing here today. Chairman Eissler is dear friend, I know he believes in public education, but I can't believe that they would ask that of our teachers. You'll take a pay cut, won't you, so you can save you fellow teacher? They shouldn't be even asked to do that. This did not have to happen. There were ways around it. There were ways, had we not been worried about presidential politics that guided a lot of our decision making, there were ways to resolve this and take care of our teachers and take care of public education. But we chose not to do that. So you make that choice today as you vote for this, and be with the attitude that there will be some accountability. It may only be the accountability we'll feel when the majority of children who are Hispanic in public education lose that good teacher, or when we cut our classrooms back to 30 and 35 to 1, which they were -- which they were in the '70s and early '80s. Again, members, respectfully, this did not have to happen. I urge you to vote no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, members. Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to take a moment to introduce some special students who's here from Duncanville, Texas. We have Deldrin (inaudible) And Bill Thomas, once the marketing director of
(inaudible). Will you stand up? These are members of Robo Tech, the robotic team of Christian home school alliance in Texas. They were first place in a district competition, and they're here at the Capitol and I want to make sure that we acknowledge their presence and thank them for their efforts, and let people know that we have new and talented men there making a difference every day. So thank you, guys, for you work and your efforts in working in the robotics team.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And look, I know all of us, I know all of us are wanting this special session to end, and we're ready to get back home. And I know it's a movie that keeps on, keeps on going. But on Senate Bill 8 I rise, because the primary focus of Senate Bill 8 deals with our teachers. And there are teachers in all of our districts. Let me just say, members, the major reason I guess we are still dealing with this is because of the budget. Senate Bill 8 is not needed for our budget. This is one bill that we do not have to have. Because the savings in Senate Bill 8 are very problematic. As Chairman Eissler indicated earlier, many of the some of the school districts may not even utilize it. So Senate Bill 8 is not needed in order for us to go home. Number two, Senate Bill 8 is an overkill. It's an overkill on the (inaudible) whether they're 70,000 or 80,000 school teachers. It is an overkill that is not needed. We are talking about allowing the local school districts to lower their pay or furlough their teachers. And I know that all of us, all of us in this room have teachers that we can refer to, to relate to, to appreciate and thank. I know on Saturday I went to my fourth grade teacher, they had her retirement celebration for her, and that there were many other teachers that were there. I don't see the necessity. I agree with Representative Oliveira, I don't see the necessity for us to attempt to balance budgets on the backs of good, capable school teachers. And I know that that's one thing to get rid of those teachers that are not doing their jobs, no one argues with that. I understand that, I agree with that. But, members I think it would be a mistake in the last sequel of this movie, to leave this special session and the (inaudible) that we are putting on this session is that we are attacking our local school teachers. I just don't think that is the message we need to send. And the good thing about this is that whether we are in rural Texas or urban Texas, all of us, all of us in the past have respected our teachers, we have fought for our teachers, we have fought to give raises to our teachers. This is the first session that I know -- the first session that I know where there is a bill in front of us to cut teachers' pay across the board. There are -- there are 333,000 teachers in the State of Texas. Members, I want you to understand, there are 333,000 teachers. There are teachers in every part of this state, in every district; and now we're being asked to vote on a bill that will directly cut their pay on teachers in every one of our districts. 333,000.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I want to make sure I understand the picture here that we're painting. We're saying this is because of a financial situation. One year of the next biennium, they're already contracted for?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So what we're saying is, at most, it would be for the 2013 years; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Much further out, that is correct, Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And this doesn't say okay, once that happens then we're going to go back and reinstate the current law; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: As Chairman Eissler says, it goes on and on and on.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So these -- these changes in how we handle teachers and how we reward teachers, or how we pay them, are permanent cuts?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. That we will have to explain to our school teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So it's not just one of those things where we're saying we are doing this because everybody has to pull tight over the next couple of years, that's not what we're saying? We can't go out and say did that because, you know, it's tough. It's tough for all of us. We're all going to have to put in, state employees are going to be reduced they're going to have their pay reduced or whatever; this is for ever?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Go ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, I agree. And if what we were doing is so -- if we was correct, then why are we not applying it to all state employees across the board? Why are we just singling out the teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And what's the dollar -- I didn't hear a dollar amount. Did you hear how much this is going to save?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I asked Chairman Eissler the specific question, what's the dollar amount we're going to save? And it's highly problematic. This is one -- If this bill goes down, it does not -- it does not force a special session. It doesn't hurt our budget.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And there's another portion in here where it changes how they go about the hearing process, are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm aware of that.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And it says in there, instead of having the hearing officers, they're just going to just let them hire attorneys to develop the record.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm concerned about that.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And who is going to pay those?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm assuming that the taxpayers, the local school districts are going to have to fork up the money for that.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And what do you think those hearing officers are going to do? Who do you think ultimately is going write those checks? Probably the school districts that's going to --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. And it's going to cost considerably more.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Those attorneys, while it goes -- it goes in length the reason -- it says they cannot be employed or represent the school district. At the end of day, who are they going to be representing?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: They're going to be representing themselves primarily, because they want the check.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But who are they ultimately -- Who's ultimately going to appear to be the client's attorneys?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It's going to be the superintendents.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: That write the checks? Because if they have too many bad decisions, what do you think's going to happen?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: They're not going to use them anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Because they're not independent?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: They're not on a -- They're not chosen by the commissioner, if the commissioner develops a list; is that correct? We haven't done any of that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It's kind of like it's not thought out completely. Like it's -- Mr. Dutton talked about the financial exigency, that's the excuse to do a part of this.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: If there's a financial exigency. What is a financial exigency?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is -- And that's unknown. I think Representative Dutton has pointed that out from day one.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And you don't even have to go to the commissioners -- the commissioner and say hey, look, we have a financial exigency. Here are the things -- here are the reasons we why we need help. You don't have any of that in here?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, we do not.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So you don't have safeguards in there to protect our teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that is another major concern, Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And I so I assume you're going to say you will not, and you cannot, and you shall not vote for this?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You understand? You know, where I'm going?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I will not and I cannot and I shall not vote for this.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And this is one bill, members, for our teachers, that we can have bipartisan support. I am not -- There are no democratic teachers or republican teachers, they're just teachers and they take care of our children. Yes, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Turner. The whole idea behind Senate Bill 8, I guess, as I understand it, is to reduce the cost for school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is what has been said.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's what has been said.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But nobody can quantify the savings.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And tell us how much it is? Do you know the one biggest item that this legislature this session has spent money on?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: What was that?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Think about it for a minute. You know, the biggest item that we spent money on, that we increased spending on? That was on capital punishment. We agreed to spend more money because what we decided to do was we changed the age at which a person could be executed from six to ten years old; do you recall that?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: You know, what it costs for each of those prosecutions? Do you have any idea what the cost of it is?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sure it's extremely high.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: It is. And the cost of maintaining somebody, or a criminal. But we didn't declare a financial exigency then, didn't we?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, we did not.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And so I guess my question is what does that say about this legislature?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, we're talking about priorities. And in this bill we are specifically talking about our school teachers. And I -- and, Representative Dutton, I think all of us in this room would not be where we are --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Without a school teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Without a school teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: All of us.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And so why are we, at this point, giving school districts what I think Chairman Eissler called flexibility to do away with school teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Listen, if we were dealing with the administrators and the superintendents that's one thing. If we were dealing at administrative costs --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But this doesn't change that, does it?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, we are dealing with the school teachers. This bill is specifically focused on the school teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And do you know why we have left out the superintendents?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm at a loss of understanding, because they are the ones that are asking for this.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But they are not the ones who are trying to give up salaries for this. And so school superintendents don't have any way that this can affect them, which is why they want it? Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And if we're going to do this, it seems to me that one of the things we ought to do is change it it affects everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I agree with you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And it affects everyone in the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I agree with you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So if it's going to affect school teachers, then it's going to affect superintendents?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Across the board. Well, but it needs to effect us even more.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Absolutely. Because they're the ones getting the greater benefit, right?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, there are two amendments supposedly that deal with the superintendents and the administrators, but not nearly enough. There are 330,000 teachers. There are 1,030 superintendents. Now, bear in mind, 1,030 superintendents, 330,000 school teachers in the State of Texas. And they are the ones that are going to be impacted. I am asking, members, bipartisan, vote for our local school teachers. If this bill goes down we do not have to come back --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I ask that you vote no for your local school teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Bohac because of family illness, on the motion of Representative Madden. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the adoption of the conference committee report? Chair recognizes Representative Garza to speak for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Members, I just want to take a moment to talk in support of SB 8. I want to really congratulate my superintendents in my district that came and met with me in Austin. Chairman Eissler was so gracious to come and speak with them and when we met here just a few weeks ago. And I'll tell you, Chairman Thompson, that the people I talk to every day in my district have taken pay cuts. I've taken a pay cut of close to 50 percent over two years ago. The people I talk to every day in my district. I love teachers, my sister is a teacher. I have a niece that's a teacher that says she's going to come up to my house and protest me if I vote for SB 8, because she doesn't understand that the superintendents have asked us for these reforms or these abilities to control their own budgets, to run their own business in the districts. Because it is a business, the business of educating our children is that each and every one of my constituents in my district pay taxes, hard earned money to feed their kids and their children. My children, I have five children and two grandchildren, and I've educated each and every one them in public schools. And I have told my school boards and my superintendents that each teacher, and every teacher that I've talked to is excellent, and they want to do the very best job. But we're in tough times in Texas and in this nation right now, and we have to rely on leadership in the districts themselves. And each and every one of those superintendents told me that these are things that we need to bring things in line, to be able to control our own budgets and not be mandated in these areas that Chairman Eissler has brought into consideration in this bill. Now, they didn't admit that to their constituents during the politicizing of these issues. But when it came down, not one of my districts, Southwest Independent School District, I met and went out to Medina Valley Independent School District, and they showed me how much they're getting funded and versus -- What they did, they improved their school districts from a recognized school district to an exemplary, one of the few in Texas, on the low budgets that they received; because they took time to control their budgets, to control their expenditures. And they pay their teachers some of the highest salaries compared to districts in their same rating. Southwest Independent School District, Northside Independent School District, Southside Independent School District, every school district in my district, 117, did not lay off one school teacher. Not one school teacher. But they're making -- And they've told me, John, we can get through this session but we need help next session, but we can get through. They have Rainy Day Funds, they have reserves, but they want to keep those reserves intact as well for the future. So we have to have confidence in the districts abilities and the leadership ability in those school districts that they're running our business of educating our children, and we have to give them the ability and the confidence and the vote that we expect them to do the right thing, make the right decisions; and they did. They did not lay off one school teacher in my district. So I want to support my superintendents in my district of 117 for the job they're doing. I want to thank the students and the parents.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: So I am confident that this bill does --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Garza, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: -- exactly what Chairman Eissler intends it to do, is give the school boards and the superintendents the ability to do what they need to do to be able in two years to be
(inaudible) responsible, to be accountable and to be transparent to the constituents and the taxpayers in our districts. And I thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Garza, do you yield? Mr. Garza, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Chairman, I would gladly yield to you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, Representative Garza, you are saying that that your local school district did not have to lay off any school teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: As of this date.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Then if that being the case -- if that being the case --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- then there is no need for your district to need Senate Bill 8, correct? Why would you vote for a bill that's not needed in your district?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Again, Chairman, this is giving them the ability to run the business of educating our children, which I think they can do better than me and you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that. I understand that and --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: They've asked for this --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: -- then why wouldn't we give that to them?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But if but if your district did not have to lay off one single school teacher --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Okay. -- then there is -- there is no reason for your district to need Senate Bill 8, and if your district does not need Senate Bill 8 then why would you inflict Senate Bill 8 on the rest of us? I applaud you for your district. But if your district doesn't need it then I would appreciate you not inflicting on the others of us, the rest of us that don't need it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Mr. Chairman, I would invite the superintendents of you school districts to come and talk with us and meet with our superintendents, and we need to look at best practices of the different districts and see who is doing the better jobs on expenditures in building their new schools, and spending the monies that are already appropriated. So not all this -- Very little of this has to do with school teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: It has to do with budgeting, it has to do with expenditures, it has to do with the districts being able to spend their monies the way they see fit.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Garza, do you --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: And no one in my district, and none of my superintendents say that any teachers are getting a pay cut. In fact, they are some of the best paid teachers in their --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Garza?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe that teachers are paid too much? Do you believe that the local school district teachers, public school teachers are being paid too much?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: No, I don't.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. If you don't believe that they are being paid too much, then why would you support a bill that has the potential of lowering their pay?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: I don't believe they are paid too little, either.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe that their pay should be reduced?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: I believe they should be paid for the job that they do -- (inaudible)
(inaudible) (inaudible) what they do in the classroom, and what they achieve as a school, as a; group because that's how we do it in business.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: To raise a point of order under -- on the conference committee report under Rule 13, Sections 9A, 10B3 and 11A.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Farrar raises a point of order. Chair has reviewed the amendments and the conference committee report and respectfully overrules the point of order. Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: I'm waiting for the speaker to come up.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the gentleman answer a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Rob, how many school districts are in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Oh, that collect taxes, is 1,031. If you count (inaudible) it's closer to 1200 (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Is there a lot of difference between these school districts? I mean --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: -- in size and composition of ethnicity?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Demographics, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Disabilities, et cetera?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Okay. If there is such a vast difference, do you think a one sized fits all personnel policy administered by Austin is the way we should continue to operate our school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I do not.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: So you think that Senate Bill 8 will allow each district to administer their own personnel policy based on what they have available in the locality; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I do. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: I think you got a great bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Leo. Appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir. I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Chairman, there's been a couple of characterizations. I want to ask you if they're accurate or not. Is it my -- Is it a correct understanding that the 22 to 1 rule, as it presently exists, will remain unchanged if this bill passes?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So the class size will not increase if this bill passes?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's still for waivers, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The waivers situation remains the same?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Is it a fair statement to say that the minimum salary schedule remains in place if this bill passes?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So we still have a minimum salary? Is it a fair statement to say that this tightens the use with one of the amendments that was added, for the use of financial exigency and its definition?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So it does, in fact, maybe not define but at least limits the financial exigency language?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Is it fair to say that this makes it easier to remove problem teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I would say so, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Is it fair to say that this will be less expensive if districts would have to remove teachers it would actually save them money if they have to remove a teacher?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Especially in a financial exigency, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And would you say it would better to spend that money on teachers rather than on lawyers?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's the whole idea. We'd much rather pay teachers than attorneys.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. And finally, if this bill had been in place when we came into the first part of this year, is it fair to say that some of the those teachers that were dismissed would probably not been dismissed?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's an excellent point. And had this be been in effect for the entire session, more teachers would be working today.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's right. And in the unfortunate situation where two years from now we might have another similar funding situation, is it fair to say that if we go ahead and pass this decision now, as difficult as it is, that it would, in all likelihood, keep those districts from having to make those same tough choices prematurely in the next session?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's true yes (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I know you've worked hard on this bill, I know it's a difficult subject and I appreciate your work on it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would the gentleman yield for one question and then a comment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: So I get to comment or --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: No, we both can. We both have comments.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Chairman, are you familiar with Northside ISD?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Northside ISD it becomes in San Antonio (inaudible)?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I am.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: It is my understanding that their board voted to eliminate somewhere in the neighborhood of 973 positions in that school district.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Am I aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No. I am now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. That's my understanding right now. And also that South San ISD is also considering the lay off and furloughs if required, Southside ISD (inaudible)?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: If you say so, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: You have not heard that? Okay. Well, are you there was some comments made by the previous member of the House supporting your -- your bill by Representative Garza?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Garza?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: He stated that in his district they are not laying off anybody, and both of those school districts are in his district 117. And so I just want to make sure I was on the record with that and see if you he knew about this layoffs and reduce of force within those school districts. So, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes. I move to reduce to writing and place at journal all of Representative Garza's comments, and also the exchange between Representative Garza and Representative Turner be placed in the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: May I ask the gentleman a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And the reason I want to do this is because we have we wanted to make sure that the amendment that we discussed, the amendment we put in, since it was inadvertently left off; one of the concerns about the changes that we're making with the education code and giving the districts discretion is what the impact will be on teachers. And the ability to be transparent and look at the various records and files of the districts. In your bill you had a -- you had a provision that would have allowed them to charge and maybe even prohibit access to looking at records or reviewing documents if they had outstanding fees for printing from previous requests; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: During the course of the debate on the amendment that we put in was to make sure that people had access to those records and they didn't have to necessarily pay to at least inspect and review; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And you accepted that, because your intent was to make sure that the records were public; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is -- Yes. That's part of a public records request. And I know there was a concern. And Mr. Miller had an amendment that tried to get people to pay for previous ones before they asked for an additional one.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And my amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The amendment for inspection only, which turned out to be just as expensive in that staff were required to prepare documents for inspection.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, but the difference is we weren't talking about costs. I am talking about you're intent was to make sure that those records were made available. And so we never did discuss, during the debate and discussion, that it would be expensive to be able to review documents, did we?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, if --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: We discussed during the debate that whether or not --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: During the debate, no we didn't.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I want to
(inaudible) I'm just trying to get clarification that it was in fact your intent to allow those records to be publicly reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: My understanding was that there would be no preparation time or -- or requirement if it was (inaudible)
(inaudible) -- the way I had envisioned it was that
(inaudible) come in and look at records.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Right. And that was the extent of it. There was none of this stuff you are talking about was not part of the debate; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I believe so. I can't hear you completely.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Well, let me start over. The information with regard to your accepting my amendment had to do with the fact that you wanted to make sure that public records were available for public review, without there being a cost to the citizen; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And so you accepted that amendment in good faith, and you wanted to make sure that citizens had an opportunity to review records without there being a cost to them; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Under -- Under certain circumstances, yes. When those staff people were required to prepare --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That was not part of the discussion --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You asked me what my thinking was and that was my thinking.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But based on your thinking it's a simple yes or no. It's not all that other stuff, because that was not part of the discussion, was it?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not -- No. It wasn't.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: At the time? And so this is not a trick question, i just think people need to know that they still have access to those public -- to review public records. And to make sure that it is our intent in the legislature to make sure we don't close the door to any of that kind of stuff; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Parliamentary inquiry, please.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, is it customary when we add amendments to the House floor that those amendments will be incorporated in the bill in which before it leaves the House floor? Would that become tenets of that bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, whether language gets adopted or not depends on the effect of other amendments to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Is it true that if an amendment is adopted on the House floor, that members -- when amendments are adopted or accepted on the House floor, it is with the notion that they will be incorporated in the bill as it leaves this House; unless there is an amendment after that that deletes it; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, it depends on the impact of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No. At the point that the House members adopt or accept the amendment, it depends on what? Does it become part of the bill if it's accepted or voted on?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, it depends on the amendments adopted before and after.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. -- Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: If, in fact, we have amendments that come later in the bill, and there's a section that is not -- is not in the bill or needs to be amended, or has to be amended, or has been amended; if those amendments are accepted or voted on, would that then become part of the bill before us?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, if they amend a section that has already been removed from the bill, then the amendment would have no effect.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: You're saying -- Parliamentary inquiry. So that means if a section of a bill is deleted, members on the House will never have an ability to amend the bill further, to add additional language and/or change additional language based on the provision earlier?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, I'm sorry? No? What are you saying?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: You're correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So it is then -- Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is it the intent that when a bill leaves this House chamber it has all of the amendments that have been added, based on acceptance and/or voted on, to be approved by this chamber; that they become part of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, we've reviewed the amendment to the bill and we believe the House version is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Are you, or has there been a situation where amendments have been made and approved by this House of this body, and that the time after the -- all of the amendments that are put forth, the technical changes and corrections are made to the text to includes the measures that were added by amendments. Is that the way we typically deal with amendments who come in and are added to bills?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, the Chair doesn't know the answer to that question.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Let --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Parliame ntary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So the -- So I am clear, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the Representative Davis puts forth an amendment. It was an amendment to Senate Bill 8 that was accepted by Chairman Eissler. It is my further understanding that the section to which her amendment was accepted had been previously deleted, but the amendment was accepted by Chairman Eissler with no objection coming from the floor. And it was our understanding, at the time, that the amendment -- the substance of amendment was attached to Senate Bill 8. But Senate Bill 8, that amendment was never incorporated within Senate Bill 8 for the conferees; whether they were the House or the Senate conferees, to consider. And the question now being, Mr. Speaker, is because the amendment that was adopted by the House was never attached to the Senate -- to the bill for the conferees to consider, whether or not that makes this bill subject to a legitimate point of order; because the conferees never had an opportunity to consider an amendment that was adopted by the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, the point of order has been considered and overruled. We'll have a written ruling for you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is the chair in agreement that the amendment put forth by Representative Davis was accepted by Chairman Eissler and adopted by the House? Are we in agreement with that? Are we in agreement with that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, Mr. Turner. Amendment 17 was accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And are we agreement that the conferees never was given an opportunity to consider that amendment accepted by Chairman Eissler and adopted by the House?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair's understanding, Mr. Turner, that Representative Davis' amendment had no affect because of other amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And Mr -- Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If that is the position that the Chair has taken, with all due respect, then I would ask the Chair to inform the author of an amendment, as well as the House, that when a situation like that occurs that that amendment is null and void, has no affect, and will not be carried forward to be considered by the conferees. Otherwise, we are all at a loss. My last point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Moving on. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are 1,030 superintendents in the State of Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry; are you aware that there are 330,000 school teachers in the State of Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair is aware.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry; are you aware, according to Chairman Eissler, that he's saying that these superintendents, 1,000 of them, are asking us to reduce the pay of 330,000 school teachers that are located in all of our districts?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Turner. Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report Senate Bill 8. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Riddle voting no. Have all voted? There being 80 ayes and 63 nays, Senate Bill 8 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Quintanilla for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Yes, members, I'd like to help you welcome my two daughters They are up there with her son, Jared, and my other daughter Yvette, with her daughter, Brittany. Not Ashley, but Brittany. And her friend Stefani. And, of course, my beautiful wife. She's up there in the audience looking and listening. Help me welcome them to our House. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover for something cool.
REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and members, I want you to join with me in wishing happy birthday to my deskmate, Larry Taylor, whose birthday was two days ago. But we all want to wish him happy birthday today.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Weber. And if y'all will give of your attention to Mr. Weber, the Chair would appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Members, if I could have your attention, please? This is one of those sad moments that none of us cherish. Last night, in Brazoria County, we lost a Brazoria County Sheriff's Deputy in a car wreck. And it was Deputy Charles Vanmeter. He and another deputy were, as I understand, driving home in the sheriff's deputy's car, and the car was slammed into by a pickup truck. And Deputy Vanmeter was 27 years old, was pronounced dead at the scene by JP John (inaudible). There was two teenagers, or three, as I understand it, in a pickup truck that was taken to the hospital, las well as the driver of the patrol car, Joshua Waldrop, a Brazoria County Deputy who is 26. And it was in my hometown. Both trooper -- both deputies were wearing seatbelts. The Sheriff's Deputy Waldrop, as well as the teenagers were taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital. And I'm not sure about the teenagers, but the Deputy is in critical condition with massive contusions and abrasions. DPS did show up at the scene. And, allegedly, the pickup truck had failed to yield the right of way. This, of course is an ongoing investigation. But I want you to keep Deputy Vanmeter's family in our thoughts and prayers. This underscores and underlines the fact that for our teachers, who also serve, and especially for our law enforcement officials that give their lives everyday, so we never know what we have tomorrow. And so what we want to be very appreciative of those who teach the next generation, and those who protect this and the next generation. And so I would ask, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that I think there's a couple of others that Representative Gonzales has, that I'd ask that when we adjourn we adjourn in honor of and in memory of Deputy Vanmeter.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I move we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 213.
THE CHAIR: Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 213 by Lozano. Honoring Glenda Lyzette Avila-Salazar of Dallas for her accomplishments and extending to her sincere best wishes for continued success and happiness.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Move adoption. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider Resolution 171. It's an actual resolution.
THE CHAIR: Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 171 by Eissler. Congratulating the Woodlands High School softball team on winning the UIL state championship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And I guess it's been a good season for the Woodlands softball team. They not only won the State of Texas, but they also ranked number one in the country as a result of their outstanding season. And I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The resolution is adopted. Mr. Doorkeeper, for what purpose?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE CHAIR: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has --
THE CHAIR: Thank y'all. Mr. Dutton?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I believe that group's time is expired.
THE CHAIR: You're dang right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business, House Bill 19. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 19 by Aycock. Relating to hearings on public school educator contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, members, a lot of this popularity of this bill is being postponed over and over. And I move that we postpone this bill to a time certain, that being high noon, December 25th, 2011.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 17.
THE CLERK: HB 17 by Callegari. Relating to the minimum salary for and minimum service required of certain public school employees.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone this bill until September 23rd, 2011.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as matter of postponed business House Bill 20. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 20 by Huberty. Relating to notice required for termination of a teacher's probationary contract or non renewal of a teachers' term contract.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to postpone this bill to December 29th, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out 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 to postpone this bill until July the 18th, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. Thank you.
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 41. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 41 by Simpson. Relating to the prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation; providing penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members, for your patience. I'm sure you're more familiar with HB 41 and formerly during the regular session, 1937, than maybe you want to be. But thank you. This is the anti-groping bill that we heard a lot about. I have one clarifying amendment that incorporates all the Attorney General's changes with -- And then I believe Representative Fletcher also would like to bring an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment simply helps us to fight any facial challenge that this bill might receive, and it reorders some of the private parts and it adds some reasonable personal defense language, and a savings clause. I move passage of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Harper Brown? Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're waiting for an amendment. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Fletcher.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment changes and strikes probable cause to believe the other person committed an offense by substituting reasonable suspicion of the presence of an unknown and unlawful and prohibited object. And this was agreed upon by the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Fletcher, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, I'll talk to Mr. Fletcher if I could first, and then to the author of the bill itself. Is it your understanding based on the conversation we had a few minutes that this is the position of the final change requested by the Texas Association of District and County Attorneys?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Yes, sir. It is.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And by putting this reasonable suspicion language, and the additional words that you read out, that are now in the bill, that are now agreed to this language?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Yes, sir. They are.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you. And I'll have a question, Mr. Speaker, later; for the bill's author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Fletcher sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Simpson, your amendment, as amended by Mr. Fletcher, includes not only now the earlier comments of May 21st, but also today's comments by the Association of District and County Attorneys; as well as a letter that we received from the Office of Attorney General today, this afternoon?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Where they signed off on all the changes that you have made to the bill since Friday?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes. And most of these were made before then, but yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And so now we have -- you have walked through the bill and cleaned up the language and amended it from what we had before us on Friday, Thursday and Friday of last week?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: There are some changes, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And at least in the terms of the Office of the Attorney General and this Association of -- District and County Attorneys Association, that these were significant important change -- legal changes that will make your bill easier to defend in court; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes. All those changes were basically in there Friday, and we added one thing to Representative Fletcher's amendment that they just requested.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Okay. I want to thank you for working with those two groups and those offices to improve this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Representative Branch, for all your assistance and guidance in getting this to this point. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lewis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I think it's clear, but I just want to make sure of this. Also, the part of your original bill that if one intentionally or knowingly caused physical contact with the other person when the actor knew that it would be perceived as offensive or provocative; that's out now, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, that's -- there is both specific language and general language in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: All right, sir. Well, let me ask this: So is it still part of the offense if one intentionally or directly causes physical contact with the other person, when the actor knows or should reasonably believe that the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative? Is it still in the bill or is that amended out?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, that's -- that's in the bill and that's what's been reviewed by the Attorney General, by the DA and the DA's Association.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And what degree -- What degree -- What degree of crime is this to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That is a Class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment would attempt to set some legislative intent in the statue recognizing the role of law enforcement agencies. Because, as we've had conversation both in the chamber and outside of this chamber with respect to this particular legislation, I want to make sure it is not perceived across the board as being anti law enforcement, and certainly not anti safety. And so what this amendment seeks to do is A, on the one hand, recognize the tremendous role of law enforcement in protecting the public. And B, understanding that you can get there and you can do all that you need to do in protecting the traveling public, for example, or protecting state buildings as another example; you could do all of that, and you should do that in the most efficient and the least intrusive manner that is possible. So rather than doing some of the things that are happening out there, you can find the method or manner of doing it in the least intrusive manner, while still maintaining the safety and the integrity of the system that we use. And I believe the amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Representative Lewis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Ask a question for clarification of Mr. Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, David. Just to go back to this again for clarification purposes. The amendment that you have does take out that language that just the physical contact that might be considered as offensive, that part now is deleted by the amendment, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: By the amendment, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Okay. Very good amendment. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Branch moves that the conversations between himself and Representative Simpson, and between Representative Lewis and Representative Simpson be reduced to writing and entered into the journal. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 41. All those in favor say aye, those opposed nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 41 is passed to engrossment. Members, are there any announcements? Representative -- Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, guess who's 50 today? Guess who just passed HB 41? My deskmate, David Simpson. Please wish him a very happy birthday. It's been a very happy birthday indeed. Thank you very much. It's been a honor to be your deskmate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to express my deep appreciation to the speaker, to his leadership team and, in particular, Representative Dan Branch, Representative Linda Harper-Brown, Representative Fletcher. And there's a host that have worked on this from the very beginning. I'd like to also thank Representative Pete Gallego and the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. I'd like to thank the Texas District and County Attorneys Associations for their input. I'd like to thank many people that, particularly the AG's Office, for working with me from the beginning through the regular session. We've already voted. Thank you so much. Thank you for the many grass roots supporters who helped me with this bill, and for my family. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Are there any other further -- Are there any other announcements? If not, Representatives Hancock, Giddings and Larry Gonzales move the House stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, pending the reading and referral of bills, and receipt of messages from the Senate; in memory of Dr. Thomas W. Tee of North Richmond Hills, who passed away June 23rd, 2011; Dallas City Councilman Al Lipscomb, who passed away last week; and Brazoria County Deputy Sheriff Allen Vanmeter, who passed away last night. House stands adjourned.
(The House stands adjourned.)
