Senate Transcript, June 27, 2011

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action, the House has passed the following measures: HCR22 by Madden commending the members of the Texas Supreme Court for their actions in supportive legal aid services and honoring them for their work in promoting access to the state's most vulnerable citizens. HCR25 by Zerwas instructing the enrolling clerk of the Senate to make corrections on SB No. 7. HCR26 by Bonnen congratulating the baseball team of Brazos Wood High School including winning the 2011 UIL 5A State Championship. The House has refused to concur in Senate amendments to the following measures and with the appointment of a conference committee to adjust the differences between the two houses HB 3 by Smithee, House conferees, Smithee, Chair, Aycock, Scott, Larry Taylor, Thompson. The House has adopted the following conference committee reports SB7. Respectfully submitted, Robert Hainy, chief clerk.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Whitmire moves to excuse Senator West on matters of important business. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, so ordered. Members, the president signs in the presence of the Senate the following.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Hello, Senator Eltife, how are you? Members, we have a resolution to honor the supreme court justices. They're on their way. We'll wait just a moment for them. John, it's open. Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Carona for a motion to grant the request of the House for a conference committee report on HB3.

SENATOR JOHN CARONA: Mr. President, thank you. Members, I do move that the Senate grant a conference committee on HB3.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Carona, is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the motion is adopted. Are there any motions to instruct? Chair hears no motion to instruct. The following conferees on HB3 which is TWIA.

PATSY SPAW: Conference committee on House Bill 3: Senator Carona, Chair, members, Senator Eltife, Senator Williams, Senator Jackson, and Senator Estes.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Carona for an announcement.

SENATOR JOHN CARONA: Mr. President and members, I'm going to be back in the back in the Ramsey Room over the next hour for any of you that would like to come in and have a briefing on this bill. Some of you have received an earlier briefing and that's great, we're happy to provide additional information. All of you should have copies on this bill and decides to deliver by your office by now, but for those of you who have not actually visited with me on the contents of this conference committee report, I would be very pleased to meet with you back here in the back beginning really now. Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Carona. Members, the Chair lays out HCR No. 22 by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will read the resolution in full. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

PATSY SPAW: HCR22, 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 then a fourth of those in need; And whereas the Texas Supreme Court has 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 of coordination and support of pro bono work for the members of the state bar of Texas; And whereas these endeavors are greatly benefiting enumerable 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 first called session hereby commend the members of the Texas Supreme Court for their actions and legal aid service and honor them for their work in promoting access to justice for the state's most vulnerable citizen. And be it further resolved that an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the Texas Supreme Court as an expression of higher regard by the Texas House of Representatives in the Texas Senate. By Rodriguez.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to explain the resolution.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members. It is really truly with great honor and pride that I would like to introduce today our Supreme Court of the state of Texas. Like some of you, I sat in the state of judiciary address given by our Chief Justice Jefferson and was very moved by his very eloquent statements about the importance of our courts about equal access to justice and the need for the disadvantaged to be able to access our courts just like anybody else, and so this morning I wanted to bring to your attention, this is House Concurrent Resolution 22 by Representatives Madden, Hartnett and Pitts that we have them here with us throughout the regular session and the special session, I might have you know. All of our Supreme Court justices have advocated strongly for funding legal aid services and indigent defense, and some of you saw some of the writeups in the newspaper about some of the eloquent statements that were being made by the justices. Thanks to the efforts of all these justices and to the leadership, I might add, of Senator Ogden, Senator, Senate bill 22 adds about million for legal aid and indigent defense. Mr. President and members, here are our justices, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, Justice Jefferson, Justice Nathan Heck, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice David Marina, Justice Paul green, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice Don Willit, Justice Eva Guzman, and Justice Deborah Nurman. Members, I move adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 22 and ask you to help me welcome the justices of the Texas Supreme Court to the floor of the Senate, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Rodriguez, is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the resolution is adopted.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Nelson for a motion on the conference committee report on Senate Bill 7. Congratulations, by the way.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President, members. The goal of Senate Bill 7 is to eliminate waste and inefficiency in our health and human services to better serve our patients to achieve at least $467 million in savings already assumed in the budget. More importantly these reforms are critically needed to focus our health care dollars on the outcomes that we want for our patients and to contain the unsustainable growth in article two budget issues. As a reminder, Senate Bill 7 includes from regular session Senate Bill 7, Senate Bill 8, Senate Bill 23. Senate Bill 7 passed unanimously in this special session, we sent it over to the House. The House added 27 amendments, the conference committee accepted 14 of those amendments. Members, these reforms reflect months if not years in some cases of careful deliberation. I truly believe that this process, while painful, has given us an opportunity to look at our health care budget under a microscope and make sure that it is efficiently working on behalf of people who rely on these services and those who expect us to ensure that we are responsibly using their tax dollars. Mr. President, I move to adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 7.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Nelson. Thank you for all of your hard work and leadership. Senator Van de Putte, for what purpose do you rise, ma'am?

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will the senator yield?

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Absolutely.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Senator, and I know this has a very --

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Labor of love.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: A lot of different versions and just when you thing everything was done, there were more complications. So congratulations for at least working out the complications, but I wanted to ask you some questions for future reference because there are some very important provisions in this bill that certify and give us the amount of savings in the Medicaid program but it is a big, big difference. And so I wanted to ask some questions. And the members may remember when -- I think we had this during the regular session, there was a concern because of our new Medicaid managed care to all areas and in particular the state of Texas has its own basically pharmacy benefits vendor manager in the vendor drug program and now that will be parceled and it will be along with all the other managed care organization services. And in that we do certify some savings, but we wanted to make sure that with our Medicaid managed care, our MCO managed care companies and our TDMs, that we were being efficient, so I wanted to go over with you a few things. On that very first time we had some language and I believe on the -- if you'll look at page eight of the conference committee report.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Right.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: This is on -- starting on line five. This is the dialogue that you and I had about considering approvable of a subcontract between managed care organization and a pharmacy benefit manager for the provision of prescription drug benefit. And it's new because, members, as you know Senator Nelson did a great job and all of your pharmacies will be able to participate if they agree to the reimbursement rate and that's great. But we have some discussions about PBMs that had been applying for Medicaid fraud in other states and would they be able to contract. So Senator, on line five page eight it gives some language that I was very comfortable with and I think everyone was, that it gave the commissioner the option when approving these PBMs to do our now prescription drug benefit under Medicaid, to consider whether PBMs had been in the last three years convicted of an offense involving (inaudible) fraud of state or criminal law, in other words basically Medicaid fraud and adjudicated to have committed the fraud or assess a penalty of a fine in the amount of 500,000. So on this it says the commissioner can consider whether to put in that criteria if you have been convicted or assessed a fine in the amount of $5,000 or more. And this language is great. I think that gives us, not what the Brown amendment was -- the Brown amendment was if any company had paid a 500,000-dollar fine, you're not eligible to contract for Medicaid services in this state. But this at least gave the commissioner -- but then I want to refer you back.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: To the review and consider language.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Right, page 86. And at the top of the page -- well, it starts at the top of page 85 where it says consider language in awarding the contract and then it starts there, but on the top of page 86 it says basically if the benefit management company or the managed care organization in connection with the bid proposal or contract with the commission was subject to a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction resulting in a conviction or resulting in a fine. My question is since the attorney general tells us that in 99.9 percent of these Medicaid fraud case there's never a conviction, what they do is they settle out of court and they settle for hundreds of millions of dollars, that which language supercedes because in the other one it says the provision shall consider if they were fined, but this one seems to say they have to have been convicted in a Medicaid contract with the Health and Human Services Commission. So they have to have been found guilty and convicted in Texas before they're not able to do business with the state. Which language takes precedence?

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Well, and before I answer your question, I want to thank you because in regular session you helped us clarify some language that made this an even better bill and, you know, throughout the process during this special session you have helped us and, you know, all members, of course, have worked to make sure that the protections that we add for pharmacy providers as we transition into the prescription drug benefits or transition those into managed Medicaid care is done properly. As you know, in the House there were four amendments that were proposed. We accepted some of those and made it an even better bill and this one was the one that caused some concern, the one that you pointed out that was added by Representative Brown actually prohibited the commission from contracting with HMOs and PBMs that are convicted. And the conference committee did not believe that we should be doing that. Now, in answer to your question, our legislative or my legislative intent would be for the commissioner to consider the fines and other corrective actions but there must be a conviction by the court for any entity to be prohibited from consideration and I believe that that was the clear understanding between Representative Zerwas and I and the conference committee members that that would be our legislative intent. There would have to be a conviction by a court of law for any entity to be prohibited from consideration.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Okay. And the reason that I wanted to make -- I think all of us here understand that the transparency and the contractor integrity, particularly when it comes to Medicaid fraud, is extremely important and I was concerned that the provisions in the conference committee report on SB1 pages eight and nine didn't kind of match up with 85 through 86. So by your answer there's not a statutory conflict that would be -- need to be resolved but I want to say -- I want to make sure that what I understand is the Health and Human Services Commission would be allowed to contract with the either a PBM or an HMO that had settled either with the federal Department of Justice or any attorney for millions of dollars of Medicaid fraud. They could still be considered.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Yes.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: And the reason that it is -- they have had to have been convicted of fraud with a contract of Health and Human Services and they don't have any, but I'm very concerned because just earlier this year Well Care Health Clients, a very strong HMO settled for 37 and a half million dollars with nine states and with federal authorities to resolve the allegations of Medicaid fraud when it defrauded Florida's Health Kids Program. Now, it did not get convicted but the AG settled with that and that was I think a different one. And then two years earlier another corporation settled with federal authorities for 225 million because it defrauded Medicaid systematically. We also know that there's a pending case now in three other states with pharmacy benefit managers where they skimmed, and you heard of these types of things in bank fraud where they do three or four cents on a claim or transaction. Well, this particular one shaved anywhere from 92 cents to 93 cents off inhalers, diabetic supplies and defrauded the states that had Medicaid contracts. So I wanted to make sure that the Health and Human Services Commission would take into account actors that have been -- they may not have been convicted because they never get convicted but they're paying hundreds of millions of dollars that they're doing the very work that we're going to ask them to bid on in the state of Texas. So I believe by this language that it gives the commissioner the authority to look at it and -- but it still -- anybody can bid.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Right. Senator, first of all, I don't think there's a member on this floor who gets angrier about fraud in this arena than I do because we worked so hard to make sure we -- every penny that we're spending on our Medicaid clients is being spent on them, that it's not going to those who would fraud the system. The commissioner already has the authority to deny contracts to bad actors and should. However, the conference committee believed that that Brown amendment -- and he had several that we took, that that Brown amendment prohibiting the commission, went too far and would actually be detrimental to the system. Now, the reviewing and considering isn't the same thing as prohibiting, I don't think the two are in conflict with each other, and I do want to point out again that the commissioner can deny any contract if he or she believes that that company should not be doing business with Texas.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Senator, I want to thank you because we're not tippy toeing into this, we're jumping into the deep end of the pool in something that the state had always -- was its own PBM, so to speak, and because of that had been able to reap the hundreds of millions of dollars over the few years from the supplemental rebates from the pharmaceutical factors as the change in federal law occurred, I think we reacted to that and certainly we will certify that this will be a saving, but I do want to point out that when you take a business entity like your pharmacies that are supplying those Medicaid vendor drug programs, the profits from that and are being put back into local communities, and although on paper we certify the savings because of now, the financial side of what insurance companies will have to pay in taxes to do the state. So on paper we look like a winner, but I got to tell you that pharmacy benefit managers and managed care organizations, they have to return that investment to the people who are the shareholders. That profit now, at least from those pharmacies and from a lot of services, will no longer be generated and used in the state of Texas and it will go out of state, that's just kind of what happens when you change from having services done and the contracts done here to out. So I'm hoping that as we go into this the commissioner will use the discretion because the last thing we need is two to three years down the line have our attorney general be one of the attorney generals settling with these companies that have been -- they have not been convicted but they have done bad enough to where they're paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, and I just wanted to make sure they were on alert, that we're taking a big step forward in allowing this very significant change to happen. But that they better be careful about their practices, their business practices because that's the last thing this legislature would want is to do such a different change and then have the very people that we entrusted to do this commit Medicaid fraud in the state of Texas.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: I absolutely agree. In fact, you know, I'll put them on fair warning right now, we are going to be watching them. Senator, we have worked long and hard to make sure that our managed care would not reduce patient access, we also were very concerned about running our independent pharmacists out of business and we put protections into place. And I want to remind everybody that Senate Bill 7 as filed had several protections including allowing for any willing provider to participate in managed care, that was your suggestion and a good one. We keep the statewide performed formulary preferred drug list in place and we prohibit HMOs for and from creating individual formularies. We require prior authorizations to be consistent with current policy which would prohibit the sale first therapies. We prohibit HMOs from requiring mail order prescriptions, we require that HMOs meet prompt requirements. And this bill as filed included language that required the Health and Human Services Commission to consider fraudulent behaviors, as I said earlier, before awarding manage care contracts. So -- in addition, the conference committee report I think added some additional things that would be helpful. I appreciate your comments, Senator. We will both put them on notice that we are going to be watching them carefully, I want to make sure that every dollar we spend is being spent appropriately, and I thank you for your words.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you so much, Senator Nelson. I know that you have worked hard, and I want to particularly thank your staff. The staff has put many, many hours in many of the issues that we bring before us, we're kept informed but it is our staff members that really do so much of the work and I don't think they get enough of the credit. Congratulations at least to the staff on working very hard on this particular issue, which is a great change. Thank you for the exchange.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Thank you, Senator.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Chair recognizes -- Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: To ask Senator Nelson a couple of questions if I may.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Nelson yield?

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Yes.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Senator Nelson, as you know, Senate Bill 7 we worked long and hard hours and (inaudible) has an extension managed health care to south Texas and we tried to draft language that took some of the differences in regions that we have in south Texas compared to other portions of the state. So if I may I'd like to just ask you a couple of questions to make sure that we have legislative intent on certain sections of the bill itself. Under section 1.01, page four of the bill which amends section 533.0025E, the Texas government code, to state that the commission shall determine the most cost effective alignment of managed service delivery areas. Is it your intent that the commission shall resign these regions in a relatively compact nature that first respects (inaudible) medical preferred patterns; second, does not defraud health care access; and third, ensure that participating managed care are able to secure medical care within the service delivery area if available does not force unnecessary travel.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Senator, your statement was correct, but your section was incorrect, I think it's section 101 -- I mean, 102. I think you just said 101.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: That's correct. It's section 102, thank you.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: But your statement was absolutely correct, and that is our intent.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: That is your intent. Okay. And my second question is: This bill amends section 533.005A17 page 11 of the Texas Government Code to require that the managed care organization ensures that a medical director and patient care coordinators and providers receive important services are located in the south Texas service region. Is it your intent that the south Texas region to include at least Hidalgo, Starr, and Cameron counties and that the duties of the medical director located in the south Texas region include the responsibilities to make medical necessity determinations and the Medicaid director be available for peer-to-peer discussions about other managed care clinical policies?

SENATOR JANE NELSON: That is not only our intent, but that is absolutely why we're doing this, so yes.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, thank you for your hard work on Senate Bill 7. I know it took a lot of meeting, a lot of discussions and a lot of feedback. So thank you for your hard work.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Senator, thank you. You contributed hours and hours on this from the very beginning, and I think it is going to work because of your input and I am very grateful. Thank you.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Nelson for a motion.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Really? Well, Mr. President, members, I move that we adopt conference committee report on Senate Bill 7.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 22 ayes and eight nays, the conference committee report on Senate Bill 7 is adopted. Congratulations.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all the members. This was a true labor of love and I greatly appreciate all the input and not just in special session but during the regular session on all three of these Senate bills. I certainly have to thank my counterpart in the House, Chairman Zerwas did an incredible job and the conferees and I greatly appreciate all of you and I want to thank them. And especially Senator Uresti.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out the following resolution HCR No. 25 by Senator Nelson. Secretary will read the resolution, it's a technical correction.

PATSY SPAW: HCR25 instructing the enrolling clerk of the Senate to make corrections to Senate Bill No. 7.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Nelson to explain the resolution.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President and members. The substitute left out eight words. It was an inadvertent omission and I move that we add those eight words back in. They dealt with the implementation effective date of the legislation, doesn't make any substantive change.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question before us is on the adoption of the technical correction resolution. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 27 ayes and three nays, the technical correction resolution HCR No. 25 is adopted.

SENATOR JANE NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President and thank you members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Nelson, for what, five years of work, almost five years of work on this. Members, the Chair lays out the following resolution, Senate Resolution No. 107 which is by Senator Shapiro. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 107 suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction on Senate Bill No. 6 by Shapiro.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro on the resolution.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'm requesting in this resolution to go outside the bounds for some minor changes to Senate Bill 6. The first is that the bill currently says the allotment may be used to pay for training, educational personnel directly involved in student learning; yet when it talks about salary of an employee who provides technical support for the use of technical equipment, it neglects to discuss directly involved student learning. So in this we will add to ensure that the funds from this allotment go toward training and salaries for educators directly involved in student learning. The second item would be a provision that would align the text to the bills that have passed during the regular session. One would be Senate Bill 290 by Senator Watson which is a personal financial literacy materials in K through 8, that's on the commissioner list and the second would be Senate Bill 391 which was by Senator Patrick regarding electronic samples of textbooks. Mr. President, at this time I would move adoption of SR107.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. Members, the question before us is on the adoption of Senate Resolution No. 107. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 30 ayes and no nays, Senate Resolution No. 107 is adopted. Congratulations.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa for a motion to reduce to writing the comments and exchanges that were made on Senate Bill 7.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: I so move Mr. Chairman, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by -- I assume you meant the comments that were made between Senator Van de Putte or just the two of you -- all right.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: That's correct, Mr. President. I make a motion to reduce to writing the comments and conversations that took place between myself, Senator Nelson and Senator Leticia Van de Putte and Senator Nelson reduced to writing.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Excellent. Members, you've heard the motion made by Senator Hinojosa, is there objection? The Chair hears none and the motion is adopted.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for a motion on the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move to adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6 was created instructional materials allotment. For everyone's information we removed House amendment No. 1 which undermined our assessment and accountability system because it was not germane, we kept Representative Hochberg's amendment that creates a technology lending pilot program which provides grants to schools to lend technological equipment to students who do not have access at home, his original request was 5 percent of the allotment and equated to about $38 million, we agreed to the program but we agreed that it would only be 10 million, it would be reviewed in two years and it would be sunsetted in four years. We also reiterated that Texas Youth Commission, Texas School for the Deaf, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired will receive instructional materials allotment and we kept the Hancock, Hochberg amendment that relates to the state board of education reviewing open source materials readded in our bill reviewing comment in our conference committee report. We also in addition added that those comments would be posted and distributed on the TEA website. This was mostly a technical cleanup, but it also clarifies, review and comment posting and distributing in open source material. Once again, members, I would like to reiterate our legislative intent for this new program of instructional materials allotment to purchase materials already under continuing contracts or in the new Proclamation 2011 which are already needed by Texas students taking the full range of the new STARR or end of the course test. I move adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6 at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Shapiro moves the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 30 ayes and no nays, the conference committee report on Senate Bill 6 is adopted. Congratulations, Senator Shapiro.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 106 by Senator Shapiro which is the out of bounds resolution for Senate Bill 8. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution No. 106 suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction on Senate Bill No. 8 by Shapiro.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro to explain the resolution.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'm requesting to go out of bounds to clarify two issues in Senate Bill 8. The first would be a House amendment No. 23 by Representative Villarreal where he amends the Texas education code to require a candidate for certification as the teacher of record to complete 15 hours of field experience inside a classroom giving instruction to students. We needed to clarify a few of the issues from the original language, this was so that we could match up with the stakeholders in a commitment that was made by Representative Villarreal. The phrase "in the classroom" was potentially limiting to districts without summer school, using the phrase "instructional" or "educational" activities allows candidates to teach under supervision but also includes more nontraditional settings. This was especially important for the number of alternative certification teacher candidates needing their experience during the summer months. Additionally the new language directs the board to establish exemptions, and this was the most important for candidates who are hired after the start of school. This allows districts to fill vacancies and reduce the cost of substitutes. The second section that we needed to go out of bonds was for TRS purposes. It clarifies that a furlough day does not constitute a day of service for purposes of TRS. So I would move adoption at this time of Senate Resolution 106 to go outside the bounds of Senate Bill 8.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Van de Putte, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: If the Senator could yield for a quick question.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Shapiro yield?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Yes, sir.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you very much, Mr. President and Senator Shapiro. I'm looking on page two of the resolution and I wanted to make sure, I believe we had -- I know the House had substantial hearings on this type of requirement and we did talk about it in committee that we have a number of teachers who are going through not necessarily our four year academic program but on our teacher certifications program. We always think our teachers are going to have a semester of classroom teaching, student teaching, we used to call it student teaching. And I do know that TEA -- can you tell me, doesn't TEA have current rules where the placement of those teachers, those student teachers in classrooms can occur at charter schools which are public schools and at private school? They have those rules now, correct?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: I know for sure the charter schools, I don't know about the private school. I do know that we have some rules that say if you're in a regular certification program, go through the colleges of education but I don't know under the alternative certification whether they have any requirement whatsoever to have any in-classroom experience. And that's what this will address.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: And I knew that, and my question is on subsection E line 20 where the board shall propose rules relating to the field based experience and I guess that's a better way to call this other than student teaching field --

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Right, field based experience.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: And the commissioner by rule shall adopt procedures and standards for recognizing a private school under B2. And as I look back to B2, it is just that 15 hours and a private school recognized. But they already -- does TEA already have rules in place for the placement of field experience for teachers if they're going through a four year academic institution? In other words a regular university, they already have those rules --

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: You're right.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: So this is just for those --

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Alternative certification.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Alternative certification programs. And that's what I wanted to make sure and clarify that you weren't redoing the rules. This is only for section B2, so it's at least 15 hours. Because I think the regulations that are required most of all by our four year academic institutions really require way more than 15-hours in a field -- in a classroom setting.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Field based experience.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: You're welcome.

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

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Will the Senator yield?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Shapiro yield to Senator Gallegos?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Senator, let me just ask you on page three on the furlough, on line 13 and 14 under section 16 and a furlough day does not constitute a service day, the purposes of Teacher Retirement System of Texas. This does not break the services, I mean, it's --

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: No, not at all.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Just that one day.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Correct.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Doesn't break service and years?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: That's absolutely correct.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: All right. Thank you.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you for your question.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for a motion.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President. I move adoption of Senate Resolution 106 at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. Members, the question before us is the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 8. The secretary -- on the resolution -- the secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 29 ayes and one nay, the resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for a motion on the conference committee report for Senate Bill 8.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, Mr. President and members. I move to adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 8. This is the mandate release bill that will offer school district managerial and operational flexibility, particularly in the tough financial times. The final product is a bill that allows school districts to save teacher jobs when money is tight and to grant more local decision making to school districts for everyday matters. The major concepts in the bill deal with certification, teacher contracts and renewal or nonrenewal, financial exigency provisions, salary reductions and furloughs. At this time I'm happy to go through any parts of the bill that anyone would like to go over, but in the essence of time I would, short of that, say that this is a bill that is about flexibility, it provides commonsense changes to employee contracts that focuses district resources not only on retaining high quality teachers but also on financial exigencies and times when we do not have the financial wherewithal to give the money to districts and this gives them the flexibility to work with their teaching (inaudible) and all of their employees. In fact, one thing I must say about this is that we were very clear that when there is a furlough, when there is a salary reduction, that all employees in a school district, not just teachers, be part of that. So at this time, Mr. President, I move adoption of Senate Bill 8 conference committee report.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. Thank you. Members, the question before us is the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 8. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the conference committee report on Senate Bill 8 is adopted. Congratulations.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 43.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, if I could have your attention. Senate Bill 43 is identical to Senate Bill 288 which passed the Senate unanimously during the regular session. It also passed the House committee on homeland security and public safety unanimously before dying in House calendars during the regular session. Senate Bill would authorize the Department of Public Safety to operate southbound checkpoints to our international bridges along the Texas/Mexico border in conjunction with federal authorities. Each year large amounts of guns and cash are illegally smuggled into Mexico fueling violence and criminal activity. Furthermore, this violence fosters in our quiet own communities. That is what we are ultimately trying to prevent happening with southbound checkpoints. Finally the governor has concluded that SB43, the matter of southbound checkpoints, is germane to the call. With that Mr. President, I'd like to move suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 43.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question is on the suspension of the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 43. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 43. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 43 relating to authorizing the Department of Public Safety in the state of Texas to operate one or more southbound vehicle checkpoints near the international border.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for a motion. I'm sorry, we have a -- the Chair lays out floor amendment No. 1 by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Rodriguez.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to explain floor amendment 1.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I respect and appreciate my good friend Senator Lucio's intent on this issue, I know you've been working very hard this session, Senator, on this. However, there are some practical considerations about doing southbound checks in border communities, like my hometown El Paso, that we need to consider. In fact, in just this morning's El Paso's Times the headlines are that the time spent waiting to cross the border has drawn to unacceptable levels, and part of the waiting time they refer to in the article is up to two to three hours is because of the southbound checkpoints on -- on -- on thefts, all right, not on this issue but these -- your bill would authorize DPS to establish southbound checkpoints within 250 yards of the international crossing to intercept firearms and cash that are being smuggled to Mexico. While that may not seem like a long distance, Senate Bill 43 as currently drafted will not be effective and will interfere with the Second Amendment rights of Texans in many border communities including El Paso. There are restaurants, retail and other businesses within 250 yards of a border crossing, and I know you're familiar with this down there in the valley of Brownsville. In El Paso, for example, we have international crossings rights in our downtown business districts. Senator Lucio's bill, as currently drafted, would include these places of business and law-abiding Texans that visit them and (inaudible) law smugglers who are taking guns and cash to Mexico. As you know, longstanding Texas law permits individuals to possess an unlimited number of firearms and an unlimited amount of cash. If Texans who are just going about their daily business in downtown El Paso or Hidalgo or El Paso with no intention of crossing the border, if they cannot exercise those rights, then we have a major problem, Senators. However, there's a simple way to fix Senate Bill 43 so it will still intercept smugglers without interrupting downtown businesses in my district and some of your districts, the change is only four words. Change within 250 yards of a border crossing to quote at or adjacent to unquote a border crossing by clarifying that the bill is intended to authorize southbound checkpoints at or adjacent to the border crossing, the point of no return for travelers to Mexico. We can keep the focus on the law on intercepting smuggling rather than interfering with the rights of Texans who are not planning to travel to Mexico. Senator Lucio and others have made statements agreeing that for practical reasons the checkpoints will be at or in next to the border crossings, and I agree with that, let's put that language into the law. Now, Senator Lucio, I understand in my discussions with you that it is your intention to discuss some appropriate language with members of the House that will address some of these concerns that we face in the border. And for that reason, Mr. President, I will respectfully withdraw my amendment.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you very much.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Rodriguez withdraws floor amendment No. 1. The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for a motion.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to move to engrossment at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Lucio. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and Senate Bill 43 passes to engrossment. The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for a motion to suspend the rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: So moved, Mr. President.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 30 ayes and no nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 43. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 43 relating to authorizing the Department of Public Safety in the state of Texas to operate one or more southbound vehicle checkpoints near the international border.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for a motion.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to personally thank you and the members of this body for passing the bill, once again, in this special session the bill that really addresses our homeland security issues along the Texas/Mexico border. I thank you publicly, and I move at this time final passage for Senate Bill 43.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Well, I personally think it's a very good bill. So, thank you, Senator.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 30 ayes and no nays, Senate Bill 43 is finally passed. Members, I'm going to bring up now Senate Bill 2, and our first matter of business is an out of bounds resolution. The Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 105 by Senator Ogden. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 105 suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction on Senate Bill 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members. This out of bounds resolution, Senate Resolution No. 105, should be on your desk with the conference committee report. The Chair recognizes Senator Ogden to explain Senate Resolution 05.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Members, I will take enough time to go through this out of bounds resolution to make sure that everybody is clear on it. The first portion is to appropriate unexpended and un-obligated balances of $5 million -- $5 million --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Ogden, if you'd hold just for a moment. Some of the members are telling me that the out of bounds resolution has not been passed out. I'm being told by the secretary that it's in the folder with the bill. I'm sorry, with the conference committee report. Do y'all find that? Yes? Excuse me, Senator Ogden. Please proceed.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: All right. Members, the first portion of the out of bounds resolution involves the jobs and education program for Texans called (inaudible) and it appropriates unextended and unobligated balances of $5 million. The second portion of the out of bounds resolution appropriates $550,000 in each fiscal year contingent upon the TEA assessing fees sufficient to generate that amount in order to pay for the cost of guaranteeing charter school bonds with the permanent school fund. The third item simply authorizes the University of Texas out of funds that have been previously appropriated to spend up to $1 million for a program at the college of fine arts in partnership with the Texas Cultural Trust to extend the fine arts digital literacy curriculum to the 10th grade. The most significant change in this out of bounds resolution is with respect to the Texas Forest Service. In the regular session we appropriated $80 million to the Texas Forest Service in order to fight fires in Texas. They have now obligated all of that money, and I asked them how much more they need and they said 40 million, so there's an additional $40 million appropriated to Texas Forest Service in order to fight fires here in Texas. No. 5 is an additional appropriation to the Department of Public Safety and it's also tied to Texas Parks and Wildlife to purchase two boats that are armored and weaponized for use on the Rio Grande River by the DPS and also to do a similar thing for Parks and Wildlife. And finally the out of bounds resolution anticipates passage of Senate Bill 1 and the transfer from the Texas Department of Rural Affairs nonemergency or nondisaster funding the Department of Agriculture and all disaster funding that went to the Texas Department of -- that previously went to Texas Department of Rural Affairs will now be transferred to the land commissioner. I move adoption of Senate Resolution 105.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Ogden, the question is on the adoption of the out of bounds resolution. If there's no questions, the secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 30 ayes and no nays, the resolution is adopted. The Chair recognizes Senator Ogden for a motion on the conference committee report on Senate Bill 2.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move to adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 2. Senate Bill 2 is the general appropriations bill for the special session, it appropriates $36,146,640,808. I have checked with the LBB and the comptroller and this bill is contingent on passage of Senate Bill 7 and Senate Bill 1. If those bills do pass, this bill balances. I would like to draw your attention to the last page of your conference committee report which summarizes the various appropriations, section two through 33 and I will go through those -- the more significant ones quickly and then I'll go through the new ones that we already have been voting on or haven't voted for. The first one that should draw your attention is in section three for physicians and nurse trauma, the House wanted to add four and a half million dollars of appropriations for training of physicians and nurses in trauma care, and we're taking that out of previously unappropriated trauma funds. We'd like to mention that the Texas Public Finance Authority settlement $78 million is debt service for secret bonds that will come from tobacco funds. The TEA Foundation school program which is by far the largest component of this bill is $35.45 billion. That is not what we're authorizing the TEA to spend, we're authorizing the TEA to spend 38 and a half billion dollars. I think it's 38 and a half, and this is approximately a little over $1 billion above what we previously authorized the TEA to spend in the last biennium. Now, the difference between the 35.4 billion that's on the last page and the 35 and a half billion that I talked about under section five is 2.3 billion of that is deferral, $800 million is a more optimistic assumption about property values and 300 million is contingent upon passage of a constitutional amendment authorizing additional transfers out of the permanent school fund into the available university fund. Members, with the passage of Senate Bill 7 we appropriate $452,000,000 to health and human services for implementations of the managed care program under Senate Bill 7. Of that 452 million approximately 178 million is general revenue and the net savings that we expect from Senate Bill 7 is $385 million in the GR. We previously had a resolution on the floor with respect to Senator Rodriguez on basic civil legal services and indigent defense and the appropriation of $25 million was previously discussed and the Supreme Court was recognized on the floor for that. As we move down the other items, we'd like to mention that the $39 million that was unexpended in the governor's office has been reappropriated for disaster funding. TST Waco, we appropriated this $2 million in House bill 4 but because House Bill 4 did not get a hundred votes in the House, it could not be used for the purposes for which it was intended, which is to repair a building at TSTC, so we reappropriated the same amount of money and the purpose is for institutional enhancement. It's anticipated TSTC will use that same $2 million to fix their building, Senator Birdwell. The same was true for the Lamar Institute of Technology on the health and human services umbilical cord funding. Originally it was put at UT San Antonio and at the request of the House we moved it back to health and human services. New items that were not in the Senate Bill that you need to be aware of. We appropriated $7 million for institutional operations at So Ross, once again this was for a capital improvement, but because there was no hundred votes in the House we had to appropriate for institutional ops, this is supposed to relace their boiler and heater system. The TWIA contingency is based on passage of Texas Wind Storm Association, that's additional funding to the Department of Insurance for the purposes of carrying out that bill. The TDCY inmate care fee is an item that was added by the House, and that money which will be fees collected from inmates for receiving health care will then be reappropriated back to help pay for correctional managed health care. The Armed Forces scholarship program, an additional 5.3 million was appropriated for the Armed Forces scholarship program, Senator Van de Putte, and I think that will allow that program to continue with some new enrollees next session. We appropriated all the license plates revenue, originally we had only appropriated 50 percent of the license plates revenue, this is 100 percent. The Texas University System office funding of 1.6 million is to basically assist Texas State University with a one time funding for running their system, for operating their system office and that is approximately equal to the cut that we made at the Texas System office last session. The party discussed the JET program, the charter school bonds, UT Austin, Texas Forest Service, Texas border security, UTS border security, parks and border security, TDRA transfer and TDRA and TDHCA transfer. Members, this bill must pass in conjunction with Senate Bill 1 and assumes that Senate Bill 1 passes, this bill will fund all of the issues in Senate Bill 1 plus additional ones. It is balanced, and we will be able to go home. I move adoption of conference committee report on Senate Bill 2.

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

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield, please, for a couple of questions?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a couple of questions regarding the TERA transfer to the Texas Department of Agriculture, and what it means to the CBCG appropriations that exist under TERA bill pattern. Senator, I became concerned with our CDBG funding when the House passed amendments numbers 74 and 79 on Senate Bill 1 which transfers TDRA to TDA. Since these amendments were never discussed on the Senate side and because contingency appropriations authority for CDBG related programs were never included in Senate Bill 2, if such a transfer occurred, I had my committee director call your committee office as well as that of Senator Duncan's to share my deep concerns with this last minute transfer by the House. But I do want to commend your staff, Senator, especially Sarah Hicks. Mr. Chairman, for the record, to establish legislative intent I would like to ask you these two questions. First on page 26 under section 32 of the conference committee report, is it your intent that all TDRA budget writers and directives currently found under HB1 of the 82 regular session be transferred and appropriated to the Department of Agriculture and that of -- and that the Department of Agriculture adhere to these TDRA budget riders and directives?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Yes. And the only qualification I would say that's for all nondisaster relief funding purposes and -- all nondisaster relief funding purposes, my answer's yes.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, sir. And secondly, in particular on riders No. 6 which requires TDRA to transfer 2.5 percent of the CDBG's money to the Department of Housing and Community Affairs to fund the self-help centers, under the language of section 32 would the Texas Department of Agriculture have to adhere to this existing budget rider?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: It's my intention that they would, yes.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Okay. Well, thank you, Senator Ogden, and thank you for working with our office on this important matter. Mr. President, if I may, at this time I'd lake to move to reduce the exchange between Chairman Ogden and myself and placed in the Senate journal.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Lucio. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the exchange between Senator Ogden and Senator Lucio will be committed to writing in the journal.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you very much.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, sir. Senator Davis, for purpose do you rise ma'am?

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: To ask a question of Senator Ogden.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden --

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Senator Ogden, you and I are well aware of the fact that Donna Howard, Representative Donna Howard, had added successfully an amendment to this bill over on the House side which would have allowed, I think it was up to $2.2 billion in the future growth in the rainy day fund to go to public education, correct?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Yes.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And that amendment was on the bill when it went in to conference, can you clarify for us what happened when it went into conference?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Yes. The House initially said that even though we were for it, we don't want it in the conference committee report, so they asked me to withdraw it. Then they had a vote on the House floor instructing their conferees not to comply with the amendment that they voted for, and I explored to some degree if there was any possibility from the House's perspective to modify the Howard amendment because I thought if we modified it, I thought the Senate would be happy to vote for it. But they said there was no possibility after they were instructed by -- I think 86 members of their House not to do it. So basically the long and short of it is they were for it, and then they were against it.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: In fact, it's my understanding that 101 voted for the amendment, correct?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Yeah. And then the next day they decided -- 86 of them decided they were against it.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And you worked, it sounds like, to keep that on in conference but were unsuccessful.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Well, I wanted it, I thought the amendment as written had -- at least from my standpoint, had some problems but what I wanted to do was I wanted to explore the possibility of capping that amendment at approximately $700 million which would happen to equal what this Senate had voted to suspend out of the rainy day fund. If you added the 700 million to the 3.2 that we originally -- that we have appropriated out of the rainy day fund. I was -- and we passed that out of here 30 to one, so I thought that surely the senators would agree if we added to the Howard amendment another $700 million it would be okay over here, but I had no takers from the House.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Well, I appreciate your efforts on that, Senator Ogden. I'm sorry you weren't successful. Thank you.

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

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Just to ask the chairman a few questions.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: You know, Chairman Ogden, I think one of the issues that also is in the bill that very few people paid attention to, if you recall there was an incident along the border a couple of weeks ago where our law enforcement took fire from drug cartel, people in Mexico, we found out that pretty much our law enforcement people along the river were really outgunned, didn't have the proper equipment. And in this bill, Senate Bill 2, we provided funds so they could purchase four boats, two by the DPS, two by the Game Warden Association and also have the proper shields and weapons to defend themselves; is that correct?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: They do. And I want to thank you for your help. If we pass this bill, DPS will have five. We're adding two to the three that they're already going to acquire, so they'll have five and then we're adding two more to the Park and Wildlife for the same purpose.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: And one of the things that we found out during the process is that quite frankly the cartels greatly outgun our law enforcement people and it's a little of a responsibility for us to provide the proper support and equipment and weapons so to defend our law enforcement people for their lives and endanger along the river and (inaudible) Lake.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Well, I want to thank you for that, Senator Hinojosa. I want to thank you for your support. You know, before the session I came to McAllen and I came to Laredo and Del Rio and one of the things that I noticed was a huge weakness in our border security in that we didn't have these assets on the river, and one of the things that I noticed because they were showing me movies of this, one of the tactics of the drug dealers is to push on into Texas. And if there is -- if anybody's been tipped off or they're going to be intercepted, then they just turn around and run back into the river and the way our laws are written, and appropriately so, if somebody's fleeing from you, you can't shoot them. And so basically they get a free shot to go back across the river. And if we get some assets on the river, we can intercept not only the drug dealers but the millions of dollars of drugs that they are basically probing with and then waiting until there's no resistance to distribute to the rest of the state in the country.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, I'll end by saying this, and I've said this many, many times in public, in that our state and our country faces a greater threat to our security with what's going on in Mexico and drug cartels than we face from our -- Afghanistan. So we need to pay attention to our border area and (inaudible) basically leadership on this issue.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: I want to thank you for that and I want to thank Senator Lucio and yourself for passage of the southbound checkpoints, which was another thing that I believed after taking my trip down to the border and saw what was going on could make a significant difference in our success in fighting this drug war. So, thank you, Senator Hinojosa.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, if there's no further questions, the question before us is the adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 2. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 20 ayes and ten nays, the conference committee report on Senate Bill 2 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Ogden. Good job. Senator Duncan, do you still feel you'll be ready on the court bill at approximately 5:00 clock?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Yes, Mr. President, I believe it will be ready by then. And I would ask at that point in time for the members to suspend the Senate's -- suspend the rules necessary to bring it up. It is the same court bill that we passed out of here. This is House Bill 79 that we passed out of here in the conference committee report in the regular session. There have been a couple of changes that have been put on the floor that we adopted, and I'll explain those, but they are not game changers with regard to the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, I'm going to go to Senator Whitmire for a motion to stand in recess until 5:00 o'clock and that's to give -- sir? And that's to give the staff the time to go ahead and finish up the court reform bill and bring that bill up. The Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire for a motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I move that the Senate recess until 5:00 o'clock.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the Senate will stand in recess until 5:00 o'clock.

(Recess.)

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator, are you ready or to you need time for Senator Zaffirini to do an amendment? The Senate will come to order. Mr. Doorkeeper.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action, the House has adopted the following conference committee reports SB2, SB6, SB8. Respectfully Robert Hainy chief clerk.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, I'm going to bring up the House Bill 79. The Chair recognizes senator Duncan for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute to House Bill 79 and to suspend the Senate rule 7.12.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President, members, I would so move. Let me explain what this bill is before we take a vote on it. Members, this is a very similar bill to the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1717, it passed the Senate in the regular session. It's also a very similar bill especially with some of the calls you're been getting today from some JPs throughout the state. This is a very similar bill -- or actually I think probably an identical bill to what they were doing in -- what we did in this bill since -- in 2009, last session and again this session. This bill is a result of hundreds of hours of work by the state bar, court administration task force that was published in October of 2008. That task force included justices of the peace, it included justices, it included judges, it included members of the bar, it included a number of very well respected people throughout the state and the purpose of the study was it was to evaluate how our court systems work and how efficiently they work and how we can improve them to make them work more efficiently for the people of the state of Texas and in particular in the JP courts how to make the JP courts work more efficiently as a small claims court. They made the recommendations, we introduced legislation in 2009 to adopt those, we passed here in the Senate in 2009, it didn't make it out of the House last session like a lot of other bills. This session we passed it out of here, the House passed it, we went to conference committee reports with regard to some House amendments, we worked on them, we had a good conference committee report, we passed it over here and it just didn't get reached on the other side, ran out of time. Thanks to Chairman Jackson and Representative Louis who is the House author of the bill and sponsor during the regular session, they came up with an idea of how to make this relevant to the call. If you'll look at article one in the call, basically because we have cut funding in the judiciary, this bill helps and ties into efficiencies that help our judiciary -- our third branch of the government operate more efficiently. On your desk I have handed out two letters from the Justice of the Peace and Constables Association in Texas. One from Judge David Kovost who is the chairman of the legislative committee and the other one from Judge Jackie Miller, who's president of that organization, those are justices of the peace. That deal with -- we'll wait until the cheerleading section slows down a little bit.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Let's keep going.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: All right. Thank you, Mr. President, and members. This bill I think has been worked very hard, a lot of hours have been put on it by different judges. It's fully supported by the Texas Judicial Council, it's supported by the task force and I think you'll find has been very well vetted by different experts and judges throughout the state. With that I'll be happy to answer any questions, otherwise I move to suspend Senate rule 7.12 which is the printing rule and the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider House Bill 79.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you have heard the motion by -- senator Watson, for what purpose do you wish to rise?

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Couple of questions of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I yield.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Thank you, Senator Duncan, thank you Mr. President. I'm for this and as we talked on the floor in the regular session, we talked about the last couple of years of history and that's what I would like to do is make sure we're clear on the last couple of years of history. This is something you've been working on for I guess the last three sessions.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's correct.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: And I hope I'm not repetitive of what you said in your layout and I apologize if I am. But the way this worked out, you had a bill that had been drafted I guess two sessions ago, three sessions ago that was amended, dealt with, didn't get out of here. Then what happened, there was a lengthy task force effort that you were very involved in that involved the state bar of Texas and was a statewide effort that led to basically the bill that we're looking at here today; is that correct?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's correct. And if you'll find that the report of the task force is contained in this green book and I passed them out a couple of sessions ago but it started out as Senate Bill 1204 and you were here and we negotiated and it actually passed out of the House, we worked through a lot of the issues and had pretty much an agreed bill. But since that time this concept has been vetted by judges, lawyers, justices of the peace, constables, every participant in the civil just -- or in the justice system. And I think has some real good ideas to make our court systems more easily and efficiency accessible for the people of Texas.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Yeah, this strikes me as one of those long-term projects that has allowed a lot of discussions, a lot of work to go into it. And I know you did mention this, but the one area where people probably getting phone calls is in the area of the JP courts, the small claims court.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's correct.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: And that's why you passed out these two letters from folks that represent two different groups that are groups of justices of the peace.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's right.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: And again, I really applaud the length of time that you have taken to try to get this bill to the floor and I really appreciate the work on behalf of the court system.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate your involvement all the way through the process as well. Thank you.

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

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Will the gentleman yield?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I'll yield.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: And Senator Duncan, I didn't bring this group in to ruin your bill.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Let me just ask you, and I know you worked hard on this and I'm for the bill, I've got some calls here in the last couple of days from some of the JPs in Harris County, particularly in my district and I understand that the goal of -- it's really on article five of the bill and that the goal is to streamline the district courts and make the small claims process more efficient, and they're a little nervous about that section, it's section 5.02. And I just want to make sure just for clarification, Senator, that those JPs will have at least a seat at the table during the rule making process and will have a chance to work with the supreme court committee to work out some of their concerns.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Senator, I believe that the statute requires that JPs be included in the process for promulgating those rules and, of course, we would want that to happen because the JPs -- what I have found that people who live in those courts understand the things that can help make them work better and more efficient so yes, that's the case. You know, another thing that -- well, I'll go ahead and let you finish your questions. But the statute requires that these folks be involved in working with the court and promulgating these rules.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you.

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

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Ask the author of the bill some questions.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I yield.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Thank you, Senator Duncan. And I've hard part of this conversation with you, the bill overall I'm supportive of, I voted for the bill during the regular session, but since then on section five relating to the small claims court I've had quite a number of my justices of the peace bring this issue up. As a matter of fact, I have 12. In the six years I represented my 16 counties, I have never had anybody bring an issue to me complaining about the small claims process that we currently have. Your bill basically in section just section five, I'm talking about strips out all the current rules related to small claims court, move everything over to just a JP in that court, has a supreme court will write a new set of rules. And I read the instructions, I was very favorable of the instructions and then we'll then be doing all our small claims under a new system.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's correct.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Okay. If we don't have a system that's broken, I'm trying to understand why we're trying to fix it. Because I'm not getting any complaints.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Well, I think that's a good question, and I think what we were trying to do in this report kind of lays out I think in the preamble, and I'll get you a copy of it. That in the overall review of these courts and the courts of claim, the small courts claim were created in 1953. And since that time there is confusion, you may not hear complaints about it, but there is confusion in some areas with regard to what the jurisdiction -- you know, if somebody goes in to file a small claim, whether they file it in justice court or small claims court. And I hope you can hear because I'm not sure I can hear myself -- so what we have is a situation where there is confusion and there is no need for the two separate legs of jurisdiction in the JP courts and that's what the task force concluded and that causes inefficiencies, two processes for similar or the same types of claims. And so what we were trying to do in all of the court systems is to try to make sure that we have -- we have simplicity in the way the court's jurisdiction works and so the JP court, this is one of the areas that we worked on to try to improve and make it work more efficiently, make sure that it doesn't require a lawyer to say, hey, you should file this in the JP court or you should file it in small claims court. Under these rules nobody has to make that decision, that decision can be made when you go in and basically when you sign the petition and go in the justice's office.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: I understand, that's pretty much what you'd explained and everything that I read even in the instructions you gave in the bill to the supreme court, it pretty much says that. There are two processes, one process is always better than two, but we got a system that's out there in a lot of places that people are accustomed to using. And in my 16 counties I'm not getting any complaints. I haven't had a single justice of the peace contact me and say there's a problem, I haven't had a single justice of the peace in my district contact me and say, I support this section of the bill. This is the only section. This bill does a lot of things besides what's in section five, doesn't it?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Yeah, it does a whole lot of things. It -- and sets the stage I think for trying to make some improvements so we can save money in our courts and move cases more efficiently and quickly.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: And I'm very supportive of that, you've done a lot of work on it. As I understand it will help a lot of things. I just have a problem with section five and apparently a bunch of my JPs do as well and as I've talked to other members, I asked them, are you getting any complaints on your small claims court, there may be some that speak up, I don't know, but I haven't run across any -- I haven't spoken to a lot of the members, just a few, and no one's telling me they have any problems. I understand two systems is less efficient than one, but we don't know what the new system and new provision is going to be, so that's a new risk. A process when the process isn't broken.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Well, I'm not going to necessarily agree that the process isn't broken because I think what the task force -- and these are people that are involved in these things from -- you know, when you're a district judge, you're familiar with what goes on with the justice courts because you interface and interact with them and lawyers do and the people that are most knowledgeable and who were charged with the responsibility of evaluating these systems made strong recommendations that making this more efficient would be more user friendly for our constituents. Our constituents probably aren't going to know the difference to complaint, but if they have to go down there and make a decision, well, do I file this in justice court or do I file it in small claims court, that's a decision point that they don't need to have to face. And this bill helps solve that decision point because that's when they go hire a lawyer. If they don't know what they need to do and they don't know what's the best system and they know there's two systems, so there must be a reason for them to have to make a decision, they're going to go see a lawyer and say, which one of these, what should I do as opposed to just going down there and having a simple, unified system that allows them to get their claim disposed of quickly and cheaply.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Right now in small claims they can talk to the JP, and in a lot of the rural counties I represent they know their JP. They can say, here's my problem, what do I do and they'll tell them do this one or do that one. So we've got most of my counties to work --

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: But that's just the JP in the position of practicing law because he's giving them legal advice.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Well, we're concerned to make sure that they don't have to have a lawyer, and I'm concerned with a lot of lawyers writing these new rules even though the lawyer's instructed not to have to have a lawyer, that it's going to get a little more complicated and I don't have a -- I like all the items in your bill except that one. I would like -- I have not filed an amendment to repeal section five, I have one available, I've already vetted it, signed it, would you be acceptable --

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: No, I wouldn't. And I think it -- let's go through the history and I'm glad Senator Watson raised the history. This started in 2007, actually when we filed the bill, it was very controversial not because of the JP language but because what we're trying to do in the bill is basically create a multi-district litigation -- or rather a complex case situation that really got everybody's, I guess for lack of a better word, hair on fire. We resolved that, we made some changes and actually passed a pretty good bill but it didn't pass in the House, this is why that task force -- they saw the need to make some changes. This task force made these recommendations. Now, in 2007 you voted for this very same provision.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: I voted for it, I just told you I voted for it. I have not --

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: And in 2009 you did and in 2011 you have. And what's happened is that the last minute, and this happens -- and, you know, I've had legislation before wherever you're trying to implement change, the organizations who work hard to evaluate a situation, they, you know, make recommendations, people that are knowledgeable make recommendations, vet a bill, vet an issue and then all of a sudden at the last minute, there's always a few that get on the phone and they make a lot of calls and they all of a sudden raise some concerns.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: I've been making inquiries pretty much all day and I spoke to you some, I talked to some other members, I talked to some of my JPs, we looked at the rules, we looked at the book you're talking about, went to that section and I know in the book when it made the recommendation that they made the recommendation you could not appeal the small claims deal. And last session a bill passed that now you can --

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Senator Carona's bill.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Yeah. And so some of those things have changed, and I will tell you there's really some good things in the bill, I really hate to vote no on the bill, but I have not paid that careful of attention to the significance of the changes in section five and I have today. And you're telling me you would not accept an amendment.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Right, I would have to oppose the amendment.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: All right. Thank you.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you.

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

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I yield.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Duncan, I have basically some of the same concerns that Senator Nichols was talking about, and I understand how at the last minute people start working things. But section five, I'm hearing a lot of the same arguments and one that I want to ask you about, maybe even clarify here a little bit, the -- you basically have I guess two areas there, you got small claims area and then the justice court area, which are being taken care of basically simultaneously, both of those areas, by the JP; is that correct?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: It's the same court, you don't have two legs doing the same thing.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Do they handle them differently? Do you handle a justice court claim differently than you handle a filed claim?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Actually a justice court claim is little bit more efficient, a little bit more structure than a small claims, and what we're trying to do here is make this more -- less structure so that -- and more user friendly for those who don't have lawyers. And you may need a lawyer if you go with the justice court, you may not in small claims court. And what we're trying to do is say, look, why do we have to make people hire a lawyer for a 600 or $800 claim, you can't do it. So let's make the system work for our constituents. You know, change is not a bad thing. And this change is designed not to help the JP's necessarily but to help our constituents access these courts so they don't have to hire lawyers to resolve simple and low value disputes, or high value to them, but low dollar value with regard to what we normally see in our court system.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Okay. Well, I think the fear is -- or some of the fear that I hear of opposition that's being created is that we are taking the JP court to a level of higher sophistication that may make it more important for a citizen that has a 600 or 800-dollar claim will have to file or hire an attorney to represent them because of a separate set of rules that may be attached as you go into a justice court that you wouldn't need in the small claims court.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Change always brings about fear, but what we got here is the intent of this and the design of this is exactly the opposite. Right now nobody can convince me at least, maybe convince other members on the floor that the current system where you have a JP leg and a small claims willing is less complicated than a system where you have designed it for the sole purpose of allowing people to come in and resolve disputes without having to hire a lawyer and that's the goal here. There's nothing in here -- one of the things I heard, and maybe this is an underlying concern that we're going to try to make JP's be lawyers, that's not the purpose of this, I'm not for that. I'm fine with the way the system is. The only goal here is to try to make this work in a way that it's more accessible to our constituents and by promulgating these rules and the directions that we're giving the court in drawing these rules is very clear that we want it to be simple, straightforward, and friendly so that people don't have to use lawyers. It's expressly stated in the statute that that's what we want the supreme court to do.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Well, I guess a lot of times people worry about good intentions and when you do what Senator Nichols brought up and take out all the existing rules and say, well, we're just doing away with all those but then we're going to have some other people come up with new rules and here's a few guidelines and you worry about that. And I'm reading here on the report on page 18 line 30, 29 and 30 it says, in small claims, in a small claims case or a justice court shall conduct proceedings in a small claims case as the -- as that term is defined by the supreme court in accordance with rules of civil procedure. So that is a change then from what we are doing right now; is that correct?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Well, yeah, but you didn't, it's a little -- not necessarily, depends on where you are, what you need to read further is with rules of civil procedure promulgated by the supreme court to ensure the fair, expedient use and resolution of a small claims case.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Okay. Well, that means what you think right now is not being done, is that what we saying?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I think it's not being done in some cases and obviously the people who have knowledge of this who studied it for over a year and, you know, are more knowledgeable than I am and knowledgeable on taking input from a statewide basis obviously felt that it was not efficient and user friendly and in-expensive. So my situation here is that we change things all the time on the Senate floor in legislation and we're always trying to make things better. This -- sometimes we do it on our own ideas and sometimes when we ask people to sit down for a year and volunteer their time and come up with recommendations to improve something. You know, I like to have deference to those who know and I will tell you the folks who worked on this know. What needs to happen to make these courts more friendly for use by our constituents.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Okay. Help me here because you're an attorney and I'm not, but I see that under the part we were just looking at where it says the justice court shall conduct proceedings in a small claims case as that term is defined by the supreme court in accordance with with rules of civil procedure. It says you should use those rules there. If you go down on the page I think line 57, it says the rules adopted by the supreme court may not require the discovery rules adopted under the Texas rules of civil procedure of Texas rules of evidence be applied.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Right.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: So why are we saying you should use these rules in the beginning but then don't use the discovery rules a little later on in the bill?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Well, because here's what the question misses. The first part of the rules that we talked about on where the supreme court is to promulgate rule, they are to promulgate different rules and what we would use in a district court or county court at law. Those are specific rules in civil procedure that I will tell you can be complex in their application and what we're wanting them to do here is to say, no, we don't want that kind of rule here. We want rules that are expeditious and easy and rules that can be -- if you read, it also says here that the rules require that a party in a case be -- the rules adopted by the supreme court may not require that a party in the case be represented by an attorney; and then No. 2 be so complex that a reasonable person without legal training would have difficulty understanding or complying the rules or require that the discovery of rules that are in the Texas rules of civil procedure which are complex and extensive not be required in these courts. So that they are available for our constituents to use without having to go through the burden of hiring a lawyer or getting tripped up by missing a deadline on a request for admission and having been deemed admitted. So what we're really trying to do is mack this better, I know there are a few JPs out there. You know, I've had a few bills before that passed and did pretty well even though there was some opposition out there.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Was there opposition in the committee?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Today there was a little bit in the JPs, this group of JPs that's opposing the bill right now. We had -- I think in the regular session we had a lot of support for the bill and we're again passed this body several times and has been vetted, has been out there, the Texas Judicial Counsel which includes justices of the peace which have been voted to endorse this and so, you know, I guess -- I hate to second guess the work of these folks that we've asked to look at this and spend a lot of time and make recommendations to try to improve our court system for our constituents and that's what this bill is all about and that's what these provisions that basically provide for a procedure where there's no questions about how discovery works, there's no question about what the rules of evidence are going to be because there's no question that requires a lawyer to help a claimant or advise a claimant on how to get through the jungle of procedures that we have in the other courts and even -- these procedures can vary from JP court to JP court, from small claims court to small claims court. This has the tendency to make this more uniform and reasonable and applicable across the board, around the state.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Well, I have -- I know your history of working on this issue through the state affairs process and maybe the jurisprudence committee but we got a substantial group in my area and I only have three counties, you have way more counties than that but JPs there are really concerned about rewriting -- you know, starting over basically and with a whole new thing, like say change is something we do here all the time, but I also use the theory of let's hear -- is anybody complaining about the way this thing is working or have we heard anybody saying that we really need to do something to change this.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Yeah, we have. We've had people -- that live in this world every day around this state made recommendations that this system is too complex for our constituents to use and we need to change it. Yes, we have had -- we have had evidence that there is, there is a need for a change.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: All right. Well, I'm -- I'm just having a problem to embrace this when I've got a whole lot of people that are dealing with this every day telling me that this really isn't going to do a whole lot of good for them so I just wanted to express that to you and maybe explain a little bit about what we're hearing from some of our folks back home and I appreciate you listening.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I only have 46 counties, I don't think I've heard from any of my 46.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Well, that's just like (inaudible) problem and I'm wondering if we're fixing something that isn't broken. That's basically, you know, what I wanted to express to you. Thank you.

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

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: To ask the author a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I yield.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Senator Duncan. Thank you for your courtesy in discussing the Webb County issues in this bill, I appreciate your courtesy and especially your taking the time to discuss that with me. On page 14 of the bill there is a reference to creating a new county court of issue in Webb County but it's my understanding that this is in effect permissive because the court is created on January 1st of 2031, that's 18 years from now or at an earlier date determined by the commissioner's court and that's your intent.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's correct. Well, it was a floor amendment on the House and we, of course, would have asked you before we put it in over here. I just -- for whatever reason I thought you knew about it but the intent -- my intent and I think -- and I (inaudible) to know if my intent's necessary because I think the language is very clear that this court is not created until 2031, so that's 18 years from now. I'll be 76 years of age and so will Senator Jackson and Senator Estes because we were all born in August of '53. So I will say that until we're 76 years of age, this is permissive, I guess is the best way I can put it.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Yes. Well, ordinarily where there's a local issue that impacts the county, I ask for a county commissioner resolution and when there's an issue that impacts the city, I ask for a city council resolution. And at this point in time I have not received that resolution. However I'm going to support this language because it is permissive at least on the face of it because of the 18 year deadline.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Well, thank you, Senator. And again I apologize if we didn't call your office on this. And you are right, I believe these sorts of things need to have support from -- express support in the form of a resolution from a county before we do it because they are responsible for some of the cost and so -- but I will say and for sure this is a very permissive --

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Very futuristic too.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: At least until we are all on Medicare.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And thank you again for your courtesy, Senator Duncan, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Will the Senator yield?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I yield.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Senator Duncan, my question pertains to the county jurisdiction at law. As you know, for the last two or three sessions it's an issue and right now we have the courts in Hidalgo county, the jurisdiction is set at 750,000. Now I understand the bill doesn't touch that, it grandfathers those courts but when will the new 200,000 new jurisdiction limit come into play?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I think on the effective date on the bill I believe is the case, I think the effective date of the bill when the county courts at law, when the jurisdiction changes from 100,000 to 200,000.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: And let me tell you why I ask. Two courts -- county courts of law that were created not this session but last session. One comes online January 1st of next year, comes out September 1st of this year and the other one comes online I think September 1st of the following year, but they're created by law, by statute last session. Would they come in at 200,000 or would it be at 250,000 since they were created last session?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I think that if they were created and authorized by law at certain jurisdictional levels, that those were grandfathered in but I better double check that. My staff advises me that the county courts of law that were created but have not been previously authorized by the legislature but at higher jurisdictional levels than 200,000 would be grandfathered by this bill even though they haven't been --

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Come online.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: -- come online yet in the county.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: And that is the intent?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Pardon?

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: That's your intent?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That is my intent. And if you recall, this session is the JPs have kind of flared up on this or at least a few of them. Last session and other sessions, it's been the county courts at law on these jurisdictional issues and this bill is always going to have pockets of resistance. But we tried to solve this because we know that this is an issue that's going to be studied as well, we are raising the jurisdiction to a modern -- more modern level now from -- in most of the standard jurisdictional amount and that will move from 100,000 to 200,000.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, I do support your bill and we have debated this issue before in previous sessions. I just want to make sure that in Hidalgo county that all the jurisdictional limits are the courts uniform and not end up with some 200,000 and others 750,000.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I'll affirm that it's my intent that any court that has in excess jurisdiction of 200,000 maintains that jurisdictional -- whatever jurisdictional limit that has been authorized by the legislature.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Thank you very much.

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

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Ask the author a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Senator Duncan, there are pages and pages of repealers in your bill and in particular section 450 provides the following provisions of the government code repealed and there's many, and then there's repealers I think the code of -- following subchapter, chapter 54 of the code of criminal procedure repeals many appealers and so my broad question is the repealers in the government code and the repealers in the government code of criminal procedure, what substantive changes were made as a result of those repealers?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I don't think there's substantive changes, the repealers deal with a lot of the associate judge provisions as well as we're moving things into more of a codification format into some of the areas of the bill. And like you, when I first got the bill and first started reviewing it, I basically -- I don't like repealers, so I always look for them so I saw all these repealers in here and how it worked and how leg counsel prepared them and so we made sure through the Office of Court Administration and others that each of these repealers did exactly what they were supposed to do with regard to the changes that we were making in the bill and moving things around, it's kind of like a recog deal, you're moving things around differently in the codes that apply and so that's what these repealers do.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: When I was looking at one on the Brazos county, it was talking about changing or providing the Brazos court had the same as court -- and in these repealers -- I mean, we are not changing terms or election dates or --

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: No. All we're doing is --

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Or judges or something like that.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: And again, I was concerned about that too and before the bill went to the committee, what I tried to do -- and actually I've got a repealer summary here. But what we tried to do is or we did -- we made sure time and time again that these repealers were only doing things, repealing provisions that were necessary to implement some of the changes we were making on associate judges and areas like that. That's primarily what these things do.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: The -- when I was reading the fiscal note it added what I thought was already current law but I didn't know why they put it in there, it said it also requires 12 member juries for family law cases and family courts at law but my general counsel said it's already current law, is there some sort of change in the number or size of juries?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: There's always been a question about whether or not in most counties that have counties courts at law in general county court of law the number of juries are six but if with -- we have granted county courts of law in current jurisdictions with family cases and those courts require and so a 12 man jury, so we're clarifying that in this bill, that's the purpose of what we're trying to do in the bill.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: So it's a clarification, it's not a change in current practice.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I don't think it is a change in current practice. I think it's a clarification.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: And when Senator Zaffirini was asking you a question about the JP issues, did you say that this transition won't occur for 17 years?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: That's the county court at law, yes. Well, it's permissive for 17 years --

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Tell me again what's permissive.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: It allows them to create a county court at law, it creates a county court at law in 2031 but earlier if the county commissioner so --

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Like Webb County?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Webb County. It's not statewide, it's just bracketed to Webb County.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: All right. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan for a motion.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I move once again to suspend Senate rule 7.12, the printing rule and the regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute for House Bill 79.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Duncan, is there objection from any member? The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 28 -- members there being 28 ayes and three nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading committee substitute to House Bill 79. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: House Bill 79 relating to fiscal and other matters necessary for implementation of the judiciary budget enacted by the House Bill 71 enacted by the 82nd legislature.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out the floor amendment No. 1 by Senator Nichols. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Nichols.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Nichols to explain floor amendment No. 1.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This amendment is very simple, it's a two liner. It basically takes out article five or section five that deals with the small claims court and we have -- I'm not going to go through the entire conversation we had a while ago in the interest of time, but basically I know in my district I have not had any complaints related to small claims court by -- I can understand the efficiencies of having one system versus two, I think a better approach would be to strike this out right now, have the supreme court between now and next session write a set of rules and then let's take a look at them and if we like those rules better than our current system then next session, adopt them and change the small claims court at that time rather than opting out and repealing somethings that is working in my district. I'm not sure about your district for a set of rules that we don't even know what they look like right now and that's basically what the amendment does, it's real simple, it's one section of the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan on floor amendment 1.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Okay. I understand what your concern is, but I think that the bill addresses your concern in this way. What you said in your layout, Senator Nichols, was that you want us to let the supreme court work on this and come back and then we'll look at it and see if we like it. Well, that's what the bill does. The bill -- the rules don't take effect until May 1st of 2031 and so -- I mean, May 1st, 2013, so we're going to have the opportunity to allow this process to take place and be able to -- then we evaluate it but you know let's move forward with this. Next session we'll have -- we'll be able to look at it and deal with it. I think you'll find that this works very well and I think you'll find that we have the opportunity under this bill with the way it's designed to say we like it or we don't like it and if we don't like, it we can repeal this section, and we also have checks and balances in the rules to promulgate the rules. And so I'm going to have to respectfully move to table your amendment.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: So do I close? You want me to close?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Yes, you're recognized to close.

SENATOR ROBERT NICHOLS: Just to close, let me say it's not broke, let's not try to fix it, I haven't spoken to any other member that has a problem, I do appreciate all the things you're doing in this bill. I think it's too quick to go ahead and repeal it and set the process to roll into a set of rules that we have not seen. So I respectfully encourage the members to vote against tabling. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Duncan moves to table floor amendment No. 1. Senator Nichols opposes. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 18 ayes and 13 nay, the motion to table is sustained. The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan for a motion.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President. I move passage to third reading.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Duncan, is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member and the committee substitute to House Bill 79 as amended passes to third reading. The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan for a motion to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I so move.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 28 ayes and three nays, the motion is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage committee substitute to House Bill 79 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee substitute to House Bill 79 relating to fiscal and other matters relating to implementation of judiciary budgets as enacted by House Bill No. 1, 82nd legislature.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Duncan for a motion.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I move final passage.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. There being 28 ayes and three nays, committee substitute to House Bill 79 is finally passed. Congratulations, sir.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, I'm going to recognize Senator Whitmire for a motion that the Senate go into caucus for organizational matters for a few minutes, 15, 20 minutes. Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire for a motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: When you want to recess to?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: We can recess.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: 7:00 clock?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: 6:50, I don't know how long it's going to take you.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: 6:50. I would move to ask the members to recess until 6:50, ask the members to caucus at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the Senate will stand in recess until 6:50.

(Recess.)

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute to Senate Bill 29.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I also move to suspend printing rule 7.12 along with the regular order of business. I move we suspend the printing order and the regular order of business.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: All right. Do you want to explain the bill at all?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Be happy to. Members, this is our TSA bill. I am going to have a floor amendment. When we get to that point and what I'd like to do, I'd like to walk through this bill and show you some of the changes we're going to make in the amendment. This is our TSA bill and one of the things the amendment is going to do specifically, we are going to change language. And let me walk you through the bill. Does every -- well, Mr. President, we don't have the amendment passed out and I really need to walk through that amendment on the bill. Let me simply just say members that -- pardon? You have the amendment but it has not been called out. You want to walk through it.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Yes, I think they must be a little --

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: All right. Let's do that since you have the amendment. Members, if you'll go to the beginning of the amendment, No. 1, strike the recital to section one of the bill and substitute section 3903 penal code as amended by amending subsections and adding subsection C1, two, and three. No. 2 in section one of the bill, penal code page one lines 32 and 33 --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator, I'm being advised by Senator Shapiro that --

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: We don't have the bill, we have the amendment, the floor amendment, but we don't have the bill.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: I was told it was distributed.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: The bill analysis?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Yeah, the bill's on the back of the bill analysis. You have it now? Yes, the bill is behind the bill analysis. Are we ready to continue?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Yes, yes, we are.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: All right. On the amendment, members, I'm now down to page -- rather number line seven on the amendment in the proposed section 3903 penal code, we're going to strike to believe the other person committed an offense and substitute the words of the presence of an unknown, unlawful or prohibited object. This deals with where we move from probable cause to reasonable suspicion but in working with the District Attorneys, the attorney general and listening to witnesses today, we are replacing that language and putting in the presence of unknown, unlawful and prohibited objects. Next, members, in section one of the bill in the proposed section of the bill in section 3903 penal code we're striking the word constitutionally unreasonable on line 34. The in connection with change in the bill will be on lines 37 and 38, we will strike in violation of the United States constitution. The next change will be on line 46 strike the word includes and substitute the word means. What this will do is to take out local police from being subject to this bill. This bill will apply to the TSA. The next change is in line 56 to 59. Strike the proposed section of the bill, that section C2 is eliminated. The next change, the proposed section 3903 we're going to -- on line 60 we're going to strike C3 and substitute C2 in its place, so C3 becomes C2 since we've eliminated C2. The next change, in section one of the bill strike the proposed section C4. That's on page two lines eight through 11. Next in section one of the bill, the proposed section 3903, this is page two now, members, line 12 we're striking C5 and substituting C3. So by eliminating these sections we're just renumbering, relettering and then the last change members in the amendment in section one of the bill, my proposed section 3903, strike the last sentence. So in the current bill you're looking at, members, in the bill, not the amendment, if you go to page two, line 12 you see C5 we're leaving in the bill, this section shall be construed as a matter of state law to be forcible up to but no more than the maximum amount of extent consistent with the federal constitutional requirements even in that construction is not readily apparent as such constructions are authorized only to the extent necessary to save the section from judicial validation. And then the second sentence we're eliminating in the amendment and that's all of the amendments. And I want to thank Senator Jeff Wentworth along with the District Attorneys and the attorney general and members of this body to craft now, members, what I believe is the best version of this bill we have seen. And one of the reasons, members, I'm asking to suspend the rules and move this bill tonight is because we're up against the clock. The House on the voice vote passed a bill today but they do not go in until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow. I cannot guarantee what time they will pass the bill tomorrow on final reading, what time we get the bill, if we get it sometime tomorrow evening or later, it will be the last day probably after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. before we can even take up the bill. The best chance for this bill to pass this session, is for the Senate to take action tonight. The people have spoken clearly and loudly, that they want the state of Texas to lead and put a spotlight on this issue in hopes that the TSA changes their policy and since I stood on this floor almost a month ago, the TSA I think because of Texas focus on this issue has already announced they're changing their policy, dealing with children and invasive searches. Just this weekend in Florida, there was a story of a 95-year-old woman, 105-pound cancer survivor who was asked to take her Depends diaper off. We want our airport safe but we also want our liberties protected, and we want policies that are common sense to Americans and does not humiliate the innocence for no reason. Less than 2 percent of all people who travel are pulled out at random for the screener, the AIT scanner. Those who do not wish to subject themselves to the scanner, then are asked for this invasive search. This bill also includes effective consent by the person. So the person can say, I understand what you're going to do and the person can choose to say no and leave, and this bill primarily focuses again on the TSA they will need reasonable suspicion of an unknown or unlawful object in order to have these invasive searches. I do not believe this bill jeopardizes airport security, but I do believe this will protect the rights of innocent Americans and others from around the world who travel this country who simply want to travel without being groped or touched in a way that no one on this floor would find acceptable for their children or their wives or their mothers or their husbands or fathers or brothers. So with that I move to suspend the regular order of business.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Lucio, for what purpose to you rise, sir?

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield?

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Yes.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Senator Patrick, I know you worked very hard on this. I got a couple of questions, I think if you listen carefully to the first question and you'll understand why I'm going to follow up with one, two, three, maybe four additional questions, brief questions. But what is to stop the drug cartels from paying American citizens to file false accusations against federal agents with this bill?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Well, I can't respond to that hypothetical of what drug cartels may do and how we can stop them on this particular issue and any other issue. I'm sorry, Senator.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Well, how do you think this will impact border security at crossings, for example?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Well, I think it will subject those who work at the TSA and federal agents to not have an invasive search of someone without reasonable suspicion, so that the dignity of people legally crossing our borders is also protected.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Did the committee ever discuss these questions or this issue?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: I don't recall, Senator, I just don't recall.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Do you feel -- do you feel that this would lead to administrative suspensions if this is the case?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: It's something I can't answer. I'm hopeful seeing that the TSA has already addressed the issue with children and I believe in my heart, Senator, that the TSA would not have taken this action to exempt most children, not all, but most from these invasive searches if Texas had not put the spotlight on this issue. Because what's happening, Senator, is around the country, a lot of people, particularly women or particularly parents who've seen their children groped, or their mothers they thought they were alone, they thought they were the only ones, and suddenly this legislation and this focus has had people speaking up all over the country saying, well, that happened to me, that happened to me, that happened to my child and made my child cry and my grandmother was pulled up out of her wheelchair. And I believe the TSA wants to do the right thing, I believe they will address this policy, Senator. So I can't answer a hypothetical but I'm hopeful they will listen to the public and secure our airports without taking away the freedoms and liberties of our system.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Well, I'm interested obviously -- and I appreciate where you're going with your answers, but at the same time I asked a question that wouldn't this weaken security force -- wouldn't this weaken security type force, make it easier for drug cartels to gain entrance into Texas, you know -- and that's something I'm concerned was whether or not it's going to filter over and effect in the border areas.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: This bill only applies to public buildings and airports.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: I think it's related, Senator, and, you know, would you have any objections -- what would be your objections, if any, to adding a provision to protect the state of Texas, for example, frivolous lawsuits by people who might file lawsuits that have no merit? Would you have any objections to that on your bill?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: And by the way, Senator, just to be clear, international borders have their own set of rules that are different and are protected by sovereign immunity, thank you, Senator Wentworth. So your issue about the border I think has been answered. So, Senator, this bill has been worked so hard that with all due respect -- and I don't like frivolous lawsuits, I would like to pass this bill as is because as it is there's not going to be time for a conference, there's just going to be time for the House to vote and since they passed it out on a voice vote with no objection, it is my hope that they will take this bill since we're sending it out tonight, get it to committee, get it out tonight and pass this bill. And I don't want to make any additional changes, we can revisit that next session, we can always improve legislation.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Yeah, okay, thank you. I had another amendment that I was looking at but you made it clear that you wouldn't be accepting that. Thank you.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you, Senator.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question before us is the suspension of the Senate's regular order of business and Senate rule 7.12. The secretary will call the roll. Is there objection from any member? Is there objection from any member? Yes, the secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: There being ayes and eight nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading committee substitute to Senate bill 29. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee substitute to Senate Bill 29 relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of an official oppression of a person seeking access to public buildings and transportation.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out floor amendment No. 1 by Senator Patrick --

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President and members --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Patrick.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Patrick.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you. Members, this is the amendment we just walked through line by line, page by page. I move adoption of floor amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Patrick. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and floor amendment No. 1 is adopted. Chair lays out floor amendment No. 2 by Senator Lucio. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 2 by Lucio.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on floor amendment two. Senator Lucio, I'm sorry, I had recognized you. The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on floor amendment two.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, this amendment would help remove the unintended consequences that may result on the passage of this bill by limiting the impact of this bill to airports, bus stations and train stations. The scope of the bill exceeds beyond the locations that are exclusively for travel. Those locations seem to be at the heart of the issue. This bill inadvertently includes all federal agents, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents, federal park rangers, and Big Ben National Park, TSA agents would now be subject to the same statute. This has serious potential to lead to several ongoing accusations and charges against federal agents who help protect our borders and our border security cannot afford to take a chance while these federal agents are suspended during the process of being investigated. I don't want that to be the case or chance. I think Senator Patrick has already made it clear that he's not going to accept this amendment, but I wanted to share this amendment before I pulled it down because this is a very serious amendment and I really -- I know that I can't pass it with you being against it, Senator, so I'm just a little saddened that this is not taken seriously because it really is a good amendment.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: And Senator, I do take it seriously, I think this has is not come into play in the international borders to begin with as we discussed, so thank you for pulling it down. I appreciate that. Thank you.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: I move passage of -- move adoption, have we adopted this amendment? We adopted amendment No. 1?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Yes, we did. So a motion to pass the bill to engrossment.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: I move to pass the bill to engrossment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the issue before us is the passage of committee substitute to Senate Bill 29 as amended to engrossment. Is there objection from any member? Is there objection from any member? The Chair -- there is? Okay. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, committee substitute to Senate Bill 29 as amended passed to engrossment. Members, the president's desk is clear. If there are no announcements, Senator Whitmire, if there's no announcements the president's desk is clear. The Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion that the Senate stand adjourned until 8:20.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I move that we --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: If you would go to Senator Jackson for -- the Chair recognizes Senator Jackson.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President and members, and Senator Whitmire. We had a tragedy in my district yesterday and I would move -- or it's with great sadness that I would move that we adjourn in memory of Brazoria county sheriff deputy Charles Van Meter. He was killed in a tragic traffic accident last night on State Highway 6 in Manvel. His partner Deputy Joshua Maldef was injured in the accident which was caused by a pickup truck pulling out in front of the patrol car. Deputy Van Meter grew up in Pearland and friends say it was his lifelong dream to become a deputy and had been with Brazoria county sheriff's office since 2006. Mr. President, I'd like to ask that we adjourn today in memory of Deputy Charles Van Meter.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Jackson. The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Senator Hinojosa asked me earlier this afternoon to bring up the late Dr. Ramita Castle's name and I -- he passed away over the weekend and he was an outstanding Texan, I personally want to say that I remember Dr. Castle, he helped me when he was my constituent back in the 1990s before we get redistricting in 2001. But I remember Dr. Castle, Ramita Castle helped me so much in the development of legislation that created the Regional Academic Skill Center. There were so many good things that we could say about Dr. Castle. Senator Hinojosa certainly wanted us to adjourn today in his memory, but most impressively is perhaps the fact that Dr. Castle delivered a little over 2,000 babies during the 37 years that he practiced medicine. Many of those children were born to uninsured mothers and I personally was honored when I was able to confirm his appointment to the Texas Department of Health during the early 1990s when he was appointed by then Governor Ann Richards. In short, he was an icon in south Texas, in our area of the state and he represented everything that is good about the medical profession. So today I would ask that we adjourn in memory of Dr. Ramita Castle, an outstanding Texan.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. The Chair recognizes the dean for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Until what time, Mr. President? Mr. President, I would move that the Senate adjourn until 8:25 and do so in honor of Deputy Van Meter and Dr. Castle.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, dean. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member, the Chair hears no objection and the Senate will stand adjourned until 8:25 this evening.

(Adjourned.)

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

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

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

SENATOR CRAIG ESTES: Members, it's been my pleasure to pray for this body and at the risk of praying for something too lofty, I will remind us of words from Scripture where on the sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. And so with that admonition, let us pray for world peace. Lord, we pray for the power to be gentle, the strength to be forgiving, the patience to be understanding, and the endurance to accept the consequence of holding to what we believe to be right. May we put our power of trust in the power of good to overcome evil and the power of love to overcome hatred. We pray for the vision to see in the faith to believe in a world emancipated from violence, a new world where fear shall no longer lead men to commit injustice nor selfishness bring suffering to others. Help us to devote our whole life and thought and energy to the task of making peace, praying always for inspiration and the power to fulfill the destiny for which we and all men were created. I pray in the name (inaudible). Amen.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Estes. You may be seated. Thank you so much. Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense with the reading of yesterday's journal. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. Members, that conclusion the morning call. Members, the Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 29. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 29 relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the interest of a person seeking access to public buildings and transportation.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your help in passage of this bill. Members, I'll just be very brief as we go to final passage. I'm really proud of the Senate tonight. I know even those of you who aren't voting for the bill believe that no citizen should be subjected to some of the humiliation that we've seen in our nation's airports. And to the members that have stood with me tonight, thank you. Thirty days ago we were threatened by the federal government, we rallied, we regrouped, we wrote a good bill and we have sent a clear message that we will stand tall for Texas when we believe the federal government is overreaching in their policies. Tonight the Texas Senate has spoken, I hope Washington is listening. This bill and this issue that is so important to so many people is now in the hands of the House. I hope they will take this bill and pass this bill. I move final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Patrick. Members, the question is the adoption of Senate Bill 29 as amended. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 may, committee substitute to Senate Bill 29 as amended, Senator, is finally passed.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President, thank you members.

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

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I move that the Senate recess until noon Tuesday June 28th.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, dean. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the Senate will stand in recess until noon tomorrow Tuesday, June 28th.

(Adjourned.)