THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, members. The Senate will come to order. I'm going to lay out a bill by Senator Eltife first. The chair lays out the following resolution. The Secretary will read the resolution.

THE SECRETARY: Senate Resolution 119, Suspending the Constitutional Order of Business, by Eltife.

THE PRESIDENT: The chair recognizes Senator Eltife to explain the resolution.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Mr. President, members. This resolution suspends the order of business set forth in Article Three, Section Five of the Constitution to allow committees to begin holding hearings on bills and resolutions within the first 30 days of session. The resolution does not suspend the Constitution for billing considered on the Senate floor. Each member would still have to make a separate motion to suspend the Constitution for order of business for any bill considered on the floor for the first 60 days. This resolution only affects the operation of our committees. I move adoption of the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Eltife. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Eltife. Is there any objection? The Secretary will call the role.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Madam Secretary. There being 31 ayes and no nays, the resolution is adopted.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Mr. President, members.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, Senator Whitmire moves to excuse Senator Uresti on account of important business. Is there any objection from any member? Hearing none, it's ordered.

The chair recognizes Senator Fraser for a motion.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President, I would now move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider Bill 14 at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: The chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte on the motion.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Senator Fraser. Senator Fraser, we had extensive discussion on this bill last evening and during the day, and I want to thank you and the members of the entire Senate for the debate from yesterday. But I'd like to be able to read this statement in light of your motion.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fraser, Senator Van de Putte would like to read a statement. Is that all right with you?

SENATOR FRASER: Please read the statement.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank, you Mr. President. The Senate Democrats, including those who represent districts in which minority voters are electing candidates of their choice and who also speak on behalf of minority voters in this state have made clear their unanimous opposition to the voter ID legislation. That opposition remains. And no matter the specific time of passage of this bill, the outcome is inevitable, and our opposition remains firm. In the interest of continuing debate on the legislation during appropriate hours, however, and to avoid late night debate, which the public would find more difficult to observe, we will not oppose a vote to suspend the 24-hour layout requirement. Debate on this legislation was in the Committee of the Whole consisting of all 31 members of the Senate. Thus, we see little compelling need for such layout requirement, which typically exists to give those senators not on the relevant committee opportunity to review legislation. All 31 senators have had ample opportunity to review the bill, which is the purpose of having a lay out requirement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte. Senator West, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR WEST: Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I would like to have the comments by Senator Van de Putte spread on the record.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, Senator West moves to include the remarks by Senator Van de Putte in the record. Is there objection from any member? Senator Duncan?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I had a question of Senator Van de Putte, if I could, on the statement.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Will Senator Van de Putte yield?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I yield.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I appreciate the fact that we're working together to try to move this bill. And we have talked and worked a lot. But the only thing in your statement that I might have exception to is the fact that all members of this Senate represent minority voters. And I want to make clear that that is a statement of this whole body and not just of one political party or another. So with that understanding, I will go ahead and not have an objection. And I'd like my comments put in the record if we could.

SENATOR WEST: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: If I may, Senator West, in case -- because I see that Senator Zaffirini would like to speak and Senator Whitmire would like to speak.

SENATOR WEST: I withdraw the motion.

THE PRESIDENT: I would like to come back to you at the end. All right? All right, Senator Zaffirini, for what purpose to you rise?

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: For a parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: State your inquiry.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to clarify what the motion before us is, because when Senator Fraser wrote, I believe -- when rose, he made a motion to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time Senate Bill 14. And that was what was on the marquis, but now what we see up there is a motion in writing. I don't have a motion in writing on my desk. I don't know if other senators do, so I'm not sure what motion is actually before us. If it is the motion that is related to Senator Van de Putte's statement, I understand it, but I don't have it, and I'm confused because of the motion Senator Fraser made.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to -- the Chair lays out the motion in writing for the Secretary to read. Madame Secretary, if you would read this. It's the same motion that Senator -- but that's a very good question.

THE SECRETARY: Mr. President, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider Senate Bill 14 at this time -- Fraser.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: So are we moving to suspend the rules to bring up the bill or simply to postpone the 24-hour layout rule?

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: To bring the bill up now.

Senator Fraser?

SENATOR FRASER: And I believe the bill -- the rule that we are suspending, I believe, is addressing the layout rule.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: So what I want to make sure is everybody understands what we are voting for.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Zaffirini.

Senator Whitmire?

SENATOR WHITMIRE: I was going to ask a question of Senator Duncan if he has the floor.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. I will consider that Senator Duncan has the floor. Will Senator Duncan yield to Senator Whitmire?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I yield to Senator Whitmire.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: I want to clarify. In your comments to Senator Van de Putte before you posed your question -- really a comment -- you that you felt like all members on the floor were attempting to move to the bill forward.

SENATOR DUNCAN: That's correct.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Okay. Well, I want to strongly disagree with you. That's not the position of the opposition. We're not voting for this rule or this motion because we're trying to move this bill forward. We're trying to move the process forward and the only -- and the distinction is we will do it at 9:20 tonight or at 3:00 this afternoon. But we are going to do everything we can to stop this bill.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I understand that.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Discussion in the middle of the afternoon versus the middle of the morning.

SENATOR DUNCAN: That wasn't my -- that really wasn't what I intended to say. I just -- I was intending to -- I was objecting to the statement to the extent it said that -- you know, that it implied that not all members of this body represent minority interests. That was my objection, and that's what I wanted in the record.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Sure. And I think you have a right to make that record and I heard your feeling, but I cannot allow your comment that we're all 31 of us attempting to move this bill forward on the record without making it very clear that that's not the way we feel towards voting for this motion, which allows us to bring it up immediately. We are very much opposed to the bill, which you will get to witness in a moment, but we do think it good judgment to go forward at this point versus going into the mid part of the next morning.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I think we can all agree on that, and I think we understand that I had only one objection to the statement. And I have made that objection.

THE PRESIDENT: The chair recognizes Senator West for a motion.

SENATOR WEST: I move, Mr. President, that the comments from Senator Van de Putte be spread on the record.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that -- does that include all the comments made, those including Senator Duncan and Senator Whitmire?

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Senator Van de Putte.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Members, you have the motion before us by Senator --

Senator Duncan?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I want to amend the motion and also move that my remarks be and Senator Whitmire's remarks be placed in the record as well.

SENATOR WEST: And I have no objections to Senator Duncan's amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, members. Senator Duncan has a substitute motion. We're going to rule on that and go back to -- and the motion is to include the comments by Senator Van de Putte, Senator Duncan and Senator Whitmire to reduce those to writing and include those in the journal. And that's an amendment to your motion. All right? Is there an objection from any member? Is there objection from any member? The chair hears no objection, and the amendment is -- and the motion passed.

Now, we have an amended motion in front of us by Senator West to include the comments by Senator Van de Putte -- the remarks by Senator Van de Putte, by Senator Duncan and by Senator Whitmire in the record. Is there objection from any member? The chair hears none, so ordered.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Van de Putte.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: State your inquiry.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: The motion still is a motion in writing and we have not received the motion in writing at our desk, and it would be lovely to have it.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Van de Putte, the motion's been -- been stated by Senator -- by Senator Fraser. It's been read by the Secretary. Madame Secretary, will you read the motion in writing a second time?

THE SECRETARY: Mr. President, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider Senate Bill 14 at this tame -- Fraser.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, you have the motion in front of you.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Question, Mr. President, and inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Van de Putte?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: In the phrasing of Senator Fraser's motion in writing, "all necessary rules" includes all necessary rules from now until the end or just the 24-hour layout period? If it such, there's a difference, because our -- we are very much in favor of having this debate six hours earlier so that the public can see, but with "all necessary rules," is that also for future votes on this bill?

THE PRESIDENT: No. My understanding and on advice from the parliamentarian, it's a layout rule.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. The clarification is that the motion in writing is the layout rule for purpose of -- thank you for the clarification.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: We have a motion in front of us -- Senator Van de Putte -- Senator Zaffirini, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: For another parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: State your inquiry.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: I'm still concerned, Mr. President, because there is such a difference between the motion in writing, literally as written, and our understanding of what it says. And that's why we've asked for so much clarification. I would suggest that perhaps we amend that motion in writing to specify specifically what the agreement is, and that is that we consider the bill at this point instead of at 9:30, so that particular rule instead of all necessary rules. Because while we may clarify it orally, the record will be that we are voting to suspend all necessary rules. And that is not our intent, at least the intent of some of us. And I wish I had it in front of me. I would request that it be distributed at least to those of us who are interested in it. But I am concerned about the way it is written and the use of the terminology "all necessary rules."

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Zaffirini, if you approach with Senator Van de Putte and Senator Fraser.

(Members approach the Chair for a private discussion.)

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: I would like to withdraw my motion to suspend at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. And the parliamentarian -- the parliamentarian will have a substitute motion for you in just a second.

The Senate will come to order. The following motion in writing by Senator Fraser. The Secretary will read the motion.

THE SECRETARY: Mr. President, I move to suspend Senate Rule 511 and Senate Rule 712 to take up Senate Bill 14 at this time, which is set as the special order at 9:20 p.m. today, by Fraser.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Zaffirini, for what purpose?

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Simply for a question for the author in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Fraser yield to Senator Zaffirini?

SENATOR FRASER: I'll yield.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Senator Fraser. And thank you for this new motion. And just to be very specific so that everybody will understand what we are voting on. Specifically, we are voting on suspending the 24 layout rule and the special order rule that we adopted earlier. That is specifically Rule 511, and the printing rule, which is Rule 712. Is that correct?

SENATOR FRASER: That is correct.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: And you will make that a motion separately?

SENATOR FRASER: Yes.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Zaffirini.

Members, you have the motion in writing in front of you. Is there any objection to the motion in writing in front of you by Senator Fraser? Hearing no objection, the motion in writing is adopted.

Members, the Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 14. The Secretary will read the caption.

THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill 14 relates to requirements to vote, including presenting proof of identification and providing criminal penalty.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fraser, I'm about to recognize you. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser to determine whether or not you want to make a statement or whether or not you want to go straight to amendments.

SENATOR FRASER: The only thing I was going to say is give a quick description of the bill that we went over last night, but I don't -- I think that everyone knows what that is. If you would like to go straight to amendments, we can. I don't.

Members, I now lay out Senate Bill 14, and I think there's amendments to the bill. I think we'll go directly to the bill. I think everyone is very aware of what the bill does.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm showing we have 37 amendments, so we -- 37. The Chair lays out -- the Chair lays out amendment number one by Senator Watson. The secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: For amendment No. 1, by Watson, page one in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gallegos, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Mr. President, just point of information.

THE PRESIDENT: You're recognized.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: We're getting back letters from certain agencies that we asked questions during the Committee of the Whole. And on some of them they're pretty descriptive and I was wondering whether we would lay them -- put them in part of the record either during the amendment or just bring them up to you as we go. We just got of some of these letters today from the Secretary of the State's office and some others, and I was just wondering at the proper time -- you know, when that would be that we could enter this into the record?

THE PRESIDENT: It would be to you senators, but I think an appropriate to do that, Senator Gallegos, would be after we have gone through the amendments and then go ahead and present any additional information for the record.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: And that's the ruling of the Chair? I don't see Senator Duncan here, and I wonder if he would object.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm advised by the parliamentarian, Senator Gallegos, that when the bill was reported out of the Committee as a Whole last night at approximately 9:20, that that record is closed. So individual submissions would have to be by a motion from different members and voted on by the body. Okay?

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir. Senator Davis, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: State your inquiry.

SENATOR DAVIS: It was my understanding that yesterday, when we were meeting in the Committee of the Whole, we had made an agreement that written responses to the questions that were asked during the hearing would be entered into the record as a part of the Committee of the Whole record. And I think what Senator Gallegos is referring to are written responses that we've received yesterday from the Secretary of State's office in response to questions that were asked as part of that committee hearing.

 

(Lost audio feed for about an hour.)

 

SENATOR WILLIAMS: (cont.)ID would be that we would absorb the cost of that, but here, you're also including birth certificates now. Is this -- this would -- everybody that would say that he needed a birth certificate for the purposes of getting their free sate ID would now be able to obtain that before anyone else could have to pay the $22 or whatever the local fee happens to be. Are we putting this back on the counties? Would this be an unfunded mandate on the counties? Are they the ones or is it the department of health?

SENATOR DAVIS: Well, I have concerns about unfunded mandates that are coming out of Senate Bill 14, Senator Williams. This, as I said, mirrors identically the language that's in Senate Bill 14 in terms of the provisions to get a free state ID. There's no requirements there that an affidavit of indigency be signed. And, in fact, that's one of the concerns that was raised yesterday about the bill and the costs of the bill. If everyone is provided the opportunity now and walk into a DPS office and ask for a free state ID without having to show indigency, what might those costs be? That was one of the questions that we entered into the record yesterday.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 12.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, Senator Williams' observation is exactly the observation that I made by this amendment. There's not a means test to identify who would be using it, and basically anyone could go in and say I want to get a free ID and get any of these services free of charge. I would know move to table the Amendment No. 12.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I would move that we vote no on the motion to table Floor Amendment 12 for the reasons I stated earlier.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the motion before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser the author of the amendment opposes. The Secretary will call role.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 13 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 13, by Davis, which is being passed out now, in Senate Bill 14 in Section 12 of the bill.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain the floor amendment.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. This deals with the language in Senate Bill 14 that would prohibit the use of an expired ID. As was talked about in the record yesterday, in both the state of Georgia and the Indiana ID requirements, there is an ability for a person to use an expired ID in order to come into a polling place and vote, and that ID will be accepted. This would strike the language from Senate Bill 14 that would not allow an expired ID to be used for purposes of voting. I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 13.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor No. 13.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, this is another case I wish we would have gotten a packet delivered to us. The concept you're talking about, Senator Lucio had an amendment that addresses this that is a 60 days. We're going to accept his amendment that addresses the same issue. You can either pull this one down or I'll be moving to table. You know, we're -- but the amendment you're addressing, were going to address the same thing with the Lucio amendment.

SENATOR DAVIS: I'm not going to agree to pull this down, Senator Fraser. This is much more expansive than a 60-day grace period. This would remove the provision for expiration entirely, and I would like to move it for adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the question before us is --

SENATOR FRASER: Senator -- Governor -- Mr. President, I would move to table -- I would move to table Amendment No. 13.

THE PRESIDENT: I already knew you were going to -- the Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. For the reasons that stated previously would ask that we vote no on the motion to table Floor Amendment No. 13.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. The motion before us by Senator Fraser is to table Floor Amendment No. 13. The secretary will call the role.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails. The floor lays out Floor -- the chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 14 by Senator Lucio. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 14, by Lucio. And this is page 11 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on Floor Amendment No. 14. The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on floor amendment No. 14.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment changes the photo identification requirements in Senate Bill 14 to those used to obtain a driver's license. This bill has a stricter -- Senate Bill 14 has a stricter threshold for verifying identify than what's used to obtain a Texas ID or a driver's license. Under Senate Bill 14, a person intending to vote must present either a license, a military ID, a United States Citizenship Certificate with a photo ID or a passport. However, members, to obtain a driver's license, you have several options for verifying identity, not simply what's listed above. You can verify your identity using, quote, "primary identification," which is what's included in your bill, Senator Fraser. But it also contains secondary and supporting identification documents as options for citizens. The secondary document can be a birth certificate, which under current law, can be used for voting purposes and which Senator Bill 14 removes, and supporting documents including or that include insurance information and Social Security cards. Members, I move adoption of this amendment at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you. Senator Lucio, the -- members, the list the DPS created includes a non-photo ID. I said yesterday we've had two additional years to see the photo ID of working of the states, two years to see that voter fraud is still a problem. I believe that the photo ID itself is simpler and less confusing to the voters and election workers. Senator, I'm going to ask that the members table this. I would now move to table this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fraser, Senator Ogden had asked to speak before you moved to table. Do you mind temporarily withdrawing your motion?

SENATOR FRASER: I withdraw the motion.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Ogden.

SENATOR OGDEN: To ask the question of the author of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Lucio yield to --

SENATOR LUCIO: I yield to the Senator.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Lucio, I believe that the amendment that we're discussing is No. 11 in our packet. Is that right?

SENATOR LUCIO: Yeah. That's correct.

SENATOR OGDEN: And the way you described it, it seems to be different than the way I read it. I mean, it seems to me that the only acceptable proof of identification in order to vote is the documentation required by the Department of Public Safety and no other. Do I misread this? I mean, it seems to me like you're narrowing the identification options instead of expanding them. And I'm just wondering is that what your doing? Making it harder?

SENATOR LUCIO: That's exactly what we're doing. We're trying to change Bill 14 to be able to have the requirements to match those to obtain a Texas driver's license.

SENATOR OGDEN: So if we adopted your amendment and a soldier used a military ID, it wouldn't count anymore, right?

SENATOR LUCIO: My understanding that that military ID would still count.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I don't know how it does with this amendment, but that's why I asked you the question. I mean, it seems to me like the only thing that counts is what you need to prove that you can get a driver's license.

SENATOR LUCIO: I think what we're trying to do is give citizens additional options to prove their identity, and the ones that -- the requirements used to obtain a driver's license we feel should be included in this bill.

SENATOR OGDEN: All right. Well, it may be that I just don't now how it fits with the bill, so -- but at least I'm confused about it.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you.

SENATOR FRASER: I would now move to table Amendment 14.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair now recognizes Senator Lucio to close.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment would simply give citizens options for proving their identify. That is it. Please vote no on the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, you've heard the motion to table by Senator Fraser. The secretary will call the role.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Madam Secretary, do you mind holding? There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out the following floor Amendment No. 15 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor amendment No. 15 by Davis, which is being handed out now, amends Senate Bill 14 by striking Section 12 of the bill and substituting a new section 12 to read as follows.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain the Floor Amendment 15.

SENATOR DAVIS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This floor amendment seeks also to address the issue of the expiration of a person's supporting documents that would be allowed for purposes of voting. This mirrors exactly the Indiana law, which allows of for the expiration of the ID to be accepted and to be cured by the date of the next general election. I would move for adoption of Floor Amendment 15.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes the bill's sponsor, Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, again, I'd love to have had this to look at. Is this -- tell me, I'm having trouble reading this. How long are you trying to say that an expired driver's license could be?

SENATOR DAVIS: I recognize that it's confusing, Senator Fraser, and a lot to try to absorb today as quickly as you've been asked to absorb these amendments. This mirrors exactly the language in the Indiana law.

SENATOR FRASER: I know.

SENATOR DAVIS: And when the Secretary of State from Indiana was here yesterday, what he explained, basically, was that they have a one-strike rule where if a person comes in to vote, they have an expired ID, that ID is allowed to be used for purposes of voting if the period of time between the expiration and the ID is shorter than the last general election. In other words, if they have not been given an opportunity or a notice that their ID has expired because they've attempted to use it in a general election, then it defines the period of time of the grace period as the opportunity they would have had from the prior general election to cure that if they had been notified of the election officer of the expiration of that ID. Again, as I said, it's exactly the language that is used in the Indiana law.

SENATOR FRASER: I mean, we're having confusion even interpreting the general election. We believe that implies that it could be expired two years. Is that not --

SENATOR DAVIS: Yes, and that's the case in Indiana. That's exactly the case in Indiana.

SENATOR FRASER: Well, we talked about this today of how we would do this and the -- there is an amendment that is coming up that we plan to accept of Senator Lucio that is, you know, the -- allowing you to be 60 days, and I still -- it is my intent to accept that one. Again, I wish we would have had some time to look at this, but based on the fact that the we're heading that direction, members, I would move that to table Amendment No. 15.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis on -- to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. In closing, I would just say that I recognize the frustration of having to consider these important issues, which are very complex, in such a short time frame. I'm as frustrated, and I think other members on the floor are as frustrated by it as well. But we're seeking to make some changes in our voter requirements that are quite significant. And I'm doing, and I know my colleagues are doing, the best that we can to assure that at the same time, we are doing everything that we can to protect the right of a legitimate citizen vote in the state of Texas, to be able to continue to do so. And I ask --

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Davis, would you and Senator Fraser approach to podium just for one moment.

SENATOR DAVIS: Yes.

(The members approached the podium for a private discussion.)

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Davis temporarily withdraws Floor Amendment No. 15.

The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 16 by Senator Van de Putte. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 16, by Van de Putte, page 12 in our packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte on the Floor Amendment No. 16.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members, this amendment is very similar. It has almost the exact same language as Senate Bill 362 that was Senator Fraser's bill for the 81st session. And in fact, most of you on this floor that are supporting this bill this year voted for this language during the last legislative session. Under this amendment, the voter would present either the photo ID or two different alternatives. Of the difference with the current bill, of course, is very slight with regard to the eligible photo IDs, but has some inclusions that are not in Senator Fraser's bill. So it does have a driver's license or personal identification card that -- that has, of course, the photo, the United States military identification card that does have the person's photograph, the U.S. citizenship photo and certificate, a United States passport.

The difference in what is on the language is I add a license to carry concealed handgun permit issued to the permit by the Department of Public Safety, which does have a photo on it and is issued by DPS and a valid ID card that does contains the person's photograph from an agency or institution of the federal government or a political subdivision. This is the exact wording that we have had from Senate Bill 362 from the 81st session.

Now, on the list of acceptable alternative forms -- in other words, you get a one or a twosie. This is on the twosie list. And it was everything that was there. But I think what was really important is that this also allows for an original or certified copy of the person's marriage license or divorce decree, but also the court records of a person's adoption or a name change as well. This is very, very important. The other inclusion is the pilot's license. The FFA pilot's license, it does have a photo on it as well. So we -- the only difference from this amendment and what was originally in Senator Fraser's Senate Bill 362 is that we have kept the exemption on the 70-year-old that mirrors SB14 language or older that is in SB14 and that is the change from last year's 362.

Members, the reason that I am offering this amendment is that our state has a past, sometimes, that has been very discriminatory and discriminatory in its -- its efforts to quell or suppress some groups' level of civic participation in voting. And that's why we're under both Section 2 and Section 5 of the voting rights act. Now, everything that we pass here in this bill will then go over to the house and then ultimately go over to the governor's office for signature. And after, that it will go over to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance. And under pre-clearance, we have to do pre-clearance for both Section 2 and Section 5. A lot of the bills that we have seen that have been passed that require a photo identification for voting that are in those states that require that decisional level of clearance for the DOJ do have two alternate forms. Members, and I can tell you this is -- with the exception of the age 70 which we match to this one, this is exactly the same language that was in Senate Bill 362 from the 81st legislative session. A lot has changed from then in that we do know the court cases. We do know that Georgia was upheld; we do know that Indiana was upheld. But the bill that you have before you today, without some of the changes, would be the strictest, most stringent, most conservative photo voter identification bill in the country. And since Texas has to prove up that burden and that level to the Department of Justice, we think that -- at least I think that this would be able to ameliorate the concerns because of the provisions of the alternate forms. This would be really help those folks who would be most disenfranchised, most burdened by the requirements of just the single photo identification. And so with that, members, I move to -- for us to consider this amendment. And I move passage of Committee Amendment 16.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte.

Senator Williams, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: To ask some questions of the author.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Van de Putte yield?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I yield.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Van de Putte, I am looking at your amendment and there are two things that I heard you say that I'm trying to understand as I look at this amendment. I think one is that you said this would include an FAA pilot's license because it has a photo on it. And a FAA pilot's does not have your photograph on it.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: In that section, Senator Williams, new ones do, but it is -- that would not be required as a solo. In other words, the bill last year, you could have a list that you could have one that had nothing but photos or you could produce two --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Right.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: -- alternatives. And I believe the way, hopefully, that this is written, because we took it from last year, was the pilot's license, which is listed on the -- on the alternative for --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, can you show me were it says two of the following? Because what I -- the way I read this is if you showed up with your utility bill or a pilot's license and your voter registration card, you would be able to vote. It doesn't require those two documents of those other things. The way I read it, it only would require one plus your voter registration card. So it's not like it was -- in 362, I think it required two things.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: It is. If you'll look on my amendment on line 10 of the first page --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: -- it says -- there are two sections, section that has one form of identification --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: -- which is Section 63.0101 --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. I see it now.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And then it says two forms. So if you look at where it is on Section 63, we keep the same. So then when you get down lower, then that's where it is. But the definitions of the onesies and the twosies are actually --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: -- in line 5 --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I see where.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: -- through line 10.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: So I'm sorry it's written that way. We just took the exact same thing from 362.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 16.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this amendment clearly takes this from a photo ID to a non-photo ID bill. Again, we've had two additional years to see the photo idea working in or states and the voter fraud is still a problem. I believe that photo ID is simpler and less confusing. And I would now move to table Amendment No. 16.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair now recognizes Senator Van de Putte to close.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank, you Senator, but I have to disagree. This is the language from your photo identification voter bill for the 81st session, which was a photo identification voter bill. I mean, if it wasn't, if this was not that, then it wouldn't have been such a contentious issue last year. But because of the court cases and because we know exactly where the Department of Justice has ruled and hasn't with regard to Section 5 pre-clearance, this is -- takes us to what the photo identification voter bill was that was passed out of this chamber last legislative session. So unless you want to admit that last year's bill wasn't a photo ID bill, it was. And this is the exact same language.

Members, I think this amendment affords us the protections that we need that would be an undue burden on those disenfranchised groups that have to be proven up in section five. And I think that this is a one and a twosie. It is exactly what we had last time except for the 70 years. And this is -- this is the amendment before you that we used last legislative session. And so it is very much a photo identification voter bill, but it is one that alleviates the burden of proof for those who would be most burdened by the current language in SB14, and I move adoption. And I'm sorry, Mr. President, and I move to table -- I mean, I move to oppose the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: You almost got me totally confused on that one, but . . .

The members, the motion in front of is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Van de Putte. The secretary will call role.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: Floor Amendment No. 17 by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: The Floor Amendment No. 17 by Gallegos, page 15 in your packet.

THE SPEAKER:The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to explain Floor Amendment 17.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment adds suspended temporary driver permits to the acceptable forms of ID. Under Section 12 of the bill, it specifies that an unexpired driver's license or personal ID card issued by the DPS qualifies as an acceptable form of photo ID. But members, this does not cover the suspended temporary permits which are standard issue by the DPS and without a photo. Under Section 524011 of the Transportation Code, there are at least five reasons why, upon your arrest, your driver's license is confiscated by an officer. After an individual is arrested or detained for whatever reason, not convicted of driving while -- for whatever reason, he or she is issued a suspended temporary driving permit. And under this bill, this temporary driving permit would prevent a person from being able to vote because these permits do not contain photo IDs. And members, what -- the stats that I've gotten from DPS is that in the last five years, 100,000 of these IDs have been given out, and just last month, 10,000 were issued. These permits -- you know, I would -- and furthermore, it's worth noting that these permits are valid for 40 days after they've been -- the original license has been confiscated. And we all know how court dates are and they become reset time after time, and this is potentially in conflict with the portion of this bill that requires an ID that has not expired.

So members, what I'm asking here is that this confiscated temporary permit issued by DPS -- and I a copy of it. I showed it yesterday when we in the Committee of the Whole. And all I'm asking is that this license that's issued by DPS -- you know, even if it's one day right before an election, that he or she that's license is confiscated that he or she can use this permit issued by DPS as a valid ID. And I move passage, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes the bill's sponsor, Senator Fraser, on Floor Amendment 17.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, if you will remember yesterday when we had DPS testify, they could -- there is nothing for stopping that person if they had a suspended license, all they've got to do is just ask for the personal identification card at no charge. So there's nothing to keep from doing that, so they have the ability now under current law. Mr. President, I would now move to table Amendment 17.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to close.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I just heard Senator Fraser's explanation. Nowhere on this license does it say -- when they confiscate the license, nowhere does it say that the driver has an option. It doesn't say that on this. I understood exactly what Senator Fraser just said. But nowhere on this license does it say that they have an option to go in and obtain a photo ID, so if they don't see that on here how do they know that? I understand what he just said, but it's not on this temporary driving permit issued by the DPS. And I believe that -- that the holder of this license, who has not been convicted yet, deserves at least the opportunity if he gets it confiscated one day before an election, that he or she is innocent until proven guilty and this license says that it's valid ID. And it doesn't say that they have an option, Senator Fraser, nowhere does it say that it has an option. So if I get picked up, they take the license away from me, give me this, it doesn't say that I have an option to get a photo ID and the election is the next day, then, you know, he doesn't have -- he or she doesn't have a photo ID except this one that's been proved by DPS. Members, I'm sure there's -- and 10,000 of these were given out just last month. So I'm just saying that, you know, I'm sure this has happened in your districts. This person is innocent until proven guilty and he or she should be allowed to vote with this DPS-issued voter ID permit. And I request a "no" vote on the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the motion in front of us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by the amendment's sponsor, Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will recall the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The following floor amendment, Floor Amendment No. 18 by Senator Hinojosa. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment 18 by Hinojosa and Patrick is being passed out now, amends Section 12 of the bill.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa on Floor Amendment 18.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President, members. This amendment simply adds a concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety as an acceptable form of voter identification. And the license also has the driver's license number and this would be very helpful in the case that the driver's license expired, because the conceal hand license does not expire at the same time as the driver's license, and I would ask for adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator -- the Chair recognizes Senator Patrick on the Floor Amendment No. 18.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Senator Hinojosa for working together on that and leading on that. And obviously totally in support of CHL being accepted. So thank you, Senator. Appreciate it. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Ellis on the Floor Amendment 18.

SENATOR ELLIS: I just want to ask the senator a couple questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Hinojosa --

SENATOR ELLIS: If you don't know, it's okay. I meant to check. But do you know how many -- do you know how many have been issued, how many of these licenses we have in Texas? Just off hand if you know. I was trying to find out and I just couldn't find out.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I don't really have that number off the top of my head.

SENATOR ELLIS: You don't know, do you, Senator Patrick?

SENATOR PATRICK: About 400,000, roughly.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: About 415,000.

SENATOR ELLIS: We have about 415,000 concealed handgun licenses?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct.

SENATOR ELLIS: And 400,000 are lobbyists?

(laughter).

Let me just let me ask you this now: I appreciate you and Senator Patrick bringing this forward. If I'm just guessing -- there's no way I'd know -- but if I were a guessing man or a gambling man, as opposed to carrying the bill -- gambling bill, I would speculate that most of the people who are licensed might be the ones in the red jerseys. Is that a fair assessment? Just guessing. There's no way we'd know.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I don't think so, you know? I don't have a red jersey on, I have a blue one on and I have a license.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, a good number of you all here have a carrying, and if I did a little survey, I'm willing to guess, you know, there might be a few of my colleagues with the red jerseys on who would have those. In my district, I'm assuming from the e-mail that I get, most of the folks who probably are licensed are probably some of my Republican constituents. But I think it is a good valid form of identification, and that's why I'm going to vote for it and hope that my colleagues will be equally as concerned about other valid forms of ID. A good number of people in my district, Senator, maybe some in your district, but clearly in my district, who carry guns don't have a license. Now I joke with you about amending this to say what about those who are carrying a gun? Because a lot of them in my district don't have a license.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: (Unintelligible) a gun?

SENATOR ELLIS: You want me to offer that one? You think I could get it passed? That may deal with some of these voter suppression issues I'm worried about.

(laughter).

You got a good amendment, sir. Thank you.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I appreciate your support, Senator Ellis.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on the Floor Amendment 18.

SENATOR FRASER: You know, I was really liking the amendment until Senator Ellis stood up.

(laughter).

Senator, the -- actually, it's a very interesting amendment. I knew it was coming and obviously was going to look at favorably, but also, it was interesting the members of the press that checked to make sure that this was coming too. So this is a -- a lot of people in this building have an interest in this one.

This -- I agree. This would be a good one to add to our list of things that are acceptable. And this is a very acceptable amendment. Thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa to close.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I move adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 18. The Secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I think it's acceptable to the author. Excuse me.

THE PRESIDENT: It's acceptable to the author.

We have a motion before us -- oh okay. All right. Yeah. Please.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 30 ayes and no nays, Floor Amendment No. 18 is approved.

The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 19 by Senator Ellis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 19, by Ellis. This is page 17 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Ellis to explain Floor Amendment 19.

SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President, members, I alluded to this amendment earlier while we were discussing the gun amendment. This amendment would qualify students who are registered at an accredited public university in Texas. The ID must contain the student's photo. The ID must not be expired. And the ID must be issued to the person by the institution of higher education.

It follows the Indiana law with one exception. In Indiana, they include a provision that says that you can use an ID even if the -- if it has expired. The expiration date and either -- can either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last general election. So this is slightly more restrictive than the Indiana law. And I think we ought to do as such as we can to make sure we're letting our young people participate, many of which may not have a driver's license because of surcharges.

Might I add I did not include private universities, although it would be fine with me to include them, but I assume there might be some concern that if it's one of the private online universities, you get into an issue of whether or not it was a valid ID or not. But this is an ID from state institutions for young people who want to participate in our democracy. And I might add that here in Texas, historically, we've had the lowest turnout of any large state in -- with consistently about 45th or 46th in terms of their turnout for elections. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Williams, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: To ask a question of the author.

THE PRESIDENT: Does Senator Ellis yield?

SENATOR ELLIS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Ellis, do you know, of the public universities that we have, do they have uniform standards for issuing these student IDs? Are you aware? Do they have uniform policies for what is required to issue the student ID?

SENATOR ELLIS: I do know that you have to be a student at that university to get a student ID.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: But there may not be any requirements like there is with the driver's license or state ID that show that your lawfully in the country or any of those sorts of things; is that right?

SENATOR ELLIS: I don't know. You'd have to ask the Secretary of State.

(laughter).

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay.

SENATOR ELLIS: I'm sorry. Maybe I'll try -- I'm not advised.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. How about the Higher Education Coordinating Board, then?

SENATOR ELLIS: You could ask them.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. I think if there were some uniformity about the requirements, and the -- you know, I think the colleges might balk at us putting a requirement on them to determine if someone's in the country lawfully or now, which is a key part of what we have with the driver's license. And so I think you've, you know, the problem is your opening the gate to a lot of forged documents that we don't know what they are all going to look like. I mean, that's the thing that I -- concerns me about your amendment.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, Senator, it is a valid concern. In all of the other states that have a voter ID requirement, including Indiana, which is who he says that he was patterning this bill after, Indiana not only permits students to use their ID as alternate form of identification, it is even more expansive than what I'm doing in this bill. And it has not been a problem in those states, and so I don't think that would be a problem here. I don't that somebody, to be honest with you, who goes through what they go through to get in the country illegally, would be naive enough to go in there and vote and run the risk of blowing their cover. But it has not been a problem in those other states.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

SENATOR ELLIS: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The chair recognizes the bill's sponsor, Senator Fraser, on the Floor Amendment 19.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, thank you for the debate with Senator Williams. I think I probably have the same concerns he has. I don't know whether you're aware, there are over 100 public institutions of higher in Texas. The burden on a poll worker of having to identify what all those hundred are -- is this a valid ID -- and making sure that you hadn't created Ellis University out there and somebody forged a bunch of IDs and sent it out there and a poll worker had no idea that Ellis University really wasn't a public university, I -- based on that and the fact that I think it would be a burden on the poll worker that I would now move to table Amendment 19.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes the amendment sponsor, Senator Ellis, on Floor Amendment 19.

SENATOR ELLIS: Members, it's a straight forward amendment. It hasn't been a problem in other states. This whole bill is going to put a burden on local election officials. Just as they would have to look and see if it's a legitimate state ID, they are going to have to look -- from a university -- they are going to have look and see if its a legitimate driver's license. I mean, there are people who get fake driver's licenses. And Senator, you'd be pretty naive if you think there are no people who are in this country illegally who haven't gotten there license to have a handgun. I assure you there are some who have gotten that. But look. Any time we're talking about raising the bar, creating more barriers for people to have access to participate in our electoral process when so few people in this state participate now, I think we ought to do as much as we can to make sure that we're not running people out of the process. And this amendment is an attempt to let young people participate. I would respectfully ask you to vote against the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is a motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Ellis. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 20. The Secretary will read the amendment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Floor Amendment No. 20, by West is on page 18 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: Can we get him another copy?

The Chair recognizes Senator West on Floor Amendment 20.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, this amendment simply provides that a person may vote by showing a voter registration certificate accompanied by a Medicare card issued by the Social Security Administration. This amendment ensures that members of our elderly population and disabled who are likely to be disproportionately burden by the new photo id requirement are not disenfranchised. In the bill before us, we already have an exception for the photo ID requirements for persons over 70. This way, the bill acknowledges that seniors will be negatively impacted by this particular bill. It doesn't do enough to ameliorate those impacts either. First of all, Senator Deuell, do you know what the definition is in Health and Human Services for an elderly person in the State of Texas? 65 years of age. We have several definitions. First of all, the state defines the elderly --

THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Senator West. Be careful. You're (unintelligible) the distance.

SENATOR WEST: I'm sorry. And, Mr. President, we have the power to change that, right? Okay. But the state of Texas, through its legislative and executive branches of government -- y'all looking at -- I'll bet most of us are almost there. That's right. Okay. First of all, the state defines elderly as being 65 years of age in various statutes, most notably in Section 48.002, the Human Resource Code contains a definition. And secondly, the bill as filed limits the exceptions to just a narrow class of individuals. And I won't go on and on about the different other statutes that define "elderly." In the penal code, we define "elderly" also. So what this particular amendment does, it helps the following: The League of Women Voters estimate that nationally, about 18 percent of Americans over 65 -- 6 million -- do not have photo ID. And as of May 2010, 2.9 million Texans receive Medicare either because they were aged 65 or older or disabled. Of those people, one can reasonably estimate -- one reasonable estimate finds that about four in 71,000 of those folks are in fact disabled. So this amendment will ensure some 2.9 million Texans, four in 71,000 of whom are disabled, can exercise their right to vote through an administrative process getting their Medicare card, they also can be included and we can make certain that they are given an opportunity to participate in the system without being burdened. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator West. The Chair recognizes the bill's sponsor, Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Senator West. I think this is a continuation of the conversation that we had yesterday. I think all the members are aware that we have an exception to put in the bill. Anyone that is born after January the 1st 2000 -- or that's 70 years old on -- before January 1st, 2012 is exempt from the bill. And that was an exemption we put in place. Also, anyone that is a Medicare person that is 65, then we still have the provision in law where they could be eligible to vote by mail, and we think that's sufficient. By doing this, this would also change this from a non-federal ID bill. I would now move to table Amendment No. 20.

SENATOR WEST: Before you move to table, Senator, I would like to ask a question. I didn't understand the observation that you made about 70 years.

SENATOR FRASER: I now move to table Amendment No. 20.

SENATOR WEST: Would you withdraw your amendment so I can ask you a question about the 70-year-old provision? You will not withdraw it so I can ask you a question?

SENATOR FRASER: I mean, could I ask the Secretary of State.

SENATOR WEST: You may have to.

SENATOR FRASER: No, I will now withdraw my motion to table so that the Senator can ask me a question.

SENATOR WEST: And the question is: Make certain the 70-year-old provision -- how does that work again in the bill?

SENATOR FRASER: Anyone that is 70 years old by January the 1st of 2012 is exempt from the bill.

SENATOR WEST: So if you turn 70 years old after that, you're not exempt? I mean, I'm asking seriously.

SENATOR FRASER: If you're 70 on January the 1st 2012, you are exempt from the bill.

SENATOR WEST: But what if I turn 70 on January the 1st and it's 2012 -- I mean 2013?

SENATOR FRASER: You would be under the provision where you were 69, you would have voted, gotten a photo ID and already voted in the election and were -- would already be in the process.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. All right. All right. So you're now moving to table?

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I now move to table Amendment No. 20.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator West to close.

SENATOR WEST: Members, what I'm saying is this: We have several statutes in the state of Texas that defines "elderly." The question that you have to ask is whether or not you want to potentially disenfranchise elderly people. Again, the Health and Human Services code defines "elderly" as 65. The Health and Human Services code at another section defines it as 60. The Utility Code defines it as 60. The Government Code also has a definition. The Penal Code also has a definition of 65. And what we're doing is making it 70 for voting purposes. We're putting a more onerous standard for voting on the books for persons that are elderly at age 70 than we have in the Penal Code, where we say that a person is considered elderly if he is 65 years of age. I can't understand the differentiation of putting a more onerous burden on people that are 70 years old -- that over 65 for voting purposes than we would for purposes of being defined for victim purposes the Penal Code or Human Resource Code for receiving benefits at age 65. So I would ask you to vote against tabling the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the motion by Senator Fraser to table, opposed by Senator West. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: Floor Amendment No. 21 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 21, by Davis, which is being passed out right now and is not in your packet, amending Senate Bill 14 in Section 12 of the bill.

THE PRESIDENT: Let's wait just for a moment so it can be passed out. Or do you wish to go ahead and explain it?

The Chair -- all right. I'll go ahead and -- The Chair recognizes Senator Davis on Floor Amendment 21.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment would expand the photo IDs that would be deemed acceptable for purposes of identifying a voter at a voting precinct. It would expand the list to include a valid ID, which is a photo ID, that is issued by an agency or institution of the federal government, an agency or institution or political subdivision of Texas or an institution of higher education of Texas. I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 21.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, the -- again, I just haven't seen this amendment. This really falls under the same category as the discussion I had with Senator Ellis, is that this puts a huge burden on the election administrator of identifying, you know, is this identification correct, and also, it doesn't clarify that if the ID would have the person's address on this. This would put an undue burden on the election official. I would now move to table Amendment 21.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I would simply argue that the photo IDs that are issued by agency or institutions of our federal government, of agencies institutions or political subdivisions of Texas or institutions of higher education in Texas are trustworthy photo IDs and should be allowable for purposes of voting. I would respectfully ask a vote of no on the motion to table Floor Amendment No. 21.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. The issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser. Senator Davis opposes. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The following floor amendment, Floor Amendment No. 22, by Senator Lucio. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 22 by Lucio, page 19 in the packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio to explain Floor Amendment 22.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, under Senate Bill 14, all forms of photo identification must be current. I certainly understand the rationale for that. But my concern is for those who happen to have birthdays that fall around election time and don't have a chance to update their license by voting day. It would be a shame to turn anyone away from their right to vote simply because they haven't had a chance to renew an ID or driver's license. Further, many seniors use and expired driver's licenses as forms of ID but do not keep them current because they no longer drive. This amendment would do two things. Number one, allow a 60-day window on expired IDs; and number two, allow senior citizens over the age of 65 the use of an expired ID indefinitely for the purpose of voting. Move adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Lucio. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser, the bill's sponsor.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this amendment, if you're reading it, the first three sections of this bill is the bill I've been referencing several times, Senator Lucio, that the next amendment, if you look at Amendment No. 19 that's behind it is the same bill with the last two sections struck. The next Amendment, I do plan to accept. This particular amendment, because they've added Section 4 and Section 5, is not acceptable. Basically, what we are saying is that anybody that is over 65, as soon as they license expires, they could use that the rest of their life even though the potential are that their -- the picture on the -- the license would not identify them well at all. Also, anyone over 65, as you know, they're -- they still can vote by mail. So I would -- I'm intending to take the next amendment. This particular amendment, I would now move to table Amendment No. 22.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio to close.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, members, and -- (unintelligible) appointed me to Chair a committee -- an interim committee on aging. I was priveledged to Chair that committee. And I was happy, very pleased to work with Senator Huffman in committee, Elliot Naishtat -- Representative Naishtat and Representative King along with some seniors. Now, we spent -- some of us spent all the interim, quite frankly, studying issues in our state dealing with our aging population. We heard over and over about the difficulty of accessing services in our state by the seniors. I -- you know -- this amendment really is for them, and I certainly would appreciate it if the you would vote with me in voting "no" on the motion to table. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Lucio. The issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Lucio. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following: Floor Amendment No. 23, by Senator Lucio. The secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 23, by Lucio. It's page 20 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio to explain Floor Amendment 23.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. It's similar to the amendment that I just explained, so I won't go into it in detail. But this amendment simply allows a 60-day window on expired IDs so that those citizens in our state that have a birthday close to election time may not and be penalized and have the right to vote. I think it's acceptable to the author. I heard him say that just moments ago.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 23.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this is the amendment we've referenced several times. I think the argument is very valid that if someone -- a driver's license expired, they didn't realize it before they're going to vote, that we would give them a 60-day window so that if the driver's license had been valid but had not expired earlier than 60 days before the presentation to be used, we think that is a -- would be a considered a valid license. It is acceptable to the author.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 23, by Senator Lucio, which is supported by Senator Fraser. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 30 ayes and no nays, the Floor Amendment No. 23 is adopted.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: No. 24, by Senator Hinojosa. The Secretary will read the amendment. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 24, by Hinojosa, page 21 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa to explain Floor Amendment 24.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This amendment is pretty simple, straight forward. It will allow the County Commissioner's court to authorize the county elections administrator or County Clerk to issue a voter registration with a photo ID. With the technology we have nowadays, it would be easy to do, and it would be (unintelligible), not mandatory. And it would allow the counties to -- on their own to be able to merge a voter registration card with a photo.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 24.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this is one that actually spent a lot of time looking at to try to make sure we understood the potential impact. If a county decided to exercise this, all of the burden of the expense would go on them, and so it's highly unlikely that we do this or they would be seeing this as a non-funded or implied mandate. We think that the -- the option that we have offered is a free card that comes from DPS would be a superior option, and I will now move to table Amendment No. 24.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa on Floor Amendment 24.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Senator Fraser, I just do not understood why you all will not give discretion to a county to be able to implement a voter registration system where they could take the picture of the voter. If our objective is to make sure that we eliminate voter fraud, what is more secure than to allow a county to take a picture of a person who is being a issued a voter registration card and be merged with the card itself? The technology is available, it's permissible and the expense will be minimal. And I'm somewhat taken aback that you will not allow the discretion and those decisions to be made by the local counties. At some point, we're going to have to improve our system where other countries are ahead of us in the sense that they have voter registration cards with a picture on them. And I'm sure we can do the same when we have much more advanced technology than they do.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the -- is a motion to table by Senator Fraser, opposed by the author of the amendment, Senator Hinojosa. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the Floor Amendment No. 25 by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 25 by Gallegos, page 22 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to go ahead and recognize Senator Gallegos as this is being passed out. The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to explain Floor Amendment No. 25.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. President. Members, this amendment, members, requires at least one DPS officer -- you've got -- if everybody's got their map of Houston that's being passed out -- that processes driver's licenses and personal ID cards. It'd be established for every 15 voting precincts in the area. Members, there's almost -- there's over 900 precincts in Harris County and almost 800 of those are inside the city. And what this does, this would not close down any existing offices, but as you see, inside the 610 loop on the map that I have passed out, there's none -- zero DPS centers in that area. And I'm -- the -- members, the mobility and personal transportation tend to be directly related to really personal wealth. And citizens of Texas in my district are below that and less likely to have a vehicle, and are less likely to have a driver's license. And the studies have shown the minorities are most likely to be without transportation. And as a result, this bill imposes additional economic burdens in the form of transportation cost on the class of Texans that is at the worst position to deal with such costs. Now, if this bill mandates every Texan to have a photo ID, then we should at least have access, especially in Houston. And I didn't pass out Dallas, but Dallas is almost similar. Dallas only has one, Senator West. Fort Worth, Senator Davis, has none inside, and in the -- for those from San Antonio, you only have two and those are at the edge of the outlying areas. So -- I mean, this is -- I mean, seeing is believing and you see the map of Houston, Texas here. There is no DPS centers inside 610. Those of you that have traveled to Houston, that know Houston, inside 610, it's huge. I just pointed out there's almost 800 precincts in this area and no DPS centers in this area. If we're going to mandate to Texans that they must have a photo ID, then we deserve to provide them with access, whether it be Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio or anywhere. Senator Uresti's area, those are -- we must provide them with access and at least on a bus route where they can at least take a bus to get that location. Not a single one in Houston Texas, members, on the map that I'm showing you in front of you. And for that, I'm asking that my amendment -- and I move on my amendment, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Gallegos. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on the Floor Amendment 25.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, we appreciate your effort to move forward on this, and we want to make sure that every person is given the right to get an ID and vote. But I don't think Senator Bill 14 is the appropriate vehicle to debate DPS operations. I think its probably likely to be your suggestion there's probably a large expense connected with it that would have to be looked by the Finance Committee. Based on that, I would move to table Amendment 25.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator, I just showed you a map. If you're saying -- I mean, can I speak? Will he withdraw his motion so I can ask him a question? Senator Fraser --

THE PRESIDENT: The request by Senator Gallegos --

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, if possible, I would prefer leaving the tabling the motion. You'll be able to close. But I've been standing up here a long time. If --

SENATOR GALLEGOS: But you're the -- you're the author of the bill.

SENATOR FRASER: I will remove my motion to table to allow for a question as long as it's a short question.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gallegos, you're recognized.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator Fraser, you're saying that Senate Bill 14 will take care of all the photo -- the free photo IDs inside the 610 loop? I just want at yes or no.

SENATOR FRASER: I don't think I said that.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Well, I mean, you just said.

SENATOR FRASER: I said that we have I'm sure that everyone will be able to get an ID to be able to vote. And I said that the concept you're talking about appears to have a large expense with it. And I also said this is not the proper venue -- this bill is not the proper venue to debate the DPS budget. I think probably the Finance Committee would be glad for you to bring this issue forward with them, and the -- but this is not the venue to mandate, especially when we haven't done a study of the cost.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator Fraser, I disagree with you there. This bill mandates that every -- that all Texans have a photo ID -- have some form of photo ID and get a free photo ID from a DPS center. That's in this bill, not on the finance bill. I mean, if you're going to mandate on this bill, then this is the place and time to debate the issue. You know, I mean, if we're going to mandate to Texans that they will get a free ID photo from a DPS center, then I mean this is the bill that is telling them that they're going to do it. And since this was declared an emergency, I don't think I have to wait for Senate Finance to meet where the emergency is now and we're looking at the access for the mandate that the we're going to put on these Texans, and especially per the map that I'm showing you, you know, in Houston Texas. There's none. There's zero. There's zero DPS centers in here. This is the place and the time, your bill, to debate this issue. And you're telling me that Senate Bill 14 will suffice on access to my folks or these other cities that don't have any DPS centers inside the city of Houston or Dallas or Fort Worth or San Antonio, that Senate Bill 14 -- you're saying that Senate Bill 14 will suffice to these Texans that live inside the 610 loop in Houston Texas. Is that what you're saying?

SENATOR FRASER: I think I've answered that question. Mr. President, I would now move to table Amendment 25, please.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to close.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I think I've explained -- you know, y'all see the map. I don't have to -- seeing and believing and that's it. You know, there's no DPS centers in the 610 loop, and those of you that live in Houston and sit on this floor know what I'm talking about. And I ask to vote "no" on the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: The issue before us, ladies and gentlemen, is the motion to table by Senator Fraser, opposed by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: Floor Amendment 26 by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 26, by Gallegos, page 23 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to explain Floor Amendment 26.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President, members. This is a similar amendment, members. It requires the DPS that a process driver's license and personal ID cards as required by this bill that a place to go and access to a free photo ID would be within five miles of public transportation. And it basically targets the elderly. And I believe requiring DPS offices to be within five miles of public transportation is fair and lenient, Senator Fraser, and just all this does is try to ensure that the ID requirements stipulated by Senate Bill 14 are reasonable and obtainable by people with no means of transportation, and I move adoption, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Gallegos. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on the Floor Amendment 26.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, my response is the same as before on the last amendment. I don't think it is the proper place to debate this -- the DPS operations. We don't know the cost of this, and I think this would not be the place to debate this issue. I would now move to table Amendment 26.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to close.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. I once again, members -- I mean, if we are going to mandate, we have to give these people an avenue how to get to a DPS center. And I ask you vote "no" on the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser, opposed by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: The Floor Amendment No. 27 by Senator Lucio and Senator Ellis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 27 by Lucio and Ellis page 24 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Lucio to explain Floor Amendment 27.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment requires the county clerk's office to give notice to women receiving their marriage certificate that voter identification requirements have changed and therefore, a change in last name should remain consistent on photo IDs and voter registration information. The reason I have filed this amendment is simple. Research indicates that 11 percent of persons surveyed by the Brennan Center for Justice do not have government-issued photo IDs, such as driver's license, or state-issued non-driver photo ID. According to the US Census data, that amounts to greater than 21 million citizens in our country. Additionally, election workers under this bill will be tasked with verifying identity, something very knew to Texas election workers. Senator Fraser, how do you think an election worker with arguably little training will handle a situation in which a woman either recently married or recently divorced presents her photo ID at the poll and her name now reads differently on what's listed on the voter roll? That is something that we need to consider as we look at this amendment. I move adoption, Mr. President, at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 27.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Senator Lucio, for being bringing this issue forward. Actually, there is a procedure that we go through that is already being done. When a person gets married and they're changing their name, the first thing they're going to have to do is to get a new driver's license. When they go to change the driver's license, they would be asked if they wanted to update voter registration materials. What you're asking is an unfunded mandate on the county clerk's office. And we've already got there covered in current procedures. I would move to table amendment 27.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on Floor Amendment 27.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, members, this bill does not adequately fund training of election workers or outline a procedure for election workers to follow. Then I feel that the very least we should warn all newly married woman before they change their names. And I would be remiss at that time if I didn't include that I really do commend Senator Davis for all the positive work you've done on this women issues on this issue. Members, I ask you to vote against the amendment motion at this time. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Members, the motion before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Lucio. The Secretary will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson --

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the Floor Amendment No. 28 by Senator Ellis and Senator Lucio. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 28 by Ellis, Lucio and Rodriguez, page 25 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Ellis on Floor Amendment 28.

SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President, members, if this is the one I think it is, this is the one on same-day registration at polling places. It would allow our constituents to register to vote at a polling place on election day. Currently, the process of voter registration can be confusing, inefficient and unduly burdensome, preventing citizens from exercising one of their more fundamental rights, voting. As a result, Texas has one of the lowest percentage of voter turnout in general elections. We were 46 in the last cycle. If this body is going to make the policy decision to require photo identification at the voting booth, then it's an effort to move to (unintelligible) rankings a bit higher for us in a positive direction in terms of people who do vote by making it easier to get a photo identification also register to vote on election day.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ellis. Senator Lucio, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR LUCIO: Will Senator Ellis yield for some questions?

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Ellis yield?

SENATOR ELLIS: Yes, I will.

SENATOR LUCIO: Senator Ellis, I commend you for this amendment. I -- all of us I guess worked on certain issues legal dealing with elections, and I think this is the most important ones that I have dealt with over the years. But senator, I understand that 12 states have some form of election day registration. I also understand those states have consistently boasted higher voter turnout than non-election day registration states over -- for over twenty five years. Why do you think that is?

SENATOR ELLIS: I think, Senator, it's because it makes it easier for people to participate, particularly when we are making a change like this. This bill that -- is different from the bill you and I have filed over the years, because it's more restrictive. We're not saying let people vote -- register to vote on every day during early voting, just on election day. And those states that do this, as an example of how much higher, in '08, it was 15.6 percent of the voters in Minnesota who registered on election day to vote, 16.5 percent Wyoming and 13.5 percent in Idaho, and I think 12 percent in Wisconsin registered on election day to vote. So it does work.

SENATOR LUCIO: Well, my staff told me that in 2008, the top six turnout states ranked by the percentage of eligible voters who voted were Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado and Iowa. All but Colorado allowed election day registration. Why do you think those states have the highest turnout?

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, of course, in part because it's convenience. And also, with young people in particular, some folks just don't focus until the last week of an election. They've been bombarded with so much, but in that last week, if they are interested and they want to participate and it's too late to register, then they can register to vote on election day.

SENATOR LUCIO: Well, I heard that Texas was 46th in voter turnout during the last presidential election. Would this amendment help fix that? And shouldn't one of our goals as elected officials be to help increase the turn out in eligible Texans at the voting booth?

SENATOR ELLIS: Senator, absolutely it would help increase the turnout, particularly with this new burdensome requirement that you have to have a photo ID. You know, a big part of this argument about a photo ID for us doesn't make sense because we don't have a nation -- a national ID. And a lot of folks on the Left and the Right, for different reasons, would oppose a national ID card. But if we had that -- you know, we were talking to some parliamentarian from other countries -- another country the other day, well, most places -- most democracies around the world, there is a national photo ID. We don't have one. But by putting this change in place, there are a lot of people who are going to show up and vote the way they have voted in the past, at least the thousands that Senator Fraser made reference to yesterday who vote with their voter registration card and don't have a photo ID. So by making this change in particular, a lot of folks are going to get caught in that trap and will not know that law changed, so this will help absolutely.

SENATOR LUCIO: Senator, I'd like to live to see the day that we as American citizens in this great country of ours can show up, whether it's early voting or election day, and just have the proof that we are American citizens and have the ability to vote. I think that is not only an incredible right, but a responsibility we have as citizens of our country. And I just would hope that we could catch up to some of these other countries around the world where that's the case unfortunately.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, Senator, thank you for your leadership on this over the years. Let me tell you, my prediction is under this more restrictive language in Senator Fraser's bill, does -- that's more restrictive than Indiana, the state that he patterned it after, we are going to go from 46th to 49th or 50th in terms of our turnout because a lot of people are going to be turned away.

SENATOR LUCIO: God forbid that.

SENATOR ELLIS: I move adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 28.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, I think all of you recognize this is procedures for same day registration. Senate Bill 14 is not the proper forum for debate on this issue. I would now move to table amendment 28.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Ellis to close.

SENATOR ELLIS: I ask respectfully to vote against Senator Fraser's motion.

THE PRESIDENT: The issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Ellis. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Now, members, there being 20 ayes and 10 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment, Floor Amendment No. 29 by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 29 by Gallegos.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to explain Floor Amendment 29.

THE SECRETARY: Page 27 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gallegos, just one moment. Senator Zaffirini, are you wishing to speak?

No, it's not. That's the computer light. All right. We misunderstood. We saw red light, but it's your computer light.

Excuse me, Senator Gallegos. You're recognized to explain Floor Amendment 29.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment -- yesterday, in the Committee of the Whole, you heard the assistant director of DPS, she stated in questioning by Senator Whitmire that some of the waiting time at the DPS centers is sometimes two to three hours long. And that was just as of last week. Members, what this amendment would do is requires -- really, for the working folks -- that DPS offices process driver's licenses and ID cards that are required to vote under Senate Bill 14 to offer extended hours and on Saturday hours, increasing accessibility to required types of ID to the working class people. The amendment simply stipulates the DPS offices offer at least one evening a week staying open until 7:00, and at least two Saturdays a month, operate for at least four hours. And these extended hours make it easier for people who during business hours during the week and are unable to take off, members. And they're unable to take off work to get an ID as required under Senate Bill 14. I don't think that's very excessive. I think that's at least what we should do to the working men and women that we're going to mandate to -- for them to get a voter ID photograph from these DPS centers, and, Mr. President, I move adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Gallegos. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 29.

SENATOR FRASER: And members, this is like the last two issues that Senator Gallegos brought up. Senate Bill 14 is not the appropriate place to debate DPS operations. We don't know the expense of this, and I would now move to table Amendment 29.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Fraser. The Chair now recognizes Senator Gallegos to close on Floor Amendment 29.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I just -- you know, I think this is the appropriate time because Senate Bill 14 mandates that photo ID be required. And for those men and working people in your districts that can't get to a DPS center during business hours and I'm telling you just to give them a chance after hours and on Saturdays so they -- those that can't even get off of work to be allowed to at least after work be allowed to go get a photo ID. That's all I ask, members, and I ask you to vote "no" on the motion to table.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser, opposed by Senator Gallegos. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following Amendment: Floor Amendment No. 30 by Senator Ellis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 30 by Ellis, Uresti, Rodriguez, page 28 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Ellis on Floor Amendment No. 30.

SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President, members, this amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report to determining whether the changes in the law instituted by this bill would produce additional impact on any population of subgroup. It would go from a number of voting eligible residents that have and do not have a form of ID required under the bill, the number voting eligible residents with the required form of ID that failed to comply with Senate Bill 14 only because the address is not current, the name on the ID does not match current records like maiden name or the ID is expired, the average voting time by precinct, the nearest DPS license facility to provide driver's licenses and personal IDs, the number of eligible voters that were prevented from voting due to the enhanced ID requirements made by this bill, and analyze by subgroup on whether the changes made in this bill will produce additional impact on women, the elderly, persons with disabilities, students or racial or ethnic minorities.

Senator Fraser, I can no more prove, without this bill being in effect, that it has the district impact that folks on my side are afraid of, nor can you prove that this bill is going to deal with the issue that you're concerned about in terms of people voting who should not vote. And there's nothing worse than when we do something and we don't know the consequences of it. But in case there are unforeseen consequences from this bill, as is a case with most bills we pass, this simply asks the Secretary of State to do the report annually, and it has no impact on the implementation of the bill. And I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. If not, I move for adoption.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 30.

SENATOR FRASER: This -- members, this is a discussion that Senator Ellis and I had last night. All the data that he's requesting, any member can request that at the start of every session. We're going to be back here at two years and every two years after that. We're sitting here now and I feel sure that you will likely request that. Putting that in the statute requiring it from now on, I don't think it would be necessary. When we come back, I feel sure that you will ask for this and we will look at the data, but I would oppose putting it in statue. I would now move to table amendment 30.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Ellis to close on the amendment.

SENATOR ELLIS: Members, part of the problem of this bill is that we don't know the consequences. This district impact report simply requires that it be collected. All this information may not be collected. There's information we were asking for yesterday, as you know, my desk mate probably said that 30 times "ask the Secretary of the State." Well, some of us did and we're still waiting on the answers. So what this does is simply say if you're going to make a fundamental change like this, and this is a major change. And I think all of us would be naive to try and argue it is not going to have an impact on turnout. It will. It's going to have an impact on how many people are going to vote. So I would encourage you to just let us include in this bill a requirement that that be a statement. The collection of the data -- all this data will not be collected. We didn't have it yesterday. This just complies with what my distinguished desk mate was saying all day yesterday: "Ask the Secretary of State." Just requiring that they collect the data so the next time somebody asks, they can get it. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ellis. Members, the issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by the Senator Ellis. And the Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following Amendment: Floor Amendment No. 31 by Senator Van de Putte. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 31 by Van de Putte, page 30 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte on Floor Amendment 31.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, the amendment that you see before you amends the bill by just adding two sections or two parts in the bill. Doesn't take up any change in the law, but what it does ask for is a certification. When this bill takes effect, we really want to make sure that two things occur. And I've got to tell you, very, very happy to at least see the voter education and outreach. But before that, we've all talked about how difficult it is with costs. So what my amendment would do would be to ensure that this very different change in voting procedures doesn't take effect unless we make sure from state agencies that there's some sort of certification that the proper steps have been taken. So the first part is to make sure and that to have our comptrollers certify that there has been enough funds and that the funds have been appropriated and so that it would have that the comptroller makes sure that it's fully funded -- that she certifies that it's fully funded or determines. And the second part, because of the duties of the Secretary of State that those divisions have, and they do an excellent job of doing the training for -- or at least putting the guidelines -- the training for those election judges and registrars at the local level. Those are the county. And this would have the Secretary of State certify that their office is ready so that the Secretary of State is fully ready to implement this, and then that each county has complied with the change in the law. So if you look at it, I don't believe it's an unfunded mandate because what they have to do -- and if you look at the wording in line 11, that they had to -- just they have to certify that the changes in the law have been developed of the training component and the information required by this act has been done and that they are prepared to implement the changes as applicable.

So the first draft that I got, I've got to tell you, Senator Fraser, I really didn't like because I was concerned about the unfunded mandate, but all this does is make sure that the Secretary of State, first of all, certifies that their office is ready to go. The second thing that it would do is it would have the registrar -- the county officials certify to the Secretary of State that they're ready to go and that they are prepared. It doesn't say that they have done the training, but it just says that they have developed the training and the information and they are prepared to implement. So it doesn't require the certification that they have implemented, but they're -- that they are, again, ready to go.

Members, one's right to vote is way too prescious for there to be a possibility that someone would have that right denied because they didn't know about the new provisions of this law or we didn't have our county officials ready. All this amendment does is to make sure that we tell the people of the state of Texas we've done this law and our Secretary of the State is ready to go and ready to implement and that our county officials are ready to go and, of course, the most important thing is the comptroller saying, "Yeah, the funds are there and we have enough to certify the budget ready to go." So Senator Fraser, I hope you looked at it, but I kind of call it the "ready to go" amendment. It makes sure that we are indeed prepared for this really different change in our election law.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 31.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this amendment goes way outside the normal procedures for either one of these agencies. This is a legislative body. We write the law. It's up to the Executive Branch to get the law implemented. I would now move that we table amendment 31.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte on Floor Amendment 31.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Well, thank you, but I respectfully disagree. The Secretary of State has to certify to the Federal Elections Commission that all rules and guidelines are going to be adhered to, and they do this through the Elections Administration Survey that is done. And with that survey, they have to certify that they have complied with federal election law and state election law. So they already have to certify to basically the federal elections officials that they are -- but this just says that the county officials say that they are ready to go and it doesn't state, Senator, that they've done the training, it just says that they are ready to implement the training that has been developed. And I think the comptroller pretty much certifies a whole lot bigger things like our revenue estimates and everything else, and so asking her is, I don't think, is going to out of bounds of what her regular scope of duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the state of Texas. So I would respectfully request that you should vote "no" on the motion to table.

MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte. The issue before us, ladies and gentlemen, members, is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Van de Putte. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: Floor Amendment No. 32 by Senator Watson and Senator Rodriguez. The Secretary will read amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 32 by Watson and Rodriguez, page 31 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Watson on Floor Amendment No. 32.

SENATOR WATSON: Mr. President, thank you very much. Members, this amendment would point out that this act does not make an appropriation and it would only take effect if a specific appropriation for the implementation of the act is provided by a general appropriations act of this legislature. You might be feeling deja vu, not just because we are talking about voter ID again, but because you will recognize this amendment as what we referred to as the Ogden amendment during the last session of the legislature. I move approval of this floor amendment. And it is, after all, Ogden heavy, as Chairman Ogden points out. Yes, that is correct.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 32.

SENATOR FRASER: I want to make sure we got that in. This is just not regular Ogden, this is Ogden heavy.

SENATOR WATSON: This is the full bore Ogden amendment.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator Ogden, do you have -- would you like to comment? And I would give yield to Senator Ogden.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Ogden.

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, I do. I appreciate Senator Watson joining me in our tight fistedness with the state budget, so I want to thank you for that. And --

SENATOR WATSON: You finally gave me something that I really enjoyed doing now with you, Senator Ogden.

SENATOR OGDEN: And he brings up in a way a bigger point because as we go through the session, we are going to have to deal with many bills that have fiscal notes, and though this process worked last time and I think it's the best that we can do today, so I have no -- I intend is to vote for your amendment -- I would also encourage us to think very hard about coming up with a better procedure going forward.

SENATOR WATSON: And if I might, Mr. President. I agree with you Senator Ogden and that was part of the reason I made the effort to change our rules and do some of those kinds of things, because specifically, with this budget, I think that's appropriate. And I think one of the maybe positive unintended consequences of this so-called emergency is that we had the opportunity yesterday on this floor to ask a lot of questions that were left unanswered about what the actual cost of this bill was. But we are seeing such an effort to pass the bill just so that the bill can be passed that we're willing to gloss over those questions about fiscal responsibility. And so that is one of the reasons I'm offering this amendment is to assure that, as this session goes forward, we do maintain some level of fiscal responsibility no matter or how badly we may want to pass a bill like this.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: We debated this a lot last night that we're -- we fully believe that the cost of this will -- we think will come from federal (unintelligible) funds, but I think as a backstop, I think it's very appropriate that we have the Chairman of Finance say that, you know, we need to make sure that if we're going to do this, then we need to pay for it. I think that's what we're doing with this amendment. This amendment is acceptable the author. Thank you for bringing it forward, Senator Watson.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, members, the issue before us is the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 32, which is supported by Senator Watson, which is supported by the bill's sponsor, Senator Fraser. The Secretary will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar --

THE PRESIDENT: There being 30 ayes and no nays, the Floor Amendment 32 is adopted.

The following floor amendment, Floor Amendment No. 33 by Senator West. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 33 by West, page 32 in your packet.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator West to explain Floor Amendment 33.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And consistent with what we're here to do, our number one job is to pass a budget. And we know that based on the budgets that have been introduced, that some experts are saying that we may lose 80- to 100,000 jobs in our public school districts. Members, in 2008 or either the 2009, many of our school districts had to declare financial exigency and basically they didn't have any money to operate. And I know that many of you are hearing back home the same thing, that based on the cuts that will be occasioned by the legislature, there may very well be numerous layoffs in our public school districts. And the question is whether or not that's going to be a priority. The priority being making certain that we put every penny that we have towards ensuring that the teachers that we currently have stay in place, Senator Shapiro, that the pay that they currently have is still in place. For the reality is that we are holding our school districts accountable, not only for passage of making certain students pass our tests, but also accountability -- a whole hose of accountability measures. And the reality is also that the budget as introduced in both the House and the Senate that school districts will in fact lose money.

In fact, Senator Nichols, St. Augustine ISD had to declare a financial exigency. But I don't know how many employees they lost, but the reality is that we know that if there's a financial crisis, school districts must respond. And all of us recognize that school districts are going to tighten their belt just as we tighten our belt.

Now, why do I bring this to your attention? The reason I bring it to your attention, we had long discussion yesterday that would use HAVA funds, but when this DPS testified, they indicated to all of us, Senator Fraser, that they didn't know what the cost was going to be in order to implement this bill, which basically says that they're going to be -- that they will end up having so use some general revenue. We recognize that general revenue during this particular phase of our history is more precious than ever and that every dollar that we have -- every penny, Senator Whitmire, that we have, we need to make certain that we fund our public schools. And so what this particular amendment basically says is that if after passage of a general appropriation act during this legislative session, the funding provided to our school districts through the foundation school program -- and for those members, the foundation school program is the key program that we use in order to fund our public schools -- or through direct distribution to the districts. And if it's not -- if we have not put in sufficient money to maintain the current distribution per teacher and to maintain an equal number of teachers in the district, then this particular bill has no effect. And so knowing that Senator Ogden and many of us on Finance will be working to make certain that we fund our public schools, your public schools, our public schools in state of Texas, I think that we send a right message in terms of exactly what our priorities are by passage of this particular amendment. I move the adoption of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment thirty three.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, the education of our children are no doubt a very, very important thing -- a function the state performs, but the bill before us, Senate Bill 14, is not the appropriate vehicle to debate educational funding. I would now move to table Floor Amendment 33.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator West to close.

SENATOR WEST: Members, you vote how you want to vote. You need to make certain that you send the right message, and I think the message is as funding -- and I understand there's a political divide -- I understand that there is a political divide over the voter ID law, but I don't think there is a political divide over making certain that we provide the necessary funds to public education in the state of Texas. And so when you decide on this particular vote, you need to decide whether or not voter ID, funding voter ID has a higher priority than funding of our public schools.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 33 opposed by Senator West. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table Floor Amendment 33 prevails.

The Chair lays out the following amendment: Floor Amendment No. 34 by Senator West.

The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 34 by West. This is not in your packet. Amending Senate Bill 14 in Section 23 of the bill.

THE PRESIDENT: I believe it's being passed out at the present time. The Chair recognizes Senator West on Floor Amendment 34.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, all of us -- how many of you are for unfunded mandates? Raise your hands. I didn't think so. All of us want to make certain that any mandate that we codify and send to the counties that we provide them the necessary financial resources to implement. Yesterday, as part of the fiscal note, we know, Senator Wentworth, Senator Van de Putte, Senator Zaffirini, that Bexar County basically said that they are going to have a fiscal note of some $381,000 in order to implement this bill. And I'd be willing to wager you that Bexar County, as other counties throughout the state, are having a fiscal crisis similar to those -- similar to the one that we're having here in the Capitol. If Bexar County is going to have to spend $381,000 to implement this bill, then they are going to have to come up with the money from someplace. And they're tightening their budget, I assume. And I hadn't looked at it, but I assume that they're tightening their budget, so something is going to have to give. So the question is whether or not, Senator Ogden, we want to send unfunded mandates to the counties. We have no empirical evidence at all about how much it's going to cost counties to implement this particular bill. And I'm pretty certain that this vote is going to go down, blue jerseys against red jerseys, unfortunately. But I know that all of us want to make certain that, Senator Fraser, we don't have unfunded mandates. And so when you vote on this, the bill basically -- the amendment basically says that we will not provide any unfunded mandates on our counties. Let me say that one more time. I assume that Senator Fraser is going to say let's table this. Your vote on tabling this is basically is a vote for unfunded mandates. And I would assume that if counties have to pick up any of the cost associated with implementation of voter ID, you would want to make certain that the state provides the financial resources necessary for those counties. And so, I hope that your vote reflects what our philosophy has pretty much been, no under-funded mandates on cities or counties in the state of Texas. I move passage of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Long afternoon. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 34.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this is another issue that we talked a lot about last night. The testimony from the Secretary of State's office is that their observation was that some of the counties that had estimated costs didn't realize that a lot of this would be picked up by the Secretary of State's office and a lot of it can come from HAVA funds. Their projection is that the bulk of this cost will flow that way. Hopefully, all of the cost. We have reports from numerous counties that believe that there will be no cost and they can pick up with the existing county services. I would now move to table Amendment 34.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator West to close.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President. If indeed it's not an unfunded mandate, then this particular amendment, once we place it on there, will have no effect. But the reality is, in their fiscal note yesterday, Bexar County said it was going to be $381,000, and I think there was another county said that it was going to be $80,000 and one other county said it would have no effect. And so the point is if indeed there will be sufficient funds in order to fund this, then it will not be an unfunded mandate. And so I would hope that you would vote against tabling this amendment. And let's make certain that we put this on this particular bill to ensure our citizens, our constituents back home that they will not be getting any unfunded mandates from state government. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, members, the issue is the motion before us by Senator Fraser to table the Floor Amendment No. 34, which Senator West opposes with both hands.

All right. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The chair lays out the following floor amendment: Floor Amendment No. 34 by Senator Patrick. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 35 by Patrick.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Patrick to explain Floor Amendment 35.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. And, Senator Fraser, thank you for your stamina today. Members, this is an amendment that would address an issue is that was discussed last night with the folks that were concerned about our community of disabled in Texas. What this amendment clearly does is allow an applicant who wishes to receive an exemption based on this disability from the requirement of Section 6301, that they must include a certification from a physician that a person has a disability under the labor code with the person's application. What this means in laymen's terms is that if someone is disabled and they want to be exempted from having to take a photo ID to vote, they simply must send in a letter from a doctor into the voter registrar and they could receive an exemption from having to take a photo. They can of course vote by mail as they do now by checking off the box, but many members of our community of the disabled will actually want to go to vote, but it could be a burden to receive -- to go and get that photo ID if they don't have one.

So if you look at this closely, members, at the bottom of the page, number two, we have an exemption for those who are seventy years of age or older as of January '12. This will also add an exemption to those who are disabled. They will have a registration card that when they take in will show that they are not required to have a photo ID. And I ask for passage.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 35.

SENATOR FRASER: The amendment is acceptable. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, Senator Patrick moves the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 35. It's acceptable to Senator Fraser. The Secretary will call roll.

THE SECRETARY: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden --

THE PRESIDENT: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the Floor Amendment 35 is adopted.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator.

The Chair lays out the following Amendment: Floor Amendment No. 36 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 36 by Davis amending Senate Bill 14 by following appropriately numbered sections beginning with Section 82.006.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain for Floor Amendment 36.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment goes to the heart of the issue that our disabled voters currently face and is in keeping with the amendment that was introduced by Senator Patrick a moment ago. It actually reflects part of the recommendation from the Carter Baker Report to make it easier for those in our disabled community to absentee vote. What it would allow is the creation of an opportunity for a disabled voter to receive a permanent absentee vote and status unless and until they asked that to be removed. It would allow the disabled voter to apply at the time that they register to vote or at a polling place on election day or during early voting. And then it would become activated on the first election after the application is submitted. I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 36.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 36.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, we appreciate you bringing this forward. This issue was just taken care of in the amendment that Senator Patrick did, and I would move to table this amendment, No. 36.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Davis on Floor Amendment 36.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. This actually isn't at all taken care of by Senator Patrick's amendment. Senator Patrick's amendment simply removes the requirement that a disabled voter would have to show a picture ID when they go in person to vote. What this amendment does instead is allows a permanent absentee vote status for a disabled voter who requests that status. In fact, it's the opposite of Senator Patrick's in the sense that it's looking at the absentee vote opportunity for the disabled voter, not the in-person opportunity for the disabled voter. And I would move that we vote "no" on the table to Floor Amendment No. 36.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, the issue before us is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Davis. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following Amendment: Floor Amendment No. 37 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 37 by Davis, amending Senate Bill 14 by adding the appropriate -- following appropriately numbered section to the bill, which is adding section 31.015 uniform statewide voter registration system.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Senator Zaffirini, do you wish to speak?

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: I had pressed my button to get permission to ask a point of information.

THE PRESIDENT: You're recognized.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Could you tell us, Mr. President, how many more amendments there will be before us.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We are on -- this amendment is Amendment No. 37. We have -- we have three more, and then we've had three or four amendments that were pulled temporarily and so we are going to have to go back to the author and ask if they want to bring it back up.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Okay. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Senator Davis on Floor Amendment 37.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Floor Amendment 37 seeks to implement another recommendation from the Carter Baker Report, which is to have a statewide voter registration system that would include the following: Expanded voter registration outreach; it would establish more registration offices, especially where distance between offices is determined to be prohibitive; it would provide for outreach to inform voting age population of registration status, registration locations and locations of precinct polling places. Voters would be able to verify and correct registration information 30 days prior to elections. Voter assistance hot lines and web sites which are active 30 days prior to elections would be created to answer questions, and it would establish an ombudsman at the state level to address cases of voter suppression, voter discrimination or other abuse against voters. In the face of a more limiting opportunity for voting in the state of Texas as is presented by Senate Bill 14, I feel it's important that we enhance and protect the rights of those who currently have the right to vote to the extent possible, and this amendment seeks to do that. I would move adoption of Floor Amendment 37.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 37.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, the Senate Bill 14 is a voter identification a photo ID bill. This bill deals with registration. This is not the appropriate forum to bring this issue forward. I move to table Amendment 37.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Davis -- excuse me, for the delay -- recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, as I stated, I believe that Senate Bill 14 that we are voting on today serves to very likely limit or decrease the opportunity for legal voting citizens in the state of Texas to exercise their right to vote. I feel it's important that if a bill like that is to pass, we do everything we can to enhance that right to the extent possible, which is what this amendment seeks to do. I would therefore ask that we respectfully vote "no" on the motion to table for Amendment No. 37.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, the issue is the motion by Senator Fraser to table Floor Amendment 37. Senator Davis opposes and the Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The Chair lays out the following amendment: Floor Amendment No. 38 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 38 by Davis, amending Senate Bill 14 by adding appropriately numbered section.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain the Floor Amendment No. 38.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Currently, when voters are notified that they have been removed from the voter registry for particular purposes, the reasons that trigger that notification are fairly limited. This amendment would seek to expand the purposes for which notification is provided. One, in the death of a voter, because actually, sometimes the person is removed from a voter list based on the belief that they have died when they actually have not. The other would be notice that the residence is outside the country, which could possibly be incorrect. The other would be where the voter had applied to vote in other county or state, which, again, is possibly incorrect. And then finally, a notice of cancellation due to a voter's name appearing on a voter suspense list, which could be incorrect. This simply seeks to assure that when a voter is removed from the voter registry, it is being done for proper purposes and provides as much an opportunity to cure a defect that might have been created in the removal of the voter registry as possible. I would move adoption of Floor Amendment 38.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 38.

SENATOR FRASER: As in the last issue relating to requirements to vote, this bill deals with the registered voter registration. This is not the appropriate forum. I would now move to table amendment 38.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fraser moves to table. The chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I would again simply say that it is my strong belief that the Senate bill that we are voting on today would serve to limit the number of voters who are legally registered and voting today, and I'm simply trying to create corresponding opportunities to enhance the protection of legal voting rights in the state of Texas to the extent possible simultaneously as we take up this issue. I would respectfully ask that we vote "no" on the motion to table Floor Amendment No. 38.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, the issue is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Davis. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

The following Floor Amendment --

The Chair lays out the following floor amendment: Floor Amendment No. 39 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 39 by Davis amending Senate Bill 14 in Section 7 of the Bill.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain Floor Amendment 39.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Floor Amendment number -- is this No. 40? 39? Floor Amendment No. 39 seeks to address a concern with regard to indigent voters who may not be able to obtain proof of identification because they cannot afford the fees that would provide them with that identification. What this amendment would allow would be for the indigent voter to fill out a provisional ballot. If a voter is accepted for a provisional ballot under this amendment, they would not later than the sixth day after the date of the election present proof of their identification to the voter registrar for examination of the earlier voting ballot board or execute an affidavit before the voter registrar affirming under penalty of perjury that the applicant is indigent. It provides that the description of indigency would follow the government code in the state of Texas, which states that an indigent person means that an individual who earns not more than a 125 percent of the income standard established by applicable federal poverty guidelines. This amendment mirrors the Indiana indigency provision in the Indiana voting law, which allows for an indigent person to be relieved from the cost of providing identification in order to vote. I would respectfully move adoption on Floor Amendment No. 39.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes -- Senator Duncan, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Question for the author of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Davis yield?

SENATOR DAVIS: Yes.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Senator Davis. I saw your amendment earlier on and had been working on an idea to deal with the issue of someone who is indigent and who may not be able to afford to pay the fee to get the birth certificate. I think we heard some testimony on that last night. So, I've come up with an idea. Let me ask you a couple of questions on yours, though. As I understand yours, the person would be eligible to vote without a provisional ballot. It would just be if they executed an affidavit that they were indigent at the voting place, then they would be able to go ahead and vote. Just a regular ballot, is that correct?

SENATOR DAVIS: Actually, I don't belief that is correct, Senator Duncan. It provides that a person who is indigent and who is unable to obtain proof of ID without the payment of a fee, shall be provided a provisional ballot as provided under Section 63.011. So they actual would be required to vote provisionally.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Well, I didn't read it that way, and so I came up with an alterative version and I'd like for you, if you wouldn't mind pulling this one down --

SENATOR DAVIS: Of course.

SENATOR DUNCAN: -- let's look at it and see if it works.

SENATOR DAVIS: I'd be happy to do that. Thank you, Senator Duncan.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lucio, did you wish to speak on this?

SENATOR LUCIO: No. Thank you, Mr. President. I think she's going to pull it down and I'll ask some questions a little later. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Senator Davis temporarily pulls down -- are you pulling down? Pulls down the Floor Amendment No. 39.

The following Floor Amendment, Floor Amendment No. 40 by Senator Duncan, Ogden and Patrick. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 40, by Duncan, Ogden and Patrick being passed out.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan on Floor Amendment 40.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Floor Amendment No. 40 is a modification of Senator Davis' amendment, and I think it makes it clear that if a person is an indigent person as defined in state law in the government code, then that person then would be able to cast a provisional ballot. And like under the bill as stated, for a person who does not have the identification can then return to the registrar and execute an affidavit under the penalty of perjury if the person is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed. And that's very similar to, if not identical to, the provision in the Indiana law. And it will be a failsafe provision for those persons, and I think this language makes that very clear. And I know we heard some testimony yesterday with regard to those concerns and issues. And so we believe this would be an appropriate provision to put in the bill to accommodate that concern.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Davis, for what purpose?

SENATOR DAVIS: To make a comment to the author of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I'll yield.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator Duncan. I read your amendment and I certainly have no pride or authorship on this issue. I think your amendment actually does do a better job of spelling out how we create this protection. It does it not only for an indigent voter, but also for someone who has a religious objection to being photographed. I support your amendment whole heartedly and will pull mine down and give you my vote and support of your amendment. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 40.

SENATOR FRASER: I would declare that it is good work on the Senators. They've -- it's an issue that we have been talking about all day how to solve it. Senator Duncan, I appreciate you working on it. And there were couple of other senators involved, but this is very acceptable and to the author.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue is on the adoption of Floor Amendment Number 40.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Mr. President, before we do that, could we add Senator Davis' name to the amendment? She said yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. The issue is that the adoption of Floor Amendment 40 by Senator Duncan, which is supported by Senator Fraser. The Secretary will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson --

THE PRESIDENT: There being 30 ayes and no nays, the Floor Amendment Number 40 is adopted.

Would Senator Davis and Senator Fraser come forward? We have some amendments that have been pulled and I want to see what the status on that is.

(Senators Davis and Fraser approach the podium for a private discussion.)

Senators, we've got three amendments that have been temporarily pulled and we're going to bring those up and then we're through with the amendments.

Floor Amendment No. 11 by Senator Davis was temporarily withdrawn. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 11 by Senator Davis and Senator Ellis and the Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 11 by Davis amending Section 7 of the Bill.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain Floor Amendment 11.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. As described earlier in the afternoon, this is the amendment that seeks to provide an opportunity for a woman whose name has changed through marriage or divorce either to correct that information by presenting a marriage license or a divorce decree to the election representative or by executing an affidavit stating that her name is the name on the precinct list of the registered voters but has been changed through marriage or divorce so it does not match that name that's listed on her state issued ID card. I have worked with Senator Fraser on the amendment. Senator Fraser has requested that I remove that affidavit portion, which would take away the woman's opportunity to provide an affidavit swearing under penalty of perjury that her name change because of marriage or divorce and instead only leaves her with an opportunity to vote if she is able to present a marriage license or a divorce decree. My concern about striking the affidavit language is that we actually will be creating a more burdensome situation than currently exists under the law today. As the Secretary of State's office testified yesterday, at least right now, there's discretion in the offices of our county registrars in terms of how they deal with this situation. And certainly it's the case that today in many precincts woman are able to go in and clarify that the change in their name has occurred through marriage or divorce and that is acceptable to the precinct election officer. If we take the affidavit language out of this amendment, I'm afraid that we are creating a greater burden than exists today because that would take away that discretion and actually provide that it be only be allowed where a marriage license or a divorce decree could be provided. And I can't accept the amendment to my amendment that Senator Fraser was proposing, so I would continue to ask for support of Floor Amendment No. 11 in its current form.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 11.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, Senator Davis has actually outlined it pretty much exactly the way this is played out. We've been working for the last hour and a half trying to find a way that this amendment would work. The first two sections she's amending, which is I and the No. 1, we're comfortable with and be willing to take. And we ask her to take No. 2 out that it would be acceptable and I would be glad to take the amendment. I think Senator Davis believes that in her interpretation that if we take out 2, then it would possible change it and not make it better than current law. We disagree or I disagree that that is the case. And we tried hard on this and we tried to get it through and I don't think we are going to get there and I -- Senator, I think I'm going to have to move the table Amendment No. 11.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would just urge that where a woman is willing to sign a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury that the reason that her ID last name does not match the last name on the registrar's list is because she has married or divorced should be sufficient for us to be able to trust that that's a valid voter standing in front of a registrar asking to exercise their right to vote. And as a consequence, I would respectfully ask that we vote "no" on the motion to table Floor Amendment No. 11.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, you heard the motion to table by Senator Fraser. Senator Davis opposes. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 18 ayes and 12 nays, the motion to table prevails.

Also temporarily withdrawn, the Chair, lays out Floor Amendment No. 15 also by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 15 by Davis amending Senate Bill 14 by striking Section 12 of the bill and substituting a new Section 12.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis on Floor Amendment No. 15.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment, as I said earlier, seeks to mirror the allowance for expired IDs as it exists in the Indiana law that was approved by the Supreme Court in 2008. What it would allow would be for a Texan too use an expired government-issued photo ID only if the photo ID expired after the last general election. What it seeks to allow is for a person to have been put on notice when they've gone to vote that their state-issued government ID has expired, give them a grace period to the next election to correct that and be able to use it in the future. It would expand the period of time that an expired government ID could be used from that amendment that was accepted that Senator Lucio presented earlier in the evening, which was a 60-day grace period to a grace period between general elections, essentially, which could be up to a two-year period of time. Again, it does mirror that language in the Indiana law, and I would move approval of Floor Amendment No. 15.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on the Floor Amendment 15.

SENATOR FRASER: Again, Senator Davis' explanation is correct. This was the one we talked about earlier. Since then, I accepted amendment by Senator Lucio. Senator Lucio offered up an amendment that if someone's driver's license expired, we would have a grace period of two months. If it had been expired two months, they still would be eligible to vote. This amendment is attempting to expand that where it could be up to two years, and we think the amendment accepted from Senator Lucio is sufficient. I would move to table Amendment 15.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. For the reasons stated previously, I would respectfully ask that we vote against the motion to table Amendment 15.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, the issue is the motion to table by Senator Fraser opposed by Senator Davis. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: There being 19 ayes and 11 nays, the motion to table prevails.

Senator Davis withdraws Floor Amendment No. 6, replaces it with Floor Amendment No. 41.

SENATOR DAVIS: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Which we're handing out as we speak. The Chair lays out the Floor Amendment 41 by Senator Davis. The Secretary will read the amendment.

THE SECRETARY: Floor Amendment No. 41, by Davis.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain Floor Amendment 41.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. This reflects a slight change to what was presented earlier as Floor Amendment No. 6 after working with Senator Fraser and his staff. I do believe that the inclusion of the language as you see handwritten into this Floor Amendment does improve upon the intent of the amendment, which is to create an opportunity for an election officer to allow a voter to vote where the name on the documentation doesn't exactly match that that's on the list of the registered reporters but is substantially similar and where the voters submits an affidavit stating that he or she is the person on that list of registered voters. I appreciate Senator Fraser working with me on making the improvement to this amendment, and with that, I would ask to adoption Floor Amendment 41.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment 41.

SENATOR FRASER: And members, I'm thinking this is the last amendment, so this is a good way to end the evening that Senator Davis very graciously worked with us. We had a small discomfort in this and we asked to insert this language just to clarify the intent. She agreed, and I think it improves the quality of the amendment. This is acceptable.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, the issue before us is the adoption of Floor Amendment 41 by Senator Davis, which is supported by Senator Fraser. The Secretary will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris --

THE PRESIDENT: There being 30 ayes and no nays, Floor Amendment 41 is approved.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, we've been asked by the staff -- they've been here very patiently working since we gamboled in about 2:40 this afternoon. I'm going to go ahead and -- I'm going to suggest that we stand at ease for fifteen, twenty minutes while we -- we stand at ease until 7:45, which is in twenty minutes.

End of Senate session two.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: Members, if the Senate will come to order.

The Senate will come to order.

The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President, I would now move passage of Senate Bill 14 to engrossment.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, Senator Fraser moves the passage of engrossment for Senate Bill 14. The Secretary will call the roll. Excuse me. I didn't see -- Senator Van de Putte? For what purpose, ma'am?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: To speak against the Bill.

THE PRESIDENT: You are recognized.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. And Mr. President, members, Chairman Fraser, we've gone through a long process on this, and I'll be brief on my comment. What we saw today and the concerns of many who have proposed the amendment to this voter identification bill was to lessen the burden and to reduce the barriers that would be imposed on many of the folks here in Texas with this. And I just want to share that what we saw was some ability at least to try to mitigate that. Let's hope it sticks -- some of the amendments that were taken today, let's hope that it sticks through the process. But I have to tell you that I am highly disappointed because of several things but mostly because I don't really feel that we took care of the people who do have the greatest burden. Most of us are very blessed on this floor. We don't live in poverty, and we don't have problems with transportation. And some os us probably have never had to have that really stark reality of where that next dollar is going to come from.

But I have to share with you that at a time in our life as well that my husband, Pete, and I had a very, very difficult time. In 1986, my husband became very ill and was hospitalized for several months. Being hospitalized here and then to the Mayo clinic and being a mom with a pharmacy and another little flag business four small children, very quickly, we got behind. You know, almost losing the car, in fact, having to give up one, trying to bargain with the mortgage company to hold back a little, and I got a second job. I had a day job and a night job. And I tell you this because before that time, the worst burden for me was unloading the groceries. I just despised the fact going to the groceries and with a big family and with grandparents living with us that I would have to unload those groceries and walk from the car to the house and to the car to the house and then put them up. It was a chore that I just hated to do. Well, in February of '86, that kind of changed. And for the next year, I've got to tell you that I went to groceries with about $20 bill every other day because the cash flow was really tough. It took us a while to get back on our feet, but pridefully, I guess, we didn't ask our parents for help through that. And we just thought we could do it on our own. You know, that's kind of what most Texans try to do. They try to do what they can.

And so the time came where Pete got better and after several months, was actually able to drive a car and then to try to get his business back into shape but I still worked at that second job for several years. But that first time I got to go back to the grocery store and I got to get more than 20 dollars' worth of stuff and I got to load up -- because, see, before that time, I went to the grocery store and just wrote the check out. I it didn't even bother me. Because I knew we had enough money to cover for it. Well, when we got back on our feet and I got those groceries, on the way home pulled into the driveway I just laid on the horn. I was beeping the horn and screaming for the kids to come out and help me. It was so joyous. It was so exciting. It was just -- you cannot believe how wonderful it was to unload all these groceries again. And then it hit me how absolutely stupid I was. I never knew the joy of doing something that I thought was a burden before because I had never been in anybody's shoes. I had never been that poor. I had never been faced with transportation problems. And so for those of us who hadn't had that -- you know, it was the worst experience that I had to go through in our lives and it was the best experience I had to go through. They said God never gives you anything you can't handle and we handled it. But it gave me a humility that I would have never experienced and I think ultimately led me to be a better mother, a better wife, and a better business owner and ultimately, hopefully, a better decision maker here.

My fear is that what we've done today is that although we've helped slightly those folks who have that burden, we have placed so much on them now for that just basic right to vote. So for us, we are blessed. But we must remember those that we represent and who live in this state and who for them, that little bag of groceries is a constant. For them, the challenge of even getting anywhere either in public transportation or in remote areas of the state is constant. And so as we decide this framework of the most basic right, I am so sad because in my heart, I feel we have done a disservice to those who aren't as blessed as you and I. I'll vote no on this measure because we can do a lot better.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to speak against this bill.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, we have heard hours of testimony on this issue and many of us on this floor have been dealing with the issue for years now and you have heard many conflicting sides of the issue on both sides. The bottom line is none of us want to condone voter fraud. I think we can all agree on that. And the larger issue, as I see it today, that I cannot live with voting for a bill that I believe will disenfranchise a large population of voters. Members, the right to vote is a most cherished right that any American can have. And it is unfortunate that today that moving this overly stringent, unnecessary bill who this chamber we are taking a step away from making to ensure that voting is fair and accessible to everyone. This bill does not serve to fix a problem. I've heard no testimony about any kind of voter fraud going on in my district right now that this bill would serve to eliminate. We have heard legitimate concerns from several of our colleagues on the floor and some of those who came testify before the committee. Concerns about whether the poor, elderly, disabled and minority -- many of the people that I represent and a lot that y'all represent, Senator Duncan -- and that they will be able to adapt to these restrictive provisions of this legislation without being disenfranchised. I share these concerns. And yes, we've heard many hours of testimony on this bill over the couple of days.

And, really, one witness that struck me, members, was Jerry Bonay from the Indiana Secretary of State's office, just before testifying that a bus full of nuns conspired to defraud the State's voting system, he noted that the sun came up after Indiana's voter ID law passed. Well, you know, I know that the sun will come up tomorrow after this bill passes through the chamber. And I know that the governor, who has wrongly declared this issue as an emergency, signs the bill into the law, and the sun will come up then, too. But I also know that when the day comes, a lot of the folks that I represent -- good, hard-working folks -- will find it harder and some will find it impossible to make it to the polls and participate in this democratic process. So, no, the world won't end, but we sure won't have made any progress towards the more accessible democracy for the kind of people that I represent.

And Senator Fraser, you know, I beg to differ with you. The Department of Public Service is all in this bill. It's everywhere in your bill. And I think the amendments that some of my colleagues put up there should have been accepted, but they weren't, especially on transportation, try to get access, and we are going to force these people to go get a photo ID, who at least they have got to have access and transparency where they can go and get it without walking or like my grandfather did. He didn't drive. My grandfather didn't drive. He had a bicycle where he goes, you know, but if you look at the map, that's a long bicycle ride, you know, to the edge of the other side of the town to get a photo ID. And I come from a fire fighting background and I know the shortcuts. And I look at the where the DPS centers are and I know the back roads and I know the shortcuts. And I know I can get probably to one of these centers and it will take me every bit -- even taking the shortcuts and I have a car. Take me about 45 minutes to get to the other side of town. But the people that I represent, they don't know the shortcuts. They don't know the streets that I know. They don't know how to avoid all them red lights to get to the other side of the town like I do.

And that's who I'm really thinking about, the ones that don't know the shortcuts, the ones that don't have the car like I do, the ones that don't have the money, you know, to even get to the other side of the town like we do here on this floor. Those are the ones, really, I believe that are being disenfranchised today, and their being left out of the loop. You know, like I said, Senator Fraser, DPS is all in this bill. And this is the right time to talk about how to get there and what DPS' role is going to be. And we just got a letter, members, from the Secretary of State on the fiscal note that we talked about yesterday. You know, and that note -- that letter said that in the methodology, there was two components to come up with -- in Missouri -- in Missouri -- this is the -- the Missouri fiscal note I was talking about yesterday. They're 19th in this country and we're number two the fiscal note they put over, they had two components, one for education, and one to provide the free ID. And that came up to $10 million in two years. And the fiscal note that I saw only shows 2 million. Now, their -- you know, the thing I can really come up with is that their paper is more expensive in Missouri, because we're only talking about only 5.9 million people, not 25 million that we have hear. So obviously, you know, it's -- maybe it's more expensive there. I don't know. But 5.9 million as opposed to 25 million, I don't get the math. And I really don't. I really do not get the math. And I was born at night, but not last night, Senator Fraser. And I know exactly what the bill says. DPS is all in it. You should have accepted some of our amendments. And because I feel that my folks are not represented under this bill and are denied access to the democracy. Well, they deserve the right to vote. I will be voting "no" on this bill.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to speak against bill.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. Members, as you know, I'm the newest member of this distinguished body. And I came here, frankly, with a great deal of enthusiasm and with hopeful anticipation that we would have a very productive session to resolve the critical issues that face our great state. And I do appreciate very sincerely the warmth and the cordiality and the tremendous welcome that I got by all of you, every single one of you, as a new member.

I have, in fact, been very attentive throughout the consideration of this voter ID bill, and I must say that I am baffled by the by the proceeding. In some ways, I guess I should say I'm also frustrated, because Senator Davis pointed out yesterday that there is a lot of frustration here in the room. I could feel it and I certainly felt it myself. Now, I'm going home tomorrow with Senators Ogden and Senator Williams to El Paso so that we can review the border security and border violence that's taking place in El Paso. And so we have very important meeting, but I know -- I know that when I get there and face my constituents and after meeting and then also meeting some on Friday and Saturday, that I am going to be asked by my constituents questions, many questions, in fact, about the week's deliberations here, and I know they are going to ask me, for example, why ask this issue is an emergency, especially in the face of a budget crisis. They're going to ask me: Is voter fraud a really problem in this state? They will ask: Why is this problem taking precedence over all the other problems that we are facing at this time? What's going to happen to our schools? What's going to happen to health care? How am I going to respond to my constituents on this question?

Now, as elected officials, isn't it our responsibility to increase participation in the democratic process? And I think some of my colleagues have very eloquently spoken to that issue, and I have been very impressed with the passion and the commitment and sincere concern that they have, as I do, with this bill and with the rejection of some of the amendments that is were intended to, as was pointed out by my colleagues, Senator Gallegos and Senator Van de Putte, to open up the process some more for those who may face some barriers. I believe, as elected officials, it is our responsibility to increase participation in the democratic process, not to decrease the participation. And I think we heard it yesterday, but I'm going to repeat it again, that in 2010 only 71 percent of the Texas voting age population was registered to vote. And of that, only 38 percent cast a ballot in the election.

Back home in El Paso, in El Paso County, turnout was even lower with just 23 percent of registered voter, 66 percent of whom are Latino, showing up at the polls. Dismal turnout as far as I'm concerned. What will I say to those who ask me why, if less than a quarter of El Pasoans voted in the last election, are we in the legislature so intent on making it more difficult for people to vote at least in my opinion?

How can I answer these questions honestly, sincerely and with respect both for my constituents and this body, the Senate? I ask you what your advice is to me on how to answer these questions. My fellow Senators, I cannot in good faith defend how we have frankly spent, you know, our time this week. I don't think I going to be able to look people in the straight face and answer that back home. I will have to be compelled to draw distinctions between the majority and the minority of the Senate. And I believe I am going to have to say that the majority is responsible. It was sponsor of this bill. And I will have to candidly say that I didn't think that a lot of our concerns were heeded -- that the pleas of the minority were not -- were not heeded by the majority. I don't know how else to explain the rejection of many amendments that I thought were very sensible, reasonable efforts to try to mitigate whatever potential problems might be visited on those who want to cast a vote and participate in our democracy. I will have to say that on the major issues such as this, the citizens represented by the minority have but a symbolic voice in this body. Symbolic voice because, I mean, we saw the vote pretty straight forward down the line. I will have to say that on this issue, and I anticipate others coming down, and I think, Mr. President, you did, in all fairness, point out to me when I first visited with you way back in July, that for the most part -- and not just you, but every single member of this body that I talked to literally assured me that we will be able to find consensus and reach consensus in this body 90 or even above percent of the time, that we are not like Washington, but that there would be, I think in all fairness, people point out to me some issues like voter ID, redistricting and perhaps others that are coming down the pike -- I know that sanctuary cities, for example, which is a critical and important issue in my community is going to be one of those -- that these issues were going to be divisive and they are we are just going to have to deal with them.

But quite frankly, I have to tell you I just was not prepared for the experience of the rigid positions that -- on both sides without there having seem to have been some kind of genuine attempt to try to look at each one of these provisions in the bill and the amendments and try to come to some resolution, some consensus about ensuring, above all, that people have the opportunity to -- to vote and to not have people's rights violated, as has been the history of this state over the years. And the professor yesterday educated us and reminded us about it. So I feel that I'm going to have to say to them that on these kinds of issues, we are deeply divided in this state and that we will need to stay vigilant lent to protect the rights and interests of just regular folks, the regular people in this state, those people that have been alluded to by my colleagues, hard-working people that want to participate, that need to participate, in order to make our state a strong state. So, members, I cannot in good conscience support this bill and so I feel compelled to vote against it. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator West to speak against the bill.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Rodriguez, make certain that you also tell our brothers and sisters in El Paso that elections have consequences and these are the consequences. This is a manifestation of consequences of elections. That's what this is. Members, we have decided to place voter ID, even though it's an emergency item, at the top of our agenda once again. We come into this session with our school districts in financial trouble. We come into this session with our counties with, our cities in a financial crisis and we put voter ID first. The majority has decided to do that. We come to this body, first thing out -- and I understand that we've had our political differences. We put on red jerseys and blue jerseys first right out of the box. We talk about voter fraud, and I know Senator Fraser has said that over and over again. But if you really did an analysis of it, the fraud is in absentee balloting. That's where it is. We've done nothing to address that.

We've dealt with voter ID. You pretty much heard the same testimony that I heard. And it relates to what the cost of this bill is. You heard through the representative from the Department of Public Safety that they have not been able to quantify exactly how much this was going to cost. My desk mate talked about the cards costing $1.67, but you also heard that they have not been able to get to what the cost will be because they really have no idea how many Texans will need these ID cards. They're going to need some additional GR, general revenue, in order to fund this. You also heard that if you still have your fiscal note, that there is going to be a cost on counties. And many of us have said there will be no unfunded mandates. The reality is that right in the fiscal note, Bexar County will have to spend at least $381,000. That's just one county. Where do they get the money from? Are they going to get it from the State? Some of you may say, "Okay, Senator, they may very well be able to use some of the federal funds." How do you know that all of those dollars that they said they are going to have to spend will be federal funds?

You know in various school districts, that there's going to be a lay off in our school districts. Yet and still, we couldn't pass an amendment that basically guarantees the people of state of Texas that we would do everything with our power to make certain that we keep our teachers in the classroom so they can provide the instructions necessary in order to make certain about our children can compete. Now, there'll be bills to talk about this session. Increasing the student-teacher ratio, there will be bills that do that. But we decided or it will be decided, that we could not support an amendment that would tell the citizens of the state of Texas that we will make certain that all of the general revenue that we can will be used not for implementing a voter ID bill, but first making certain that we maintain the number of teachers in our classroom. We decided not to do that. We decided to make certain that we would not pass any unfunded mandates.

I challenge us as a body and those of you that have decided that this is the direction that the state needs to go in that as this bill goes through the process, that you take a very close look at whether or not there are any unfunded mandates that we're passing on and whether or not we are going to take general revenue in order to support implementation of this particular bill that can otherwise be used to fund public schools in the state of Texas. Elections, Senator Rodriguez, have consequences. And these are the consequences of the elections. I hope and I pray, members, that we take our blue and red jerseys after tonight commit and take care of the business of the citizens of state of Texas.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio to speak against the Bill.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members, I guess I'll be very brief. We had a chance in this process to craft a bi-partisan bill. I truly believe that we passed up on that opportunity. I just don't know how an election bill can have any credibility without bi-partisan support, especially in this final outcome. The bigger picture is that we need to professionalize the entire way that we administer elections in Texas. The fact that we don't have the technological infrastructure in place to allow people to register and vote on polling day, in my humble opinion, is unfortunately shameful. The fact that we don't have the political will to invest in that infrastructure is again unfortunately just as shameful. Electoral reform should be paid for with revenue not rights.

I want to speak briefly in closing about the Senate rules. This body decided last week to amend the rules and bypass the two-thirds rule regarding voter ID. Some of us are very disappointed by that. But we only changed the rules regarding voter ID. In other words, I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that the rules that they stand still reflect the desire of this chamber to produce a bi-partisan budget, to take a bi-partisan approach to the huge fiscal problems we are facing in Texas. That's the approach that I started with when I came to that to that -- this chamber in 1991. And I look forward to moving on in that direction. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Lucio. The Chair recognizes Senator Zaffirini to speak against this bill.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, I rise to join my Democratic colleagues in voting against Senate Bill 14, which was supported unanimously by our Republican colleagues. And basically, members, what I worry is about is the future. We who are the political minority in this body do not want to simply be heard. We want to be at the table, we want to participate, and we want to have impact. And starting my 25th year in the Texas Senate, what I worry about in looking back at what happened today is: What does this say about the rest of the session? I hope that the once voter ID is off the table and dealt with, that we can come back on a bi-partisan basis and address the real issue, the most important issue facing the Senate and that is the budget that we must adopt. And I hope that in that process, all of us, all thirty one of us, will have an opportunity to have an impact not simply to be heard.

There are many reasons to oppose this bill. One is the unknown cost. Look at the fiscal note. How can you possibly take that fiscal note seriously? It simply does not address the unknown cost that we are worried about. And I won't belabor the points and repeat them because I identified them for you yesterday. Look at the unfunded mandates. They are incredible. They are incredible unfunded mandates. And yet, it is so easy to rise and say that we will not pass any bill that calls for an unfunded mandates. How can anyone say that with a straight face?

This bill also causes problems in terms of lack of accessibility, and I won't repeat what we pointed out earlier. You saw the map that showed 77 counties with without DPS offices. You heard the testimony about the negative impact on certain categories of women, on low-income persons, minorities, on persons with disabilities. There were good amendments offered to cure those problems, and yet they were rejected on partisan lines. I know that there were people in this chamber who wanted to vote on some of those amendments and simply did not. That's very difficult for me to understand.

Remember the letter that I shared with you from the Carter Baker Commission. And, specifically, they said very clearly -- that one commissioner said very, very clearly in black and white that this is bill inconsistent with the recommendations of the Carter Baker Commission. What else do we need? What else do we need to realize that this bill certainly is not satisfactory? And equally important, members, what does today say about the importance about the two-thirds rule? This bill will go -- will pass along partisan lines because there is no two-thirds rule. Were there a two-thirds rule in effect, we would have had to achieve consensus. The lieutenant governor could have been at his best, like he has been in on so many bills, and brought us together and said, "Reach a consensus." And we didn't. I will be voting against this bill for many reasons, some of which I repeated today, and I hope that more of you can join us in voting "no." But I understand the outcome. I see it clearly. It makes me sad. Thank you, Mr. President and members.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire to speak against the bill.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'm hours late, but if you'll allow me to speak. The good news is we conducted ourself in a very civil, respectful manner, which -- of which I'm sure we're all proud. The bad news is some of you are about to pass a bill that in my judgment, based on the testimony, has unlimited unintentional consequences. As recently as two days ago, I was thinking: What would I say if I really had an opportunity to speak to my colleagues? I would say well, I would probably say to Senator Rodriguez and Senator Birdwell, "Welcome to the state Senate. This is your first major piece of legislation." And from my experience, gentlemen, two days ago, I would have called this bill pretty typical of what you'll witness, if you'll bear with me. You're going to find, as we go through legislation that the proponents are going to make something sound like they just, the state has to have it, and the opponents are going to talk about the negative consequences. The truth of the matter is -- from my years of experience is, normally the proponents are stating a situation that's not nearly as good as they would state, which I certainly think this bill fits. Oftentimes in the debate, the opponents, things aren't nearly as bad as they are going to be. It's somewhere in between. But I can't say that tonight after having the testimony given. I have to honestly say this bill is worse than the opponents have stated. All you have to do, members, is remember the testimony of the DPS. It was so unfair, in my judgment, to have that lady there. I work very close with the DPS. I knew she had taken Michael Kelly's position only last June. She was is not equipped to answer the questions because, quite honestly, no one with DPS was probably prepared because it's all based on speculation.

The implementation of Senate Bill 14 has not been thought through. Senator Fraser, we have not put ourself in other people's shoes. The surcharge example itself shows how flawed this bill is. Some senators might say, "Well, they're law breakers in the first place." Let me give you an example somebody who came to my office. A woman comes to my office, a waitress, going back with her husband said, "Senator Whitmire, I need help. We're driving without a license because my husband, because he was broke and unemployed, cannot pay the surcharge. We're driving without a license." Senator Ogden, the unintended consequences of this bill is that you are going to force that person to go to the DPS office where they owe $6,000 and be concerned about can they go and leave without being apprehended. It has unintended consequences that none of us can anticipate until it's passed and placed in law.

Now, let me tell you a real concern that each and every one of you ought to have. We have given the DPS an assignment one that they didn't want -- they don't want, in my judgment. They want to be securing the border. They want to be patrolling our highways. Do you know the DPS tonight is 300 positions short of troopers from authorized levels. They can't compete with the cities for what the cities has paid their police officers. I know DPS officers and their staff want to be enforcing the laws. They want to take DWI drivers off the road. They want to secure the border. Some of you are going to the border tomorrow to meet with the DPS and see what we can do more to secure our border using our best police force. Our Texas Rangers have S.W.A.T. teams down there.

And what have we done? An underfunded agency that can't recruit people because they can't pay competitive salaries? We've given them the voter registration police assignment. Now, they've got to go into DPS offices in Houston, where I routinely get called because people wait two and three hours. They call me to see if I can get them in line at the front to go back to work. But now, they're going to be in charge of handling voter registration, for all practical purposes. There are unintended consequences to this bill that no one knows about. But I promise you it's not worse, Senator Rodriguez, than what the opponents claim. It's not as bad as what the opponents claim, it's worse. And it's too bad that we find ourself about to implement something, in my judgment, for political purposes that's going to, in my judgment, harm the state of Texas. You talk about polls. It's all about how you ask the questions, and quite frankly, I don't think we ought to be governed by polls. Senator Fraser, you probably have casino gambling and no telling what else that you probably not agree with the poll on. I think we've not put ourself in our people's shoes. I think, unfortunately, some of us have only looked at how it would affect the communities in which you live.

Let me close by saying we need to remember this experience. I'm of the opinion that without the two-thirds -- with the two-thirds rule, without the special order provision, we wouldn't be about to pass this bill. You need to remember it. The amendments on the floor, how they were handled -- and some of you may like it. Some of you may like and say it was fine. But I know for a fact before we had this special order, as recently -- or going back as far as two years ago, there was great dialogue about what our voter ID bill ought to have in it. We almost, I thought, made the progress. Of course, same-day registration was one of the considerations that the Democrats wanted. It was a deal killer for the other side of the aisle. That's fine. The bill wouldn't have been in it. But I promise you with the two thirds rule, some of the amendments that were turned down today, in my judgment, would have been included. If you watched the process today, Senator Patrick, the votes were very predictable. In fact, people were not working the floor, members, as we normally do to try to acquire support for your amendments. A reporter asked me other day, "Well, can you tell us what the outcome is going to be?" And I said, "I'll tell you exactly what the outcome is going to be. Nineteen people are going to pass it; 12 are going to oppose to it, as we've witnessed. So as we go forward, I hope we'll remember. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. Today I actually saw, Senator Duncan, I thought that one side the aisle or the 19 that had the majority were so in control and not needing to converse with others that one of the minority members' amendment was actually used by the other side. It certainly appeared that way.

I don't think the best bill that we could have passed if we wanted voter ID -- and Senator Fraser, we're very familiar with the issue. I know how concerned the public is. We share that. We're against fraud. We share the concern about the integrity of the ballot box. As professional politicians, we share that concern. You know, I don't know what kind of knock-down, drag-out campaigns you've been in. I've been several. I've been in them with a Hispanic opponent in Hispanic neighborhood. And people come to me and say, "You ought to be concerned about the registration process across your district." Fraud, as Senator West points out, does not happen on election day. It happens in the early voting. If we had the time, if you wanted to hear about it, I would tell you how I've witnessed that. We haven't addressed that. But the thing that disturbs me the most as we go forward is the lack of give and take, the amendment process, the fact that we didn't spend hours trying to define what the best bill that a majority of folks, certainly two-thirds of us could support.

Now, let me just close by saying if you like it -- because 19 folks got to run this place today with little consideration for the other points of view, the next time it may not be a partisan fight, Senator Birdwell. It could very easily be 12 Democrats and seven Republicans or it can be an urban coalition of 19 or it can be any philosophical group of people, and they won't have to slow down and take one of these green sheets and painfully walk around sometime and go desk to desk to make sure on each and every amendment that they've got their vote, and they sure won't have to go get a two-thirds count before they bring it up.

In closing, the only thing I can say good the about the point we are right now before we vote is the good news is this thing is out of our way. This bill is out of the way for the time being. And now we can go to work on, Troy, what I think the public would poll is the number one concern: the shortfall. All you got to read is any paper in this state about what the school districts are facing. They're scared. They're in a crisis. They consider that an emergency. And it's interesting. The governor didn't make the budget an emergency. We did, Senator Ogden. We essentially decided that four-fifths of us are going to make that an emergency. The school districts are scared. I got calls today from Goose Creek and Baytown. They don't know what to do. That's what they want to talk about, and the good news is voter ID is out of our way and now we can go to what the public believes is a true emergency. You know what I perceive as an emergency that you labeled the voter ID? An emergency is to me something that you need to feel like you need to call 911 on, that you're really in an urgent state. I made reference the other day. How many people are following this debate? Darn few based on the participation tonight.

But I do want to close by saying it's been a great civil debate. We ought to be proud of that at the time that Washington last night was making head lines and news just because they said (unintelligible). We routinely share each other's company, concern for each other, and we ought to go forward in that environment and deal with the public's business. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser for a motion to move Senate Bill 14 to engrossment.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President, I would now move passage of engrossment to Senate Bill 14.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Fraser. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, Senate Bill 14 passes engrossment.

I'm going to recognize now Senator Whitmire for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: I move that Senate stand adjourned until a quarter until nine.

THE PRESIDENT: Until a quarter to nine. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there any disagreement from any member?

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Mr. President, excuse me. I would like to do it in honor -- in memory of Joe Lemond Avila, a constituent of Senator Watson's that we spoke to today the resolution, and Dr. James Carl Duncan, a -- also recognizing resolution earlier today by Senator Watson, and Sergeant Wesley J. Rice, a constituent of Senator Van de Putte's that we honor in memory earlier today, one of the members of the armed service the deceased.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dean.

Before I call for a vote, Senator Van de Putte, did you wish to speak?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I would like to share with my colleagues the story of Sergeant Wesley Rice, who was --

THE PRESIDENT: You're recognized.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I have a resolution. We haven't passed it yet, but members, tonight is the rosary for Sergeant Wesley Rice of San Antonio. He was 27 years old and was a graduate of Fox Tech High School. He was a Marine, and his mom, Linda Rice, said that everything he did it was about his fellow man and about God and about this country. And so maybe it was fitting that he tragically died in service to this country. He didn't die on -- in the deserts in Afghanistan or Iraq. Actually, he was training his Marines on an LTV-7 amphibious assault vehicle at Camp Pendleton when the vehicle became submerged last week in California. What Sergeant Rice did is that he saved his men. He saved the five Marines and he was successful in pushing them out of that vehicle, but he stayed submerged and he was not able to escape. He leaves a wife, and he leaves his seven-month-old daughter, Gabriel. And I'm reminded that everyday that we get to be here because of the sacrifices of men like Sergeant Wesley Rice. And I move that we adjourn in his memory today.

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Whitmire moves the Senate stand adjourned until 8:45 this evening in memory of the different fine individuals that have already been mentioned. Is there any objection from any member? The Chair hears none. It's so ordered.

End of part three.

(A recess was taken.)

Begin part four.

THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will come to order. Would all those on the floor please rise? And in the gallery, please rise, ladies and gentlemen, for the invocation this evening to be delivered by Senator Craig Estes.

SENATOR ESTES: Members, welcome to the new legislative day. I hope you're relaxed and had a good night sleep. Please pray with me. Almighty God, please look kindly upon those who exercise governing power over your people, especially those of us here in the Texas Senate. I pray that we might always be People of honesty and integrity. May we be kept in good health with the support and the cooperation of those we serve. Give us, the men and women who help govern this state, wisdom, so we might always know right from wrong, good from evil and the difference between service to others and service to ourselves. May we always exercise our authority with complete fairness and for the common good of all. May we always have the ability to see a vision of better, more just and more equitable tomorrow. May all those who govern this state be men and women of deep faith, enduring hope and abiding love. Almighty God, when the human family is confronted with a serious difficulty or an unexpected crisis, please raise from our midst leaders who can solve our problems and help deliver us from all the elements which rob peoples of their peace of mind and inner sense of security. I pray in your Holy name. Amen.

THE PRESIDENT: Amen. Thank you, Senator. Ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, you can be seated if you wish.

The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Madame Secretary. The quorum is present.

The Chair will hear excuses for absent member. Senator moves to excuse Senator Uresti on matters of important business. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member. So ordered.

Senator Whitmire moves to dispense with the reading of yesterday's journal. Is there any objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member. So ordered.

Members, that concludes the morning call.

The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage of Senate Bill 14. The Secretary will read the caption.

THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill 14 relates to requirements to vote, including presenting voter identification.

THE PRESIDENT: Chair recognizes Senator Fraser for a motion.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Mr. President. I would -- before I make a final passage, I also would like to join Senator Whitmire in thanking the members for the way they conducted themself through this. It's a fairly long last two days. I agree it was a very civil manner that we proceeded. Members, I would now move final passage of Senate Bill 14.

THE PRESIDENT: Members, Senator Fraser moves the final passage of Senate Bill 14. The Secretary will call the roll.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Members, there being 19 ayes and 11 nays, Senate Bill 14 is finally passed.

The Chair lays out the following resolution. The Secretary will read the resolution.

THE SECRETARY: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8 granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning on Wednesday, January 26 and ending on Monday, January 31st by Whitmire.

THE PRESIDENT: The questions is on the adoption of the resolution. The Secretary will call roll.

THE SECRETARY: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick --

THE PRESIDENT: There being 30 ayes and no nays, the resolution is adopted.

Now, members, the president's desk is clear. Are there any announcements from any members? No announcements?

The Chair recognizes the Dean of the Senate has highly privileged motion.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate adjourn until 1:30 Monday, January 31st.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there any objection from any member? The Chair hears none. The Senate will stand adjourned until 1:30 on Monday afternoon.

Adjourned.