REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and the gallery, please rise for the invocation. And the Chair recognizes Representative Sheets for our invocation.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, guests, please pray. Heavenly Father, as we enter the last day of this session, we thank you for the many blessings you have bestowed upon our nation and our state. Our servicemen and women, please watch over them and protect them wherever they may be. We ask for your continued guidance as we close out this session. Please grant wisdom to our president, our governor, and to all our elected leaders. We ask that you watch over the members of this chamber as we travel back to our homes and our families. Finally, we ask for your continued blessings over the United States and the great State of Texas. We ask this in your holy name. Amen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel to lead us in the pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Members, please follow me in the pledge to our flag and our state's flag. [PLEDGE]

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Eiland for personal business, on the motion of Representative Madden. Excuse Representative Hernandez Luna because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Veronica Gonzales. Excuse Representative Strama because of family business, on the motion of the Representative Hochberg. Excuse Representative Giddings because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Deshotel. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House.

THE CLERK: SB No. 1, SCR No. 5.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, on your desk you're going to find two CDs. Representative Murphy worked with House Photography to put together a composite of what went on this session, and every member's on there at least twice. And I think we ought to thank Representative Murphy and House Photography for their nice work.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, may we have order, please? Members, you know, I seldom get up to this microphone for this particular purpose, but I feel just so compelled this morning to share with you some pertinent information. Today is my deskmate's birthday. Doc Anderson.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Madam Doorkeeper?

DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I wasn't aware anyone was still there. Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate has passed the following measures: SCR 15 --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the doorkeeper and the messenger from the Senate a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Doorkeeper ? Mr. Doorkeeper? Mr. Messenger? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Me ssenger, could you tell me if SCR 5 is in that stack that you brought over, a TSA resolution; is it in there?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you need some help with that answer? A two letter word.

MESSENGER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct. Chair recognizes Representative Lewis for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Bill 79 at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a motion to suspend the rules to take up and consider the conference committee report on House Bill 79.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Before we take a vote on suspension of the rules, I'm trying to get an idea what's in the bill. Because I know that this is a motion that that's usually not a (inaudible) motion, but since it requires a threshold to get there, and we normally don't suspend the rules --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Chairman. Basically, there are -- there were three changes in the -- in the Senate. There were also floor amendments. They didn't add anything other than some -- a housekeeping deal. For instance, sometimes there'd be a phrase if such and such bill passes then there

(inaudible) a contingency. And all those had been decided by the time this got to the Senate. In other words, the bill had passed and those are cleaned up. But on other -- the House amendments that were considered, the ones that were not kept; there was one having to do with qualifications for assignment of former probate judges, there was one on nonconsent of parties to assignment of associate judges -- gets assigned associate judges, and there was one on the applicability of foreign law in family law cases, what we call Sharia law. Those four were taken off.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Okay. And does this bill have any changes in any courts in Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Nothing else changed, except those three floor amendments that came out of here were -- deleted. Again, other than what I said, the clean up provisions on it said if House Bill X passes then this or that, and they'll either pass or not

(inaudible) so they just deleted those.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Now I'm going to ask what probably will sound like a silly question: What value does the bill have the to the state? I know you did some things and I've gotten some calls from my JP's, but you did some things that were positive. But I did get calls about a section not being in this bill that should not be in this bill. And I'm curious about the necessity to pass this bill in this special session (inaudible) to you, because I know you've worked very, very hard on it.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yeah. The, of course, the purpose of this bill was basically -- as far as Justice of the Peace courts, there was no change in the Senate to what this House sent over here. So in the motion to concur there would be no changes with regard to the Justice of the Peace. It's just exactly the same as came out of -- as came of this House by pretty wide margins. With regard to the bill in general, for the purpose of this bill is that the courts have to do a lot more with a lot less money, and it's designed to allow flexibility of judges to exchange benches, use more associate judges so we don't have to keep creating district court to do, you know, sort of function their matters or just evidence hearings; that sort of thing. And also there's things like -- This is sort of a sunset bill, self imposed sunset bill by the judiciary. And so there are things that we found, for instance, our funding for foster children that we are -- There are several million dollars a year in funding for foster children that's really available that just by a glitch in our jurisdictional rules, we are not matching up so we are not getting the money. So it's things like that. That there are a number of things, there are a lot of changes throughout is this in the judiciary, align it, make it more efficient codify it. Just archaic rules. This is about six years worth of work.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much for answering my questions.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I will, of course.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Now, Tryon, this is basically the same bill we have already voted out of this House floor, right?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It's almost precisely the same. Like I said, there were three -- three floor amendments, of all the floor amendments there were three that were not taken by the Senate.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: There's been a lot of folks working on putting this bill in good shape, right?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: If we don't pass this bill, we'll just be back dealing with the exact same thing next session, right?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. And again, this is like six years of work by the judiciary. We don't really do much for the judiciary and we don't see them that often, but this is something that will make their lives a lot easier, including Justice of the Peace and everybody else.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: I appreciate all your work on this bill, and we need to pass it. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker? Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Of course, Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Tryon, you've got to convince me how hard you worked on behalf of Leo's amendment, because not very happy that we're having to take another Senate version, and all the other things they pulled at the end of this thing. So you need to make me feel better about this. And on, you know, on our -- on the amendment (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) the family law bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Family law bill, that part of the amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: What did you do (Inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Here's --

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Not only the facts, but what did you do to help us

(inaudible) (inaudible), you know?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I tried to keep that provision in. The testimony before the Senate on that particular version came from the family law section of the Bar. They thought that that -- that that section, as worded, caused problems in family law. And that was their testimony, that it had unintended consequences. I was not there at the Senate hearings Monday morning, but that was the testimony. And that's why the Senate put that out, because they thought there were unintended consequences, that they thought it would have problems in family law, and they couldn't pass it as is. There was simply no time to have a --

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So Senator -- so Senator -- If people have asked us to do this, we want to know why it failed. It failed in the Senate. The Senate sponsored the bill, was against it, and the Senate governor, or his staff, couldn't find a way to me to modify it or -- They could have changed language you could be concurring with the changes, instead of the fact that we're going to concur with different changes, which basically means that any amendments -- Most of the amendments -- How many of the amendments that went on the Senate floor did the Senate keep?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: You know, probably there have been about ten in all. This last time there were either three or four amendments they kept and three or four they didn't keep.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So it's -- the Senate's the one that decided not to keep this language, chiefly Duncan; but I would say the rest of the leadership in the Senate is where the folks that were very concerned about this should look to on why it's not in the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. And --

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: It would be a big, underscored yes on that (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: One thing on that -- (inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I need that yes on the record.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Okay. I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: The Senate is not in the bill, because the Senate took it out; Duncan being responsible and the rest of the Senate leadership, I take it? You know, general counsel over there other people had some concerns.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yeah, they took it out because of concerns that were brought to them from the --

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: But they could have addressed those concerns other ways. They chose to take it out, they could have addressed them and tried to refine the language if they had

(inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: They were not amendments (inaudible) (inaudible). But also, Chairman, I'd like to urge this. This is -- this is a huge bill from a lot of angles. It's a big -- a lot of effort from a lot of people. Whether the amendment we're talking about is a -- is a new law, it's new. It doesn't change existing -- it's not -- it's something that's in addition to present law. So if we don't vote for this bill it doesn't mean that if that amendment becomes law, it doesn't put it in the law. It's -- it won't be law either way, it's a just a question of whether the rest of the bill will. The rest of the bill is designed to be administrative, instead of an organization get an efficient framework, allows them to get some funding, like foster children and others that we can get. And to me, this bill needs to pass and should pass. And it won't make any difference in existing law. We won't be better off, in other words, if we don't vote for it.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Just some clarification, Judge. This is a House Bill, not a Senate Bill? For those who concur against the Senate amendments, this is a House Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. This is a House Bill, and it's not eligible until later

(inaudible) (inaudible) so we can get to it sooner:

(inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Let's just tell everybody, your office would accept the House Bill and -- to get with them to accept the House Bill and send it to the governor?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: And they didn't choose to do that, but we couldn't control that?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: But that does not diminish that the House Bill, as it was introduced in the House and it does it -- does it still include the Anderson amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, it does. Rodney Anderson's amendment to make sure that -- that laymen have absolute access without lawyers to small claims court (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: People are asking the --

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The Justice of the Peace have to be on that committee to decide what the rules are, that's really important. And it is simple enough art language to apply.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: So it does include the Anderson amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Good. And we did do everything I think we could have done to get the amendments accepted in the Senate, and it just wasn't going to happen?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. And like I say, they were dealing with testimony before them from the Family Law Bar.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: But it's still a good bill, it still has good things in it that was introduced in the House?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I think it's a bill that the judiciary really needs and have worked on for a long time.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: You've worked very hard on it, along with a lot of other people, Judge, and --

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: (Inaudible) Chairman. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: What is the -- what vote is required for the suspension to take effect?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It is two-thirds of the members present and voting.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Two-thirds present? And what is the effect if we do not suspend the rules?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: This bill will have to lay out until 6:00 p.m.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, of course.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: There was a Section 5 in your bill when it went over to the Senate. A Section 5.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Is that section still in the bill or --

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, there were no changes in the Section 5 at the Senate. They accepted the House version.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for one question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'll be happy to.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Tryon, just to be clear if we don't suspend right now we're going to be staying here until 6:00 p.m. today, right?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: This bill's not eligible till then an so we need to suspend so we can (inaudible). All right. Thank you. I move passage of the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Berman.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, Senator Duncan took out, three different times, an amendment I sent over to the Senate to ban Sharia law in Texas. He took it out three times. But I want to say that Representative Lewis has worked very, very hard on this bill. There's a lot of good things in this bill, and Representative Lewis represented us well on the conference. And this should not be held against Representative Lewis. So I strongly suggest that you vote for this suspension, and vote for the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: If the suspension fails, the bill is not eligible till 6:00 p.m.?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And if we do not have a quorum at 6:00 p.m., what is the effect on this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The bill will be dead.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So, parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: A vote against the suspension could mean that you're voting against the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst, if there's no quorum, that would be correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the suspension of the rules to take up House Bill 79 earlier. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Gallego voting aye. Show representative Torres voting aye. Representative Phillips voting aye. Have all voted? There being 114 ayes and 19 nays, the suspension -- the motion to suspend is adopted. Chair lays out House Bill 79 with Senate amendments.

THE CLERK: HB 79 by Lewis. Relating to fiscal and other matters necessary for implementation of the judiciary budget as enacted by HB No. 1. Act of the 82nd Legislature, 2011. And to the operation of and administration of in practice and procedures in courts and judicial branch of state government.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I appreciate all your courtesy and I do move passage. And I move to concur with Senate amendments at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the motion to concur on Senate amendments, House Bill 79? Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I do have for the author -- author answer a quick question for me?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Of course.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much. Judge, we had a brief conversation about some concerns -- and I believe it's Section 5. And we got another communication from Harris County Justice of the Peace, the presiding Justice of the Peace, Ridgeway; that they still have concern with that section. And I know these are hard things to work out on the floor, but if there's any concerns that occur over the interim (inaudible) understand, people, vote your district, vote your folks, could you help us address those when he come back hopefully next session?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Absolutely. And I'm so glad that you brought that up, Chairman. These rules on the Justice of the Peace court, they don't take effect until two years from now. They take -- we'll be already almost through with session when these rules even take effect. The Article 5 takes effect -- it's not till May of 2013 to give plenty of time to work all these things out. Judge Ridgeway is a wonderful person, and he certainly ought to be someone to be on that committee to write these rules, and it will be mostly Justice of the Peace. And I will work, you know, I will work with you and if there are any glitches, we'll be in session.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I know that a number of members from Harris County have received information from the people that do the courts in our communities with concerns about rules of evidence, and the ability of average citizens to take care of those issues. I know that some JP courts have serious concerns. But the only thing that I would ask at this moment, you know, work with us to make sure that there's some clarity, because I believe many other members from Harris County have gotten the same -- same information.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right. And again, to go back main (inaudible) (inaudible) to the Rodney Anderson amendment. What it requires, first of all, that the rules have to be able to be applied by a layman who has no legal training. And also that the JP courts will be on the committee write the rules. And also already in the bill there was a provision that there's no discovery except what that JP says he or she wants.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I --

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: So no rules can require discovery.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And I appreciate all you hard work. I heard what you said, six years of work is a lot of work. And so I just wanted to make sure that we have a discussion about that, because there are -- there are a lot of concerns.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right. Thank you very much. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question occurs on Representative Lewis' motion to concur on Senate amendments on House Bill 79. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 94 ayes and 44 nays, House Bill 79 finally passes. Mr. Simpson? Chair recognizes Representative Simpson for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Members. I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules to reconsider the vote on House Bill 41. And in this motion I also want to include the normal waiting of the secular body of one hour's time. And, if there's no objection, then we'll include that in the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yeah, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Simpson , what I understand what you're doing is you're going to reconsider the vote, which we passed it on second reading, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So what that will mean is that will bring that back for second reading, and then you could call up the Senate Bill?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Which is already passed over there. You're going to accept the Senate version, will be what we're voting for. And then you would then to move to lay House Bill on the table subject to call, which we wouldn't probably get to; and then substitute -- and then pass the Senate Bill. I just want to know --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: As far as that -- thank you. That's correct. That's exactly where we're headed.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And so that will afford us the opportunity to vote on that bill?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes. Senate Bill 29, that's right.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And again --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And we're not waiting one hour.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Right. We don't want to wait an hour, just to do what we could do in an hour, right? There's no other business to take care of, in other words?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: As far as you know, there's no remaining business. This is the only remaining business?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Can I ask the author a question, please?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: All right. Now, yesterday, when we were talking -- you heard my conversation with Chairman Gallego? We had on your bill the day before had an Attorney General's letter saying that with the amendments that had been included in House Bill 41, that they were comfortable with the bill as it was amended. Now, we are not going to be -- we're going to be accepting the Senate version now, and on this -- in the negotiation and the evolution of this Senate, have the Attorney General's office also accepted the Senate language, as defensible, as they did House Bill 41?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I wasn't there on all the debates. There was much debate about the wisdom of incorporating the AG's suggestions, and that's what they termed them. I've worked with the Attorney General from the very beginning, prior to even filing this legislation. I've included the language that they have asked for at every step of the way.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: No, no, I'm not talking about what you have done. I know what you have done. I'm talking about now that the Senate has sent over a bill that we have to take or leave. And I want to be sure, and this House needs to be sure, that when we are having to do that now, that we have the same effect, that the Attorney General has the same comforts with this bill as they did with House Bill 41 as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I can't speak for them. I can say this: I've consulted them and worked with them, and this is very close to the original bill, although it only applies to the TSA. The Lieutenant Governor, which had requested these suggestions from the Attorney General was there during the debate, to my knowledge. And I wasn't there myself but --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Well, you can understand that there's a little concern of what the Senate and the Lieutenant Governor has done in this regard, and has put us in the situation here of accepting this bill --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: One thing I want to make very clear, this is not the legislature, this is the judiciary --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: No, no, no, no. You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about that. I'm saying now we've been put in this position to accept a bill coming over from the Senate that we did not have full debate on, as we did on yours, and we were all comfortable with House Bill 41; and now we have to accept the Senate Bill. And I want to be sure, and the House needs to be sure, that the Attorney General is comfortable with the -- wording in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I do believe the AG, the Attorney General is comfortable with this bill. I do not have a formal letter, but we have consulted with them throughout this whole process --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Did I ask you yesterday to get a letter from the Attorney General on this Senate Bill version?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I don't have a letter. But I do believe they approve of this bill and will defend it.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Could -- Could we have Chairman Gallego come up and go through what we did yesterday in the committee to see if -- He said he was going to converse with the Attorney General's office. Could we have chairman Gallego come --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'll be happy to yield to Chairman Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: I see Chairman Gallego walking around there, from Alpine.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Keffer, I was --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Do you remember our conversation yesterday where you were going to be bringing up the Senate Bill in your committee for -- for consideration?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: And our conversation was that one of the major things we had on House Bill 41 was a letter from the Attorney General's office saying that, as amended, House Bill 41 met their criteria of defense. Now, we don't have that bill before us in the House anymore, and we are forced to look at a Senate Bill that was sent over to us, because of the way they be did their business yesterday. And now I was

(inaudible) you said you were going to contact the Attorney General's office and go over the wording in this Senate Bill that was brought over to us. And I was wondering if you were able to do that, and what you found in your conversation.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I spoke -- I spent some time yesterday, Chairman Keffer, with three groups of folks. The Attorney General's office at -- to of their representatives talked to me, as we went through the bill. In the final analysis, the Office of the Attorney General indicated to me was that it was their position that -- they would have to defend the statute either way, and so they weren't going to take the position of pro or con on the bill. Their conversation with me there was some stuff in the bill that they had put in was that was still there, and there was some stuff in the bill that they had asked for that wasn't there. And so their position was they would defend the statute either way, and so they were not going to opine in advance as to whether this was good policy or a bad policy, or whether it was defensible or indefensible. My next conversation was with some of the District Attorneys --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: That was another group. On the amendments on House Bill 41 that we worked on, to alieve a concern.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, and I will tell you that my conversation with the District Attorneys is they are still opposed to the bill. And they -- Their perception is that it would still be difficult to prosecute and puts them in a bad spot where -- Essentially the argument is that you're -- potentially punishing a line employee for doing something that he was ordered to do by somebody else way on high, and you're punishing them. The idea that you'd have to do this

(inaudible) those kinds of things they were uncomfortable with. And the third group that I spoke with was the law enforcement -- the police officers. Mr. Fletcher had indicated to me that there was some concern. And the police officers came to me and they said look, if an officer, for example, makes a mistake and he executes a warrant and the warrant turns out to be a bad warrant, you don't put that officer in jail for a year because he executed a bad warrant. In this case you are putting an officer -- potentially you are putting a police officer in jail for a year, for doing something wrong that he didn't necessarily know it was wrong, but he was told to do. And so the law enforcement community, the police officers, are still uncomfortable with the idea. It did come out of committee, it had not quite unanimous support, and the theory was that it was now narrowly tailored in scope so that it just applies to -- essentially actual or contractual employees of the federal government. I had anticipated that because it was only now aimed at federal agencies that the a state law enforcement community, would not be opposed. That was incorrect, because they're still opposed. They feel like it's still not good for the law enforcement community.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: So we had a bill, House Bill 41, that we amended here on this floor to alleviate the concerns of those three important groups to a bill such as this.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right. And as you know, I had an amendment on that.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: I realize that. I had an amendment. And also now we are looking at a Senate Bill that was forced over here, because they sine died, they wouldn't work with the House sponsor

(inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Particularly this --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: -- leave a situation on a bill that two of those three well, actually three of those three, because the Attorney General's going to have to defend, as you said, because those types of -- these groups that we tried work with, that we did amend on Representative Simpson's bill, House Bill 41; now we're having to look at a Senate Bill to -- to vote on later on today, that are not on the this bill, that are against this bill; but because of -- because of a situation we have to have in this state, or a situation that we are looking at nationally, we're going to have to take on action on, on a bill that is less than what we had on a good House Bill that we had -- that we would have sent over to the Senate if they had not sine died yesterday.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, Chairman Keffer, obviously, if you give me a choice between the House Bill and the Senate Bill I would take the House Bill every time. We don't have that -- as you indicated, we don't have that opportunity. There's is only the Senate Bill. It was an issue. Mr. Simpson is as, you know, and as I think all of us know is very passionate about. And so that's why we find ourselves in the posture. But this is -- this is a situation where you take it or leave it, and the amendments that the House put on are not -- are not on this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Well, it's insulting to this --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time is expired. Excuse Representative Van Taylor because of important business on the district, on the motion of representative -- Representative Lewis. Is there -- Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Phillips?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Parliament ary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to understand, what is on -- before us now a motion to reconsider, which is a procedural vote; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Phillips, it's a vote to suspend the rules.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: To suspend the rules to reconsider the vote by which HB 41 passed on second reading, and to waive the hour notification period; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So if this does not pass, we could wait for an hour to move to suspend; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And so presuming notice has been given, or we can pass this -- what does this vote take?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: This takes a two thirds present voting.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Two thirds present voting. So if we do that -- if people are against this bill they will still have a chance to vote against HB 41; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the questions that the chairman just asked. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that there are probably more than a hundred people who will be voting for this bill, to take -- voting to suspend the rules to take to it second reading. Maybe eight more than that, maybe there are a hundred and eight that will be doing that. But I still want to rise to ask if the people who understand that playing politics and playing gamesmanship between two chambers is not the way to end our special session. And I just request that you vote no on this motion to suspend.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Deshotel, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, would you allow Representative Simpson to take the republican caucus to the Ag Museum before they take this vote?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you very much, members, for your patience. I don't want to keep you long here. I just want to make very clear I respect greatly Representative Coleman, and the reason why he's not going to support this motion or vote to the bill. And I want make it very clear that this was not promoted to bash our president. It was intended, this bill is intended to protect the dignity and the liberty of our citizens here, and those who travel and come into this state. These practices actually began under a republican president, President Bush. And much of these politics have been protected and promulgated by the Patriot Act, which I think is very unpatriotic. But I will -- I'll leave that right now. I don't think this is a -- this is not a partisan issue, this is an issue about dignity. It's about freedom of every individual man, woman, child, infant, grandmother; that they might not fear being molested when they seek access to public transportation and buildings. I encourage you to vote in favor of this suspension of the rules and to waive the hour wait. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, strict enforcement's been requested. Strict enforcement is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. You can only vote from your desk on the motion to suspend the rules. Have all voted? There being 100 ayes and 23 nays, the motion passes. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 41. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 41 by Simpson. Relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the intrusive touching of a person seeking access to public buildings and transportation; providing penalties.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider the passing of House Bill -- the vote for House Bill 41, so we can take it back to second reading and then bring the Senate Bill in place of it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, Is there objection? Is there objection? Chair hears -- Members, Mr. Simpson has made a motion to reconsider the vote by which House Bill 41 passed to third reading. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Now, members, we're back on second reading on House Bill 41. Chair lays out House Bill 41. Members, the Senate companion to House Bill 41 is over and eligible. Accordingly, the chair lays out Senate Bill 29. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 29 by Patrick. Relating to prosecution and punishment for official oppression by the intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation; providing penalties.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill y'all heard more than you probably know about, the anti-groping bill. This is the Senate version. I'd like to move passage. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Isaac, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Will the gentleman yield for some legislative intent?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Mr. Simpson, I have a couple of questions for legislative intent. Are TSA agents law enforcement officials?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: To my knowledge, there may be some that are, but --

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: If someone doesn't want their private parts touched, will that provide reasonable suspicion for probable cause for a search?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This law makes it very clear that the reasonable suspicion must be for an object, either known or unlawful or prohibited, to be -- to allow that to go on, where they could touch those areas. They could touch the other areas of the body in a pat-down, but this prohibits it without reasonable suspicion that an object exists in those places.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: So pat-downs will still be allowed?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It does not stop all pat-downs, just the touching of private parts without reasonable suspicion that an unknown, prohibited or unlawful object would be in those places.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Which is in line with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I think it certainly is.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask that our comments be reduced to writing and placed in the journal for legislative intent.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Purchase.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Ask some clarifying questions.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Simpson , I've had calls in to my office about this bill, and with the parliamentary moves that you've just made I am very concerned. Because the calls that I have received in my office, this bill is very important to people; but they believe the Senate version is very watered down. And when I asked those individuals specifically, or my staff did, would you just as soon we passed that version or not, the answer was no. So what would you say to that, Mr. Simpson?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Actually, the Senate version is the strongest version. It's the closest to the very bill that we passed out of this House in the regular session unanimously, on second and third reading.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So you would tell those grassroots individuals that have been calling into my office, saying that they are upset about the Senate version, I imagine they may have been a part of the groups that I heard protesting outside the Senate doors earlier this week.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I think they are actually, those people -- I don't know. But this is my understanding from what has been reported to me, that they were protesting our bill that was voted up with the AG's amendments, that they thought really gutted the prosecution of the bill. The Senate actually took those out after they heard consideration from many people, the district and county attorneys --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So you think those protesters and to those calls to my office were confused as to whether the Senate Bill was weakened or our bill was weakened?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I can't say. But I've heard that those people came to this House thinking it was the Senate one time, so I'm not sure. I can tell you that the grassroots supporters that I've been involved with were very concerned about the House Bill that I passed, and I had to work very hard to say that I thought this was the only way we could get it through the Senate, because the Lieutenant Governor had requested these -- and added them so --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So, Mr. Simpson, you feel strongly about this bill, you feel that this is a strong bill, and for those of us who choose to support it, you believe this is appropriate, and you believe for those that may have told us that it isn't the best action, you believe this is the best that could have been done?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And you believe, frankly, not to put words in your mouth, it's not simply the best that could have been done, you actually think it's pretty darn good; is that fair to say?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I do. It will stop the routine touching of people's private parts, for just merely refusing to do go through a scanner because they don't be irradiated, and they don't want to be viewed naked. And that's the only alternative to most of those people receiving, instead of sending them back to the metal detecter. And that's my hope that and those -- most -- about 97 percent of the people go through the metal detectors, anyway.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Larson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: David, I know you worked on this throughout session, you've been very diligent trying to get all the stakeholders together. I'm going ask you some questions regarding how do you think this will affect what's going on in airports in Texas, in reality? I mean, I voted for it the first time, I intend to vote for it, but I'd like to know, I mean once this bill passes and then the governor signs it, do you think the federal government is going to stop, cease and desist all their activities at Texas airports?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That is my hope. We have begun to see to some movement of that already, by the debate that's been going on, not only in Texas but across the United States. I can't tell what they're going to do. What we did in this bill that's different from the regular session, to delay the enactment of this legislation to the 91st day. So that would give the federal government and others in the state time to work through it, and hopefully they'll change their procedures. And that would be the best outcome.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Have you had any indication, have you talked directly with the TSA folks or the U.S. Attorney General about what we're trying to get accomplished here?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No. They have never contacted my office. I have heard reports. But the first time that the DOJ and the TSA showed up was during the regular session, when the bill came up over there. And they made their threat to either make a stay of the legislation, or to cancel a flight or a series of flights.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So I'm just trying to figure out the logistics of this. So once we pass this, then who is going to go inform TSA that they've got to stop the activities that's laid out in your bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I think they're keenly aware of this legislation, and have already begun to change their practices. And speaking of the individual, I think the best thing, you know, is just explain without reasonable suspicion that an object was present, known, I mean unknown object, unlawful or prohibited; they wouldn't touch those private parts.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. Federal preemption. Is there anything that we can do to circumvent --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: There's language in the bill that the Attorney General gave us that would preserve any part of the bill that was found unconstitutional, and that would be preserved spatial challenge and our ability to prosecute as much as we could under the --

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. This current bill, is it using reasonable suspicion or probable cause?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It's using reasonable suspicion.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. Explain to me your take on that. Because I've heard a number of folks in my community that have asked that they felt like it was a watering down versus the probable cause.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I do think it is. I did resist that. And I was going to have us last Friday, and lay that before the will of the House, and let y'all make that decision. I wasn't given that opportunity. And then it became clear that the Senate wasn't going to accept that, there was some lobbying from here in the House to do that. I do think it will change the routine groping of private parts and (inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Overall, you support the bill whether it be probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's right. Some have said you can convict someone and be like 99 percent certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the probable cause would be like 51 percent. And that reasonable suspicion would be anywhere from 10 to 25 percent that a criminal act is taking place, or could be taking place, enough to get suspicious, to interrogate and to talk to people.

REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Question for the gentleman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, sir, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: I got a call from one of my more elderly constituents last night, and he asked me to vote against this, because the only time he ever gets groped is when he goes to the airport now. Would you -- would you consider an opt in provision to this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Within a covenant relationship at home.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Simpson , in this version of bill is it true that the state and -- Let me see, the state and local -- yes, the local and state police are exempted?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This applies only to federal employees and contractor's offers. That portion of the bill was taken out.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So you're saying that it's okay for state and federal, state and local police to do groping, but --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No

(inaudible) (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Why is it okay for them, and not --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, it's not okay, in my judgment. Right now they are covered, the peace officers of this state, with reasonable suspicion already. They don't do it, like here at the capitol. And that was the main reason why --

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: But they could.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: -- they took it -- they could. and that's why I left it in there, I would have preferred that. But this is --

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I'm just wondering why there's a different standard for federal agents (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) in the bill there is, as you suspect.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It's not that it's a different standard, we didn't address that in this version of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: The effect is an inconsistency by not addressing it, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I don't think so. Because the police officers in this state have to have reasonable suspicion before they can do those things.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman's time is expired. Excuse Representative Solomons because of family business, on the motion of Representative Truitt. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I ask people to vote no on this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Berman.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, once again, the eyes of every state in the United States is on Texas. This bill has been in every major newspaper in the United States, and as a result of David bringing this bill, the TSA has already drastically reduced touching children. I think children can go through now unmolested. So I think by the passage of this bill Texas will lead the states again. And I urge you to vote for the bill. It was unfortunate the language that came of the Senate, this has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with the president of the United States. As David indicated, it just has to do with our own freedom, freedom from being groped and touched by people who are actively working for the federal government. Please vote for the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel to speak on the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Members, briefly, I just want to speak on the bill because too many times we get reactionary and we need (inaudible)

(inaudible) knee jerk things, but we need to look at the big picture. No way do I, or any of you, condone the groping of a 95 year-old woman in a wheelchair, or the taking of a baby from a mother's arms and searching that baby's diaper. But what you have to understand is we could make that illegal, we can make it illegal to do that. And the first thing that's going to happen is the terrorists are going to find a 95 year-old woman in a wheelchair to put (inaudible) in her diaper and put her on the plane. She's dying of cancer, they're going to give all of her kids ten thousand dollars a piece to live on, or any of those things. As soon as you exclude any group, no matter how egregious it may be to us, from being searched, that's the group that's going to bring the explosives on the plane. And we need to address that. If we ever say we know on 911 it was Arabs who blew up the plane, so we're just going to profile Arabs. But don't you understand that the next time a plane blows up it's going to be a blue eyed blond from Scandinavia? You don't do security that way. We have to let the people who do those things not be able to figure out who is safe to go through security. We can't let them now know that they cannot search a person in a wheelchair, because of an elderly lady. If they know that, of course they're going to find an elderly lady to bring on the plane. We have to be able to pick and choose at random, and do these kind of things -- these body searches. They're egregious, we don't like them. We have to have a balance between national travel safety and personal safety. And that is what I think we're missing in this. We would have 150 members vote no, if the issue was should we search a 95 year-old lady. If that's the issue I would vote no. That's not the issue. If we -- If we create those classes of people that we are not going to look at, and they can just walk through security, well then I think you are going to have a lot of security breaches. So that's why I'm speaking on the bill, not for or against, just something for us to think about the big picture of what security is and how security works. And I'll yield, if my colleague has a question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: I have a question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aliseda, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Mr. Deshotel , you realize the bill does not prohibit searching of those individuals?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I'm not speaking -- That's why I'm speaking on the bill, that happening is become an issue of -- of people's reaction that this horrible thing that's going on. And we need to -- Texas needs to put a stop to it. That's what I'm speaking to. I'm not speaking on this bill -- about this bill. I understand that this bill does not do that. But I also understand that we've lost sight of what the real issue is.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Well, it requires a reasonable suspicion to go any further.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I understand that perfectly.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: And, for me, you know, safety is not as important as my freedom.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Reasonable suspicion is not what brought this bill to the House. It was situations that we found like searching the baby or searching a grandmother, that's what brought the issue to the House. And my point is that we cannot make these special classes that can -- that can just walk through security. That's my only point. That's my only point.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Thank you, Mr. Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Chairman Deshotel, the only thing that I would point out is that the current legislation, for example, there's nothing that prohibits the federal government, or even the state government in an airport from saying if you don't consent, you don't get on the airplane. You can still be blocked from traveling. You can still -- Whether or not it's -- if you don't consent, for example, then you don't get to travel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so there's still an opportunity there. It is not simply the opportunity to get on the plane, because I've wrestled with this for a long time. But there's still an opportunity to keep people off the airplane that you want off the airplanes, whether they're 95 or 6. Because we've also seen some people that are willing to sacrifice even their children or their grandmothers. And so there's still an opportunity to be safe, because people can still be kept off the airplane, even under this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Certainly. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Menendez because of illness in the family, on the motion of Representative Pickett. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Anyone wishing to speak on the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close. Mr. Lozano, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: I just want to ask Mr. Simpson a question.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Mr. Simpson, and, you know, I'm a coauthor on your bill. But, as a businessman, I have a concern about the letter that the policy confrontation in TSA that the AG's office wrote, that you alluded to earlier, is there a potential economic catastrophe waiting to happen? Have you asked if they can do what they threatened to do in that letter?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: The letter had many factual inaccuracies in it. They claimed that if this legislation was enacted, the regular legislation, it would be similar to this, that it would shutdown basically all screening. And that is not the case. It doesn't stop the metal detecters, it doesn't stop the naked body scanners, it doesn't even stop all pat-downs. It only stops the routine touching of private parts. If there's reasonable suspicion, they can touch those parts. And if there's a conflict, of somewhere in between, this bill now includes the opportunity to give effective consent. But, ultimately, their minds have to make the decision themselves of whether they want to let you fly or not. And so they -- that's an issue as well. But that's not addressed in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: So, in your opinion, the federal government cannot prevent flights?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: They government can do what it can.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Okay. Do you take their threat seriously?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: We're saying as a state, and this House has already voted this bill out, and saying we believe this is a reasonable line to draw. It's either here, or a body cavity. But we're saying if you have a reasonable suspicion, do whatever you've got to do, or don't let the person fly. Search them even, in those areas, if you have reasonable suspicion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Have you looked into, by any chance, what potential economic impact any prevention of flights --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I think that was a bluff.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Okay. Have you looked into any potential -- like dollar amounts?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I think if they made Texas a no fly zone it would be very -- have a huge impact.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Representative?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, one quick question for Mr. David.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: David, when the federal government said they are going to cut flights over Texas, we have two major hubs here in Texas, and if they cut those two major hubs they're going to cut down 50 percent of the flights across the United States; and I don't think they're going to do that. Thank you for the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: You are welcome. We are giving them plenty of time to adjust their procedures. The best way to deal with a bully is to stand up and not give ground to coersion that violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: I've got four letters to that, Amen.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Miles because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Farrar. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 29. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill -- A record vote's been requested. A record vote's granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Simpson voting aye. Have all voted? Being 106 ayes and 27 nays, Senate Bill 29 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Simpson for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to make a motion that we suspend the constitutional rule that requires the third reading being on another day. As a freshman, I'd just like to explain the --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: The first several times when I voted on that I didn't know that the Constitution made for a provision for suspending that rule. And so I actually thought I was -- because all it says up here is suspending the Constitution, and I didn't think that was a good thing to do. But it does make for a provision to do that and --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: So --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: So, Mr. Simpson, what you're telling us is it's not okay to suspend the Constitution, unless you want to -- unless you want to suspend it; because I've got your vote here. You have not voted so suspend the Constitution.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I thought I had at least once or twice.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: So if it fits your needs, it's okay to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I just explained, Mr. Chair, what my original votes were. Because I thought when it said up there we are suspending the Constitution that's what we are doing. I didn't want to be like the Senate. And so when I read there that it didn't -- the Constitution made for a provision of suspending that rule, there's times to do that. And so I have -- I thought I had done that and I thought it was appropriate time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hartnett, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: Gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: David, we all learn as we work here, don't we?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: We certainly do. Learned a lot.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: And lots of us have misunderstandings that get cleared up, right?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARNETT: It's a good part of this process, is we become wiser?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you for you help and your mentoring.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, just so the members are all clear on what has to happen at this point, because the Constitution requires this bill to be read on three separate days, and Mr. Simpson would like to do the second and third reading on the same day that requires the constitutional provision to be suspended.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And in order to suspend the Constitution, that would require a four fifths vote of the membership of this body?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And that four fifths vote is not a four fifths of the members, members present and voting, it's a hard four fifths, of the membership?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct, Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, mathematically, Mr. Simpson has to have 120 votes to suspend the Constitutional rule in order to achieve that?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And, Mr. Speaker, how many members have been excused for today's legislative day?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I believe nine members.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Nine members?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I believe nine members have been excused.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And assuming are we still operating, Mr. Speaker, under strict enforcement --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: If it's requested.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And assuming that that there is 120, I assume that that was 124 people from when you have the earlier votes, so he has to have a 124 votes in order to get just to get to third reading; is that correct? And then we'll have a separate vote on third reading after that?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Isaac, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: It's my understanding, according to Section 18 -- I'm looking for the wording right now. It's four fifths of those present?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: According to Article 3, Section 32 of the Constitution, the bill should not have the force of law unless it is read on three several days. But four fifths of the House may suspend the rules.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you. Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Members, this is essentially a vote on the bill. Because if we don't pass this to suspend the constitutional rule, we will not have the opportunity to pass this legislation, which the people of Texas have repeatedly asked for in the regular session; and this special session. So much so that the governor ultimately added it to the call. One thing I want to point out, too, is that we could have taken the second reading vote last night after the bill -- the Senate Bill was voted out of committee, but the decision of the leadership of this House, I believe, deliberately adjourned so that we would be forced to this situation. And I would ask that you seriously consider voting in favor of this bill so we can get it to third reading.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliament ary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker, if a bill is read the first time when it was referred to committee, doesn't the same constitutional provision that requires four fifths now wouldn't that also have -- wouldn't that also require four fifths if you attempt to do a second reading on the same day that the bill was first read and referred to committee?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson would have the same vote requirement yesterday as he does today.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I apologize, I misunderstood.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'm going to be very brief. And I understand wanting to change the world, because I'd like to do that every day. And Mr. Simpson came to this legislature bringing what he believed was an extremely important issue to this House. And then he brought it twice. He even got the governor to put it on the call. And then Governor Dewhurst decided he wanted to turn this Senate Bill, whatever it is, 29, 28, into a political issue. And that's the reason this bill is going to go down. And all -- The reason why everyone else supported this bill, and why I signed on it still exists. But the reality of it is that this shouldn't be how we're conducting ourselves when it comes to our national security, that the president of the United States is using TSA to intimate Americans. And I think that that's a good reason to vote no on this Senate Bill. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Marquez because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Gonzales. Excuse Representative Martinez because of important business, on the motion of Representative Gallego. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the author of this bill have the House know his message and know the rules before he starts popping off and making accusations. I think that is very insulting. As insulting as the Senate sending this stupid bill over here in the damn first place.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, strict enforcement's been requested. Strict enforcement's been granted. Vote from your desk. The question occurs on the suspension of Constitutional rule -- Excuse Representative Olivera because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Lozano. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Question occurs on the suspension of the Constitutional rule. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 96 ayes and 26 nays, the motion to suspend fails. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Members, just real quick. We discussed it earlier, if you go in your desk there is a bible there. If you haven't done it already, go ahead and put your name in there. If you have a favorite bible verse just put that in there. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, Mr. Simpson has asked to make a personal privilege speech. If you could please take your seats?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I thank you for you patience. I'm going to seek to be brief, but I'm going to be honest. I thought to offer this speech last night to save us all time, and because I was told that it was futile to go through this process. But we did. And I would like to leave an honest assessment of what I believe has occurred on the record. And I want to set everyone's mind at ease. The goal of this speech is to speak the truth in love. I want to begin with the quotation from Winston Churchill. He said 70 years ago: Never give in. Never, never, never, never; except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. This is not the last effort to stop unreasonable searches of our person. I not giving up. And even if I did, I do not think the people are going to allow the violating of their rights to persist. Providence, and the people, brought me to this legislature. My race really started without me. When the people wanted a representative who would not represent -- who would not only represent their values, but endeavor to keep the oath of the Constitution of the United States and of this State, which Jefferson once said: Our chains that bind down elected officials to keep them from mischief. I came to do what was right for the people of my district and of this state. I did not come here for special interest. I sought to do what former Speaker of House Pete Laney told me earlier in the session: Do what's right, explain it and you'll be okay. He also said: Don't do anything your wife or your mother, you don't want your wife or your mother not to know about. I've sought to live that way the best way I can. I've made some mistakes and I appreciate y'all informing me. And I'm seeking to learn. And I appreciate that. Today, ladies and gentlemen, our greatest enemy is not terrorists that may lurk and destroy from time to time, our greatest enemy is ourselves. The seeds of anarchy and tyranny that reside -- that reside in each our own hearts, and if given opportunity and left unchecked will grow and overwhelm the garden of the rule of law. We must refrain from using that very law to punish wrongdoers for the general welfare, to be used for -- only for our team. What I'm getting at is this idea that it's wrong to cheat unless, of course, you are cheating for yourself or your team. We all, no doubt, were aware what that when we came to these grand halls that there would also be within them duplicity and deceit. The challenge though, is not to succumb, not to go along to get along, in order to be reelected. Not to be complicit with its corruption. To apply this to the legislature, let me give you several examples: In one sense this first example is very insignificant, but in another it's symptomatic and indicative of why the people do not trust politicians. Now, all of us freshman learned pretty early that we don't have to hurry to the chamber, as also Pete Laney at one time told me, because it is likely that time will stand still. He didn't say that. Those are my words. I had never seen a legislative clock before. So this was new to me and amazed me as a freshman, as I hurried to the House floor and then I saw it stand at 10:00 o'clock, five, ten, fifteen and however long, until the speaker called the House to order. Sometimes it was a few minutes, sometimes it was a great while. Why is that? Well, I believe it's because the House rules dictate that the Speaker shall take the Chair on each calendar day precisely at the hour which the House adjourned or recessed at its last sitting and shall immediately call the members to order. Amazingly, the journal reports that we all come to order at the precisely the appointed time. We appear to be keeping the rules by stopping the clock. However, in order to appear to keep the rules we bear false witness and we break the ninth Commandment. Which is more important? I'm not only fed up with TSA and its humiliation of travelers, but I'm also fed up with phonies and especially politicians to seek to take credit for legislation that they at the same time are seeking to kill. Give you a second illustration. The most disappointing day of this session, or the regular session for me, was when I heard the ruling from the parliamentarian, and the person in the chair at the time -- concerning the Local and Consent Rule of the placement of items on the calendar, which involved expenditure of state funds; and there were several bills that grew government a number of FTE's, and spent plenty of state funds. It was such a disappoint to me because, as I said, at this time I believed that I thought I was in DC. I was seeing Washington here in Austin. You could, by the ruling that was given at the time, place the whole budget on the Local and Consent Calendar, because it has to be balanced. It takes in as much as it spends, and in the sense that this fiscal impact would be zero, as those bills indicated, even though they did expend funds. Closely aligned with this is a rhetoric about a conservative budget. Now I wholeheartedly support not raising taxes, and shrinking the size and scope of government. But let's tell the truth about the budget. Methinks we boast too much. Some are touting that we have not raised taxes and not used the Rainy Day Fund. But let's be honest about it, we are deferring four billion dollars into the next biennium. Is that conservative? Is using tax speedups conservative? On a normalized basis, if you discount the $12 billion of one time federal stimulus found and you added in these monies that we've used from the -- and the Rainy Day Funds to cover the shortfall in this biennium, I believe it brings the 187 to 175, and then you add back about 3.4. So about 178.5 billion or so. We passed the budget of a 172 billion, but we are planning on using the Rainy Day Fund when we come back. And we're not funding medicaid for the whole 24 months. We are making deferrals and we're using speedups. And if you actually just normalize the basis, and you take out the one time stimulus fund, actually we've increased the budget by $1.5 billion, approximately. And we have not kept up with the enrollment of our schools. We are funding our schools a little bit more, but not on a per capita basis. How can it be right to preserve approximately a half billion dollars of handouts to special interests, including commercials for Fortune 500 companies? We put them before our children, before our students, before the workforce. When I supported the abolishment of the emerging technology fund I was scolded and told that if we wanted to come back that I'd better -- in a sense, these are not his words, but this is what the -- leader of our state said, in a sense, we've got to keep taking pork back to the district. But the majority in my district don't want more pork, more handouts for special interests. They want a level playing field. They want us to enforce the rules, punish the wrongdoer and to get out of the way. They want us to protect individuals' freedom and responsibility. And that is why I am here. As long as there is tyranny, we must ever seek to oppose it. First in our ourselves and then in state government and finally in the federal government. Let's tell the truth about the budget, about the bills on the local and consent calendar, about the funding of commercials instead of our teachers and students. Laws should be difficult to pass. I am not dismayed that the failure of my bills to stop the groping of innocent travelers, and seeking people seeking access to public buildings, I'm grateful to have gotten to know many of you, as I've knelt beside your desk to talk to you about the need for protecting the dignity of these individuals as they travel. I think most of you are thoroughly convinced that this tyranny needs to stop. Let me pause here to say you know my heart on this matter. Tyranny is not a political or partisan issue. It is unfortunate that this legislation has been used as political fodder by anybody to redact the President Obama administration. The TSA and its policies were initiated the by the Bush administration. And without restraints they continue to grow, and they're -- and so the present administration continues in a similar fashion. It is time that we stand up for individual rights, not just state rights. Now, I'd like to talk about a story simple enough for children to understand, and this is a story of the emperor's new clothes. Our emperors in Texas still have clothes. However, because I think they may be going through a body scan. Politics have a lot in common with fairytales. In both arenas you have to suspend rational faculties in order to comprehend what's going on. What is portrayed and what is actually happening are often very different. On Friday, after calling the Texas House of Representatives to order, declaring a quorum present and making a few brief announcements, the House was adjourned without an opportunity, the day before the House is scheduled business scheduling the legislation -- which was House Bill 41. Recently added by the Governor to the call for the special session that prohibits the intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation. This is the same legislation requested by the Lieutenant Governor the State republican executive committee, the state republican executive committee and a deluge of grassroots activists to be added to the call. A nearly identical bill, House Bill 1937, was passed unanimously through this House during the regular session. The bill has over a hundred co-authors, at least at my last count. It was passed out of the committee and placed again on the House calendar by the leadership team the speaker chose. What is the objection of some? They object to the words being used in legislation to describe our private parts of our bodies. Specifically, the legislation prohibits the touching of the anus, the sexual organ, the breasts or buttocks of the individual as a part of the screening search without probable cause. God made these parts and they are sacred and they are special. And they should not be touched except under special circumstances. There is a specific reason those words are in this legislation. They happen to be those sensitive and private parts of the traveler that the TSA agents are routinely groping, and sometimes in retaliation for simply opting out of a virtual naked body scan. The bill could prohibit the touching of your nose, you ear or kneecap. And those are the easier body parts to talk about in public. But it wouldn't solve the problem. I feel the emperors in our state, at least at times, are people who would rather talk about opposing federal tyranny and violation of our individual rights, rather than stop the despicable behavior. They'd rather not have to describe it, but they are content to let it go on. In the name of security, travelers are being required to submit to a virtual naked strip search of a scanner. Should one oppose the scanner based on modesty or health reasons, then the result is a humiliating, groping hand search which includes touching and sometimes hitting or hard pressing the most private parts of an individual's body, as Chairman Smitherman said to at Fox News in this very chamber. But will it stop here? The TSA claims in public records to have the authority to require a strip search as a condition of travel. And fulfillment of that belief, this week or last week, when it was first reported, a TSA agent force appeared 95 year-old woman with leukemia to remove her diaper and extensive and extremely intrusive search. Fifteen years ago would you have believed that allowing government agents to put your hands inside your underwear would be a condition of travel? If we do not stop now, what will our children will be required to endure? A delicate matter, yes. Certainly. But it is better to define what is indecent for government behavior -- what is indecent government behavior, and to prohibit it by legislation than to simply be discreet and allow official oppression of travelers to continue. Rarely, in the history of this legislature has, to my knowledge, the state leadership so masterfully worked against the will of its members and the people they represent. Leadership managed to arrange it so that every member could cast a vote in support of a bill which they ensured would not pass. No doubt this deception will confound many Texas, but the people of Texas should not be confused. The explanation is simple and clear. The defeat of this bill can be only laid at the feet of the leadership of this state. However, this is a victory speech. The people in support of this bill have succeeded in shining a light on those who collaborate with the growing tyranny of our federal government. I am grateful to my colleagues, my constituents, many grassroot supporters in this state from all over, and even the nation. Providence has used to bring this bill this far. The people now know that it's possible to fight back. In this sense there is a great victory, like at the Alamo. And in this sense we do celebrate today. May God help us to restore the Texas that Sam Houston fought for and governed. A Texas that will not submit to any tyranny, come from what source it may; not to the tyranny of an out of control republican or democrat federal bureaucracy such as the TSA, and not to the subtle or overt violations of the rules of morality and its own state government. We need a Texas that will lead by example. May God grant us another San Jacinto in our own hearts, in our families, in our state, in our nation. I move that these remarks, and those earlier in the debate, be placed in the journal.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Brown is recognized for a speech of personal privilege.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is real difficult. This is real difficult for me, because I love this chamber. I love the fact that we all come in here every session, we come in here every session to -- to stand up for our constituents in this very diverse state. And even though Mr. Simpson says that there's a lot of problems, it's still the best system in the world. And I've been proud to be a part of it. The last 12 and a half years I've been very fortunate to have the best chief of staff that I could have possibly had, and I've had the smartest legislative director that I think is out there. But as all of you know, when we come here we have to make great sacrifices. We sacrifice seeing our families, and we sacrifice financially. And the financial sacrifice can be great. And it's because of this that my former partner in the car business has offered me a position, and my wife and I have bought a home in Toled, we're moving back to Toledo, and I'll be working in Temple. And it's with a lot of sadness that tomorrow, that I'm going to retire from the Texas House. And I didn't want to do this until I had the chance to come and thank all of you for all -- for your friendship, for your kindness to me, for the respect that you've shown me, for the support that you've given me. And I just wanted you to know that I'll be forever grateful, because you've given me an education that I could get nowhere else, and I love you for it. And I'll be praying for you in the future. God bless you and God bless Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker two things first I'd like to move that the Representative Brown comments be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The other thing parliamentary inquiry Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It is my understanding that going under the heading of good deeds, and no good deed goes unpunished, I would ask the Chair to have the Clerk, who has just pointed out to me yesterday, actually, or Article 3, Section 37 of the Texas Constitution. And we you could read that to the members?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Just a moment.

THE CLERK: Section 37, in reference to committee and reports. No bill shall be considered unless it has been first been referred to a committee and reported thereon, and no bill shall be passed which has not been consented and referred to and reported from at committee at least three days before the final adjournment of the legislature.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So Mr. Simpson's bill, because the Senate sent it over so late, and because it only got referred to committee yesterday, because we didn't get it from the Senate in time; then just by referring it and hearing and it bringing it to the floor was a significant effort. Because, frankly, at any point in time a member could have objected under Article 3, Section 37, because it got referred to committee within three days of the end of the session, and the constitution provides that no bill shall be considered if it hadn't been referred and heard within three days of the session.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, I just -- I -- Especially in light of the demonstration from the gallery, Mr. Speaker, and the -- I wanted to make sure that the membership knew that because the Senate sent it over here so late, that just the referral and the hearing and the bringing it to the floor was a significant effort on the leaderships part.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That may be why they turned out the lights early.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheffield, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: I'd just like to clarify a couple of things with Representative Brown. First of all, I'd like to them welcome him to District (inaudible). I want to make sure that everybody understands that we didn't get paired up, right?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Not intentionally, Mr. Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: And the other thing is, if he moves to one of the best places in the State of Texas, District 55. Welcome, Representative Brown, to District 55.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Parliament ary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I wanted to kind of just go back to Chair Gallego's comments, and this bill was very important to my district. And I want to ask another question that seemed very fluid. Yesterday we had HB 41 on the floor for third reading, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: We could have passed that bill and it could have gone to the Senate?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And then they could have taken that bill up, am I correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yesterday, yes they could.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: When did they sine die?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yesterday afternoon. I'm not sure what time.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Was that the 29th day?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That was the 29th day.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Are there 30 days in a special session?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Today would be the 30th day.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So when we lay blame at the feet of people, and we are all elected -- I want to ask another parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Today Judge Lewis had a bill that Leo Berman had a very important amendment to. I think it dealt with Sharia law. Am I correct in saying that that amendment was stripped by the Senate and was not allowed in the bill? Is that what Judge Lewis said, Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That is correct, Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: May I continue to SB 1, which at one point had inserted in it sanctuary cities, which was a call, a part of the call -- Am I about to be shot in the back of the head? Good. Okay. My children would be happy that wasn't happening. I have a question about Senate Bill 1. That language was inserted, and was going to be -- and was agreed on, as I understand it, by the Speaker of the House, the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor of the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: When that bill came to this floor, it was not longer in the bill; am I correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Am I proper in saying that the Governor has done a press release saying that that was taken out because of Senate members?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He has.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So I think that I'm seeing something very systemic here. That -- I would just like to point out if we're going to start getting into a circular firing squad I think we ought to point our guns a little bit east here.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Ms. Kolkhorst. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR 6 by Hagar, HR 288 by Hughes, HR 292 by Branch, HR 295 by Weber, HR 287 by Hughes, HR 291 by Gallego, HR 293 by Workman, HR 294 by Huberty.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Morrison, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: I would like to ask that Representative Kolkhorst's comments be reported in the journal.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Legler, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I have a question on the Weber resolution. I just want to make sure he's not trying to extend time so his birthday, which is Saturday, you know, he's not going be in the House on his birthday. I want to just make sure of that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you. We'll check into that. Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Parliament ary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: In the Rules of the House it doesn't say a lot about the presiding officer but that the presiding officer makes decisions to make sure that this House works well. And I appreciate you, as the presiding officer, and your work here, to make sure that we have a place that people feel good about being on the floor and acting on behalf of the State of Texas. Is that in (inaudible) as a parliamentary inquiry?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I'll accept that. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, I -- thank you. Thank you. If I could just make some very brief comments before we adjourn sine die. I want to thank each of you for your very hard work, for what is now 170 days. It took a little longer than any one of us wanted, but we're finally closing two very successful and productive, although difficult, legislative sessions. I'm proud that the House took the lead in making the tough choices required to pass a balanced budget with no new taxes, while funding essential state services. We preserved funds to help balance what will also be a very difficult budget two years from now. We promoted our strong business climate, we promoted accountability and transparency in state government and in higher education, and passed major sunset legislation. We passed SBOE, congressional and legislative redistricting maps, which is something that's unheard of in recent legislative history. These are just a few of the major accomplishments of the House and, as a legislature, as a whole there are many, many others. The people of Texas can be proud that you did work in a responsible and a responsive way, representing the interests of those who sent us here. While we all are looking forward to a few weeks away from here, and a few weeks off, the end of this legislative session also marks the beginning of preparations for the next one. Soon we will focus on interim charges, and in the coming weeks I will be asking each you for your thoughts and suggestions on how we can have a productive interim, one that will allow us to hit the ground running when we convene for the 83rd Legislative Session in January of 2013. Members, I am honored to serve as your speaker, and please know that my door is open to each and every one of you, no matter what the future brings. Texans have been well served by legislators who spend cautiously while working for better days in the future, so I want to thank you again for working very hard this session and during the special session, and for debating difficult issues with passion and with stability. Thank you all very much. Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly -- this looks like close to my last stand here, and I just wanted the House to recognize that one among us, Rod Welch, was elected as the Master of University Lots just here lately. So life goes on around us, so we're going to be alright. And I'll be fine, out there running for Railroad Commissioner, and I'll probably be missing every one of you. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It is my belief that the honorable member before you completed the pass to the special session of 82nd Legislature. Would he recognize me for a motion sine die?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, we have to do six resolutions first, but don't move an inch.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll stay right here, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following resolutions.

THE CLERK: SCR 6, HR 288, HR 292, HR 295, HR 297, HR 993, HR 294.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego moves that those resolutions be passed, and House Resolution 291 have all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Now, Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I move to add all members' names to Mr. Aycock's motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock --

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I believe the people of Texas have been well served by this session, and I move sine die, pending the necessary administrative functions of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, Representative Huberty and Representative Aycock move that the House of the 82nd Legislature First Called Session stand adjourned, sine die, pending the receipt of messages from the Senate and performance of administrative duties, in memory of Evelyn Waters of Kingwood, Texas. The House stands adjourned.

(The House stands adjourned.)