SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: The Senate will come to order. A quorum is present. Senator Whitmire moves to excuse Senator Carona on matters of important business. Is there objection? Chair hears none, it's so ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 8. The secretary will please read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 8 relating to the flexibility of a board of trustees of a school district and the management and operation of public schools in the district.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: The Chair lays out -- I am sorry, Senator Shapiro is recognized to explain the bill.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'd like to lay out Senate Bill 8. This is formally known as Senate Bill 3, and it was known as Senate Bill 12. Today it's Senate Bill 8. Though this bill has gone through many iterations, it's a basic flexibility and mandate release that we have spoken about for months. Senate Bill 8 does the following. It removes the last-in/first-out provision that's used when terminating continuing contracts, it voids a contract for a teacher who fails to maintain his or her certification with a ten date grace period to ensure --

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Excuse me, Senator Shapiro. Members and staff, this is a very important piece of legislation and would you please give Senator Shapiro your attention. Thank you.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you. It gives -- it voids the contract for a teacher who fails to maintain his or her certification, but it has a ten-day grace period to ensure that it is through no fault of their own. It eliminates the mandate requiring fitness grams at all levels and only requires them when a student is enrolled in PE. It moves notice of nonrenewal from 45 days before the last day of instruction to 10 days before the last day of instruction. It removes the '10-'11 salary floor otherwise known as 24.402D. And as long as total efficiency entitlement remains below '10-'11 levels, Senate Bill 8 will allow school districts all contract personnel for up to or lower salaries but not -- furloughs but not instructional days or to lower salaries. I move passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 8.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Van de Putte.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Will Senator Shapiro just yield for a question.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator yields.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. Senator, there was much discussion that we had about the necessity for school districts to have flexibility given that we've cut 4 billion out of the system, the budget's already passed, and -- can you tell us though the types of flexibility that are going to be utilized in the bill. When is the first year they can actually use it?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Well, obviously right now we're pretty late in the game. Their contracts have already gone out, pink slips have already gone out, the school year begins September 1st but I believe their contracts and their budget begins -- they're doing their budget in the month of July, so furloughs or a decrease in salary could only take place two years from -- one year from now. In other words, if there's a contract that someone has and it's a '10-'11 contract, it would come up -- if this bill passes, it could come up ten days prior to the end of school. And at that point in time a decision can be made. But you can do furloughs or a decrease in salary throughout the system, throughout year. There will be lynch pin points when that might happen. Certainly when their budget is completed in the month of July, certainly when school starts and those kinds of things.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Senator, we talked about in committee and on the floor that we understand the tough financial times and that we hope that we've seen the worst in the rearview mirror, but there is concern about property taxes and -- not property taxes but actually the valuation.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Right.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: And that the comptroller had given us some promising news. At the beginning she had estimated very conservatively and then redone her estimate giving us another 500 million, I believe.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: That's correct.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Would school districts be able to use the parts of your bill implement if they have found that property values instead of recovering have plummeted?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: So they would know that at what time frame?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Well, of course all that depends on the budget cycle, depends on the July budget that they have, depends on when the state says that we got the money to pay you the money. I mean, it all comes through a system. If they use furloughs, if they use reduction in salaries. And I have an amendment that's going to be offered because we had a group that worked on this for quite a long time and I happen to agree that the teachers along with the staffs ought to have development process for how this is going to take place and public testimony and community involvement. I am hopeful that this amendment will answer some of those questions.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: I know that we talked about this in committee. My second question is we hope, and it is the hope of all members I think in this body, that we recover as quickly as possible and especially when we were discussing at the time not too far long ago Senate Bill 22, Senator Deuell had an amendment that would have gotten rid of target revenue and brought us back up really within a four year span. So, I hope that future legislatures will get us back up to the level and restore the $4 billion cut that we are taking now. But your bill does not have any sunset provisions, so do you anticipate this being part of the new norm, this new part of the tool kit to always stay even though we just need it really for this two years?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: I do not believe that. In fact, one of the things the bill says is as long as the money is below the '10-'11 cost, then they can utilize some of these tools. But it's my feeling that we're just giving them tools. We're not saying, you must do this. I happened to see in the Austin News not long ago that they've decided they're going to sell some of their buildings. They may not have to do this. They may not have to use furloughs, they may not have to use decreases in salaries. Under current law today they can do nothing but fire teachers. That's it. And they can sell buildings. But as far as their personnel, and we know that's 85 percent of their costs. So I think what we're giving them here is a tool to say, when and if you're below the '10-'11 number, which is where we are right now, you can use these tools. After we have come back out of this and the '10-'11 number is now at least adhered to, if not greater, then these tools are no longer available to you.

SENATOR LETICIA VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. I know there was great discussion about how long could this go on, and you heard my discussion and my fear the same sort of thing I had heartache with us in the 2003 session, not be able to fund higher education and us giving the tool of deregulation to be able to mitigate that. And my fear was that these tools, although much needed in this time frame, would always have the effect to mitigate and therefore lessen the pressure off the legislature to go back and really fully fund our schools and that was my heartache. But thank you. I appreciate the discussion, and I thank you for what I believe is the amendment. I don't have any other questions. Thank you.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Duncan, for what purpose?

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: To question the author of the bill.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Senator --

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Duncan, if you will, we need to lay this out, lay out this amendment. Following amendment, secretary --

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: I yield to the president.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Thank you. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Shapiro.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Shapiro, do you want to explain the amendment?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Sure. I'll be glad to. As many of you know, there were four of us Senator West, Senator Davis, Senator Duncan and myself who worked for seven weeks to try to come up with a reasonable and -- I thought it was agreed to, but we never got there, proposal on this flexibility. And we never really got there. But one area of expertise that we thought -- I thought we all kind of came around was the idea of the furloughs and the decrease in salaries and that we would actually have community input, a process to bring the community and to bring the teachers and schools together. This actually adds -- this amendment actually adds community input process in the public forum whereby teachers and district staff will develop the furlough plans and /or possible reduction in salary. It also ensures that furloughs will apply equally to all personnel and does not disproportionately impact the teachers alone. I think that this was one of those that I felt very comfortable with, I think the input in the community and everyone around in this manner would be very helpful. So that's what this amendment does, and I would move adoption of floor amendment No. 1.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Shapiro, do you yield to Senator Duncan?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: I do.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Duncan.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Thank you, Senator. And I just want to reiterate and discuss the genesis of this legislation because I thought this body with your leadership and I think the help of others expressed a concern at the beginning of the session, especially with the introduced versions of the bill and the concerns that there were to be significant layoffs in our teacher work force as a result of funding reductions. I think forcefully the funding reductions that have occurred as a result of Senate Bill 1 in the first session and implementation of Senate Bill 1 in this session, I think those concerns have been delayed somewhat and we are actually cutting mostly target revenue. And the decreases in the budget are actually not as significant as many thought they would be earlier but when this legislation came up, four of us sat in a room for seven weeks with the teacher -- all four of the teacher organizations and all of the school administrators listening to what they were suggesting as ways to try to avoid reduction in force in our classroom. Is that how this thing begins?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: That's exactly -- that was the genesis it and I think we were taking all of their issues to heart and I think the end product of this is a result.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: At the end of the day what we came up with was what I thought we heard as a consensus, I guess sometimes the devil is in the details, but at least the issues that you have addressed here are tools in the event of shortages or shortfalls or reductions in funding that allow school districts to be able to maintain their workforce and not have massive layoffs, correct?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: That's absolutely correct. That was our goal from the beginning.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: So the purpose of this legislation is then to implement that goal for what I thought we heard in this seven weeks of discussions regarding the ability to protect the classroom workforce, correct?

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Correct.

SENATOR ROBERT DUNCAN: Very good. Well, thank you for your work on this.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question before us is the adoption of floor amendment No. 1 by Senator Shapiro. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and floor amendment No. 1 is adopted. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 2 by Senator Davis, Senator Ellis, Senator Lucio, and Senator Watson. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 2 by Davis, et al.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain floor amendment No. 2.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I know there are others who would have liked to have signed this amendment, I just didn't have time to get it around the floor before we turned it in. Essentially this amendment puts an absolute sunset date on the furlough and salary reduction provisions in SB8. It would provide that those would end in August of 2013. Of course, these tools that we have all worked together on before Senator Shapiro mentioned earlier would hopefully allow our school districts to get through a temporary problem with a temporary solution. What the amendment seeks to do is to have the issue revisited by the legislature in the 2013 session and, of course, that legislature could make a decision to continue to allow school districts to use these tools if they believe that the economic situation still mandates that those relief opportunities would be available to school districts. In several of the committee hearings school districts came to regarding the furloughs and the salary reductions, the district stressed that they need the tools as a temporary last resort measure for the huge budget cuts that they're now facing and although teachers have expressed they would rather have furloughs and salary reduction instead of regular teachers fired, they don't want to see the measures as permanent. This amendment would simply guarantee that we're offering a temporary tool for a temporary problem rather than a permanent one. I understand that Senator Shapiro's bill includes a provision that it would end when the funding levels come back up to '10-'11. My concern is with the $4 billion reduction, it may be many, many, many years before we get back to a '10-'11 funding level and that essentially the furlough and the salary reduction tool would really be almost permanently installed because it would be so challenging to get back to that '10-'11 level. And with that I would respectfully ask adoption of floor amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro on floor amendment 2.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, the issue here is not when -- is not how but when. There is nothing in this bill that's been drafted that says it has to be forever. It is very clear on page two line 19 that the district -- what we will do at some point is the district will be provided with if and when you get more than the '10-'11 the district is provided, then there's no longer the furlough and there's no longer the decrease in salary. If we take this away now and not realizing what those numbers might be in two years, we might be right back in the same place that we are. I do believe that we have identified the problem, we do know that this is not permanent. And having listened to the teacher groups and listened to the schools, TASBY and TASPA, who are going to have to actually fund these schools and make all this a reality, they would prefer that we not limit it to two years. But give the next legislature the opportunity to see it and certainly if we get back to the '10-'11 funding cycle quicker, they'd like to do it as quickly as possible. This is not something they want to do, this is something they believe they need as a tool. And I happen to believe that what we need to do is give our school districts as much flexibility as we can during difficult times. So with that I will move to table floor amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Shapiro moves to table floor amendment No. 2. The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. In closing on my request that the members support this amendment, I would add a couple of things. No. 1, the amendment only provides that the legislature essentially would be forced to revisit this issue when we come back into the next legislative session. It doesn't mean that the legislature couldn't decide to continue to use this tool if the budgetary circumstances warrant its continued use, it also puts a more real deadline on the legislature to revisit this rather than the hope that we'll get back up to 2010-'11 funding levels. I think we all recognize that by changing the school formula funding plan and removing permanently $4 billion from the state level of support for public education, the likelihood of getting back to a '10-'11 funding level is very, very unrealistic. And, therefore, the repeal of this tool is going to be a long time in coming. And, of course, this amendment simply asks that it be given a more legitimate look in the next legislative session before we determine that it should be continued. And with that, I would respectfully ask that members vote no on the motion to table floor amendment No. 2.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 17 ayes and 13 nays, the motion to table is sustained. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 3 by Senator Wentworth. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 3 by Wentworth.

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

SENATOR JEFF WENTWORTH: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This amendment is really pretty simple. It's the committee substitute for Senate Bill 1113 that passed the senate on May 6th relating to certain contracts to provide food services at one or more schools. School districts often operate their own kitchens and cafeterias. However, a growing number choose to outsource them to food service, management companies. This amendment simply ensures that food services management companies use the same public bid process for food purchases at school districts that choose to keep this function in house. Thereby helping to maintain the high standard of food quality in our schools. I move adoption of floor amendment No. 3.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Wentworth. Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro on floor amendment No. 3.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I know there are many of you on this floor that would like to take a ride on this bill. We have done this before and it was stripped off on the House side. And so with all due respect Senator Wentworth, I appreciate the thought but I am going to have to ask to table floor amendment No. 3 as well.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Shapiro moves to table floor amendment No. 3. Chair recognizes Senator Wentworth to close.

SENATOR JEFF WENTWORTH: Mr. President, I just suggest that there's only one more floor amendment it's one that you're also going to oppose --

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: There's more.

SENATOR JEFF WENTWORTH: There's one more, as I say, so it would be an expression of compassion on your part to accept one floor amendment that has already overwhelmingly passed this Senate floor that ensures publicly bid food service contracts. So I urge a no vote on the motion to table.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the question is on the motion to table by Senator Shapiro, opposed by -- out of compassion by Senator Wentworth. We'll see. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 17 ayes and 13 nays, the motion to table is sustained. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 4 by Senator Gallegos. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 4 by Gallegos.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to explain floor amendment 4.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Members, this amendment is similar to the committee substitute for Senate Bill 208 which passed out of this chamber during the regular session. And the amendment really adds permissive language that allows the school district to hold one or more public forums on a superintendent finalist. This is after the finalist had already been picked. And during these forums, the committee will have an opportunity to ask questions of the finalist or finalists. And strictly a permissive bill. And I know I worked with Madam Chair, I worked with you on this language and others and the partnership has signed on to the bill. It's really transparency here. Strictly permissive language, they don't have to do it if they don't want. It's really one of several bills I filed for transparency under the school district. The school districts have been scuddling on public information. I tried to file that bill and I did file it, it failed. And Open Meetings Act I also filed that bill and it failed. Strictly for transparency not only us but for the public. This is strictly -- if the school board allows it, permissive only. It passed out of here, it got caught up in the House, we never had a hearing on it. I use -- members, I ask you to adopt strictly ask permissive language only, and I move adoption.

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

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And, Senator Gallegos, with all due respect and you did work hard on this, and I'm sorry that it didn't pass on the other side, I do think that your proposal from where you started to where you finished is exceptional work and I appreciate it. But again there's several members that asked if they could put bills on Senate Bill 8 and I have said no. So with all due respect, I am going to have to ask that we table this amendment. I move to table amendment No. 4.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to close.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. President. Members, all I ask is for transparency here especially from our school districts. As all people out there want, they want transparency and they want the opportunity to at least ask some questions. If allowed, like I said, it's only -- it's permissive, it's not that they shall do it; it's that they can do it only if the board allows them to. Strictly permissive, strictly for transparency members. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 18 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table is sustained. The Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for a motion.

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 8 as amended.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the issue before us is the passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 8. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 18 ayes and 12 nays, Senate Bill 8 passes to engrossment. The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger for a motion to suspend Senate Bill 304 to take up and consider --

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend Senate rule 3.04 preventing posters, placard, banners and signs so a copy of plan C136 may be displayed on the Senate floor during the debate on the committee substitute to Senate bill 4. If you will recall this rule was suspended during debate on the state Senate map and I think approved by the members to have it on the floor.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Seliger. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and the motion is adopted. Senate rule 304 is suspended. Members, the Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 4. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee substitute to Senate Bill 4 relating to the composition of congressional districts to the state of Texas.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Seliger to explain the bill.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Thank you very much, Mr. President. The map that was passed out of committee on Friday had a map called C130. Once the amendments were rolled in, that map became C136 which I believe everyone has at their desk now. It is on the map in front of us. As we discussed on Friday, this process continues to be driven about the fairness of the process and the legality in an area and a topic that has been very much discussed in courts and court cases and decisions for a long time. Our task did not come without challenges. Adding four congressional seats is easier and it's better for a state than losing congressional seats. So from that perspective, takes a situation that's better for some other states, I would argue all other states. Placing four new districts, however, is not so easy. Every region would have preferred one of the state's new congressional districts but not all regions had the population to justify that. At the end of the day redistricting is about the voters and compliance with law. At the end of the day, all that we're talking about is who among 36 people is going to represent 25 million Texans. This map impacts every voter. The map does not satisfy all members of congress, nor does it satisfy every Senate or House member. I am particularly proud of how this map accommodates the population throughout the state and respects the intricacies of the Voting Rights Act. In terms of relevant data the 2010 population of the state of Texas is 25,145,561 people. Each district consists of 698,488 Texans, and the law requires the deviation of those districts to be just about zero, nothing. Whereas in the Senate map it could be about 40,000 higher or lower than the ideal numbers. In congressional maps it's just about zero. There are four new districts -- four new congressional districts and the placement fell where the population growth is more significant. In district No. 33 which is in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, there's a new Arlington based district that including all of Parker County and a portion of Wise County that balances the map. District No. 34 is in the Rio Grande Valley, it is Latino opportunity district. It's combined from Cameron and Hidalgo counties. District 35 is in central Texas, it is a new Latino opportunity district based in San Antonio traveling north to Travis County. The concept for this district interestingly came to us from (inaudible) plan C122. District 36, it starts in Harris County and goes up through southeast Texas. I move passage to engrossment.

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

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Are you feeling better?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: I'm feeling pretty good, but I still have that little cough. Thank you for asking.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Seliger yield?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I will.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Senator Seliger, you said there's been certain amendments to this map that was voted out of committee?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, sir.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: What amendments were made to the map?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Let me find the committee amendments.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: The most significant difference is in congressional district No. 36 in the Houston southeast district. This was an amendment made when the map changed from 125 to 130. There was I believe one technical correction made in the area of Harris County, Williamson County, around the Woodlands to put that area back together.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Now, are these amendments your amendments or someone else's amendments?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think that amendment was offered by Senator Williams.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: How many amendments were offered, do you recall?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I do not raw.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. Do you recall whether any Democrats offered any amendments?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Senator Gallegos had two demonstration maps and an amendment that was a new statewide map.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: And for purposes of the record, Senator Gallegos is Mexican American, is he not?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, he is.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Did -- was his -- any of his amendments accepted?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: His statewide was an entirely new map which was essentially (inaudible) map and was not acceptable. It was voted down.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: You don't recall how many amendments were accepted but do you recall whether you accepted any Democrat's amendments to this map?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think not, I think the other amendment was Senator Uresti's amendment that had to do with the Dallas/Fort Worth area and it was not accepted.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Do you recall whether all Republican amendments were accepted?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: The only one I recall was Senator Williams, and it was accepted.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: So you do not recall whether you rejected any Republican members' amendments?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Not those formally offered. There were a lot of ideas brought to me both by Republicans and Democrats during the process and I feel certain a good number of those were not but in terms of amendments to the bill, no others.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Good transition. Let's talk about information going into creation of this particular map. Did any Democrats have any input into development of the map that was passed out of committee?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Absolutely.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. When you say that they had input, can you describe exactly what type of members, specifically Democrats, had?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Various ideas and preferences that they wanted to see in various parts of this state.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Would it surprise you that most ethnic minority members would say they didn't have input or see this map until you laid it out? Would that surprise you?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No, it would not.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: That would not surprise you?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: All right. Would it surprise you to say that members of this body that are of ethnic minority would say they never had input into this particular map, would that surprise you?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Did members of ethnic minority say they had no input into --

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: The creation of this map that was passed out of committee? I think it was plan 130.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: It was 130. Because I had discussions with members who chose to offer ideas and preferences, I think that would be a mild surprise, yes.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: What I'm going to do is ask the members of the ethnic minority Senators that if they had input into the process, I want to make certain they firmly state they had input into the process on this floor. Absent that I am just going to assume, and I hope anyone that reviews this record would assume they did not have input into the process.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Okay.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Secondly, you call this the fair map?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, sir, I do.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. Let's talk about fairness. When we begin to look at population growth in Texas, where did most of that growth come from? Which ethnic groups did most of that come from?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Most of it was Hispanic.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. And you indicate that in Texas we have 36 congressional seats?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: And under your now new plan C136, how many districts will be districts that ethnic minorities can elect a candidate of their choice out of?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: There would be eight will be determined by Spanish surname voter registration, Spanish -- and three African American.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Under the present plan, how many seats can Hispanic Americans elect the candidate of their choice?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think African American is still three, and I believe Hispanic opportunities are still seven.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: So you're saying under the current map it's about ten seats that ethnic minority can elect the candidate of their choice.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I believe that's correct.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. Let's talk about Tarrant County for a second.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Okay.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: I know I'm in Dallas County. And sometimes there's a divide between Dallas and Tarrant and I understand that. But as it relates to the ethnic minority, specifically the African American population in Fort Worth, let me be more specific. southeast Fort Worth, what congressional district are they in under your plan?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Southeast Fort Worth would be in the -- depending upon where you start the eastern segment of that, congressional district six and 12.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Six and 12?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Unless you want to call that part coming down from 26 and southeast, I think it possible could be.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: When you began to look at the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex there's, what, over 2 million ethnic minorities that live in that area? Hispanics and African Americans or do you know?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I've heard that figure, and let's say it's correct.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. And again, folks in Tarrant County, did you even give thought of trying to develop a district where an ethnic minority could win in Tarrant County?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, sir. We did assess that.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Did you develop a congressional seat where an ethnic minority could win?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: There is not one in C136.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: May I ask you why?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes. Because we felt that there was not a majority minority district and we could not produce a performing district there. We tried. Once again, that was a suggestion too that was very carefully analyzed.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: You said that you tried. What did you do in order to try to develop a district that could do that?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Assess the population and where their location was and tried to see if we could produce a map that under section two would be required in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Did you give any thought of trying to combine the populations of Dallas and Tarrant County to try to come up with an effective minority district?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: We did look at that.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: And what was the result?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: We could not construct a district that met the requirements that would produce such a district.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. In terms of what, the numbers or what?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: More I think the contiguity. It was interesting as you listen to the remarks --

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: I am sorry, you said what?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: The contiguity, the contiguous of the parts of the district. It was interesting, one of the criticisms that Nia Perales had of our map and hers is a particularly pertinent opinion because of her experience in Voter Rights Act cases and one of the criticisms she had was oddly and bizarrely shaped districts. Now, in the MALDAF map, there was such a map that by any measure was a very, very oddly shaped map that had tentacles to reach out and capture certain populations and it was our estimation that that sort of design would not be required by the Voter Rights Act, so odd was the shape.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Thank you very much again. That's a great transition into the next question. Do you perceive in Tarrant County initially, do we have any oddly shaped congressional districts in plan 136?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think that there are some districts all over the map that could be considered oddly shaped.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: But there was no effort to come up with an oddly shaped district that where an ethnic minority would have an opportunity of electing a candidate of its choice?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I don't think I saw one that's as oddly shaped that it had tentacles reaching out, no.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: So you'd agree with me that -- I am looking at plan C136 in Tarrant County that proposed congressional district 12 is oddly shaped, would you not?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I don't know that it's -- I would describe it necessarily as oddly shaped but still doesn't have the multiple tentacles reaching out in different directions.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Well, let's see. We say multiple tentacles, how many tentacles would be multiple? Two, three, four?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I don't have that map in front of me, I can't tell you.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: So two is not oddly shaped if you have two tentacles?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: It depends on how they looked and what the confirmation was.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: In summary, you're saying -- for purposes of the record you're saying that ethnic minority senators had an opportunity to have input in this particular process and they did and you attempted to draw a congressional seat in Tarrant County based in Tarrant County -- correct me if I'm wrong about this, you attempted to do so but any attempt to do so would have created an oddly shaped district; is that correct?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think so. I think one that is a sort of thing that gets additional scrutiny from the courts and it wasn't just a Tarrant County district, it was a district that spanned Dallas and Tarrant County. Not completely similar to the one in the MALDAF map.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Let me ask this. Congressional district 30 -- and I think you and I had initial discussion about this. You end up putting more African Americans and Hispanics in that district and taking more Anglos out than are currently in the district?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think that was your assertion, and that may have been the case.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay. Let me ask this then. Under the current map that's in effect, the occupant, the candidate in that elected office is Eddie Bernice Johnson, let's just take that as a given. She has been successful at putting together a coalition of African Americans, Hispanics and Anglos over the past 18 years and they have effectively chosen her as their representative. The number -- the percentage of African Americans, Hispanics and Anglos has not been as high as you're currently proposing. Given the fact that she has historically won those races, the several races she has been involved in with a specific amount of African Americans, Hispanics and Anglos, why would you see a need to increase the number of African Americans and/or Hispanics and reduce the number of Anglos in her district?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Is the question why were the number of African Americans increased or the number of Anglos decreased?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: It's basically both. Because it seems as though her district now is just predominantly African Americans and Hispanics and she is no longer being allowed, if this becomes law, to represent Anglos in a specific portion in her district. Surely that's not our intent.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No, it's not at all and if there is -- if in moving Anglos out, the analysis would be if and in so doing does it create packing in that district, which is against the law and it is our estimation that it does not create packing, and therefore it's acceptable under the law to simply move some Anglo voters out. At the same time if African American voters were moved in there that create a packing situation where those Anglo Americans could not contribute to the composition of a new African American opportunity district and we believe that's not the case either.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: How do you define "packing"?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: This is the layman's term for packing, by putting so many members of a protected group into a district that you could not create a district in an adjoining area with those voters in it.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Let me just say to you that in Congresswoman Johnson's district you decreased the number of Anglos in that district I think about 5 percent, somewhere -- I may be wrong in that number. But you did decrease it by a significant number and you decreased the number of African Americans in that district. And what I'm saying to you, and hopefully you will take a look at it and reconsider it, that historically Congresswoman Johnson has been able to get elected and reelected by a smaller percentage of the individuals that you have placed in the district. Smaller percentage of African Americans that you have placed in the district and also Hispanics, and she has been able to put a coalition of African Americans, Hispanics and Anglos in order to win election after election. And in your map, and I haven't looked at 136, the numbers, at least in 130 you reduce the number of Anglos and increase the number of ethnic minorities that would be in her district. And for some -- I don't understand the rationale behind that and I certainly just assume the rationale is because we're just going through redistricting.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Well, you can assume what you will but the truth is just because a person has been winning an election historically --

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Yes, sir.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: -- and a population has increased that ensures that they continue to win it in the future and it doesn't violate the law, then it becomes -- I think maybe not a relevant point when it comes to consideration of the law in that case. And then what I can't see just off the top of my head in the adjoining districts, what the motivation was in terms of Anglo voters there in districts 32, five, and 24.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Well, those are just a few questions that I have of you, sir. Appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask you those questions and we'll see what happens. Thank you.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Thank you, Senator.

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

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: To ask the author a couple of questions.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Seliger yield?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I will.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Senator Seliger, I was looking at the map and as you well know one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Texas is the south Texas, Rio Grande Valley. And I thought at one time from different drawings that I saw that we would end up gaining an actual congressional seat in the Valley. But from what I see we're still at the same place even though we grew by 28 percent in the last ten years. In addition to that, it seems that Hidalgo County, my county where I reside, was divided in three ways and what happened is while we stated that we added a new congressional district down in south Texas, in reality district 34, congressional district 34 is not new, that is the old congressional 27 district. What happened it was just a change in the numbers, switched numbers around but the area is pretty much the same and even made it worse in terms of the way Hidalgo County has been divided and not having a committee of interest along the lines are somewhat jagged. We gave some of the territory, west part of Hidalgo County up to congressional district No. 28 which is Congressman Henry Quayle. And congressman Hinojosa, no. 15, states pretty much going up north like a spaghetti. And then we have president district 34, which is all 27. So we really have more than going backwards instead of going forwards in trying to have three congressional districts where the deciding vote, if you may, would be down in the Rio Grande Valley. I mean, how do you explain those changes? I know that when you made your initial statement presentation you were talking about south Texas or the Valley gaining an additional congressional district but I don't see it.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I think as we discussed in committee that it's -- however you choose to construe the map is perfectly okay and acceptable. District 27 which -- I think district 27 which used to go all the way down to the very tip of Texas had Nueces County in it has been moved up and still has Nueces County and that 34 is substantially different than the old 27 so we call it a new county. So whether one chooses to call district 34 a new district or district a new district is a matter of interpretation and I accept any interpretation.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, would you agree the territory in new congressional district 34 is what is the old territory for congressional district 27? I mean, it's the same territory pretty much except for leaving Nueces County out and running it up north but territory is the same. The only changes that have been made have been the numbers.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: A lot of it is the same but when you start changing those counties from

(inaudible), Gonzales and Karnes, I think it's substantially different. Once again, if it is one's preference to call that an old district that's been reconfigured into the new district simply in the eye of beholder and I accept that view.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: Well, I respectfully disagree. I live down in south Texas in Rio Grande Valley and I can tell you we are going backwards instead of forward in the way the congressional district has been drawn and congressional district 34 is not new. The territory that it occupies used to be congressional district No. 27. Except for Corpus.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Okay. Thank you.

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

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: To ask some questions, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Seliger yield?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I will.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Senator, first of all, I guess I have to take up Senator West's remarks about your checking with some of us on this plan and I for one have to say that I was never consulted on this congressional redistricting plan; isn't that correct?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: You were not consulted, you chose not to come by my office which is always open to you. If you choose not to be consulted or consult, Senator, that is entirely up to you.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I was not consulted, so I wanted to point that out.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: You didn't ask to be.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I never actually recall getting an invitation to our office on the congressional redistricting. I remember you asking me like two days before revealing the Senate redistricting plan to come by your office to go over the Senate redistricting plan, but I was never told that I had the opportunity to visit with you on the congressional; is that not right?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: But you knew we were doing the congressional redistricting.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I was like everybody else, frankly under the impression that somebody's working on these things but nobody seems to have any information as to when, where, how or anything until the plans are actually revealed. So that's at least my experience with it. I just have a couple of observations I want to make about congressional district 16 which is El Paso's, that's Congressman Reyes and then Congressman Conseco from Bexar County, San Antonio. And what I observe here and I think the members can see that very plainly here in far West Texas is that this map splits two community -- at least two communities of lower -- what we call the lower rally of El Paso in that Congressman Reyes' district that be pulled up further north and then Conseco's district extended splitting the lower rally between Congressman Reyes and Congressman Conseco and the example that I'll give to you is that Fabans, for example, a farming community remains in the congressional district of Congressman Reyes, that's district 16, but Torrio, which is a community adjacent to Fabans is now in the Conseco district 23. Now, those two communities, I can tell you from experience having run for five different terms as county attorney and campaigning in all of El Paso County are communities of interest. Fabans and Torrio, they're farming communities, the same families live in both communities. In fact, when you campaigned door to door the people from Fabans take you to Torrio, the people from Torrio take you to Fabans, and so I think it's illustrative of what happened here with these two congressional districts in terms of splitting in my view the communities of interest for those lower valley residents. But it doesn't stop there. It also goes across the Franklin mountains, the Conseco congressional district 23 -- actually it encircles Congressman Reyes' district 16 from the lower Valley and then goes up around on the northeast of El Paso and then across the Franklin mountains which are the southern most portion of the Rocky Mountains in the United States and goes into the far west side precinct or (inaudible), I should say, west side precincts in order to achieve, I suspect, the protection of Congressman Consecos' seat because all of those areas in the northeast and into those west side precincts over the Franklin mountains are precincts that are heavily Republican Anglo precincts. So don't you think that that particular configuration between congressional district 23 and congressional district 16, in fact, reflects a potential violation of the federal Voting Rights Act and that it definitely splits communities of interest?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No, sir.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: You do not?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Did your lawyers tell you that was not a problem?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: The lawyers felt like what they had was defensible, and so we went with that.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I --

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: There's no guarantees.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think in West Texas there's an example and others I know in Austin and other parts of the state, but I think here in far West Texas I think we have a classic example of dividing communities of interest in order to achieve a very partisan purpose. And unfortunately I think the people of Torrio who has the historical affinity with the folks in Fabans and the rest of the folks in the lower valley are all of a sudden now being represented from someone out of San Antonio instead of their community. And I think that's a bad reflection on the drawing of this map. So I'm not going to be able to support this, I wanted to tell you that with all due respect. I appreciate you answering my questions, Senator.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: As shocked as I am, I appreciate your intention, and thank you.

SENATOR JOSE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

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

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. President. To ask questions of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Seliger yield?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I will.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Seliger, at last Friday's hearings, we heard from the three attorneys whom I believe you hired for the redistricting committee and they stated at the time that they had just received the plan when it was released to the public; is that correct?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Plan 130. Yes, ma'am.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Plan 130. And they also stated under requesting that they had not advised you or the staff or the committee that they considered plan 130 in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I'm sorry, I don't recall exactly what they said or the contacts.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Well, they did that, that was under my questioning, I asked them if they had advised you or the committee or the staff, if I recall correctly, whether the plan was in compliance and they said that they had not had the opportunity to review the plan because they had seen it only when it was released to the public. You do not recall that?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No, ma'am. But I respect your recollection.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Have they advised you since then that plan 130 or plan 136 is in compliance?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: What was in 136 is a technical correction and lawyers both in this body and in the House have reviewed that and they didn't change any of the Voting Right Act parameters in terms of packing and cracking and treatment of Spanish surname registration voters.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But my question is did those three attorneys who testified before the committee --

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I said no.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: -- they have not advised you that it's in compliance with the Voting Rights Act?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I have not heard from them on C130 or 136 at this point.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: So how can you proceed and ask the members of this body to vote for this plan whom the own attorneys that you hired have advised you that this plan is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Because it has been looked at by other attorneys involved in the process and I'm satisfied that it meets the requirements of law. There's no requirement to have a specific approval of any given attorney or attorneys. Clearly going this point forward, those attorneys will review all of this and they'll see it all.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But these are the attorneys whom you hired to advise the committee and the staff.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, ma'am. But 130 was a more recent iteration of that map.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But if you hired these specific attorneys, why would you not ask their advice?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Like I said, C130 was quickly done based upon input in the House. They only took a day or two ahead of the time when C130 was laid out as committee substitute.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Well, was it a waste of our taxpayers' money then if we hired these attorneys and didn't ask for their advice but listened to others?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I do not think it was a waste of taxpayers' money to utilize these attorneys.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Who were the other attorneys you had listened to? You said other attorneys have reviewed the plans?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Certainly there has been a review made and certain part of it have been looked at by the attorney general's office, our committee director is an attorney, the speaker's counsel has looked at it as well as the committee director for the House of Representatives who is also an attorney.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And the committee director is the same person who drew the plan?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, he is.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: So the same person who drew the plan is advising you that his work is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: To the degree that he has reviewed it because as he drew the lines he found a lot of instances where they were not correct and changed them. It was an invaluable service.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And again I ask you, were any -- as far the Senate goes, I don't know about the House, as far as the Senate goes, were any minority members involved in developing this particular plan 30 or 136 or 125 for that matter?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Minority members of the Senate?

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Yes.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Not that I recall. I might have discussed parts of it with individual members but not that I recall.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Well, as I mentioned at the redistricting hearing, Senator, I have served on every redistricting committee since 1987 when I first came to the Texas Senate and basically the practice was that the redistricting committee Chair brought people together, brought senators together, didn't wait for senators to go to his office, and I say "his" because they were all men, but didn't simply wait to be approached but actually brought us together and invited us to participate in drawing lines and drawing maps and working out the differences in congressional districts and Senate districts, not the House districts. Did you at any time call upon any members of this Senate to participate in developing any of these plans?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I talked with a number of the members, yes, ma'am.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But did you --

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Mostly the ones you chose who said, I want to talk about redistricting.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Did you as Chair of the committee approach any senators and ask them to participate in developing this plan?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Not that I recall.

SENATOR JUAN HINOJOSA: You didn't approach a single Senator?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I answered that, Senator.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: So you waited for each Senator to approach you.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: And was very open in welcoming to them.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Did you at any time advise the members of the Senate that if they were interested or we were interested in redistricting we should come to your office or ask for an appointment?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Well, no member of the Senate has to have an appointment to my office, so the answer to that question is no.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Never, never advised us. That's very interesting, Senator, because I know since that has been the practice, we who have seniority expect that same practice that -- that same tradition be followed and to be given the opportunity to develop the map. Senator West mentioned earlier that a minority member of the Senate had been involved in developing this plan, I as a member of the committee was not involved, did not have any input other than formal conversations with you about the Senate plan. I don't recall ever discussing the congressional plan with you and I'm very surprised, Senator, but I am especially surprised about the attorneys not giving legal advice. And I also want to know, Senator, were there any minority organizations who participated in developing this plan?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: MALDAF. MALDAF came by my office and showed me their two maps and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about those maps.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Did you take any of their advice?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes. Matter of fact we did. The district that goes between Bexar County and Travis County replicates part of their map.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Really? And so they were actually involved in developing this plan. Was the NAACP involved?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: LULAC?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: There were representatives of LULAC who came to my office with representatives from MALDAF. They are the task force and so I think there were -- there might have been more than LULAC and MALDAF representatives, I don't recall.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But as I recall correctly, they testified against this plan.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes. We didn't do the map exactly the way they wanted so they were not in favor of the map.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: So obviously you listed to them or met with them and obviously they do not believe their advice was listened to or accepted because if I recall correctly, Senator, there was one witness who testified in support of part of the plan, Friday, and every other witness testified against it; is that correct?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: You were keeping the tabulation, I wasn't, Senator. Whatever --

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Do you remember any witness who testified for?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I don't remember the names of very few witnesses, there were 50 or 60 of them, I believe.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But do you remember anybody who testified for?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I believe there were a couple.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: All I recall is that one who informed favor of part of the map, not the entire map, he had not reviewed it. And everybody else, everybody, African American, every Anglo American, every Mexican American, Hispanic American, more generally speaking, every single witness testified against the plan. Is that your recollection, Senator?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I believe it is, but I don't know how many of those that you called and insisted to come there to provide some sort of solid front against the map. It might have been in complete contrivance.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: I didn't ask anybody to come testify either for the Senate map or the congressional map, nor did I orchestrate attendance at the hearings although I did send a letter of invitation because my district is far from here and -- well, it used to be far from here, won't be in the future but it's difficult for them to travel to Austin and come to the hearing. Of course, I represent a lot of low income people so of the witnesses who testified, I did not invite a single one. In fact, I did not invite anyone to come to the congressional redistricting hearing. I am sorry that you think it was orchestrated because it didn't seem orchestrated to me and it seems that many came from Travis County and they were particularly outraged about what happened to Travis County. Travis County first of all divided into four senatorial districts and just when we thought things couldn't get worse, they did and now Travis County is divided into five congressional districts. How did that come about, Senator? Why is it that Travis County was divided into five congressional districts?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Senator, you insisted that three was not enough in Bexar County, I thought that you supported the idea of multiple representation in a given county.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Of what?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: You insisted that Bexar County could not live with three members of the Senate and had to have four.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: That's right, I believe that Bexar County --

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: So I assume you're a strong advocate of splitting up counties --

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: We're not talking about Bexar County y, it's about Travis County not Bexar County. Bexar County had four Senate districts and went to four Senate districts and has four Senate districts, thanks to Senator Van de Putte who made that possible, and certainly not to anyone else. Now, I've just been handed a note that reminding me that Nina Parelles testified on Friday that plan C130 is unconstitutional and she is MALDAF'S senior legal counsel and she stated that at Friday's hearing. Do you have a response to that, Senator?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I have a great deal of respect for her views. This map if it goes through both Houses and the governor signs it, it must be submitted to the Justice Department for preclearance under section two of the Voter Rights Act. We've already been informed by a number of people that there will be lawsuits filed and so at this point that may be her assertion, but there will be a full and complete, maybe a thorough and maybe judicial scrutiny of a redistricting map as happens to any sort of legislation.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Well, is that part of the problem that there are members of this body, perhaps even you, that just assumes that this will go to the courts, why worry about it, why work too hard at this, is that part of the problem?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: It's going to the courts anyway, Senator. And keep in mind that since 1971, which was the first time after the Voting Rights Act, that the courts have drawn all or part of every map passed, including the ones that you have voted for and supported during your tenure.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And, Senator, let's go back to my question about Travis County, which you answered with a question -- or comments about Bexar County. Why is it that Travis County is divided into five congressional districts?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: As I answered in the hearing, as we populate districts and to get the exact correct number, the interesting thing about Travis County is opposed to the other counties that have five members of the congressional delegation, Harris County, Dallas County, Bexar County and I believe Tarrant County also have five districts is that each one has a protected district in them. And so the Voting Rights Act I think dictates that they have a district that is located wholly in that county in order to make it perform. It's not the case in Travis County and so as we populate it, we did it to get to the right number and met the requirements of law.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: It just seems to me and to others that Travis County has been targeted first in Senate redistricting and now in congressional redistricting. I'm not sure why, but there are many people who do believe that. I'm not sure what the reason would be to target Travis County in such an unfair way.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: If that is the way you interpret that, I respect that.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Well, thank you. It is the way that you and I and owes have interpreted it. Senator, do you know if either of the African American members of this body are supporting this plan?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: If I were to venture a guess and there was a lot of money riding on it, I would guess neither.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Do you know of any Hispanic Senator who is supporting this plan?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I don't know. That's why we vote here in a little while to see who supports it.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: You didn't poll the members of the Senate?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No, I did not poll all the members of the Senate.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Not any members of the Senate, you just assume you have the votes?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, ma'am. I think it's a good strong map, I think it's legal and I think I have the votes.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And do you agree, Senator, that most of the population growth in Texas is Hispanic?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: It has been.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And you agree that the very Hispanics who are responsible for this growth and at least the Hispanic leadership, at least as represented in the Texas Senate are of the united opinion that this map is unfair to Hispanics?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I can see that that is your opinion, I don't concede necessarily that it is true.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: And doesn't that bother you, Senator?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: We disagree all the time on this floor.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: It doesn't bother you that no Hispanics, no African Americans were involved in developing this plan and we believe it is unfair?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: It is fair.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: There were no Hispanic attorneys who advised you?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: That's not the case, the counsel to the speaker is Hispanic.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: But not in the Senate. There are no Hispanic attorneys in the Senate who advised you?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I don't differentiate between House Hispanics and Senate Hispanics, Senator Zaffirini. That was a little detailed for me --

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: We're serving in the Senate and I don't recall the House attorney advising us typically of the Senate attorney who advised us. Maybe there was an exception in this case, but the point I'm making is I want to know from you if any of Hispanics were involved in any stage of developing this plan and the Senate?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: No, not in the Senate.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Well, Senator, I have to tell you I will be voting no. I'm sure you figured it out, that I'm very, very disappointed. Thank you.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I am shocked again, but I respect your opinion.

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

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Seliger.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger on floor amendment No. 1.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Members, what this amendment does is it's more of a technical amendment, it takes back Dallas County precincts No. 2223 and 2220 that were removed from congressional district five kind of by mistake and are just going back to congressional district No. 5. The only other affected boundaries are simply the balance of populations to see to it that each district is 698,488 citizens. This amendment is agreed to by all parties involved and the swath is approximately 3,000 people in total. I move adoption. Oh, I don't move adoption until it's been distributed.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Mr. President.

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

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: The plan that I am looking at doesn't mention the description of the author so I wanted to make sure that I'm looking at the right plan but which -- what plan number are we supposed to?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: On map 136, this is an amendment to that map.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Why did I get handed plan C121?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: C121 is a different amendment and maybe Senator Gallegos or Senator West.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: So we need -- they handed out the wrong plan so we need to get it straightened out because --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, to the best of my knowledge the amendment that we handed the secretary is on C137, C137.

SENATOR STEVE OGDEN: Thank you.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I apologize for the confusion. No, it's not his fault.

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

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Just to make certain I understand what this amendment is doing. Senator Seliger, can you go back over this amendment again?

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Yes, sir. In drawing up the maps we moved precincts, Dallas County precincts 2223 and 2220 into congressional district 32. This simply moves them back to congressional district five.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Okay.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Have the members received their copy of C137? Chair recognizes Senator Seliger for a motion.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: I move adoption of floor amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Seliger. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and floor amendment No. 1 is adopted. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 2 by senator west. The secretary will read the amendment. And that number is C121. C121.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 2 by West, plan C121.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator West to describe floor amendment 2 which is on C121.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President and members. This plan is effectively a statewide substitute for my deskmate's plan Senator Seliger. This plan demonstrates what is required for a fair and legal plan that meets the requirements of the Voters Rights Act because it provides electoral opportunity for rapidly growing Latino and African American populations that are responsible for the additional four congressional districts received from the 2010 census. In the past decade, members, roughly percent of the state's population growth was Latino, African American and Asian. Texas is now a minority majority state and only 45 percent Anglo. The current district map contains 11 districts where Latinos, African Americans have been able to elect the candidate of choice, (inaudible) majority minority opportunity districts and 11th district that is an effective minority coalition district. We heard testimony in committee that the Seliger map would leave only ten affected districts and I think that's exactly what Senator Seliger said. One less than the current map and that, my friends, is retrogression. Retrogression. It's caused by district 23, 27 and 25 would no longer provide opportunity for minority voters. My amendment preserves all ten existing minority opportunity districts and creates three additional affected minority affected opportunity districts and shows that 36 district map can and must create nine effective Latino districts and four effective African American opportunity districts. The nine proposed Latino districts are all solidly effective and compared favorably to those proposed by MALDAF and other Latino

(inaudible) organization. This amendment demonstrates that any plan that fails to create at least 13 minority opportunity districts will violate both section five and section two of the Voting Rights Act and this plan sets the standard for a fair -- let me underscore, fair and legal plan. The fair Texas plan creates three minority opportunity districts. South Texas district 33 is a seventh Latino opportunity district anchored in western Hidalgo and Star counties, the Rio Grande Valley and extending north into southwest Bexar County. All seven south Texas border districts have a majority Hispanic voting age population. There are two new districts that are created in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, that area that we always talk about is one of the fastest growing in the country. Dallas and Tarrant County, members, are home to over -- almost, should say, some 2.1 million people of color. More than enough population for three districts. In the last decade Dallas County lost 198,000 Anglo residents and now is only 33 percent Anglo. But the Seliger map only maintains the one existing minority opportunity district. And when you begin to look at the numbers in that particular district compared to what they are now, it significant decreases the number of Anglos in the district, it increases the number of African Americans and Hispanics even though you can maintain the number of Anglos in that particular district. Just one in eight districts that include all or parts of Dallas County, Dallas or Tarrant counties, just one of the eight districts. District 34 is an effective Latino opportunity district that provides almost 1.4 million Latinos who reside in Dallas and Tarrant counties the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. percent Hispanic for the Hispanic voting age population of 66 percent. Members, it can be done if we want to be fair. Combined minority nonAnglo minority population of 65 percent. This district was offered as an amendment in the committee by I believe Senator Uresti. District 35 is an effective African American opportunity district that includes the Tarrant County African American opportunity districts and southeast Fort Worth, Forest Hill, Everman and areas of African American population growth in southwest Dallas County. District 35 is similarly demographically senate 39 in Harris County. 37 percent African American, 27 percent Hispanic with a majority minority citizen voting age population. District 36, senate district 14 in the Seliger plan, although this plan will accommodate a second Latino district in Harris County. Travis County instead of being split five ways is split only two ways, Senator Watson, in this amendment compared to the five ways that my colleague has us split right now. And we believe that by doing so it allows the Latino population to have a voice in electing another congressperson in Travis County. So, members, I would move adoption of floor amendment No. 2. Eager to debate it.

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

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: To ask some questions of the author of the amendment, please.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will senator West yield to --

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Yes, I will.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Senator West, to have the proposed districts in the map that you just presented, compared to those that were supported by MALDAF and other minority advocates --

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: I'm sorry, say that again.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Do the proposed districts and maps that you've presented compare to those that were supported by MALDAF and the other minority advocates?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Every one of the nine Latino districts in the fair Texas plan are at least equally affected by the districts proposed by MALDAF. The new district 33 is based in western Hidalgo and Starr counties and this plan could accommodate another Latino minority Latino district provided it does not disrupt or dilute any of the three existing minority districts.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Are the proposed Latino districts majority Spanish surname voter registration or Hispanic citizen voting age population?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Well, according to the case law that I've looked at in the DOJ guidelines the effectiveness of the minority majority is not determined by a single statistical measurement but requires an analysis of electoral returns, turnouts and a number of other factors. All of the proposed Latino districts except one is majority district voting age population and all 13 of the opportunity districts have a majority minority citizen voting age population.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Did the creation of new minority opportunity districts dilute an existing district in Dallas County?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: No, not at all. Congresswoman Johnson supports the creation of two new districts in majority minority Dallas/Fort Worth area and district 30 retains all of its African American based in the district of Dallas.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: And finally, Senator West, under your proposed map any incumbents would be paired?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: There's three technical pairings. It would be McCall and Dogget. Both of them -- Dogget would be a district that is wholly in Travis County, McCall would have a safe district because he loses Democratic county Travis precincts but retains the majority of its district and public base in Harris and in rural counties. Conseco and Gonzales, Conseco does not live in his current district, he lives in Lamar Smith's district and he could run in either districts 22 or 33, both open seats. District 28 which has been -- which contains much of his district right now. The other pairing would between

(inaudible). These two liver very close to each other and this pairing is forced by the requirement to create new minority districts. Still both would keep a majority of their districts and electoral base.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Thank you, Senator West.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger on floor amendment 2.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President, members. This essentially redraws the map of the state of Texas all the way from Nueces county to Lubbock County and I respectfully move to table.

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

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I can pretty well count what this is going to be, but I'm going to say a few things so I don't have to say it in my closing, I'm going to say it now. Senator Seliger, the Senate redistricting process that you went through was probably one of the most open processes that I've ever been involved. The congressional map has been the most closed process that I've ever been involved. No ethnic minority had an opportunity to have input into this particular map. The fact of the matter is when we have a hearing even the attorneys that we hired to assist us did not have an opportunity to review this before it was laid out, at least that was their testimony. And so I'm going to say, sir, and obviously I can count the votes. This has been one of the most closed processes that I've ever witnessed as it relates to congressional redistricting. But I do understand and appreciate that when we do redistricting, we put on our blue Jerseys and our red jerseys and the question then becomes who can get the most votes. And in this instances in this period of the state of Texas, the Republican party has the majority so you will get your way once again on redistricting.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 18 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table is sustained. Chair lays out floor amendment No. 3 by Senator Gallegos, Senator Lucio and Senator Uresti. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 3 by Gallegos, Uresti and Lucio --

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: We're looked at -- go ahead.

PATSY SPAW: Plan C131.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you. Plan C131, Senator Gallegos to explain floor amendment 3.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, before I lay out this amendment, I've been listening to the dialogue between Senator West and Senator Zaffirini, Senator Davis, and Senator Rodriguez and others and I've been looking at the map and over the weekend as we had a little break over the weekend. I was watching the news and I am hoping that y'all saw it members, there a 4-year-old out of Australia and she's the first 4-year-old that had her own show at the Chelsea Gallery in New York City and her paintings -- she is a 4-year-old, her paintings are going for $30,000 a portrait and she is only four years old. And when I looked -- and when I saw her on CNN and ABC, NBC, CBS I thought about this map and maybe thinking that maybe since obviously she is creative, she's very artistic and I thought about this map and maybe we should have hired her to put this map together, especially if these maps are going -- her portraits are going for $30,000 a painting, a portrait, unbelievable young lady. Let me -- there's more I could add about the map and I'm only speaking to the map, Mr. Chairman and nobody else on this floor. Let me -- Mr. President and members, what this substitute would do is legal under the Voting Rights Act, neither retrogresses any individual district nor does it retrogress statewide. It better honors communities of interest. And first let me state why improvement is necessary on this map. It's clear that both maps released last week violate the Voting Rights Act with obvious statewide retrogression. This retrogression is even more obvious if we consider the population growth patterns in the 2010 census. Between 2000 and 2010 roughly 90 percent of the state's population growth in the past decade was nonAnglo and today only 45.3 percent of the Texas population is Anglo, 49 percent is African American, Latino and almost 55 percent is not Anglo. Latinos compose 65 percent of the population growth in Texas since 2000 and under the single largest reason that the state again gained four congressional seats. In Harris County alone there are currently over 1.7 million Latinos in Harris County, 79.7 of the population growth in Harris County between 2000 and 2010 was Latino in Harris County. But in the proposed plan the majority of the districts would be effectively controlled by Anglos which clearly constitutes statewide retrogression. In other words, one cannot legimatately take a census which shows that Texas poplation is fueled by minority growth and legally respond to that census with a Senate redistricting plan which reduces the number of districts in which minorities control the outcome. The substitue map does not retrogress in any senatorial district. It also did not retrogress statewide. This map, every district which is currently represented by the candidate of minority's choice district in which minorities control the outcome, minority voters' voices would continue to be heard under this substitute. The proposed Congressional district 29 in Harris County encompasses communities of interest, with similar characteristics and needs including Gulftown, (inaudible), Spring Branch, Alief as well as the north side. The proposed congressional district 36 encompasses communities of interest with similar characteristics and needs including North Side Village, Second Ward, Magnolia, Denver Parks, (inaudible) park, and communities along the channel. Maintaining the congressional district 36 respects the fast growing Latino community east side of Harris County that I represent right now. The creation of the CD29 fairly reflects the growth of the Latino community there in Harris County, it also provides the opportunity to elect an additional candidate of their choice for the Houston minority community. The coalition district contains percent combined Latino and African American citizen voting age population. Latinos composed 38 percent of the Dallas population and 27 percent of the Tarrant County population. In Dallas County Latinos are the pleurality population. Hispanic and Latino communities are whites and African Americans. Dallas and Tarrants countiues together from the economic and cultural hub of the north Texas region, growth in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex from 2000 to 2010 made north Texas the second fastest growing area in the nation. 98.50 percent total population increase in the Rio Grande Valley between 2000 and 2010 was Latino. The creation of congressional district 33 fairly reflects the growth of Latino community and delivers the political opportunities that is justly deserved by Latino population of the border. Moreover this substitute is more attune to issues associated with communities of interest. In conclusion, Mr. President and members, this substitute is a legal map which protects communities of interest, avoids retrogression in each district and statewide, respects incumbancy regardless of political party and provides smaller population deviatino to ensure every voice is heard. Mr. President and members, I move the adoption of the floor substitute to Senate -- to committee substitute to Senate Bill 4.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Gallegos. The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger on floor amendment 3.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Senator, would it be unreasonable to ask you to repeat that?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Before you do that, I had overlooked one other senator, Senator Seliger, wished to ask a question if I may. Senator Lucio, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: To ask a question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Gallegos yield?

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. First of all, Senator Gallegos, thank you very much for your amendment. Members, the presence of this alternative plan demonstrates that it is possible to draw three of the four new districts as additional minority majority or minority opportunity districts while preserving all seven effectjive existing Hispanic districts including one in Dallas and Tarrant counties and another in south Texas and the south Texas border region between the Rio Grande and south central Texas. Members, this plan effectively anchors three congressional districts in the Rio Grande Valley giving south Texas the representation it deserves in the United States congress and I would ask you to please consider this. You know, join with us in voting for fairness for Texas and against the retrogression demonstrated unfortunately in the proposed plan. Thank you, Mr. President, thank you members.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Senator Lucio.

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

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Will the author of the amendment yield?

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Gallegos yield?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Senator Gallegos, I'm listening to you but I am having a hard time seeing. I want you to look on your amendment at the map of Harris County and you stood before this body and you said that your purpose and what you're trying to do is deal with communities of interest; is that correct?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: That's correct.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Okay. Tell me how Deer Park's community of interest is best served while the City of La Port whose school districts overlap the city limits is served being in two deferent congressional districts, where is the community of interest there?

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, I think -- and thank you for throwing me that softball, Senator Jackson. If you look at the population numbers in those areas, you will see that most of that area, the population has been Hispanic and --

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: I disagree with that, Senator Gallegos.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: You need to read the numbers then. And if look right there at Spencer, I beleive it's in your district. HEB has put a store right there near Ritchied -- no, Chaver, on Chaver that is strictly catered to the Hispanic community. You didn't even get in there.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: Okay, Senator Gallegos, tell me --

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: You asked for community interest, I am telling you.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: And you're obviously incorrect but --

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: I'm not incorrect.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: I'll give you another chance. Tell me how the community of interest is served in a different congressional district than the City of Morgans Point.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, I think if you look, if you look at the way that the district is drawn that those communities of interest and there's just -- you know. If you look at those population increases there's just as many Hispanics there with blacks and Asian.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: But that area calls itself the Bay Shore area served by the Bay Shore Chamber of Commerce which is Deer Park, La Port, Morgan's Point and Shore Acres and you've got two of them in one congressional district, two of them in a different one and I fail to see the communities of interest that you're talking about on the floor.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, I think, Senator Jackson, if you look at the Port of Houston, I represent it to the Fred Hartman Bridge and you take over. That's a community of interest to me. And it's just a continuation of my district that serves that and that's all around Morgan's Point, La Port and all the areas that you're talking about.

SENATOR MIKE JACKSON: I need you to get over there and take a look around.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Well, I've been over there. I've taken a look around.

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

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Mr. President, I am grateful for the fact that you've appointed Senator Gallegos the vice chair of this committee, nobody could have done a better job making a cause for this map which is an entirely new map which is one that the committee did not adopt and it's one that I don't think is an improvement and I respectfully move to table the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos in rebuttal.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, and I don't mind telling you it was a pleasure to work with my chairman and all the other members of the committee even though I disagree with him, even though I disagree with him especially on this map and I just ask you, members, look at the map. I mean, you've got proposed congressional districts coming in especially in the Dallas area, Senator West, coming in and takng pockets of Dallas -- of Dallas County, Tarrant County just for the sole purpose of having an ideal congressional district. They pick up Hispanics and they pick up blacks and just for the sole purpose of achieving that threshold level. That's not fair, that is not fair. That is not fair and that's what I see on this map. I mean, would have got all the areas especially in suburban areas going into Houston Texas, into Dallas, into Tarrant, into Travis, especially, Senator Watson and Travis County and picking up -- in some cases we're picking up populations of Hispanics and blacks just to come to an ideal number, ideal number. People in those areas are frustrated and they are tired of -- let me just quote you. This is not my comments, this was a comment of an activist of Dallas, Senator West, you know who she is, she's well respected and ten years ago, when I was on this committee, cochaired with Senator Fraser and she just came up to me -- this was in Dallas -- our community especially the Latino community is tired of being under congressional redistricting, is tired of being everybody's 30 percent bitch. That's exactly what she told me and this is what I see on a bunch of the areas in this map. It's exactly what I see in this map. Now, if you want to do it, just come on in and scoop it up like a shrimp net and pick us up and go to that threshold. This map is nothing but retrogression across the board and that's why I believe the state -- substitute alleviates a lot of the section 2, a lot of the section five and especially that hoodwinked job that they did in Nuaces County, Senator Hinojosa, by completely ignoring 230 Latinos and saying that it is a Hispanic opportunity district. Are they fooling you or are they fooling me? No, no. That will never fly in court. That will never fly in court. And members I'm just telling you look, I see the map, I read it, like I've read a bunch of maps and I respectfully -- out of my chairman, respectfully vote no on the motion to table.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Seliger moves to table floor amendment No. 3. Senator Gallegos opposes. The secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 18 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, one of our members Senator Patrick has an amendment but it's still being drafted, about ten minutes away. Why don't we take about a ten minute -- the Senate will stand at ease until 5:10.

(Recess.)

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the the Senate will come to order. The Chair lays out floor amendment No. 4 by Patrick. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 4 by Patrick plan C140.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: And I am going to go -- I am going to wait just a moment so this can be passed out. The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick to explain floor amendment No. 4.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this simply moves 4700 people that we inadvertently had in the other senatorial district. Both Congressman Brady and Congressman McCall are fine with it. It does not impact anything other than correcting the disstrict and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

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

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Senator Patrick, this is just a question of moving a couple of the precincts?

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Yes, just a couple.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: The amendment is acceptable to the author.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senators. Members, the question is adoption of floor amendment No. 4. It's acceptable to Senator Seliger. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and floor amendment No. 4 adopted. The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger for a motion.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Mr. President, I move passage to engrossment of committee substitute to Senate Bill 4.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Lucio, had you asked to speak on this before the vote?

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. President, I didn't want to go before final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Fine. You'll be recognized. Members, there being 19 ayes and 12 nayes Senate Bill 4 as amended passes to engrossment. The Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion. The president's desk clear. The Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion to adjourn. Senator Patrick.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Mr. President, I thought today being D Day, the anniversary, and I know you wanted to be there, it was a very important moment for you and I think all of our members. Your father was a very important part of that battle and I think today we should salute your father, salute all of our servicemen who fought bravely on that day. Over 2000 died on the Tomahawk and this is the day that American should remember because it changed the world and we thank your family for their contribution and I know you'd rather be there but you're here doing your duty, so we thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Patrick, I appreciate that. But it's not just the story of one father. We all have relatives that fought in World War II and we all got relatives that have fought in so many different wars in the past and America stands as a country really almost alone that we'll put young men and women's life on the line to protect freedom all around the world and so we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all the men and women who have served this country in the past and will serve in the future.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Yes, Mr. President. And I know my dad fought in the South Pacific in the Marines and many of us here have connectinos through our parents in generations but I know this day is specifically special for you as for all of us, so I wanted to make sure that the dean of the Senate, Senator Whitmire, that we could close today in honoring all of our brave heroes who have fought on this day of one of the great battles of our history. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Davis, did you wish -- for what purpose?

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Yes, Mr. President, if I could just ask that today's -- the comments on the redistrict plan that were made during the debate be reduced to writing and recorded in the journal.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Yes, of course. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Davis. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, so ordered.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: And Mr. President, I have an announcement from Senator Shapiro.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR DAN PATRICK: To suspend Senate rules 11.10 and 11.18 so the committee on education can meet upon adjournment of the Senate to meet at her desk to vote out the following bills, Senate Bill 30 relating to the state to virtual school networks, Senate Bill 31 relating to the guarantee of open enrollment of charter school bonds by permanent school fund.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, you've heard the motion by senator Patrick, is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the rules are suspended. The Chair recognizes the dean for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, keeping Senator Patrick's words on our mind, I would move that we adjourn until 5:40 today. 5:40.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. The Chair hears no objection and the Senate will stand adjourned until 5:40.

(Adjourned, but coming back.)

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, we're going to go ahead and gavel in in just one minute but let me get everyone's attention if I can and let me share with you to the best of my ability our schedule that my office has been trying to analyze and reanalyze and reanalyze again. Based upon the best information that we had in front of us and based upon conversations with Speaker Straus' senior staff within the last couple of hours, that when we finish this evening we're going to stand in recess until Thursday, Thursday pending receipt and referral of bills. When we get there this evening -- on first day of special session, right or wrong sitting with the Speaker, I offered to take seven of the ten bills we were discussing if the House would pass three. So as of this evening we will pass out everything we have over here that's on the call and we don't expect to see TWIA over here until a week from Wednesday, a week from Tuesday, tomorrow, a week from Wednesday and so there's no reason for you to be here tomorrow and Wednesday. We'll recess pending referral and receipt and referral of bills until Thursday afternoon and we'll have recess until 1:00 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3:00 o'clock and I'll talk to you more then. After we get through, we'll recess Thursday until Monday. On Monday we expect to have several bills right to go ahead and bring up on the floor on Monday. Okay? Members, the Senate will come to order and the secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, a quorum is present. Would all those on the floor please rise and ladies and gentlemen in the gallery please rise for the invocation this afternoon to be delivered by the Honorable Eddie Lucio.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Let us pray. Lord, make us an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let us so love, where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is hope, despair hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. Oh Divine Master, grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console. To be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is important that we are pardoned and it is indine that we are born for eternal life. Almighty God to whom our hearts are open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hidden, cleans the thoughts out of our hearts by the inspiration of Your Holy Spirit that we may perfectly love You and whether magnifiy Your Holy name, thou Christ our Lord, amen.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Ladies and gentlemen, you may be seated. Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Estes, you got some competition Senator Estes. The chair will hear excuses for absent members. Senator Whitmire moves to excuse Senator Carona on matters of important business. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense with the reading of yesterday's jounal. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, so orderd. Members if there's no objections I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills until the end of today's session. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. Members, that concludes the morning call. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 8. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 8 relating to flexibility of the board of trustees of a school district and the management and operation of public schools in the district.

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

SENATOR FLORENCE SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move final passage of Senate Bill 8 as amended.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: There being ayes and 12 nays, Senate Bill 8 is finally passed. Congratulations.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 4 as amended. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Committee substitute to Senate Bill 4 relating to the congressional districts for the Texas.

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

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Mr. President, I move final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Before you do let me -- I just some lights on the board. Senator West, for what purpose?

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: To speak against the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR ROYCE WEST: This will be brief, I've already said what I needed to say but I wanted to make certain that the record clear, I indicated that the Senate redistricting was a very open process, I want to make certain that my words aren't taken out of context. The process that we went through with Senate Bill 10 was a little more open than this but there were a lot of issues in Senate Bill 10, the Senate Bill such as district 10 when we went -- so I want to make certain that those discussions that we had as it relates to that are part of the record. I think I said what I needed to say that this process relates to the congressional districting. We put our red jerseys, blue jerseys on and as such the blue jerseys have been shut out of this entire game of redistricting.

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

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: To speak on the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR EDDIE LUCIO: First of all I want to thank you, Governor Dewhurst, for appointing me an opportunity to serve on this redistricting committee. I

(inaudible) that opportunity not only for me but in behalf of the people that I represent in south Texas. Secondly I would be remiss if I didn't also thank my chairman, Chairman Seliger who has been very open, very kind and wanted very much to work with me especially I speak for myself he's been accessible to me and been willing to answer the questions that I've had on this important topic. Members, I remember being very excited when the census data came out. I was excited because 90 percent of Texas' growth had come from communities like mine. Majority, minority communities. Taking a common sense approach that meant only one thing to me, more diversity in the United States congress, more minitority representation destined to become part of the great 250 we call American democracy. I have been left greatly disappointed though and that is despite the fact that this map only marginly improves federal representation from the communities I represent. The new congressional district 34 is firmly anchored in Cameron county, my home county, meaning that the valley now has a better opportunity to elect an additional member of congress from that area. For this, I am truly grateful. However, while this map is only a slight improvement for the communities I represent, it is not good for the type of communities I represent elsewhere in the state. Furthermore, this map in no way reflects the path that our state is making or shaping to be, in my opinion, over the last 10 years there has been a significant increase in enrollment in our public schools. Of those new students nine out of 10 are Hispanic. In fact the majority of our students in public schools are now Hispanic. So quite frankly this map belongs in the 20th century not the 21st. Why? Because 21st century Texas is a minority majority state. How is it fair that although Anglos make -- only make up 45 prs of our population, they control 72 percent of the congressional districts? It did not make any sense. Worse, it is unfair and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The map before us today tells us one thing, members, we are not embracing 21st century Texas and the public agrees. The public testimony at the redistrict hearing committee over 45 witnesses spoke in opposition to the proposed map and only one partially in favor. I am not afraid and I'll repeat it, I am not afraid of 21st century Texas. I embrace it, most Texas embraces it as well whether they are Anglo or minority, Democrat or Republican, urban or rural, I encourage you to embrace it today here today with your vote. Thank you Mr. President, thank you members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Watson.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Speak on the bill, please.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR KIRK WATSON: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I am going to be very brief, based upon a couple of comments that were made during the course of the discussions of these maps I felt it very important to make a couple of points. First of all, the map that we're getting ready to vote on, as I have pointed out before and I wanted to say again, systematically silences the voices of the people living in Travis county. It slices and it divides Travis county and really what is an inexplicable, putting it into five congressional districts ignoring completely and totally the concept of compactness and communities of interest. Not one of the five districts that come into Travis county, not a single one of those five districts has more than 24 percent of the Travis county population and there's not a single disstrict that is -- by that by definition there's not a single district that is wholly contained in Travis county unlike what you see across the map. The large counties in Texas all have -- they have a districts that wholly contained in their counties, those counties include Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, El Paso, Collin, Denton county has a district that has 78.7 percent of the district in Denton county, Fort Bend has a district with 54.6 percent, Williamson county 60.5 percent. That doesn't happen in Travis county, so it's inconsistent with the way the other counties have been treated. Traves county is treated differently. It's also important to point out this map as Travis county is a part of this map inappropriately discriminates against the minority community in Travis county. It's been said today on the floor that one of the reasons you might see these other counties are a district that's wholly contained in that county is because there is a protected district. It's also been suggested through some amendments and otherwise that the only way to protect or to have a protected district and involve Travis county is if you combine with it other counties but that's not true. The significant growth in Travis county over the past decade has been fueled by growth in the Hispanic population. Over 50 percent of the growth in Travis county has been Hispanic and importantly, that growth has been predominant in eastern Travis county. But what this map then did is it systematically goes in and divides that minority population into five separate congressional districts. The testimony has been over and over both on this map and on the Texas Senate map that in eastern Travis county there is a compact, cohesive, mature coalition of minority voters able to effectively elect representatives of their choice. This coalition is protected and it is now being divided. Interestingly enough, there is only one district in Travis county that touches on Travis county, that has a pleurality of Travis county residents, Travis county people in it and that is a district that runs in western Travis county, it runs up to Brownwood and to the suburbs of Fort Worth up in Johnson county. It has at least a pleurality of people and it is over 67 percent Anglo. That is not the case when you go into eastern Travis county and you see the divisions. The point being, that this map discriminates not just against Travis county but it discriminates against the minority population against Travis county that has worked to develop a coalition that elects candidates of its choice. For those -- that reason when this map is analyzed, as it will be by the Justice Department, by the courts, one of the things that's going to be clear is that there's a retrogression of minority voting strength in this state in part because of the division of historic, cohesive and effective minority coalition vote in Travis county. So I would be voting no and urge others to vote no. We can do better, we can do better than this map and what it does to the state of Texas. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: To speak on the bill, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR MARIO GALLEGOS: And I'll be brief, you already know the way I feel, I just had to get up with what Senator Jackson asked me on my statewide substitute you know was because he thought I was splitting communities of interest and you look at my substitute, it's wholly within Harris County, we don't split up Harris County, it's all in one county even most of the other congressional districts that I propose are wholly within Harris. Nobody asked Senator Watson's folks from Travis county why they were split up amongst their communities of interest in five separate congressional districts. Nobody asked Senator Davis' Forth Worth area or Senator West's area why they're broken up into eight congressional districts. Nobody asked those folks, well, why are you splitting up community interest. The map did it, the map does it. You go to Houston, the same thing. Some of Bexar county. Nobody asked these people. You know Senator Jackson asked me why I split up -- it's all inside Harris County. You look at the congressional districts that are being proposed by the map, you split up eight congressional districts in Tarrant and Dallas, you split five in Travis county and a bunch in Houston and Harris County and then I don't know how many -- I haven't looked at Bexar but nobody asked those people why are you splitting up community -- they just went and did it. They just went and did it. Nobody asked those folks.

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

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: To speak against the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You are recognized.

SENATOR CARLOS URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and members, good evening. When we tarted this process back in February with the release of the census statistics, it was said that the goal was to adopt a plan that was fair and represented the proportionality of the state. In 2008 Republican nominee John McCain received 55.4 percent of the vote and many 2010 Governor Rick Perry garnered 55 percent of the vote in his reelection. In using some of the same logic that Tom DeLay used in 2003, the Republicans should have have about 55 percent of the state's congressional delegation. However this is not even close to being the case. The plan proposed? Senate Bill 4, committee substitute to Senate Bill 4 is designed to elect Republicans to 72 percent of the state's congressional seats. I would ask in what world would this be een sas proportional. However, putting aside the partisan arguments I have to say about this map it's not seasoned. It doesn't reflect the changing demographics of Texas. The change that has already occurred and the changes that coming and it's undeniable. The courts have held that a redistricting plan may not have the intent or the effect of being retrogressed towards minority communities, and this bill clearly did that. According to the last census Texas joined California, New Mexico, and Hawaii as majority minority state. The percentage of Anglo declined from 52 percent from 2000 to 45 percent in 2010 while the percentage of Latinos rose from 32 percent to 38 percent. Members, percent of the nearly 4.3 million new Texans were nonAnglo. As Texas and America become more and more diverse, the face of our legislators and congress must change as well. This map not only fails to reflect that change, it attempts to curb the influence of Hispanics in Texas. Rather than working to address the needs of Hispanics, this map systematically undermines their voting strength. Quite frankly I don't believe the plan will pass muster with the Justice Department because it reduces the number of districts where minority voters have an opportunity elect their candidate of choice from of 32 district to only nine or zero out of new 36 districts. That's going the wrong way, members. In the state where minority growth over the last 10 years has driven the state's overall population growth. The amendment that I offered in committee last Friday evening would have taken a step in the right direction by giving the Latinos of Tarrant and Dallas county a voice for the first time. Instead of being diluted and spread amongst eight congressional districts as is now the case. That amendment unfortunately was voted down but it stands as part of the record that will ultimately be used to overturn what appears to be an unjust and illegal. Members, in closing members this map reflects a majority voting strength at the statewide regional and district levels. It clearly violates the Voting Rights Act and will be rejected. Members, we can do better than this and this map does not represent the future of Texas. It ignores reality and it stands in the way of the future. Thank you.

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

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: To speak against the bill, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: You are recognized.

SENATOR JUDITH ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, I rise to speak against the passage of this congressional redistricting bill. Today I was reminded a few years ago when I was having dinner with my husband and six Republicans and a Republican member of congress and he was quoting one of their colleagues who said at that time that he felt that it was up to his party had identified the largest fastest growing minority and was taking every opportunity to offend it. I believe that this congressional redistricting plan is such an act. Minorities throughout our state will be offended by this plan just as we have been offended by the Senate redistricting plan. We who rise to speak against it perhaps shouldn't even bother. We know who the vote will be today. Eighteen to 12. But we rise because we represent not only minorities but all of the Texans in our represented districts and I believe very strongly that the people of Texas would one day congressional redistricting plan, a Senate redistricting plan and a House redistricting plan that truly reflects the face of the state of Texas. These plans do not. I thought the Senate redistricting plan was absolutely awful. I thought that was a closed process, I don't know which of any of is were involved in developing it. I had no opportunity though I was a member of the committee. The congressional redistricting plan process was even worse. I couldn't even imagine that to be a possibility and for that reason and because I believe that this plan reflects retrogression at its worse and feel very, very strongly that is illegal and unfair and does not comply with the Voting Rights Act, I vote against it and I am delighted that my fellow minority members who represent minorities will vote against it too. Thank you, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Chair recognizes Senator Seliger for a motion.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Mr. President, I move final passage of the committee substitute to Senate Bill 4.

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 18 ayes and 12 may, Committee Substitute Senate Bill 4 is finally passed.

SENATOR KEL SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the president's desk is clear. Are there any announcements? Senator Davis, you're recognized.

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. As I requested on a earlier legislative day that we were in today if we could please ask that these comments relative to the congressional district map be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Davis. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and the motion is adopted. Chair recognizes Senator Craig Estes.

SENATOR CRAIG ESTES: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Members, I rise now and ask that you join me in honoring the life of a fallen soldier while extending condolences and gratitude to his family. Private First Class Anthony M. Nunn none died last week on May 30th in Afghanistan while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Private Nunn died of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol control. Private Nunn was assigned to A company second battalion 560th infantry regiment, 101st airborne division Fort Campbell, Kentucky and was 19 years old. His family resides in both Prosper and Gainsville, Texas. Members, I ask that we all take a moment to reflect on the life and sacrifice of one of our own. Although there is nothing we can say or do to fully honor his sacrifice, we nevertheless acknowledge a debt of gratitude for his heroic and selfless action. Mr. President, I move that we adjourn today in memory of Private Nunn and the ultimate sacrifice he made last Sunday in service of his country.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Estes. Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate recess until 2:00 p.m. Thursday June 9th pending the reading and referral of bills, receipt of message, receipt of committee reports and we do so in memory of Former Senator John Needham and and Private First Class Anthony Nunn.

LT. GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Thank you. Members you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:00 p.m. Thursday June 9th pending the reading and referral of bills, receipt of messages and receipt of committee reports in honor of former Senator John Needham and Private First Class Anthony M. Nunn.

(Adjourned.)