REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? Quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation, and Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members and guests, if you will please join me as we go to our Father in prayer. Our Father and our God, the God of compassion and love and mercy and grace, the giver of knowledge and wisdom; we humble ourselves before you this morning and ask for your guidance and discernment and direction as we make decisions that will affect people of this great state. Father, as the modern-day
(inaudible), we are here for a purpose. May our purpose be your purpose on this day. Father, we ask for your blessing. May everything we say and everything we do bring glory to your name. Father, we pray these things in the name of the son of the living God and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Weber to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: [PLEDGE].
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Weber moves that bills on reading and -- first reading and referral be moved to the end of today's calendar. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time House Resolution 74, honoring First Baptist Church of Hawkins on their 100th anniversary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 74 by Hughes. Commemorating the one-hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the First Baptist Church in Hawkins.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Cain moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse members of the Redistricting Committee on the motion of Representative Lavender. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're about to go on the calendar. Chair lays out on third reading Senate Bill 7. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 7 by Nelson. Relating to the administration, quality, efficiency and funding of health care, health and human services and health benefit programs in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is the bill that we spent three or four hours debating about administrative quality and efficiency of health care, health and human services and health benefit programs in this state. And I would move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we're waiting for an amendment. Excuse Representative Bohac because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Howard. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker, this strikes the amendment I added yesterday because that amendment needs a little bit more work and we will work on that over the interim. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lucio sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I appreciate all your patience and involvement and support of this bill, and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on final passage of SB 7. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 88 ayes and 41 nays, Senate Bill 7 is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1. The clerk will ring the bell.
THE CLERK: SB 1 by Duncan. Relating to certain fiscal matters; providing penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, Senate Bill 1 is a fiscal matters bill. It's Senate Bill 1811 and we spent a lot of time on the floor earlier in the regular session. The bill still includes the FFC deferral, the prepayment provision for the sales and the alcoholic beverage tax and the motor skills tax. The delay in the motor skills tax transfers to Fund 6, to small business tax exceptions. The sale or resale changes in various provisions from articles specific to the fiscal matters bill. The major difference between this legislation and the conference committee report on Senate Bill 1811 that we adopted last week, is the removal of a few of the provisions that passed this separate legislation, and have been sent to the governor. The only addition to this bill is the sexual assault program language that was originally included in Senate Bill 23, during the regular session. The language simply directs all existing fees to victim services, rather than sending a portion to the health opportunity school. Language does raise the revenue. In addition to these provisions, SB 1 also includes the school finance proposal originally laid out in the conference committee report. And I was going to let Representative Eissler go through the -- the school finance position (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: While we wait for Representative Eissler, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Pitts, as it relates to Senate Bill 1 and specifically as it relates to school finance, I know Representative Eissler is going to address that, is it your intent to keep it as it is, or is it your intention to amend on the school finance portion?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: As I said, Representative Eissler is going to be handling the school finance portion, and I'm going to be doing what I call the appropriations part, Sylvester.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. The bill on the school finance primarily remains as it was when it came from the Senate on the school finance?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: When it came over from the Senate with our agreement that we made, a compromised agreement that was made in conference committee on 1811, that -- I'm going to tell you that Representative Eissler is going to be handling the school finance part.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. That's fine. I'll wait for him.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I will, too.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Although I enjoy talking to you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you. Always good to talk to you too, Sylvester.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I would appreciate your voting with me today, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll take it under advisement.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is Representative Eissler still working on the school finance proposal? Mr. Speaker, I don't think he's ready at this time, can we adjourn?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone Senate Bill 1 until 11:30.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 2. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 2 by Ogden. Appropriating money for the support of state government for the period beginning September 1st, 2011, and ending August 31st, 2013; and authorizing and prescribing conditions, limitations, rules, and procedures for allocating and expending the appropriated funds; and declaring an emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, Senate Bill 2 makes needed corrections to HB 1, the budget bill that we passed during the regular session. There were some technical corrections that needed to be made on House Bill 1, and Senate Bill 2 are those technical corrections. There was refer -- referenced Senate Bill 1811, contention on HB 11 passing throughout House Bill 1, and we had to change that since Senate Bill 1811 did not pass during regular session. There was also some contingency legislation that was passed during the regular session, and we took some of those -- those out. One exception is which pertains to the (inaudible) retirement funds, there's a contingency rider provision in the budget, but there were technical problems with the provision that would have resulted in the items being zero funded. Therefore, in order to conform with funding decisions made in the budget we have included an appropriation for them. Since we filed Senate Bill 2 we have gone -- been able to go through the bill and pulled out provisions that related to legislation that ended up passing during the last few days of this session. This accounts for the changes between the filed version of the bill and the substitute we passed out in committee. And I do have a perfecting amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will chairman Pitts yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. Chairman, you and I have talked in committee a couple of times, although I don't I don't know if we have on the floor; about the funding amount that's in this bill for the foundation school program, and the impact of the deferral in Senate Bill 1 on this amendment, this amount. This bill anticipates the deferral, isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. It's my understanding that this bill anticipates the deferral will be worth $2.3 billion, and I am told by the budget board that if we adopt the language that's in Senate Bill 1 currently, that the deferral will only actually generate what they project at this time to be $2 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will you agree with me that that means that we are removing an additional -- we are under appropriating by $300 million, unless assumptions regarding property value or student count come in differently than they're currently established?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Scott, you know, of course the -- the appropriation to the foundation school program is contingent on Senate Bill 1811 passing. And then we had to change -- that's one of the technical corrections that we're talking about in Senate Bill 2. The -- the funding for FFC is funded through what will hopefully pass today, would be Senate Bill 1. We feel like there's some other items that we'll be talking about today that will increase that funding, but the deferral will be about $2 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, the deferral will be only $2 billion, but we're counting on it to reduce the FS -- we've already reduced the FSE requirements in Senate Bill 2 by $2.3 billion. So sort of like we're doing on medicaid, we're starting out assuming we're 300 million in the hole and hoping that the economic conditions change and the student growth doesn't occur during any greater than we're predicting so that that would catch up?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Pitts, if I can -- if I can follow up on that last line of questioning. If by chance we end up being $300 million short, then what is the contingency then?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, Sylvester, you know, we won't know until after we pass Senate Bill 1 what the amount of money going into the FST is. And, of course, we budgeted using this figure, but it would have to be adjusted depending on what happens to Senate Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And the reason why I raise the question is because I know that there are -- they are -- they are several contingencies within HB 1 in which we are relying on to meet the obligations that are included in the appropriations bill. Will this then be another contingency that if, by chance, the economic forecasts do not change, the (inaudible) that that could be another $300 million that we will be short?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We'll just have to wait and see what we do with Senate Bill 1 today.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Are there -- and -- And I'm trying to understand. Are there additional amounts beyond what we have budgeted for that we have included in Senate Bill 1?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There are provisions in Senate Bill 1, there's some amendments to Senate Bill 1 that we would just have to look at when we determine the exact amount that we're appropriating to the foundation school program.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right, that will add additional revenue?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It -- We have to pass Senate Bill 1 to fund our schools, and we -- And, of course, Senate Bill 1 also has how that money will be distributed in -- through the formulas, and --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me ask this, Mr. Chairman: Then can we proceed with Senate Bill 2 and vote on Senate Bill 2 when it is contingent on Senate Bill 1?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Senate Bill 2, Sylvester, is just a correcting -- it's just -- the last day of session we're supposed to do some technical corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I got you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And we were going to do those technical corrections in the last day of session, but because we were going into special session, because 1811 died in the Senate, we decided not to do those technical corrections. And that's what was decided to do, SB 2. And SB 2 --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Just makes everything that was contingent on Senate Bill 1811 passing and referred to something in regular session, or special session, and that's why we went through the whole thing. And that's the only thing that was changed other than this Lee Coast.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. I got you on that. So irrespective of what happens on Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2 will not -- will not be impacted?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Senate Bill 2 is the technical correction for House Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is not dependent on Senate Bill 1?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, Senate Bill 1 is the actual funding of our public schools. You know, 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. I got that. Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Page one of SB 2 packet.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, this perfecting amendment makes the following corrections: There was a -- it provides for funding for the Texas State Technical College of Waco. It provides funding for Lamar Institute of Technology and (inaudible) State University. These institutions were -- had received appropriations in House Bill 4, however did not receive the hundred votes that was required to do -- to do that appropriation. It also clarifies the language in Article 2, special provisions of HB 1, to provide that all health and human service agency rates that historically track medicaid should continue to do so. The existing rider established medicaid rate reduction levels or HFFC, and they add -- it was falling on all the other agencies. It provides additional general revenue funding for basic legal services and indigent defense. We include a rider in HB 1 that would have provided additional funding for these programs, contingent upon an increase in court fines and fees. However, the related legislation did not pass. Because these programs are so important and we've heard from so many members about this programs we have put general revenue into those programs. It provides the youth contingency rider for the (inaudible), the existing rider in HB 1 where referenced legislation passed during the regular session, so we need to fix this to cover legislation passed during this special session. It corrected a funding for the Texas State University System that was talked about in conference that did not make its way to a conference committee report. It amends an appropriations made on HB 4 during the regular session for cord blood bank, and finally it removes the emergency clause that was included in the substitute and replaces the typical effective date language. Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Pitts sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 7. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment changes a rider in the budget, and what it says, if there is excess funds available in the foundation school program then part of that money be used for programs which include teacher effectiveness, advanced placement, dropout recovery and early childhood readiness.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I reluctantly oppose Dr. Shelton's amendment. We cut a lot of these programs so we could get more money to FSP in House Bill 1, and we feel like if there's any additional money going to our schools we need to give to the FSP. So I move to table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Members, this amendment is permissive, pending money available and used for important things like dropout recovery. And I hope that you will vote to keep this amendment in the bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Shelton sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. It's on the motion to table, the clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Representative Shelton voting no. Show Representative Otto voting aye. Show Representative Darby voting aye. Have all voted? There being 43 ayes and 78 nays, the motion to table fails. Representative Shelton sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Ms. Farrar? Representative Villarreal? Members, we're on page 15. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Members, this just includes the University of Texas at El Paso and UT Arlington in the competitive knowledge fund, which they were in before (inaudible) and it just ratifies it. No impact on the bill whatsoever. No cost whatsoever.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Margo sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: This is just a clean up amendment that will apply to Senate Bill 1 to clarify that there won't be double dipping by the University of Texas at El Paso in the funds that they have available. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Margo sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 19. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And I was just told, very glad I was just told by the speaker -- by the author of the bill that this amendment would be acceptable. And essentially what this is the University of Texas Community Outreach is a program that's doing wonders with diabetes prevention and recovery in many, many areas in south Texas. And all this says is if there is funding available at HSC, and HSC thinks that this is something that they want to fund they'd be allowed to. And it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lucio sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. It's the amendment on page 20.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members, this amendment just takes money out of the commission of arts and reallocates it to other items in the budget. We've been here before a couple of times, it's been in and out of the budget. But by (inaudible) he's going to leave it up to the will of the House. And at the time when we're facing teacher cuts, nursing home cuts and health and department of human services and mental health cuts, (inaudible) it's time we prioritize where we spend our priorities and that's what the amendment does. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yes, sir. I do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay, Representative Perry, the intent of your amendment is to zero out the commission on the arts?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: General
(inaudible) money that's not tied to the federal level. This was put back in during conference and it's coming back out. I believe it's about 2.5
(inaudible) fiscal years.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. But that will end -- that will end up eliminating the agency.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: It would eliminate the agency to the extent that there was federal money tied to it. I think they tried leave it in. That's not this bill's intent. The intent was not to mess up the federal (inaudible) of it.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, pretty -- pretty much when you zero out the GR --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Then you got your match (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- you pretty much eliminate the agency.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: It would do that, effectively.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Can I ask, we debated this the first -- the first round.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, essentially, I've used Senate Bill 2 as a technical -- as a technical correction to HB 1. And now -- now we'll are -- re -- rediscussing the entire appropriations --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Right. I appreciate that perspective, but here's what's coming up. I think you and I can agree that we probably had over -- I've had at least a thousand emails since session started from education groups, from health and human service groups. This is to prioritize the state government. And at some point I believe we, as fiscal conservatives as well as legislators, have to re-prioritize what the functions in government are. Unfortunately, you draw the line in the sand at some point. And I think this is the session where we start drawing the lines in the sand where state government has a role and where state government has a role. I'm an artist, I have art in my house I have art in my house. I have nothing against arts and I understand the merits of art.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: (Inaudible) I believe that arts are the responsibility of the private sector. There's endowment funds, there's
(inaudible). There's no arguments there's benefit to having arts.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Is that a proper role of state government? And, more specifically, is that one that we can honor when we're facing short falls in excess of $20 billion on a annual basis?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I appreciate that, Representative Perry. Except we have visited this subject before.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: But it got stripped out, and then it's back. And so when it came back it became the same issue. We actually had a vote to probably the first day of HB 1 discussion, and we took it out. And then it's back. And we were able to restore, I think, some of the funding through the process over the course. But just fundamentally it's hard for me to talk to mental health -- mental health institutions, providers, medicaid providers and the network of the doctors; it's hard for me to speak to educators and say look, we left money in there for something that although has all the merits in the world, doesn't have, in my -- at least in my observation, a priority over those items from a funding standpoint. So I respect the fact that we're back here now. I'm sorry that we're back here now. It should have been taken out before it got through conference.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, you know --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: And that's just my opinion. I mean --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand -- I understand your reasoning --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: It goes to the biggest picture. When -- and all session long, Representative Turner, I've heard you in a passionate plea and one that I agreed with whole heartedly at multiple levels. And although philosophically we agreed that we want to get same point, how we get there we may have differences on how we get there. But one thing I can agree on, there is X number of dollars allocated to part of the state budget that doesn't have a bearing on those priorities of the state, which should be education, mental health institutions, our provider network, our transportation system. So, you know, when do we re-prioritize with our budget? And what I see in this budget (inaudible) valid in your project that don't bear merit in the big scheme of things from our top priority.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But let me recommend -- let me recommend a course.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Instead of piecemealing that, instead of piecemealing it, for example, if we shift all of the funding to public education, or at least the necessary funding, then we could re-prioritize all of this. If you would join with me, for example, in voting against Senate Bill 1 to extend my amendments are not adopted then we could re-prioritize the whole thing instead of just dealing with one entity at a time.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Okay. And my question would be if we do that, where would we take the money from, which would involve probably arts commission.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I mean we could take a look -- a more thorough look at what the priorities should be. I just think picking -- picking one out like this one --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: And it wasn't necessarily a picking of the arts. If this was something that I felt passionate and didn't prioritize the government spending it would be something different.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Charles, my name is on as a coauthor of this amendment and it shouldn't be there at all.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: I thought we were co-authoring 3542 that you did during the regular session, that would give more money to retired teachers if money is available.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: No, that's a different -- I don't have that one.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Okay. I want to take my name off this, because I support the three -- the $2.4 million that the commission on the arts have, because they provide grants to our schools, small arts programs, they support the East Texas Symphony Orchestra and they do so much for our small, rural communities. We went from $20 million down to $2.4 million and to -- I'm on there erroneously.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: That's fine. I appreciate that. I'm sorry you are there. I will tell you Lubbock enjoys a robust symphony with a robust symphony in the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: So why would you zero this out?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: They don't get money from this fund.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Are you sure? Others do.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: This, it's community supported through various benefits that they held. So there are ways to get to where you suggested that the merits lie, but this doesn't require a state match to go with it. If there's an endowment out there to fund it, go for the endowment dollars. So I'm just saying I think that at some point we, as state legislators, have to start down this road of making those unpopular but tough calls on where we're going to put our money.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: So we already may be unpopular, but tough calls from $20 million down to $2.4 million, we take that away (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Under that logic, then it's ineffective with the 2.5 still left remaining due for that program. So if it takes (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Margo, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Representative Perry, as you may recall I spoke against this amendment during House Bill 1 debate. Chairman Otto and I went back and forth, it was on our subcommittee. We went from 12 million to about $2 million, enough to keep it on life support and still maintain federal grants. The bulk of the money that this fund has is an investment in community, both rural and some urban that are small, poor districts that don't have access to the arts or teachers or other wise. Most business communities support the arts because it attracts industries, it attracts tax base. I would move that we table this.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I respect that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Harper-Brown, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I would. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Pe rry, I hear you, what you are saying and I understand that there are decisions that have been made that have -- that are going to impact education and they're going to impact our health and human services department. But I think that what was brought up earlier is important to note, too, that this money goes to education. Much of this money does go in grants to various schools, schools and performances for the children, and I just wanted to be sure that you're aware; do you know that the children that are involved in the arts now that their SAT scores are up actually 57 points higher on the verbal and 43 points up on the math? So this is an opportunity to acquaint these children with the arts and then hopefully get them involved in the arts through the these grants that the state gives. Were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yeah, I am. There's no dispute the value of arts. There's no dispute that it has a role in our education system. At the same time, what the -- (inaudible) have an education
(inaudible) some of this money is not directly related to education. And if you want to carve that piece that goes straight into our education system, then we would have to talk about it. Again, it has to go back really as a state priority (inaudible). REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: But you may not realize -- you may say that it doesn't go to the arts, Mr. Perry, but do you realize that even if the grant goes to a symphony, which there has been money in the past that has gone to the symphony in Irving, what that symphony then does with it is performances for children in schools. So it may not show that it goes to education but it does in a roundabout way as well.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: The symphony in Lubbock holds a debutante ball and that's the where the bulk of their funds come from.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: First of all, I know you heard the questions that my colleagues asked. But, you know, as much as I'm for public health, do you know that the human condition is what separates us from the animals?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And that the arts determines whether or not we understand what the human condition is?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Well, I think --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Seriously, I'm not --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: No, I agree. I understand what you are saying.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And that what we teach everyone through the arts, including children is how to approach the human condition and to be better human beings?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And don't you think that is as important as public health?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: It absolutely is, and --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: As so a part of our state budget where we reduce this fund down to the minimum that it can be reduced to, that our legislature and our state should be about supporting -- teaching the human condition?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: From what I would probably make a suggestion, so that there is a transparency in the budget, is that that portion of the arts that directly effects our education system may be moved to the TEA. And move underneath that umbrella. But this blanket of a category that just --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: But the problem with this is that it unravels what makes us human beings, and it unravels our communities --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I hope not. I hope not. What makes us human beings is our family and -- interaction.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Is this a proper procedure to -- to be on the floor right now in a fiscal matters bill? I had a conversation yesterday with the parliamentarian and, from my understanding, the things that can be offered in a fiscal matter bill either raise fees or do away with fees or define something as a strategy that's already been funded. But in a fiscal matters bill this seems too similar to the process that we did in appropriations which is not before us today.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, would you mind coming down and visiting with the parliamentarian?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you. Should I just call my point of order now or do you want me to go ahead and --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Please come down and visit with us.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I just want to define, Representative, is this shutting this amount down that is agency bound, which is what you're recommending? The federal dollars going to our school systems across the state now that we would then shut off and lose? That's my question.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: To my knowledge, no. I don't know. Can you give me that number?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The closing --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: (Inaudible) . How much is (inaudible) five million? The answer -- He says yes. I don't have the numbers. I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: So what I'm inferring --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Members, we can do both. We don't have to make this choice.
(Inaudible) amount of money, we're sitting on a lot of money in the Rainy Day Fund. This amendment simply says let's fund them both. Take the money out of the Rainy Day Fund. Move adoption of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Perry in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I -- I'm going to have to vote against that amendment to the amendment. The Rainy Day Fund is secured, $4.8 billion that's going to be spent in 2013 for medicaid case work. I think it's prudent to keep that reserve intact.
THE CHAIR: Representative Strama to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Members, we went through this on House Bill 1 when it was on the House floor. We had to make a lot of choices between things that we wanted to fund both of them. We now know where we stand. At the end of the budgeting process we know there is money in the Rainy Day Fund, that some of those choices are false choices. We have the means to fund them both. So before you vote on Mr. Perry's amendment, I suggest you adopt this amendment to the amendment and say both of these things are worthy of our investment. We can do both. I move adoption of the amendment.
THE CHAIR: Representative Strama sends up an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I move to table.
THE CHAIR: Representative Perry moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. Show Representative Perry voting aye. Representative Strama voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 83 ayes and 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're now back on the Perry amendment, members. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Perry amendment? Representative -- Chair recognizes Representative Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I gave a partial -- somewhat impassionate plea on behalf of the Texas Commission of the Arts. In 1989, my wife was named to the Commission for the Arts by the late governor Clements. She rose through the ranks and ended up being chairman of the Commission for the Arts. So I was inundated and indoctrinated on how impactful they can be on the education of our kids and students in this -- in this state. The they shifted most of the money out to the rural and the districts that needed it. They had matching programs in elementary schools. Put teachers and artists and residents out there. It impacted the pan handle, it impacted east Texas and it impacted far west Texas. This program, as we heard in debate on House Bill 1, we have reduced it. It was under my subcommittee with Chairman Otto at appropriations. We reduced it from over 12 million down to barely 2 million. And we picked that number because it kept them on life support and it allowed federal matching dollars to sustain. And we said it will give you a chance to come back another day. Members, I move that we -- that we vote against this amendment.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Berman to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I'll be very brief. We've taken this agency from $20 million down to $2.4 million. All of us, almost everyone in this room has seen some benefit from the Commission on the Arts because they're very good about sending to you in your district an amount of money that was either given to a school or a symphony orchestra or to some other program in your district. To take this commission down to zero is ludicrous right now, we shouldn't be doing that. And I would strongly recommend that you vote against the Perry amendment.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Zerwas to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I do rise to speak against, and I'm going to make the motion to table this amendment. I'm not going to approach it from the standpoint of what is the value of the arts. I think it's been well articulated by my colleagues. But I do want to bring your attention to where the money is going. So we're talking about $2 million going to mental health services for adults that already has $552 million in it. $2 million is an inconsequential amount of money that's going to have an impact on this particular strategy. The other one that's related to mental health services for children, $152 million. Again, this is the amount of money that's being transferred to children at the expense of the arts and actually preserving the commission of the arts. Inconsequential when it comes to the delivery of these services to the children. The State has adequately -- has adequately provided revenue for these particular areas and, with that, Mr. Speaker and members, I'd move to table this amendment.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Perry to close.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members, I would ask that you vote against the motion to table. There's a couple of principles involved here. One, prioritizing government spending and where we choose to put our emphasis on what's important. Two the concept of federal match. I keep hearing that concept and arguably we do put money into the federal system and it is sent back as we are a donor state. But at some point we try to have a breakdown. I would argue, look at medicaid. Under that scenario it's not worked out quite as good as we expected there. So if we try to go try to continuing to take match in option (inaudible) in opportunity to get money, that wears out with strings attached and the needs become different from what we expected on the front end. So I just ask that you would look at where we begin to draw the line in the sand and start re-prioritizing where government money should be spent. Bring the private sector up to those other areas where we all agree have merit, but at the same time probably it's not something that the state has the luxury of spending money on today. Thank you. I as you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE CHAIR: Members, Mr. Perry sends up any amendment. Mr. Zerwas moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. The it's a record vote. All members vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Zerwas voting aye. Mr. Perry voting no. Mr. Pitts voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 87 ayes and 39 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're on page 22 of the packet. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Larson.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Larson. Members, the amendment is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 23 of the packet. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're now on page 25. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment authorizes the health and human services commission to employ some new and advanced technologies in order to protect, prevent and reduce fraud. The technologies are readily available and are used worldwide with some remarkable results. The amendment requires the commission to focus specifically on strategy B14, the children in medically needy programs. And I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Zerwas sends up any an the. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 27. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 26.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a contingency amendment on passage of House Bill 26, and it's concerning inmates fee for health care. And we -- It's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Pitts sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Ms. Davis?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will Mr. Pitts yield, Chairman Pitts yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I'll yield, Yvonne.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Chairman Pitts, let's start over. I thought this was a technical bill to do clean up. And now it has become an appropriations bill. Could you tell me where the money is coming from? I thought we were broke.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: (Inaudible) subject to change --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, on this amendment, Yvonne, it's contingent on House Bill 26
(inaudible) and after this is no money. But that is the general appropriations bill.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But this one is one of the few that we're not just moving money around, we're not charging inmates, right, with this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This is what Representative Madden would like to do.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But that's what this does, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This is contingent on House Bill 26 passing. And we were going to accept it to let the argument go on House Bill 26.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I didn't know it was on the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I would like to withdraw this and postpone this amendment to the end of the calendar -- end of the Senate Bill 2.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thanks. And could I know, now could you come back for other questions? Because I'd like to understand, based on what we're doing here, it appears that we're adding a lot of appropriations initiatives. And I'm just trying to understand, this is no longer a technical bill. This is not a clean up bill for SB 1 with the amendments you're accepting; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, I don't -- the -- we added some -- some language at the very beginning of the perfecting that was -- that was included in appropriations bills that we had on the floor. So it was money that we had that kind of set aside for these projects, and -- and so as far as I know we have not added any money.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So -- So SB 2 is spending money that we had previously not appropriated, but had set aside, because earlier --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: They were in other -- they were in other bills, and you'll see that throughout the day. I think Ms. Thompson has two that we had in one of the appropriations bills that didn't -- that --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So there was money appropriated in another bill --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: In 1811.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: -- that we did not -- that has not been spent. So this money in SB 2 is to appropriate those funds only, or was some of that in SB 1?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Only. In House Bill 1, and also it was provided for in SB 1811. And it's bringing it back, because it was in 1811 as a technical correction (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Based on that, what you are saying, how much money is available to appropriate -- re appropriate based on that not being passed in 1811? How much money do we have to appropriate at this time?
THE CHAIR: Members -- Ms. Davis -- Members, Is there objection to withdrawing this amendment? We have that on the table right now. Chair hears no objection. The amendment is withdrawn temporarily.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So my question, Mr. Chairman, is based on what you are saying, how much money is available for members to look at in terms of available funds that can be reappropriated based on bills not passing? Because it appears to me that there is some amount of money that has been identified that is available for us to reappropriate, and I just want to know --
THE CHAIR: Ms. Davis, Ms. Davis, we're going to go ahead and move through the amendment process and we would ask if you would come --
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: But I can't -- No, wait just a minute, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Darby's amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Mr. Speaker, before you can ask me to not do that at least
(inaudible) tell me how much money we're talking about. Members, don't know that there are funds available --
THE CHAIR: We would like for you to come down and visit with Mr. Pitts, so we can go ahead and move with the other amendments, please.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, I'm not able to get my amendment ready if I don't know how much money is available.
THE CHAIR: And that's why you should talk to Ms. Pitts, Ms. Davis. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this simply moves the executive director of the Texas Department of Rural Affairs into Article 9. I think it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, the amendment on page 30 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 31. Representative Kleinschmidt? Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kleinschmidt.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Kleinschmidt. The amendment is temporarily postponed.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Move to temporarily withdraw.
THE CHAIR: Members, we're on page 32. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Pickett.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, 911 services is a core function of the state and we -- this amendment says contingent on the collection of fees and the general revenue, dedicated 911 service fees on your phone bills, in excess of the 112 million that's already allocated to the GR, additional appropriation would be made of $11,722,000 for the biennium. This money would be used for operations and replacement of -- of 911 equipment. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Workman sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, the amendment on page 33 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 34. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kleinschmidt.
THE CHAIR: The amendment is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 35. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, this just raises the general land office, the commissioner raises his salary to that of the rest of the other statewide elected officials. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none and the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is on page 36.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the physician nurse trauma care fellowship, I think you heard about it. There is several other venues and the program will be administered by the higher education coordinating board as a grant program for our medical schools to compete for these funds. There is a contingency rider in the budget for this, that the money would come from the trauma account, 5111. It's already accounted for in the budget and the language that is included in the regular budget that we passed during the regular session. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Members, Mr. Zerwas sends up any amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Mr. Perry? Members, the amendments on page 37 and on 38 are withdrawn. Is Mr. Aycock on the floor? Is Mr. Menendez on the floor? Members, we're on page 8 of the packet. Mr. Turner? Members, the amendment on page 12 is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Gooden? Members, we're now on page 18. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gooden.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Gooden.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Members, what this amendment does is create a five-year pilot program at the University of Texas at Tyler intended to demonstrate the significant cost efficiencies created by offering hybrid programs at Texas' higher education institutions. This is -- this is a savings to the state in the long-term. This does request money, 2.5 million, but the University is raising 5.2 million of it on its own, so it's not just a handout. And I believe we had some questions.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Cook, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Gooden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, sir. I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Lance. Just a couple of questions. In addition to the information this project will provide regarding the cost savings on online courses, will it help further any other higher education initiative that members of this body have been working on?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, it will. In fact, some of the degree programs that this program will put into place, it will make a completely online hybrid format, and includes some of the stem cells, which is a nursing and engineering program that we're trying to improve in this state. And by putting more of the course work associated these programs online, it should allow the University increased access and enrollment in these majors. And most of this great work that we do in your committee, Mr. Chairman, and across this body, is focused on cost savings and better decisions for the state. And this is not just going to add a few graduates, it has the potential to add many, because UT Tyler is one of the largest nursing programs in the state and this would be a good move for our education system.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: And also, would you tell me what the benefit of this project is for the State of Texas as a whole?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, I will. For in many years members of this body have encouraged higher education institutions to put more of their courses online or use some other alternative delivery method, mainly because we feel it will lower the cost of higher education and help increase access to it. However, transforming an institution from offering traditional classes to doing more online requires some up front investment in order to have the IT infrastructure and other things in place to make it happen successfully. And this is the commitment to UT Tyler that will pay dividends over the long haul.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Lance, one other question; are you aware that some of the areas that UT Tyler services and the area which I represent, this online really affords the -- gives these kids the opportunity for higher education that without it, notwithstanding it, would really be challenged to be able to move forward and get the education that we hope it gets.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Right. And east Texas is especially underserved for this subject matter. We need something like this in east Texas. I have Kaufman and Henderson county, which borders your county, and Tyler; which is where this is located, and this would be a great thing not just for east Texas but for the state, depending on the results we find.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Very good, thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Gooden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, sir. I do.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Lance, this amendment that you're offering was formed by the governor's request to seek ways to lower tuition in our schools.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Right. And there are also two other schools that we know of in the program already. I think it's UT Dallas and UT Arlington; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, it is correct. And both of those are in the same metropolitan area, and we feel like moving out into east Texas will open it up to perhaps more members of our community like yours and mine, that can't just go into their local college like you can if you live in Dallas; you have more options there than we do back home where we live.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And are you aware of the fact that there's $27 million in this pilot program available for schools to demonstrate how to lower tuition rates?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, sir. I am.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Very good. Do you know that in your amendment you're asking for two and a half million dollars, but that the University of Texas at Tyler the president is raising another five and a half million dollars from local sources?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, sir. That says a lot. This is not just a handout. This comes with strings attached and those strings are that you've got to raise the bulk of the money on your own, and UT Tyler is prepared to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Right. And how much are they going raise?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Five and a half million. There being about 8 billion, or -- 8 million, excuse me. So that plus the 2.55 is --
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Do you know the how this hybrid project works?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: What the plan is to have the hybrid program that has every -- up to seven degree plans, including the nursing programs online, but still have some actual classroom interaction, too. So it's not fully online but they are still trying to figure out what works best for them and their program.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And this will also benefit the campuses in Palestine, UT Tyler Palestine, UT Tyler Longview, Mr. Simpson's district?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: That's correct. And there's really nothing like this in east Texas, for your constituents or mine. (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: That's right. This is a great thing for Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: So we're asking for two and a half million dollars out of the pool of 27 million that's fair?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Well, we're asking for two and a half million out of GR that will go toward this, and UT Tyler will pony up the rest of the money.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Right. Thank you. It's a good amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Laubenberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Would the gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, ma'am.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Represen tative Gooden?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I hate to bring this up, but this is looking like an earmark.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: It is an amendment -- I consider it an earmark to be something you would maybe slip into committee. But I'm bringing it to the full House and I will let the House decide whether or not this is an earmark.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: It is indeed an earmark, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: It's an amendment that benefits a big -- big, vast area of east Texas that many of us represent here, and I think it would be good for this state because what they find in this program will benefit all of us. And it's a response to the governor's charge to save money in higher education.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I understand. But it is coming out of general revenue and --
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: It is coming out of general revenue, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, as much as -- as much as I respect Representative Gooden, and since this is an appropriation bill extension governed by the appropriations rule, and since the amendment does not say where the money is going to be deducted from in order to go to; I do believe it is subject to a point of order.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Actually, it says -- Before you go down that road, it says it comes from general revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's precisely the report. But since it's an extension of appropriation's bill, I believe it is subject to the appropriation rule. Mr. Speaker, call a point of order on this amendment.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Otto. Bring it down, Mr. Turner. Members, the point of order is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak against, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, you've heard the discussion from the front and back mic so I'll be brief. This is an appropriation of two and a half million dollars of GR. It is a cost to the bill over and above what this body passed out in HB 1 in the regular session, and for that reason I move to table.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Ber -- Mr. Gooden to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Members, this makes good sense. This will save money over the long haul for the State of Texas and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I yield.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Gooden, there is $27 million available in the GR fund for pilot programs like this to try to reduce the amount of tuition that Texans are paying. There are at least two schools in north Texas right now, UT Dallas and UTA, that are in this program --
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: So what you are saying is there's money there to be spent out of GR?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Yes. UT Tyler is asking for two and a half million dollars to participate in this pilot program to reduce tuition, and that will effect three campuses. It will affect UT Tyler, UT Tyler at Longview and UT Tyler at Palestine. But I think the main point I want you to answer is, although you're asking for two and a half million dollars, although you're asking for two and a half million dollars, how much money is UT Tyler going to raise along with that so they can demonstrate the hybrid program and reduce tuition in their colleges?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: They're going to raise $5 million, more than half on their own. So this is not just a handout, as you said. Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Thank you. Members, I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Gooden sends up an amendment. Mr. Otto moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 103 ayes and 30 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, the Chair recognizes Representative Chisum for a motion to reconsider.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment for the GLO was accepted.
THE CHAIR: Members, this is the amendment that was on page 35 -- page 16. Amendment 16 on page 35. Members, is there any objection to the motion? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move to withdraw the amendment.
THE CHAIR: Members, the amendment is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 23. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, members, I bring this amendment because it's issue that's of concern to my area. This program has been a very good program for years and I know that the appropriations committee has tried everything in their power, and have worked on making sure this HIV medication program funding is available. I -- to me, it pains me to hear when there's a need -- and I know there's tons of needs, and I know -- I spoken to members of the appropriations committee and they're doing what they can to look at it. I just want to bring it to your attention, because it is a big issue and I want to make sure it happens. With that in mind, please keep these folks in mind. I know I will and I will do everything in my power to make sure there's funds available. Again, members, thank you for your consideration in allowing me to present this amendment. But, at this time, I'm going to withdraw it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: The amendment is withdrawn, members. Members, we're on page 8. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. There is an amendment to the amendment. After some review we did see the communities and schools received up to a 30 percent cut and so we're redirecting where the money is going.
THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Menendez.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Members, the reason that we're redirecting this money is because if you look at this -- the budget and you look at the bill pattern, you'll find that there is $4.5 million going to a program called Reasoning Mind Program. And it's brought to my attention by an educator who has asked me what is this? Why? Where does -- who benefits from this? All we can find is that there are nine school districts in the whole state that are serving 8,000 students. I've asked TEA to give me some more information. I can't find any. And so this amendment's intended to more effectively use very scarce funds for education programs that have a proven track record. Proven to be effective. Four and a half million for a pilot program, which is what Reasoning Minds Funding is, in my opinion, not the best use of funds. And so, members, I think that most of us know about or have visited communities in schools, programs just about everywhere in this state. They have not asked me to do this. I'm doing this because the 28 CIS programs scattered across Texas served tens of thousands of schools, of students at risk; and their budget was originally zeroed out. But thanks to leadership, it was put back. But it was put back 30 percent less than what was needed to continue these programs. So according to the information that TEA has provided me, the four and a half million to Reasoning Mind Programs only serves nine school districts (inaudible) less than eight thousand students.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Eight thousand students.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Gentleman yield -- Let him finish his lay out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I will be very glad to yield. So, members, that is -- that eight thousand students that Reasoning Minds affects, that's only as many children as served by CIS programs in San Antonio alone. And that's for 1.5 million of general revenue. Members, I'm not against any program that helps students achieve, but give me four and a half million dollars for a pilot program in this environment that only serves a very small number of children with very limited initiatives, versus putting the money towards a well established program which has a far reaching impact statewide, in -- it makes no sense. And I'll be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Gentleman yields, Mr. Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Menendez, I think you are -- you're very familiar with the schools and programs, aren't you?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: I heard, I think, Representative Legler was saying he was hearing something about like nine districts were affected. Do you know how many districts, and certainly more than nine, because I think there's at least four or five in my district that are -- are benefiting; and I don't know really, as you've said thousands of students benefit with these after-school programs. And not only after-school programs, but these communities and schools, folks are in the school while the school day is going on, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: That's exactly right. And it's tens of thousands of children Statewide, there are over 28 of these programs scattered across the whole state. And many of us already know the impact they make. In my opinion, they're keeping kids that might otherwise drop out of school in school. They're also helping us find out where -- In my district, for example, because of communities and schools, I get to know which families may or may not have the resources for a Thanksgiving dinner. I mean we get to find out which kids need a coat, which kids need the shoes. And so that's how we really identify the kids that really need the most help in my district. And it may be different in your district, but in my district that's how we help them.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: I don't think -- I think we're talking about the poorest of the poor kids here being helped, aren't we?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And it is a situation that, as you said, does have a proven track record for working in the schools; so I appreciate you bringing this amendment forward and I'm supportive of it and I will be voting with you on it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I do yield.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker? Yes.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Legler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: For a question.
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Did you
(inaudible) mention anything about the ninth -- This only affects nine school districts, your amendment to the amendment does or --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: No. What I mentioned is that the money that where we're asking to redirect the money from is the a program called Reasoning Minds. If you look at the rider where they are getting the four and a half million, 2.25 million per year, I asked TEA to give me the information on. I wanted to know -- I asked Mr. Hochberg, he couldn't exactly tell me where we had heard of it. But I said well, who does this help? It says here that it serves nine school districts, and that only 8,000 students approximately have been served.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: What nine school districts are they? Did they give the names?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: It didn't give me the school districts. It says that students in grades 2 through 5, 4,700 students were served and are and then 153 in another one. Then grades 5 through 8 approximately 3,300 -- 3,200 students were served.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: So it didn't give any school districts. And your proposal is going to take away money from those nine school districts to put it into schools that (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: That's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Representative Torres?
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Does the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Menendez, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: And wait, before you say -- I just wanted you to know the good news. They found out the author says it's an acceptable amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Okay. Great. Well then, let me say a real quick question. Am I correct that committee in schools works with children that are at risk in many different ways, especially from dropping out of school?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely. Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Menendez sends up an amendment to his amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment to the Menendez amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. The amendment is adopted. We're now on the Menendez amendment as amended. Mr. Menendez sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Mr. -- Ms. Farrar and Mr. Villarreal? Chair -- Mr. Howard. Members, we're waiting for an amendment to be drafted. Chair recognizes Mr. Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if I could have your attention for a minute. Representative Bohac asked me to inform the body that his wife has been placed in the hospital with a pancreatic attack, and he's with her and wanted you to know it. And I hope you'll join with me in saying a prayer for her quick recovery. And he's where he needs to be. He needs to be with his family right now. So, he just wanted you to be informed of that. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, there are a couple of amendments to the amendment that we are waiting for right now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, over the last a couple of days I don't know how many of you heard, there was a couple of busloads of kids from a high school who were on their way to Disney World and had a car accident, a bus accident. Several of the kids actually are still in the hospital in Mobile, Alabama. And the reason I tell you that, is because over the last couple of days I've had the opportunity to talk to not only the kids themselves, but their parents and the folks who were on that bus with them. We talked about a lot of things. We talked about dreams and the fragility of life and how everything can change from one moment to the next. And, as part of those conversations, one of the things that we talked about was promise and potential and how important that is for every parent. But, more importantly, it's important for every kid. What this amendment seeks to do is essentially allow our kids to live up to that full promise, to allow our kids to live up to that full potential. It's essentially our children's last chance in this state budget. The amendment gives us the opportunity to prevent some devastating budget cuts, to protect our schools and protect our kids' futures by fully funding schools through access to available resources that are now in the Rainy Day Fund. Under the current proposal, as you-all know, the foundation school program is underfunded by about $4 billion. I think all of us, I know certainly I have, but I believe all of us have overwhelmingly heard from parents and grandparents, even kids themselves, that they do not want resources cut from Texas schools. But yet that's exactly what this legislature seeks to do. Our greatest investment is essentially on the chopping block. This amendment, through the use of the Rainy Day Fund, would take $4 billion and fully fund our kids. Now, let me say one other -- follow one other line of reasoning. As I look out on to the 150 of us, I see a lot of individuals that own their own businesses and have experience in business. And I will tell you that I've had conversations with you about whether you pay now or you pay later. In fact, if you count the deferral at 2.3 billion, we're actually impacting our schools by 6.3 billion, if you count that deferral. Why is it that I say pay now or pay later? For two reasons, for two reasons: The first reason is we are told from an accounting standpoint that we need that Rainy Day money for later. Well, if we already now know that we're short this much then we can fill in that hole now and not have to worry about that hole later because we're filling it now. And so that deficit that we expect in the foundation school program need not be there, if we dig -- if we keep digging, it's there. But if we fill in the hole now there won't be a hole, and we have an opportunity to do that. The second thing I will tell you in terms of pay now or pay later is this: When you talk about those dreams and those -- those outcomes, that potential, I will tell you as chairman of Criminal Jurisprudence, that when I've talked to folks one of the single biggest commonalities among people who are either in county jail or in state prison is their inability to read or write. Their inability to read or write. Education is the single best thing that we can do. And, frankly, it doesn't matter what society's bill is because the answer's going to be the same. If you're trying to break the cycle of poverty in your family how do you do it? You do it through education. If you're trying to -- if your stuck in a dead-in job and you're trying to climb the ladder of success, how do you do it? Through education. Whatever societal ill you're talking about, the answer is the same. The cure is the same. The cure is education. So let's protect education, let's protect our kids' futures and let's make sure they have an opportunity to go forward and make the most of themselves. Emerson has a quote that says make the most of yourself, for that is all there is of you. It's good advice. It's advice that we should give our kids and our grandkids, and it's advice that we should follow. And we should help our kids make the most of themselves because that's all there is of them. So, Mr. Speaker, I would move adoption of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler to speak against the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. As Representative Gallego's amendment will do, and I'll give him time to get back there, will spend Rainy Day money that technically doesn't exist.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Eissler, there is 6.5 billion available in the Rainy Day Fund now, is there not? And, in fact, that's estimated to grow to be at least 9 billion by 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That could very well be. But over four of it is set for May of 2013, I believe, for medicaid.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In May of 2013 a legislature will already be in session, is that not correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So if this is already going to be in session, we'll already have access -- there's going to be a supplemental bill either way, is there not?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Most likely.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So if there is a supplemental bill either way, there's going to be a hole in education, just like there's going to be a hole in medicaid. And we can plug the hole in education right now.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think we should wait on next session to determine that.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So you have to fire teachers first, and you have to fire librarians first, and you have to make class sizes bigger, and you have to create an emergency in the public school system when you can just fix it right now?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The funds aren't available.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But there's a balance, and the comptroller has told us there's a balance of 6.5 billion in that Rainy Day Fund right now.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: A big reason I think we're -- where our country is in trouble is we're spending money we don't have or we may anticipate. And that's -- in that category I think next session we'll have an opportunity to do that with the supplemental --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I will tell you that a big reason that our country is in trouble, is because we're not educating enough kids. And we're going to be educating them even more poorly in the future. Our graduation rates are too low, our teachers overworked and underpaid, our kids are not living up to their potential because they don't have the assistance that's required. Even though, as I indicated to you I've spent a lot of time with a lot of kids who were talking to me about their dreams and living out their potentials. And it seems to me that it's incredibly ironic that our choice, as a legislature, and your choice, as a chair, is to make these cuts now when we don't have to make these cuts now.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, our school districts have been prepared for these cuts and, as you've seen, a lot of them have already occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Are you telling me that those cuts are good public policy, Mr. Chairman?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, I'm telling you that --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I want to know whether those cuts are good public policy, because I would tell you that I believe educating kids is good public policy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think educating kids is the best public policy.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So why don't you agree with this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You're arguing about how much it costs, okay, or how much we spend. You know, we don't know how much it costs. We do know how much we spend. And your -- you're implying that spending a little bit less of the 52 billion that we spend on public ed each year is -- is a very harmful situation and I think (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (Inaudible) amount and it's certainly a big amount to the school districts that I (inaudible) represent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think any school district will tell you that a few percentage points won't hurt a thing.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's the challenge that I see in your position, Mr. Eissler, is that as you talk about the cost, you don't talk about the outlying costs and the outlying years of what happens if we send kids to prison instead of sending kids to college. You don't talk about that, you don't measure that cost. You don't measure the fact that you're already deferring $2.3 million, in addition to the 4 billion that's coming (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: What I am --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In addition to that, Mr. Eissler, in addition to that --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- living within our means is what enables Texas to create more jobs than all the rest of the states combined --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And the best way --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's producing more revenue (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You know, Mr. Eissler, it makes perfect sense. Texas has created more jobs than any other a state in the country and the best way to do that is to cut money for public ed. The best way to sustain that economy is to cut money for public ed, that's what you are saying?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, I'm not saying --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Texas has created more jobs in the State of Texas in the country and the best way to keep that going is to make the cuts that you suggest?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I it's to keep our taxes low and to workforce educated.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, how is that workforce going to be educated when we're cutting money to schools?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think we're doing a fine job of both.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Are we going to do a good job of both after their cuts for $4 billion? I don't think so.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It's not how much you spend, it's how well you spend it.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I haven't heard the word superior public schools even one time in the conversation about the budget. All I've heard is we need to cut money because we don't have it. I haven't heard a (inaudible) goals about having a superior public education system, or even offering up how much a superior public education costs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Actually, we do have an excellent public education system.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, and I'm glad that we have an excellent public education system. I want to keep it that way. And, in fact, I want to make it better. So this $4 billion in the Rainy Day Fund is going to make it better.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: So automatically (inaudible) (inaudible) putting more money in it doesn't automatically make it better.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And, you know what, but I will tell you taking money out of it at $4 billion at a time, that's a pretty big cut. Every superintendent that I've talked to is saying it's going to effect class sizes in the lower grades, as an example. You want your grandkids or your kids to go from 22 to 1 to 30 to 1? That's a daycare, Mr. Eissler, that's not a classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think you've probably had more than that in your class.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Oh, no. I had the luxury of growing up at Alpine, Texas, where my class size was pretty small.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay. Well I grew up with at least 30 in a class.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's -- Here's -- On a real level, those cuts, are you taking the position that those cuts are good public policy?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I am saying those cuts are necessary, and they are not injurious to the overall public education picture of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So they're not going to hurt at all, is what you are saying?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think they'll be uncomfortable. I don't think they'll be harmful.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, the quality of education is not going to suffer as a result of taking $4 billion out of the public --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In a biennium when you're spending 104 billion I think we will do fine.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In addition to (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think we'll be fine. We have outstanding leadership in our schools. We have outstanding teachers and --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And no reading and math and science initiatives, and no more full day of pre-K, and no more gifted and talented. And none of the -- none of the things that really have provided that economy that you and I are so proud of. Those things are gone.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Those things will be adjusted.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Those things will be?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Adjusted.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Those things will be gone, Mr. Eissler. Those things will be gone. The reading and the math and the science initiative, those things will be gone. The gifted and talented, those things will be gone.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, they won't. Gifted and talented will stay. They're part of the formula. I think 0.12.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Pre-K, is that part of the formula?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Pre-K will be there. Full day?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think that's funded by Head start and TWC.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So it's funded by federal money, it'll be there. But I don't know if it's funded by state money.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- force commission.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So again, the best way to sustain the Texas economy and to keep it growing is a make sure we have an educated workforce and to cut funds to education, that's what you are --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, I think making them better, making more productive. And I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Eissler, I think that that's brave rhetoric. But I don't -- I don't see how that those solves what is already a challenging system for folks of color, in particular, whose graduation rates in particular are already too low. And the diversity of Texas is changing and Texas is growing. We need to be doing more to make kids go to college and to graduate from high school and less -- in prison.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And I think we have. I think what we've done with House Bill 3, in looking at technical education, that is made schools more relevant to kids; all kinds of kids, who see that schools mean something, and that they can get a better job by staying in school I think is most important. So I agree that the graduation rates could be better, and we are going to see better graduation rates. We're going to see more kids attending because they see the relevance, they see the value in what we're providing.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You're going to have fewer teachers, and fewer teachers means you're going to teach less kids to dream. You're going to teach --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not necessarily. I think -- I think --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (Inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think we're looking to save teacher jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I don't see how you do that when you cut $4 billion out of the school budget, Mr. Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to close.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Look, members --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Chairman, if you'll give me a second. I find this to be very simple and very straightforward. How many times have we talked about the superlatives in Texas, and how we've created more jobs in this economy than any other state in this country; and how we, our economy has weathered this recession more than anybody else's? And so what is the best way to keep that going? Because Mr. Eissler and others would seem to say the best way to keep that going is to cut money to public ed. The best way to keep that money, that money flowing into the economy, is to cut for higher ed. Cut money for public colleges and universities, cut money to public schools and you're going to sustain that forward motion of the economy; is that true? You buy that? How many of you are businessmen out there? How many of you know that you need somebody to run that cash register, you need somebody to answer that phone, you need somebody to do every single job in the economy. Wow. Education makes a tremendous difference and yet we would sit here and cut $4 billion like that when there's $4 billion in the bank that's already been paid. And you know what, you're going to have that pay that sooner or later. And how many times out of your own mouths, how many times look in your -- you know, look in your conscience, and tell me how many times you've used that phrase pay now or pay later. How many times -- Senfronia says that we're going to pay it in prison costs. That's very possible. All I know is that each one of us knows that the future of Texas is a big deal. And each one of us knows that the only way and the best way out of whatever situation we find ourselves in, as a society, is education. I said it before. What's the best way? If you're stuck in a dead end job and you want to climb the ladder of success, how do you do it? You do it through education. You know what, if you're trying to break the cycle of poverty in your family how do you do it? You do it through education. If you're trying to break the cycle of crime in your family, how do you do it? You do it through education. Whatever societal ill you're trying to cure the answer's the same, the answer's education. And yet that is the one thing that seems to be taking the biggest hit, as we discussed this. And we discussed this in such a surgical, analytical way that it's like some inanimate object that we're talking about, we're talking about kids. There were two bus loads of kids on that trip to Del Rio from the Mighty (inaudible) in Del Rio. Two busloads of kids that I had the opportunity to talk to who were scared, who had had an experience like they've never had in their lives. They thought that their lives could have been changed and their lives could have been changed in a split second. Some of them are still hospitalized. But none of them were killed, it's pretty miraculous. But every one of those of those futures ought to be important to you, every one of those futures ought to be very important to me, and frankly, every Texan should believe in those kids. Not only those kids from Del Rio, but those kids from across the state. Yes. Yes. That's how important they are. They should be at the top of our list. Everybody's list, every kid from everywhere deserves a future, and this is our opportunity to do it. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield now to the chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Thank you. Your proposal is to appropriate another $4 billion out of the economic stabilization fund?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Yes, sir. What we normally call the Rainy Day Fund, but yes, that's the proper name is the Economic Stabilization Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: And the LLB has told us we will be $4.8 billion short on medicaid at the end of this session.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Jackson, I'm sorry, but I'm not wearing my hearing aid today and so I can't really hear you very well.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: And the LLB is told us it will be $4.8 billion short covering medicaid for this entire session.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I'm not arguing that we're digging a deeper hole, I mean, yeah (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: (Inaudible), you know, education is about -- You do learn math in education, and for --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, unfortunately, we're getting rid of the math and initiatives in this proposal so (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Well, evidently we're --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (Inaudible) math geniuses in State of Texas anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Evidently we've already gotten rid of it because four and
(inaudible) is 4.8, and we are estimated now 6.6 in the economic stabilization fund. And so that will leave us 2.2 short in being able to certify this budget.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No, I would disagree with you. I would disagree with you because I would tell you that your math doesn't add up. And, as you know, the Rainy Day Fund replenishes itself. And as it replenishes itself it's estimated to be over $9 billion by 2013. So you will have that money available at the appropriate time. Your medicaid costs are 2013 costs and in 2013 there's going to be more money in that fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I'm talking about that is not right (inaudible) (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: -- the education.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: The economic stabilization or Rainy Day Fund is estimated -- was estimated to have $9.7 billion in 2013. This is an estimated (inaudible) (inaudible) over this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's what where I would disagree with you (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: -- 3.6
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's where I would disagree with you: What year did you get elected to the legislature?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: 2004.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. In 2004, so let me -- you want to know what the legislature has done with the Rainy Day Fund since 2004 because I would be willing to bet you that in 2005, for example, we funded $1.9 billion out of the emergent technology fund, and if I'll bet you if I pulled your voting record you voted for it. And so if you voted for emerging technology fund with $1.9 billion, a fund that has really been abysmally poor in its performance, and yet you're not willing to fund education when you've already voted, in your history as a member of this legislature to spend money --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Spending money we have (inaudible) you're spending money we don't have.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: We have the money available in the Rainy Day Fund right now. And Mr. Aliseda, I'm sorry, I can't talk about your voting record because you don't have one.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aliseda, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I am happy to yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Chairman Gallego, one of the problems that I have with your argument is I want to know the correlation between spending money and a better education because I don't think there is one. I'm looking at some statistics right now. New York spends twice as much as we do. Washington, D.C. spends twice as much as we do and they score lower on tests than our kids do.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I would tell you that you have to look at several factors, because I will tell you, for example, that in terms of the cost of living and the cost of natural gas and those kinds of things on the east coast that they're going to be higher from the cost -- of the overhead costs are going to be lower in Texas, because I would argue that we have a better quality of life, so we do it for less. So I would argue that. That's issue number one. But frankly, issue number two is, here is the deal, Mr. Aliseda: If you have 22 kids per classroom, that's going cost you money. It's going to cost you more money than having (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Just think how much better you'd be, you'd be president of the United States now instead of a mere member of the Texas House of Representatives. And so that's -- that's my argument is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: I can't run for president because I'm not a natural born citizen.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You should allow people to live up to their full potential, and that's what this amendment is about. It's about providing that 22 to 1 ratio, because we all know that smaller class sizes. I will tell you (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: I'm looking at a statistic right now that Iowa spends the same as Texas, and they rank number 20 in the United States on education. The other issue that I have with your argument is why are we firing teachers when we have a 1 to 1 ratio of teacher to staff and administration? Why is not the school district where these decisions should be made, why aren't they making those decisions to cut staff and administration rather than teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, Mr. Aliseda, I can ask the same issue which is when this bills started out, and if you look at the calendar it always talks about teachers. If you look at the bill from the calendar, and you look at the captions, why didn't the legislative leadership decide that we were going to talking about administration, and why don't the bills say administrative contracts, instead of teacher contract? Because that's where the money is, it seems to me. If --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: We're allowing the local school districts make those decisions, where those decisions should be made. But what has happened is that in order
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: -- Texas Legislature, they have put (inaudible) on the teachers and said you're losing your job, rather than the other way around.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Aliseda, how many things have you voted for this session that haven't been about local control? I can think of several.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. Representative Gallego sends up an amendment to the amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Representative Pitts voting aye. Representative Gallego voting no. Have all voted? Being 94 ayes and 50 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: By Howard of Travis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, I wish I'd had time to go by and talk to each of you on all of this. Things are moving very fast and I'm not able to do that. But what I would really like to say to you here is I'm trying to offer a good, safe compromise. I'm trying to look at what some of us have been saying about using the Rainy Day Funds for education and others want to protect that fund. I think I've come up with something that is reasonable, and I ask you to please listen for just a moment and see if this is something that you can consider. The amendment to the amendment would protect the 6.4 billion that's currently projected to be left in the Rainy Day Fund at the end of the next biennium. But, in addition, it states that anything in excess of that would go to the foundation school program in an amount not to exceed 2.2 billion, that's needed to cover enrollment growth for the next two years. So, in other words, we're not doing anything to delve into the amount of money that's being set aside right now to cover medicaid or to cover the end of biennium deferral of payment. That would be taken care of. The comptroller yesterday certified the budget, based on all the these things that are in place right now. We're talking about something that would be above and beyond. The intention would be to ask the comptroller to revise her estimate of the Rainy Day Fund periodically over the next biennium. And if there is money that she estimates would come into the economic stabilization fund, above and beyond the 6.5 billion currently there, that it would go to fund enrollment growth. We're not talking about whether or not we had issues about how the schools are funding money, we're talking about an issue we all know is there is there and that's enrollment growth, simply funding the new students who will be coming into all of our schools across the state. So I believe this is a compromise for those of us who believe that we need to save a portion of the Rainy Day Fund for next session, but also those who care about public education. Enrollment growth affects every district. So this is something that I think everybody could get behind, it would benefit all our districts. It's only talking about paying for enrolling the new kids, and it's above and beyond the current projection of the economic stabilization fund.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the lady yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Representative Howard, I'm just reading through your amendment. I'm a little disappointed at the end. It looks like it requires two thirds vote to take effect.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: It does. When you're talking about the Rainy Day Fund, indeed it does.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So it's going to require a two thirds vote? So I hope that members are paying attention, because I think what you're doing is great. You are proposing -- I think in reality, is it not a fact that we are kind of hedging our bets hoping the economy comes back?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, we are. And, indeed, we've been getting some good news from the comptroller about that.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And isn't it a fact that we've been saying all along, at least I know I have that as our economy comes back we'll be able to fund education more. And this is a vehicle to be able to do that very thing, is it not?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Representative Weber. That's exactly what it does.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You've got a great amendment and I'm going to vote for it.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So my original amendment just said flat out, 2 billion would go to foundation schools out of Rainy Day. And so yours -- and I contemplated this idea and we spoke about it to make it perhaps contingent in case -- if the money's there and also if there are other needs and so on, and that we still need our medicaid obligations. So yours just says if the money's there. Because we keep hearing the argument about not putting money we don't have, but this one says if we do have then we would send the money to schools. It's only 2 billion, it's not the 4 that's needed, but it would help substantially; correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Absolutely. And you said it absolutely correctly. Yes, this is essentially dividing the amounts that's needed in half, but focusing on the part that deals with enrollment growth, the projection that we need for enrollment growth. I think we need fiscally responsible way to do it because, as you said, it's contingent upon whether or not we have new revenue coming in.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And we heard in previous arguments that we have a great economy, and we have that because of our educational system. But we would not have so -- it would not be the same if we're moving backwards and not funding enrollment growth is a step backwards, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I think we all know that economic development and education are closely tied to one another. In fact, the Texas Association of Business has continued to advocate for an additional $3 billion being invested in public education. So I think we're on firm ground here that this is clearly something that will support our economy, that will make sure that the new students coming into our schools at least have opportunities for a quality public education experience.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would you agree then that -- with beyond the cuts that schools will be facing, there will be an additional cut when we are not funding enrollment growth?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And so what your amendment would you say is that we would leave -- if the money is there we would continue exactly where we are today, not any more, but where we are today; correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Correct. It's actually suggesting, as you said, that if the money is there, as you said, that the Texas Education Association commissioner would then adjust the formulas --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: -- to reduce the cuts if you will.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Will the gentle lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Is it your position with your amendment that you're not -- we're not going use any more of the Rainy Day Fund?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Currently, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay. Okay. Okay. And what you are saying is if we have any increases in the Rainy Day Fund they should go to help all the fast growth school districts, like mine and some others in this state, for new enrollment growth?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: That's right. It would be spread across every district in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: That's really what your amendment does? We do not touch the Rainy Day Fund, as we said, a lot of didn't want to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But with the new money coming in in connection -- even though we know we have some issues down the road it is to help school districts, especially fast growth school districts in north Texas, in various part of the state, to help handle the enormous amounts of new enrollment we have?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: You're absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Howard sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Representative Farrar sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Parliamenta ry inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe that amendment would require two thirds vote; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, the bill would require a hundred votes.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So, the bill requires a two thirds vote, not the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, the bill would take a two thirds vote to effectuate the Rainy Day Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That -- There's other things in the bill that we would want to vote for, so does the amendment require a two-thirds vote?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No, it does not.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliament ary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Now, I understand it. Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden? Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a continued amendment that we did on Senate Bill 653 that dealt with the transferred
(inaudible) that makes it permissible that if it's agreed to, that some of those funds may be transferred to the new agency, and I move adoption. It is acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Parliamentar y inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You know, I'm just trying to put some thought into that last amendment that you said only -- and I agree it probably only needs a two-thirds vote to adopt, but what this is, is it true that the bill has to have a two-thirds vote on third reading; or on the conference committee report in order to be -- for that portion of the bill to be active?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, to effectuate the spending of the Rainy Day Funds the bill would need a two-thirds vote.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Wouldn't it be better then if we have a record vote on that amendment as it goes through, because it actually might have an affect on killing the bill on third reading.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill was actually -- this amendment was actually in Mr. Pitts' conforming amendment. I just wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you to Will Hartnett and the others who've worked with the legal aid legislation, legal aid ideas. This is what is actually in this amendment. I'm going to withdraw it, since it's already in Mr. Pitts' conforming amendment. But I think a word of thanks to Will Hartnett and those who worked so hard to do those things that the Chief Justice and Judge Enoch* asked the Senate to do to get that into the bill. That's what's happened with this amendment and I appreciate them. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, this amendment's on page 26.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill is a contingency rider based upon the passage of House Bill 26, or subsequent, which it takes money and gives it to TDCJ, some money that will be raised out of this bill for the purpose of providing additional inmate health and inmate health benefits at TDCJ. It's one that we've debated before. I'm the glad to see my friend Mr. Turner back there. So I guess we're going to continue some of that discussion. But this bill is one that will, I hope, be before this House in the next couple of working days. And I know we'll seeing this amendment on Senate Bill 1 as it comes up.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course I yield, Sylvester.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Chairman Madden. With respect to the the bill that this rider refers -- this amendment refers to --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- which bill is that?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It's House Bill 26.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And is that -- is that a bill that has already been put on the call?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That is the bill, yes, I believe it certainly is Mr. Turner. Since the (inaudible) deals with -- the call deals with health care cost containment and cost -- and costs. And this bill deals with correctional health care containment and cost. That's certainly my understanding, it's certainly within the call, and it's certainly within the realm of the legislation, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So it's already -- it's already been put on the call by the governor?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I believe it has, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Well let me just --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That would be a discussion that I've had with the parliamentarian, and I think he agrees with me.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And let me -- let me -- let me -- and I know we've talked about this before and I don't want to prolong the time, but in this amendment -- this amendment is one that will -- that will -- place a -- how would you call it, a fee, a charge on the inmate?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It is one of the pieces, Sylvester. There are actually about six pieces in the legislation that is there primarily to help us get some of this shortfall that we know is there in our correctional managed health care system. That system, having the shortfall that it does, we do several things in that bill that are, I think, improvements in our system. For example, we do aides and try to provide aides instead of nurses, et cetera, to do dialysis and to do things like we call the pill window at TDCJ. We also do things within the bill that allows certain things to be put in the commissary instead of the pill window. And yes, there is ones -- And, by the way, we also -- is one that encourages healthy units within TDCJ, for them to put together inmates that are healthy. And no, it does not move the headquarters, for Ms. Kolkhorst, it does not move the headquarters any place out of -- But it does have that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But this amendment places -- places a fee on the inmates?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That is correct. Similar to what was in the bill that was on the House floor on the last night, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And let me just make sure that I understand. These are people that are already locked up in prison, whether they are 5 years, 20 years, 30 years.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: For 2 years, 1 year. Yes, that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And now the state -- the state is going to impose a fee on people that are already --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The state is going to try to provide as good a health care as we possibly can, Mr. Turner. And, as you know, when we have a problem that's going to be -- this is about 10 million dollars in an additional revenue that is going to be there for the state, so that we don't have to lay off nurses and we don't have to lay off doctors that are providing that care. So we're dealing with inmates, trying to provide the best possible care we can and to provide every source of revenue that we possibly can do that. And I think it's fair to charge a copay. Every one of us out here has a copay that we pay on insurance.
(Inaudible) right now. And this is --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Madden?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: -- basically says for those that are not indigent that they'll pay up to a hundred dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Madden, I understand that. But the point that I want to make sure -- that I understand is that we are reverting now, in the State of Texas -- we are reverting to the position of imposing, in a sense, a copay or a fee or charge on people (inaudible) on people who are in incarcerated --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: In prison
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- 5, 10, or 15 years.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: In prison, that's true. But we already do that, Mr. Turner, and you know.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Three dollars?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You know, they do three dollars per visit. This is -- this is eliminates that three dollars a visit and it says it's up to a hundred dollars a year. And it takes out those that are indigent. 49 percent of our people that we have at TDCJ don't even have five dollars in their account, so they would not -- they get the coverage, too, and the people that are giving the coverage don't know whether this is being someone that's paying the hundred dollars or not. But there are people -- as -- Mr. Turner, you may not know but in the inmate funds that we have in the prisons right now there is over $17 million that those -- that they have in the funds. So some of those people, yes, they're indigent, and they're not cut -- they are not affected by this bill. But the ones who have a good portion of that 17 million, it'll cost them up to a hundred dollars for their health care; that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, Mr. Chairman, who's going to let -- who collected the -- collects the --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: TDCJ.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le).
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The Texas Department of Criminal Justice. They're the ones who have all (inaudible) with the commissary (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And TDCJ will collect it and hold the money?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: TDCJ has the money and it will be provided to the health care coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Would TDCJ hold the money in some account or where is the money going to be held --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'll try to get you an answer for that before third reading, we'll see where they hold --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But since we're dealing with this amendment now, I just want to talk now about just the practicality of this amendment. So we are going to allow --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: They would do it the same way right now, Sylvester, to collect the $3.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We're going to allow the prison administrators to collect money now from these inmates.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: They already collect the $3.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are they going to keep it in some bank account at TDCJ?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I don't believe they are going to, Sylvester. I think they'll do exactly like they'll do with the $3 now, which goes on another health care providers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the money will go to whom?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It goes to the health care providers. In this case, the two major providers we have through correctional managed health care.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And who are they?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The Correctional branch at UTMB at Galveston, and Texas Tech University at --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So we're going to collect money from the inmates by TDCJ, and then the money is going to be kept somewhere and --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It's not kept, Sylvester. I believe it will be moved very rapidly to the health care providers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And it's going to go to Texas Tech and UTMB?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It goes to correctional managed health care for the providing of correctional managed health care within the (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: As we currently have it --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And since we are providing funding to UTMB and Texas Tech for the health care that they are providing, do we get -- do we get credited for the amount that we're now --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Sylvester, I think you and I both know in our budgeting bill --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: What's that?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You and I know in House Bill 1, as it was passed, that there is a project probable shortfall in our correctional managed health care.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So is UTMB (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is this -- Is this the way that UTMB and Texas Tech come to you and ask you to put this amendment on the floor so that we would vote --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: UTMB and Texas Tech did not know, Sylvester.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me finish my question. Let me finish my question. Did UTMB and Texas Tech come to you and ask you to put an amendment where we are going to be charging inmates for their medical care that they are providing and they -- and, in turn, we are going to be -- the inmates are going to be paying UTMB and Texas Tech; are they the driving force behind this?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: No. Sylvester, I'm the driving force behind this. And the reason that I did this and I was the one that went looking for ideas, my committee will be able -- would tell you that we went looking for ideas that could cause efficiency within our system or could, in fact -- are there additional ways that they could barely look at revenue enhancements that might be fair within the system that would make it so we do it more efficiently and more effectively. That's been the goal that I've always had. I think you would agree with me on many of the things that we've done in corrections, that we should do them efficiently and we should do them effectively and --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I agree with --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It was my idea to start looking at correctional managed care. And those people can say when we looked at the correctional managed health care board --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I don't know about that --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: -- we looked very closely at those. Let me finish. So it was my idea to look at those ideas. I did not go them come and initially say to them well, what do you want me to do? I went to them specifically and said okay, if we did things (inaudible) smart thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I think it's a sad day in the State of Texas when UTMB and Texas Tech would have to result to getting -- reach a point where we are charging people who are incarcerated, whether they 5 years, 15 years or 20 years, a fee in order for them to turn back and pay these other institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And, Sylvester, as you know we are already charging them the three dollars per visit, which is a fee. This is not an expansion. I don't think of ideas. This is, in fact, just trying to make sure that we've got health care for those -- for those individuals that are there that we can keep those nurses and nurse's aides out there in the facility. Because you know that's where they cut most of the revenue, is out at the facilities and not in the main hospitals.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad day in the State of Texas in order for us to meet our constitutional obligations that we are now assessing fees on inmates in order to pay our institutions like UTMB and Texas Tech. I think that is a sad commentary.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And we respectfully disagree with you, Sylvester, on this one. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative p Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Madden amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members, I just want to stand in support of this amendment by chairman Madden. The process of committee, multiple, multiple testimony. I'll be truthful with you, we had two vendors that provide health care for our prison facilities. Both of those venders, if they would be honest with you, would tell you they are in a lose money situation year out and year out. We've had supplemental budgets year in and year out, they've had to come back in and have their monies replaced. It's not a high priority for most institutions to take on, so we're fortunate to have two. That kind of gives us some latitude to work with them. But this is not really an option from a budget standpoint or from a health care provider point. We don't have a lot of options in our health care system. Neither one of them came to us and said we need the inmates to pay us money. That was one initiative we took on in committee. So I stand in support of the agreement. It works. It's making the best of a bad situation. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This is -- Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment that assesses those in our criminal justice system a fee for the health care that we are constitutionally obligated to give these inmates. These are not people that are working in the criminal justice system, they are not -- they are not getting an hourly paid job. They are incarcerated. And the money is going to be collected by TDCJ, it's going to go to UTMB and Texas Tech. My only comment, it is a sad commentary, it's a sad commentary on the State of Texas when we are imposing fees on people who are locked up which, in turn, means we are imposing their fees on their family members; not on them, but on their family members; in order to pay for health care that we are constitutionally obligated to give. That is a sad commentary and if that's where we are in the State of Texas, God save us all.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, Sylvester and I have agreed a lot on a criminal justice items, but we just happen to disagree with -- on this one. I urge you to support, and I ask you to vote for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden sends up an amendment. Question is on the adoption of the Madden amendment. Vote aye -- The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. This is on the Madden amendment. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote no on the Madden amendment. Representative Pitts voting aye. Representative Madden voting aye. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 98 ayes and 45 nays, the amendment is adopted. Members, that completes the amendments. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 2. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Being 98 ayes and 47 nays, Senate Bill 2 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business, Senate Bill 1. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1 by Duncan. Relating to certain fiscal matters; providing penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I laid out the bill earlier before we postponed it, and I'm going to turn it over to Representative Eissler to explain school finance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the school finance provisions are a combination of what was originally considered proration, but it's a reduction. And Senate Bill 22
(inaudible) two levers to reduce current law entitlement by 2 billion a year. A regular program adjustment factor, which requires an across the board reduction, and a percentage reduction to target revenue hold harmless. The compromised solution reduces current law entitlement by 2 billion in fiscal year 2012, using only the regular program adjustment. This means an across the board reduction to school district funding. It also reduces current law entitlement by 2 billion dollars in fiscal year 2013, using that Senate Bill 22 mix of one quarter of the reduction from the regular program across the board mechanism, and three quarters of the reduction from target revenue hold harmless. Future reductions, whether across the board or through target revenue hold harmless, are not addressed in statutes but instead left to the next legislature to decide in the appropriations process. It requires a joint legislative committee to review public school finance, and includes intent language that in the future we continue to reduce hold harmless, while increasing the basic allotment. To ensure future legislators take this seriously, the target revenue is repealed in fiscal year 2018. This proposal reflects a decision this body adopted in House Bill 1, under that budget -- under the budget, and we are required to reduce spending in education, $4 billion. And, over the interim, the House will have an opportunity to have input in how the formulas could look or will look for the '14/'15 biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the chairman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Eissler, just from the outset, is this the same school finance plan that was in 1811?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So there have been no changes since it went over to the Senate and now it's back in Senate Bill 1?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is it your intent today to proceed forward with this school finance plan without any changes?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's my intent.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So you're not planning on offering any amendment to this --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The Senate sent over the plan that the conference committee report -- which passed this House last week, and made no changes. Made no amendments, no changes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So even though, for example, now that has come back -- we're in a special session it would send two committees -- it wasn't sent to your committee, correct? You didn't review it?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: To the public education committee. So it went through appropriations?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That there have been no changes at all to the bill, to the plan that was put together in the regular -- in the last two days of the session?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct. And, as I recall, from a couple of the appropriations meetings that you were there --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- and saw that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Let me also ask you this, this is a five-year plan, is it not? The school plan, school finance plan?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It's mostly a two-year plan, but there is that part of it that -- that it retires basically hold harmless in fiscal year 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Because you talked about what would happen take place in 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So if, by voting for Senate Bill 1, is it fair to say that in Senate Bill 1 that we are voting for what we have affectionately referred to as Eissler plan in 2012, and Shapiro's plan in 2013?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, those are -- Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And in to -- and in 2014, it is neither the Eissler plan, the proration plan or Shapiro plan in terms of those reductions at the top and the bottom?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And so in year three, in year three, pretty much it is a budgetary an and an appropriation decision?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: However, however, before year three there will be a select committee that will decide what -- what our school finance should look like.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: As we've gone over since 2006, you know, with the hold harmless, that's mostly been the discussion about school finance. We've never really gotten into what we should be spending money or, or the formula weights or --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is an interim committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But the -- but the legislature, for example, if it chooses not -- let's say the interim committee does not come up with anything. If there's no -- if it doesn't come up with anything, or anything that the next legislature chooses to accept; in the third year, Senate Bill 1 provides how the funding will be given or distributed to the local school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: On appropriations, correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And that's the appropriation process?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: With current law weights and (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: With current law weights as somewhat of a guide, but the appropriations committee is not -- is not tied to those weights or to those formulas?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, that's a distribution. They -- they would do two things. They -- One, they would choose how much over all money. And secondly, how much -- how much of hold hammerless or target revenue would be reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So right now, under current law, under current law, for example, if the current law remains the same; we are obligated by statute to pay the local school districts to a appropriate to local school districts X amount, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Under current law?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And under current, law under current law, based on the agreements, the understandings that we have with the 1100 school districts; under the foundation school program we are obligated under current law, to pay the school districts an additional $4 billion, roughly?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And the reason why we're dealing with Senate Bill 1 as it relates to school finance is because, under current law, we owe them; it is a constitutional entitlement, so to speak; we owe them, and we have to amend current law to account for at $4 billion less that we are prepared to pay our -- to appropriate to our local school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And so -- Will you agree with me, Chairman Eissler, that based on what we did in 2006 when we lowered the property taxes by a third, when we modified the franchise tax, and when we promised the school districts that we would hold them harmless, in a sense what we are doing to them, you're asking us in Senate Bill 1; you are asking us to renege -- to renege on the promise, on the promise that we made to our local school districts in 2006; is that not an accurate statement?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Renege is kind of a strong word. When we look at -- when we look at how we froze our hold harmless or (inaudible), which is a district aid for tax reduction, we took a snapshot which may not have been the wisest but (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me back up. Let me back up. Let me back up. In 2006, when we lowered the property taxes by one-third, when we modified the franchise taxes; did we not promise the local school districts that we would hold them harmless? Did we not make that promise?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's what
(inaudible) it is hold harmless.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And we made that promise under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We did, and, interestingly enough, that was only supposed to be a one or two-year fix.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But we did not fix it, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And now today, under Senate Bill 1, the fix that we are offering to the local school districts is because we are going to reduce what we are obligated to appropriate to them under current law. We need to modify the structure to account for 4 billion dollars less that we are going to pay the school districts in rural Texas, suburban Texas and urban Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Now -- And what we are doing now by accepting this plan under Senate Bill 1, we know what the appropriating mechanism will be of the distribution amount of level would be for 2012 --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And 13.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And 13. We don't quite enjoy what it would be in year three, four and five; is that fair?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's fair.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Which means that when we come back in 2013, and after we have taken care of medicaid; because I heard I think what Representative Jackson said, that we've got a 4.8 billion dollar amount that we need to pay and we may have to bring that out of the Rainy Day Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In May of 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. But the point is, after we take care of medicaid, because people want to take ware care of medicaid first; I heard Representative Jackson, and after we take care of transportation and all of these other issues then, in 2013, under your plan in Senate Bill 1, the appropriators will decide how much -- how much we will give, how much less, if anything we will give to our local school districts. That's what will happen under Senate Bill 1?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And also determine how much they'll reduce hold harmless.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I understand that. But the reality is, under Senate Bill 1, is that our schools, which includes our children, our teachers, our parents; in Senate Bill 1 and in what we are doing today, we are saying to our local communities in rural, Texas suburban Texas, in urban Texas, that education is not the number one priority in the State of Texas. That's what we are saying in Senate Bill 1. Is that what we are saying?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's not what I'm saying.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, let's back up. Let's make sure that's not what you are saying.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We're taking -- we're taking reductions in all of our areas. We're taking the same sized pie, it's just a smaller pie.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: A same size piece.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And in year three, four and five before the speaker comes down with the hammer; in year three, four and five, if the people on this floor decide that we want to spend less on education, we can spend less and we are not driven by any particular formula; is that not true?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is possible. Which means if we vote for Senate Bill 1 --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But not very likely at all.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is not likely? But in this session we are spending four billion dollars less at the end of the appropriation process, after we have taken care of medicaid, after we have taken care of higher ed, after we have taken care of transportation; we are making the decision today that we are going to spend what is less -- what is left on our children, on teachers in our local school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But you're implying that education is an afterthought, and I have to -- I have to disagree with that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, let me not imply. Let me just come right out and say it: The way we are handling the public schools in the State of Texas in this process, the funding for our public schools is an afterthought. We are giving to our children in the State of Texas what is left. Is that not true?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is not true.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: They are getting -- We've already taken care of medicaid, we have already taken care of our transportation --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You talk about medicaid. You have certain federal requirements that force you to spend -- In fact, even in our -- even in our school funding formulas there are certain maintenance metrics. People are (inaudible) (inaudible) requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, people have already said that we can't spend the Rainy Day Fund -- that we can't spend the Rainy Day Fund, because we got to put $4.8 million on the medicaid. And the point that I'm trying to make --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And 3.3 is a supplemental in this current biennium that we're in right now, which enables another 2 billion dollars to be spent on public ed. And I -- I submit that the reason that got voted to the affirmative was that it did provide an additional 2 billion dollars for public education.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, the point that I want to make, and that the members have to understand; if we vote for Senate Bill 1, without a sunset provision in years three, four, and five, we will be appropriating to our local school districts, whether they are in rural Texas or urban Texas, an amount that is left after we have done everything else, because it will not be driven by any formulas or adjustments.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I submit, it's a top priority.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, if it's a top priority, Mr. Chairman, then let's fund it right now. Let's fund it right now, if it's the top priority.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It is the top priority.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The educational system is the only thing that's getting -- not just -- I went to the barbershop last night, Mr. Chairman. Can you tell? And I cut off what little afro I had. But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, don't you think that the children in the State of Texas are getting a deeper haircut than the one I got last night?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, it's 4 billion dollars, Mr. Chairman. I only paid $25.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But we spend 52 a year on public education.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You got a 170,000 kids, more, that are coming (inaudible) Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: So that leaves through the biennium a hundred million dollars and we're losing four.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will. I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Chairman Eissler, is it your intent to make this a permanent change in how we fund our schools, so that going forward starting in 2013 it will be a decision that appropriations makes?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: After, you mean after 13?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible) My intent -- my intent is to have a good interim committee to fix some of the problems with our funding system as it stands today, for the long term.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: But is it your intent -- Do you believe that shifting the decision making to appropriations, instead of having the level of funding set by statute -- is it your intent that that is a change in policy for the better in a new position that you will maintain in next -- when we reconvene next regular session? And the reason why I'm asking is because this is a permanent change in how we determine the level of funding for our schools versus a temporary change, because you are changing the statute but not our state constitution. And so have you considered that -- that the havoc that you are going to potentially unleash on our school system, on our public education system, with future court battles to determine if the state is adequately funding our schools? You know as well as I do that it was just in 2005 that the Supreme Court said we were on the verge of inadequately funding our school system, and they were on the verge of ruling against us.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: They also --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That is a valid consideration (inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: They also made a lot of comments, Michael, on efficiency. Because that's the one word that's in the constitution that
(inaudible) changes --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Let's stay on point, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Is it your intention to support a permanent shift in how we determine the level of funding from our statute to the appropriations process?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, this -- this bill takes care of this next biennium, with some caveat for future, basically a reduction in hold harmless --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Let me ask you again.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: My intention -- My intention is to fix it in the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So your intention is for us to go back to the how we currently do business, allow the formulas to determine their level of funding?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's my intention.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. That is important -- That is (inaudible) -- I appreciate you sharing that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think you know that, Michael.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Well, no. Actually, I don't. And it's a very serious change that we're about to make in Senate Bill 1, and I just want to make sure that this is a temporary change and, if it's not, then we need to know that. Because going forward if -- The benefit of having a system of formulas to determine the level of funding is less lawsuits. Because if it's going to be a decision making process to determined every two years, and we know that the question of adequacy is grounds for suit, it would -- it wouldn't do anybody any good to allow this to be a legal process fought in the courts. And I know we're probably going to end up there anyway, but to have it be a permanent reoccurring event in how we decide levels of funding is just bad public policy. So, I appreciate your answer to that very important question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Michael.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Reynolds, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir. I will.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you. Rob, I know you've worked very --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I'm sorry, what?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: I said I know you've worked very hard and we all agree that this is very near and dear to us all as we talk about the future of the state and it comes to school finance. I have a few questions for you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: And this is some concerns that I have from different stakeholders, different constituents, different school districts. And one of the things that they talk about is the issue of equity in school finance. You would agree with me that this bill doesn't actually get us there, does it? I mean we still have situations where there are property rich and property poor school districts, it's not equity; there's still winners and losers, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, the way our formulas are set up I guess there always are. And a lot of that has been built in over the years.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Right .
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: If you look at -- If you look at -- When you say about equity, the poorer school districts, well equity basically is equal -- taxation equal revenue, or access to revenue.
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time has expired. Point is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman's time be extended.
THE CHAIR: Members, this is the first extension of time. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Rob. Could you continue, please?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Sure. So you're looking at, you know, equal taxing effort for equal results. And a lot of our guaranteed yield programs, for example, work that way. And you're always going to have outliers, and, you know, I know we look at measures of equity to get us certain percentage of our kids in an equitable system. And I know that over the years we've gone up 86, 88 percent of our kids in that system. And I think -- I think with 3646 I think we broke 90, 92. Now, once you get to 95 or 96 percent, the curve takes a steep -- very steep, in terms of number of kids and expense. So it's virtually impossible to get all of our kids in an equitable system.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So you're saying that it's impossible? Is that --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, it's not impossible. But the curve is -- rises exponentially --
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- once you get past like 94 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: But would you agree that we should do everything necessary to achieve equity between -- let's say our rural school districts and our suburban school district?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That opens quite a few factors. But I think what you're talking about is let's say lower target revenue, higher target revenue or low property, high property.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Correct. Shouldn't that be our goal, isn't it our important to achieve those goals?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Okay . And don't we need (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It is by -- by court -- court order.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Right. The court order. The courts have ruled that. So their precedent has said that that is the legislature's responsibility, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: And so this bill --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: General and efficient system.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: A general diffusion of knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Correct. And this proposed legislation, we aren't there yet, are we?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: In this proposed legislation we aren't there yet, are we?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: On this plan, this --
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Would you agree with that though, Rob, yes or no? We're not there yet?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I think it puts us in that direction.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: We're close, but we're not there yet, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We're headed that way.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. We're headed that way. And it is your intent in the interim to get us there, is that -- that, I believe, is what I heard earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Now, let's talk about our -- where we stand now. Isn't it true that Texas currently ranks 44th out of 50 states in funding per pupil, is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I've heard that, although Ms. Giddings (inaudible) but, as Mr. Gallego pointed out, that the cost of living in Texas is much lower than other states. So if you put it on an even keel I would say we're in the top half.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: You're not answering my question. You didn't answer my question. Isn't it true that we are either the 43rd or 44th, somewhere in the bottom?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In raw dollars I'll say yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. And in this proposed legislation we're talking about a 4 billion dollar cut, that's my understanding; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. And we're not funding for the explosive growth in enrollment, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That has not been included, that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. And so where does this leave us when it comes to -- Earlier you were talking to Chairman Gallego about funding for pre-K, what -- and I think I understood you to say that pre-K wasn't harmed, but that's not my understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, I am not saying that it wasn't harmed, there is still a significant pre-K present, not only in federal money with Head Start, but also Texas Workforce.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, Rob, as I understand it from following the federal proposed legislation, there are severe cuts to Head Start; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. And so that would have an impact upon schools in Texas, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It would have an contact on schools everywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Right. Correct. But we're talking about Texas. So going back to that premise then with the proposed cuts in SB 1, the proposed cuts that are coming from the Head Start program, pre-K is going to be substantially limited, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I'll say it's reduced, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: You just don't want to stay substantially?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I don't know the numbers or -- Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Now, when it comes to education -- public education, you agree as we said that'll this is our number one priority, correct, it should be our number one priority?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It's mine. In fact, 60 percent of our general revenue goes to education.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Up from 57 percent before, so we are a smaller pie but we have a larger piece of it.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. And isn't it also true that Texas ranks near the bottom when it comes to teacher pay?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, actually I know -- I know in raw dollars, and this is probably four years old, it was like 33rd. But then when it was corrected for -- when it was corrected for cost of living it was more like 15th or 16th. And that was a few years ago. And I know that this legislature has taken great pains in the last four years to add a teacher pay rise, and I think we've done it twice in the last four years. So I think teacher pay is pretty strong compared to other states.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Isn't the unintended consequence of this proposed legislation going to result in larger class sizes?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not necessarily.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, how is that if we're going to --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Stay tuned for another bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you. Chairman Eissler, I know Representative -- Chairman Hopson and I have just one quick question on the bill, just for legislative intent. We have some school districts that were impacted by the compression rate, something that was put in last year's school finance bill that was I think --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You're talking about 350 dollar max?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: The compression rates that we've been working on with you for about eight school districts. I wanted to make sure that it was included in this bill as a part of the language (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I believe -- I believe it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. Great.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I believe it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Just to confirm that, I know we've all worked together to resolve this TEA said that they needed it in statute, and so just wanted to -- I know we've moved the bill a lot.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I know it was on the way out of here, and I'm assuming it is here on the way back.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Now my understanding is the amount of money that we're talking about in school finance, that was dictated in the appropriations bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So all this conversation that we're having about the amount of money going to into public schools, that should have been happening on that legislation and not this; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You're dealing with the aftermath -- the impact of that budget; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And I know some other people got a chance to ask some questions. Unfortunately, it looks like my time has expired; but I want to make it clear that as of September 1st, 2017, the sections dealing with target revenue are actually repealed; is that correct, that's in this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And so those of us that have been on the back side of equity know that by 2017 target revenue is going to go away.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Now, there's nothing in this bill that says it can't go away before that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And, in fact, that's a good point. And that's the second lever of the appropriations, which they can --
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Representative Chisum raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Members, we're on page one of the amendment packet. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a perfecting amendment. It amends the correctional managed health care committee. It removes provisions that would allow the enterprise fund to be used for the homeless program, but it would allow it for federal funds. It amends Article 3 relating to tax records to clarify that records must be preserved to substantiate taxpayers claims. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Representative Pitts sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're on page eight. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment basically
(inaudible) it's a pretty similar to Representative Howard of Travis' amendment, that if there is sufficient money available for the purposes, after making necessary medicaid payments, that we would avoid the deferral in the school fund. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Isaac, let me make sure I understand the amendment. Okay. You are saying that if there's any money left after the medicaid payments are made -- Explain that to me.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: That's correct. If the comptroller determines there is sufficient money available, after we make our medicaid payments, that we would afford -- defer or void the school funding deferral.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, you understand that the medicaid section is underfunded by 4.4 billion dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: That's correct. We anticipate that the economic stabilization fund will grow, and if the comptroller would determine that it has grown sufficiently enough then we will avoid those deferrals.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is it -- Let me make sure that I understand, because I'm a little bit confused. In HB 1 medicaid is underfunded by $4.8 billion. You are anticipating that the $4.8 billion will be paid -- will be paid by the Rainy Day Fund; is that what you are saying? Cause I'm not understanding your amendment. Are you saying we're going to pay -- we're going to pay Health and Human Services, which includes medicaid first, and then we will pay our schools second?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yeah. It's my to understanding that that $4.8 billion is a projection that actually could come down to about $3.8 billion so --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Who told you that?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: That's my understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, let me give you another understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Please.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It's presently 4.8 billion dollars, according to LBB. There are people in the agency that say it could exceed $5 billion. There's a medicaid flexibility waiver that's approximately $700 million dollars that are just hanging out there that we all agree is funny money. As the extension of medicaid to managed care down into the valley, which is approximately $400 some million. I don't see where it's going to drop from $4.8 billion to some three-point something any time soon.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: It sounds like you're making a good argument to leave the money in the Rainy Day Fund, which I support. But this amendment clearly states if the comptroller finds that sufficient money is available for the purposes, after making necessary medicaid payments to honor before the 25th of August, the payments described -- shall be maid -- it says to the deferral so avoid that deferral.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, are you also aware that in HB 1 that there are contingency riders that say, for example, that there are other items in the appropriations bill that are also contingent on the comptroller's certifying or indicating that there are monies beyond the biennium revenue estimate, that's already in there, so --
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is Chairman (inaudible) -- is Chairman Pitts intending to accept this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yes, it's my understanding that he did accept it during the regular session.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are you sure he's going to accept this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: The last I heard, about 30 seconds ago. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I guess, Chairman, I'm just -- as my grandmother would say, I just don't see how we get there from here. Now, I'm going to have to echo some of the things Representative Davis is saying. I don't know how we are appropriating and budgeting in this legislative process. Now, I didn't go to the best schools, but I know how to add. And the way we are managing and budgeting in this process, I wouldn't want the Texas House to manage any household in the State of Texas, because they would all be in the ditch. This amendment conflicts with what we did in HB 1 and the way we are doing things simply does not add up. I'm sorry, I understand what you're trying to do.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Sure, it is a good fiscal responsible amendment. I don't like doing deferrals, but that deferral that we're doing is allowing us to put $1.8 billion or more -- $2.2 billion in into school funding between now and August 25th.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I understand you don't like doing deferrals, and I understand people don't want to have to suffer the consequences of decisions that other people made as it relates to the $4 billion cut to the foundation school program. But I will tell you on my best judgment this amendment is more rhetorical than it is substantive.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hochberg?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Representa tive, maybe I missed something in the discussion on Senate Bill 2, so please excuse me if I ask you a question that was answered in Senate Bill 2. But did we pass something appropriating this additional money to the foundation school program in Senate Bill 2?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, did you? As the sponsor of this I would assume that you would have the corresponding amendments in making appropriation. Did you not do that?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: There's no appropriation in this particular amendment, it doesn't relate to --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And there's no appropriation in Senate Bill 2 to spend this money. So it would be my understanding that even if -- that you would be making -- it would be requiring the payments to be made during the next fiscal biennium, but you've appropriated no money to do it with. Therefore it seems to me that you would be causing another proration, because you would be requiring that payment without having actually put the money in.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Now, if you clearly read the amendment, it's pretty --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'll try.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: -- plain English here. If the comptroller finds that the sufficient money is available and we shall avoid that school funding deferral.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We shall avoid the deferral, but you have to appropriate the money to the foundation school program at some point in order to spend it, don't you?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Can we ask Mr. Pitts that, maybe? Is he going to come up and talk one way or another on your deal?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I'm not advised of his schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Because it seems to me that if you don't, the amount we appropriated doesn't include the deferred money.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I think we've already appropriated the money, we're just --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But we have not appropriated the money that is to be deferred because --
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Have we determined an amount to be deferred?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We deducted that out of the appropriation, we didn't appropriate it. We short funded by that amount and said we'll make that up in the following biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: But we know what that amount is.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We do know what that amount is, although there's a difference of opinion on it. But -- but it has not been appropriated if the budget bill. So I don't think your amendment works without an appropriation. Dan, I am wrong? You're looking at me. Don't we need to appropriate it in order for it to actually be spent? And if we don't appropriate it this requires TEA to make the payment, in which case, since they are required to make the payment we they will be short and they will go into a proration in the second year. And depending -- and at least the language that's currently written in this bill, that means they'll never get the money because they'll be short and they won't be owed it. So my I think it actually could cause them, if another amendment doesn't go on later, it could cause them not to get the money either in the next biennium or the coming biennium. And I know that's not your intent.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: No --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And I am not suggesting that that's you're intent, and I understand what you're trying to do. I just don't think this does it. And I would suggest perhaps to talk to the LBB and maybe pull this down. We're going to be here a while. If you want to do this I think it's appropriate you do it right, and not get us in more trouble. And I may be wrong, but I've got nobody to ask the question of other than you, and you're apparently in about the same position I am; which is not knowing for sure the answers to questions I'm raising.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Sure. Let me see if I can find out the answers to your questions. We are on the second amendment so we've got a ways to go.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And other things may change as we move through the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I'd be happy to pull it down so --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 9, members, it's withdrawn. The amendment on page 14 will be considered when we get to page 35. So now, members, we're on page 18. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to draw your attention to the amendment on page 18 that I'm offering. There's several provisions relating to pre-tax payments and -- or tax prepayments in several editions of this bill, dealing with motor fuel taxes, alcoholic and mixed beverage taxes and sales taxes. This one deals with the motor fuels and alcoholic and mixed beverage taxes. Business who collect sales tax on behalf of the state would be required to make a prepayment in the amount of 25 percent of the amount of taxes due in August of 2013. Make good note of that year. In addition to their regular payments, amount of taxes due. What this part of the bill basically does is what Pop-eye the comic strip character, J. Wellington Wimpy says, I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today. These sections of Senate Bill 1 are a ticking time bomb and -- they're not set off -- the fuse is not set to go off this year before our elections, it's due to go off after our elections before the next biennium begins. If you're willing to campaign in your district this September, after businesses have been required to pay this amount, and tell them with a straight face that we have passed a balanced budget no tax increases, then I encourage you to amend this legislation to make this prepayment occur before the next general election. On the other hand, my amendment would take away this speed up provision. And, if you support it, I urge you to vote with me in the name of truth and transparency that we all talk about. Please put your vote where your mouth is and let's not shift the blame to the next legislature with the prepayment of these taxes in 2013. I urge you to support this amendment in the name of transparency and to remove the dis-ingenious tactic that is in this bill in this section.
THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is $85 million that we are counting on for our budget. $85 million dollars. This is worked out language. We went to the Texas Petroleum Markers and Convenience Store Association, and they are in agreement and they would -- they expressed their support of this amendment. I move to table. Members, we're looking for money to help fund our schools, this is $85 million that we're counting on when we are budgeting for our schools. I move to table.
THE CHAIR: Representative -- Representative Simpson to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Members, I urge you to do what you would want others to do to you. Don't ask your businesses in your district to prepay 25 percent of their taxes ahead of time. We are shifting to the next legislature. We're putting this after we are going to be voted on in the next primary. I urge you, let's be honest with our numbers and with our businesses in our district, I urge you to vote no to this motion to table.
THE CHAIR: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. The question's on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Simpson voting no. Show Representative Pitts and Otto voting aye. Show Representative Button voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 59 ayes 80 nays, the motion to table fails. Members, we're now back on the Simpson amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I would like to say, you know, I certainly appreciate David Simpson's amendment because it affects the business that Jimmie and I own and operate. We're petroleum wholesalers. And as this session went on and we knew the financial troubles that the state was in, we had a lot of discourse on prepaying sales tax. And I look at Speaker Craddick, he and I had conversations. In 2003 we had similar situations. I voted for that -- I voted to table it even though when we collect the sales tax in July we'll remit two payments. We will get a credit for that, moving forward. It's -- it's usually difficult when you collect taxes that sometimes you have to have a line of credit to be able to do that, because you're always managing your cash flow.
THE CHAIR: Representative Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: If I could just finish, for one second --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Texas Petroleum and Convenience Store Association works, I think it was Senator Duncan, Senator Ogden and Chairman Pitts to work out this language that we believe we could live with this. And I tell you-all this as an example that these are tough times. We need this part of the bill to certify this budget. I'm staying up here not as somebody that won't pay great (inaudible) but to lead by example. And Jimmie and I have are both happy to help the State of Texas, it is not going to -- we are going to get that credit back, and we believe that -- we believe --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And you've given us two years to plan for this so that we can do cash flow management.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I will.
THE CHAIR: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm not sure that gentle lady is the word, but I will assume you are gentle. Lois, I have to confess that I am sitting here really not understanding exactly what the provision that Mr. Simpson's strike would do, and I think there are other members in similar positions. Can you just briefly explain what this provision does, what we're asking of our retailers and how much it raises; or can Mr. Pitts do that?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes -- I would be happy to -- to do this, okay. And I'm going to read from a statement that the Texas Petroleum and Convenience Store Association put together. It is the distributers and suppliers will be required to remit an amount equivalent to 25 percent of their respective tax liability for gasolines and diesel fuels removed from a terminal rack during the month of July 2013, not 2011, not 2012, but 2013. The accelerated payment will be a one time only event, the payment of the tax will be due prior to the last day of August, 2013. So, as we looked at, as we looked at this as an industry, you know, and certainly a lot of people -- we represent a lot of distributers, Jean Morrison represents one in Victoria. Cliff Thomas is a very good friend of ours. We worked out these details. And so it gives us time to do cash management. And, you know, is it my favorite thing, no? It's worth about $85 million to help us certify this. So in working through this and, Jim, you and I had conversations via cell phone and personally, looking at the industry and things. This was an agreed to language that we worked on.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Otto, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Will the gentle lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Lois, in your own business this 25 percent prepayment, it is 25 percent of what you normally remit for a month; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And you will receive credit for it the following month in the new fiscal year starting in September, isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So you're going to pay this amount. All the state is asking you to do in this bill is to pay it a month early for 25 percent of the amount you normally pay; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And as you --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Twenty-fiv e percent of one month.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Of one month?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Otto, can I also expand on (inaudible) is one of the things that was on the table was the point of collection fee. You know. And retailers are paid to collect taxes, so are distributers and wholesalers. And that was being talked about when the Senate was originally provisioning this bill. And the industry came and said rather than take away the point of collection fee, because there is a cost to collecting the taxes for the State of Texas, trust me on this, we would rather have this language. And so that was part of -- as I understand, it the give and take as we discussed this. So that this was a better option for -- for those that collect taxes for the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Legler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Ask the gentle lady a question.
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Ms. Kolkhorst?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes. Colonel sanders (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you. If you can help me, is this tax that you're going to prepaying, have you collected that tax already?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: We will -- What we collect -- We remit taxes, usually it's the 23rd or the 24th of the month. So we when we collect that -- As I understand it, the 25 percent of one month and I would have to sit down on a piece of paper, Ken, and work it out, but we would we have at least collected portions of that; because you have the remittance coming in from the stores.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Right. Because I know in my business when I collect the sales tax and I pay it monthly, I send in what I collected and I don't send in what I haven't collected.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right. That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: But I send in what I have collected. The question is, is this money that you have already collected and sent it in earlier?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: For the most part, especially since it's 25 percent of one month. It's just 25 percent of one month. So if you've been collecting, you know, I drop a load of fuel and then that's sold and they remit back to us and
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: So basically what you are saying is if the tax has already been collected, the tax already belongs to the state. You are just writing them a check early; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right. Right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I can understand the bill then. I can see how I can vote for it.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And 25 percent. Let me say that there was great engagement by the industry on point of collections of the fee that is received versus being able to do this particular procedure. This was much -- I mean the Texas Petroleum and Convenience Store Association agreed to this language and worked on this for several months. This is nothing new. We knew this was in the bill. I was going to go to the back mic and say Jim, Chairman Pitts, that we're happy to do our part for the State of Texas in these tough economic times. You know, we were all having great pains. We would rather see this than a permanent tax increase.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. So basically --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And then the (inaudible) is this, that we're trying to give -- this is 2013. We are trying to let the economy, you know, none of us want to is he a tax bill out here. So it gives us time to take a deep breath before we come back to the next session. And potentially, we don't even have to do this next session. We could remove it before we get to July of 2013 if the economy has improved.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Representative Kolkhorst, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Would you -- Would you go back over that one more time, because in other words, it sounded like what you were saying is that y'all typically send the payment in somewhere around the 23rd.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: 23rd, taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: And what -- what does that did that include? Was that -- let's say that you would be sending in very quickly here the taxes on the 23rd of June, was that the taxes that were collected in the month of May?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That's correct. Since the last time that we remitted, so you're collecting the taxes all along that way.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: All right. And so all we would be saying is that in the 20 -- on the 23rd of July, you would be not only sending in the taxes for June, you would be sending in some of the taxes that you've already collected in the month of July?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yeah. And depending on how all of that falls, and I can sit over here -- Well, we don't have time, but I will tell you that it's a cash management issue for like us, we can prepare for this coming up. We know it's 2013, we can do some cash management. We can remit that 25 percent of the next month. Again, it's not the whole month. Not, you know, it's just 25 percent. And when we were looking at in our business it was a doable option for us. Again, agreed to by the industry rather than them coming after the point of collections fee and different things that they could have and the Senate was talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: So would it be the equivalent of sending in July in July you'd be sending in June's payment.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Plus you'd be sending in a portion of the taxes that you've already collected in July?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Correct.
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, that the gentle lady's time has expired. The point's well taken and sustained. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against the amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I've got to stress to you this is $85 million that we counted on when we passed House Bill 1. If this amendment is -- goes on, then the things that you wanted in House Bill 1, the funding to your schools, will go down $85 million. And just pure and simple. We can come back next session and if the economy's better we can change this, because we're -- it's not just July 13. If the economy does get better I would suggest that that's what we would probably do
(inaudible). But this is agreed upon language, this is what we with worked out with all of the interest groups. We have another one the next time -- the next amendment is $231 million. So if these two go on we're cutting over $300 million to our schools. And let me talk to you another thing this bill does.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Let him finish.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Is that, I know, we've heard a lot of comments from people about the small business tax exceptions. This helps fund the small business tax exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Chairma n Pitts, so this is the same language that have in the bill that the Simpson amendment takes away, deletes. It's the same language that we passed in 1811, and that you came to the floor and talked about how we got with the industries, they've accepted the speedups. It was the only speedup we had, we didn't do anything with the other speedups of concern, but only -- only these speedups. And basically what we were asking is just like we were deferring a payment that would happen August to September on the expenditure side, we're asking for some revenue that's already been collected at the very end of the next biennium to be paid a little earlier, already collected revenue. So the state can book it in this biennium, so we can certify this budget and pay for all the things; including what you just mentioned, the small business exemption that I put in your bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you for making that clear.
THE CHAIR: Representative Otto, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Chairman Pitts?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Pitts, I want to make sure everybody understands on the floor that is a one time. And, as you said earlier, this can still be undone in 2013 if we come back and the economy is improved and sales tax collections are up, none of us know that at this time. But you're also aware that when we were sitting in appropriations, the comptroller testified to the appropriations committee, if you will recall, that we needed to look at this as a four-year budget cycle because of the depth of the recession; is that not true?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And that's what we're trying to do in this House is to take care and not have all of the pain if one biennium, and by doing what we are essentially doing this is not a new tax. All we're asking is for people to remit one month earlier 25 percent of what they normally remit.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That they have agreed to do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That they've agreed to do. And it's one time only; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's a one time only in July of 2013. Members, I ask you to vote no on the amendment.
THE CHAIR: Representative Simpson to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we're being asked here by the author to do something one time. I don't think that's the case. I think it's done before by this body. And we have -- at least I purposed not to employ gimmicks in dealing with the budget, but to be honest about the appropriations for this coming biennium, which the electorate elected us to do. Not to put it off on the next legislature, but to appropriate or to cut the funds to operate in this state our schools during this coming biennium. The money may not be there in September 2013. We are considering up to August 2013 and we are to focus on funding that. We are asking our --
THE CHAIR: Representative Solomons, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Not yet. We're asking our businesses to do the cash management of our state. Do you want to go campaign on that? If they want to voluntarily prepay their taxes, they're more than welcome to do so. But this forces them to fund the state ahead of time. Furthermore, although they stated in this language to be a credit in September of 2013, I don't see any language that they're going to pay us back with interest. So we are actually borrowing from our businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield now?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Simpson , I voted with you on the last one because I wanted to hear more of the debate, as well as a number of other members, just to make sure of what we're doing. I would -- I would -- It's been brought to my attention we've kind of done this language before in 1811. I was wondering if you -- if you were able to get this amendment on the bill are you going to vote for the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: We will see how it goes today.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Have you ever voted for it in the past?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I did not vote for it last time.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, you know, one of the things is, you know, you may or may not have a good issue; but it seems to me that listening to the debate further, and that's why I voted with you the first time, in listening to some of the debate and have a chance to ask some questions like most the members did. It I seems to me that if we done it before on these other bills, we need the money to do this, it seems to be agreed to by the industry. It's for one month and it's one time. I'm not sure that we should sacrifice all of it in connection with this. And especially if you're not even interested in voting for the bill, should you even get it on.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: We can take care of this real easily. This, and the next amendment, which will deal with $231 million of speed ups, simply by using the money in the enterprise fund and the emerging technology fund; someone can propose an amendment to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, I think the members -- I'm hearing some members may have some issues with that as well. But that (inaudible) may be -- I appreciate what you're trying to say and I appreciate what you're trying to do. But it seems to me and it seems to other members in discussions that we may be put in a position that for this particular amendment that you're trying to do, on this particular issue on this particular bill, it may not be the wisest thing to do. And in connection with the fact that we've already had the bill a couple times before, I understand. And you seem to be very resolute about this issue and these kinds of issues. But we're almost in a position now of needing to get this $85 million and not sacrificing this $85 million this way.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I say sacrifice it out of the emerging technology fund.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, I don't know that that counts in this connection. But I'm going to let somebody else if they have a question. But thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Zedler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: To ask a question.
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Simpson?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Certainly.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Representative Simpson, as I understand this, and correct me if I'm wrong, all we're asking them is to send us the money that they've collected that's due us anyhow. In other words, that is not their money. That is the state's money. It's the state's sales taxes that they collected, and what we're asking them to do, instead of sending it the next month, we're just asking them to send this, a quarter of a payment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Oh, so we're asking them to do kind of a big manufacturers, the multi nationals, instead of -- if you work out a contract to them normally if you're a big company, they may let you pay them in 30 days. But if you're a small person they're going to make you -- they're going to allow you actually give you 90 days to pay or actually the reverse.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Well, yeah it'll probably be the reverse. The deal though it is still the state's money, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, it's not the state's money until the law causes it to be paid. We're asking -- (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I beg your pardon. They are supposed to take that money when they collect it and decide not to put it into their general revenue, they're supposed to set it aside so that that can be sent to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, perhaps you should amend it where they can voluntarily do that. Or if they prepay it, do we pay it back with interest? Give them credit with interest for the days that we've used it for. It's not due until the law says it's due.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's right --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: They can use it for --
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I want to make sure we all understand that it is state's money anyhow, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It is their money until it owed to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: No, they simply collect it for the state. It is the state's money. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Simpson?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you Mr. Simpson. And I think this brings up an interesting debate. You made a comment about cast management, and I know you and Mr. Zedler just had a conversation about that this is public money and it's just we're asking them to, instead of allowing it to extend into the next month and make the payment as normal, that this is asking for the public's money to come in quicker, 25 percent of it; and because of the notion of 25 percent, my understanding is it's you can make a very strong case then that that's public funds, because in the -- in the business's cash flow that's the public money that was to be set aside. So we're talking about cash management of public funds. And my question for you is are you -- do you think that we should be doing cash management?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't think we should ask businesses to do our management.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No, I would agree with you. But if the businesses have public funds and that's public money being --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's not the way I understand this.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Are you aware, speaking of cash management, are you aware that we go to the markets every August, every summer and do what's called a trans note; because of a lot of our revenues don't come in at the same time. We have put expenses out to our school districts --
THE CHAIR: Gentleman's time is expired. Representative Crownover raises a point of order, point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. On the adoption of the amendment, the clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Pitts voting nay. Show Representative Simpson voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Show Representative Farrar voting no. There being 34 ayes, 109 nays, the motion fails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.
THE CHAIR: Members, we're on page 19.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This is the same --
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you. I won't keep you long. This is the same issue, we're asking businesses to fund what they would normally be paying in September to pay in August. Let's be honest, when we go out and campaign and tell people what we did, that we sped up their taxes in order to balance this budget. Thank you. I encourage you to vote for this amendment.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts to speak against the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, let me make this perfectly clear. This is a sales tax speedup, it's not a franchise tax, it's a sales tax. And this was an agreement that we made with the Texas Retailers Association, who I put on you desk -- their letter on your desk when we passed Senate Bill 1811. The Retailers Association, on behalf of all their members, have agreed that this is a one time only collection of tax. The same as what we were talking about earlier. It's the state's money. It is $231 million that we counted on in our budget if -- If Representative Simpson's amendment goes on, our budget will not certify by $231 million. It's the same as the last amendment that we struck off and I would hope you stay with me and vote against the Simpson amendment. I move to table. So please vote for the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I have a couple of questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Representative Pitts, forgive me for being confused. And I think I may have voted wrong on the last one but I got a little confused. At least all my desk mates are telling me I voted wrong. I'm just want to make sure I understand this time. These are moneys that have already been collected?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yeah, you did vote no.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So we're not -- Yeah. I did okay. -- So in this case, on this, this is without any question, this is not an estimate. This is money that if I am retailer, if I've got sales, it's already been dropped into my box. I've got this on hand. And so I'm not estimating what any future tax will be, or anything like that; these are monies on hand that I have already collected, we're just saying send it in sooner?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's correct, Phil.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse me, Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will Mr. Pitts yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I sure will.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Pitts, I'm not understanding, too. Because earlier you voted, it changed so dramatically. So I want to understand what was the difference. This one is different in that this is an estimated tax that we're asking them to pay earlier?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This is a tax that they would typically -- that they have collected and that there would be remitting to the state early. They would normally remit it to the state in September of 2013. We're asking these retailers to do it in 2000 -- in August of 2013. It is paying a tax that they have collected, a sales tax that they have collected earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And you indicated that the retail association has, you all had agreed to the language; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We worked this language out with the retailers association. And I sent a letter, the letter around from the retailers association when we did Senate Bill 1811. And we voted on this already twice to do this for the retailers to send their sales tax earlier. It's 25 percent of their amounts.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So what they are sending would be early?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And one of the statements that you made, I'm just want, for clarification purposes you indicated that this was money -- this is the state's money, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This is the state's money.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Legler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Chairman yield for a quick question?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Let me make sure now. Who was this (inaudible) this will cover anybody who collects sales tax?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This is -- Yes it's the retailers.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I am, like I'm a wholesaler and I collect sales tax sometimes, too. Because I sell to another company for a loan use. So it's anyone who collects a sales and use tax, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: If you collect a sales tax for the State of Texas you would normally remit this in September. We are asking you to pay a quarter of your September payment in August.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: What about the ones that pay quarterly?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Pardon me?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: What about the ones that pay quarterly, because they don't have enough sales tax collection and they can pay quarterly, I believe.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not sure how that would be.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. Okay. So if -- so we collected a tax and I agree it is a collected tax, it is a government tax and (inaudible) to the government. I understand that. We did -- was this a bill that came across committee by itself?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, it was not a bill. It was always in our anticipating when we passed House Bill 1. It was in Senate Bill 1811. We passed it in 1811. Frankly, with out any opposition of 1811. We did it on the conference report of 1811, so we voted on it several times already.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: And you say a quarter percent of what (inaudible) so if a quarter percent -- In other words, sometime my month is I pay a sales tax of five thousand dollars and the next month I pay a sales tax of thousand dollars, because it depends on the sales that I collected. How would you figure that out?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: If you pay electronically --
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- okay. It would be the amount that you owed in September you would pay that -- I think it's in July. It's either quarter or the of what you paid in July you pay it in August.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. So if I had a high month in July and I had a low month in August, I would actually have to pay a little more but it would still be credited?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You would get a credit in the August payment.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. Okay. Did (inaudible) did they come out and say federation of businesses say they were in favor? Did they comment on anything about this?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Everybody that we talked to this has worked out language, I'm not going to say when I first started it was agreed to, but this is language that they gave us that they would agree to.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you. Members, I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Members, sometimes I wonder where I am. We talk a lot about Washington but I'm afraid we've moved Washington real close to the center of Texas. We're complicating the tax code. We're going to ask people to pay their taxes, and we're not only going to do it we're not going to do it before we're elected next go round; we're going to have them do it after we're elected. I think we need -- If we campaign, say yes, we balanced the budget but we did it with the next legislative biennium's budget. We're just making deferrals and we're making speedups. Let's be honest with what we're doing. Let's tell our constituents when we campaign. I urge you to support this amendment by opposing this motion to table. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for one final question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Speaking of honesty, would you tell this body if this amendment gets on that you're going to vote for the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Honestly, I'm doubtful at this point. And I'll watch how it goes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Did you vote for House Bill 1, the budget?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, I didn't.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And I didn't do so because of the some of the reasons I just stated. We need to be very honest. We actually -- and if you normalize the budget, if you take away the 12 billion one time (inaudible) fund, that brings the last biennium's budget from 187 to 175 billion. If you add back what we just spent in this biennium with the Rainy Day Fund, it went to about 178.5 billion. We just passed a budget for 172 billion. But we're deferring 4 billion dollars into the next biennium. We're also not funding medicaid about 4 billion dollars, and so that brings it up to a $180 billion. So actually the budget that we just passed is one and a half billion dollars more than the last biennium. And yet we're not doing it and we're funding our school children $400 less per student and we're not taking care of our commitments on medicaid. I urge you, if you vote to table this tell your constituents honestly about what's going on this floor and how we are balancing the budget. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Burnham because of death in the family, on a the motion of Representative Gooden. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Being 81 ayes and 63 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. The amendment is on page to.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment just allows us to delete the section for the pretax payment (inaudible). And it's bad enough that we're asking people to pay in advance, now we're going to penalize them if they don't. And this amendment just basically says that we would like and hope and appreciate an early payment, but to penalize folks for not paying earlier just seems to be unconscionable, in my mind. And certainly I wouldn't agree with our budgeting process. But this might be something that everybody else deems appropriate. But for us to ask our business to pay early, and if they don't pay early penalize them and put a penalty on the pretax for not paying just seems unconscionable. So that's what this amendment does. And I would ask House conferees, appropriations folks, to consider an appropriate way to handle this tax that we're asking them to pay early and not penalize our businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentle-lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Ms. Davis, you are suggesting that as the state requires people to pay their tax before it's due --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: -- that they not be penalized for not paying earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So there would really be kind of double penalty if they were penalized for paying -- earlier -- (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's right they're making them pay early and if you don't pay early we're going also put a penalty on you. At some point we should not be doing businesses like, as we say, we're a place where we want to create jobs and support our businesses; and then we're going to double hit them with an early prepayment and penalize them if they don't pay it. That is ridiculous that we're going to manage our budget by penalizing the folks that we say we support.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Ms. Davis, does that sound like a policy that's going create more jobs in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, I would think it would have an adverse effect. The other thing I want to add, Representative Gallego, is we're now -- our government now is against our citizens. Instead of it being a government for the people, by the people, for the people, we're going to penalize them if they don't pay us early. It is no longer about them, it's about the government. We have somehow reversed the roles and responsibility to the point that we're now penalizing our businesses if they don't pay us early. Something's wrong with this process.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, in our mantra of making Texas a business friendly place, does this sound like a -- does this policy create an incentive for new businesses to move to Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I would think this policy's going to create a disincentive for folks to do business in the State of Texas. And that's what I'm trying to say to folks here is that, listen, while we have these great budget constraints and we're trying to look for monies any way we can, to penalize the folks that we charge with creating jobs and creating a friendly business environment if they don't participate early or pay early, is just too punitive. It make no sense for us to be doing this. And that's all this amendment is seeking to do, is while I encourage and support the need for us look at what ways to budget -- to manage our budget, this is just wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Is there a distinction in the bill between big businesses and small businesses? As you know, the vast majority of businesses in Texas, the backbone of the economy are small businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's right. More than 90 percent of our businesses are small businesses. And while I applaud them working with the retail association and the independent businesses
(inaudible) they said they are working for, I will assure you the business in District 11 are not prepared and they've not relinquished their responsibility to advocate doing them this way. This is wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, even if we were to make them pay early, the idea that you would penalize them if they didn't pay early --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is a double whammy to them, that's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And how many businesses -- how many small businesses in your part of the world have contacted you about supporting this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I have not been contacted. In fact, what the small businesses have said to us is what are you all doing? What's this notion of making us pay early? Now, (inaudible) not only pay early, they're going to be penalized if they don't pay early. So I would tell you that businesses are just not going to be as -- I've heard the discussion that they're acceptable and accepting of this, many businesses -- they're not aware -- they don't have lobbyists here. They've not signed on to some legislation that passed a letter around saying they approve this. This is just wrong to penalize them if they don't pay early and -- and put the burden again on the businesses. And I want to just mention this, Pete, while we put big businesses out of paying any taxes. I will tell you that that is what's so fundamentally wrong with this approach is, well, on the one hand justifying paying early some businesses and then letting others not pay at all. And then we penalize those who don't pay early. So I would tell you, members, this is something we really need to be concerned about, that we're putting an amendment -- we're putting a tax asking them to pay their taxes early and then penalize them if they don't pay early. There's something flawed about this approach and we ought not be supporting this. With that, I would move to support this amendment and vote no on the motion to table, because we at some point we ought to be more responsible and accountable to our businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, let me be clear about what this is. This is not applying a new penalty to anybody on a speedup. If you currently collect and remit sales tax to the State of Texas basically you pay a penalty of $50 if you are late. In other words, everybody that collects sales tax you pay a $50 penalty if you are late reporting your return. However, if you have any other taxes that you remit you don't have a penalty for being late. What the bill does, what SB 1 does is it says we're going to treat everybody uniformly. That if you're late on your motor fuel tax or filing the report, it's a $50 late penalty. Currently you have no penalty. Why should sales tax be the only one that gets penalized for being late? All this does is apply a uniform standard for the taxes that are due the state and the reports that are due to be filed timely. If you are timely, you don't pay the penalty. I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative -- Chair recognizes Representative Davis to close.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm told this is not the penalty on the speedup. And I will withdraw this amendment with that understanding. But I will tell you part of the problem is all these gimmicks you all are using, an unclear message that you're sending the businesses, what they're going to have to do. Because we were told this was going to be a penalty on those speedups as well. And if that's not what we're doing, I'm not trying to create something that's not there, but I will tell you that there is that kind of concern. But, with that, I will withdraw the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. We're on page 21 the the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment on page 22. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment simply includes a discrepancy between the general appropriations act and SB 1. (Inaudible) correction. I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none the amendment's adopted. We're on page 23. The the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sheffield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment clarifies the amount of the service line fee that can be sent to the Railroad Commission regulatory programs. And I believe this same amendment that I did on SB 11 -- 1811, I believe it's acceptable to the author then and I believe it's acceptable again.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Page 24, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, basically in the bill, we have allowed attorney -- with the -- with the Attorney General's Office to be exempted from the CLE requirements. There are other attorneys in the state as well. We should greet treat all of the attorneys that work for the state the same. And that's what this amendment does, it treats everybody the same. And I believe this amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And now
(inaudible) I'm on second base (inaudible) home.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is Representative Martinez on the floor of the House? The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 26.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the -- this basically strikes out the Amazon tax that the governor vetoed. We had passed out of this House but the governor vetoed because of the the concerns of what impact it would have. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, some day I'm going to get to go home and I won't hear anymore about the Amazon tax. But let me tell you something, this is not about the Amazon tax. This bill never was. I filed this bill after the comptroller had already had made the assessment against Amazon, because they have a physical presence here. All that's contained in Senate Bill 1 is an -- it's basically to take and update the statutes of what constitutes physical presence in this state. And it says if you have physical presence, like our retailers who are competing against these companies who are not having to collect the sales tax or are not collecting the sales tax, it puts you on an evil playing field with them. This level -- if -- Now, it would be evil. All this bill does -- The reason I filed this is basically, if you look at the fiscal note it only raises about $16 million is the estimate. So it can't be a new tax. If it is, it's a pretty poor one to only raise that much money. What this is designed to do is to take the statute that's already been in existence since 1963 that defines physical presence, and it updates it to include what constitutes physical presence today. It is not an internet sales tax. If somebody is selling over the internet you collect no tax, unless the seller has physical presence in this state. That's all that the bill does.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Menendez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Would the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Be glad to.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: John, would it surprise you that many of us who have stores in our districts, camera shops or electronics, that people go in there look at the equipment, ask questions of employees take up the time of the employees, use the facilities there in that business, that the businessmen and women of this state have. And then walk out and go home and order stuff online and hurt local businesses. I mean this -- Does your bill -- your bill, in my opinion, helps people with a brick and mortar presence in Texas, who make investments, who pay salaries, who're pay for electricities; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you John. I think you have -- I think you need to fight this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Representative Otto, you and I have had some long conversations about this. I want to make sure that I really understand this. As a retailer who is located outside of this state, who is selling into the state using the internet as a means of sale does not have to collect taxes under current Texas law; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That is correct. They will not have to under the bill, that as it contains in SB 1 --
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: -- as long as they have no physical presence in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. So -- so someone who's selling into the state over the internet who is not located in Texas, they are in Oregon or Washington or they're somewhere else outside.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And they have no, you know, no (inaudible) no physical presence here, either through themselves or controlled subsidiaries. They're not physically present. They're not obligated to collect the sales tax today.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: So they have no obligation to collect tax under current law, and in Senate Bill 1, and I believe it's Article 29 that we're talking about here. Article 9 is enacted in the law, they would still have no requirement to collect any tax on behalf of Texas, in the State of Texas and remit it to the comptroller?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct. This bill does not address sales over the internet, it addresses physical presence.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: So really, as I understand it, the guts of your bill defines what a subsidiary is; defining it as 50 percent, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: It basically defines that if you have a 50 percent or more on subsidiary, then that constitutes an affiliate that would have nexus and cause you to have nexus.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. And so but right now Texas law doesn't say -- doesn't define a subsidiary, does it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, it defines and affiliate. And if you -- if you can send one employee into a state and create nexus. But also you can have an agent here that creates nexus for you, under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Under current law today?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: As it is exists right now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: As it exists right now?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. And then -- But your Article 29, what we're talking about what this amendment is about, this establishes that what the definition of a subsidiary with a 50 percent owner threshold.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's right. That is one of the things that it defines. It basically updates the statutes to how our commence has changed over the years.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: And that's not defined in statute today, is it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: No, it's not.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: And so people are litigating as we speak, attorneys are suing and comptrollers and legal battles, and people who are in business in the State of Texas don't know what the definition of a subsidiary is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: But your -- This section of SB 1 actually defines it. I think this is good. I think it is incumbent on us as legislators to define what is subsidiary is. And right now we're litigating, people in this state are litigating what the law means. I think it's incumbent on us as legislators to tell them. I think you've got done a good job of clarify that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Would the gentleman yield for a -- for a question? Just to clarify that, I mean the law is clear on what subsidiaries are, or affiliates with respect to general jurisprudence, and that could be -- you could have a 1 percent ownership and then that's -- but this is saying for taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: For nexus purposes, for physical presence. And let me just say that I arrived at 50 percent or more controlled, when I met with the comptroller about this issue they wanted a 10 percent ownership threshold. I was not comfortable with that, because a mere investment in a company could cause you to create nexus. If you control the company, though. If you're basically filing consolidated financial statements and returns then, to me, control says that's same thing as, you know, the parent company being there. So that's what I arrived at. It was sort of --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: So this approach comes up to the 50 percent so it's an impasse. As long as someone has the ability to control someone else, then they're effectively --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's their agent that is sitting there.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: 50/50 partner. We didn't go to 51, we didn't go to 49. You put it in the middle.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Right. It's 50 percent or more, then you control.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Right. And you didn't go town to as you said 25 percent or 50 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Right. And so all those businesses that have investments or even minority position ownership positions, up to and through 49.9 percent are not covered in this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Legler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Let me, in my business, if I have a company in New York City or New York, it's not in New York. The website business, they sell my product. They buy -- the company, someone goes to the website, it goes to New York, buys my product, I ship it to the State of Texas I charge a sales tax.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Because you're physically present.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Because my business is present in Texas. Now, if I move my business into Oklahoma and I had a website (inaudible) company in Texas, and the Texas company went and I bought my -- and I'm in business in Oklahoma, and I've sent my freight into Texas, I would not charge a sales tax?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct. Because my bill does not include what are called affiliated marketers. These are the click through nexus folks. The (inaudible) few states have documented a nexus statute, that does not include affiliated marketers. Such as Illinois, Arkansas, North Carolina, California's in the process of passing one. So my bill does address, the bill that is contained in SB 1 does not in any way cause you to have a nexus because of a click through web affiliated marketer.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Because my main concern is I don't want to have to sit there and look at Boom, my company in the State of Texas, because other companies in other states are getting an advantage because they're shipping back into the State of Texas --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Actually, affiliated marketers should want to move to Texas because we're not going to allow them to establish nexus us for the people they sell for.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you for clearing that up for me. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Otto, according to the American -- tax reform, I believe, this would be considered a new tax; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not advised as to who considers this a new tax.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, in committee in the regular session, did they not submit a letter opposing this?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Which group?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The Americans For Tax Reform.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not aware. I mean, are you -- the only letter that I'm aware of during the regular session, I did -- I was aware that Grover (inaudible) was not going to score this as a vote for a new tax.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, his group submitted a letter opposing this, did they not?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Today?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No, during the regular session.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: No. Well, they may have submitted a letter opposing it.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm sorry, Mr. Otto, I can't hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: They may have submitted a letter, but I'm not aware that they -- I do know that during the regular session they were not going to score this as voting a new tax.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But they submitted a letter? You're not aware of -- Are you aware that they sent --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not aware. They could --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. Because they opposed it during the regular session, is that not accurate?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: They didn't testify against it in committee, but (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: They did not testify in person during the committee because
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But they submitted a witness affirmation form against this proposal, did they not?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So they did submit a witness affirmation form against this proposal?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, they did.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler to close.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, let's make sure we all understand this. First of all, Governor Perry vetoed this because he said HB 2403, which was the bill that was passed that has this same language, partially dissolves the physical nexus standard for tax collections despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Quill vs. North Dakota that expressly forbids states from forcing out of state businesses and individuals to collect and remit sales taxes. The Americans For Tax Reform did indeed encourage the governor to veto this. They pointed out the same thing. The fact is, is that Texans -- the Texas Public Policy Foundation has come out in opposition to this. So has Texans For Fiscal Responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: They have come out in opposition to do this with tax (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Is this an increase in taxes for customers in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Indeed it will, people -- for people who are buying through Amazon pay sales taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Is that why TPBF, Americans For Tax Reform and Power Texas are all opposed to this?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's exactly right. Every one of those conservative organizations are opposed to the language of this, that's in the bill right now. And that's why they support my amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: And this was the first bill vetoed by the governor, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: It certainly was.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: And explain why it was vetoed.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Well, Governor Perry vetoed it because, as I said, he said that -- that HB 2403 partially dissolves the fiscal nexus standard for tax collection,s despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Quill vs. North Dakota. This is loosening the physical nexus standard to re-cross state borders and force nonresidents to collect or pay taxes is a philosophy rooted in state's wholly unlike Texas. So what we need to do is make sure that we are not increasing the sales taxes of those people who are buying through Amazon.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: So not only are we increasing taxes, but we are also possibly losing Texas jobs; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's exactly right. Because Amazon had wanted to bring and keep more taxes here. Right now, all Amazon has is the warehouse, that's all they have. They don't have a retail store in the State of Texas, they have a warehouse. You know how easy it is to move out of a warehouse. It is extremely easy to move out of a warehouse. And you know what, once they've moved out of the warehouse the property taxes that are collected by that entity goes way down, because an empty warehouse doesn't pay much in property taxes. A full warehouse does pay property tax.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Have other states tried to do similar things and what's happened? Haven't other states tried to take similar approaches and lost jobs?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Other states have tried to do the same thing. They've lost jobs. What we need to do is make sure we not only keep those jobs here, we encourage more jobs to come to this state.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: And haven't some states try to do this and turned around and decided not to do it, because they realized the job losses?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's exactly right. One of those things that has come up was the issue of Big Link, another organization like Amazon. And here's what -- when they ask him, the CEO, when they asked the CEO if this would have any impact on him moving, here's what he said: If we -- if we did decide move it would be critical to only have to do it once. The uncertainty around the passage of an affiliate tax makes Texas a difficult destination to contemplate.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: It's my understanding that South Carolina was going to do something similar to what we're doing, they decided not to. It was just announced that Amazon was going to bring two thousand jobs there.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: And aren't they considering the same thing in Texas, and those jobs will not come here if this is passed?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: So, bottom line, is this is going to increase taxes for consumers, and we're going to have less jobs in Texas. And the benefit is what, if we pass this?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Well, if we pass my amendment what it'll do is it'll, first of all, I would think encourage Amazon to stay here with their warehouse. The other thing it will do is it will encourage other organizations that are in the same boat to come here.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Doesn't congress really need to address this, because if we try to do this here all it does is create a competitive advantage for other states that don't do this, and in reality we're going to have a disadvantage relative to other states, is that not correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: That's exactly right so --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zedler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Zed ler, are you aware that we heard that bill of Mr. Otto's in committee, and we had testimony of public hearing on this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I'm -- I'm sure you did.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And we had that meeting and when I asked Amazon, in lieu of what happened with consideration of what had happened between them and the comptroller's office, I asked them to come testify on the bill and let us know what their plans were, whether they were going to stay in the state or actually leave. They didn't -- The first answer was they would come testify and let me know if they were going to stay in the state, but then they decided they -- they weren't going to come and testify to that because they would no longer make that commitment, and they were leaving anyway. And so what I heard from instead was all the small businesses and all the retail folks that came to say this is unfair, and basically we were choosing to protect Amazon over main street. And your -- It's right. Congress should address this, but they haven't addressed anything. They haven't done immigration. They haven't done this. They're worthless. We need to take care of this ourselves and we need to -- this bill passes the committee and it's a fair way -- all it does is define what nexus is, and what physical presence is. And, by the way, the organization --
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Let's make sure we understand. Any organization, even though they may not have a retail outlet in this state where they can sell product through, even though they may not have a retail outlet in this state where they could --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: If they have a warehouse (inaudible) they have physical presence.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: (Inaudi ble) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: (Inaudible)
(inaudible) Wait a minute.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: If they have physical presence, that's what it did. It did not do what South Carolina did. This was a very -- Mr. Otto did a very good job of this bill of threading the needle and getting it right. There was another bill by Representative Naishtat that was controversial. This bill came out of the committee very favorably, and I would urge members to vote to take your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Is there a question there? I didn't think so. Members, here is the thing, when they -- when you order something from Amazon in this state from now on you will be paying a tax. You will be paying a tax on those products.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Larson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zedler, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yeah, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Representative -- yeah, Representative Zedler, do you own a business? Do you have -- have you operated a business? Do you pay -- do you pay sales tax and property tax? Do you own a business that's paying the sales tax or that's collecting and paying the sales tax, paying the property tax that you're eluding to? Do you understand the detriment that we have with companies like Amazon that come in and compete directly with the company that I own, and with all of the companies in towns all over the State of Texas; while they're not paying --
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Look, whether they have a distribution center in this state or not, if they choose to take their distribution center outside this state, which would be very easy for them to do, guess what? They'll still be competing with our retailers. The fact of the matter is that.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: I mean the fact of the matter is -- is they got a unfair disadvantage on people that own businesses in Texas and that's what we're trying to rectify.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: What you may consider an unfair disadvantage (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Because I compete with them every day.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Why do I go into a store? Very often I like to them try things on. I like to feel how it feels, that kind of thing. I can't do that over the internet and that's the other thing. A lot of times you have to pay for shipping over the internet. So here's what the Texans -- what the Americans For Tax Reform said.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I don't care what those (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: -- I urge you to remove Article 29, the online sales tax provision commonly referred to as the Amazon tax, before moving to final passage of this fiscal matters bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So when you go to that -- when you go to that retailer and you try those clothes on, then you go back to your house and you order it online; so you can circumvent paying the sales tax.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Members, move not to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zedler sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. It's on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Otto voting aye. Show Representative Zedler voting no. Show Representative Villarreal voting aye. Show Representative Menendez voting aye. The Have all voted? Show Representative Weber voting no. Being 106 ayes and 34 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 27.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hilderbran.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hilderbran ? The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. On page 29 the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Weber.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My amendment to SB 1 is going to remove, if you read the amendment, Article 37 of the bill; having to do with process civil review boards. And what it boils down to is that the language in this bill will increase a fee and expand government. The process civil review board is something that the legislature did not create. It was created by the Supreme Court and that raises a whole bunch of questions. But, nonetheless, my amendment in this hard economic time would serve to strike the fee, limit the expansion of government and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Do I have to? I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Weber, these process servers that are going to serve on this board, you are trying to eliminate their travel fee; is that right? Or reimbursement for their expenses?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: What we're doing, as I understand it, Chairman Chisum, is we are actually expanding some expenses where the reimbursement -- this would be a new spending, where Article 37 would provide for the reimbursement of travel and other expenses incurred by the voluntary members of the PSRB.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah. And while you may live in Houston and it may be an hour and a half, two hour drive over here, if somebody happens to live in Lubbock or El Paso it might be quite expensive for them to travel down here to meet on this board. And the board's not going to go away as a result of your amendment; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I don't believe the board's going to go away as a result of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But the board's won't go away, and yet we're going to ask the citizens of Texas to take money of out of their pocket to serve the board, or just allow those that are close to Austin to serve on the board. I don't really think that's fair to all of Texas. So I just (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Is it your understanding that the State Board of Education gets reimbursed for their travel.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: They're elected board. I think they do.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I don't think they do.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, they should.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, you might want to make that amendment. In the meantime
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: (Inaudible) proper for this. But I agree. But just I just want to point out to you that if these people are driving out of El Paso, it might cost as much as five hundred dollars, where if they live in Austin -- Maybe we could just have an Austin board.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, I would submit to you that they might want to undertake to be on the board, and that's understandable. There's times that I could be on the air-conditioning board but I wouldn't have traveled to Austin.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I certainly do.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I was just looking at what you're said, Representative Weber, about the State Board of Education, and was reminded of the fact as you know, did you know that the State Board of Education members have had personal financial adviser's that they select to advise them on investments. And that we don't reimburse for travel because one of the reasons is that they've had a hard time meeting. The fact is, we're not reimbursing for people that are managing a multi billion dollar fund that helps pay for education, did you know that?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I did.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you. Good point. With that I --
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield, Mr. Weber?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Weber, what exactly are you trying to -- you're taking out all reimbursements, right? So everybody that's on this board would have to pay that out of their own pocket, or are you capping it as a certain amount.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You need to understand that is something new, this is an expansion. And at this time when we can't even fund our schools I think expanding --
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: No. I'm asking about your specific amendment. What does your amendment do?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: That's what it does, it prevents us from spending that money and increasing our spending.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So currently right now they do not get reimbursed?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: They do not.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: They do not. So then what are you -- What does this amendment do?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, currently in SB 1 they're wanting to reimburse them.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So there's
(inaudible) from all parts of Texas, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: That would certainly be your interpretation. I don't believe it's a fair interpretation on my part.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So just give me an example how this amendment -- your amendment would particularly affect people coming from El Paso, which is a nine hour drive and about a five hundred --
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Representative , just like I said I had the chance to be on the board, the HBC board, the comp air-conditioning contractor board wouldn't come to Austin. I said, you know what? To far, too much time. I chose not to do it. Someone from El Paso doesn't have to choose to be on the board. If they want to and think there is a good enough service, then they could provide that service. But if they think it's in the worth it they might do like I did and opt not to be on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So you're saying that they would have have to make the decision to pay it, out of their personal accounts, correct; to be on that particular board?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: That's what I might have done had I chosen to do that. I'm saying that exact -- just like we're asking businesses to pay their taxes up front, we'd be asking the citizens to kick in a little bit, too.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So this eliminates it across the board, nobody gets reimbursed at all?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And the PRB group for their travels.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You bet.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: So what you are saying is as the bill is written now there would be taxpayer funds spent on reimbursement of the travel?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: As SB 1 is written, correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Are you aware that the House -- this House and the Senate passed a bill that's on the governor's desk that allows the process of review board to collect a fee that will pay for the board, and the members of the process service association were supportive of that bill that passes over two thirds majority of this House. And that that's where the travel reimbursement money would come from, it wouldn't be taxpayer dollars it would be fee money.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I am aware of that, Lance. Just because two thirds voted (inaudible). Sometimes the majority only means that all the fools are on one side.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: But you're aware that the legislation has passed that will mandate that this money comes out of fee money, and not out of you taxpayer money. So we're not taking money from taxpayers (inaudible) GR.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You make a great point. It is a new fee.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: With that, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gooden in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment basically takes away the ability of a board to pay for -- not pay for but reimburse their members to come to Austin and do their business. They have had in the past a member from El Paso who was on the board, that is no longer on the board, because he was spending so much money out of pocket to come to Austin four times a year. The money that will be used to reimburse these members of board for their travel expenses will not come from GR, will not come from taxpayers dollars, it's strictly from fee revenue that the process servers pay that go straight to this -- to this board. And this was supported by this industry. It's already been passed by both houses and this is supported by this body. This is not a bad thing for tax payers because the tax payer's burden has already been lifted by the implementation of the fee on the industry that they supported. This simply allows the membership of the board to come from all over at state because people can actually afford to come to Austin because they know they're going to be reimbursed. It's not like people are lining up asking to be on this board, and it's hard now get people to them serve, much less charge them to come to Austin to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Would the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Gooden, are you aware that the process server review board was created by the Supreme Court and was not created by the state legislature?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: That's correct. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, through the Office of Court Administration, has the ability to manage the functions of the Supreme Court. And the Office of Court Administration is who created the process server review board. It was absolutely within their purview to do so. And actually someone challenged this, and approximately four to six years ago it went to federal court and it was upheld, and the Court said that the Supreme Court of Texas was within their ability and jurisdiction to create this board to oversee process servers.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So the Supreme Court had the ability to regulate an administrative board that would help them with their administrating the judicial process; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: This is a regulatory board, and the last time I checked the state has the regulatory authority, and not the Supreme Court; would you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So what we're about to do is we're about to impose a new fee, a new function and a new agency. We're about to legitimize, in my opinion, what the Supreme Court created. This is a new fee and a process board and expansion of government. And you don't agree with that, but you are against expanding government; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I am absolutely against expanding our government. And I realize I'm not supposed to ask the questions from this microphone, but I'm curious, because on May the 17th we talked about the process review board and Representative Bonnen's bill, that he had cosponsored from the Senate. And in that we had put the process server review board in Sunset for 2017. And you took the back mic and asked for the comments to be put in the journal. And one of the comments you made was as important as one of the functions of this process server review board provides, especially when it comes to court papers, there should be legislative oversight. And that's in the journal. And so we have gone on record, in the journal, by yourself saying that this is an important function, this is obviously legitimate function and a legitimate body. And I would urge members to oppose this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: But did I not argue at that time that while was it an important function, it should have been created by the state legislature and not by the Supreme Court? And I also did I not argue at that time, that this was an expansion of government and also a new fee; did I not argue at that time?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: You did not. Page 4000 -- 4087 and 4088 of the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, if I did not, then I'm derelict. I'm so glad you bring that up today so we can make that quite apparent to the members. But that's a fact. It is, in my opinion, and you can explain to me with why it's not an expansion on government. It's another regulatory expansion of government. Why does that not seem like more expanded government to you?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Because the Supreme Court is legally obligated to run their court in a way that is best for Texans. And the Supreme Court has decided to create the process server review board, be it office of Court administration, it's within their purview to do so. And it's a good thing, supported by process servers across the State of Texas. And it's good for Texas. And this bill -- this amendment is not whether or not that's a legitimate review board, this amendment is about not paying a board of directors their expenses when they have to come to Austin, and it discriminates against people that are on this board and live in far away parts of Texas that have to spend a lot of money to come from El Paso, Amarillo or the valley.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Representativ e Gooden, do you hold a license --
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I do not, except for a driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Well, that's good. It means you get to vote legally. The reason I ask, is it not true that when someone holds a license, holds an air conditioning contractor's licenses license by the TDLR, whether you're a CPA license, a law license or a (inaudible), you're regulated by the state TDLR being the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. That's a legitimate function of this state, would you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes. And again we're talking about legitimacy or un legitimacy of this board is about paying the board members expenses when they come to Austin to perform their duties.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So you've come to the conclusion that even though it was illegitimately formed, you're okay with that?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: This is a -- this is a process server review board that is underneath the purview of the Office of Court Administration, that is underneath the Supreme Court of Texas. And I would be hard pressed to entertain an argument that the Supreme Court is an illegitimate body.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, there are times when we might argue that about their decisions. But, nonetheless, does that give them regulatory authority across the state?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: It gives them regulatory authority to manage their courts and their business.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I hope you're wrong on that, because the state is a regulatory agency. The Supreme Court --
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: The Supreme Court is able, by the Constitution, to manage their courts and the Supreme Court (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Does separation of powers sound familiar to you?
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: Yes. And again this the amendment is acceptable to the author about that, our reimbursement of officers' expenses on this board. This is not about the Supreme Court. This is not about articles of the constitution. This is not about whether this is a legitimate body. This is about whether or not the fee monies are going to be allowed to also, in addition to run the board, to pay for reimbursement of. Travel this is not tax payer money, this is a not the about revenue money: We have talked and talked and talked about this.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Is it not true we're increasing their authority, we're increasing a fee (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: There is not expanding anything to pay for a plane ticket from El Paso to Austin (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE GOODEN: I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Weber to close.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y'all -- Members, you've heard the discussion. This is an expansion of government, it is an expansion of fees at a time when we cannot adequately fund education. We're wanting to expand government to expand fees, and I urge you to vote no against the amendment to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Weber sends up an amendment. Representative -- Representative Gooden moves to table. It's on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Have all voted? Show Representative Hardcastle voting aye. Being 106 ayes and 36 nays, motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Dukes for an important announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if I can have your attention please. It is with great pleasure that I am able to share with you that today at 1:58 p.m. in St. Luke's Hospital in San Antonio, Malea Lynn Jones, a 4lb 17oz healthy baby girl, one and only granddaughter to our Ruth Jones McClendon, was born her first grandchild. And it is so wonderful because as we all know and love Ruth, we know that Ruth has been through a lot over the last three years, and she did best to welcome this life. And she is very, very, very pleased about her very first granddaughter. So congratulations, Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 30.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Weber.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Weber. The amendment's withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, right now the Office of Court Administration is going to establish a certification division to oversee the regulatory programs assigned to the office by law. And what this adds is that any fees that are collected under this existing language may be appropriated by that office to support the certification division. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Naishtat sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. The amendment on page 32.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members this is the same language that appeared in Senate Bill 23 that I believe Mr. Miller had an amendment to take out. So I'm taking out that language. The reason is because this is a fee that's not being collected, because the Supreme Court -- there was a fight all the way to the Supreme Court -- the Texas Supreme Court, and the Texas Supreme Court, as a result of oral arguments over a year ago, has not ruled on this bill. And so rather than collect it and then have to give it back, it didn't make sense. So we're just going to take the language out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, it's my understanding that this tax on sexually oriented businesses is being collected and is being held in suspense. This is a bill that Ellen Cohen passed sessions ago. It helps sexual assault victims. Most of our population in the prison are -- are in there because of sexual assault, and this -- there is an injunction in place. But this keeps the fee in suspense.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Now, Mr. Pitts, you are aware that this statute that was created in 2007, that was there was a challenge based on the constitutionality of the statue?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I couldn't hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I said are you aware that there was a constitutional challenge?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, this has been in court.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And the Court of Appeals agreed that it was unconstitutional, you're aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It has had a history in the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah, I mean -- But are you aware that the Court of Appeals declared it unconstitutional?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It is on appeals in Supreme Court, I believe.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yeah, but the initial Court of Appeals have declared it unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: As I said, this has had a history.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This has had a history in our court system.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right. But I'm just trying to make sure that the members know what that history is, and the history is that it was declared unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This money is being held in a suspense account and --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I know. But you're not answering my question. I understand that. And the reason it's been held in a suspense account is because the Court declared it unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, it's still in court.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry, I didn't understand him. So this language coming out has no force and affect on our appropriations, does it?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm sorry, what was your question?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm getting conflicting reports back here.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: All right. Well, my question was I was just trying to walk the members through how we got here; and one of the problems we had was after the bill was passed in 2007 that was a challenge to the statute and it's constitutionality. And the appellate court ruled that it was unconstitutional, which resulted in the tax not being collected at that point and being put into a suspense account. Were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I understand it's in --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And there was an appeal to that, which went to the Texas Supreme Court --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: LBB is telling us they're still collecting this --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: LBB is telling us that this tax is still being collected at sexually oriented businesses for sexual assault victims.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Can you tell us that all of them are paying it, is that what you are saying?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's my understanding, Harold (inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I can tell you that's not true. That's not true, in fact, most of them -- many of them are not paying it because the courts have declared it unconstitutional. And, as a result of that, there's no one being penalized even for not paying it. And I would suspect that most of them have been advised by counsel not to pay it at this particular time because there's nothing that the state comptroller can do about it since it's been litigated. Over a year ago there were -- there was oral arguments held in the Texas Supreme Court. And, at this point, the Texas Supreme Court has not ruled, which -- which suggests that somehow or another there's a problem with the constitutional of this. So that's the problem with this. The other problem, this doesn't spend the money even if it were collected, we're not allowed to spend it, are we? Even if we do collect it we're not allowed to spend it, are we?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's in suspense.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's right. So --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Once the courts rule on it and say it's legal, than it can be used for sexual assault victims.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Yes. If that were to happen. But the evidence would suggest that it probably will not going to be that. And the question is why would we collect the taxes and then have to go and give it back to everybody? It would seem to me that the court -- the Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional, that it might be better for the State of Texas not to collect it. And then, if the Court rules that it is constitutional, which I have reason to believe they won't; then we would start collecting the tax. Because there's no point collecting it and then we have to put it in suspense account, and then we've got turn around and give it back to the folks that we're collecting it from. So it creates a problem, because the money should not go back to the businesses, the money should go back to the people who paid it. And in this case, nobody's taking a record of who is paying it and that sort of thing. Which is the reason I came up -- I think we have agreed that in Senate Bill 23, which came to the this House before, we overwhelmingly voted to take that language out on I think on a motion by Representative Sid Miller. Is that your recollection?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not aware.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. Well, that did happen. I know it's been a long session.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton to close. Chair recognizes representative miller to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Members, this is the same amendment we passed on Senate Bill 23. I think it was unanimous. Basically said that you can't sweep the money and spend it until we have the outcome of the court case. If we do that and we spend the money then we're going to have to take it away from somebody. So I think it'd be prudent fiscal decision to wait until we find out just whose money this is then we can spend it. More than likely, we're going to have to return it. We've lost two court cases. It's in the Supreme Court now. We're probably going to lose that and probably have to return this money. So if we sweep it and spend it, we're going to have to turn around and take it away from someone.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Dutton sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Representative Dutton voting no. Show Representative Hardcastle voting aye. Have all voted? Being 99 ayes and 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, my amendment is on page 1 -- I don't have it. Page 33. And it deals with page 114 and 115 of Senate Bill 1. And it basically strikes Article 41. Now, Representative Pitts, in his first amendment, actually struck the section of Article 41 on page 114, lines 10 through 26. So my amendment really will not only strike that, but also strikes the part that's on page 115. This amendment, or this part of the bill, deals with general housing matters. And it allows the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs to administer a homeless and housing services (inaudible) in municipalities within the state with the population of 285,000 people or more. Now, think about what we've done, especially Washington has done. What we subsidize we general get more of. When government increases handouts to a particular activity --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Geren, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: When the government increases handouts to a particular activity, we increase the activity in relationship to the amount that people want that -- that amount of money, that handout. So if we subsidize homelessness on a state level, what are we going to get more of? We're going to get more homeless people dependent upon state government. A quarter of a century ago the war of poverty was declared by Lyndon Johnson. The President Reagan said, my friends, some years ago the federal government declared a war on poverty and poverty won. He was referring to the fact that the percentage of people living in poverty had increased as the federal government spent billions of dollars in the battle, undermining family and churches; the building blocks of our society, and enslaving generations of Americans being dependent on Washington subsides. Now, let's be honest about what we're doing in this bill if we keep this section in here. We are creating another state program. This amendment would insert state government into our local governments that do deal with homelessness, and when homelessness is best dealt with on an individual, family and church basis, or with our local government. But we do not need a state program of home -- to subsidize the homeless. Let's leave that to individuals and families and churches and, if necessary, to our local governments.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield now?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I do yield.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, are you aware that since over the last biennium how many people have been put back to work, have been trained and put back to work because of this very program that you're discussing?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm not aware of that (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Over 17 --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: State government already has this program --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: -- already has this program, TDHCA. And over 1,700 people have been trained in the last -- in this last biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: While we're granting them the authority to (inaudible) don't have authority to do.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Are you not aware of the program? It's like this fund paving them hope in San Antonio, the bridge in Dallas, and similar programs. And over 1,700 individuals have been trained and put back to work. They actually have to go to school.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This amendment says it provides construction, development and procurement for housing for the homeless. It does not say anything about joblessness.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Well, I'm telling you for this -- funding.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Funding in the bill --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: And the Pitts amendment to Senate Bill 1 is a permissive amendment and allows the opportunity for the governor's office to create this grant program if they choose to.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This amendment does not say anything about providing job training, it talks about creating construction programs and developing them.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Mr. Simpson, are you aware that this program is in existence? We have it currently in these organizations, work out of these agencies, are you aware --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm sorry, you'll have to repeat that.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Are you aware that these programs currently exist in these eight cities?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This part right here does not exist. We're giving them the authority to do it. So this is the part --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This department may administer the homeless and housing services. And then it says what they can do, provide for the construction, development or procurement of housing for homeless. It says nothing of joblessness. The part about job training was stricken by this Pitts amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: But Mr. Simpson, aren't you aware that that is a hugely successful program in creating jobs. As Representative Geren just said, there's over 1,700 jobs that remain --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But the part that (inaudible) in this bill has nothing to do with job training.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Yes, it does.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No. That part was already stricken by the Pitts amendment. That's on page 114.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: This is permissive only, Representative Simpson. This allows the governor to add federal stimulus dollars --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: So we're going to create -- the governor's going to create another big government state program?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It's permissive in nature only. And these programs work. It's been demonstrated, year in and year out that these programs work, Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm all for keeping it local, letting the municipalities and counties and families and churches --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: These programs
(inaudible) out of the jails, it keeps the folks out of the hospitals. It puts these folks back to work
(inaudible) (inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That is not what is on page 115. And that's what we're really --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well this program is permissive only, Representative Simpson. This allows the governor to use federal dollars to sustain these currently ongoing programs.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: We're going to run out of federal dollars, unless they just print more than they're available cotton (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question, please? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Simpson, are you aware that 40 percent of the tens of thousands of homeless in the State of Texas are veterans, were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I know that you're a patriotic man and you support our veterans. I think it's a crying shame that when our veterans come home that many of them, for reasons unbeknownst to some of us, and --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And this is what's left (inaudible) part of the bill on page 115 --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, the reason I'm asking you about this is because -- the reason I'm asking you is that it's not about jobs. It's a haven for hope. In San Antonio, they have a whole section devoted to veterans only run by the GI Forum. And so what we're doing -- the reason we've been able to do this is because there's been rider language in the budget. So my understanding is all that this is doing and --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Where does the federal government get its money?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I'm not finished with my question. What I was --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm sorry. You're right. You're right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: And you may not be aware of this, but my understanding is that all we're doing with this in this bill is codifying language that's already in the rider, that has been in a rider for the last six years or so. And this is a successful program. So, I don't understand. But let me go on, were you aware that 60 percent of the people in this state who are homeless in this state are families. 60 percent of the homeless are families, women and children, sometimes running away from domestic violence; were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm not advised on that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So I guess Mr. Simpson, I don't -- I think I understand your motivation. But I think that sometimes in the name of well, I guess, the question is, you know, when you want to break the cycle of homelessness in cases you do have to create programs whether you have to be a detoxification. At the Haven for Hope in San Antonio were you aware that they go through a complete detox program?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm not aware of that. There are many good programs, but I think they are best administered on a local level and not the state level. And we don't need to tie ourselves into the Washington scheme of giving us a little and taking a lot and chaining us down with it. We need to take care of the homeless individually, and families and churches, and, if necessary, on local governments.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, and you may not realize, but in San Antonio, the only reason it came to them, happened to fruition, it was the former CEO of Valero, he went out around the country, traveled all around the different centers of homeless around the country, came back with the best -- the best case scenarios of how to do this. And you're probably not aware of this but I'll ask you, did you know that both -- there are city, county, state dollars in the building of construction. But, in addition to that, he raised over $50 million from the private sector. So this is really the community as a whole, taxpayers and private citizens coming together to create a solution for transforming lives. So much so, that you may or may not be aware of it but Senate Finance Chairman Ogden declared that the Haven for Hope should be -- should receive money from Enterprise funds, because they were actually putting people back to work. Taking people who were either panhandling on the street or in some other program and creating constructive taxpayers, transforming their lives/
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, first of all, let me say that the Pitts amendment that's been referred to, it's my understanding that all it does is remove the governor's use of the enterprise funds for this program and substitutes in its place any left over stimulus money. It's federal funds, and it is permissive that he may grant to this. So the job portion is still in there as well as the homelessness. And I wanted to point out as Representative Geren said, since the program's inception in the last biennium, over 1,700 people have been trained and were put back to work in permanent jobs. So this is the permissive bill for federal funds only. For that reason I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be brief, members. This page 115 does not limit it to just federal stimulus moneys. It allows for the legislative appropriation on page -- on line 17 of page 115. This really is about whether or not we're going do solve this with person -- individuals, families, churches and local people who deal with the homeless; or are we going to expand the role of state government. And I say expanding the role of state government to deal with this is not the way to go. I urge you to vote no on this motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I do yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Simps on, do you believe it's more efficient for the government in Austin to make decisions of who needs care, assistance, and qualifies more than people in the hometown of those individuals?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, I don't. I don't think 181 people know better than the 25 million that --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Have you seen the roles expand for welfare services to perhaps many who might not really deserve them, since we moved those controls away from home communities?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's right. And we might be benefiting some companies that will receive these funds as well.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: So you think that it would be better to start the movement to result in the control of these give away programs, and these genuine health programs that sincerely are -- they are targeting the needy, if we put controls back in the local communities rather than us do it in Washington or Austin?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I support your amendment. I think it's great.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Larson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: In the amendment the chair is looking at taking -- with your amendment you're taking out language dealing with the construction and development. But you're also taking out language that deals with -- provides local programs for rent and eliminates homelessness, are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This, it says there it specifically provides for the construction, development and procurement of housing for homeless persons. Provides a local program to prevent and eliminate homelessness.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: What you indicated earlier was that your support of the local homeless programs across the state --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And all the way across the state, not the just in the big cities.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: But what you've indicated in this amendment is that you don't support the local programs.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: No, I do support them. I would think the priorities should be individuals, families and churches. But the best way to do it, if we're going to do it with a local government, is where you could actually see and sit down and eat with the person, and get to know them and recognized them as a human being.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: We did -- We did that in Bexar County and (inaudible) that you --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This won't help a lot of cities that are not 285,000 or more. This is indicated for the special big cities.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Well, the issue either you deal with the homeless population or you go into denial. If you go into denial --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm not in denial. I want to help them. I help them personally.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: I served 16 years on the local government. And we saw the effect of the homeless population in our jail population, in our substance abuse programs. So you do host, and the there is a cost that will be associated with government. This is a preventive approach to dealing with it on the outset.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Let's don't use state dollars. Let's don't create an opportunity from legislative appropriations on the state level for this.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Well, I think that there's a good partnership that has been founded both in Dallas and in San Antonio where you've got a public, private partnership that addresses homelessness. And what you're trying to do is back away --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So you don't feel like the government -- the government should just be the recipient of the homeless population once they've violated laws, or they've gone -- they're going to our hospital --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Let's deal with it on a local level and all the cities (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Your amendment basically says that you don't want to promote local programs to prevent and eliminate homelessness. That's what your --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: (Inaudible) this is limited to a 285,000 population or more.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: What impact on the community that I represent?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: (Inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Why you focused on --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: If you take this out it allows for all the cities to do it on local level. It doesn't funnel it special entities by this body or by the governor. It allows the municipalities in every county to deal with it.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So why are you focused on eliminating the programs that we've successfully set up between the public and private partnerships who address an ongoing problem? You know, the good thing about Texas is we are -- we are the host of a lot of new folks that are coming into our state. But when Representative Menendez talked about that veteran population, and understanding what the city of San Antonio is for our national -- our for the United States military, both in the Army and Air Force; we've got a lot of folks that have served there they've stayed there, and now they're in the homeless population. So we did not have adequate resources that was provided by churches and some of these other nonprofits, and so we want we went to the private sector and we created a matching program. And this program helps that -- that program grow and foster --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I disagree with you. I think it's going to exacerbate the problem and we should deal with it merely on a local level and not expand state government.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Will you strike your -- Will you strike the amendment that basically says that you want to eliminate providing local promotion or local programs to eliminate homelessness, because (inaudible) because what you are saying and what your --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: (inaudible). -- in stopping the state involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: No. What you are saying is on one hand that you want to prevent and you want to promote the program but your amendment
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Local level by churches, families and individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So you feel like government should just address this on the back end --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't think we should be involved (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: You are -- I mean we through our corrections department.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't want to expand it. What we subsidize we get more of. I don't want more homelessness.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: So prevention is a better focus than dealing with the outcomes of homelessness in our hospitals, in our correctional facilities I think (inaudible) that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't agree with that.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: You don't agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't. I don't agree. I think we should deal with homelessness on a personal level and a local level. We shouldn't subsidize it with the state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay so you do agree that we do need to promote it at a local basis. Will you be willing to amend --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't want to promote homelessness. I want I think we need to help those responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE LYLE LARSON: Okay. Well, thank you for your time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield, Mr. Simpson?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Simpson, Representative Simpson, do you ever hear -- do you ever hear the old saying when you go duck hunting you go where the ducks are?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm sorry? Couldn't understand you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Do you ever hear the old saying when you go duck hunting you go where the ducks are?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Sure. I understand the point.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Well, I want to tell you if you go where the concentration of homeless people you are, you go to the cities. That's the reason that number's in there about over 285,000, because it's in the big cities and the big counties that only have --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And there are more people there, individuals, families, churches and local government that help them. We don't need to be involved at the state level.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Well, let me tell you this, that's not the way it's happening. The way it's happening is if we don't have these programs we end up having them in the county jails. It's a lot easier to deal with them in these programs and to try to get them help and try to get them back into society, than it is to deal them with them in the revolving door of the county jail. You may want -- You may want for it to be somewhere else, you may want to talk about this other stuff, but that's the way it is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Marquez voting aye. Have all voted? There being 119 ayes and 25 nays, motion to table prevails. We're on page 34. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is actually a similar amendment to one that Representative Hochberg that passed unanimously out of the House previously. It's a grandfathering provision to protect persons who've already began working towards certification teacher aide. And it would allow them to receive the educational aide tuition exemption once the new eligible requirements in Senate Bill 1 become effective. This amendment does not cost the bill, because it does not increase member exemption granted, or the amounts of the exemptions. It simply protects the investment we've already made in those students currently receiving the educational aide exemption. And I believe it's acceptable? Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Howard sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It's on page 35. Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And members, this is a -- this is one of three amendments that will be dealing with the foundation school program. And let me just tell you, I know we've had a lot of discussion in reference to the foundation school program, the $4 billion that's coming out of the school program. And I know like you, if you have looked at your runs, and I know everybody has looked at their runs, we are all -- every school district is taking a reduction in terms of what we are appropriating to the schools. And because of the 4 billion-dollar reduction, what is happening is that we are trying ways to try to make the adjustments; whether we go with proration in 2012 and the Shapiro approach in 2013. We've talked about that there'll be other bills dealing with reducing the minimum salaries for teachers, increasing class size furloughs, how we are going to adjust the formulas. I know I've talked to Representative Rick Hardcastle and others about how do we deal with it. All of these things are being discussed, because of the $4 billion that's coming out of the foundation school program. And I think if I'm hearing people correctly, education remains the number one, in my view, the number one priority that we should fund -- we should fund first. So let me just be very straight up and tell you what this amendment does. What this amendment does is that it strikes all of the provisions in Senate Bill 1 that change the school formula funding and finance laws, and would obligate the states to pay or owe our local independent school districts what they are owed under current law. Now, members, I want to be very clear with you, when you go back to your local school districts and when you go back home; and if you are specifically asked whether or not you had the opportunity to restore the cuts that are outlined in the runs that you have received; and so, for example, if my district, under these runs, one of them, I have four school districts, Aldean will get a 32 million-dollar cut. And if you just go to the bottom of the first page, and Anahuac IHD, for example, I think in the first year they're getting cut $522,000 and in the second year $729,000. And so the question is when you go back home, and when you are attending teas or town hall meetings or what have you, and the question comes in this 172 billion-dollar budget could you not have found the money from someplace else, other than cutting our local school districts? I want to be able to give you the opportunity to say yes, I could have. And so what my amendment does, what this amendment does, is that it -- it -- it strikes the changes that are made to the school fund formula and finance laws. It returns us to the promise that Representative Eissler and I talked about earlier, whether or not we made a promise to the 1,100 school districts in 2006 that wouldn't be compressed their property tax rate from about a $1.50 to $1.00 and whether or not we are going to hold them harmless and live up to our end of the bargain. And the that's the promise we made in 2006, and this amendment keeps us true to that promise. And so essentially it returns us back to current law, and it says that we will fully fund the foundation school program. That's what the amendment does. And then with respect to these runs, we can simply put these runs to the side and all of our local school districts will be fully funded as it relates to the foundation school program. Now, as I go -- as I step aside, let me just say this, Representative Phillips, let me just say this in HB 1, in HB 1 we are borrowing 3 billion dollars, 3 billion dollars to take care of our roads. We have done that. I support that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Phillips for what purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. We have --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: When the gentleman's through, I'd like to --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'll be more than happy to yield in just a second. Representative Darby you and I sat on state in conference committee and when terms of transportation we are borrowing 3 billion dollars to take care of our roads. With respect to Representative Zerwas, with respect to Article 2, we have already acknowledged that we are going to fully fund medicaid by the 4.8 billion dollars. We have already said that. Now, I would argue, I would argue that our school children, our local schools, have a greater priority, have a greater priority than that in Article 2 dealing with medicaid, and our roads and bridges that we have dealt with by 3 billion dollars in borrowing. So what this amendment does is that if we say that education is our priority, and a top priority, then we need to fund our top priority. And I would hope that you would support and vote for this amendment, which would fully fund the foundation school program. That's what it's intended to do, that's what it does and, Representative Phillips, I hope that you would join with me in supporting this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to -- This is not your sunset amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, the sunset amendment is coming up next.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: This is the strike anything to do with school finance out of this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This restores us back to current law.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And continues the promise that we made in 2006 that we will fully fund our schools.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But one of the concerns I have with that is that that basically just takes us to target revenue, which may be good for Houston because you have the higher target revenue in HISD than any of my school districts, so it may be good for Houston but it's not good for --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have four school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. And I apologize, you may have --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have four school districts, I would tell you, just like many of the members on this floor, where I try to do for one, it conflicts with the other, if I try to do for the other three it conflicts with --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Most of your students are in HISD; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Most of most of my district lies in Aldean Spring and -- and Klein.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And who has the highest target revenue out of those?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Houston does.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Houston?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And so what -- what I do under this bill and the Senate Bill 1, when I'm helping out Klein, Spring and Aldean, Houston is not a happy trooper. And when I try to --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Since you are helping out Houston --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, what this one does -- what this amendment says is that it restores us to current law. If we do not like what we -- what we are doing here, certainly we can work on it in the interim and in the next (inaudible) address it.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And I think that's what -- I think that's what it's up to the purpose of this committee they're proposing, but the question I have is I see that you go forward and you strike through page 158, line seven.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This restores us to current law.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: No. Through line seven is, in that page, 158, through line that repeals target revenue by September 1st, 2017. And I am really concerned about taking out of this bill anything that says we are going to end target revenue, because target revenue is the main problem with equity that we have currently in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I don't have any problem with you putting an
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: (inaudible) .
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- Representative Phillips I don't have any problem with you putting in an amendment saying you want to end target revenue in 2017. That's not my issue. That's not --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So if your amendment's adopted, you don't have a problem with me bringing that down tomorrow --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have no problem at all. I am simply -- I'm simply -- My intent is to fully fund the foundation school program now, under current law, and to allow us to be able to go back to our local school districts, whether they are Klein, the Springs, the Aldean on one hand or the Houston Independent School District on the other; or essentially say we are fully funding the foundation school program. That's my intent. And so whether you're coming from rural Texas, suburban Texas or urban Texas; by adopting this amendment we are fully funding the foundation school program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'll be more than happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Represe ntative Turner, how are you doing today?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm going to be doing much better if you help me get to first base or second base with this amendment. I'm already on first.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Let me ask you a couple of questions about this --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: When you refer to HB 1 are you refer to HB 1 --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le) or the general appropriation bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. And you would acknowledge that the general appropriation bill has already set an amount certain, that being some 37.01 (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I certainly acknowledge that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And your amendment would propose that we change that in what way?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It will add back the $4 billion to the foundation school program.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And where do you propose that that $4 billion come from?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We're still in our special session.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Do you realize that or would you acknowledge that we, in order to raise that $4 billion, we would probably almost certainly have to cut other funds very severely; or in the alternative to raise that Rainy Day money?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me tell you what I got was at home for the few days. People said how big is your budget, Representative Turner? I said about $172 billion. They said to me why couldn't you find the money in $172 billion instead of cutting our local -- taking money from our children. I said well, hey, it is what it is. I have to deal with the cards that I've been dealt. But I do recognize that education is a number one, priority and I will go back and give people an opportunity to vote to save that education as a number one priority. We are still in special session. Do I like being in special session? No. Do I want another special session? No. Do I want to hurt the school -- the school children in the State of Texas. Absolutely not. And if that means I need to stay here to do the people's job and to stay here to do other people's job, but I will not undermine our school children for expediency, and I will not the undermine them for political rhetoric.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand. And let me say that while applaud your efforts to raise school funding --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will you join with me in this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I will not, because the money is not there.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The money is there, Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I don't think so.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This is a budget --
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: (Inaudi ble) already committed, Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: There's nothing final. The final song has not been sung. And what I'm indicating to you, if education is a number one priority, and if we are going to leave, you are saying education is the number one priority, then we need to address it as a number one priority.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: But a few moments you voted against the speedups to try to raise more revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, that was -- that was a support that was -- a what I call a vote -- indicates frustration at dealing with the main issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: We're all frustrated, but I don't think raising an additional 4 billion dollars is the right answer.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe that -- Do you believe that foundation school program should be adequately funded? And if the answer's yes, you will vote for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In support of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Probably not.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. As you heard, Mr. -- Mr. Turner is very passionate about this. But as you also heard Mr. Aycock say, there's not a source of this money. What did this does is basically guts the bill, puts a 4 billion-dollar liability, and I'd say puts us in the hole for the next biennium. The introduction -- the introductory budget for 2013 would need an additional $4 billion. So, with that, I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Eissler, would you say that education is the number one priority for the State of Texas or not?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Educatio n is the number one priority?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you think that before anything else is adequately funded that education should be funded?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Education is funded.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, no. You are saying education is the number one priority.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And I believe, yes, and I believe additional money has gone into public education.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It's not a --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Addition al -- additional money has gone into medicaid. Additional money has gone into our roads and bridges. The question I'm asking you is --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It's moved up to 60 percent of the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would you agree with me that we're anticipating 160,000 more kid coming into our public school system?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, that's because -- that's why 60 percent of our budget is public ed.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would you -- would you agree with me that we are expecting 160,000 more kids?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's our priority.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And will you agree with me, according to the HPO report that's on everybody's desk, that the only reason we are dealing with this issue on public school finance is because school finance system is set by statute. The legislature would have to amend the education code to permit a state appropriation to the foundation school program below the statutory financial obligation. Would you agree with me that's why we're dealing with this issue?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, that's part of why we're here.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you also agree with me that the budget is one of choices?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You were will you agree with me that this legislature in the budget is making choices?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes and -- We have made --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And choices have consequences, do they not?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, they do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will you agree with me that those who voted for HB 1, the general appropriations bill, made a conscientious choice --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: A conscious choice and a conscientious choice.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- to reduce the foundation school program by $4 billion?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, they did.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: They made a choice. And as a result of that choice
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It probably wasn't their first choice. We're in a situation where the country is in a pretty strong recession, and the reason Texas has created more jobs than all the other states combined is that we take care of our business and we live within our means. We have a Rainy Day Fund that will take --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le).
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Now, Sylvester, if you're going to take a question and then preach, let me do that too.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Fair enough.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And that's why --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: My apologies.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's okay. I know we're both shocked. But when you have the opportunity to do the right thing and to create jobs and to shore up your education system, which not necessarily is by a lot more money. As I said before, it's not how much you spend it's how well you spend it.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Eissler, did we not make a promise to the 1,100 local school districts in 2006 that we were going to ante up and pay the tab? Did we not make that promise?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We had a hold harmless, yes, we did.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are we not -- are we not reneging on the promise that this legislature made in 2006?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: We are adjusting that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Oh, we're acting like the federal government now? We acting like the federal government to say one thing and do another?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No. If you recall, and you were here for that --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I was here.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- that was a snapshot. And about a billion dollars got locked in in money that some school districts that had ahead because of the snapshot. And that's why -- that's why the --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Eissler, Chairman Eissler, as a result of this legislature taking $4 billion away from our local schools, we have bills on the calendar today to remove the minimum salary schedule for our teachers. Is that not true?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That is not true.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We are not reducing the minimum proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Not on today's calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Oh, Chairman Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In this bill, Representative Callegari has an amendment, I think on page 98.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Which he pulled.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. To reduce the minimum payment salary for teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You mean the one that no teacher in this state is on, as a minimum?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Oh, is there an attempt to reduce the minimum payments, salary for teachers?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: There is a bill that will do away with the minimum salary schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And are we -- are people attempting to reduce the salary schedule for teachers in large part because we have cut out $4 billion from the educational -- schools in the State of Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, yes there are 4 billion left in current law.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And let me ask you this: And because of that, that's what this biennium --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In the next biennium is it not true that there are people on this floor that do not want to come to the next legislative session owing our schools, until there's an attempt to make sure that we eliminate any obligation to pay even more next time around?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I would say that --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is that not true, Chairman Eissler?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- part of the agreement with the Senate was to zero that out, because we don't know what the next biennium's going to look like. It could look worse than this one.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Eissler, if you will -- as you have agreed, that education is the number priority for the State of Texas --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- then why are we dealing with this financing proposal at the end of the process, when everything else has been taken care of and the only thing left, the only thing left is funding for our children. And I don't care --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I disagree with you, saying it's put at the very end. I know it's a distribution system. As you recall, the base budget I think had a 9.7 or $9.8 billion shortfall for public education. And that was whittled down, and even the deferral in this budget I think cut it down to four.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Here's where I'm confused, chairman. Two years ago I remember standing here and listening to an awful lot of people crow about the positive progress we were going to make at education, because the first time in who knows how long, and for the first time without a court order, we were, through the use of federal money adding 2 billion dollars to the education budget. And I don't remember anybody, although there may have been some, maybe Mr. Cook was one, who stood up and said, what a terrible idea. Can you imagine adding money to those wasteful schools? I think you voted to add that money as well as I did, didn't you sir?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I think everybody did.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. What have the schools in the last two years changed so significantly that two years ago it was a good idea to add 2 billion dollars to their overall budget and this year it's a good idea to take 2 billion plus another 2 billion?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, we have a completely different situation here. And the good news is -- (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm not asking about the --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- we were able to put money in last time. (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Why is that -- Why is that --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The entire country, since 1929, has had 11 (inaudible) in our economy. And only twice before this year has school funding gone down.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: But, Chairman, I don't hear you saying that it's a sad day that this is happening. And I think that's where some of the confusion lies, because if we're boasting about being able to add funding to education, we must think it's a good thing and if we're now saying --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Let me finish my question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: If we're now saying take $4 billion out, A won't hurt B, you know, our schools fine. C, it's no big deal. D, it's probably a good thing because we need to make them more efficient. Why did we celebrate putting in the 2 billion last time?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: There is no celebration in this case.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, it sounds like it. With respect, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: There's with what?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: With respect, it sounds like it's a celebration.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I -- That, I don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That this would be -- this would make our schools more efficient. The money is unnecessary because they can accommodate it because they -- because, you know, they're not going to get rid of teachers because they've got excess administration. How does that jive with let's give them $2 billion more and celebrate it?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But we don't have it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Turner to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, and I think Representative Strama and I -- I certainly will yield at this time to Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Representative Turner. The premise oaf your amendment as I understand it is that in 2006 when we all came here and voted to reduce property taxes by one-third, for maintenance and operation of the public schools, we made a commitment to those schools that by foreclosing that revenue from them we would hold them harmless.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: That's what these formulas do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: At the time we debated that property tax cut, concerns were raised about whether we would be able to follow through on that commitment.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: -- people having those concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I remember that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: You remember, I'll bet, one of our beloved colleagues at that time was Representative Castille.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I remember Representative Castille.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: You may remember her standing at this back microphone during the debate on that bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I do remember that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: We often times asked that our comments here be reduced into writing and placed in the journal, and it's been a couple of times this session that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But her remarks with the author of that bill at that time were reduced to writing and placed in the record precisely because of her concern that some day in the future we would be standing here discussing legislation exactly like this, to renege on the commitment we have made to public education to eliminate the formulas that your amendment attempts to restore.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But I wish I had that script before me today.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: I have.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And what does it say, Representative Strama?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Ms. Castille was asking the author of the bill how can you assure me we're going to be able to have the funds to take care of education? And the author of the bill said well, Carter, you know if you just take the worst look at this, you know the big driver that's driving our budget it is health care and this doesn't solve that, it doesn't have anything to do with that. But let me tell you we will answer those things and we will do it in a timely manner and we will do it because our economy is strong, and we're going to do okay. And education will always be at the forefront. And if we have to do something to make sure our education stays at the front, I guarantee you this House and this Senate will make that happen. Your amendment today is what we have to do to fulfill that commitment that was made when we cut school district property taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Absolute ly.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: If we don't do that, we will be breaking the promise that was made on this floor, and answered Representative Castille's question.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is -- That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: And by doing that we take an action, cutting $4 billion in public education setting in the current biennium and eliminating our ongoing obligation to fund things like enrollment growth and demographic changes by the students.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: By eliminating that commitment in the out years we take a step towards unraveling public education in the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that is the danger. And the scary part is what we are doing in Senate Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: And whether we like the formulas, as they were adopted in 2006, or not; if you eliminate them without replacing them with some guarantee that state funds will make up for the lost property taxes we enacted in 2006.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: We put education on a steadily diminishing path, constantly subject to appropriation, in a legislature that actually doesn't seem committed to the promises that were made in 2006, that education would be our priority and that we would never let it suffer due to state -- limited state --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: I appreciate your amendment. Thank you, Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And let me just say in 2006, in 2006 that promise was made to rural Texas, that we would make sure that the schools in rural Texas were funded. That was a promise we made to the school districts in urban Texas, we made that commitment. To those in suburban Texas, we made that commitment. And education has always been treated as the number one priority in the State of Texas. Members, I want us all to be fully conscious of what we are doing. The governor made a commitment, the lieutenant governor, the speaker, the members of the House. We've always said education was our number one priority. Always. Always. What we do in this House, we are making choices and we are making a conscious choice to cut $4 billion from public education. That is our choice. And people -- and people in our districts ought to be fully aware of it. Whether you're in Acres Home, Texas, we are making choices.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. (inaudible ), for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Representative Turner, I'm glad you mentioned the rural community. I do represent some rural school districts in Bexar County, and one of the things that we forget, we always think the inner city schools are the ones hurting for funds, and that we're targeting, the property poor school districts. But we're addressing districts throughout the state, whether you live in the rural community in Alpine, or you live wherever every child is going to suffer.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Let me ask you a question: Are the cuts based on the funding provided by the state, the percentage of money that is provided for the district, is that where the cut is?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: If the state supplies 80 percent of your funding and 20 percent of it comes from local taxes, the cuts come from the 80 percent; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, you're going to have to look at Senate Bill 2 in terms of how they're doing it. Under the proration, the first year it's a proration amount. And that's the Eissler proposal. And in the second year it's the Shapiro amount. And in the third, fourth and fifth year it's simply an appropriation decision.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. Let me ask this question then: Would you say that because the cuts that are happening, we're forcing school districts raise property taxes to make up what the state's not funding?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: There is no question. For those already at $1.17. No question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay, what -- and the ones that are at $1.17, they are capped and they can't go any further?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's my understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: But some of the under a $1.17 --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: We're forcing them out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And forcing them out so members that are here that represent school districts are going to have to go back to their districts and support or not support the raising of taxes for their teachers, if the districts cannot afford a salary increase or provide special instructions for certain students; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. And then bear in mind, bear in mind, this is 4 billion dollars from the foundation school program. We have not even talked about the $1.3 billion that we have taken from TEA that goes to our local school districts in certain grants and other matters. So really when you look at the local school districts, they are losing probably about $5.3 billion total.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And so we continue to say that want to give local school boards the authority to run their schools. Is that what we're saying? We don't want to govern, we don't want to mandate, we want them to make the decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's what people are saying.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: So we're saying also saying that districts are the ones that are going to eliminate jobs, not the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's what some people would like.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And in order to not do that, Representative, well, I guess school districts will have to have some type of tax referendum to raise their taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: For those who can, yes. And the only thing this amendment does -- the only thing this amendment does, if you don't like the funds and if you don't want to have to justify why you have chosen to cut money from your local school districts, if you vote for this amendment, these runs go away.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Well, Representative, thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Your local school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you very much for your amendment, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: A vote against the amendment is a vote to take the money from your local school districts. I would ask that you vote no, vote no on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner sends up an amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 94 ayes and 50 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're on page 36 of the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, members, to continue discussion about school finance at this time in the afternoon, it's risky at best. I know that everyone's becoming exhausted by listening to all the details of this, but I want to say the members of conference committee and the appropriations committee have worked very hard this session to come up with a fair and balanced approach to what has been a challenging situation with a 27 billion-dollar deficit. And as a fiscal conservative I will report to you that the LBB tells us over and over again of the various ways that we have cut education funding this session, as we have the other areas that state government funds. But this amendment simply addresses the fact that this is a temporary, hopefully, situation. But it is a situation which we've been asked to deal with drastic cuts, and it sunset provisions; and I'd like to just walk you through them very briefly, be happy to answer questions. But, first of all, it sunsets the regular program adjustment factor in 2013. A very important provision is that it flattens the two years, if you're a low target revenue district you are receiving a bigger hit the first year than you are the second year. And this provision flattens out those two years. No cost to the bill. It also fixes the proration language so that proration works, as has been mentioned, we had the runs that are given to us. Those are based on estimates. And we ensure that these runs are accurate. The bill itself sunsets target revenue in 2017, so the amendment that I have has conforming language to be sure that that's in place to leave the mechanism to increase the basic allotment and reduce target revenue over time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Patrick amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Will the gentle-lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Patrick, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Is this acceptable to the author?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Ms. Patrick , we are laboring over school finance and different things, so I was reading through your amendment. I'm just kind of getting a feel. I'm not sure what it would do to the schools that I represent, so how could I get a feel for that?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Well, basically it ensures that the runs you've been given represent accurately what you will -- what will effect the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Say that one more time so I can understand.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: The runs that you have been provided --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: On my desk?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: This ensures that those will be accurate, that they will reflect actually what happened -- Here's what the danger is: If we have underestimated the student enrollment growth or if we have overestimated property values, then those runs would turn out not to be accurate after all because there would be adjustments. And in this bill we say that the state will pay back the local districts, if there are mis-calculations of that nature. In other words, it's commonly called a settle up.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. And have you scored this as to the cost of the bill. How much does this cost the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: No, I have not. This has no intended cost to the bill. I'm simply saying if there is misrepresentation or mis-calculation of the statistics, that the state in 2013 would repay the local districts that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So what if the estimates were low and the school district actually benefited from a higher enrollment, then does the school district have to pay that back?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: No, that's not intended. The school district that has higher enrollment, they deserve more money.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right. Exactly. Or if the inverse of what you are talking about on property tax happens and actually the estimate ends up being higher because of that, then there's no settle-up for that --
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: (Inaudible) reduced the cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So yours is a I would call a hold harmless, it puts the floor -- You're not going to get any worse than the runs you're giving us?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I'm sorry, what was the question?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yours is almost like a guaranteed hold harmless? With the runs we have in front of us today is you are guaranteeing that with this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Well, Representative Kolkhorst, I can't stand up here and guarantee you anything, but I will say that that is the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentle-lady yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Patrick, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Let's see if we can. Let's see if we can get this down to it's simplest -- for the members who are asking questions about this. First of all, this amendment, it is -- in the bill there is a new mechanism used to reduce funding, called the RPAF.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's used strictly in this bill to reduce funding. And what your amendment says is once we're through using it at the end of this biennium it goes away.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: That's right. The regular program adjustment factor is only for the purposes of this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We've never had it before, it's put in for this biennium to reduce funding. After this biennium it goes away. If the interim committee want to recreate it they're welcome to do that, but we're going back to current law.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: That's correct. And the interim committee will have a very important charge before them.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Right. The second thing that you do in this amendment is you say, just like in current law, that if the state comes up short because it is underestimated student growth or over estimated property value, that we will continue to do what we have always, or at least done for the last 20 years, to say to the school district I'm sorry you're short, whereas some certain appropriation, we're going to make it up to you at the beginning of next biennium. Just like if we're wrong we say to them thank you so much, we'll take your money and go spend it somewhere else. So this just puts this back to where we are under current law with regard -- yes it does. It just puts us, yes it does, back up to where we are under current law with regard to the issue of whether the state has the capacity to settle-up if it is short?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Third, it has nothing to do with the $4 billion that's being cut in this biennium; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It does not require us to spend the 4 billion in the next biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: No, that money is gone.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. This has a section in it which flat -- which levels the losses, because we heard from superintendents that if they were to lose a bunch of money and have a short -- and then have a smaller loss in the second year that didn't make sense. So this just has the commissioner balance those losses so they are even. It doesn't cost the bill at all and they can plan?
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Yes, and that's very important for them for budgetary planning processes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentle lady's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And this doesn't do exactly as it was explained. It restores the regular program, but the not the ACETAR to current law. And what that would do is go to 1.0, which would be a $500 million bill per year to the next biennium. So it would be a $1 billion --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- hole at the next --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield to be corrected?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- and is settle-ups (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Chairman?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- in the law today and it will be under this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right. Let's deal with the second question first, because you and I both sat in appropriations when that was discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. And will you agree with me that if the state is -- has sufficient funds, settle-up is not affected by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Because settle-up for school districts may go up or go down.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right. Settle-up is between TEA and one school district.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right. But, if the state's overall estimates are short, and the state does not have enough money to meet the formulas; under existing law in the next biennium the money -- they can be prorated and then the money is owed back to the district.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And under the bill as laid before us, that obligation to fund the districts in the succeeding biennium is no longer there. So under those conditions there would be no settle-up for districts that were short.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: There is always settle-up. Settle-up hasn't been changed. Proration is what has been changed for this next biennium, or modified.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So the next biennium is forever in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Yes it is, because you've eliminated -- Would you like me to take you to the section in the bill? You had a limit -- We've had this conversation at appropriations the other day. You have a eliminated the obligation of the state to make up what it prorates. And you do not reinstate it, Mr. Chairman with -- I have an amendment that would do that, Ms. Patrick's amendment would do. That I'm glad you think it doesn't do that because then you should accept the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No Ms. Patrick's starts a billion dollars in the hole and in the next biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Let's talk about that sentence. Okay? But agree with me it is not -- Are you telling me it is not your intent to hold back the prorations in the future years, that you don't think the bill does that?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The only thing we took from Senate Bill 22 was the language that -- that the ACETAR would go away by fiscal year 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to show you later where you do this in the bill, but I also have an amendment that fixes it. So we'll be on the same page that you don't want to do that, okay?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Now this bill -- This bill --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Now let's talk about the --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: This puts us a billion dollars --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Let's talk about what the bill does.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Because I just had this conversation with the budget board, and I just had a running conversation with the budget board.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: You have a factor in here called the regular program adjustment factor, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: RTAS.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And that does what? It reduces the amount of money we owe the school districts, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In the regular program, right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm sorry, I'm trying to -- Okay. Now, at the end of this biennium, in the bill, what happens in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, that --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: What happens to the RTRA?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- stops at point (inaudible) and after that it goes back.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It goes back to what?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: It goes back to where appropriations put it.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So it doesn't go back anywhere, it's just left out there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So for you to say -- the only way you can say -- and Ms. Patrick's amendment it would take it away completely, essentially eliminating that reduction, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, it would put current law, which at the time current law will be 1.0; which from 0.98 is $500 million a year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. But 1.0 -- 0.98 is not in the bill for the next biennium, is it? The only thing in the bill is --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: In the second year, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: For next -- For the following biennium?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It's subject to appropriations. So just the way you're saying it --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But in a sunset of this agreement between the House and the Senate --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. Well, I wasn't there, so I don't know what y'all agreed. But go ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: As it is in this bill, it stays at 0.98 until appropriated. What that would do --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No, it doesn't. It does not stay appropriated at --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: The current law at the time is. And then what hers would do is the $500 million per year repayment requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No, it is not a repayment requirement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is not a repayment requirement. Here is what it is: Here's the difference, because I've been back with the budget board trying to figure this out, all right. What it does is say your 0.98 is part of how you save the $2 billion in the second year, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Taking it back to one.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Taking it back to one -- Taking it back to one -- So the one just says that we're not going use that mechanism to reduce funding --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: -- and so when we come back here --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: -- we come back here --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That is right. The point will be the other factors in the bill, plus current law. And you'll still have the ability to reduce target revenue by appropriations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: If appropriations, correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And increase the basic allotments by appropriation, which is what is in the intent language of the bill. And, Mr. Chairman, we wouldn't owe the school districts anything. That would just be the starting point for the budget negotiations, right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: But this does -- What the amendment does, it says that we start off a billion down.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No, it says that (inaudible) Mr. Chairman, what it says is we start off with our funding formulas set a billion dollars higher.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Now, there's a difference between those two things.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Current law minus -- right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: We're not starting out owing the schools that money, but with where we started when we come back here is with that, with that one factor that was just created for reduction.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: A billion -- Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Set at a specific point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Rather than not set at all.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: So then we have to change it and it cut $500 million a year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Only if you are intending to cut by a different mechanism than the intent language in the bill. And the intent language in the bill says we're going to cut target revenue and we're going to increase basic allotment. So wouldn't this be taking it to be consistent with the intent language of the bill that was your agreement with the Senate, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: They didn't say anything in there in the regular program, it doesn't factor. They didn't say it is our intent to continue to reduce funding for the schools by a certain amount. All it says in the intent is we are going to increase the basic allotment, we're going to cut target revenue. Other than that, this puts up back to where we are.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: With a billion short.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No. It puts us back to where we are today, which is indeed a billion more than you're planning to spend in this budget. I agree with that. It's a billion more than we're appropriating for this biennium. That's right. But it's not a billion short, because we're neither short nor long, because there's no number for an appropriations in this bill. It is sunsetting a mechanism by which you're cutting the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And returning to a previous level that puts us down $500 million a year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That restores us to a previous level.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I want to make sure we're clearly understanding where you're saying we're going to be short when we get back. We are reducing about 4 billion dollars of public education over the next two years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: All her amendment is doing is saying when we come back in two years, we're not going to adjust that basic allotment; is that correct? And you are saying that's going cost -- we are going to owe -- we're not going to owe them anything (inaudible) (inaudible) it's going to start (inaudible) we are in a temporary shortfall because of the -- because of the current economic prices, and wouldn't you agree that all this is going to do is say hey, we're going to have a commitment to public education and we're not going no say we're going to do this a permanent cut. We're going to come back, you're going to work through the interim, we are going to come back and (inaudible) target revenue. And also her amendment, would you agree, that it allows settling. So that those school districts that are short up front they don't have to lay off teachers, when they're actually going to get more at second biennium. So it allows that program. You don't have a problem with that leveling?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No. In fact, there's another amendment to the amendment that we're going to take -- we plan to take --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Hers already does that. It also sunsets the provision, is that not correct? It sunsets so we could have -- so we could go back to have proration in the future for individual school districts. Now, does it change proration?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No proration -- proration as it is, current law, which is a payback.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But it does not affect -- we're not going to pay back this 4 billion dollars, this has been the future. Her amendment just says. Look, we got a sub financial crisis right now. We're going to deal with it in the next two years and we're going to wait until we get back next session to go further into the future; except for we're going maintain, we're going to get rid of revenue by September 1st, 2017. I think she has a good amendment. It shows a commitment to public education and we need to say to them I wish you would accept it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. Gentleman's time is expired. Representative Patrick sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The amendment on page 42 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 45. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Mr. Turner?
THE CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment on page 56. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, we know that this is viscerally personal to everyone, public school finance. So we can argue whether or not we did a great
(inaudible) or not through the beginning or the end. I think it leads to the concept that we're here now in the summer, that we did (inaudible) the end. And maybe it was worked on throughout the session, but there was never a bill that was voted up to distinctly say what we would do with this piece. We're not debating the $4 billion. We have agreed to that. Some of us have, some of us haven't. But that is a fact of where it stands with $4 billion. What I bring to you today is an amendment that has to do with changing a hybrid plan that we have now that's been called the Eissler plan and the Shapiro plan, whatever you want to call it. Of course, Hochberg, we should probably call him Dr. Hochberg because he's such an expert. But, nevertheless, it affects everyone differently. You've seen the LBB runs, you have looked at it, and it really doesn't matter who is the author of this or not, it's about how it affects your districts. And if we're all honest, we know that. So my proposal is to remove the across the board cuts, the 6 percent in the first year, and put the second year; which is dealing with target revenue and leveling this out to make it more equitable in the state and pushing that back to the first year. So if you want to look at it in a really simple way, you're doing the Shapiro plan pushed back into 2012. I'm sure it's not acceptable to the author, but it is acceptable to many, many school districts here. Some of us have a hybrid district. We have everything from 1 A to 5 A. Many of you I have spoken to, not everyone. It's just a little bit different from another amendment that Representative Hochberg has. But if you have a situation in your district, and I have people that have signed on to my amendment that I didn't get it scanned back in. But this is all across the board. This is a small, rural district, like Representative Hardcastle. And, there again, in Spring, Texas, of Representative Harless, one of the fastest growing school districts in the country probably. It's a bad problem for her. I don't expect to get the vote, but I will tell you that if you believe in beginning the equity process now, instead of waiting until the second year of the biennium; I hope you will support this amendment. That's the purpose of it. If you are just a real goody two shoes student, then you can look and see the actual change on the amendment, which would be on page 145 and page 149, for those of you who are still awake. I yield to Representative Otto, if that's the request.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you. I want to make sure I understand what you're proposing to do is to take the reductions in the second year of the biennium and move it to the first, just the reverse?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: No. It would be the similar thing. It would be -- It would be the re reductions there and also put them in the first year. It doesn't change anything. He says (inaudible) shots at Shapiro, if you can say that. I know -- it doesn't across the board (inaudible) putting that and that in the same.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So you're doing basically what we are planning to do in the second year, you're doing it in both years?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Correct. That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I guess my concern -- I'm like Sylvester Turner. I have school districts that are both high target revenue and very low target revenue. My concern is that if you go straight to this I give no notice to those that are on high target revenue. You know, at least with the plan I was looking at they were going to get another -- while you're getting a 6 percent reduction in this year, it goes to 11 or 12, because they got a year to plan for it. You're telling me under this plan I'm going to probably get a 12 or an 11 percent and an 11 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: What is your district, Representative Otto? What number? What is your district?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I don't know. My House district number or -- 18.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Okay. And yes, that's true. And that's a different factor with the people that have across the board variances from let's say 1A to 5A within your district.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I fully support the fact that we need to get off of target revenue. My concern is how quickly do we get off and how much notice do we give districts in order to plan for it?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: With all due respect to the finance team, I'm not sure they expect us to know anything yet. And there has been changing back and forth along the way. So that's not to say it's a better plan for them not to have notice, but I think they know that anything within the realm is possible. So I respect what you are saying. This is really more for the people that know that the larger percentages in their district are strongly affected, whether it be like Representative Harless, Representative Hardcastle, Wayne Christian, others. It's all over the board. People are in the valley, Aaron Pena, Veronica Gonzales. All these people have different things. You know, you have to deal with it your own way. It's not good for anyone, we know that. So this is a way to begin the effort for target revenue, beginning now, and going forward to begin the equity that was; in my understanding, I was not here at the time, for the target revenue pieces designed to be a segue or a grid, and it becomes a complete disparity in the state. And I would like to begin this process to avoid lawsuits, et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Harless, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Would the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Represen tative King, can you explain to me; I know you mentioned my school district, it's a chapter 42, and it's one of the lower funded school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: What district is it again?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Number 126. And I think they are at about 5,200 target revenue. And the school district just to the north of that touches the border, and they're funded at about 7,000 per student. And what does your plan do with, you know, that inequity? As, you know, two districts that are very similar but almost two thousand dollars apart per student?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: You know, there's nothing that can be done now, with the exception of going through this targeted change and the targeted revenue where it is eventually removed. I do
(inaudible) for sunsetting of the process, so that in the interim study you can come look at and it see to
(inaudible) to make sure that we're doing this fairly. But right now, I think the best that we can do for those of us who are having problems with the low target revenue on top of formula, to begin with the pushback into the first year of the biennium to make it a more fair situation. Because, in your case -- What's the House district again, I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: 126.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: In your case, you're a real anomaly, not you personally, of course, your school district. Because what happens is, for example, Cypress Fairbanks, you in your second year are only going to be cut 2.5. And the first year 6.1. So what that would do is be continuing the 2.5 to the beginning and but --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The problem with that in the 2.5 in the second year is that they had to cut $70 million out of their budget last year, because they're at a 109,000 students. And they won't make it to the second year.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: That's exactly right. So in your case that's why, in my opinion, it would god good for you to support this amendment, because you would have a lesser cut at the front year in the biennium and it would be similar to the second.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We came in at the same time, didn't we?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: And that was in 2007. And, at that point, we discussed school finance.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: And we kind of put it off, we did a (inaudible) kind of approach and we said in 2009 we'd take care of it. Then we got here in 2009 and we said the same thing. Well, we can't do it this year, but next session we'll do it. So this has been our third session that we've been told every single year that this inequity would be solved, or at least addressed. And the thing with to the Cy-Fair ISD is they are high accountability and high efficiency. And there is nothing in any of these plans that helps school districts that are very high efficiency and accountable, yet they don't get their money.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Right. It's not in the formula with regard to school performance and efficiency, you are correct. That will be later in the day. But, as you well know, (inaudible) taken in 2005 and integrated in three special sessions in 2006 is the thing that started this all, and like I said, we're all -- the bandaids only stay on so long. I think last session we didn't have to do it because of the stimulus funding. So now I think it's time to deal with this and this is one of --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: (Inaudib le).
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Will the gentle-lady yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Yes, Doctor.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Represe ntative King, would you agree that we are faced with multiple sides of this issue, ranging from your bill, which is somewhat difficult for those in high target revenues and better for those in low. And we've been faced before, during this session, with discussions about straight 6 percent cuts that are better for some and worse for others.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes. And that's the beauty and the problem and the curse of this House, that as well as we try to do what's best for Texas, but at the end of the day -- with all respect to Representative Solomon, we have to do what benefits our district and what we think is best for our students.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Like myself, would you agree that many of these people on the floor have some of all of the above, we have 42's we have 41's, we have small, larges all in between?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: For example, in my district the highest pro rata is tiny district, and this will probably not be the best for them but I am looking for the greater good --
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand your time has expired, but I think we're going to have o problem passing your --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I'm sure that's true. We're in the minority, as always.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, when we received our runs during the regular session, when we were taking up 1811 and some of the other related bills, most of -- like most of you, we have diverse districts. And some of them are affected more positively by one plan or the other. In the case when the bill finally came out and we had what we called Eissler the first year and Shapiro the second year, most of my school districts did better the first year and then did much worse the second year, under Shapiro. So I had asked Mr. Eissler a number of times if he would -- if he was, going to, during his hearings, if he would going bring back the Eissler, Eissler plan, where we had preserved the current system for two more years and then sunset it. We discussed it, and the pros and cons of it, and obviously he has an agreement with Mr. Shapiro to have Eissler the first year and Shapiro the second year. But I had asked him again this morning if he had offered an amendment where we could consider having Eissler for both years. He said no, but there is an amendment that brings up Shapiro both years. So we have Eissler-Shapiro in the bill before us. The King amendment makes it Shapiro-Shapiro, and I felt earlier I felt like it was important to give the members a chance to make it Eissler-Eissler. And the result of that, before I take -- before I yield, is that we have a plan that preserves the current system for two years, and this amendment keeps the Eissler approach for the first year and the second year. And then sunsets the target revenue. And then the next biennium, we will have to pass a new bill rewriting our school finance system once and for all when we have better economic conditions; when we have more revenue. But not at a time -- I don't think it's wise today, with the economic conditions that we have, with the revenue shortfall we have, to be changing the system so dramatically. We're already taking cuts, but let's keep the system as much intact as we can. And this amendment simply preserves the system as we have it for two more years, sunsets and keeps the Eissler approach. And I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: For some questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Absolut ely, to our veteran and very wise member of the education committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Representative. Would you agree that this is the opposite extreme pretty much from the --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah. The King amendment, as I said earlier, we have -- in the bill before us, we have a plan that calls for the Eissler approach the first year, the Shapiro approach the second year. And with the King (inaudible) offered a plan to do Shapiro both years, and I'm all about the Eissler both years and sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would you also agree that the conference committee plans that came back from 1811 was compromised between the two of you who stand presently at the front mic?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I agree it was that. But, you know, compromise is not always the best. I think the best proposed -- I think the best ideas originate in the House, and I want to make sure we honor the House approach, because that's a very effective approach. And it is far superior to the Senate approach.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, might I comment on the gala appearance of all three members at the front mic at the same time? Now then, to the end that we had a compromise in the conference committee report, I know it's not common, but I would (inaudible) with both Representative King and Representative Hilderbran. So please consider withdrawing your amendments and let us go back to the conference committee plan. And, at any rate, let me make that suggestion as a possibility, lest we wind up with one extreme or the other.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Let me explain the legislative process to you. If --
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: If I get my amendment on -- if my amendment goes on and she withdraws her amendment to my amendment, then I don't really have a lot of say about it. I'm trying to change her amendment to Eissler-Eissler from Shapiro-Shapiro, but she can withdraw the amendment at that time. So (inaudible) the Hildebran amendment to have Eissler-Eissler and a sunset provision so we can start over in two years when we have better economic conditions and we can do a (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Sure, I would be glad to.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Is that, is the fact that you want to make sure that these cuts just go across the board, is that what you're doing?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah. I think that more districts did better under the Eissler plan in the first year, than the second year of Shapiro.
(Inaudible) keep it that way for both years in these
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: The question I have, Harvey, I am concerned that again what we're going turn our eyes against those that lower target revenues, because that's what we're talking about, and your amendment is going to punish those schools that can least afford these cuts (inaudible)
(inaudible) and that is the continuation of an equitable system. You want to do at least above, because $300 cut to those with $4,700 target revenue, first is a $400 cut at $6,000 are a big difference (inaudible) (inaudible) taking my time --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Let me say -- answer your question. And that is no, that's not may intent. What I think is that we have a system that's not good now, but the new system, as I look at the results of the Shapiro plan the second year, it's worse than the first year for more citizens. However, I don't think we should keep the system (inaudible), that's why I added a sunset provision so we do fix the system next time we have better economic conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I think that you're -- I think that you're -- what you're doing is you are trying to say is that those that can least afford it are going to be the ones that bear the greater burden --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: (Inaudi ble).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: -- of the shortfall. And I think that's what -- and I think that's what the whole concern about the equity is. And I don't know, maybe you don't have any low target school districts. But those that do know that if you're going to put it upon -- you're basically putting a greater burden on them, those have the extra funding that can handle these cuts that we're doing.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Well, as you know, each district is impacted differently and under either plan are the hybrid districts do well and do bad, depending on the plan and depending on their circumstances. And so no matter what plan we do, you'll have some businesses not doing as well than others. All the districts -- more districts in my state represented district, and other districts that my colleagues represent, I've seen a trend where more of them do better under the Eissler approach. So instead of doing a compromise that in the second year makes more of my districts suffer, I'd propose as an alternative to the King amendment, which says Shapiro-Shapiro, that we do Eissler-Eissler. But I do sunset this, so we start over and fix the system once and for all. So let's vote. Let's move adoption of the amendment to the amendment. Lois is on my side.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I would be happy to yield to the gentle lady.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Representative Hildebran, you just made a point that you're doing things for your district. And I think that's what most people are doing.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And you're doing --
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Right. And so we're going to see what's available here in the voting right now for your amendment to the amendment. And I think people do need to vote for district. I will say that no one is happy about this $4 billion, how you want to put this either way. But we have to agree and maybe won't agree, that target revenue; which was supposed to be a temporary mechanism, has lived on.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: You are absolutely right. You are absolutely right.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: We have to be sure that we are not putting ourselves into a disastrous situation with non equity going forward. That's more of a point for me, equity in school funding, than just supporting my district. And mine is so split, the baby in so split in my district that a lot of people will not be happy to just go through, but everyone will suffer somewhat. So I don't have a need to House or Senate. For me, I think it's what's best for and the fairest and most equitable way for the students in the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Well, I agree with you on that. And I also agree that the target revenue system is not something that we want to keep. And it should not -- It was supposed to be a temporary solution (inaudible) to and to last as long as it should. But when I look at the results, I see in these economic conditions with this revenue shortfall, that we are better served by going two more years in sunset, and then during a new system afterwards as a preferable alternative. And that's why I offer this amendment, and with all due respect. And I certainly understand and appreciate that you, me and all of our colleagues will vote their districts and how their school districts do. But we also all are concerned about doing what's best for Texas, the citizens of Texas and our future. And I agree with you on that.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: I just have a quick question. Do you think that the Eissler-Eissler plan, in general, benefits the wealthier districts?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I don't know. Because I don't think my districts are wealthy. I think, you know, (inaudible) not wealthy --
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: I call a point of order on the -- Nevermind.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: What's really going to be interesting is whether they will accept my amendment if it goes on, or yours, if it doesn't. I don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: We won't discuss wealth today, we all know what that does or doesn't mean. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption of the amendment. Move amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Hilderbran amendment? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of the Hilderbran amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg to speak on the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Mr. Speaker, members, I just want to speak briefly because people keep asking me what these do. So I'll try and tell you what these do and you can decide how to vote. I'm not going to speak for or against. There's two different approaches to taking the $4 billion out. One is cut everybody equally. One is you look at the folks who have a whole lot more and you cut them less. Mr. Eissler's bill that's before us in House Bill -- Senate Bill 1, says the first year we are going to cut everybody equally. And that's more favorable to the people who have more money and less favorable to those who have less. And the second year we're going to take that into consideration and we're going to say if you're on the bottom we're going to cut you less. Mr. Hilderbran says we're just going to do it equally both years. Ms. King says we're going to look at where you are and cut the ones on the bottom less both years. Right, Susan? So here's your decision, folks. From a public policy standpoint, I would argue that you're better off taking into account where districts are, from your own standpoint of your own districts, are your districts better off in the first year or the second year? If your districts are better off under the first year under Mr. Eissler's then maybe you want to be with Harvey. If you're better off in the second year with Ms. King, then maybe you want to be with Ms. King. But if you want an answer that works for the whole body, you may want what Mr. Eissler has done, which is split the difference.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I yield yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Hochberg , I think your argument is a very sound one. And I guess I would ask you what would you say to a member who represents wealthy and poor?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Like me?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Like me and you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I would say that gee, it's a good time to go have lunch.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: But wouldn't you also maybe say that's why Mr. Eissler worked out a compromise, and that what these amendments do before us is pick a winner, and they picked a loser. And if we don't do these amendments we leave it where it as close to reason and fair as we can get in the current conditions we find ourselves in?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I think you take me beyond what I would being willing to say, because I've always believed that we ought to, as rapidly as we can conceivably get to a point where a student a is treated the same way regardless of what district he is in, where he happens to live in your district or in my district. My kids in my district don't know whether they're in Aleaf or in Houston when they go school. They show up
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And so I wouldn't agree with you entirely. But I will also tell you that -- I guess what I'm only trying to tell the membership is Mr. Hilderbran makes the decision all in one direction. Ms. King makes the decision all in the other direction. If you know where your schools line up and they're all in one direction or the other direction, you probably need to be with one or the other of these folks. If you don't know where your schools line up since we don't have runs on either of these and if you -- or if you have a split decision, then you may want to stay with (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: But it is fair to say that Mr. Eissler's plan, whether you or I find it less than perfect, is at least an attempt at treating a wealthy or a poor district in a rather fair way, and not choosing one to be a victor over the other?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I would say that it chooses one victor in one round and another victor in the other round.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So at least they each go home with winning a round and we'll go on and fight the next time?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I think that's a fair way to put it.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: We're having a little discussion back here, and I think probably the big take away is that we are only a rearranging the cuts, but not actually improving the sense of equity in our system. Maybe you could argue that Representative King's proposal is more equitable, because it emphasizes the cuts with the schools that have more funds per student.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: In the first year?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: In the first year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: My understanding is that Ms. King's proposal keeps us where the bill is in the secondary, is that your understanding?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I heard her describe her proposal as really Senator Shapiro's plan in both years.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Which I understood to mean a better balance of applying cuts on schools, more funding per student in the first year; in the first year only.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Well, I guess I'm little exasperated here because it sounds to me like we're just sort of rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, and we're not improving the outcome of our school funding system.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. I agree with that. I mean neither one -- this is rearranging chairs, but it's real money. And, you know what, the one thing that I guess I can tell you is Mr. Eissler and I engaged in a conversation about where we would start the next biennium. And I think there is a significant difference between starting the next biennium with either Representative King or Representative Eissler's results or Representative Hilderbran's results.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So it sounds to me like if you had to arrange them from bad to worse, it would be --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: (Inaudible ) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Certainly clearly, Mr. Hilderbran, no offense to my chairman in Ways and Means; is to worse.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: From the standpoint -- from the standpoint of equity Mr. Hilderbran's would be worse.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That's right. And are you going to be proposing a new arrangement? Do you have an amendment that alters the distribution of cuts?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I have -- I have no further amendments in the school funding portion of this bill. I have an amendment -- Yeah, I have an amendment. Mr. Eissler was kind enough to accept the Patrick amendment, which included -- which is something we worked on together. And my work here is done.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yeah, just for a few questions, Representative Hochberg. And it does seem as though we're trying to do, as best we can, to manage the $4 billion in cuts to the foundation school program. Is that what we're doing?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I think so.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Now, I know we've talked about winners and losers. I mean are there any winners in what we're doing? To me, it's losers and more losers and more losers than less, it's just the way I'm looking at this program.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And -- And I'm trying to figure out where is this getting us? Where do we start? It seems like in the next two years it's just -- we're all getting cuts. Now we're just trying to manage the degree of the a cuts on our school districts. I mean this is the result of the choices that we made in HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You know, people chose to make 4 billion-dollar cuts. They didn't look where the cuts were going. And now people are trying to manage the cuts as best as one can.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It's just like your haircut and my haircut, we looked up and found out we were cut. And there wasn't much we could do about getting the hair back.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You just got to live with the results.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Now where does this take us for the next biennium? Where do we start? In respect to what Representative King's amendment, of Representative Hilderbran's; where do we start in the next biennium?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, I think -- I think -- I think it's unclear where we start. But with Ms. King's amendment we would start in the same place that we start with Mr. Eissler's bill. With Mr. Hilderbran's amendment the second year of Mr. Eissler's bill never appears, so we would simply be prorating school districts down or taking them down by a proportional amount across the board.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So this is just symptomatic of the fact we made a decision to cut $4 billion out, everybody is going to feel the pain, and now how do you spread the impact?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. And as I've said several times from this microphone, a whole lot of the people voting for the cuts but then wanted to make sure it didn't affect their school districts, or it affected their school districts less than somebody else's.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran. Representative Hilderbran withdraws his amendment to the amendment. Representative King withdraws her amendment. The amendment on page 57 is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You've just seen democracy in action, or shall we say push me, pull me; whatever it is. And so what happens in this way, we have just proven the case, I hate to admit it, irrespective outside of the 4 billion, that there is no agreed to situation. Representative Hilderbran felt that the few across the board percentages are the best. I did not agree with that. So if his amendment is on my amendment, and my amendment passed then we don't know what the numbers are. This is, quite frankly, a huge impact here. Then what would we do? We would have ended up with what's on the floor now, which is a hybrid proposal; which may or may not help everyone in my district or yours, or anyone's. But that's where we are at this point. I do support sunsetting this entire thing going forward. That's why you need to be watching this and think we're completely nuts, that's why I withdrew my amendment, and that's why Harvey Hilderbran withdrew his, and we made the case for Professor Eissler that at this point that is probably the most expedient thing to do for the students of Texas, short of someone donating $4 billion to the coffers to help.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I'd like to thank Representative King and Hilderbran, both felt passionately about their own situations. And I understand that that has happened in each school district, and in each representative's district across this state. And that's why it's been a difficult journey to get to this point, to find a middle ground and find a compromise. One where you try to -- you try to mitigate the cuts and we're not (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are you all agreeing to sunset this provision?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, that's what is in the Patrick amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. That's what I thought. That's why I pulled down the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And, with that, you can see that there's a lot of emotion in this issue and a lot of difficult work. And I think Hilderbran and King made a case that a year of each --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le) credit cards, Mr. Chairman. We were just collecting credit cards to help pay for it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment -- The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It's the amendment on page 68. Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Let's talk about something other than school finance for a minute. The king can do no wrong. This phrase, and the practice associated with this phrase has been around literally, since before the revolutionary war. In fact, the united States was created largely because the King of England believe he could do no wrong, and he could tax without representation and comply with contracts at will. Believe it or not, the practice of unilateral contract compliance was the law in Texas for many years. Simply stated, if the State breeched the contract, the private party to that contract had very limited courses of action to seek redress for this breach. Certainly, if the private party to a state contract breeched the contract, the state can and does sue for redress. School districts, universities, cities, counties, TDCJ and others use sovereign immunity as a means avoiding liability on contracts. Although more common in construction contracts, it's not limited to that. There are cases of food service companies, emissions companies and others that have run into this issue of sovereign immunity. Recognizing the inequity of this policy, over the last several sessions this body has moved to ensure that the various political subdivisions of the state honor their contracts. As it stands now, the only governmental entity which continues to claim sovereign immunity in contracts is the state and its agencies. Several years ago the state office of administrative hearing established procedures for claims under 250,000. However, on larger claims a claimant must petition the state legislature for permission to sue for breach of contract. And if successful in the suit, the claimant must return to the legislature to have the award appropriated. This practice, in addition to being unfair, is incredibly expensive for both the state and the claimant. All suits are costly. But the people with whom the state contract are clearly at a distinct disadvantage when a state agency breaches a contract. It is fundamentally unfair for the State of Texas to be entering into what essentially are unilateral contracts. In other words, you have to do what we say but we don't. This amendment will remove the last vestige of this unfair practice. This amendment does not, however, remove sovereign immunity on tort plains or employment contracts, but simply on business contracts which the state enters into. Let me emphasize that this amendment was a stand-alone bill, which was voted favorably out of state affairs and had made it on to the state calendar when time expired, and was added to HB 1811. And let me make one final comment about cost, when a contractor knows he is entering into a contract with the state, the level of risk is considered and costs may go up. Further, the concern about the indeterminate cost to the state is just not supported by the facts. School districts, counties, cities, have not been up here asking to regain sovereign immunity because of the enormous cost associated with honoring their contracts. The same will be born out with state contracts. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Workman sends up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 72. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Collin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment was House Bill 1377 that was favorably reported out of the public safety committee. It would allow peace officers, during a legitimate traffic stop, for drivers, only drivers who have no photo ID of any kind, to require that motorist to provide a fingerprint or a thumbprint. The Department of Public Safety has been running a pilot program, they've had great success with it. Houston Police Department's been doing this as well. This will lower the cost for enforcing the law, finding fugitives. This is a government efficiency measure, taking the latest technology, which is on -- which is coming here. There's several civil liberties protections within this amendment. Stuff that the HLU is not opposed to this. It is acceptable to the author. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Taylor sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 75.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment merely clarifies that school districts that don't receive -- that don't receive any state dollars for transportation, either directly or indirectly, may charge their students for using their school bus if that is what their board of trustees decides to do. Current law is silent on this question, and it is completely permissive. And I think it's acceptable to the author. Thank you. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Truitt sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. We're on page 78. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Martinez amendment is temporarily withdrawn. We're on page 88. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's withdrawn. Amendment on page 85. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the Shelton amendment is withdrawn. We're on page 88, members. We're on page 88, members. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Harper-Brown.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment extends the state's permanent school fund to bond guarantee the financially sound charter schools, to help them construct public school buildings. And I believe it is acceptable to the author. Move passage.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Harper-Brown sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment on page 99 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 107. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment
(inaudible).
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton on page 107.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you. There's been a lot of discussion, members, about how many school districts have to deal with this issue about what to do about the absence of $4 billion in their budget. One of the options that was not available, absent this amendment, is that they were not -- they would not be able, under the current system where the law requires that they absolutely have to do 180 days of instruction. What this amendment does is says that when school districts calculate how much they're going to be receiving from state aid, when they mess that up they now adjust the number of days lower than the 180 days of instruction. So what that effectively means is that if it requires a 170 days, so that you don't end up with teacher furloughs, and you don't end up with layoffs and you don't have to cut anything out, the school districts would be empowered to do that. And this is just one of the -- arsenal, in their quiver of possibilities on how to address this issue of what to do about the absence of $4 billion in the school budget. And if there are no questions I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Eissler in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, as a very fine member of the House public education for probably the last 20 years, what Mr. Dutton may fail to realize is we've increased funding to public schools over the years. And I know it's probably doubled in the last two decades, and we have not -- We have not lengthened the school year with a number of days. So to automatically reduce them, because of the shortage, I think is -- I think it ignores the product that we're working on, and that's the kids. So with that, I love Mr. Dutton, but I move to table.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton to close.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I wish Bob would love this amendment more than he loves me, but apparently not. Now, this amendment, despite what you may think, it is not -- there is nothing in this amendment that requires school districts to do anything. This is a permissive amendment that simply allows school districts to adjust the number of days of instruction based on the amount of money that we're willing to put into the system. If we're not going to put the money in, then why would we require them to abide by the 180 days of instruction we're having? They may well be able to do it in a 170 days. That's all this amendment does. So if you're worried about your school district and whether or not -- how they're going to meet the obligations under a reduced budget of about $4 billion, you ought to be for this amendment. Because this amendment would actually help your school district. This amendment provides an opportunity for your school district to do some things today that they can't do otherwise. One of which is when we, in the state law, require that they absolutely do a 180 days of instruction, they still have to do it. But they now have to do it on less money. But this amendment simply provides them the opportunity to do it, it doesn't require them to do anything. It just says that if you want to, if a school district wants to, they are able now to adjust the instructional days to the amount of money that we are willing to appropriate to them. And it seems to me that that is quite fair, members. I don't know about anybody else, but if someone came to you and said well, you know, times are hard, but I'm going to require you to work longer hours at less pay; most of us would say that's not fair. And if they came to you and said okay, you can work the same number of hours but I'm going to do it at less pay, that's essentially what we are asking school districts to do. We're saying that we want you to provide 180 days of instruction, but we want you to do it at a reduced cost of a total of $4 billion. This amendment just simply says look, school districts, you have an option. One of the options that we're going to give school districts in this bill is we give them the option to furlough teachers. You've got the option to do all these other things, but you don't have the option not to give 180 days of instruction. This amendment simply provides them that option, members. And so I would also offer this and ask you not to vote to table this amendment, but to give your school district and my school district an option that they currently do not have. And, with that, I would ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton sends up an amendment. Mr. Eissler moves to table. It is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Eissler voting aye. Mr. Dutton voting no. Ms. Patrick, aye. Mr. Price, aye. Dr. Schwertner, aye. Have all members voted? All members voted? There being 92 ayes, 44 nays, the motion to table prevails. Mr. Dutton's here. Members, we're on page 108. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you want to do the amendment for me?
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assume by the last vote that one of the options you don't want school districts to have is the option to reduce the number of instructional days. As Mr. Hochberg said just a moment ago, what's different about that than any of the other options that we're giving school districts? And I, quite frankly, will tell you, members, that there is nothing that this amendment does that violates our contract with school districts. Particularly if we're going to require them to do 180 days of instruction. This amendment would have permitted them to do 170 days of instruction as opposed to 180. And somebody asked why (inaudible) the edict from the LBB that a 170 days was probably less than of a 4 billion-dollar cut. And so that's why I did the 170 days. But I will withdraw my amendment, since this House probably seems as if they do not want the school district to have that option.
THE CHAIR: The amendment on a page 108 is withdrawn. Mr. Huberty? Mr. Huberty? We're on page 109? 110. No, we're on page 111, members. Sorry. The amendment on page 111 is temporarily withdrawn. And the amendment on page 109 is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes -- Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I've got an easy way to save our schools some money through additional flexibility. This amendment simply offers our schools the opportunity of a flexible school day and a school-year by extending the length of the day schools can free up calendar days of the school year. This amendment isn't a mandate, it's an option. It offers our schools more flexibility. It will provide a savings to our schools by reducing transportation costs, utility costs and other non instructional costs. This absolutely does not reduce instruction time whatsoever. This amendment will help move more dollars into the classroom and I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes -- Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Represe ntative Guillen, I'm not necessarily speaking against your amendment, but I want to sure I understand the implications of it.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: This would allow a school district to say to a four-day school week if they chose at times, in order to have a shorter period. Would that be one of the situations?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: This would change the 1 87 days into hours. And so -- And so what they have the option to do under this bill, by extending the flexible school day program -- They actually already have a flexible school day program that was created several years ago, but it's only for certain circumstances. We're now extending that to all schools. So what they have the option to do is extend the school day however much they would want, which would then free up days out of the year. So if they decided to extend the school day by ten minutes, twenty minutes or thirty minutes, let's say. And that would free up four or five days or ten days out of the school year, then they could decide where they would want to free up those ten days.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So potentially it would be a longer Christmas break, it could be an earlier dismissal in the spring, it could be used any way that district saw --
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Exactly. They could just -- they could just finish the school year ten days early or five days early, or they can, like you say, extend the Christmas break and extend the school spring break and any other holiday they can extend.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So it's basically a contact hour based concept, as opposed to today's concept?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Eissler?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Before we give that up would it --
THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would it presume the same school start date be left intact?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: It does not touch the school start date. It makes sure that they've got to stay within the calendar year, within the current calendar year.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hochberg, yes. Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. And, Mr. Guillen, this program would still require the commissioner or the agency to approve an application before a district would be able to do this, and they would have to demonstrate that they're capable of counting hours and doing this in a different way, it would just break you out of having to have the 180 days, as long as you had the same number of hours?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Right. The commissioner has to approve it. And they've got to -- the school district would have to convince the commissioner that they would benefit -- the school would benefit from this. They would then some savings that they could then put into the classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And a lot of businesses go to four day weeks in order to cut down on energy consumption or whatever.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: This gives them the complete flexibility to decide what's best for their community.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I think you've got a good amendment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker? Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Gentleman yields.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ryan, does this bill in any way effect the teacher's salary?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: In no way does it affect teacher salary. But, you know, by saving -- by allowing the school district this flexibility and by freeing up some days, which would then free up money in transportation costs, utility costs and another nonmaterial costs, then they can use that additional money to pay more teachers or to pay their teachers more. Thank you. It is acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen sends up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Chair brings up the amendment on page 114. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK SHELTON: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Before we get into the bill, there's an amendment by to the amendment by Mr. Murphy.
THE CHAIR: Clerk will -- Representative Thompson raises a point of order upon further consideration of this amendment. And Ms. Thompson is already down. Ms. Thompson temporarily withdraws her point of order and Dr. Shelton temporarily withdraws his amendment. Members, we're on page 117. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is a continuation of work that we, as a legislature, did last session on bringing accountability to the adult basic education program. This amendment will do two things: First, it will ensure that the money is allocated by county by need, performance and efficiency. And second it directs TEA to put each of the adult basic education providers through a competitive bid process. And I -- And it is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Guillen sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Mr. Madden? Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, Mr. Hochberg and I have been talking about this. I'm going to temporarily withdraw this and work on an amendment to it.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Madden temporarily withdraws his amendment on page 119. The amendment on page 120 is with -- is withdrawn. The amendment on page 125 is temporarily withdrawn. Sorry. Go back, members, to page 125 on the Madden amendment. Clerk will read -- clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is on the virtual school work, around approval of courses. What it does is there has been concerns about the state paying for reviewed courses offered by the Texas Virtual School Network. It says the current practice is TEA to pay for the courses of evaluating and improving. This amendment allows the TEA to charge for the course if it's (inaudible) up to five hundred dollars for the course, and it streamlines the TEA virtual course network course approval procedure, so that no later than 90 days after the date of submission, provides for a quicker access. And the amendment is acceptable.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Madden sends up an amendment. Mr. Mad -- it is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Members, we're on page 132. Mr. Bonnen? Clerk will -- We're on page 132, members. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the amendment that a huge number of you have joined me in. I believe Mr. Larson is still deciding. This is to allow the UIL to be reviewed by sunset in the coming interim, and I -- I will simply tell you it is acceptable. But I won't name the member. But one member who asked to sign on to it says can we do more than sunset them? So I think this provides us the opportunity to get an understanding of what is or is not during at UIL. I appreciate the support of the membership, and I thank the author for accepting the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to --
THE CHAIR: Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The amendment's acceptable, but I guess I will.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, it may not be acceptable for the rest. The question is, it says SB paid for by UIL that --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. And how does UIL make its money?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: How do they make their money?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: How do they fund it so they pay for this, are they state funded or are they funded by local school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, largely they're funded by your and my constituents when they attend UIL sanctioned events, like a high school football game or a basketball game. They get about 3.5 million dollars annually from those activities. They get about a $3.5 million TEA grant, it appears. If you look at their audit, you'll see that they get that grant every year.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So they get TEA -- they get funding directly from TEA for --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, no. They would argue they don't. You have to look in their audit to discover that funding.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, TEA can't tell us that, I guess?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No. What I'm saying is that UIL doesn't come out and say we're funded through TEA. They come out and tell you they're funded through gate fees that are paid by your constituents when they come to games. But if you review their audit you'll find that they get a TEA grant in '08 for 3.2 million, in '09, 3.1 million. But you'll also find some other interesting things when you look at their audit, Mr. Phillips, you'll find that they have in their expenses administrative salaries, classified salaries, wage and fringe benefits of 493,000. You'll also find the that the top eight salaries at UIL are all over $100,000.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you for answering my question.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Glad to answer it.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author by a large majority here in this House. Are there any objections? Oh, All right. A record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. Vote aye, vote no, members. Show the Chair voting aye. Mr. Farias voting aye. All members voted? All members voted? There being 135 ayes, 5 nays, the motion passes. Please excuse Representative Walle because of family business, on a motion by Representative Farias. Members, we're on page 133. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Flynn.
THE CHAIR: Mr. -- There's Mr. Flynn. Chair recognizes Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment, under this amendment each child would be able to be tested in the classroom over their regular studies as normal. The agency would help each district understand the consequences of a moratorium, and it's affect on federal grant money through No Child Left Behind and other federal programs. The state mandatory testing would be suspended for a period of two years, if a school district so desires. Any funding associated with this testing would be spend spent under the teacher jobs and resources in need. You may -- I'm sure many of you have had a lot of contact from your schools and parents, teachers. And you'll know that wherever they go testing, the test, the STAR test is one of those issues that creates a lot of stress, not only stress, but a lot of costs. And it takes away very valuable time for instruction.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Will the gentleman yield for a question or two?
THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Flynn?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Yes, I would, Mr. Aycock.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you Representative Flynn. I think your amendment is aimed at something that's kind of near and dear to most of us. And that's what we believe is sometimes affectionately referred to as drill 'em and kill 'em, is that sort of what your shooting at, the testing process that many of us feel goes a little too far in places.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Yes, I am. And of course, as we've discussed before there's probably nothing that has created much conversation between the administrators and the teachers and the students and the parents as this mandatory testing. It creates a -- I think the new STAR test would take something 45 days. Additional instruction, as you will recall during the process, when we had the hearing, when this was House Bill 2491, we had a great debate on it. We had superintendents from all over the the State of Texas in strong support of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Now let me go back to a bill that's been before the House previously, that's sort of relative to this
(inaudible) remember your vote on. When we had House Bill 500 before the House you were one of five members, I believe, that voted no on that bill; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: I'm sure that you have the record there.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Because I recall your reason for voting no is that you didn't think five hundred went far enough, that you wanted to remove more testing.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: You know, as you live longer and you get more -- more information, you can be more studious in your votes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. I must confess, Representative Flynn, that I'm a little troubled by the degree to which your bill extends. I think we need to have testing and accountability. But I do support your efforts to send a message, loud and clear, to the Senate that the House thinks we have too much emphasis on high stakes testing.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: I think it lets our school superintendents, our school districts, our parents and students know that we understand how much time is being spent on these tests.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you. And I'm not sure I'm going to vote on your amendment, but I think your purpose is headed in the right direction at least.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Very good. In addition, the superintendents can apply these funds or appropriations originally intended for this testing to the retention of teachers or positions with direct student contact, involvement or consumable resources requested for classroom instruction. And funding for the school districts would not be contingent upon the decisions to administer or not administrate these changes in the law. And I was hoping that Mr. Eissler would just accept this, but it looks like he wants to talk. He's telling me he's going to leave it to the will of the House. So I hope all the members will vote yes.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Eissler to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I know this has been a hot topic, and one that seems to be only a warm topic in this body. We find that elsewhere in this building, people don't want to talk it. Now, this specific amendment for the -- for the two-year moratorium has a fiscal note, because the testing will -- the current tests will expire and they're going to have to be redeveloped to the cost of to almost $25 million. And there's that little -- there's that little detail of it violates federal law. But, what I wanted to say is House Bill 500, which you passed a 137 to 5, something like that; went a long way to alleviate some of the pressure on kids and also to -- to talk about what end of course exams should be. And has the support of all of our schools. So what I would like to do, you know, the pluses and minuses of this amendment, is leave it up to you, if you want to send a message on how you feel about testing. Because, apparently, no one else is listening to us. So, with that, I leave it to the will of the House on the Flynn amendment.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Flynn sends up an amendment. It is left up to the will of the House. Vote aye, vote no, members. It is a division vote. All members voted? Mr. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye. All members voted? All members voted? Being 128 ayes, 7 nays, 12 abstains, 3 present not voting; it goes. Amendment is adopted. Page 135. Okay, members, back up. A record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye. All members voted? All members voted? Being a 139 ayes, 2 nays, motion carries. Members, we're now going back to page 25. I know, I know. Travel with me back to page 25. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment just allows 501C entities that are exempt under federal tax codes to pay the same lobby registration fee of 150.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez -- page 25. The amendment on page 25 is withdrawn. Now, we can go back to 135. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, this just corrects a deal we did at the Canadian school district, Canadian ISD, where we allowed them to bring their rate down and then go back and up. And this just correct what we missed in it, that they went down below the mandatory minimum tax, so this straightens this out.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment. Mr. Eissler -- Mr. Eissler in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. I move to table this amendment in that there is a -- there is a segment in SB 1 that gives a district five years to repay, and that way everybody wins. So, with that, I move to table.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.
THE CHAIR: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Eissler , do you recall how we got to this situation with Canadian, Texas; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And they came up and we introduced a bill in the House and in the Senate, and in that bill we allowed the Canadian school district to reduce their tax levy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: By flipping their rates.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: By flipping their rates. And all we allowed them to do was go down on their taxes, and we told them in the bill that they could come back up to their original tax rate without suffering a rollback; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But unintentionally, and was not in the fiscal note, the bill, they actually went down and triggered a --
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Minimum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: -- minimum tax rate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Minimum -- Well, minimum recapture, right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Minimum recapture, which is tax rate?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And so that may be a statewide property tax on amendment; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: You could say that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: So -- So what we did is we caught them with our statewide property tax that we don't talk about much here, but we actually have in statute a statewide property tax.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, that's what West Orange Cove said.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So anyway, after the event, the bill passed and they did their deal. Went down. Then LBB, or somebody, found that this minimum tax rate that we had -- we had never used it before since we put in it in statute several years ago, and never done that before. And now we are going to ask them for that money back, even though we, at one time, told them we were doing the right thing and we passed the bill through both houses.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, I thought there was -- we have a fix in the five-year --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah, but the fix is to pay them back money that they really don't owe. That's the fix. And so that's not going to be a fix. They're not going to -- they probably will not want to do that. So the fix you put in the bill really just requires them to pay it back over five years; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But they don't really owe the money.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Members, we're on page 137. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock. Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock. Mr. Aycock temporarily withdraws his amendment. Ms. Marquez, on page 139 -- Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, last session we adopted an allotment of $650 for each student who has a parent deployed overseas in combat, or has moved to Texas on the base (inaudible) which is (inaudible). This money originally came from the surplus to the foundation school programs' appropriations. This amendment retains that allotment, but funds it directly out of the SFP. It also extends the sunset from 2013 to 2017, because of a continued deployment of troops in combat, and the delay of the arrival of BRAK families. The money we're talking about here would help with counseling for the children of our soldiers in combat, and it also helps with school work assistance that the parent in combat cannot provide. This, members, this is for the children of those that are out there fighting or that are relocating to Texas. And so I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Marquez sends up an amendment. On page 139. 139. Please excuse Representative Hancock because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Driver. Chair recognizes Mr. Eissler to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, members, this is about a 20 million-dollar entitlement that is specific to one or two areas, and the benefit is unclear. So, with that, I move to table.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The benefit is clear. The benefit very clear, because we made it a priority in the last session with HB 3646. So all we're saying now -- Last session. We provided that allotment last session. So all we're saying is if it needs to be a continue to a priority for those that are coming back into Texas that are out there fighting in our war, in combat, and also those that are coming back as far as realignment and our base realignment. So all we're saying is that it needs to continue to be a priority, and that two thirds continues to go to combat children, and the other one-third goes to BRAK children. The number of BRAK children is less than previously expected, so most of the money will go to combat children. And we still maintain that it cannot exceed $9.9 million, which was in the original bill last session, in 3646. And so I would ask that you move not to table this amendment.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Marquez sends up an amendment. Mr. Eissler moves to table. Question's on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Ms. Marquez voting no. Mr. Eissler voting aye. Mr. Smith voting aye. All members voted? Have all members voted? There being 84 ayes, 58 nays, motion to table passes. Mr. Aycock? Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 140, members.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Members , when the RPAF, that is reduction factor we've been talking about all day, goes into effect, it cuts the regular program. It's what it is, the regular program adjustment factor. We have siloed off money in five other categories: Special ed, comp. ed, bilingual, career and tech and gifted and talented. The way it's written, it only affects the money outside those five programs. Some of those -- the money inside those five programs, cannot be touched because of federal maintenance of effort requirement. But there are some school situations in some districts where it could give them more flexibility if we pass this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to give them more flexibility, as I say cut, across the silos when it helps the school district. And that's the purpose of the amendment. Move passage.
THE CHAIR: All right. Representative Aycock sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Members, we're going back to page 137. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is going back to the flexibility issue again. No higher risk children are those -- there are no higher risk than those in JAAP, the juvenile justice alternative education programs and the disciplinary alternative education programs. Compensatory education money is intended to be spent for high risk children. And my submission to this amendment is that high risk children are concentrated in these two programs. And this would allow the districts' flexibility to spend their comp. ed money on the JJA programs, and I believe it's acceptable.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Aycock sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. We're on page 141. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Deshotel? Mr. Deshotel? Chair recognizes Mr. Deshotel. It's on page 141. Amendment on 141.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment with -- I think is going to be acceptable to the author. It will help put off the independent school district, which was caught up in a funding issue with a (inaudible) tax appraisal district that was sued by Valero. And they have to do a refund of $15 million out of their budget. And this would allow TEA to assist in the funding of the school district. And I think it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Deshotel sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Amendment on page 142 is withdrawn. On page 143. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.
THE CHAIR: Chair -- Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock. The amendment is withdrawn. Chair -- Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a common sense measure. Texas has been a leader in providing transparency in government. Taxpayers have a right to now know how their tax dollars are being spent. This bill simply requires that school districts to post their budget, financial report and check register online. But it does give them the ability that if they have -- they are unable to post it or -- all or part of it online, all they need to do is have their superintendent or chief financial officer of their school district submit a letter to the commissioner explaining why the district has been unable to post their financial data; including the results of any applicable cost analysis performed, if or by the school district. It's acceptable to the author. Move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Zedler, I'm being told that Ms. Thompson raises a point of order on further consideration of this amendment. And since she is down here again, already, you can come down and talk to her. Ms. Thompson temporarily withdraws her point of order and Mr. Zedler temporarily withdraws his amendment. Mr. Huberty? Mr. Huberty? Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Huberty.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, this is a bill that was passed out of the House. It's a -- what I'd like to call a little bit of transparency in government and school districts, where they are required to bid out their food contract services. And we passed it in the House. The Senate passed their version and it was on the calendar the very last day. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Huberty sends up an amendment. It is -- Mr. Strama?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Huberty, do you --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Of course.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Here we are again. I'm going to continue to vote against this. And I know there are members whose districts -- And I think Mr. Phillips thinks it's acceptable to the point of order. What I want to do is establish again the legislative intent, which was established during the regular session. Which is it is not the intention of this legislation that you are presenting, as I understand what you said in the past, that -- that a vendor would not be able -- Well, let me put it in the positive. Even if you adopt this amendment can a vender still package up --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: -- bids from a lot of school districts and bid them as a whole in order to get the economy of scale that smaller school districts may not be able to get on their own?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Okay. That is important for me in terms of legislative intent. I am still going oppose this, but I understand what you're trying to do.
THE CHAIR: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: I guess a parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I didn't necessarily agree with Chairwoman Thompson's point of order, and I know that's still under consideration. But I think if the Chair sustains that point of order, then the same point of order would apply as well.
THE CHAIR: Are you raising a point of order?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm thinking about it.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: This is good government, Mr. King.
THE CHAIR: Well, can you do it quickly?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm not going to call a point of order, but I would like to the parliamentarian just to take that into consideration.
THE CHAIR: He will. Thank you. Mr. Huberty sends up an amendment. It is -- There is an objection. Mr. Phillips, do you want to speak against? You want to have a vote? Okay. Okay. All right. Mr. Huberty send up an amendment. There is objection. Vote aye, vote no, members. It is a division vote. Mr. Huberty? Members, you have time to vote on the amendment, on Huberty's amendment. All members voted? All members voted? There being 34 ayes 84 nays, the amendment fails. Strike the board. We're on page 147. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Deshotel? Chair recognizes Mr. Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this amendment does is a result of what I mentioned a little earlier about a 15 million-dollar repayment at the (inaudible) school district as a result of a revaluation of Valero. What this amendment does, if the first amendment does not work out with TEA on the reimbursement, it would allow the district to issue bonds payable by the patrons of the district after an election to repay the Valero due money.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Deshotel sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Clerk will read the amendment. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Branch.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a -- this is an amendment that I believe is acceptable to the author. And I was happy to see that someone would ask during the session what the TCC was. The Texas Conservative Coalition is in support of this. And this is their strategic capital investments initiative, as a way to focus on a key way to bring in more jobs and leverage public, private partnerships on construction of a few projects deemed critical to not only higher education, but also to the State of Texas. And, members, let me just give you an example of what some our competitors are doing, at a time when construction costs and debts costs are at 30 year lows. I thought this was interesting. That MIT, one institution, not one state, one institution in a small state on the east coast; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, just issued a -- for a hundred years, a hundred year debt obligation. Think about that, at a all time low coupon rate. 5.6 coupon rate. And they were oversubscribed by -- there was three billion dollars of orders in this bond issuance for a 750 million-dollar, just for one campus. Because they -- And I guess the markets recognized how important these sorts of strategic investments are, and they obviously feel confident about the brand, MIT. My view is that we have some brands in our state that the markets would feel -- will feel very confident about. But, more importantly, we need to make sure we compete. This is all about being competitive and taking our assets and making sure that if we need certain key schools or projects or facilities in the state, that we are in a position to take advantage of this window of low construction costs, historically low interest rate costs. And this project says that we're going to see if you got some skin in the game. So if the State of Texas is willing to go out and partner with one of our higher ed institutions, that higher ed institution has got to raise two thirds of the dollars and be on the hook for two biennia of the debt service payments. So that's the proposal here, and I believe it's acceptable to the author. And I do have a perfecting amendment.
THE CHAIR: There is an amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Branch.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that clarifies that the report that the commissioner of education, higher education, will give. They will also include the bond review board when they make their report to the legislature in 2014 for this pilot program. And it also clarifies what constitutional revenue is, as opposed to general revenue.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Branch, sends up an amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield after the amendment to the amendment is adopted?
THE CHAIR: Do you want to speak on the amendment to the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: No. Go ahead.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Branch sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Now we're back on the amended amendment. Ms. Kolkhorst?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Does the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield to my -- colleague from Brenham.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Home of Lynn College.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That's right. I appreciate your hard work as chairman of higher education. I do not mean to kill this amendment, just points of clarification in our -- in my line of questioning. You know, you and I spent a lot of time on Article 3 and I enjoyed those years. And I just have a couple of questions about this would be the first time that we actually give the commissioner of education the authority to actually do -- I know you've kind of remained named it to strategic capital investments. But what we have traditionally called tuition revenue bonds; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, this is different. The reason this is program is different is because you have to have findings and it has to have statewide significance. So it's not, as you might -- as you alluded to, this was not your father's -- was that the old commercial? Your father's Oldsmobile or your father's TRB. This is a different approach. And the reason we have had the commissioner of higher education be the person who is uniquely qualified, in my view, to make these findings. And the findings are that they have a statewide significance. Really that there's three conjunctive findings: One is that it has this strategic significance and brings in jobs and has transformative model of education and will bring in federal and research dollars, and will have commercialization of technology in order to bring in talent and start new ventures. That's the finding that he makes first. The second finding is that the institution's governing board would have to have designated the project as a high priority, and strategic capital investments. In theory, that would be the resolution of the regents. And third, you would have the project would have support from either the private sector or from other funds in matter of two thirds. So this is where two thirds of the money for the project, estimated completion costs, would have to come from either private philanthropy, private sector, or from the school's constitutionally dedicated funds.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So the point of clarification on that, so the two thirds could come from the puff?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: -- or the heath?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes, that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So in essence, and this is the one thing I really liked, the two thirds, one-third. But in essence it could come from the puff and one-third from our new bonding thing, and so the whole thing's paid for by the taxpayer. So there's no stipulation that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No, no. The difference is, I would say, that whether it's permanent university funds that flow through the AUF, it's really not any -- as, you know, there's really not any puff funds that come to this institutions with the AUF. The interest off that, or the heath dollars, which are constitutionally designated, which are actually now more -- the heath schools actually get more per student, a few dollars more than the puff schools. That that money is available, because if -- if an institution is willing to commit these sorts of dollars to a serious project like that, then that means they're going to have to find a lot of private philanthropy from somewhere else.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So my main concern is that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: But you do like the -- the two thirds one-third.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Sure. The main concern in prior 2003, University of Texas at Austin, nor Texas A & M College Station never received a TRB. That was the first time. The precedent setting.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: 2001, right? Going back to 2001?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yeah, 2003 is when we did that. And so as we move forward I want to make sure that we're not setting up criteria. Because when we did TRB's it was really for those smaller universities, you know, the puff which benefits through the available university fund was really designed for the Texas -- University of Texas system and two thirds of, and it a third of it to the Texas A & M system. But I want to make sure that, Mr. Chairman, that we're not setting a precedent where we have schools that are located in metropolitan areas or that have huge alumni that heretofore, and I'm on a committee and I'm very thrilled to be serving with you, that we don't set in motion something that are going to keep our smaller universities from being able to got TRB's. Which are historically -- and I know this is designed to let the University of Texas at Austin get their 300 million dollar engineering building, which I'm not against. I think it's 290 million. But of the 400 million, University of Texas of Austin is set to get 25 percent of those 400 million. And I want to make sure that in the future our smaller universities are not going to have a bar set so high that they can't get clear to get some support from us here at -- at the legislature. Our responsibility to decide on these bonding things. And so I'll go down this road with you, but I'm tapping the brakes pretty hard right now.
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time is expired. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Branch amendment as amended? Mr. Branch sends up an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: Excuse me.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Lavender?
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: Will the gentleman yield.
THE CHAIR: Gentleman's time's expired.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
THE CHAIR: Do you want to come down and speak on, for, or against the amendment?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. I just had a question.
THE CHAIR: Oh, okay. Okay. Mr. Branch sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there objections? Chair hears none. Page 152 is temporarily withdrawn. Page 155. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel. Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment on page 159. The clerk -- Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Sitting before you is the tuition revenue bond for Sam Houston State University. There is actually three of them, of which total less than 40 -- let's see, 84 million in three different buildings. And although I'm going to them pull this down, my point being that Chairman Branch is correct; that this should be a time that we're building buildings because the construction costs and the competition that's out there. And I think that it wouldn't have been a great session for all of us, if we're going to do some then we're doing a good portion of them to get the low interest rates to be able to get the construction costs down. And Chairman Branch is correct. I'm sad to say that I've been asked by the system, the Texas State University System, to pull this down in fairness to all the other universities. I withdraw this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment on page 163 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 164. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that says in awarding scholarships that they -- they're be consideration for priority and what's called a critical field, and it explains what a critical field is; like engineering and math, and what the board determines. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The amendment on page 166. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Margo.
REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Thank you Mr. Chair, members. This is simply allowing the University of Texas at El Paso to access their funds and
(inaudible). And I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Margo sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The amendment on a page 167 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 168. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is permissive language allowing the University of Houston to set up optometry career program that teaches kids, students about having an interest in optometry. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Amendment on page 169. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Collin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'd like to raise a point of order. I believe this amendment is illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Under 11-2. Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. We're on page 172. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker, there's an amendment to the amendment. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment to the amendment just fixes a typo, and it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, the ethics bill that we passed in House Bill 1616, the Senate put some language on that kind of destroyed it. And the governor wants to be able to veto it. And so we're running it back through here without the bad Senate language on it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment allows you to loan your campaign money and pay yourself back that campaign money, and to do it as a loan. This was something that was put in fifteen years ago, but it was worded improperly. And this corrects the wording. It is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Geren amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I believe it's acceptable to the author. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Amendment on page 17. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, we have in this state a premarital education system, and this just says that the health and human services commissioner shall continue that premarital education system. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is there an amendment to the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: There's an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'll hold.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: This just puts it in lege counsel draft. It doesn't change the wording at all. It's just gets it for the lege counsel draft. Actually had it for another deal but it worked good here.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are we on the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah. I move passage, that's the next step. So thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Chisum sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Chisum amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Chisum, Now, how are we going to do this? You know, I support it. But how are we going to do it without any money?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: I've talked to Commissioner (inaudible). He says we can do this. We have got eighty thousand volunteer workers out there, all we need is somebody to coordinate those workers. So we can do it. We don't spend any money doing this.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Because how much were we spending before?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: I'm not sure. We got some money to get it started but we've organized these 80,000 workers all across Texas that are doing it, so most of them are religious based organizations. There's some private sector counselors that are doing it. All we need to do is make sure that we don't end up with that extra price on the marriage ticket being a tax increase, so Mr. Sees says he can do this.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Chisum sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. We're on page 179. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, this amendment is needed o make sure the Department of Family and Protective Services can draw down an additional five million dollars in federal Title 4 E funding to provide services to youth in the state's foster care system. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Naishtat sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Amendment on page 185. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment would allow district judges in my part of the world, in particular where they have multi county judicial districts that can be a 120 miles one way and they or the other, would allow the districts judges to conduct their court proceedings exclusive of trials, so we're not talking about trials, over video. That would save taxpayer money by reducing travel within the multi county districts. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The amendment on page 186 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 191. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members, this just an amendment that would put zero base budgeting in effect for next year's budget biennium, or next biennium cycle for agencies. It is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Perry sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author -- Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker? Is that -- Would the gentleman yield for a question or is he done?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Perry, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Perry, would you explain exactly what your amendment was?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Basically, you know, just what the budget process be best to explain it this way: We currently take what we appropriated in the previous biennium and add to that, or take from that. What this amendment does is it says agencies will review their operations, starting with a zero base and building up from that, and hopefully doing an internal review.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I'm probably one of the few members that has been around and was on appropriations and done that and got away from that. I have no objection necessarily going back. But you are aware that we did at one time do the zero based budgeting, we went to performance based budgeting instead.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Right. And I think you worked the zero base budget in with the outcomes also at the end of it so see if we reach our outcomes performance based, also. But it's almost appropriate to call it a sunset, internal sunset, to go through everybody's position, your FTE's, to see what you're doing
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I don't dispute that. I'm just -- We've been there and done that.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: All right. I hear you. Thanks.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Perry sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Amendment on page 194. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Cain.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cain.
REPRESENTATIVE ERWIN CAIN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment that was adopted on House Bill 1811 that would add an annotation to the budget to make it clear and more understandable. It would identify the programs that we are appropriating money for, the amounts, the source of the funding and the authority for the funding. I believe the amendment is acceptable to the author. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cain sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The amendment on page 195. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, all this amendment's doing is trying to put a little bit of a reporting element to LBB. If we have three consecutive sales tax months, decreases in sales tax revenues all I am asking is the LBB meet as a committee and analyze the data, and determine if we are trending down; with the option to possibly make some action at that point, rather than waiting, as we kind of got caught up in this last session, and a few months after that. I just want a review process that's formalized, that they look at the data as it goes down. It is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Perry sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Amendment on page 196. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis. The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment on page 200. The following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment would move the public integrity unit that is now in Travis County --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Dukes, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I raise a point of order against further consideration of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 205. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment just says that if you are a state employee and you hold a state credit card, that you're expected to use it instead of your personal credit card. This frees up employees up in the comptroller's office, and ends up saving the state money. And also the state, you know, has a -- has a special deal that they cut with their different credit card providers. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Brown, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay Mr. Brown, I think we heard this last session. It's been around before.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: I don't know. I didn't carry.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. So the effect of this would be that state employees could not use their own card and therefore gain mileage or bonus points for air travel, or any other kind of purchase. Our state employees would lose that benefit of them having to travel on behalf of the state?
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir. That's correct. I think -- I think the big argument though, is the additional personnel it takes out of the comptroller's office to process all the claims that come in, where employees are not using the state credit card and using their own instead.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And this would apply to us, too?
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: No, sir. It does not. It only -- It does not include -- It does not apply to any elected officials.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to table this amendment because not all agencies and employees have credit cards or can qualify for credit cards. Also, employees must pay the card balance whether or not they've received reimbursement from the state. Therefore, the bill requires employees to require (inaudible) state debt with no real benefit to the state. This is also incompatible with either Tex Smart Buy or the DIR store, which that invalidates both for state purchasing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment on page 206 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 208. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is just a transparency amendment. Right now the comptroller captures information and puts out a report, but part of the information is unclear, because we're not able to define what benefits or what the taxes are that are being given to these entities. This amendment just says that the comptroller will capture information so that we can actually understand and know who's receiving what dollar amount as an exemption. And I -- it's just helping to identify and providing some transparency, and it should be acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment on page 209. The Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, this amendment to SB 1 would allow for the creation of the Pink Ribbon fund, which is a new lottery offering -- which would create a new program or a new lottery program. It also creates the fund to receive those funds. It creates a grant program for the benefit of breast cancer in the State of Texas. It's -- it deals with research treatment in the State of Texas. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we're going o to leave this up to the will of the House. But I want to explain to you the situation, so you're fully informed before you vote on this amendment. This amendment establishes a brand new lottery game that will benefit cancer research. That's a worthy goal. But, last session, we established a new lottery game for veterans. The lottery games prior to that all fund public education. So every time that you establish a new lottery game, you run the risk of pulling money out of the foundation school program, or away from veterans with this. We also, by the way, fund $300 million a year in cancer research and prevention, with the secret bonds. So I just want you fully informed. I'm not -- I'm not going to say -- I'm not here to oppose this. But I just think that this is something that the House needs to be fully informed about and then make your decision.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Kleinschmidt amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Hunter voting aye. Show Representative Kleinschmidt voting aye. Have all voted? Being 26 ayes and 113 nays, the amendment fails. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in session, 15 p.m. today, June 9th, in 3W15 to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Calendars on June the 9th, (inaudible) (inaudible) room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're on page 214. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment allows for the governor to designate a state agency to administer the state's allocation of federal funds (inaudible) development block grant program. This has to do with disaster recovery dollars. And I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Callegari sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The amendment on page 215. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is necessary to make a statutory change regarding the commission on fire protection. I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zedler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I'd like to raise a point of order on this. Further consideration
(inaudible) in violation of House Rule 11, Section 2 and 3.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Zedler, for not killing a bill for all firefighters in the State of Texas. And I believe it is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Martinez sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. We're on page 222. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse members of the Calendars Committee, because of a Calendar Committee meeting, on the motion of Representative Menendez. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment consolidates the department of rural affairs and the Texas Department of Agriculture. Has a positive impact of about 1.2 million for the next biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Callegari, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Calleg ari, obviously those of us that work in the rural area, live in the rural area are greatly impacted by this. And so I was just -- I didn't know if you were going to go through with this or not. What -- I mean did this come through your committee?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Yes, it did.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Did it pass out? Yes?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Where did it die?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: In calendars.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Maybe there's a reason for that. I don't know. But I just happen to have a few questions. Why do you want to get rid of the department?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Basically, there's the -- both the commission -- Ag Commission and the governor have recommended that be done. We worked with Chairman Hardcastle and his department to make sure that they were okay with it. And, you know, worked out all of -- any questions that came up. And I feel like it's the right thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Well, not that I ever want to go against my governor, but I think I'm going to come up there before we take this vote and discuss this with you, okay? Just a sec.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment on page 222 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 230, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment would essentially abolish the emerging technology fund. It's a fund that we've had significant conversations about already. ETS grants are awarded in three areas: Commercialization awards, matching awards and research superiority acquisition awards. Which -- But to summarize the state auditor's report on the funds, there are significant improvements to be made to promote greater transparency and accountability. There's been limit access to meetings and decision making. The fact is that the fund hasn't performed in the manner in which it was envisioned. And, frankly, at this point in time, it is not probably the best investment of the taxpayer's dollars. A Dallas Morning News investigation last fall found $15 million in grants in significant contributors to particular political campaigns. And the fund has distributed more than $342 million in grants encouraging some research. But auditors have found that the state did not follow up on the majority of those annual reports that were required of grant recipients. And no one, in a sample of 31 recipients of the money, had filed in 2008 or 2009, at the most have filed a report in 2010. So, this is a fund that has had significant problems. It's a fund that has not provided a really -- a rate of return for the taxpayers of Texas. And in this time of fiscal austerity, the truth is we can do without it. This is not the best time to be spend on this fund. And I move that we adopt this amendment, which would abolish the Texas Emerging Technology Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Parker in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to rise against this particular amendment. I really believe that the Emerging Technology Fund, despite some of the challenges that we've heard in the press, is a great thing for Texas. Let me tell you, when you're an entrepreneur and you're out there looking for early stage capitol, particularly in this economic downturn it's been very, very difficult. I visit with numerous entrepreneurs all over the north Texas area on a regular basis that talk about the ETS and how significant it's been to getting their products or their services to market. In my opinion, it has the ability to create tremendous new industries and tremendous new employee gains in the future. And so I move to --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. (inaudible ), for what purpose?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to ask
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Just a minute let me finish my --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: My assessment is that the ETS is a providing tremendous value and will continue to do so if given the opportunity. In all the investments that we've made I am quite confident, members, that there are a number of companies that will have extraordinary success, and the taxpayers will get a tremendous return and a tremendous benefit. But for those that don't like the ETF, I urge them to come and participate in some of the events that take place around the state, and listen firsthand to the entrepreneurs and the jobs being created directly as a result of the investment the ETF has made.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: To ask a question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Parker, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Parker, where do we get our taxpayers dollars from? The revenue for the state?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Obviously, from the people.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Okay. And then where will these particular dollars that we take from the people go?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Well, these dollars, as I said, are going to specific organizations that have tremendous promise for creating new economic gain and growth and jobs for the Texas people. I mean, that's my perspective, is that we've got to recognize that we're in a globally competitive market, Representative Simpson. And we've got to recognize that the other states in this country and that other countries all over the world are aggressively competing for jobs. And we have got to have tools in our tool kit that enable us to be competitive.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, wouldn't you agree, though, that the money is going to concentrated areas in the state, it is not going benefit the general welfare, but particular corporations. And that a lot of taxpayers would like to make investments in their family business or their local business, that they're going to be paying taxes on, have paid taxes on, that have gone to the enterprise -- to the Rainy Day Fund, that have made this fund. And those people won't have a choice. These choices of where these funds go basically decided by three people in the state; is that true?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Representative Simpson, I couldn't disagree with you more. I think that the investment in ETF that the people of Texas are making broadly benefits all Texans. Let me tell you this: It's an inevitably rigorous process. If you go to any of these communities, if you will, where we have a regional center for cooperation, innovation, that are handling the vetting, if you will of all the various applicants, you'll be very, very impressed by what's taking place. Then, beyond that, I'll tall once it goes to an extremely stringent vetting process. The vetting process (inaudible) Chisum, Combs, acknowledged herself that in that report that there were lots of lacking of transparency, and much more needed to be done to make sure that dollars were being used even as we said they were going to be used. Let me comment on the fact that the auditor's report, if you look at the comments that were made, many of those or say all of those recommendations have already been adopted here by this body during the session. But the real specific issue in my mind, or in my experience, Representative Simpson, I'll tell you that those regional centers for cooperation and innovation are going o great job of vetting those projects at the individual level, before -- before it goes to the ETF board, which, of course, is compromised of leading business leaders from all across Texas. I want to keep in mind that any business that has (inaudible) be a unique proprietary capability
(inaudible) (inaudible) role of this fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Is it the role of civil government to promote particular businesses around the state?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Well, again, Representative Simpson I think it's important.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: What about providing just a level playing field, enforcing the rules and getting out of the way, instead of playing favorites, and advertising for some, coaching for others, and providing certain funding for some teams? Why don't we just enforce the rules and get out of the way? Isn't that the responsibility of civil government?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Representative Simpson, in my opinion, we are playing by the rules. It's an incredibly transparent process. Every company has the opportunity to come and apply for an ETF grant. The process is working --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: If that is true, then it doesn't go to all of the state. It goes to specific parts of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Sure it does.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Representative , I absolutely disagree. Because everybody in the state benefits. If you have got a --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'll disagree with you.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: If you've got an award winner in north Texas, or east Texas, or in south Texas or wherever in God's great State of Texas; the reality is that every Texan will benefit, in my opinion, Representative Simpson. And I want to stress, as you heard me say earlier, the fact of the matter is that is that you cannot dismiss the fact that we are in a globally competitive market. The best way to
(inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Put more money to our community colleges, and vote tax. And also to our K through 12. Isn't that the best way to attract business to Texas, is to provide a level playing field and provide an educated workforce, instead of giving money to big corporations and special incentives to them?
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Representative Simpson, we're not giving corporations -- big corporation money. These are startups. These are entrepreneurs that are hungry, that are looking for the opportunity to succeed. They are looking to bring technologies to market that will ultimately create new industries for Texas. And so, I just fundamentally disagree that you think it benefits (inaudible)
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: I think it will benefit all Texans. And I think, if you look at the totality of the portfolio, if you look at the all the companies that the ETS has invested in on over the years, we'll have a number of tremendous success stories as we look out two, three, four, five years from now. I'm quite confident of.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Berman to speak for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, Representative Parker talked in general about what the Emergent Technology Fund is. I can give you a specific example. We have three air-conditioning companies, one in Dallas and two in Tyler. We have Train, we are Carrie and we have Lennox. They had an idea. They came to the engineering school at the University of Texas at Tyler. They invested a lot of money and we put in five thousand dollars from the emergency -- five million dollars from the Emergency Technology Fund. Because of that, they're making a product right now that's going to make the cleanest filter ever in a home, because they've determined that homes have more pollution than air outside. So they're in a process of building this product right now. And it couldn't have been done without the University of Texas at Tyler Engineering School, and the Emergency Technology Fund. I mean, it's just a good -- It's a good way to develop product and then the government gets out of the way. The University of Texas at Tyler gets out of the way, we get our five million dollars back, and we have a new product.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Yes, I'll yield, Gary.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Representati ve, when we had a debate on the previous bill that was brought up on air quality and smoking, I believe, and somebody brought an amendment, did they not; that dealt with fragrances and perfumes and air fresheners and those things? Are you aware that those items, at least according to the engineers that I've ever met with, are some of the greatest polluters that we have. And you're telling me that that fund that is now there being used to develop a product that will make everyone safer in their community? Are you telling me that?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Yes. I'm aware of it, Gary. And also Representative John Davis, he's not on the floor, but he passed a bill last session which would make the entire Emergency Transparency Fund more visible and open to everyone so everyone can see it. Yes. And, with that, I move to table Representative Gallego's bill or amendment.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to close.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how we define, I guess, the potential. Because the criteria that has been used in the past in terms of potential has been the potential for political contributions. If you look at the Dallas Morning News, and their articles where the Texas fund was authorized, it will tell you, for example, that there was companies that received awards outside of the normal approval process, as an example of the tech fund's inconsistency in making awards. So they have a process and they didn't use it. The Austin American Statesman audit fault Tech Funds transparency. If you look at the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, Texas Emergency Technology Fund lacks transparency, accountability, state (inaudible). There's article after article and story after story about money that has been given to companies and, frankly, that money has been a bad investment. It's been invested in companies not necessarily because of what they do for the Texas economy, but perhaps for other reasons that are not so pure. Rules have been broken or bent in order to get this money out the door, and, at the end of the day, the folks left holding the bag are the taxpayers of Texas. In fact, I can already tell you that there was a budget -- there's a $139 million dollars, if you count actually the biennium, it's $239 million that's left in the fund.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: $239 million that's left in the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I have a question for Representative Gallego. Yeah, go ahead, keep reading.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: If you'll -- it's $239 million over the biennium in this Emerging Technology Account number 5124. And you think about that, and think about how many kids could learn to read on $239 million, whether that's a bad -- or how many meals on wheels could be delivered for $239 million. And how many elderly could be taken care of. There's a lot of better uses for this money. Particularly, at a time when as we indicate the issue of government intrusion into the marketplace and --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: -- government intrusion into private industry and -- Not at this time. Government intrusion on all of these things. This is an opportunity to let private enterprise do its' own thing, and to concentrate on something that we all acknowledge government is for. We all acknowledge in this idea of limited government that the one thing that government should do a provide for the education of our children. And this gives you an opportunity to put in excess of $239 million into education and get rid of the Emergent Technology Fund. So I'm happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You bet. I wanted to walk through a couple of things. You know, I've had some concerns about the Emergent Technology Fund because I felt like the Enterprise Fund was a better investment, because those were jobs we could see today. We obviously have issues on of what we call -- the concerns that Representative Simpson raises, which I think is -- is -- is good, until you get into a situation like I have and the rest of us have found out that they just go across to the other state, because the other states (inaudible). I love Dean Craddick when he said when we passed Enterprise Fund that the governor can show up at these job closing deals not with a paper sack but actually with a briefcase and make a difference. And it's made a difference in my community. Now, the Emergent Technology Fund I don't think has had needed protection, and I think we've passed that with the bill that John Davis did. I was concerned this session, you go back is see my voting on Emergent Technology Fund and I probably voted with these guys. But on this -- On this issue though, I want to make sure we understand. I didn't think it was good for us to spend money this session on this item when we were having cuts. But the truth is, and I think you know this, you would agree that the comptroller does not cost the money we spend on that. Did you know that?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: If you mean that it is not -- it doesn't cost against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But I can also tell you it's still money in the appropriation process.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. But there's no money appropriated at this time, it's only unextended balance, if there was any unextended balances; did you know that?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, but I currently did you know that -- (inaudible) (inaudible) currently, cause we can't deal with the past. This is the past. I would say I'm looking at a page of the appropriation's bill. I'm looking at a page of the appropriations bill for the years ending 2012 and 2013. There's $139,510,000 dollars for August -- for the fiscal year that ends August 31st of 2012. And another million dollars for the next fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It's a $150 million unexpended (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It's a $139 million plus another -- so it would be what, a hundred and --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Unexpended balance. So you've got the history on appropriations. What is an unexpended balance?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, all I can tell you is what I'm looking at.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I'm just telling you, my understanding is that that's from unexpended balance. That means there has to be money left over. And I don't anticipate there being money left over. So -- And it also (inaudible) (inaudible) anything.
REPRESENTATIVE AARON PENA: I will tell you that whether it's money left over or whether it's new money it makes no difference. In my view it is still a better investment to educate kids. (Inaudible)
(inaudible) the money is still green, either way. It still counts, it still pays bills, so I want to pay school --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It doesn't take money away from the school children, because it costs the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: If you move the money, you could provide additional money to school children. It's a question of whether you want to spend it --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: No, you don't have anything in your amendment that says it would be spent on school children.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It puts it in the general revenue where we could spend it on school children. In theory, at least, I think all of us would agree, that education is our biggest priority. And if education is our biggest priority, then that's where this money needs to go. And I guess that's what I'm saying, is this is a better investment. As I look at this, the state doesn't even determine the value of its investments under the -- in the past, under the Emerging Technology Fund. We can't really tell you whether we've gotten a big bang for our buck we can, for example, here and there. But as an overall program, there hasn't been the accountability that's been needed to determine whether it's been a success or (inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield, Mr. Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: Thank you, Representative. You know, Pete, you brought some of these various newspaper articles that have run here in the last six months pertaining to the ETF. Have we not, during this legislative session, have we not already addressed the audit recommendations? Have we not already brought greater transparency? We're now asking for example that the members of ETF board file their own financial --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Parker,
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: That dramatically improve any concern about transparency
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's my response: You can put lipstick on the pig, but the best you're going to get is Ms. Piggy. And Ms. Piggy is still -- I wouldn't choose Ms. Piggy over the school children of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE TAN PARKER: With all due -- that's not the choice. It's not a choice between the school kids in Texas -- The reality is that ETF a creating jobs. There are -- there are literally thousands of employees and companies that are depending on the ETF. And it will continue to provide a tremendous future for Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The governor's office didn't calculate the state's investment (inaudible) (inaudible).
THE CHAIR: -- raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well, taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: There's too many problems with this account, members. And I'd urge you to vote against the motion to table.
THE CHAIR: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. Representative Berman moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Representative Berman voting aye. Representative Pitts voting aye. Show Representative Gallego voting no. Representative Gallego voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 83 ayes, 47 nays, motion to table prevails. Members, we're on page 232. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, in 2007 we allowed telephone usage by prisoners at TDCJ. What this -- We capped the number of minutes they could use at 240. We thought that it was going to raise for the victim's fund seven and a half million, and actually it ended up raising about five. This extends the number of minutes they can have to 480, and I move adoption.
THE CHAIR: Representative Madden --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Madden, is this -- is this an inmate fee again?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: No. This is not, Mr. Turner. This is the telephone. But the inmate fee's going to be up here in about ten seconds, as soon as we get done with passage of this good amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You are killing me.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It will be there shortly, but no. This is allowing additional time for the inmates to talk on the telephone.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is this the telephone bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: This is telephone -- Yes, this is the telephone amendment, allowing more amendments on the telephone. But hold on, Mr. Turner, once this passes we'll be back. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Madden sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're going to page 222. The Chair would like to point out the new grandmother on the floor, Ms. McClendon, has joined us. Congratulations. Members, we're on page 222. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, this is the amendment that moves the consolidation of the Department of Rural Affairs to the Texas Department of Agriculture. I think we have an amendment.
THE CHAIR: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hardcastle.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the language that most of our staff in rural Texas has been working together on most of the session, and it's fairly well agreed to language. And Mr. Callegari has agreed to take it. And it makes sure that we keep our rural health in working order in the process.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Hardcastle offers an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're back on the Callegari amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I move adoption. I think it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Callegari offers an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're on page 233. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm not going to take a lot of time on this. I'm sure Mr. Turner will help us with this, but this is the inmate bill that we had, we talked about earlier. But there is an amendment. Mr. Turner, if you would? If it's all right with you, Mr. Allen has an amendment to the amendment that would -- that will deal somewhat with your fee question that you had. She's going put a sunset on that, if it's all right. Put that on first and then come back. Would that be okay with you?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's fine. Is it sunsetting at the end of this special session?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: No, it is sunsetting in four years. But she'll explain that, Mr. Turner.
THE CHAIR: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Allen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Allen.
REPRESENTATIVE ALMA ALLEN: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment will take the fee back to the present $3 in the year 2015. And this is acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Allen offers up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're back on the Madden amendment, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose, Mr. Turner?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'd be honored to yield to you, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And Chairman Madden, I'm not going to take a whole lot of the time on this inmate fee for their health care while they are incarcerated, to pay UTMB and Texas Tech. But just for purposes so that everyone will understand, UTMB and Texas Tech that provide the correctional managed care, they are the ones that are going to be the recipients of this inmate fee; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: They will be the recipients. TDCJ will be the recipient, and they, Sylvester, you asked me about that -- they will basically put that in the funds which will be basically distributed out once a month to the the providers.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: To those institutions?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: To providers, that will generally be those institutions. Although I would think that they could also be given, if they were used for emergency care, in some other facility around the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Because you and I both know, though the -- over the last several years the state -- the legislature, both House and the Senate, and the governor's office, has questioned whether what we have been paying in correctional managed care to these -- to these two institutions. Have we not?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Absolutely correct. And you and I have both asking the same types of questions on that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And that's why, obviously, we asked for the HHS audit that we had. That gave us some confidence, that we had at least the rates they were charging (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the state auditor has requested questioned the amount that we have been paying on the correctional managed health care program, and has questioned whether or not that they are passing through even some of their indirect costs.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That was a correct statement. And you and I agree they probably had done that. And you also note, though, the total that was appropriated for the supplemental that was there last time was significantly more than we have in the current budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And as a result of all these supplemental requests in the correctional managed health care program, and as a result of the state auditor's office in this appropriating process, we placed a cap on what we will be paying these institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, your amendment that you're carrying, goes around that cap by assessing a fee on the inmates that are
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I don't think it goes around that cap, Mr. Turner. Because you and I both know that comes -- the next legislative session, when we walk in here, there will probably be a supplemental amount in the budget. And that's what I'm trying to make sure we avoid.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But this $100 that we place on each one of these inmates, and there are about a 152,000 --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There is about a 152,000. But, like I said, about 49 percent of those would not be paying anything based upon indigence. So we're talking about 74, 75, 76,000.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I don't know if Dr. Zerwas is aware, but these institutions -- so everyone else is aware, everybody else is aware on how they -- how we allow them to charge their rate. They charge -- they charge us, the State of Texas, about 130 percent of the -- of the medicare rate, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That, I believe, Sylvester, was at Hospital Galveston. But a lot of -- the vast majority of our expenses that we have in correctional managed health care are not done there at UTMB or at Texas Tech, but they contracted. And because of actions that happen most of the time at the facility.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But since they are going to be -- you know, since there -- you all have elected to go this route, everyone should know that we are paying then for the correctional managed health care at a 130 percent of the medicare rate, are we not?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Sylvester, there'll be a contract on these, and it may or may not be that rate.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No. Because then the appropriation process, in HB 1, in HB 1, for all of us who want to be fiscally prudent; and all this talk about the medicare rates and all of this, for those institutions that are providing correctional managed care to people who are locked up in the State of Texas; they are charging us at a rate of a 130 percent of the medicare rate.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And so in addition to being charged 130 percent of the medicare rate, now, under your amendment, we are going to be assessing a penalty, a fee on inmates who are locked up --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Sylvester, just like under the state law that we're allowed to right now, that an institution. IE, a county or jail can, in fact, do that right now. In fact, your county and my county both assess fees right now for medicare that would probably end up being a higher amount if a person was there any period of time, than what you or I see in this legislation. But that do in your county jails right now.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But, Mr. chairman, you are making a change that goes from $3 per visit, so to speak.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Three dollars per visit.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So now you are assessing at a hundred dollars?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Not a visit though, a hundred dollars a year.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, and where do they go -- are they -- are they -- where are they going to get their jobs? Where the does the money come from?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Most of that money will come into their accounts. And many of them have it already there, Sylvester. As I pointed out, there is at least $17 million in those accounts right now. So some of them have it already. Much of that comes from their family members, who will give it to them. It will also come from other sources that they may have earned revenue while there in the prison. So there is some that get (inaudible) various sources.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, have you all considered (inaudible) electing to go this route? Why don't we just allow the inmates to pay the total costs of medical care and to the extent if they don't pay for their medical care we just don't provide them medical care.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Sylvester, you and I both know that there is some that obviously don't have the money, there are many that we should not being doing that with. I am not going to go in that direction. We have a responsibility to do that. I believe that we have a legitimate thing --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Or do you want to release them so that they can get their own medical care, Mr. Chairman?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: No. I don't. As you know, we will not do that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, we can either release them so that get their own medical care and pay for it, or we can say if you can't pay for your medical care, because you committed a crime
(inaudible) (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'm not in favor of releasing prisoners in general, if it depends upon whether they reach parole date or if the end of their sentence, I can accept that. Before that, no, I'm not in favor or releasing prisoners for any particular reason at all. But I am in favor of making sure that we have the health care that is necessary in those facilities, and I'm trying to make sure that we don't have to lay off nurses, that we don't have to lay off nurses aides, that we don't have to lay off other dietary people or other people in any of those facilities, which I believe that because of the revenue reductions that we have, that they'll be doing some of those things so --
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The point of order is well taken and sustained. Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Madden amendment? Mr. Madden sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? There is? Members, a record vote has been requested. A record vote has been granted. Vote aye, vote may. The question is on the Madden amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 96 ayes, 39 nays, the amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 241. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment will explore the benefits of medicaid recipients eligible for home health services so that they can stay at home and within the community at a lower cost to the state. It passed through this House unanimously during the regular session, and it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Ms. Laubenberg?
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Would the gentleman please yield?
THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
THE CHAIR: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Represen tative Guillen, this bill, did it make it out of calendars?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: In the regular session, I don't believe it did.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No, it didn't.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. And it had a fiscal note to it?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No, it doesn't.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I was in health and human services --
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: As filed it didn't. It did, but I had the updated fiscal note that has -- fiscal impact.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: How'd you get rid of the fiscal note?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: They re evaluated it, and they said that it wouldn't cost any money.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Well it says, on page 1, line 14 and 15 it says it's funded in part by the federal administration on aging and the centers of CMS. Where is the other funding going to come from?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: What it is, it's a pilot program that's going to happen somewhere in the state, where the agency already has people doing something similar. What we're trying to do is instead of sending elderly patients out of the hospital straight to a nursing home, it allows the agency to prequalify them for home health; which is a -- which is great deal cheaper than a nursing home for a couple of months. What's happening today is they're leaving the hospital, going to a nursing home, and two months later when they finally qualify for home health, they go back home and get home health. If we would just give them home health from the first place it would be saving the state a great deal of money.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But they can do that now.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No, they can't.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Why not?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Because they're not able to prequalify them. They're only able to qualify them and it takes --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: You're saying they can only qualify them for a nursing home? That's not my understanding. They can only qualify a senior for a nursing home care, they cannot qualify --
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No. The nursing home goes ahead and prequalifies them, because they're more confident that they will qualify for their service. But the home health service is a more strenuous situation, where they've got to -- where the home health is not certain -- the home health in this state are not certain they are going to be qualified. So they'll wait the 60 days before they accept that patient. So what this is doing is it's creating this pilot project, specifically in one area in one hospital in this state, where HHSC already has a team in place. And they're going to do this. They're going to prequalify people at the time they leave -- at the time they leave the hospital. And it, in turn, is going to -- that extra costs that it takes to have prequalify these people, to have people -- somebody there to prequalify them, offset by the savings from not having to send these -- not paying to send these people to a nursing home.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. So we are allowing -- We're allowing (inaudible) Health and Human Services to basically set up a pilot program, which could ultimately turn into what we call a vender bill? We're focusing on one specific type of industry over another industry, which they can actually do now. They can -- they can qualify them for home care now. If you want to mandate, in this 6 page bill that we recall loading up our budget like a Christmas tree.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: No, absolutely not. You've got it all wrong. There's no way that this is a vender bill. I don't understand how that --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Well, because your focusing on one industry over another industry. And it says it's going to take money to set this pilot program up, funded in part --
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: It's not going take any money.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Well it says here on page 14 and 15.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: The money's offset -- The money's offset. And this is a pilot program so (inaudible) (inaudible) two years from now we're going to take -- we're going to look at this, if, in fact, it saves money, then we'll bring it back to the legislature and say hey, this process saves money. Let's implement it across the state. If it doesn't save money, that's the purpose of the pilot program. If it doesn't save money then two years from now, we drop it.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I guess my question is why can't that (inaudible) do this now? We're mandating them to do something that they can already do now.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: We're not mandating them to do this. We're building a pilot project. We're asking -- we're asking the agency to try to do it this way. They're not doing it this way. We're asking the agency to do it this way because it's going to save money. We believe it's going to save money.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Remembering back when I was serving on appropriations and was in Article 2, see if I've got this correctly and thought you might help. If I understand this correctly, in order to qualify for home health care you have to qualify for a nursing home. And the program was designed to get people out of nursing homes. So you had to go to a nursing home and be gotten out of a nursing home, and it's kind of, you know, why do you have to go to a nursing home to get home health care? If that's your best alternative and yet the only route to it is through the nursing home. I understand that. I think what you're trying to do, is this correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDEBRAN: It's the system is such that that is what ends up happening. And what ends up happening is that as soon as somebody is eligible to go to the nursing home, or presumably to home health, they're not prequalified to go home health. The home health agency will not actually take them, because they're not qualified for sure. And they won't know that for at least about 60 days. So what ends up happening is they wheel them over to a nursing home, they sit there for two months. We, the taxpayers foot the bill. And instead of that, this would call for -- the opportunity for the agency to try this in one location in the state --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: In order to get into home health care you've got to go through the nursing home currently?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Essentially, that's what's going on. I mean you don't have to, but that's what's happening.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay, you know, I know it sounds really good. This is a six page bill that came through Health and Human Services that did have a fiscal note. It is going to require at some point time state funds. We're loading up the budget like a Christmas tree. It is something that Health and Human Services can do now. You're -- you're -- You're focusing on one particular industry, which I support the home care definitely over nursing home care, but this is something that has to do already. And we're just adding more to a bucket. You all can vote for it, I'm just telling you.
THE CHAIR: Anyone else wishing to speak on for or against the amendment? The Chair recognizes Representative Guillen to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Somebody left their phone on my desk, Mr. Speaker. I've been trying to get into it but I can't. So whoever left this phone, I have it.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a pilot project. It's going to save the state money. We have passed it in several other forms, in fact, the bill -- Dr. Zerwas had yesterday, we put it on that one. We're just trying to make sure it passes because it's going to save the state a lot of money in the long run. It is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Guillen amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Kolkhorst voting no. Have all voted? Being 45 ayes and 92 nays, the amendment fails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Government Efficiency and Reform to meet while the House is in session at 8:45 p.m. June 9th, 2011, in room 3W9 to consider pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Government Efficiency and Reform will meet at 8:45 p.m. on June 9th, 2011, in room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman. Mr. Coleman?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this particular amendment does is allow us to use federal fund to shore up some of our health care programs. And I believe it's acceptable to the author. And this is (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Coleman sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is another amendment to shore up some of our programs so that people by served by drawing down more federal funds. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Coleman sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 251. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you mr. speaker and members, I have a substitute amendment for this which I will go ahead and close up now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment to the amendment actually substitutes the language that is in the original amendment. We just had an older version of what we had previously submitted. And, in fact, this is language that you saw yesterday in Senate Bill 7. Health and Human Services is currently seeking a waiver to allow for a more streamlined method of distributing state and federal funds, the hospitals that are providing care for the medicaid recipients. It clarifies the authority of the agency to gifts, grants, donations and intergovernmental transfers and certified public expenditures. It also authorizes the deposits of dish, UTL, funds into the hop. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas sends up an amendment to the amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Back on the Zerwas amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. This is on a page 253.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment which allows for the expansion of medicaid and managed care into the valley. And I believe we have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following -- Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Gonzales of Hidalgo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the language that was included in Senate Bill 7 yesterday, and it deals with the protections for the expansion of managed care into the Rio Grande Valley. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gonzales sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, this is just the same antifraud amendment that we put in SB 7 yesterday, and I move adoption. I think it's okay with the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Back on the Zerwas amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Mr. Guillen? Chair recognizes representative Guillen for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism to meet while the House is in session at 8:15 p.m. Today, June 9th, 2011, at 3W.9 to consider HB 56.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism will meet at 8:15 p.m. on June the 9th, 2011 in room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB 56.
THE CHAIR: The amendment on page 55 has been withdrawn. Amendment on page 242 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 284 has been withdrawn. Amendment on page 285. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment on page 288 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 294. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Commuter benefits are an environmentally responsible way Texas could help state employees while encouraging transportation options that reduce congestion and pollution from motor vehicles. This amendment streamlines the ability for the employee retirement system to offer state transportation credits for those of who choose alternative modes of transportation to get to work. It is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Guillen sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 295 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 297. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Anderson of McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a committee substitute to House Bill 800 that basically saves money for the school districts. It has to do with basically a co-op and is particularly on reroofing type projects, and basically this will enhance open market principles, and bidding transparency and lower costs of school districts at a time when we really need to lower costs on school districts. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Anderson sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. We're on page 299. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gonzales of Williamson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Members, this is the 13th check by retired teachers with two very high thresholds you've put in place. You voted for it three times. Here's your fourth chance. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, I'm going to leave u this up to the will of the House. As Representative Gonzales said, this is a bill that's been before this house in the regular session. So, with that, I'll leave it up to the will of the House on this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Gonzales amendment. A record vote's been requested, a record vote's been granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eissler voting aye. Have all voted? There being 138 ayes and 0 nays, the amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 303. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is my internet advertising bill that you so graciously passed off this House floor unanimously. And I think it's acceptable to the author. There is -- There is an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment just puts the protections in place that the comptroller wanted as far as internet security. Go figure. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Brown amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Brown sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 307.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain his amendment. Members, we have an amendment to the amendment being printed. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment actually has an amendment to the amendment that I'd like to lay out first.
THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Gallego.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain his amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Members, this is the text of House Bill 2439 that was approved by the House unanimously, and was approved also by the Senate. We didn't get an opportunity to get -- to sign off on the conference committee report, because of the midnight deadline. And so this is one of those that was killed. But let me take you through what it does. What the amendment does is it allows for state agencies to put information online, with respect to what it is that they're doing in terms of their budgetary process and those kind of things, so that the public has access to the data. And it also provides for the public -- it gives the public an opportunity to make suggestions on the -- on the data. And, in addition, it also puts the state budgetary (inaudible) online as well. It's similar to the SAVE program, which is Securing American's value and efficiency. That was done at the federal level. It seeks to -- seek ideas and make government more effective, efficient. And again, it's something that has unanimously passed both houses and was in a conference committee report that simply didn't get approved in time for the midnight deadline. But it had been approved unanimously, I believe, in the House. And there were I think two no votes in the Senate. But it was on an another unrelated issue. But I would move adoption of the amendment.
THE CHAIR: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Representative Gallego sends up an amendment as amended. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 308. Representative Simpson? Page 308.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is again is something you heard yesterday in SB 7. This abolishes the Chip program and this allows these children to be covered in the Chip program, so this is something that's available in the new federal changes that were made. And, with that, I -- It's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Zerwas sends up any amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. The amendments on page 309 and 310 are temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 314. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Christian to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is bill we passed last evening, which does not allow any place in the state to perform abortions in the hospital districts --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker? I would like to raise a point of order on the grounds it would violates Rule 211, Section two.
THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Christian to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe there's a perfecting amendment by Mr. Hughes.
THE CHAIR: We have an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hughes.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the amendment that Mr. Miller, you will recall visited with me about during the day. This does a couple of things. There's a definition already in Mr. Christian's amendment that says if the abortion needs to be performed for medical emergency of course that's accepted. The amendment before the amendment to the amendment puts an updated definition of medical emergency. It's the same definition we put on the sonogram bill. It's the updated version, it's consistent with the (inaudible) that's been contested in court. We know what it does. And it also strikes the term abortion related services. There's been a lot of questions about what that means. It's not defined in statute. And so to clarify strikes that term. So, the amendment to the amendment, it's acceptable to the author. I move adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
THE CHAIR: Representative Hughes sends up any amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Christian to explain his amended amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill we passed last evening. It simply tells the local hospital districts if they decide to do abortions with their dollars, then we as a the state will not fund abortions.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Christian, do you yield? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Wayne, you guys just don't give up, do you? You did this last night. You passed this last night; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And so we're passing it again because somehow we're not getting the message? So why are we here again?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: As you are well aware, Representative, many times conference committees make changes. Or even, to your surprise, and you've been here as long to understand many times it doesn't survive as such. And this is important enough to me and to many others that we really want to take every opportunity we can to see that it succeeds.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, I think you've gotten the message loud and clear to us. I don't know even what time, how many times we have heard this from y'all. The disappointment for those of us in Travis county, and I hope you would understand, is that we as a county have made decisions about how to use local tax dollars. And I assume you're supportive of the use of local tax dollars for things that are determined by those people that live in that community, are you not?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: This bill absolutely protects rights of local citizens to do whatever they want to.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Right. To protect, to do as long as we don't have the state funds, which we need to provide the services. But do you know how much we get in state funds?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: If -- It's your decision. If you do perform abortions --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: No, no, no, no. I'm asking you how much we currently get in state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I'm not totally -- I know the amount going for abortions is about $450,000 per biennium, or year.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Dukes, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Would the gentleman yield?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Christian?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Representati ve, you know that your amendment only affects the Travis county local health district. What amount of money is it that Travis county receives from the state that you're trying to prevent Travis county's central health district from receiving? And I'm not talking about just abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I don't know the exact total. And, to make it clear, I am not totally aware that Travis county is the only one that is being affected.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: You don't read the papers?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's the only one I'm aware of that it effects, currently. It's the only one that currently, I'm aware of, that is performing abortions with state dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: So you are aware that it's the only one that you're focusing on. Sort of like the only Travis county district attorney that you're focusing on.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, I just believe it's wrong. I doesn't mean if that's what's happening in my county. That it is wrong for state dollars to be used for abortion. We've made that clear --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: So any entity, if any entity in the state chooses not to receive state funds, then they can provide services for women to make a choice on their own?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: According to this amendment it's any hospital district in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: So your amendment is a pro-choice amendment because you're stating that as long as you don't take state funds then you can perform abortion services?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I'm just simply saying that if you do perform abortions you do not get state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: So you have a pro-choice amendment that states as long as you don't accept state funds, you can perform abortions anywhere?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I am pro-choice. I believe that, therefore I support this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: You're pro-choice? Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I'm sorry. I am pro-life --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, ma'am.
THE CHAIR: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Represe ntative Christian, I don't know whether to direct this to you or to Mr. Hughes. But y'all amended the bill to change the definition of medical emergency?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: So it says it has to have been aggravated by or caused by or arised from the pregnancy. So let's say that a woman is involved in a terrible car accident and is dying. That would constitute a medical emergency under your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, it would.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: How is that? Because it would be -- if it doesn't arise out of the pregnancy or not caused by the pregnancy.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's aggravated by the accident.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Life threatening physical condition aggravated by the pregnancy?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: What if a woman's shot and she's dying? I mean and she's diagnosed from a gunshot wound and that doesn't constitute a medical emergency?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: With the pregnancy --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I mean, your language --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: If you're talking about to save the mother's life, it's required. Then, indeed, it's allowed under this amendment. It's exactly what we've passed at sonogram bill. That's why the amendment's there. What the amendment did, it changes what we passed last evening. It simply brings the language in order with the sonogram bill where we are consistent this session.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, I didn't agree with that, either. But I -- I don't -- This says that a medical emergency is a life threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by or arising from a pregnancy.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Right. The word aggravated, the word aggravated is phrased, was added to address your concerns. What if it's something that was aggravated by this -- that was why your concern is why that aggravated term was added to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, I mean is it -- is the pregnancy aggravating her condition because she was shot with a gun? I mean that's what I don't understand. It was -- Somebody's going to have to interpret this.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Of course, that's for doctors, that's for medical professionals to decide. But it gives them clearance to be able to make that decision.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. And so what happens if the doctor makes the decision and later you believe it's not in accordance with the intent of you bill. What's going to happen to this doctor?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, I do not know.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I mean that's why I think it's dangerous to be putting in definitions that I think are very vague, and we don't know what the circumstances might be.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I don't believe they're very vague. I believe that you can always bring up situations -- hypothetical situations that may arise. And I apologize for not being an attorney or having the (inaudible) expertize to know every hypothetical situation, or how the legal terms would provide themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, I don't think you need to be a lawyer.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: --
(inaudible) terminology to better clarify. And according to the legal counsel, this did make it clearer for the legal community to make those decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And I mean you don't have to be a lawyer, I came up with these hypothetical situations in the last two minutes reading this amendment. So you are saying that if you're dying from a car accident and you are pregnant, that you would be -- that would be an exception, if you are dying from a gunshot wound that would be an exception? Is that what you are saying, because I want to have the intent put on the record here.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The Texas Medical Association is the organization that suggested this language for --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: But that's not my question. That was --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: They will make that decision, the medical professionals. You're asking me to make an assessment as a medical professional, which I am not. Neither am I a legal professional or attorney. The intent I had behind it was if they take the baby that's necessary to save the mother's life from an aggravated situation, that's the purpose of this language.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken. Mr. Rodriguez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Can I raise to call a point of order on this bill?
THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down front. On the bill? On the amendment, thank you. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Christian to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I close and move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield for just one second?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Christian, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Christian, how many -- How many hospital districts are we speaking of that would fall underneath this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Currently , the only one I know that's abusing -- if this were in effect, that's abusing this amendment, would be the Travis county hospital.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And when you said abusing, or using this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The only one currently that I'm aware of, that would be effective when they're current funding system, would be the one. But it affects every hospital district in the state with the rule I have just not done the research.
THE CHAIR: Point of order has already been called, the time is expired and the point of order is taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I just thought --
THE CHAIR: We are closing.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: I'd like to raise a point of order against further consideration of this amendment, in that it violates House Rule 8, Section 3.
THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down front, please. Point of order is overruled. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm putting the pro-life issue aside, because that's not what I want to speak to you about.
THE CHAIR: Can we have some order, members?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Members, I won't take too much of your time. I just want to make really clear what we're doing. Putting the pro-life issue aside, what we are doing is holding state dollars over the head of local taxing entities to say if you don't play the way we want you to we're going to take our toys and we are going to go home. These are local generated tax dollars. I had come up here, in my opinion, time and time again and asked for your support to pass bills that had a appropriation that would have to be made at the local level. And you said that we're not going to do unfunded mandates and we are not going to tell local entities how to do things and allow that to be local control. This is in direct opposition to everything that I've been told that a majority of this body stands for, is we're not going to mess with how local dollars are going to be spent. We're not going to mess with how local government is going to occur. Put the pro-life issue aside. We are now saying that we're not going to appropriate dollars -- if you spend federal money a certain way we're not going to appropriate state dollars to you. If you spend local tax dollars a certain way, and I think there's a provision that says we're not going to appropriate state dollars to you if you accept private insurance a certain way. That is a direct violation and contradiction to everything I've been told this session when I'm up here trying to advocate for my bills. Let us think that -- let us be consistent and just adopt a policy that this body has advocated and said is the way we're going to do business this session. Okay? Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Christian to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Members, I appreciate your consideration. Again, this is the bill we passed last evening, and I believe Representative Lucio did give several examples of how indeed we do, as a state government, make certain requirements for our state dollars' use. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: The question occurs on adoption of the Christian amendment. It's left to the will of the House, members. Vote aye, vote nay. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 102 ayes, 38 nays, 2 present not voting; the amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 316. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hardcastle.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, all I'm going to read is this, the following amendment, it does not create a new tax or it does not create a new fee. It just clarifies the existing 911 surcharge. Okay. It clarifies the existing 911 surcharge at the request of the comptroller and the phone companies. All of the phone companies. And they all agree, and we'll leave it to the will of the House.
THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Question occurs on adoption of the amendment. Division vote, members, vote aye vote nay. Members, vote aye, vote nay. It's a division vote. Show Mr. Hardcastle voting aye. Have all voted? Hundred 14 -- 115 ayes, 0 nays, the amendment's adopted. Amendment on page 321 has been withdrawn. We're now on page 322. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Guillen to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the same language that passed out of the House twice. It creates regulations that increases --
THE CHAIR: Representative Anchia raises a point of order against further consideration of the amendment, he's brought it down front. Representative Anchia withdraws his point of order. Representative Guillen withdraws his amendment temporarily. Moving on to page 332. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Guillen to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is designed to give communities an important tool to help support local economic development, retain skilled workforce, and include community libraries as products eligible for local economic development funding. This amendment simply adds community libraries as eligible projects undertaken by development corporations. And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Representative Otto has called a point of order against further consideration of the amendment, he's brought it down front. Point of order is sustained. Now we're on page 333. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain his amendment. The amendment is --
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is going to be at the will of the House. And so -- Which means it's actually a good idea, so they just don't want to say yes. What it does is it's actually revenue positive for the state. There was a program that was started a few years back by -- it's a cooperation by the Attorney General's office and the Texas Workforce Commission. And what they do is when a father comes in, a father or a noncustodial parent comes in to child support court, what this program does is these folks, a lot of times they come in and they don't have a job. So they're way behind on child support, you know, a single mother or single father who's raising the kids is not getting the child support that they're supposed to be receiving. And we end up putting this person in jail because he doesn't have a job and he can't pay his child support. When what a this program does is it sends the person over to work with the workforce commission, and the workforce commission, it helps them with jobs, send out resumes, do everything that they do to get them to get a job and start paying child support. And for that reason, you could imagine if you can save money on prosecuting these child support suits, putting them in jail, all the things that the state has to do to collect child support; this bill will help us save money. Now -- Now, don't get me wrong, it does cost the state money, but what we are doing is we're getting money from a federal grant. And so both the Workforce Commission and the Attorney General's Office are both in favor of this. And I think we actually passed this bill out of committee. I think that we passed the bill out of committee, but both agencies, the Workforce Commission and the Attorney General's Office it was the Attorney General's Office idea. So they've both been behind. And it this is both a way for the state to save money and to help us get jobs. So, with that, I would ask your consideration.
THE CHAIR: Representative Castro sends up an amendment. It's up to the will of the House. Members, vote aye, vote nay. It's a division vote. It's a record vote. Record's vote's been requested. Record vote's been granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? Have all voted? 78 ayes, 61 nays, 3 present not voting; the motion's adopted. Page 336. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Naishtat.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, this amendment would allow the state to recoup expenses by creating new efficiency and guardianship proceedings involving transfers, and basically involving expedited transfers. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Otto raises a point of order against the amendment. Representative Otto temporarily withdraws his point of order. Representative Naishtat temporarily withdraws his amendment. Page 342, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Guillen to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I've got an amendment to the amendment.
THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Guillen.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Guillen to explain his amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill creates -- this amendment creates a pathway for the comptroller to distribute the rightful unclaimed mineral rights to previously unknown owners and heirs throughout Texas. Since 1985 oil and gas production companies have sent royalty payments to the state comptroller when they've been unable to find the rightful owners. Oftentimes, the companies were unable either to determine who the heirs were or where they lived. More often than not, the owners had died without wills and the state comptroller has continued to hold these monies in trust pursuant to the unclaimed property act for the unknown heirs. This bill passed out of committee. Died on the calendar, and I think -- And I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Representative Guillen sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Now, we're on the amendment as amended. Mr. Guillen withdraws his amendment to the -- Back up. Mr. Guillen withdraws his amendment to the amendment. His amendment not amended, is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're going back to Mr. Naishtat's amendment on page 336. Clerk -- The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Naishtat.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, this is the bill that survived for improvements in fiscal matters for the state, relating to state and local courts in guardianship and procedures. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Representative Naishtat sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 349. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Giddings.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings to explains her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I have an amendment.
THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Giddings.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings to explain her amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much, members. This amendment sets a cap on the registration fee at $15,000, and allows the commission on regulation and licensing to come up with the amount. And it gives half a million dollars to UCB in Representative Madden's district. And the rest to the foundation fund. Foundation for (inaudible).
THE CHAIR: Representative Giddings sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Now, the amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment brings about equity. Equity between professional athletes that are employed by Texas teams, and professional athletes who are employed by teams outside of Texas. Texas athletes pay to play in every state except Florida, Washington and Wyoming. This amendment brings about equity. We already have in Texas statute the ability for a municipality or a county to charge a facility use fee to professional athletes. And, to my knowledge, none of us are doing this at this time. Here in this amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheets, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Will the lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
THE CHAIR: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Ma'am, did you know that sports teams, these franchises are paying into our franchise tax system?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Beg your pardon?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Did you know this the away teams that come and play in Texas are already paying into our franchise tax when a they come and play in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: What I know is that our athletes -- When Coby Bryant comes to Dallas, he doesn't have to pay. When Dirk goes to Los Angeles, he has to pay.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And didn't Dallas host the Super-bowl this year?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, they did.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And haven't we hosted NBA All Star games and major league baseball All Star games?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Absolutely . And I'm not sure where you're going with that.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Well, did you know that these major sports franchises, they use our tax structure. And the fact that we don't tax the athletes is an incentive for these sports to come to Texas and to play these major games in Texas. And so that we can bear the benefit of those economic policies.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I actually don't understand that logic. There are only three states where athletes don't have to pay, and that's Florida --
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: And how many All Star games have we had here in Texas in the last two years?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: That doesn't really matter. We had the NBA All Star game, we had the World Series, the -- and the National Football --
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: (Inaudible) .
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: But this has nothing to do with that.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Right. So
(inaudible) (inaudible) athletes come to play the Super Bowl here, and those athletes that come to play the All Star games here, are we going to be taxing them?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: You bet. They're going to register just like they do in every other state except Florida, Washington and -- beg your pardon?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: So we're going to lose (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: No. There's always three other places they can go and not pay. That's Wyoming, that's Washington and that's Florida. Those are the only three states (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: (Inaudible ) competitive edge.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Most states get over one hundred million dollars for professional athletes to come in their state to play. One hundred million dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: (Inaudible ) and we get do we not?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: What I know is that our players have to pay. When they're athletes from other states, come into our state, they do not have to pay (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: (Inaudible ) franchise tax?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I beg your pardon?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Are you -- do you disagree that we don't get the benefit of the franchise tax --
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: This has nothing to do with the team. This is the individual players, and the individual players do not pay a franchise tax.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Or should I say Madam Speaker?
THE CHAIR: Representative Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Oh, hi, Larry. Would the lady yield, please?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Ms. Giddings, you mentioned three states. Washington, Wyoming and Florida.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And I'm sorry, I haven't read your amendment in its entirety. Does it exempt athletes from those three states from coming to play in our state? Is there a reciprocity there?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: It is not, but I would be happy to accept an amendment, because all we're trying to do here is level the playing field.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. I'll have to think about that. I think my colleague here has some questions.
THE CHAIR: Representative Gonzales, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Will the lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Ms. Giddings?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you very much. So I see beginning on lines 19 through 20, we're going to the NFL, NBA, NHL NLB and NLS. And I see on the second part of line 22 we're talking about does not include the farm team. But as you read with me on 21 and 22, and the teams of any other sport associations specified by commission rule, and I'm not sure who we're talking about there when it says and the teams of any other sports association specified by commission rule. Are we talking the WNBA, the Women's National -- I mean who is this because, you know --
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Department of Regulation and Licensing. That's the commission to which we speak.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Well, I understand who the commission is. That part's very clear. What I'm asking is who do you think they're going after there? Because I get the big boys that are listed in 19 and 20. I don't know who we're going after in 21 and 22, what the intent is there. Who do you think we're targeting, if it isn't the big boys and it's not a farm team -- did that -- there's some -- there's some problem there that I'm not sure who we're talking about. Did you know --
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: What we're really trying to go after are the teams that are sited here. We're really not trying to go after any other team, but we're leaving that up to the commission. We're trying to go after those teams that charge our players when our players go there.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: So do you think that this will include -- Sid Miller's here with me -- do you think that this will include the professional rodeo cowboys who make so little that some of them barely survive? They are -- they are professional athletes and we're saying in 20 and 21, that we leave that open for those guys, and those guys almost starve to death. We know that.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: If you would like to offer an amendment, we have outlined the teams that we are going after. And perhaps there is a drafting issue here that doesn't clearly spell that out, and we're more than happy to clear that up. Because we want to go after the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the Hockey League, Major League Baseball and Major League Soccer.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Okay. So on 21 and 22, professional tennis, you know, the Davis Cup is coming up here. Leaves it wide open. We're talking about the PGA Tour, they play at the Colonial and President (inaudible). It's so wide open here. I think that you -- you've just missed so many things here and it just -- I understand what you're doing. I think it's very poorly written, because there's a huge, gaping hole on lines 21 and 22. So if you would be so kind as to maybe pull it down ask see how we can fix that hole, because there's a lot of problems in here. I just want to visit with you about it.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Oh, I don't -- I don't mind at all if you want to tighten this up. So we just have those teams that are outlined there. That's absolutely fine. So if you'll get an amendment we'll continue debating it.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: I want to talk about right now.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Oh, okay.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Good deal.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Mr. Speaker?
THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Perry?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Couple of questions.
THE CHAIR: Do you yield for some questions, Ms. Giddings?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Just real briefly. I am familiar with professional athletes being taxed and other states, that play in those states as a proportion of their income. When they did the games, they do that through their personal income tax. Basically they put that income up on the state tax returns. So how would we do that in Texas if we don't have the personal income tax?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, there are two ways. As I said when I began my remarks, already in the statute we have a provision where we can charge what we call a forced facility use fee. That fee, in statute, can be charged by a municipality or it can be charged by accounting. To my knowledge, we're not using that. So we're not coming up with a concept that is totally new here. And I also might point put to you that in the that the state of Tennessee they charge $2,500 per game to professional athletes. So they're all kinds of ways of doing it. What I do know is that in many states over $100 million a year is paid by professional athletes who are visiting other states.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, do you yield? Ms. Giddings?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: So, Helen, if I have got this right, what you want to do is to have a fee or a tax return on these out of state athletes?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, we're going to charge them a registration fee.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: They do make a lot of money, they do have a lot of income, some of them do. And so what you're trying to do is tax that income on these athletes?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Absolutely not. This is a registration fee. As I said already, in statute we have what we call a facility use fee. That is a registration fee. In the state of Tennessee they call it a professional privilege tax, but we're registering --
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Professional privilege tax but it --
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: But that's not what we're doing here.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: -- would come out of their income.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: We are registering professional athletes. We're charging.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I have a lot of friends that are professional athletes in the PRC, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys' Association. This would be -- they don't hardly make anything unless they make the finals, so I don't know that -- that they won't be
(inaudible) the state would be even able to compete. I think it would drive business out of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, Mr. Miller, I think you've already heard me say that I'll take an amendment. Because where we're going is both sports teams that are outlined there, and we're not trying to go after anyone else. So if you have an amendment that will tighten this language up, we'll take it. We want the National Football League, we want the National Basketball Association, we want the National Hockey League, we want the major League Baseball, we want the major league soccer, and we want the same kind of hundred million dollars that other states are collecting off of our athletes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Giddings, for background information, how many other states have a similar measure to what you are suggesting in this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Every state with professional athletes except for Florida, Washington and Wyoming.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And are the laws that they have on these athletes, are the laws similar to what you are proposing in this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: They're really much more severe. As I said, in the state of Tennessee they charge $2,500 per game. And we're going to have a registration fee somewhere below $1,500 per year.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And how much -- how much will be generated in this --
THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentle lady's time is expired. The point of order is well taken.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: It's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the amendment? Ms. Giddings sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Is there an objection? All right, there's objection. A record vote's been requested, record vote's been granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Members, vote aye, vote nay. Have all voted? Being 32 ayes 102 nays, 2 present not voting the amendment fails. Page 357 members. Following amendment -- 56. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez to explain his amendment. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Ms. Davis? Amendment on page 359 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 363. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kleinschmidt.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, this came out of the Ways and Means, being nine to zero, and it was on calendars when we quit. It simply allows expansive wildlife management on agriculture views for our rural lands and allows people to spend more money in rural areas like my district. It promotes a stewardship, it gets -- it creates a supporting outdoor education, wildlife management -- wildlife management practice. There's currently seven practices. This just adds an eighth. People can do for wildlife management, for agricultural appraisal use in the State of Texas. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE CHAIR: We have an amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Chisum.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, what this amendment does is it allows the comptroller's office to set up a fund in her funding account that would fund the endangered species act and be a controller that funds the research that's needed to deal with its doomed lizard that's coming up under the endangered species act in west Texas. There's no state funds that's going into this, it's volunteer funds that in it.
THE CHAIR: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the the gentleman yield for a question?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.
THE CHAIR: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Represent ative Chisum, was this a bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: It was not a bill. This just came up in the last week with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife telling us that they intend to list the Dune -- Sage Dune Lizard, the Dune Sage Lizard in west Texas. And it requires that we have a state agency and the comptroller's office already has a study group working on this endangered species, in the state of Texas. In turn, they can -- can manage the mitigation for the Dunes Lizard in west Texas if we do that. And only a state agency can do this for a 501C3. This is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Authority. This doesn't hire any state employees and it does not use any state money.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: It does create a state program though; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It allows for a state program to be created under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Act.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: But it does create a state responsibility?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It creates a state responsibility to manage the funds that are donated and spent on this project. We have two and a half million dollars coming in from the oil and gas industry in order to use to mitigate this endangered species. And all she would do is pass that money out to people like --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Is there a -- Is there a fee in here?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: A mitigation fee?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, there is no mitigation fee in it.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Does it authorize the comptroller or any other state agency to levy a fee?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Is -- So this proposal, this amendment to the amendment, is about creating a fund in order to carry out a certain set of state responsibilities that have to do with protecting an endangered species?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That is correct. And this endangered species will, you know, is designated and we actually have 50 of them on the list that could be designated.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So I -- Representative Chisum, this seems to be not related to Representative Kleinschmidt's amendment, because it creates a habit -- a --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Directs the comptroller to carry out certain responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order on this amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You don't want to protect the Dunes Lizard? Shame on you. It's just a little brown lizard.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I do want to protect the lizard.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, what's the matter with you then?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: But I would like to do it --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: How cruel of you. That's shameful. Shameful.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: To get considered and --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Shameful.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I like lizards, my kids love lizards. Maybe we should do this in a different way.
THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down front. Points of order are temporarily withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn and the amendment is withdrawn, temporarily. Members, we're moving page 368. Moving to page 369. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Thompson.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson explain her --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a little dog amendment. If you remember the little children, we're talking about the two-day sales tax where they can sell their candy, buy their little school ban uniforms, and the little things that they want to do at PTO. This is the amendment we passed. I understand it's acceptable to the author and I move passage thank you.
THE CHAIR: Representative Thompson sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. We're now on page 372. The the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.
THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm glad I get to follow Chairman Thompson. This amendment is for everyone savings, or the little men and the little women for Vicky Truitt. We have passed this before. Mrs. Thompson accepted it on her amendment. Basically this removes the floor for the purchase of sales tax exemption for purchase of gold and silver coins or bullion. This allows the little person --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hilderbran , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Sim pson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: You have got a great amendment. It went through our committee. Had a little hiccup earlier in the session because of some unrelated issues. Mrs. Thompson has now blessed it and let you put it on one of her bills. I think you ought to just move passage and just get on with it.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I move passage. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts leaves it up to the will of the House. It's a division vote. Vote aye, vote nay. Have all voted? Being 106 ayes and 0 nays, the amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 300 -- 377. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, Texas
(inaudible) Perryman says the number one business we're losing in the State of Texas is for software developments and software books and software address books. This allows them once again come to Texas. We were number one in the nation. We now are the last in the nation. We are losing, Wade Perryman says, billions of dollars. Has nothing to do with my particular district. Mostly the urban areas where they locate these facilities. What this amendment does, it drops the sales tax on just the internal operating software and hardware for these data centers.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Parliamentary inquiry, I just realize I'm a little late. But was that the shortest amount of time David Simpson ever spent at the front mic?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It may have been.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, whatever Harvey said, can we have it reduced to writing and put it into the journal and repeated at each amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Weber.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: This bill was passed through Ways and Means. It was passed into calendars, and with just -- the time ran out. One gentleman that came up from San Antonio said literally the City of San Antonio had lost millions and millions of dollars. This is the number one threat again, Wade Perryman says that we're losing business in the State of Texas. The fiscal note on this says there's a large fiscal note. It was in error by the legislative board, because they estimated it was dollars already been lost. So I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: When you say is there a fiscal note on this amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: There was a fiscal note. Originally it got corrected and for some reason it was put back into the report, that there is not -- there is not a significant one on the redone bill. Because what they had done, and the error that they made, and we found it in Ways and Means, and then to Calendars, it would have never come out of Ways and Means and would have gone to calendars and then in calendars had there been the fiscal note. In the committee they put this fiscal note, because it was corrected, because it was saying that the sales tax would bring in this dollars in the future. But the businesses that are already here are not grandfathered. So they still are going to pay that amount. This is for new businesses that will come, will not pay state sales tax at all. They will pay the local property taxes on the building, they pay every tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: What was the -- What was the original fiscal note?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Original fiscal note, they gave us around $29 million.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This amendment was going to cost 29? That was the original fiscal note?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The original fiscal note, before it was corrected in the Ways and Means process.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Before it was corrected in the Ways and Means process?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: They were estimating it was dollars that -- We are not changing old businesses, so they will still be charging
(inaudible) only for new business.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. Do you have a -- do you have a fiscal note now?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not with me. It came out of committee with the redone fiscal note, and I just don't have it. I found out it was on the chairman's sheet.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: (Inaudib le) so it's a fiscal note that we're operating with now, the $29 million?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The one that he has in his report there that he's looking at. Now, whether or not that's what they're operating with. Now, that was the error in committee that was corrected.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand, Representative Christian. But right now we are operating with a fiscal note on this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I am not bringing it to you on that. The chairman has that on his report and it is an outdated fiscal note. And again, I'm estimating if you took away the tax --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I got you. Is there a fiscal note on this amendment right now? Right or wrong?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: As it stands, there is not -- There is a fiscal note, but there's a policy, whether you call that a fiscal note, it can be zero, it can be positive. The amount is zero on the updated one. But i do not have it with me. So they are operating with what the chairman's looking at, which is $29 million.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But then that's the one we have to go on, if that's the only fiscal note we have then that's the only fiscal note we have.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: (Inaudibl e) in consideration (inaudible) (inaudible). May I say that even if that was correct and it is not, but even if it was, the dollars we are using, chairman Turner, from potential businesses leaving the state, not coming here is far exceeded that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that, Representative Christian. I understand what you are saying. But if I'm balancing my checkbook I got to have to go on what is, I can't go on something down the road and then say it's going to balance. Now, we are dealing with the state budget and if we want to engage in funny money we can engage in funny money. If Chairman Smith, if Chairman Otto, are they going to accept this amendment with this funny fiscal note?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Turner, what it is my intent to do is to accept this at this time. But if we find out that there is a fiscal note of any amount, then Chairman Pitts and I will make sure that it does come out when it goes to conference.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, the only thing -- This is not a way to operate the budget. Now, you --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I pulled down my own amendment because I found out it had a 3 million-dollar fiscal note. If there's a fiscal note, I can assure you it will not come back in this bill. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will Chairman Otto come back and speak with Chairman Otto again? Chairman Otto, let me ask this question. Now, this amendment gives a tax break to these particular companies in the future. They will not -- They will not have to pay the sales tax in the future?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And now I keep hearing -- I keep hearing people say that the next biennium is going to be worse than this biennium, and we are granting sales tax exceptions to companies in the future. I mean you all have -- You all have -- I'm having a hard time understanding how we are going to -- how we are going to balance things in the next -- in the next session -- biennium, if we're going to be granting sales tax exceptions to companies --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Representative Turner, I had been told that if until qualify for a dynamic fiscal note that it would show -- that it would actually bring in more revenue than what it would cost. But it doesn't qualify for a dynamic fiscal note, because of the size. It's not large enough. But I can assure you that if this bill carries a -- is not scored with a zero fiscal note, then it will not come back in the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, that's the only thing -- if we're going to be mindful, not only of this session but the one to come, then I don't think we need to take any steps that will either hurt this biennium, or put us in a far deeper hole in the next biennium. Otherwise, we're -- we're defeating our own purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I would agree.
THE CHAIR: Representative Christian sends up an amendment. The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. Record vote's requested. Record vote's granted. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Christian voting aye. Have all voted? There being 92 ayes, 52 nays, the amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 363. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, this is just a counsel draft of the amendment I had up there before, so it's the same language. It's a just a counsel draft.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Chisum , I just want you to know that I appreciate you conferencing with me. And during the time we were having a discussion I received a card from a Dune Sand -- a Sage Brush Lizard asking me to protect his home. And I was grieved by the note, and I think you have a great amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Could you just cast a little cheer for the poor little lizard?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: He's a cute little guy, isn't he?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: He's a cute little guy.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Chisum sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Members, this amendment simply will help develop hike and bike trails for the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Hold on one --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: What type of budget are we writing here tonight? I mean, Representative Davis, how much is this going to cost us?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: This will cost absolutely nothing. The hike and bike trails will be fully developed and paid for by private interests. It will cost the state nothing.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then why is it a part of this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Because it affects the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In this -- In this bill -- In this bill there is a habitat fund, there are mitigation fees, it talks about gifts, charitable contributions. I know how to read. Now, I understand what you are saying, but the facts are -- are something else. Where is the fiscal conservatism around here? Mercy. Chairman, is your amendment written, Representative Davis, to say that this would only be funded by private --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis of Dallas raises a point of order against further consideration of the amendment. Representative Davis of Harris. Point of order is withdrawn. The amendment to the amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt to close on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, we're back to the original amendment which is germane, and deals with agricultural appraisals in the State of Texas on this bill supporting outdoor education. It's very worthwhile in our rural areas. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Kleinschmidt sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. We're on page 381. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Amendm ent by Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment that this House vote 139 to a very small number for this amendment. What this amendment does is it gives release to couriers and reduces. And I move passage. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Thompson sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're on page 383. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would urge you to -- This is one of those amendments where we had a misunderstanding or a miscommunication the last time that I offered it. I want to make sure that we're all very clear. This is the amendment that provides for -- we had a conversation about those of you -- those of you who have small businesses as an example. This is the franchise tax amendment that the House approved earlier that says if your business is not making a profit, then you should not be liable for your -- you shouldn't have a liability for a franchise tax. Now, the reason that I tell you this is there was some miscommunication about it is because the last I offered this amendment the House voted for it 86 to 52. But after that one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, twenty four, twenty five, twenty six people changed their vote with the journal clerk. And so I want to make sure that we're all clear. That this amendment -- they went from voting no to voting yes. So -- well, and I am told that it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Record vote's been requested. Record vote's been granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes and 0 nays, the amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentar y inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Is that the fact that it got on with 142 ayes and no nays, is that equivalent to a motion to instruct the conferees?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We'll talk about that later. On page 385. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Collin.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a simple amendment which (inaudible) fairness and parity in our tax code. Currently, commercial real estate landlords are actually taxed, if you could believe, it for the taxes that they collect from their tenants, on triple net leases. I believe it's acceptable. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That explanation was a little bit clipped.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. So under -- under current tax statutes when a landlord collects what are referred to as triple net reimbursements, which is insurance, taxes and maintenance for the buildings that they maintain on behalf of the tenants, currently those -- those reimbursements that the landlord collects and pays out to different vendors, maintenance companies, insurance companies, right now, we are -- we, the State of Texas, are being taxed. There's a franchise tax on those -- on those reimbursements. On what are commonly referred to in the real estate business as pass throughs. It's the same principle that Ms. Thompson had, where a deposit that's being held in escrow by an agency that's going from -- the landlord is holding it on behalf of the tenant to be given to, for instance, the taxing authority. We're actually taxing the money. Even though the landlord has gotten nothing to -- it's being from the tenant, the landlord's holding on to it for a period of time. We're taxing it under the franchise tax provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So what does your amendment do?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: My amendment exempts those pass throughs from the franchise tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And what does your amendment cost?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: The amendment costs several million dollars. Several million with an M.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: How many several millions?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Ten to twenty million. Oh, the Chairman tells me it's $50 million. I'm corrected.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is this Amendment going to be acceptable to the author?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: It is not acceptable to the author. But let me -- let me say this. This is a -- this is grossly unfair in our tax code. It's not right. These landlords are holding in escrow money on behalf of their tenants that they're then handing it over to someone else. It's not a revenue --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Taylor --
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And where do you suggest that we take the $50 million from out of HB 1?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I think the point here is we need to take a strong stance for fairness in our tax code.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And where do we take the $50 million from?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: My understanding is as an internal revenue fund, we don't have to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: In a general revenue -- You're about to teach me something here, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I just want to know who's going to give up the 50 in order to pay for your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: In appropriations bill, do we have to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I think you do if you want to balance the budget. Are you fiscally conservative?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Quite.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe in a balanced budget?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Very much.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe in deficit spending?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Absolutely not.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then why are you presenting us with this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Because I think we need to have tax fairness and tax -- And right now, what we're doing to the landlord in this state is not fair.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe that households ought to balance their budgets?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Do you believe the state ought to balance its budget?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Without a doubt.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then when you are taking 50 million away, where are you getting 50 million from?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Hold on. I'd like to pull down this amendment and read the next one.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. You're a good guy.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment on page 387. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Collin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. So this amendment is the same principle, but it deals only with taxes. So in the same sense that we do not tax retailers, people who are collecting taxes on behalf of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Gladly.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: What's the fiscal note on this one?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: 12 million. I think we just passed like a multiple hundred million dollar thing without you asking these questions, so I'm not sure why you voted for that one but you won't vote for this one.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I didn't. And there's no money left anymore now that we've spent it all. The concern that I have, and I guess my question to you is why did you pick on this shortcoming of the margins tax when the margins tax is littered with shortcomings, with problems? There are -- there's -- there's a -- I think a growing and broad understanding that the margins tax is broken. There are number of business concerns that are taxed unfairly. You picked on that. And my sense is that you haven't looked at all of the problems of the business tax, and I would ask you that you consider pulling this down because we are going to be taking a look at margins tax and trying to take a comprehensive look and fix it -- it's entire shortcomings. But what you're doing is you are adding to the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Are you aware of another place in the margins tax where we are taxing people who are collecting property taxes?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes, well, I can tell you that there are other parts of the of the margins tax system where businesses are acting as pass throughs, where they are just carrying over either inventory or revenue. It's not a part of their earnings --
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: (Inaudible) my question is I know you're supposed to ask the questions and I'm supposed to answer, but you want to make a point, I think.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: My point is, I just pointed out the problem with the margins tax. But there are many other problems with the margins tax. And I don't believe rifle shooting one particular issue without a way of paying for it is the right way to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: This is a particularly grievous injustice --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: How about this?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: -- within the margins tax. And I think that I think it bears looking at, I think it bears fixing, and I think we should take a stand tonight that this is something that is particularly bad.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: How do you pay for it, though?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: We have landlords out here who are collecting property taxes and being taxed on collecting a property tax that they are remitting to taxing authorities in this state. It's difficult for me to think of something more unjust on the margins tax than this. And I don't think you've been able to come up with something either.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: You are bringing in an amendment that costs $12 million. How about you temporarily pull it down, bring it back with an amendment to the amendment that pays for it?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So that we know where the money's coming from.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I'd like for us just to take a vote on this tonight as it is.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: You don't want to do the hard work of paying for this fix, do you?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: What is important here is for us to take a stand and say that it is unfair and unjust to tax people who are collecting taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Did you introduce this bill in this session, or in the regular session?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Say again?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Was this a bill that ever came to a committee?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: It was actually -- if you can believe it, my predecessor carried this bill in the last session. Chairman Creighton has carried this bill. This bill has been signed bi-partisanly it's (inaudible) signed it.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Has it come to Ways and Means this year?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: No. But --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Gladly.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Taylor , are you aware that there are many independent businesses are around certain level of income, I believe it's 1,500,000. Is not the intent of this legislature at any time to pay the franchise tax?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes, I think -- I think we just were dealing with the bill now. Doesn't this bill have the margins tax exemption, Chairman Hilderbran? Yes, it does. You have the million dollar exemption is in the bill that we're debating right now.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Are you aware that this that doesn't apply to many small, independent businesses at all across the state. That they are paying the franchise tax such as my own office? Are you aware that these major brokerages, cooperations, many, some of them are being taxed this fee on commissions they're paying independence all across the state. Are you aware that they are passing that directly back to small businesses such as mine, so it winds up that small businesses all across this state, independent sales people in Texas, small towns, cities everywhere, are paying the franchise tax. I believe your bill remedies that, if I'm not mistaken.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: It just deals -- Actually -- I can't speak to that, Representative Christian. But what I can tell you is that this helps landlords of buildings who right now are collecting taxes for property taxes for taxing entities across this state, and are being taxed to collect a tax. It's a tax on top of a tax. It's double taxation. That strikes me as being very wrong. Now, so I'm not sure it would help your particular situation.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It would help in the situation that you understand that the taxes are not being implemented as the intent originally of this House, and I believe you are helping clarify your problem there.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yeah. All right. This is not a acceptable to the author. But I move -- I move passage. I encourage you to vote yes -- vote not to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, Ways and Means is going to study this during the interim and try to look at all these exceptions and this is $12 million. We don't have the $12 million to fund our schools and --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted you to know there's a lot of different tax and equities in the margins tax that we are going to be reviewing, and this is just one of many of them that need to be reviewed and probably need to become a part of a reform package that will have the money inside of these to fix the costs, the tax. So we need to study this much more carefully and make sure we've paid for it and put the whole package together. So I appreciate you raising that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you. I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to close.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, Representative Miles just directed me. He did not sign -- He signed the original amendment which was broader. This is a much tighter amendment. It deals with only the tax revenue. I believe it's unjust for the State of Texas to tax landlords for collecting property taxes, hold it in escrow and then handing it over to tax authorities. I think this is only the right thing to do with the landlords of this state. Mr. Speaker, members, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Taylor sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Torres voting aye. Show Representative Phillips voting aye -- voting no. Have all voted? Being 102 ayes, 40 nays, motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 389.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Torres.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Torres.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Members, this is an easy amendment. You're going to be especially interested in this one because it affects your cities and your counties. This deals with the mixed beverage tax. That what this amendment will do at the end of the next biennium it will restore back to the rate that they've been receiving, as far as reimbursement rate, back to 10.7. There is no cost to the bill, and the restoration will occur at the end of the biennium when we begin the 14th 15th biennium. For many years it appears that the reimbursement rate for cities and counties was -- has been 10.7. And for this biennium was reduced to 8.3 to help offset the budget challenges we had. And I move passage. And, by the way, it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: To ask the gentleman a question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Torres, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Isn't this a tax on cities and counties?
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Is it a tax?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Yeah, it's a tax, by going from ten down to eight.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: I guess you can call it that. In the purest sense of the word it is not, it's a reduction of the funding.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: It's a reduction of their funding, absolutely. That's the point I wanted to make.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: I think about $77 million this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Right. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Torres sends up an amendment acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. We're on page 390. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a bill that passed amendment that Mr. Chisum and I have passed three times out of this House. It is a extension of the Chapter 313 of the economic development act, which currently expires in 2014, and we've moved the expiration date to 2016. I believe it's acceptable to the author and I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Eiland sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 396. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villareal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Members, I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker and members, let me explain what this amendment does Now that it has been amended. The Railroad Commission currently manages a program that provides state dollars to gas drillers to incentivize them to drill in areas where their costs are high. This amendment suggests that that program should be cut -- turned off when their profits are high.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Not yet. Let me just -- Let me explain and I will be happy to take your questions.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I think this will be good for the lizards, by the way, Warren.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: We'll see.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So, the Railroad Commission may not certify weld for the high cost natural gas exceptions if the price exceeds $6. Currently the price for gas is $4.63. In the free market is sufficient to incentivize the reduction, then the goverment, I believe, should get out of the way. We need to set priorities. What I'm trying to do with this amendment is suggest just as we are cutting our investment in our children's education, we should also reform this industry tax break so that we introduce a price trigger. Not suggesting to eliminate the program, but rather let it be turned off when the price of natural gas is above $6.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And the last point is any savings generated from this proposal will go to help mitigate the cuts to our foundation school program. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Where does it say that?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: The amendment to the amendment accomplishes that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Do you have any idea why we had a high cost gas exemption?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes, I do. My understanding -- My understanding is that this program was introduced in the '90s when a certain technology for tracking was not mainstream. It was in development. It was very expensive and we wanted to incentivize the industry to further develop this technology and exploit reserves that were hard to get. Today (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But it doesn't have anything to do with the price of gas. It had to do with the supply of gas.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: It had to do with trying to incentivize the industry to take a risk and commit more of their own money to go after hard to get natural gas.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Right. And now you're going to take that away from them.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Today -- I'm glad that you are referring to, you know, where we are today. Because where we are today is that technology is now mainstream. In fact, the majority of all the drilling that's happening in the State of Texas is through this method of tracking.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: You're talking about tracking. We're talking about drilling. It's a different deal to drill high cost type gas. If your drilling in tight gas stands, then obviously we've figured out a way to do, that but it's still, the high cost stands cost a lot of money to drill, and we have no control over what the price is going to be.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: It costs a lot to drill.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: The price of gas gone up to $13 and down as low as $3 in the last two years.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And that's why this is a price trigger. This is not a proposal to eliminate it. It is setting the price at a very well reasonable level. Analysts expect the price of gas to be --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Almost all gas wells have to have a higher cost (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: -- dollars for another twenty years. But when it does the profits for this type of drilling are going to more than justify the higher cost.
THE WITNESS: No. You're wrong. Did you not understand that when you drill these high cost wells you don't drill them for six dollar gas, you hope that the market will go up. So we drill these wells and we go out and explore, and you don't always get gas when you drill. You know, a lot of times you have tight sands and you can't drill it, or you can't find it, and you get these dry holes. It costs a lot of money. If you had a cap on gas at $6 you'd have no more wells drilled, you'd run out of gas. So what you're doing here, is you're going to shut down the gas drilling in this state. And I tell you that will be bad policy, because we'll be paying $13 for the gas not $6.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: That is certainly the line that the industry -- but we know that when gas is at $6 folks were drilling. And I don't believe this is going to discontinue that. I think what I'm trying to do is preserve this program by bringing some sanity and introducing this concept that when the market is providing process at a high rate, then industry does not need us to incentivize them.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But don't you understand that when we are able to drill this tight sands gas with the hope of getting a legitimate price for it, that that's the reason we drill those kind of wells. We will not drill these wells if you capped our price at six dollars or you keep our price down low. And the tight sands is a result of the well being drilled, not as a cost of the gas after it comes out. We have no control over the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And it's to be clear (inaudible as you are on this program, I'm not capping the price of gas. I'm limiting to the state subsidy to industry when the price of gas is at a certain level (inaudible) (inaudible) drilling could go on, but it should not be dependent on a state subsidy, particularly in the context of the times we find ourselves in, where we are cutting the education of our children and unwilling to take a look at this subsidy for big business in times where they are earning mighty profits. And at $6 there is plenty of incentives for private actors to explore for tight sands gas.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And do you realize that they tried something very similar to this in New Mexico, and they shut down drilling. So if you do a deal like this in Texas we again will shut down drilling. And we have wells that are being drilled right now and we have a large (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Now that we often hear from industry that has grown used to state subsidies, if you take away our state subsidy we're not going to engage in free enterprise. And it seems to me to be a contradiction. What I'm suggesting is not to eliminate this program, but to introduce a price trigger
(inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: -- the price of gas is at a high level, private industry does not need a state subsidy.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Huberty?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I think the, do you know, how much natural gas the State of Texas produces?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I know that State of Texas is actually expanding its estimate of reserves because of this technology.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: You don't know how much natural gas the State of Texas produces, yet you are suggesting that you think you know what drilling operator should pay or shouldn't pay?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: (Inaudible) 7 trillion feet of natural gas each year. Do you know how much of that of the State of Texas produces the -- the total is for the United States?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: What I'm suggesting, and if you want to amend my amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I'm asking you --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No, no, no. I am responding. You get to ask a question and I get to respond. You may not be satisfied with my response, but my response to you is I believe that this program can be improved.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: If we introduced a price trigger --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is well, taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I'm happy to accept an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we -- we've talked about this issue before regarding high cost of gas and how important the incentive is to this state. I just want to remind you that the state of Louisiana, on this same tight gas, has a zero severance tax for the first two years and no property tax in the (inaudible). Oklahoma offers a reduced 1 percent, and no property tax in the Woodford. Arkansas offers a reduced one and a half percent with severance rate on the Haynesville and the Fayeteville. Pennsylvania, with the new Marcellas, has no severance tax or property tax.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the gentleman yield for a couple questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Otto, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Otto, have you driven through the Barnett Shell county lately?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Not lately, but I have driven through them in the last year.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Did you know that if you did, two years ago you saw a lot of rigs up. You would drive through any county in the Barnett Shell and you would see a lot of rigs up and down the road and see a lot of activity. Did you know that if you drive through Parker County or Johnson County or Tarrant County today you might -- Cook County, Erath, Denton, you might -- might see one rig -- Do you know why that is?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: No, I don't.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It's because you can't drill a Barnett Shell well and break even right now because of the cost. And -- and do you realize that if we add this amendment, that it's even going to reduce the incentive to try to do any production in the Barnett Shell?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I agree with you. I don't think a 6-dollar target above the current -- or approximately 4-dollar target, is much of an incentive for anybody to bank on the future benefiting them.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And I may have missed it, but did the -- did the author give any explanation of why he chose $6? I mean why not $5 or $7 or $8 or $4.50?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not advised about that.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Did you get the impression that it might have been a number just pulled out of the air?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Again, I'm not advised about where the six dollars came from.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So members, I would move to table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I'd like to make a -- I'd like to ask for you support in voting against the motion to table. What I am suggesting we should do is introduce a price trigger, if there's a dispute that current profitability that the exploration of natural gas is -- is insufficient. If we keep this program in place, even when the price of natural gas grows by approximately 50 percent more, that's, you know, the difference between $6 and $4; then I am happy to entertain an amendment to this proposal and set a different price point. But what I am trying to do is introduce a concept of a turning off a subsidy to industry when they no longer need it. When the price of natural gas hits a certain level and you think it's not six dollars, you think it should be seven or eight; come on down and offer your amendment to the amendment. But at some point the State of Texas needs to prioritize its limited tax dollars. Particularly today, when we are cutting our children's education. And so what this proposal accomplishes is really an opportunity for all of us to express our values. Where do we stand between the priority of funding our children's education versus maintaining a big business tax break in times when they no longer need it? I ask for you to vote against the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Villarreal sends up an amendment to the amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. This is on the motion to table the amendment to the amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 107 ayes and 33 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. So what you voted against was any savings realized to the original proposal should go mitigating the cuts in the foundation school program, that's what you voted against. And so that's fine. We're now on the original amendment, which was to -- was -- the original proposal was to reform the high cost natural gas tax exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I'd just like to say ditto to what the last amendment was.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I'm sorry, what?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I'd just like to say ditto to the last amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And so I ask for your change of heart on this classic proposal that I brought to you during the regular and am happy bring to you during this special.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I will join chairman Chisum in saying ditto, and I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: At some point I do believe that the Texas legislature, and particularly the House, because we are the chambers that originate tax policy; needs to take a comprehensive look at all of the different subsidies we give out to businesses to incentivize them. At some point we do need to draw a line, and we need to prioritize. We need a systemic way of evaluating where our limited tax dollars will go to further in incentivizing business development, whether it's high cost gas exploration or some other enterprise. This proposal takes a very reasonable approach in establishing a price trigger. I think we all know what we're voting on. I ask for you support in voting against the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Villarreal sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. It's on the motion to table. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Being 103 ayes -- 102 ayes, 38 nays; motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 397.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amount of funds that TexDOT receives as a percentage of its total budget has declined since 2003. This amendment seeks to improve state transportation planning processes in order to increase Texas's eligibility for additional federal funding opportunities. And is it is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Guillen sends up an amendment. A record vote's been requested. Record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Otto voting aye. Show Representative Orr voting aye. Show Representative Guillen voting aye. Have all voted? There being 50 ayes and 89 nays, the amendment fails. We're on page 399. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the 2010 census outcomes have the potential to handicap many Texas transit districts throughout the state. This amendment is the same amendment we passed out of this House that looks to strengthen some effective transit districts that will negatively be affected by the census.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Guillen, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Guillen, this has to do with the transit for these communities, the census has grown them beyond what they had to be before no other change in that, we're not --
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: We're just holding them -- We're just holding some of these transit districts harmless. It doesn't cost us any money because they're already getting the money. So thank you, you are one of my -- one of our joint authors of this amendment, along with Ken Paxton and Brandon Creighton and Representative Eissler. And I just -- we -- When we passed the bill out of the committee we had testimony from the associations that represent rural transit districts, and testimony from the folks who represent small urban districts and they are uniform in their -- in their support for this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: The members of small communities are depending on this program, ho about the folks (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: If we don't pass this, there's going to be some transit districts to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I appreciate your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you. It is acceptable -- No. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, we're going to let this amendment be subject to the will of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a joint authored by Representative Creighton, Representative Taylor, Representative Paxton, Representative Eissler. It's very important for our rural and small urban transit districts, and I ask for you support and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Guillen sends up an amendment. A record vote's been requested. Record vote is granted. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 96 ayes and 40 nays, the amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 401. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lavender.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment -- this amendment allows us to license golf carts for use on core (inaudible) engineer lake. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lavender sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment page 402.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment addresses an issue of people getting Texas driver's licenses that don't live in Texas. And it also allows the department to issue a license only for the length of time that the person is entitled to be here. And there's a couple of amendments to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker? May I raise a point of order against further consideration of this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is withdrawn. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo. The amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I move approval. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 413.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, this is -- this relates to the teen driver's license, and it makes sure that we continue to have in the law -- we took out the part about them trying to show up and do congestion at the driver's license office when they are seventeen. We're going to give them pending school, so we can keep them in school. I believe it's acceptable to the author. There may be an amendment. It's not my amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, this amendment has to do with the driver's license being used to scan a driver's license, so that protect against fraud. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: No, what this amendment does is allows the driver's license to be scanned to use as an antifraud when cashing checks. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Deshotel sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. We're back on the Phillips' amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Move passage. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose, Ms. Davis?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: May I ask Mr. Phillips a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Phillips, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Phillips, your amendment is -- I'm just -- I want to understand what it has to do with this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It has to do with maintaining students in schools, and the fact that it costs our state when they are not in school.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So the amendment that Mr. Deshotel put on dealt with scanning a driver's license, right?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And so my question is what does that have to do with fiscal matters?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: His has to do with fiscal as it relates to using the -- using the driver's license and the use of that driver's license. That's not my amendment. So you might want to talk to him.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, I want to raise a point of order against further consideration --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Against his amendment or against my amendment? All of them? Why, Yvonne?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is sustained. Amendment on page 415. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, this -- I just want y'all to know that is a bill that came through this House and went to calendars, went to committee and passed 148 to 0 in this House. It's beginning with a fifteen cent fee, court cost fee. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Orr sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts leaves it to the will of the House. It's a division vote. Vote aye, vote nay on the Orr amendment. Mr. Gallego?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're in the middle of a vote, Mr. Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And before the vote I was trying to get the chair's attention, because I wasn't clear on the what section Mr. Orr's amendment was repealing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Have all voted? Show Representative Anchia voting aye. There being 78 ayes and 28 nays, the amendment is adopted. Mr. Gallego?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, I was actually trying to get information. There's three provisions -- there's two provisions of the government code and one other transportation code, I believe, that were being repealed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Yeah. What it does, it was a 15-cent court fee that was collected when someone got a ticket for a child safety seat. There was a 15 fee that went to the court and it went to the county -- not the county, but the county clerk. They sent that to the state. But it's costing three times more money to collect that fee than actually what they're collecting. They were expecting $1,500 statewide to -- but there's no -- it's never been distributed.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Page 416, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this was an amendment that did a study on cost of bearing transmission lines. And I have an amendment to the amendment to perfect the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And this is an amendment that protects my amendment. I move passage of the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hilderbran sends up an amendment to the amendment. Is there -- It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're on the Hilderbran amendment as amended. Representative Davis of Dallas raises a point of order against further consideration of the Hilderbran amendment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank God.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hilderbran withdraws his amendment. Amendment on page 417. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Anderson of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that creates a mechanism for the state to study ground water consumption within Dallas county for the next four years. It's part of Representative Callegari's HB 725, got caught up in the last day of the calendar. I believe the amendment is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Anderson sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're on page 418. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, couple of things. In the name of consistency, working on the premise that what role does the state have in enterprise and private enterprise and investment in the name of economic development. I filed the amendment to remove the $25 million for Formula 1. I'm told that there's probably going to be a point of order on this, and I'm comfortable with that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: I'd like to them raise a point of order on further consideration of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: In the time
(inaudible) time tonight I merely withdraw, based on the point of order. However, I would say this it is important for this body to know that as a state, we are committing to a minimum of 25 million on the front end, and every year after that we will commit again to a different amount, as certified by the comptroller. That is money we're looking to spend out of our pockets with no regard to whether we will recoup it or not. I just want to make that part of the record, but we need to be aware to know that. But I will pull down (inaudible) point of order. But we are investing money that potentially -- which is different than the other events that we have that we may not get back as a taxpayer group. It's different (inaudible) amount up front to. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my comments be recorded in the journal? Mr. Speaker? Can I have my comments recorded in the journal?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Amendment on page 421. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker members, this is a bill we passed out of State Affairs, and then it went on without a objection on 1811. And it went on without objection on 1717. And what it does, is (inaudible) the Supreme Court to develop an audit process to see how monies are being spent on judicial bypass, on parental consent, cases on abortion. And I -- I would move passage. Do you need more explanation?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative King sends up an amendment. Representative Otto leaves it to the will of the House. I think -- Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: To ask the gentleman a question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Certainly. And do you want know? I can do a little better job explaining.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yeah, if you could.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Basically, right now, in 1999 we created a judicial bypass process, so if a minor went to get an abortion without their parents' consent they could go to a court to get approval to do that. The original legislation anticipated that there would be an attorney ad litem appointed to represent the legal interests of the child, and a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the best interests of the child under the family code. The bill set out that the state would pay for that, and the process through which that works is that when a child -- a minor goes to court, the Court notifies the comptroller's office what their bill for the attorney ad litem and the guardian ad litem. And then the comptroller's office notifies the Department of Health, who then pays it. And that we don't know is how much is being paid, are there uniform amounts being paid, and also a practice has arisen that no one anticipated under the -- under the bill, where the same salesperson being appointed the attorney ad litem and the guardian ad litem, which gave rise to the question; is one person getting paid double for two services for the same amount of time? And so all we're asking them to do is to audit a year -- the Supreme Court to develop -- the Supreme Court who writes the rules for the parental bypass, to ask them to write rules for an audit to the funding, and report back to the legislature how much money's being spent, where it's been being spent; just so we can make sure there's uniformity. Cause I'm afraid that we're going to find out that we've got some courts paying $2,500, other courts paying $500, maybe other courts paying $5,000. And there may be duplication of services. So we want to know how much money the state's paying, and where it's going.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And if I recall correctly, historically there's been an interest to ensure that the identity of the minor is protected. And we know that in large counties, in urban counties, it's fairly straightforward to kind of do this sort of audit, and not get the level of identifying the use or the judges in this (inaudible) particular case. But in rural areas, small counties, you can get to a situation where you're auditing at such a level, and there are so few cases, that you are actually bringing to the surface the identity of the use, or of the judge or judges involved, or the attorneys involved. Now, how does your proposal prevent those kind of disclosures from happening?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I think it's going to be as simple as this, because it tells the Supreme Court who already develops all the rules for parental bypass, ask the Supreme Court to (inaudible) send in a letter notifying how much money they spent in parental bypass, for how many cases. And then the appellate court will total that and let us know how the monies are being spent, and we can look at it that way. But we just ask for the Supreme Court to develop some auditors --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. King , if the real intent is to figure out how much money is being paid to counsel on these cases, then you wouldn't have a problem with keeping the names of the attorneys confidential, would you?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Oh, none at all.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. So we're not trying to reveal who's doing these cases, or judicial bypasses; we're just trying to ascertain the amount of funds that are being expended?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yeah. And I've got a personal concern. I still believe the attorney ad litem and the guardian ad litem ought to be two different people. And this is going to find out if they are or not. Because I think there's a real difference between an attorney representing a child and trying to represent the child's best interests in a very difficult situation. And where I would like to see -- where I think this may tell us if we do consistently have one person being appointed attorney ad litem and guardian ad litem, as the anecdotal evidence suggests; and this will also tell us that. And that will tell us if next session we need legislation to separate those two.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: So you'd be willing to accept an amendment to that effect then, in terms of keeping the names of the attorney confidential to establish simply what -- how much funds were being expended?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yeah, that's fine with me. If you want to -- if you want to, I will accept a third reading amendment tomorrow to keep the name of the child, the name of the attorney confidential. All that's fine. I think that's required by law, anyway. And that's certainly all right.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Just get it ready tomorrow and I'll accept it. And I would just move adoption of the amendment. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative King sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts leaves it to the will of the House. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the amendment? Record vote's been requested. Record vote's granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Lucio voting aye. Have all voted? Being 128 ayes and 11 nays, the amendment is adopted. We're on page 422. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Thompson -- Amendment by Morrison.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Morrison.
REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. There are over 180 specialty license plates currently available for purchase from TexDOT. And the funds arise from these specialty plates go to numerous agencies and nonprofits. There were only -- 50 percent were appropriated for the 2012/2013, and these license plaits have fees that are going -- that the people are paying that go to agencies and charities, and a voluntary thing. And this amendment provides an opportunity to correct that problem with the charities not receiving their funds. And I move passage. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's withdrawn. The amendment on page 423. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment will provide a way to close the gap on the funding needs of Brazos County, Dallas, Harris, Travis and Bexar counties. Since J (inaudible) JAET are under the foundation school funding. This funding needs -- relates back to 2006 and '07 where Chapter 41 funding existed for these programs in these counties. This floor amendment will require the Commission of Education either to reallocate money within the Texas Education Agency budget, or use other available funds to restore funding in the JJAEP and these six eligible counties. And I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. McClendon, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Woul d you let me add the amendment to the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair -- Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you. Mr. Speaker, this amendment removes the rule making authority stated in subsection E, because it's unnecessary, as the commission will have the power to make the decisions as authorized in the amendment. And the amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment to the amendment. Amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, our newest grandmother was gracious to let me jump on her amendment. Hers is talking about JJAEP, Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs. That's what mine's all about. It describes my county, only, and makes it optional in my county, because we had one person, one student all last year at a cost of $300,000. Our schools are doing JJAEP themselves and we can save a lot of money just by making it optional. If we have one student, we have three other programs to put him in. We have Tyler Junior College, which gives the GED. We have the Adult Literacy Program, and we have one other program that we do ourselves. Move adoption. It's acceptable to Ms. McClendon. Representative Berman sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're back on the McClendon amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's acceptable to the author. A record vote's been requested. Record vote's granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Shop Representative Branch voting aye. Have all voted? There being 75 ayes and 66 nays, the amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 425. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker members, this is an amendment we already put on Senate Bill 2, which deals with our Senate Bill 635, which was our creation of Texas Juvenile Justice Department. It allows for interagency contracts between TEA and the Department of Family Services with this new agency, as it deals with any of our juvenile intervention programs. It's strictly permissive language. It does not require any specific actions to be taken, but it allows them to take place if they so desire.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course I yield, Sylvester.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thanks. Chairman Madden, are we moving the alternative -- the treatment prevention programs from the Department of Family Services over into this other entity?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Not -- Not unless they agree, and they have to do that under an interagency agreement, Sylvester. So the answer is they could if they agree to that, if both the department and the new department accept that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the reason that I raise the inquiry, is because there -- once -- if you move those into the agency, it may be much easier for the funding to be reduced for those -- for those prevention and --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: In this, Sylvester, there's nothing in here that would do anything to impact the funding. There's no impact at all on the existing program or its funding, unless that was already done at appropriation's act previously.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And especially those programs in TEA, it might be better for them to stay under TEA. Because I think those are like grants going to those two particular schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And that would be up to the two departments if they determine and they find the agreements then (inaudible) move then it wouldn't be okay. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. We're on page 428. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Oliveira.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment deals with the sale of a state property. We passed this in the regular session and we also added it as an amendment to the fiscal matters bill before. Every two years the Land Office reviews properties that are owned by the state to determine their highest and best use. This amendment would raise approximately $80 million in revenue for the state. And I would move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Laubenberg , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Would the gentleman please yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes, I would be glad to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Representative Oliveira, it says here that the Land Office shall, which is a must, sell this land by August 31st, 2013; correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I'm sorry, I heard the first part but sell by when?
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: By August -- I'm sorry, August 31st, 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Well, the plan would be to try to sell this property that is either being under utilized or unused, and it's for the purposes of raising revenue and finding --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But they requiring -- it's mandating, requiring the state to sell it by August 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: It says offer for sale. I mean the goal would be to try to get the money in this biennium, but if it doesn't sell by the end of biennium then it doesn't sell.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. But so to sell, not later than August 31st, which means that we're forcing the state to sell some property that could be pretty valuable in a very depressed real estate market.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Well, again, I think you might see where you might be confused but it says shall offer for sale, it doesn't mean shall sell.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Then why do you have August 11th, 2013, if it's going to be just --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I mean the goal again would be to -- if we can get fair market value, and if it's worth it, we sell it by then. If not, then it's sold whenever we get the best price for it. The Land Office, and every other agency involved in this, is required to get the best value for the property. It can't take anything less than a full appraised, inspected value that we think is the best amount.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But right now, the market's depressed.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I agree with you. And so it may very well be it will be after that it's sold, because it says again, shall offer for sale. That doesn't mean it has to be sold, it just has to be offered for sale between now and then.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: It may not get sold.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Are we planning to use -- Is this money -- you mention that it could bring in up to 80 million.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: It's estimated about $80 million. There is some problem with some of the properties in trying to figure out what exactly is still owed, and obviously that's a moving target on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Is this money being calculated in the next biennium budget?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: It is not. I believe a certifiable amount, obviously, if some properties are sold then it may be included and that revenue would be available for appropriations.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: It's being put into the general fund, not into a trust to earn interest for ongoing --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes. I believe it goes into our general fund for the general appropriations use.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: And some of it, this property looks like it's fairly valuable on Martin Luther King --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Some of it is very valuable. Some of it is unused. And the Land Office and the Governor's Office have looked at this and said, you know, in fact, the governor, in his remarks, said that there was $200 million available in properties that we should sell, that were either pending or not being used at all; and that we should sell that at this time of crisis and try to bring in --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: We're selling parking lots. Has anyone ever considered maybe leasing this property, doing some lease agreements?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I believe all those things were looked at, and the Land Office analysis, Mr. Patterson looked at all that, his staff looked at all that; these were properties identified with the consent and cooperation of the Governor's Office. And we do deal with leasing agreements with some of this property as well. I will tell you, Representative, we passed this bill twice without objection and --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Well, I objected. I was on the record of objecting.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Just the other thing I was going to say along with this, and, you know, in forcing this sale now again you realize we're selling -- we're doing this in a very depressed market.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I do understand that, and I also know that the Land Office is required to get the very best (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: I agree with Representative Laubenberg that perhaps this is not the right time to move in this direction. You had this legislation, as I recall, but it didn't pass the legislature, did it?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: This passed the legislature, it passed this body twice.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: But it didn't pass through the whole legislative process.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Then I think there's a reason for that.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: It passed twice on this House floor (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: But if we're trying to maximize these very important properties, it would seem to me this is not the right time to be forcing a sale that obviously we, as a legislature, didn't agree with the time to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Representat ive Raymond, I don't know how you can say that when we're not funding education properly, we're not funding health and human services properly, (inaudible)
(inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Don't yell at me. Don't yell at me. You know that you and I both agree. You and I both agree that we should be using the economic stabilization fund to fund education, but that's not the will of this body. That doesn't mean, though, that we should then recklessly take very valuable assets, where there is not a consensus to let go of those assets right now, at the time when we're not going to get the maximum amount for those properties because this isn't a good time to be selling if we're --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I respectfully disagree.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: You think it's a good time to be selling property right now if you're trying to maximum the value?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: (Inaudible) property high value and will sell but (inaudible)
(inaudible) at a high value.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: They won't sell for the -- The market's going to get better. You would agree that the market is going to get better than what it is right now?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: If it gets better a year from now or two years from now, that
(inaudible) will be sold.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Would you agree that this is not the best time to maximize, you know, to get the maximum value for prime property?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Not all of this is prime property.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Well, and so --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: (Inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: -- are going to get even less.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: We just agree to disagree. I mean I believe that the General Land Office and the Governor's Office did a very thorough review of this and looked at these specific properties, and they brought the legislation to the Land and Resource Management.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: I know. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that we didn't pass this -- we didn't pass through the legislature for a reason. And I think part of it is that if we're going to sell land and properties that belong to the state, that are valuable -- most of these are very valuable, we ought to wait for when the time is right. And I think clearly the time is not right right now, or I think it would have passed. That's all I'm saying. I appreciate what you are saying, but I think that I agree with Ms. Laubenberg that this is not the right time.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this was these were properties that were heard in Land and Resource Management, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes, in fact, we spent several weeks looking at these properties and hearing testimony from various interest groups, and getting -- and were -- where the testimony, I think you'll recollect, was that we were going to get highest and best value or we weren't going to sell it. The concerns about the depressed economy on the depressed values and this and that, some of these properties we just really need to get rid of. They're costing us money, and if we can make a reasonable profit on them we need to do so. And I remember -- I believe you had raised some concerns, and I think we addressed, and then the committee unanimously passed out the bill so --
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: in fact, some of the questions that Representative Laubenberg were asking are some of the very same questions that I was asking.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes. And I hope the answers --
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That Representative -- that Representative Gallego was up here or Representative Raymond was asking about, were the same questions that I was asking in committee, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes, and we discussed this at length --
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: And we were -- Weren't we going to leave it to the General Land Office to determine the best way to obtain the highest and he's best use was, whether it be through an auction --
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: -- through general brokerage, putting it out for a highest
(inaudible) utilizing every resource that they have available to maximize value for some of these properties that are underutilized.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: In fact, they are committed to law to doing that and getting the very, very best price for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE LAVENDER: And they have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to do that, correct? Do they need legislative authority to be able to dispose of these properties?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes, they do. And that's what the bill's about. And again, we passed it in the House twice. If perhaps the Senate will not want to do it, that may happen. But I feel we should follow the lead of the governor and the Land Office in getting rid of properties that we don't need to be using, or that are no longer doing anything for us.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you. I appreciate you coming forward.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Will Chairman Olivera yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you, Rene, I'm just curious about the property that's there, that TDCJ at the (inaudible). Do they give you -- do they recommend that land for who was that who recommended that for (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: The Land Office and the Governor's Office was involved in the recommendation of these properties. In fact, Chairman Madden, you and I discussed the Estelle Unit in Huntsville, and the Sugarland property --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: -- that we discussed in the general session --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: -- that we were probably going to close one or both of those facilities. And therefore we should sell -- sell them if we're not going to be using them.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And we closed the Sugarland -- the decision was made to sell the Sugarland facility. It was not specifically in this bill to sell this land, but there are parcels of land that obviously the TDCJ has that are certainly underused, underutilized.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Right. And those were the properties -- Thank you, Chairman Madden, for pointing that out. They looked at those properties and they saw certain acreage may be attached to the unit and --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. Anyone wishing to speak on for or against the Olivera amendment? Chair recognizes representative Laubenberg to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay, here we go again. You know, what is best policy? We have debated all night long about Formula 1 racetrack how are we going fund that? Education, technology funds. And so we got to be thinking long term and the properties that are listed in this particular amendment are parking lots, why not lease those parking lots and get continual residual revenue. Some of this property is right over there by you, Representative Riddle, by the Cambridge Tower Center. That's pretty valuable. San Jacinto, downtown property. Austin property, Fort Bend property. And once we make that sale in a depressed economy and a depressed market, it's gone. It's done. And we're not even putting some money that trust, we're sticking it in the state's checking account. To be used, one-time shot. And then again, it's done. And this is a valuable asset to this state. And I just believe that we need to be thinking long term, generations down, regardless of who is recommending this. I mean this is what we are down here for, to be responsible. And I just think this is an irresponsible time to be doing this, very respectfully. I ask y'all to vote no. Thank y'all.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Olivera to close.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, I'll be very brief. Again, we passed this twice in the House and all of these properties were looked at. The committee thoroughly vetted the issue. We looked at each and every one. No one had any objection to any of them. There were some properties that the Senate that had objection to, that we took out. The -- The amount that Chairman Pitts and Chairman Otto are counting on from the sale of these properties is about $82.4 million. We need it. And I would ask you all to vote with it. It is acceptable to the author, and I would ask for you all to please support the amendment, as y'all have done twice already.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Representative Oliveira, I have a question. And so after this passed originally, a couple of those who had a Stage Port Living Center in our district noticed that there's property within that. My question is certainly some of the property plots are certainly -- have land that may not be actually utilized by facilities. My question and maybe other's question are is there any purpose or back story to these particular items, or is this just something surveying the land and that was a recommendation with it? Since you had mentioned the Sugarland facility, which is targeted to close, it seems logical that obviously to close that might be land for sale. We have a concern, of course, that if that is a logical path it's taking, that with this land it's connected to three of the state's supported living centers, have a similar back story if you will, or a purpose, or is this serendipity? And I was just questioning this because we have not heard this from our standpoint, locally, or through the Department of Aging and Disability Services.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Well, my understanding is the original proposal that we heard in committee were based on the closing of a center, but this does not do that. The only land that we're talking about are parcels near supported living centers where there is access acreage that is not being used. For example, down in Harlington, the Rio Grande State Center has twenty acres adjacent to it that I know have been there since prior to when I was elected in 1981. So those 20 acres, the governor and the Land Office determined, if we're not going to use them, if we're not going to build any facilities on them, let's sell them. I think that's the same thing with the Abilene State Center and the San Anglo one. It's only certain parcels that are unused that have been there, where apparently nobody ever made any plans to add -- or we didn't have the money to add additional facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Okay. And one more question, was the designation of these particular entities, as of this year, or these have been on a list on going, and then just brought to bear with regard to this legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: You know, I'm not -- sure about that. What I understand is may be every year the Land Officer gives a report on it. I don't know how long some of these parcels -- one parcel may have been on a long time. I would assume, for example, the property that they brought forward in Harlington. I know it's been down there forever, and it's been unused. And they're going to make a small profit by selling that and that would go into GR.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: But again, it's an offer for sale and not for sale for any particular purpose other than looking at it as an underutilized piece of land?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Right. And the offer for sale, we have to get best value, and I know that Chairman Pitts is counting on this $82.4 million that comes with this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: And the sale goes into GR without any designation to any specific area, or do you know or is that not determined?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I believe it just goes in the general revenue fund to be used for the entire budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was looking through the amendment I saw some strike through language in the portion of the property description that related to the state cemetery. Is that in or out?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I believe the Bull Creek State Cemetery is in. We have determined, as you will remember from the testimony, that we have in our current state cemetery, enough room for all of us who want to be buried there for more than 75 years after now, after today. So the new state cemetery that obviously is unused, would be -- would be the state cemetery to be sold. Not anything to do with the current state cemetery.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So the new state cemetery would be eligible for sale. What I couldn't find in the amendment was the land that -- the language that we worked on during the regular session related to field bids. Is that in there, do you know?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I remember the testimony on that. I believe it is. If it is not, I'll be glad to work with Chairman Pitts and put that on in third reading. But I believe it is in this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Oliveira sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts leaves it to the will of the House. It's a division vote. Vote aye, vote no. Record vote's been requested. Record vote's been granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Davis of Harris voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 67 ayes, 72 nays, the amendment fails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Christian. It's on page 453.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill was brought to me by some students from the University of Texas here in Austin. The student body at Texas A & M, the student senate passed by a majority vote, designed this to be passed in our legislative session. We in the House have already passed this bill with no negative votes. But the Senate decided they didn't want it in our bill, and they decided to remove it. So I'm bringing it back tonight in a new version, because I have heard some parents across this state. Currently, the University of Texas operates a gender and sexuality center. Amongst the events they used our tax dollars for on this last year, they've held a seminar on religion and sexuality, living with pride, gender performance work shops that provided lots of wigs and make up. The center also has a separate graduation for homosexual students called the Lavender graduation. In the next biennium --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not right now, Mr. Speaker. At Texas A & M they have an LGBT resource center where they put on events like coming out week and celebrate bisexuality day. I have questionnaires that are quite offensive to probably anybody in this building. It is absolutely insane that our tax dollars are being spent at our institutions of higher learning and education across this state. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will tell our universities they cannot spend the dollars for such alternative lifestyle centers, and I move passage.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Wayne, you recall that when you brought up this bill the last time I asked you the question, what is a pansexual; do you recall that?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, I looked it up on Wikipedia and I'm happy to supply you a definition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Which I'll read, quickly, so that we understand exactly what you're talking about. Pansexuality, also referred to as omni-sexuality or poly-sexuality, refers to the potential for sexual attraction, sexual desire or romantic love for people of all gender identities and biological sexes. Your amendment also deals with homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender, gender-questioned or other gender identity issues. But this amendment is different from the one that you passed earlier, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And could you explain what the difference is?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: In the first one I asked the House to tell our universities if they're going to spend our dollars on such centers, that they must spend equal dollars on traditional values.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: So that first amendment did not prohibit them from spending money on any of these centers, it simply said that if they spend money, that there had to be parity with -- with other centers, I guess.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's right. That's exactly. And after getting feedback from parents, students, the student body, the student senate at A&M and others, they asked that not use dollars in our state tax dollars, especially that time that our public education system is strapped for dollars, on this type of --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. So I guess I want to ask you, to be clear, your amendment flatout prohibits a University spending any state money, which I would imagine means any money, because how are they going separate out the pots of money? I guess they could create dedicated funds for something like this, any state money for any of the centers that you described. Is that fair; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's fair. It also tells them not to use any facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right. So you're saying they can't, not only using money, they also can't use any of the buildings.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And are you representing to the body that a majority of -- a student, that a majority of universities, in other words, more than one or two actually came up to you and approached you and asked you to do this.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: An organization did, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: An organization in all 50 universities or whatever we have?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: In two different universities. One being the student senate at A&M voted on this, and it was really brought, that group, a group sum appointed by governor, a group representing young conservatives between Texas and Austin (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But that's two universities and that's two groups. This is not a -- But you agree this is not a local amendment, this is not a local bill. You're trying to apply this across the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: A bill telling our universities how we do not want funds to be used.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Because you heard from two groups at two schools?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I've heard from citizens from all across this state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, I want to be clear, I think -- I think that the amendment is a bad one. I think that the amendment is backward --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson to speak in opposition -- to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker and members, this entire session of the legislature we've had a lot of real pertinent issues that we have discussed, and those issues are centered around an array of things that have impacted the entire state. And particularly, particular things that is
(inaudible) interest our constituents. But I think right now, whatever you want to do, I'm not going to tell you to vote against, and I know -- but I'm going to remind you that if this amendment is passed, we're buying ourself a lawsuit. That may not bother you, but it may bother your constituents, because it's going to be the taxpayers dollars is going pay for this. Some of you are going to go away feeling good because you had another group of people that you've been able to use as a scapegoat, and you've been able to down them, and particularly because these persons demonstrate something that we've considered deviates from the norm, whatever that may be. But let me tell something, you're violating the first amendment rights of these people. The first amendment right to be able to assemble and discuss and to talk about whatever issues that they want to talk about as a student at these universities. You're going to be violating those first amendment rights. And maybe that won't bother you. But you also will be denying these persons, the right of these students to socialize and to discuss issues in a safe environment. And particularly that may not bother you either, because you may say that well, if they are gay and somebody hurt them, so what? Well, let me just remind you that those persons are somebody's child. And some of those children's parents live and they are in your district and they are your constituents. And whether or not they live in your particular district, they are all taxpayers, hopefully, within this state. And it is the tax dollars that goes into the pot of money that funds these public institutions that these persons happen to be attending. These individuals have a right to be -- to be able to assemble and to discuss issues and things that are pertinent to them as a first amendment right. And all students are. And you may talk about them, you may dog them, you may discriminate against them; but they are taxpayers. They go and serve in the military, they happen to be doctors, lawyers, and they serve in many, many capacities within our society. And you may not want to acknowledge this, but these persons happen to be individuals that we ought to be interested in protecting and not wanting to deny them the right to assemble and discuss issues. We passed a bullying bill in this House to protect students in public schools. And these are people that are bullied many times because of their sexual orientation. You may not like their lifestyle, but they have a right to be able to utilize their first amendment rights under the United States Constitution, and under the Texas Constitution, just like each person in this particular room. And whatever way you want to vote on it, remember this: If you pass this amendment tonight you're buying Texas a lawsuit. And that may be fine with you, but I don't appreciate my money, my tax dollars being spent in this capacity. Mr. Speaker, if there are questions I would be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Veasey.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, I have an amendment that I hope is acceptable to the author, or maybe we can work something out where he can pull his amendment down. And -- Oops, sorry about that. Members, I have an amendment that I doubt is acceptable -- an amendment to the amendment that I doubt is acceptable to the author, but maybe if he would pull his amendment down, we could work on this. But my amendment basically says that an institution of higher education, when making determination regarding the institution's support using money, staffing or property of a student center, may not take into consideration creed, race, color, sex, gender, ethnic origin or national origin; when it comes to these facilities being funded. This is an old issue. This is a dead issue. You're seeing people, regardless of whatever political affiliation they belong to start to move away from this. Last year you have the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Representative Ken Mailmen came out and said that they were gay. The vice president of the United States, the previous vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, has a daughter who is gay. Wayne -- if he thought about it, he would probably realize that he has gay friends and gay family. Maybe he doesn't know about it, but I think that if he would be honest with himself, even in his hometown, even in his small, conservative hometown, he would see that -- that -- that there are gay people in all walks of society. They serve in our military, they serve on our police forces, and I think that it's time that we move on from this. If we vote for this, we're putting discrimination in the law. We're blatantly putting discrimination in the law. This is not even something that we can argue over. Everybody is not straight. People that are gay are born gay, and they deserve the same liberties, rights and protection that everyone does. We shouldn't even be doing this. We should be moving on. And you are starting to see people, republicans and democrats, move away from discriminating against gays; because everybody knows that this is wrong. And I hope that you will support my amendment, and we can send a message that all Texans are equal, regardless of how they were born; but that everybody has the same individual rights and liberties.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Collin to speak on the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Members may I say that I agree with the vast majority of what both of the previous members have said. This amendment strikes nobody's free rights to speak. They can gather, organize, talk, do whatever they want to do. It just says we're not going to use our tax dollars to promote one particular agenda.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not now. They are paying our tax dollars to advocate one particular belief in our -- in our institutions. This says, for example, let me give you just the first questionnaire they receive at the University of Texas from this gender center. It is asks the questions to the children of our moms -- excuse me Yes, ma'am? The apology is accepted, yes, ma'am. Ladies and gentlemen, it's unbelievable that if you stand for alternative beliefs, lifestyles, I can stand here and say I'm for promoting that, our universities are promoting, teaching our children, asking them -- Let me give you the questions that are asked: Could it be your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others? If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how can you be sure you wouldn't prefer that? Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: This is what our children are being taught.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, but not at this time. Let me tell what they did this last month at Texas A & M with your tax dollars and mine. A
(inaudible) with a 125 of his other students into a LGBT center at A&M. And the professor stood in front of 125 of our children, and on the screen was somebody's naked rear end, as the teacher taught our children as to how to properly perform anal sex. Aggie moms have called my office up and down.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: This is sickening.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I agree. And we're paying out of your tax dollars and mine for that, and this to be taught at our universities. Now, you can say this is horrible. I agree. And I believe this new grandmother just expressed her offense. But do you want to go home to your constituents and they them that when they send their children, their grandchildren to the University of Texas, Texas A & M or any university in this state, that you, the legislature, are using their dollars that they're paying in tuition and taxes to give this type of training to your children and their children? If you do, vote against this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- stood up for the values that we know are right and make sure that we (inaudible) for our children.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Christ ian, I want to understand exactly what this amendment does, because I think it's very -- In addition to being bad policy, I think it's poorly drafted and probably has unintended consequences. When you -- when you rook at line 11, when you say other gender identity issues; what's your gender identity?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I don't need to express my personal -- I am a hetero-sexual father of three --
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Well, that's your preference. What's your identity?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: (Inaudibl e).
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: As you use that term here, what's your -- What does that mean to you?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's what's being used in our colleges, trying to question their -- our children --
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'm asking you, what's your gender identity?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I spoke heterosexual.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That's your orientation. Your (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: So tell me what my identity is.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Is your identity that of a male, or is it --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I am a male.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Your gender identity is that of a male. If you look at the language in your bill it says that an institution of higher education shall not use any funds or state property on other gender identity issues. So, for example, if you're in an all male bible study, your amendment would prohibit that. If you're in an all male fraternity, this amendment would prohibit that. If -- In fact, this not only impacts public universities, but it goes broader and it impacts private entities that receive state funds as well, doesn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No. It is mentioning totally (inaudible) such (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: An institution of higher education. Is Baylor an institution of higher education?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It is an institution of higher education.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Is Southern Methodist University an institution of higher education?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, it is.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So those are private universities that would also be covered by your -- by your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: (inaudibl e) tax dollars to be used to fund those, that's what the amendment says.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Well,
(inaudible) (inaudible) it doesn't say that, actually. It says that they can't use any appropriated funds or property, facilities; right? So it's actually broader than -- So an all male fraternity at Southern Methodist University would be covered here. Because it's gender -- it's gender identity, which is male; correct? You stated that you are a male. And therefore it would be picked up by this, wouldn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I don't agree with that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: An all male bible study would be picked up by this, wouldn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I don't agree with that, but it's your viewpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So I don't think it's my viewpoint. A gender identity is male, if you're all male --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It says support a gender and sexuality center on -- for students focused on lesbian, homosexual --
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- transsexual, pansexual, transsexual, transgender, gender questioning or other gender identity issues.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So what are other gender --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The issues, gender identity.
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: An issue, or -- So explain what you think gender identity issues are.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: This is made -- this bill is (inaudible) (inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: You didn't know what your gender identify was just a minute ago. So what are gender identity issues?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I do not have an answer to that question for you. I'll
(inaudible) --
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So we don't know how to interpret this. I submit to you it's going to be broadly construed, right, to impact these -- these groups. And in addition to being discriminatory --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: And transsexuality. I didn't say or, a gender and sexuality center, we do not allow --
REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Or other gender identity issues. So my view is not only is this bad policy -- not only is this bad policy, but it is also poorly worded. And that's why I think Representative Veasey's amendment actually fixes your badly drafted amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I appreciate your view, but I contend that we need to vote on this. I think the parents of the university students have asked us to take a stand on this issue and I --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Veasey withdraws his amendment. The following amendment to the amendment, clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Veasey.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, there was a mistake on the first amendment, the way it was drafted. And I want it to be clear to everyone that we are not writing discrimination into state law. And that all of our children, when they go off to college, they are free to learn and go out and socialize and they can have a great university experience like everybody, regardless of their race, sex, creed, color or sexual orientation. And so this amendment makes that clear. And let me read to you again. It says that the institution may not discriminate based on creed, race, color, gender, sexual orientation or ethnic or national origin. I want to make it clear that in Texas that everyone that wants to get a good education, that wants to learn, can do that. And also we know that it is a social experiment, that when you go to college four or five or six or seven years, that being able to go out and join clubs and socialize and meet new people, that that's a part of the experience. And that needs to be something that everyone can enjoy, everyone needs to feel welcome on our college campuses, and I think that Wayne is making it to where every college person wouldn't feel that way.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zedler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Representativ e Veasey, your amendment starts off with pre-filed amendments packet by striking the text of the amendment and substituting the following.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Right. Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: So what are you striking?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: I am striking what I consider discriminatory language in Representative Christian's amendment, because I don't think anybody, republican or democrat, wants to vote on something that is discriminatory.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: So just why don't you tell us the wording of what you're striking?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Excuse me?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Why don't you gives us the wording of what you are striking.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: If you will pull up Representative Christian's -- Here, I have it right here.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: It says that it is the intent of the legislature that an institute of higher learning shall not use any amount of appropriated funds to -- and to -- appropriated funds and state property, facility or building to support a gender and sexuality center or centers, for students focused on gay, lesbian, homosexual, transgender, bisexual, transsexual --
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Would your amendment, they would be able to continue teaching this in the universities?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Okay. I just want to make sure. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Using the facilities like any other student can, whether it's, the KA's or it doesn't matter. It could be anyone.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker? Would the gentleman from Dallas yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miles, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Would the gentleman from Dallas yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Fort Worth.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Fort Worth.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Is there anywhere in this amendment where it talks about teaching, that this is going prevent teaching in this amendment, in Mr. Christian's amendment? Does it talk about -- talk about teaching anywhere in here?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: No. This amendment says that it gives our universities and institutes of higher learning, and to just to make it clear to them that they cannot discriminate.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: So he doesn't address teaching in any way in his amendment, does he?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: In his amendment, I don't believe that he addresses teaching. He but he community (inaudible) (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Community centers which are.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: (inaudible) set an example to this body that is something is being taught in these universities.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: But in his amendment to address that, it doesn't saying anything about teaching in here, does it?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: I don't see anything about teaching in here.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, I know that Representative Christian is going to have something to say. But I urge you to support our amendment, to do the right thing. Everyone in here has someone in their family that is gay, or that may be transgender, and we urge -- And if you don't think that you have somebody in your family, then you do, you want them to be -- and constituents, you absolutely have constituents. And when they go off to college you want them to be in an environment that is free of threats, free of violence, where they can go off and enjoy the college experience like every other student. It's unfair for us to write discrimination in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment, as it's presented, totally strikes my amendment. And I do not believe that is the intent of this House. We have some language that takes away the last few phrases that Mr. Hughes is preparing. It will probably honor some of the good remarks that have been made this evening that tighten up the amendment, that will be done in the next one. But in this current amendment, I ask you to vote against, as it completely strikes our bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker? Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Jackson?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Would he come back?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Christian , I don't know about all the wording, whether it's proper in your amendment or not. But I know how my folks back home feel. And I know how I feel. This isn't about teaching -- this is about teaching the things you're -- I've seen your flier, and I can tell you my folks back home, if they thought I was for the (inaudible), they would run me out of town. But, you know, I don't suppose -- I just ask you a question, you don't really want anybody teaching courses on heterosexual sex at the University, do you?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I'm not advocating that. I believe our institutions of higher learning have --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: So you're not being discriminatory, you just don't want them teaching any kind of sex activity?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Exactly
(inaudible) who teach anything just not to teach these particular areas. Do we go out and take (inaudible) all that goes with it, (inaudible) not moral agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: So it's not -- it's not just -- it's not being discriminatory against one group, you don't want --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's not moving it to do something else, that's just not what we want them to do with that particular dollar.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: So with that picture, you were talking about if it were a different picture and it were heterosexual sex --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It would be just as improper as this is.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: That's right. Gross is just gross, regardless of --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It is improper to have nude films (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Wayne, earlier in your testimony you read from a letter that came from the University of Texas. Can you read the date of the letter and read that letter one more time?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, it isn't a letter, it is a course handout that's given at that center. And it's been there for several years, so it's not currently dated. It's what's being used currently, and has been used for years.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Can you read from that, if you don't mind?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I've already read that. I prefer that -- really, I've already said that once, Leo, and I'd prefer not to say those type things. I prefer not to. And I believe we've heard the flavor.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Very good. Very good. Thank you, Wayne.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Christian , one more, one more question.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: That handout, that was not given out in a classroom setting, correct? That was given out in a student center, is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It was given out in the --
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: It was not given out in a classroom setting?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, not in a classroom --
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Unless the classroom was considered a classroom inside that LGBT center.
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: It was in a -- was in a student center or club or some organization. It was not that classroom like you portrayed it to be.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It was a tax paid --
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: It was not in a classroom like you portrayed it to be.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, I didn't portrait to be anything --
REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I said it was done in this center, paid for by tax dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, I want you to really think hard about this vote, because when you hear of an incident on a college campus where someone is targeted and beat up just because of their sexual orientation or because they're gay, it's because of issues like this one. People won't stand up and do the right thing. It is not right for us today, when we're having a serious discussion on whether or not we're going to have enough money to fund our schools and provide our children, K through 12, with a good education, and we're here today in this special session to debate serious issues for us to even be discussing something like this where we're writing discrimination into law. These universities, in particular University of Texas and Texas A & M are tier one Universities and they became that way without us trying to dictate and regulate how the social experiment on their campuses are going to be. And it's one thing for me to stand up here and ask you to do the right thing, but if you vote for this today, you are discriminating against your sons, against your daughters, against you nieces and nephews. Because I promise you that everybody in this body has someone that is gay in their family, probably more than one person. And you have constituents and you have friends, and you do not want them to go off to college and feel like they can't express themselves like everyone else. If we write this into law we are saying that it is okay to have a hostile environment towards people that are gay and transgender, and that is wrong. Let's stand up and do the right thing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Veasey sends up an amendment to the amendment. A record vote's been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. This is on the Veasey amendment. Show Representative Christian voting no. Representative Castro voting aye. Have all voted? There being 44 ayes and 92 nays, the amendment to the amendment fails. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Dukes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dukes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker and members, it's with great sadness that I stand here tonight. This reminds me and elicits the same emotions that I had -- Thank you, Representative Thompson, I was going towards that -- when the hate crimes bill was brought before this body. The hate crimes bill that was drafted because of the death of James Bird, who happened to be murdered in the district of Representative Christian. I have the same feelings elicited in me about the hate and bigotry that is created by measures put forth like this, as they were back in the pre-civil rights period, when certain buzz words and statements to create fear in individuals about someone who was different was brought before legislative bodies, and certainly before the body of Texas House of Representatives on multiple occasions; just to create a vote based on hate, because someone was different. Whether that person was different because their skin was as brown as mine, or in some cases because their gender was similar to mine, and in this case it's because they are people who are of LGBT that may be different that be you and I. But, nevertheless, this is all about creating hate. And we're stating in this amendment what has been stated in the amendment by Representative Christian, was that no tax dollars should be used for any facility for these people that he hates. So why should people that he hates be required to use their tax dollars on any other facility? So what this amendment says, an institution of higher education may not use any revenue derived by fees or other charges paid by a student who is gay, lesbian, homosexual, transsexual, pansexual, transgender or any gender questioning for the support of a student center or other center focused on the issues of other student groups. If money can't be used for theirs then theirs should not be required to be used for any others. And, Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just oppose it and ask you to vote against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Dukes to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it just seems fair if you are going to require that no funds of others be used for any purpose for those who are of LGBT, then why should LGBT be forced to support that of the other groups? So I would ask you to vote for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Dukes sends up an amendment to the amendment. A record vote's been requested. A record vote's been granted. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Christian voting no. Representative Dukes voting aye. Have all voted? Being 44 ayes and 95 nays, the amendment to the amendment fails. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there was some concern about some of the language in the bill raised by Mr. Anchia, in the amendment that is. And so if you'll see on your screen, this amendment strikes the last clause. It says or other gender identity issues. And there is the amendment to what's been discussed. It's acceptable to the author and I move its adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hughes sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Christian amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I appreciate the time that you've allowed for this. Let me say that just to close of this, it's amazing that discrimination is when we don't stand up for traditional values. There's something wrong with that, yet it's appropriate and acceptable to stand up for nontraditional values. I really believe that we have no place in our universities to teach those values. And so, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Christian, the people that are identified in your amendment, are they entitled to go to school?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Anybody is that makes the grade and qualification.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. But you say that they are entitled to attend public schools --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: My amendment doesn't have anything to do --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Your amendment has every (inaudible). If these individuals have a right to go to our high schools, do they -- are they -- should they receive a -- a should they be allowed to graduate?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: My amendment has nothing to do with graduation requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It has everything to do with it, because if they graduate from our high schools, do they have the right to go to our colleges and universities?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: My amendment has nothing to do with that --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It has every right to do with that. Do they have the right to participate in extra curricular activities at our universities? Do they have a right to be on the debate team?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: My amendment has nothing to do with that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It has everything to do with it. Do they have the right to participate on our football teams, on our basketball teams, on our softball teams; or should we say because they may be gay or something else, that they should not be allowed to play, right or wrong, with other boys and girls; young men and young women, because we are sending the wrong message? And therefore -- (inaudible) and therefore they should remain in the bleachers and not participate right along with everyone else?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Any -- Are you going to let me finish my answer?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the reason why I say that --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: (Inaudibl e) the answer is every child should have an opportunity in this nation. There should be zero discrimination in our universities and our high schools, places of public attendance. No negative discrimination of any kind. My amendment discourages discrimination against traditional values. It discriminates currently that only one side if not, the advocate (inaudible)
(inaudible) currently one side is advocated. Does those that advocate traditional values such as attempted to do to me tonight, and those that promote and afford this are declared as being (inaudible) (inaudible) wrong because we just simply say let's don't define for our students to try to teach, persuade, lure them, test them, try them, make them feel uncomfortable if they don't do either a traditional values or a homosexual hetero, transsexual, whatever help that these people trying to teach or persuade, dissuade --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Are you going to talk the rest of the time?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Because
(inaudible) (inaudible) this has nothing to do with equality. It's everything to do about not taking sides.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Was that ten minutes?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer for what purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: I rise to raise a point of order against further consideration of Senate Bill 1 under Rule 6, Section 16E, Rule
(inaudible) Section 5C.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. The house will stand at ease for ten minutes.
(The House stands at ease.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. We're on page 459. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Larson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Bonnen raises a point of order. On further consideration of the Larson amendment. The point of order is well taken and sustained. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: It's the amendment on page 460. Representative Pitts raises a point of order for further consideration of the Guillen amendment. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Members, we're on page 8. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the amendment to my amendment clarifies some of the issues that Representative Hochberg laid out for me, and I think it cleans up the language in this amendment. So that if there is any money left over after our medicaid payment, we can avoid the school funding deferral. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Isaac sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Isaac amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, now that this amendment is now cleaned up, I move adoption. I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Isaac sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The amendment on page 20, the following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment we had earlier, and we were discussing whether or not there was a penalty against companies who have paid -- who were paying pretax -- paying pretax. And there was a question. And I think someone said, Mr. Pitts said, there was no penalty on those who were being asked to pay their taxes in advance. And then we sought to get clarification, and because of the way the bill was written, in fact there is a penalty; the regular penalty that all taxes have to be paid would be instituted with a presales tax, so there is like a five percent penalty on any monies that are being pre-taxed. And after 30 there would be an additional five percent. So there is a penalty against those companies if they don't pay their taxes early. And I wanted to make sure that members understood this because, without my amendment, we're basically telling companies pay your taxes earlier, and if you don't pay them earlier then you're going to be penalized. And I think that makes no sense for the State of Texas to penalizing our companies for asking them to pay early. So that's what this amendment does. And, Jim, is this acceptable? You don't like this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So this is the amendment to my original amendment, just to clarify that there, in fact, is a penalty. And if we don't put this amendment on we're going to penalize the companies if they don't pay their taxes early. So my amendment is acceptable to the author, simply to say that we'd like for them to pay earlier, but we certainly don't want to put an additional penalty on them if they don't. So they, in fact, are being taxed twice early. So that's what this amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Ms. Davis is correct. There is -- what this -- What the bill does it is it has a penalty for everybody. Not only those previously to this bill. As I said earlier in the evening, only sales tax people filing late, and not paying, were penalized. Under the bill that we had before tonight, everyone that collects and remits a tax, if they are late would pay a late penalty. That also applies to the people that would be paying the 25 percent on the speedup, because the comptroller basically would not certify the money. If you are not going to put a penalty, then there's no incentive for anybody to participate, to pay on a timely basis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So let me just finish. So if we adopt this amendment we basically undo $13.2 billion that we're being given credit for, and all we're doing is applying the very same penalty that is currently in place for sales tax late filers, to anybody else that files; including the preparers. And I'll be glad to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Otto, earlier today you all represented that there was no penalty for those who paid earlier. And there was not accurate, based on what our understanding is now; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, I don't know that I said there was no penalty. I said what this was doing was putting a penalty on everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, I asked specifically, and when I pulled this amendment down you all said because it did not represent a penalty to those who were paying pre--- early, their 25 percent early.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Then
(inaudible). I thought that you were insinuating that this penalty only applying to those that were paying earlier. These -- This penalty is applying to anybody that files a report.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And if you recall, my argument was that I understood that there was a penalty for those who filed a report, but those who then were being asked to pay a pre--- in advance, the pretax, that they were also subject to another penalty based on that tax. You all represented that that was not true. That was what you represented to me; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I don't believe that I represented to you that that was correct. What I said was is that anybody that files a return, and the prepayment is in conjunction with the filing of a regular return. Now, if you, on that return, if you file it late you're going to be subject to a penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so it is correct then, when I said I say those who were asked to pay the pretax, if they are late with the speedup payment they are going to be subject to a penalty; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Okay. I'm just going to read you something here that the comptroller sent to us: The penalty provisions in Article 12 apply to a failure to file a report. They do not apply to the tax speedups. This is what I'm reading from the comptroller. However, the regular penalty provisions in Section 111.061 applies to the tax speedups, meaning that if a speedup payment is late then a five percent penalty is imposed; and after 30 days an additional five percent is --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And my amendment simply says, that if you did not pay your pretax on time, that you would not be subject to a penalty for the pretax money. And that's what we're talking about when I brought this up earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So we're talking about the five percent penalty then for being late (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So five percent for being late for the pretax. And so, in fact, I want to be clear, because you all -- I pulled it down earlier because Chairman -- maybe it wasn't you, Mr. Otto, but Chairman Pitts represented that there was not a penalty for those that paid late --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Ms. Davis, there is not a new penalty. The five percent --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: It's a new penalty for that new money, for the early money.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Anyone that late pays state tax is going to be subject to a five percent penalty, including the twenty five percent.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And that was what the question was, whether or not that was the argument I made whether or not it made good public policy for us to ask our businesses, do you ask them to pay early, and if they don't pay early you're going to also give them a five percent penalty. That was the argument.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I understand your position. But this was agreed to by the various industries that remit these taxes, and they were aware that when they agreed to this provision for the 25 percent speedup, that if they were late they would be subject to the penalty that's already in law.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Otto, who agreed to it? The constituents in District 111 did not agree to this. So who agreed to it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: The retail -- the retailers that agreed to --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But in every business in your district -- my district they are not part of the retailers, so they didn't give -- they didn't relinquish this over to agree to this. They didn't agree to this. And that was the point I was trying to bring to you earlier, is that there were many folks who never even knew about this. And so when you say it's agreed to, that's not representative of the total --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Agreed to by the people that -- the retail association, the restaurant association that collects the alcohol and beverage commission taxes that are going to be prepaid. Those are the organizations that represent the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And would you agree that there are many folks who are not members of industry that you just outlined?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I would agree.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is it possible that this tax is something that many businesses will not know that they're going to get a penalty, in addition to -- if they done pay their tax early?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Ms. Davis, every one of the business that will be subject to this 25 percent will get notified. Again, this does not take place until July and August of 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I understand that. But still I want to be clear, because everybody seems to this think that when you get up there and says it's agreed to, that somehow that's representative of everybody in the State of Texas. And that's just not true. And so I want to make sure that you agree that there are many folks that have no knowledge of this, because they were not part of any agreed to language or any negotiations to agree to; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I would move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to close.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Members, first I would like to -- I need to adopt my amendment to the amendment to clarify that what I'm trying to do is to make sure that we don't penalize these folks. So this amendment to the amendment is acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Davis amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, as I was talking to Mr. Otto about this, he said that the folks had agreed to and felt comfortable about this penalty for their pre-taxes being late. And he later said it was the retail association and the restaurant association. Maybe we need an amendment to my amended amendment that says they have agreed to, and therefore they will do this tax, instead of all folks being taxed this way; penalized this way. Because I think it's unconscionable for us to ask people to pay in advance, to pay in advance and then tell them and if you're late you're going to get a five percent penalty. I think that's just bad policy, and we should not be doing our businesses that way. They should be -- they should not have to fear us coming in after them because of penalties from paying early. And that's what this amendment does is protect us from that. And I would ask members to support the amendment, so that we don't find ourselves double taxing, putting a double burden on our businesses. We've already asked them to pay early. If they don't pay early now we're going to put an additional five percent beyond it and (inaudible) and if they don't pay early within five (inaudible) they get another five percent penalty. Members, we can't balance our budget on the backs of businesses that we're trying to save make our economies strong. Many of our businesses will not have the ability -- will not have the ability to do this. And if those who agreed to it and negotiated, maybe we could amended it so it only covers those businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the gentle-lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. Representative, is this amendment acceptable to the author?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I do not think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So if I understand right, because I want to make sure I understand the issue; earlier today we were told that by doing that kind of modified speedup, that that didn't create any additional penalties on the taxpayer.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And your concern is that we have inadvertently created a double penalty on the taxpayer.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Right. And the way --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And Mr. Pitts and Mr. Otto are assuring us that that's not the case, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No. What they're saying -- I want to be clear about this -- what they're saying is any time you pay your taxes late, there is a penalty. What I'm saying is there is difference here, because these are not taxes that are due. These are speedup taxes, payments that we're asking companies to make. And so they then get a penalty, even the speedup taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If we -- I guess where I'm going with this, was your amendment -- If they're correct in what they're saying, would your amendment change that in any way? In other words, if -- would your amendment give us all a peace of mind?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: What my amendment seeks to do is to say to businesses, we want your pretax payment. The way the bill is written right now is if you don't get the pretax payment early --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But if what they're saying is correct, and all yours is doing is making sure it's correct. I am right in that?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: All my --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: In other words, if they're right and you're wrong, it doesn't hurt anything for yours to go on; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: They're not right. My amendment needs to go on, otherwise these folks will get a penalty for the tax that -- the pretax. I know -- I'm reading the letter from what the comptroller says: The regular penalty for provisions applies to tax speedups, meaning that if a speedup payment is late, a five percent penalty is imposed. Now, I don't know how to put it. It says it on the comptroller's letter. It says well, you're going to get a late payment if you pay your taxes late. These are taxes we're dog pay early and they get a penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: You're intent is to claim -- I'm sorry -- your intent is not to strip off --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentle lady's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Members, you can call it any kind of way you want to. This is an important issue. This is a pretax payment where you're going to penalize people if their pretax payment is late. No. It's just not to have -- My amendment is that if I pay my taxes that are due, and if those taxes are paid late, I expect a penalty. But when you tell me to pay early, you can't tell me that I ought to be penalized if it's late. And that's what they're doing with this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, let me first apologize for burning so much of you time this evening. It's not my desire to delay you getting home to your families, getting home to whatever, doing whatever, and it is most certainly not my desire to kill a hard day's worth of hard, diligent, sincere, dedicated work that all of us have participated in. I don't intend to do that. Came here about 15 years ago, but I'm going to talk for a couple of minutes if that's okay.
(inaudible) Very few. Senfronia said she would leave it with (inaudible) and all this. Well, I'll say yes, ma'am to her real quick. Yes, ma'am. I came here fifteen years ago, mostly because I had the honored of being elected by constituents. And I remember I came here because one Christmas night, Christmas Eve night, my wife worked at Perry Brother's Variety Store was there, and a there was a young single mother that was crying with her child because she couldn't afford to buy toys. And I was very concerned, in that. And the Good Lord got (inaudible) and Lisa and I got married, and he gave us enough success that so that I could come here and do what all of you do, and leave our families. And I came with the attitude that there needed to be a better way. I was ready in a school that was largely a minority, I lived in a district that represents probably one of the highest Hispanic population next to the valley. I'm one fellow that was racially discriminated against. Back in the '70s I was on the first team in basketball at high school, my sophomore and junior years, and we integrated my senior year, and I rode the bench because I couldn't play as well as they did. White boys can't jump. So I received discrimination. I grew up that racially mixed community. To me, equality is me saying the same thing to the one, doing the same thing to the other and in my home every race in the world should think of my children came home, spent the night. We graduate every kind of kid, doesn't matter whether red, yellow, black or white. I believe that. It amazed me when I got here to the Texas House, and asked to be on the Human Services Committee, because I felt like we needed to do something about these poor single mothers in the State of Texas. And I would keep saying what can we do for them? And they would say we'll give more money, keep doing the same thing. And the story that you all heard is a mark of true idiot is to do the same thing over and over and over and again and expecting a different result. And so I was asked to the republican caucus meeting down in San Antonio and I raised my hand and asked the speaker at that time -- or we didn't have a speaker, we had the senior members. I said when are we going to address the human service problem, and taking care of the poor and need. And they said Oh, Christian, we're going to handle that later and at a different time, different place. And I guess my view is just somehow warped. I asked for the human services committee, and I didn't know a freshman could get their first committee assignment. I was amazed to get it. Found out because nobody else wanted it. For three sessions we worked on human services, and I found that it's a -- it's just a place that there's such a high wall of misunderstanding, prejudice, distrust, that we can't get over that fence. And to this day, fifteen years later, it's still present. Tonight I brought an amendment that was requested of young people. I believe -- I believe very simply, this is my warped opinion and evidently I must not meet the majority of the understanding somewhere. And I apologize for it. But let me say what I believe is that equality is either everybody is treated equally, and equal means the same; but I don't understand that if you teach or if you express, promote, fund, advocate this one view, then that's okay. But if you don't do that one and do the other, let's say the more traditional, like I would believe, values that I think are more responsible in dealing with the values of our country and our society, then that is somehow intolerant or wrong or not equal. Or if you do both equally, have both of these -- that's not right either. I don't understand that. And I apologize for my prejudice in thinking everybody having equal or not expressing one side over another to be that view, that equality. Let me say this in closing: I believe America is unlike any other place on Planet Earth. The white people in Europe couldn't do it, black people from Africa couldn't do it, white people in Canada, the Hispanic population couldn't do it; but when we all came together in this one place called America, the United States of America, we have 90 percent of the world's wealth. Listen to this: The second richest place on planet earth next to America, the United States, is western Europe. The second richest place on planet Earth. Do you know that the absolute poorest classification of people in the United States, we're talking the poorest our government can classify, has more square foot heated area, eats more red meat, is more likely to drive a car, own a telephone and a television, then the average citizen in the second richest place on planet earth; western Europe. There's something right about all of us working together, and that's what I bleed for. But it seems that the walls are so high every time I open my mouth and express let's equalize this, that I'm prejudiced or I am wrong or I'm tainted in my views and opinions. And folks, I pray for the day that we actually can sit and discuss things and bring those walls of prejudice down. And I apologize to anybody in this session that I have ever said anything, done anything, expressed any way that would be prejudicial, discriminatory, wrong, hateful, anything. Because I'm sure my mouth does it, and my wife reminds me regularly it does. But, folks, there is a better way of working together. And I hope to God one day we can find it in this country. I do not want to destroy the day's work. I have been told that if I will pull my amendment, that then those that have objected to the amendment will save or pull down their point of order against Senate Bill 1. I am just amazed that that is why we would pull down the entire bill in the State of Texas. Get this clear, it wasn't over the inappropriate school finance. It wasn't over not funding the needy and the human services agenda, it was because we didn't want to continue expressing training in our higher institutions for alternative lifestyles. I am dumbfounded with that one. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you pull down my amendment. Thank you members, for allowing me to speak.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is Mr. Hilderbran on the floor of the House? Members, we're on page 114. There was a point of order pending on the amendment. Representative Shelton withdraws the amendment. Members, we're on page 119. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this was our virtual school network, and the amendment that I had allows the adult education on it. There's an amendment to the amendment that I've worked out with Mr. Hochberg and I'd like to layout the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, what this does is the adult education that
(inaudible) really doesn't get in here, but Mr. Hochberg pointed out that we had a problem in the code, whereby we had in the code 21 to 26 year olds to go back into school, but we had a limit on the virtual school network at 21. This would lift that limit up to the age of 26, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on Madden amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I move adoption. I believe it's acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 128. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment flexion.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Garza.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Garza.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARZA: This amendment caps the percentage of the gross gate receipts that UAIL, (inaudible) school district made for playoff games. Currently UIAL takes 15 percent for football and 16 percent for other -- amendments. This amendment lowers it from 13 to 14 percent respectively. This generates $508,000 for our local school districts for the fiscal year ending August 31st, 2010. In 2010, UIL ran a surplus of 598,000, so this amendment still allows 90,000 surplus to UIL in addition to the current $4,059,448 which is the current reserve. So this cap would expire after the 2012/2013 year. And the amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Thompson raises a point of order on further consideration of the Garza amendment. Pursuant to Rule 11, Rule 11, Section 2. Point of order is sustained. We're on page 152. Mr. Isaac. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, at the request of Texas University System I would withdraw this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. We're on page 163. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bit technical for this time of day, I understand, but let's give it a try. Earlier today when we talked about those districts that are on low yield, and it already gone to the $1.17 tax rate, and had no farther to go; regardless out of how desperate they were in and in need of money, they couldn't go beyond that $1.17. But the way the formula works, they get clipped a little bit. My proposal is that we increase their yield per WADA to 33 -- whatever it is. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Aycock sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 169. Mr. Anchia? Point of order is sustained. We're on page 186. Members, we're on page 200. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Mr. Christian? Is Ms. Farrar on the floor of the House? Page 217. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Amendment is withdrawn. We're on page 254. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there's an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I want to thank Mr. Geren for allowing me to amend his amendment. This amendment is one that says in health care plans, where this medicaid management care model, if the commission determines that the access of optometrists, therapeutic optometrists and ophthalmologist s is not adequate, then they can -- the commission can provide an opportunity for those. And I appreciate all the folks that coauthored this amendment, starting with Mr. Sheffield who gave me the idea. This amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Guillen amendment as amended. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 144. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a bill that simply requires school districts put their budget financial report and check register online. It does give them an out if the school district is unable to post all or part of their financial data required under this subsection. The superintendent the and the chief financial officer of the school district shall jointly submit a letter to the commissioner explaining why they are unable to do so, and including the results of the applicable cost analysis form by or for the school district. I believe it's acceptable to the author. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Will my colleague be kind enough to yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: For you, anything?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you. Anything? Pull the amendment down. Let me ask you something.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Are we imposing an unfunded mandate on our school districts?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: No. In all honesty, probably about 60 percent of the school districts have done it already. I've had a large number of them who said that a once they did it they found that it actually saved them a good deal of money because when people came in to ask for open records, they just point to where they could get it online. So this is really a benefit to both the school districts and the tax payers.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And that includes the small school districts as well?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yes, so again for the small ones, or because they do have an out, or really any of them. They do have an out. It says if the school district is unable to post all or part of the financial data required, then all they need to submit is the letter to the commissioner explaining why.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Thank you. I appreciate your time. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative -- Representative Zedler sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Representative Zedler sends up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 200. Amendment on a page 200. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Christian. There was a pending point of order on this amendment. The point of order is respectfully overruled. Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm opposed to the amendment as it stands. But one of the things this does is it requires the attorney general to travel all over the state in prosecuting these cases. My amendment simply brings the venue back to Travis County for any cases that the Attorney General might bring against the defendant. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. We're on page 356. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment is a simple amendment that's designed to clarify some ambiguity in our tax code. For several years we've had problems with our annual tax appraisers that have impacted a significant number of state low income, affordable housing properties. It caused some inconsistencies in the tax code regarding ownership and eligibility for tax exceptions that are an inherent and critical part of the commitment. All this amendment does is it confirms the exceptions that are available for property owned directly by the charity, or for property owned one hundred percent by the charity. It confirms the intent of the 2001 statutory amendment that an entity controlled or equitably owned by a charity can receive the exemption. This applies only to properties that initially applied for the exemption between January 1st, 2002, and December 31st, 2003. And it specified that the same kind of ownership structures are eligible under the exemption of Section 11.183, mirror the kind of structures that are eligible. And finally there is no refund provision, and the effective date for 2013, ensuring that there was no retroactive payments of any taxes, and therefore prevents any fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment just exempts Harris County from this rule. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Elkins sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Menendez amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Menendez sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Members, we're on page 322. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: There's a pending point of order on the amendment. The point of order is sustained. The amendment on page -- page 20. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this is the amendment we've been talking about, and I have a tentative agreement with the authors. Unless they change I will leave them living and this amendment will be acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, that finishes the amendments. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Turner to speak against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, I cannot submit it in writing. Yes, I am sleepy and tired. But this bill is very important, and there is a whole lot that's in this bill. I'm not going to focus on the all the amendments that we've dealt with. There's only one section for me that would cause me to speak at a quarter to two, and that's the public finance section. We are making choices, we are setting priorities. In HB 1 the Texas House made a choice, and we made a choice of cutting $4 billion out of public education. That was a choice that we -- that we made. In 2006 we made a promise to the local school districts. We are breaking that promise today. 2011 we're making -- we're making another promise that we we'll fix this system, and I don't think there's any assurance that we are going to fix it, unless we are forced to do it. Now, one of the things that I noticed today, and I noticed all day, especially on the school finance portion, is that after we made these decisions -- Mr. Speaker can I get a little order at quarter to two? Thank you. For those who voted to make the 4 billion-dollar cuts to public education today, what I noticed, is that there were a number of people scrambling on this floor to try to minimize the cuts to your respective districts. It's amazing we voted -- No, some of you voted to make the four billion dollar cuts, but many of those who voted to take the 4 billion-dollar cuts did not want to accept them for their local school districts. I found that fascinating today, all day long. So you were trying to decide whether or not the Eissler proposal would minimize your cuts, whether the Shapiro proposal would minimize your cuts. The bottom line is that you voted to cut $4 billion and you need to take ownership of your cuts. There are no local school districts that are winners in this bill. There are no winners. I want to be clear. And that's why I would speak at a quarter to two, because we're talking about the 4.9 million school kids in the State of Texas, there are no winners. And this body made the choice. Now, you said we don't have the money, I am not going to accept that. I hope the people in the State of Texas don't accept that, either. You voted to take 4 billion away, you voted to reduce every local school district in the State of Texas; and today you scrambled on the House floor to minimize the cuts to your district for the votes that you made. You made choices. Choices have consequences. Today, in Senate Bill 1, you are reaping the consequences of your actions. And so when we leave here the only thing that we did today was to have losers, and those who will lose a little less or will lose a little bit more. But every school district, every school child in the State of Texas will be affected by the decisions that the Texas House made. Representative King, Representative King, you talked earlier when we were talking about the gas rigs. That there were gas rigs that would either be closed, or they wouldn't be opening up. Let me tell you about the consequences on Senate Bill 1 on school finance. In my district, for this Houston Independent School District, or Aldean, they are closing and consolidating schools. Let me tell what is worse than a rig that's closing, a neighborhood school that's closing or consolidating. In Aldean, magnet school programs that are being removed. The worst thing is to drive by a school, a neighborhood school, Representative Riddle, and it is boarded up. In this bill, Senate Bill 1, it's not about rigs, it will be local neighborhood schools that will, in many cases, be closed, consolidated, a program closed. And the reality is it won't just happen in my district, schools in rural Texas will be affected, urban and suburban will all be effected. That's the sad part about it. Now, you all said and Representative Eissler said earlier, education should be the number one priority. We are dealing with it at the last hour, quarter until two in the morning. Senate Bill 1 does not make education the number one priority. In HB 1 we funded, in part, medicaid 4.8 billion. But, Dr. Zerwas, every one of these people are entitled in Health and Human Services to medicaid, 4.8 billion. We are not paying it right now, but we will pay it later, but it will be funded. For roads and bridges, in HB 1 you all took out a 3 billion-dollar loan to make sure that the roads and bridges and all those contracts will be let. We took ware care of that. But when it comes to our schools and our school children, you've taken $4 billion away. In the history of this state, in the history of this state, the Texas House is always made education a number one priority. I have been here, Speaker Craddick, I have been here when I have literally seen the leadership send back the budget, because we were spending more in health and human services and not enough in education. I have literally seen where we have held up the budget to make sure that education was appropriately funded. I don't know what's happening that all of the sudden now we are not willing to invest in education. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's happening. Maybe we're looking at the schools and we don't like what we see. Maybe there is a reason why we have decided not to invest, like we used to, in public education. But my grandmother used to always say: If you aim at one, you going to hit the other. And you can't get at one without getting at the other. Rural Texas, suburban Texas, urban Texas will all with be affected. And lastly, in all of this conversation about school finance, have you noticed we didn't say anything about performance. We have not even talked about outcome. We have not said anything about making sure that our kids were educated, not one single discussion about the quality of education and making sure that our kids are ready to move forward. You cannot leave the Texas House today, this morning, and head when the special session is over and start campaigning and say that education is your number priority. You cannot. Now you may try to say that, but my pastor, many times in his sermon says if you want know where people's priorities are ask them to pull out their checkbook and look at the balance sheet and you will be able to identify people's priorities. When you pull out the appropriation's bill education is not at the top of your list. It has fallen from the priority list. And the only way you can get it back and save the schools in rural Texas, urban or suburban is to vote no to Senate Bill 1. I don't like being in a special session. I don't want to be here tomorrow or next week. But for the children of the State of Texas I don't care if I'm here all summer. Better to get it right than not at all. Lastly, to those who may be watching via the internet, the people in the State of Texas must have the final say. If the people like us cutting four billion dollars away, closing and consolidating the schools, eliminating the magnet programs then they will give you an affirmative vote when you leave here. But if parents don't like what we have done, if teachers, if they're not upset they will certainly be upset tomorrow, if teachers don't like it, if educators don't like it, if the business community does not like it; they must have the final say. And if they do not, when we come back again, for those of us who come back, when you come back again, it is what it is. I simply believe, as I heard some voices in DC in Congress say about a year ago, the people don't like it, you're not listening to the people and the people will respond. The Texas House on school finance and education is not listening to the people, not listening to our constituents. And, in the end, the people in the State of Texas must have the final say. And I hope they will speak loud and clear that the direction in which we have taken is the wrong direction for the future of the State of Texas. They must speak, and they must speak loud and clear. And I hope they will do it in that democratic process where we will all know that we did not listen, and they will hold us accountable for reducing education from the number one priority to dealing with it at the very end of an appropriations process. I shall vote no on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and members. Among the many letters my office received was this one from Keith Tate of Cedar Hill, Texas. He said, I am writing to you as a Texan, deeply concerned about the future of public education for the school children of our state. I have three requests. Request number one, coming to you on June 9th is Senate Bill 1, a bill that permanently cuts state funding from local school districts by $4 billion. I encourage you to vote no on Senate Bill 1. The legislature can do better. Request number three, I'm skipping some of his letter. Coming up, no, I'll skip that part. Let me go on. Senate Bill 2, also on the House floor on June 9th, is a bill to make adjustments in the budget that passed on May 29th. Senate Bill 2 can be amended to tap into the Rainy Day Fund, and I urge you to do so. He closes by saying if you cannot stop Senate Bill 1, at least make this bad bill less bad. The legislative package before you on Thursday adds up to a major attack on students and teachers. Nobody voted to send you to the legislature to tear down public education and harm our state's future, our school children. They deserve better. The Texas Legislature can do better. And that's signed by Keith Tate. Education is indeed being underfunded today, and the formula is being removed. That's a concern for Mr. Tate, and that's a concern for me. Mr. Tate's concern and my concerns are not democratic or republican, our concerns are for all of the children of Texas; and are indicative of a desire to provide all children an opportunity to be all that they can be by providing them the resources necessary for the pursuit of a good education. That's the promise of the Texas Constitution. We know the importance of education to the prosperity of our state, the competitiveness of our state, domestically and internationally. When we pass this bill we will have retarded our state's ability to be prosperous, to be competitive. This bill can cripple a whole generation of young people, and that is simply not smart. Senator Deuell pointed out a few days ago that the top one hundred best funded school districts have property tax rates of one dollar. While the lowest one hundred school districts levy an average tax rate of $1.16. Where is the equity in that? A student's zip code can pretty much determine the funding. No matter their zip code, however, all students have to meet the same accountability standards. Cutting a district with $5,100 per WADA is more costly and a greater threat, and does more harm than cutting a district with a $7,100 WADA. In fact, the equal percentage cuts further, (inaudible). Some would you say that this is a conservative budget, I say it is an irresponsible budget and it is a clear and present danger to the children in our schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, and I know that the hour is late but I just had to answer a couple of these things. And, number one, thank you for the cooperation that we had today together. We had a couple rough spots but that's what happens in a big bill. I want to say something about what the voters have told us. The voters have told us this is a bad economy, but you need to stay within your means. You have to live within your means. Texas is doing that. Do we care about public education? There's not a doubt in my mind. It's not how much you spend, but it's how well you spend it and on how much you spend does not measure the love. And, by the way, we are spending more of our money this biennium, this coming biennium than we have in the last one. But that's not the measures. The measure is the progress we make and how well our kids have done. Mr. Turner, we have discussed that, and you and I have had these discussions. And our kids are doing well. We have the best accountability system in the country. And it's going to get better. And our kids are doing well. In fact, if you look at -- if you look at how our elementaries do, they're among the top in the world. If we do taper off a little as our kids kid get older, we're working on that. That's where our accountability is going. But if you look at -- if you look at what the climate is for Texas, what have we done for Texas? Living within our means has caused Texas to be the top job producer in this country. Texas has produced more jobs than all of the other states combined. And there's a reason for that. There's a reason, because we have a good business climate, we have low taxes and we do care. And I think just looking at the attendance tonight, how many people are here and it's 2:00 o'clock in the morning, and I'm speaking a little bit too long. But, again, I want to thank you for you attention, your participation. And I want to thank Mr. Pitts for going through this, and Mr. Otto and the rest, going through this. And we almost went a third time. But the job's got to get done. And I think everybody in this room knows how important it is. And I appreciate your passion and your contribution and your argument, cause that's what Texas is about. That's what democracy is about. And I'm proud to be here. And, with that, Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The question occurs on passage to third reading of Senate Bill 1. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 81 ayes and 62 nays, Senate Bill 1 is passed to third reading. Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 30.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 30 by Davis of Dallas. Recognizing the Best Southwest Partnership on the occasion of 25th anniversary of its incorporation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, are there any other announcements? If not, Representative Keffer moves that the House stand adjourned pending the reading and referral of bills and resolutions until 11:00 a.m. today in memory of Alma Ann Berry Burnam, mother of Representative Lon Burnham who passed away Tuesday, May 31st, 2011. House stands adjourned. Following bills on first reading and referral:
THE CLERK: HB 66 (By Zedler), Relating to the availability of certain school district financial information on districts' Internet websites. To Public Education. HB 67 (By Gallego), Relating to the entitlement of school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to a certain funding level and to the appropriation of money from the economic stabilization fund to be used for public education. To Public Education. HB 68 (By Laubenberg), Relating to drug testing of certain persons seeking financial assistance benefits. To Human Services. HB 69 (By Laubenberg), Relating to the dispensing of certain drugs by physicians. To Public Health. HB 70 (By Dutton), Relating to a financial exigency of a school district. To Public Education. HB 71 (By Larson), Relating to the establishment of certain water and sewer utility rates and the transfer of certain functions from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to the Public Utility Commission of Texas. To Natural Resources. HB 72 (By Eissler), Relating to certain responsibilities of education research centers and to a joint advisory board for education research centers. To Public Education. HB 73 (By Hilderbran), Relating to the use of forfeited property proceeds by the district attorney for the 198th Judicial District. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 74 (By Hilderbran), Relating to the use of forfeited property proceeds by the district attorney for the 198th Judicial District. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 75 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the punishment for the offense of indecent exposure. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 76 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the bilingual education and special language programs offered in public schools. To Public Education. HB 77 (By Guillen), Relating to claims for and distribution of unclaimed land grant mineral proceeds. To Business and Industry. HB 78 (By Coleman), Relating to a county HIV and AIDS services Medicaid waiver program. To Public Health. HB 79 (By Lewis), Relating to fiscal and other matters necessary for implementation of the judiciary budget as enacted by HB 1, Acts of the 82nd Legislature, Regular Session, 2011, and to the operation and administration of, and practice and procedures in courts in, the judicial branch of state government. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HCR 13 (By Garza), Urging Congress to enact an overhaul of the immigration system. To State Affairs. Pursuant to Rule 1, Section 4 of the House Rules, the chair corrects the referral of the following bills and resolutions: HB 40 (By C. Anderson), Relating to an interlocal contract between a governmental entity and a purchasing cooperative to purchase roofing materials or services. To Government Efficiency and Reform.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. today.
(The House stands adjourned.)
