THE SPEAKER: The House will come to order. Members, please, register. Have all registered? Have all registered? Quorum is present. The House and gallery, please, rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to introduce our pastor of the day.
REP. VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, we're honored to have Dr. Ron Henderson here today from my hometown of Plano, Texas. He's a graduate of the Dallas Baptist University. And he is at Custer Road United Methodist Church as a senior pastor. Please, welcome Dr. Ron Henderson.
PASTOR OF THE DAY: Let us pray. God our creator, God of the universe, God of all people, God who breathes life and inspiration into all of your creation. We the people approach you, living God, to invoke your presence and give thanks for this day, and to give you thanks for these men and women who have been called to be servant leaders. We are committed to making Texas a better and a safer and a more wholesome place for all of her citizens, guests, and strangers alike. Creator God, as these men and woman of the Texas House of Representatives, wrestle with tough decisions, dreams, and visions for a better tomorrow, make their imaginations, their willpower, and compassion for all of your people transcend any barriers that may separate them one from another or hinder them from doing good for your people. Creator God, we are reminded from your holy book, the book that you gave us, that there is the Lord. This is your land and we're your people and the men and women who've been elected by your people into this Texas House of Representatives are your modern day judges and scribes, who are to do justice for all and to all. Eternal God, guide they're thinking, guide their deliberations, and guide their claiming of laws that will govern all of us. Guide their votes and guide their hearts. God, you have blessed Texas with natural resources and with resourceful people. In the midst of tough and challenging times, let this be a good legislative session. Good not for a few but for all of your people. May this legislature be guided by your righteousness. We thank you and pray in the name of the living God of the universe. Amen.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Nash to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Chairman, fellow Representatives and honored guests, will you join me with a pledge of allegiance to our flags?
(Pledges read).
THE SPEAKER: Excuse Representative Rodriguez because of the illness on the motion from Representative Howard. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Madam doorkeeper, for what purpose?
THE DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, we have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate is taking the following action.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I come before you today on this very special occasion. This is a special occasion because today our House previously adopted a resolution. It was a resolution honoring the birth of Ceasar Chavez. Particularly it's important to know who this gentleman was. He was a historical and important figure. He was a man of the Hispanic community and the worker community. He was a leader of the farm workers when nobody thought it could be done. He organized farm workers, individuals, people that did not have the ability in many cases. Laws were passed to not allow them to organize, to have better rights, better working conditions. To me it's important not only as a Representative here at the Capitol but also personally. I grew up as a farm worker working in the fields of all over the United States from Wyoming to Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio. In fact half of my family members were born up north because we used to go work in the fields. On the human side it is important today because today we start a discussion on the budget. And what we are going to talk about in that budget is about people's lives. One report has already indicated that had 300,000 people are going to lose their jobs. So, today as we debate the budget we must also take into consideration workers, especially teachers, especially state workers, any worker that does many things for us. With that being said, in recognizing this special day I would like to recognize some special guests that are here today with us. They are in the east side of the gallery. They are representatives from the AFL-CIO. They are representatives of all the workers of the State of Texas and briefly I'll mention them. With us today at the east side of the gallery, please, help me welcome -- and I will make the list and then we'll give them a round of applause. Representing the workers of Texas, the head of the AFL-CIO, John Patrick, Lee Forbes, Camile Lara, Dennis Anderson, Katy Hofler, Julia Alford, Terry Briggs, Jeff Lewis, Connie English, Dwight Harris, Molina Lod, and Derrick Osobase. Ladies and gentlemen, please, help me welcome the representatives of the workers of the state of Texas to the House of Representatives. Thank you for helping to honor Ceasar Chavez day.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis for a motion.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up H.R. 1021 honoring NASA.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out Resolution 1021.
CLERK: H.R. 1021 by John Davis of Harris. WHEREAS, For more than 50 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has played a vital role in the life of the nation and the State of Texas; and WHEREAS, Created by Congress in 1958, NASA ushered in an era of exciting innovations that have contributed to our nation's security, safety, and communications; from medical advances including MRI and CAT scan technology, fetal heart monitors, and programmable heart pacemakers, to explorations of space and important scientific discoveries about our solar system and beyond NASA has inspired generations of Americans; and WHEREAS, The agency has especially benefited the people of Texas; the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston is the home of America's Astronaut Corps, the site of mission control, and NASA's lead center for the International Space Station; it employs more than 3,300 civil servants and some 13,000 contractors and awards $5.3 billion in annual contracts; and WHEREAS, NASA's Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program has helped small businesses with technical challenges, resulting in the creation of new jobs and business ventures, and the agency's technological breakthroughs have positively impacted all of the state's major industries; furthermore, through such programs as Texas Aerospace Scholars, the NASA Explorer Schools, and the Network of Educator Astronaut Teachers, NASA has nurtured and inspired countless young people to become scientists, engineers and explorers; and WHEREAS, The year 2010 was significant for NASA as it celebrated the passage of the NASA Authorization Act, the 10th anniversary of the International Space Station, and the successful completion of three shuttle missions; in 2011, the agency will finish assembling the ISS and retire the shuttle fleet after two more missions; and . WHEREAS, NASA is a valued and indispensable part of the economy and culture of the Lone Star State, and Texans may indeed take great pride in the agency's extraordinary contributions to human knowledge, the spirit of exploration, and the progress of science and technology; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor the accomplishments and ongoing legacy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and recognize March 31, 2011, as Space Day; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for NASA as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
THE SPEAKER: Members, could we please have your attention. Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, we are honored today to have some very, very special guests with us. The NASA -- the NASA folks that are here. Today is what we call Space Day and we have a lot of different exhibits that are setup on the Capitol grounds, and also we're hosting a luncheon at the legislative conference center today. Folks, NASA has played a vital role in the lives of our nation and the State of Texas for over fifty years. And they are here today to educate all your offices on the important role that they are currently playing and what they see as a vision of the future. Please take advantage of the visit today and learn more about the various programs they participate in statewide specifically the Space Alliance Outreach Program, and our Texas Aerospace Program. And Aerospace Program which was passed in 1999, which allowed each and every member in the House to appoint a space scholar to go to NASA and to study for one year -- one year program. And we're very honored today, on the floor -- if you will notice we have our a big champion of NASA. She's been a tremendous supporter of manned space flight and she's done she is been a champion, in Washington D.C., Mayor Anise Parker, City of Houston's mayor, on the dais here with us today. We also have Mike Sherman, deputy director program manager of the International Space Program. Bob Mitchell, President of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. And also a very, very special guest, members, is a NASA astronaut, Doug Wheelock, if you'll notice Doug's suit he's wearing, it's a dark blue suit which is a Russian suit. And the reason why he's wearing a Russian suit it's because Russian rockets is what took him up and brought him back to the International Space Station. And they were not American rockets. And we are in a time of transition as we can get the American rockets back taken up there but it's a time of collaboration. Members, also we have Hannah Bradley, she's a aerospace scholar, she's an alumni from the University of Texas and she is the result of the Aerospace Scholars Program. We have Dr. Mike Kincaid, director of International Space Station, from NASA Johnson Space Center. If you would join me, Representative Legler, and Weber as we give these heros a warm welcome to the Texas House of Representatives. Move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Representative Legler moves to add all members' names. Any objections? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Larson to introduce the doctor of the day.
REP. LYLE LARSON: Members, guests, it's my privilege to introduce Michael Dominguez. He was with us a couple of weeks ago. He's a physician from San Antonio. His wife Tamara was here a week ago and we've got the distinction of having his daughter McKayla. McKayla, why don't you come over here. She's going to be an honorary page as well. So, please, give a warm welcome to the physician of the day Michael Dominguez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to reconsider House Resolution 1096, 1079, 1069, 1049, and 940.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motions. Are there any objections? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolutions. The clerk will read the resolutions.
CLERK: H.R. 1096 by Gooden. Honoring Jean Ann Ables-Flatt of Terrell on her receipt of a lifetime achievement award from the Texas Historical Commission. H.R. 1079 by Branch. Commemorating 2011 Dallas International Film Festival. H.R. 1069 Christian. Recognizing March 31st, 2011 as the Shelby County Day at the State capitol. H.R. 1049 by Workman. Congratulating Austin Waldorf boys basketball team on its outstanding 2010 and 2011 season. H.R. 940 by Cain. Recognizing March 31st, 2011 as Titus County Day at the State Capitol.
THE SPEAKER: Chairman recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Are there any objections? Hearing none. So ordered. Representative Eissler on the floor? Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REP. ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I'd like to suspend all necessary and unnecessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1099 which is a good one for April.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Following resolution. The Clerk will read the Resolution.
CLERK: H.R. 1099 by Eissler. WHEREAS, Some of our nation's best and brightest military personnel are gathering in Austin on March 31, 2011, for United States Army Senior Service College Fellows Program Day at the State Capitol; and WHEREAS, For more than 20 years, the U.S. Army has designated The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University as host schools for the army's Senior Service College Fellows Program, a component of the United States Army War College; and WHEREAS, This intensive academic year of study has a trilateral focus that includes national security policy and process, technology and industry, and army/joint policy and process; the national security policy and process module is a combination of directed and elective study using curriculum within the LBJ School of Public Affairs, the McCombs School of Business The University of Texas Department of Government, and the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M; it is complemented with guest speakers from key army commands, industry and Congress, along with operational and world leaders; and WHEREAS, Those chosen for the program are among the top three percent of U.S. Army officers; this year's class of 13 have given a combined total of more than 250 years of military and wartime service and have served on numerous deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom; these distinguished officers are as follows: former state representative Colonel Rick Noriega, Colonel John Anderson, Lieutenant Colonel (P) William Bailey, Colonel Timothy Baxter, Lieutenant Colonel (P) David Kaczmarski, Colonel Robert McVay, Lieutenant Colonel William Phillips, Colonel Kurt Pinkerton, Lieutenant Colonel Dale Rivers, Lieutenant Colonel William Robare, Colonel Maria Zumwalt, Colonel James Raymer, and Lieutenant Colonel Willie Rios; and WHEREAS, The Fellows have been successfully led through the program by Lieutenant General Joe Yakovac, Retired; after completing their U.S. Army War College requirements through Texas universities, they will move on to assignments in senior military leadership positions around the world; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby recognize March 31, 2011, as United States Army Senior Service College Fellows Program Day at the State Capitol and commend the members of this outstanding group for their prestigious military educational achievement.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REP. ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. It's a great day here on this last day of March and I think it's appropriate that we have people here who are senior leaders in the United States Army on the last day of March. They are led and escorted, in fact if the worst day in the Army, the worst day in the Army is March 4th. That's what starts it. Think about that. Anyway -- anyway. We have some outstanding Army leaders who have been chosen from the top three percent of their peers. And they have been accepted into the Army war college which is a steppingstone to senior Army leadership and as you heard, 250 total years of service and war experience both in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are being led by Colonel Rick Noriega who has served in this House with great distinction. In fact, with a name of Colonel Noriega, I expect him to go onto senior government leadership in South America or Latin America. So, if you would, please, help me welcome this years class of Army War College attending University of Texas I appreciate it and I move that, this resolution be adopted and I also move that all members' names be added. Dr. Rose Anderson moves that all members' names be added to the resolution. Are there any objections? Hearing none. So ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Morrison.
REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 1092.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out H.R. -- Chair lays out the following resolution. The Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: H.R. 1092 by Morrison. WHEREAS, John W. Griffin, Jr., of Victoria has been named chair of the American Diabetes Association Board of Directors for 2011; and WHEREAS, Mr. Griffin, a longtime advocate for the treatment and prevention of diabetes, has been a member of the ADA for nearly 20 years; during that time he has applied his considerable expertise to assisting the organization in many different capacities, including those of vice chair of the board and chair of the legal advocacy subcommittee, as well as through his membership on the advocacy and finance committees and the Safe at School Task Force; and WHEREAS, Born in Port Lavaca, John Griffin graduated from Austin College with a degree in political science in 1978 and earned his juris doctor degree from the University of Missouri School of Law in 1981; he worked as a staff attorney for State Comptroller Bob Bullock until entering private practice in 1983, and he currently serves as managing partner with the firm Marek, Griffin & Knaupp; and WHEREAS, In addition to giving generously of his time and talents to the ADA, Mr. Griffin has used his legal skills to win landmark cases protecting the rights of workers with diabetes; he has also contributed to the fight against the disease through his financial generosity to the ADA, his philanthropy earning him membership in both the association's Pinnacle Society and its Summit Circle; and . WHEREAS, An incisive leader who brings exceptional passion and ability to his new position, John Griffin, Jr., is an invaluable asset to the American Diabetes Association, and he is indeed worthy of special recognition; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate John W. Griffin, Jr., on his selection as chair of the American Diabetes Association Board of Directors and extend to him sincere best wishes for continued success in all his endeavors; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Griffin as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. Morrison.
REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Chair recognizes Representative Morrison.
REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: I've got two special people standing with me. Rick Hardcastle and John have become good friends working on health issues and Erin Pena has known John for a long time. And I want you to know this is a non-partisan issue. John Griffin was the Democratic chair of Victoria County for many years. But we have worked together and supported each other on all of the issues and he's been a great friend and supporter and he will do us proud for being there working for diabetes around this country. I can't tell you what an outstanding citizen he is. And thank you so much and let's honor him for being here today and all the work that he going to do. Thanks John.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gooden. Jean Ann is here with her husband, Horace, and she has been a pillar of the community back in Kaufman County and she and I are both from Terrell. She's here to get a lifetime achievement award tomorrow from Texas Historical Commission. And I want us to recognize her and thank her for all her lifetime of service. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
CLERK: H.R. 763 by Smith of Harris. Commemorating the 75th anniversary of Community Resources Credit Union of Baytown.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Thank you, members. The Community Resources Credit Union of Baytown is a local credit union. The local credit unions play a vital role in the economy of Texas. Community Resource Credit Union recently celebrated 75 years of service to the people of Baytown. And it employs more than 100 are Texans and disperses over four and a million dividends to its 30,000 members. Donates more than $50,000 annually to local causes and organizations. Outstanding leadership here today in the northeast corner of the gallery is Doug Osterhouse, Randall Sanders, Wayne Gray, David Fraiser, Ronnie Anderson is the President and John Henderson who is chairman emeritus. For those of you who are University of Texas graduates John Henderson is the oldest living ex football player from the University of Texas. So give them all a hand. Thank you members. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, members, I move to call up House Resolution 888.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out H.R. 888. The Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: H.R. 888 by Burnam. WHEREAS, Members of the Texas Association for Symphony Orchestras are gathering in Austin for their annual conference March 31 through April 3, 2011; and WHEREAS, Dedicated to the exchange of ideas for the promotion and development of orchestras in Texas, TASO is made up of local volunteer organizations from across the state that support symphonic ensembles in their communities; the group was founded in 1967 as the Texas Women's Association for Symphony Orchestras, and it adopted its present name in 1984; and Jean Ann is here with her husband, Horace, and she has been a pillar of the community back in Kaufman County and she and I are both from Terrell. She's here to get a lifetime achievement award tomorrow from Texas Historical Commission. And I want us to recognize her and thank her for all her lifetime of service. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. WHEREAS, The delegates will also be treated to performances by the three winners of the TASO 2011 Juanita Miller Concerto Competition; named for the organization's first president, this prestigious statewide contest recognizes outstanding high school musicians; this year's honorees include the grand prize winner cellist Russell Houston, as well as pianist Emily Tan and oboist Jillian Honn; and WHEREAS, The symphony orchestras of Texas contribute greatly to the cultural richness of the Lone Star State, and the members of TASO may take justifiable pride in their efforts to support and further this proud musical tradition; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate the 2011 conference of the Texas Association for Symphony Orchestras and extend to the participants sincere best wishes for a memorable and meaningful weekend in Austin; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the association as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objections? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker and members, when I go to New York and my wife and I go to New York I'm proud to say when people ask me how are your symphony orchestras in Texas. I say that we have the best in the United States. They think we are a bunch of hicks. We are not a bunch of hicks. We have great symphonies and we are represented today by the incoming President of the TASO, Texas Association of Symphony Orchestras. Behind me Jan St. Hiliare of Midland. Jan, would you raise your hand? And the secretary, Annette Findley, who is from Tyler. My wife should be here but my wife is working. She couldn't be here and she is very active in the symphony and the symphony women's league. We also have representatives from TASO in the gallery in the west -- east gallery and I'll call their names. Tiffany Ammerman, Sherry Davis, Laura Hyde, LaVerne Gollob, Mary Padgett, Joi Smith, and Emma Jean Tanner. Cynthia Lancaster, and Connie Ware. Will y'all give them a big welcome to the Capitol. Thank y'all very much for traveling this way.
THE SPEAKER: Members we're about to go on the calendar. We have third reading to take care of first. Chair lays out on third reading H.B. 215 recognizing Mr. Gallego. Well excuse me -- the Clerk will read the Bill.
CLERK: H.B. 215 by Gallego. Relating to photograph and live lineup identification procedures in criminal cases.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: This is a bill that we passed yesterday, members and I move final passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay, members. This is a record vote. Show Mr. Burnam voting aye. Have all members? Show Mr. Lucio voting aye. Have all members voted? There be 145 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting H.B. 215 is finally passed. Chair lays out H.B. 338. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 338 by Aycock. Relating to disclaimers by certain entities promulgating lists of noxious or invasive terrestial plant species.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: This is a bill from yesterday relating to the -- to invasive plants. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? All members voted? There being a 129 ayes; 14 nays; 2 presently not voting. H.B. 338 is finally passed. Chair calls up H.B. 563. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 563 by Pickett. Relating to the purposes and designations of a transportation reinvestment zone.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: This is the amendment to the transportation reinvestment zone bill. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Bohac voting aye, please. Have all members voted? There being a 138 ayes, 5 nays, 2 present not voting. House Bill 563 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 612. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 612 by Hopson. Relating to the criminal penalty for failure of a trustee to pay the beneficiaries of the trust the purchase price of timber sold by the trustee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hopson.
REP. CHUCK HOPSON: Mr. Speaker and members, this is the bill we passed yesterday to help combat timber theft movement. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Hopson voting aye. Mr. Bohac voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 142 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting. House Bill 612 is finally passed. The House calls for the H.B. 613. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 613 by Hopson. Relating to the unauthorized harvesting of standing timber; providing for the imposition of a criminal penalty.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Hopson.
REP. CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that we passed yesterday. Help to combat theft. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 142 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting. House Bill 613 is finally passed. Chair lays out H.B. 1404. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 1404 by Sheffield. Relating to the certain temporary orders in a suit effecting the parent-child relationship during the parent's military deployment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Sheffield.
REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday that has to do with military services. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 143 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting. House Bill 1404 is finally passed. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed House Bill 310. Clerk will read the Bill.
CLERK: H.B. 310 by King of Zavala. Relating to election procedures and qualifications of members of boards of directors for water supply or sewer service corporations.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. King. To explain his bill.
REP. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And members I move to postpone H.B. 310 until a time certain, next Tuesday, April 5th at 10:00 a.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 71. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 71 by Martinez. Relating to the fee charged to the Texas Airport Directory.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez to explain his bill.
REP. MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a House Bill 71 is to encourage pilot safety and more general aviation in Texas by removing the fee. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill. If not the question occurs on House Bill 71, passage of House Bill 71, to engrossment. Is there any objections? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of House Bill postponed business House Bill 229. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 229 by Solomons. Relating to the duties of the county tax-assessor collector and voter registrar relating to the exemption from jury service.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to postpone House Bill 229 until time certain next Tuesday, April 5th at 10:00 a.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REP. MCCLENDON: Chair recognizes Mr. Workman for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Madam Speaker and members, thank you very much. I'm happy today to introduce the boys basketball team from Waldorf School. And also Waldorf school is a private school here in Austin area. They were the first team ever to from this school to reach the final four in the TAPPS 2A playoffs and we are very proud of them and they are a good group of young men. And I'd like for you to recognize them. They are up in the gallery. Would you gentlemen stand up for us, please. Members, please, welcome them. Thank you.
REP. MCCLENDON: Mr. Hunter. Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker and members, we are honored today. University of Texas at Dallas is one of our great state institutions. And today we have here visiting with us what we have to describe as the cream of the crop of the students at The University of Texas at Dallas. They're from all over our state and actually all over our country. But they have got some really interesting backgrounds and experiences that they are doing now and that they are going to be moving forward on. But we're honored to have Representative Branch is up here with me to recognize Dr. Theilman, Dr. Daniel, and all the wonderful people from UT Dallas and their McDermott scholars. Please, stand up there and everybody give them a welcome to our Capitol. You are actually going to see a great chance to see legislation in progress here today.
REP. MCCLENDON: Members, is there any objection to take up the congratulatory and memory calendar at this time? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members we're ready to begin consideration of the congratulatory and memorial calendar. The following congratulatory resolutions have been withdrawn. H.R. 830. Chair lays out the following congratulatory resolutions. The Clerk will read the Resolutions.
CLERK: H.C.R. 64 by Aycock. Recognizing April 13th, 2011 as Leadership Highlands Lake Day at the State Capitol. H.C.R. 65 by Aycock. Recognizing April 13th, 2011 as Leadership Killeen day at the State Capitol. H.C.R. 77 by Zerwas. Recognizing March 31st, 2011 Donate Life Texas Day at the State Capitol. H.R. 88 by Alonzo. Recognizing Diez y Septiembre as Mexican Independence day of 2011. H.R. 89 by Alonzo. Recognizing Diez y Septiembre as Mexican Independence Day 2012. H.R. 316 by McClendon. Commending African American Leadership Institute of San Antonio for the outstanding public service. H.R. 380 by Pena. Recognizing April 9th, 2011 as Welcome Home South Texas Vietnam Veterans Day. H.R. 581 by Aliseda. Recognizing April 6th, 2011 as Atascosa County Day at the State Capitol. H.R. 584 by Ritter. Recognizing April 27th, 2011 as Texas Water Conservation Day at the State capitol. H.R. 605 by Kleinschmidt. Honoring Andrew Dean Livingston on his 65th birthday. H.R. 623 by Christian. Recognizing April 20th, 2011 as the "Retire in Texas Day" and commending the Go Texan Certified Retirement Community program and its participants. H.R. 748 by Zerwas. Recognizing May 20th, 2011 as Fight Arthritis Pain Month in Texas. H.R. 781 by Truitt. Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Colleyville Garden Club. H.R. 813 by Aliseda. Honoring artist Lee Ricks of Pleasanton for his professional achievements. H.R. 815 by Aliseda. Commemorating the 100th anniversary of Jourdanton Independent School District. H.R. 820 Frullo. Congratulating the Chief Dale Holton on his retirement from the Lubbock Police Department. H.R. 822 by Schwertner. Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Reunion Ranch in Georgetown. H.R. 823 by Schwertner. Honoring Sergeant Major Richard L Cosper on his retirement from the Texas Army National Guard. H.R. 824 by Schwertner. Congratulating Bert and Susy Cogdill of Georgetown on their 50th wedding anniversary. H.R. 834 by Veasey. Congratulating Sam L. Sibert on his induction into the 2009-2010, Eastern Oklahoma State College Alumni Hall of Fame. H.R. 836 by Hardcastle. Commemorating the 2011 Red River Barbecue Battle in Vernon. H.R. 836 by Mike Miller of Comel. Honoring the International President Ray Klinginsmith on the occasion of his visit to New Braunfels. H.R. 838 by Miller of Comel. Commemorating the Cowboy Capitol Rodeo Association of Bandera for its contributions to its community. H.R. 839 by Shelton. Congratulating honoring Austin Graham on attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. H.R. 841 by Kolkhorst. Commending the Bellville Heritage Cowgirls for its achievements as a precision mounted drill team. H.R. 849 by McClendon. Honoring Fayetta Francis founder of the Vintage Jewels Chapter of the Red Hat Society in San Antonio on the occasion of chapter's fifth anniversary. H.R. 851 by Burkett. Congratulating Terry Greer on being named the 2011 Firefighter of the Year by the Mesquite Fire Department. H.R. 852 by Murphy. Congratulating Ann Woodroff on her receipt of the 2010's John E. Wolf Citizenship Cup Award from the Houston Association of REALTORS. H.R. 853 by Murphy. Congratulating Ed Wolf for being the 2010 Realtor of the Year by the Houston Association of REALTORS. H.R. 855 by Fletcher. Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the unification of the Republic of Italy and posthumously recognizing Giuseppe Garibaldi as an honorary Texan. H.R. 858 by Raymond. Honoring Manuelita Guajardo Juarrez of Laredo on her 104th birthday. H.R. 859 by Schwertner. Congratulating Pete Kauffman of Georgetown on his 90th birthday. H.R. 861 by Flynn. Congratulating Dick and Linda Murphy of Caddo Mills on their 50th wedding anniversary. H.R. 862 by Flynn. Congratulating Bill and Lorena Dickard of Van on their 60th anniversary. H.R. 867 by Anderson of McClendon. Honoring Bill and Diane Jones of Waco on their 45th wedding anniversary. H.R. 870 by Carter. Honoring the Bentwood Republican Women's Club for its many accomplishments. H.R. 871 by Carter. Honoring Republican Women's Club of Dallas for working to make a difference in the lives of their fellow Texans. H.R. 872 by Carter. Commending the Northwood Republican Women for their achievements. H.R. 873 by Davis of Harris. Congratulating Dr. H. Randolph Bailey on being named the Distinguished Houston Surgeon for 2011 by the Houston Surgical Society. H.R. 874 by Quintanilla. Congratulating Edward and Eric Nunez for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. H.R. 877 by Chisum. Honoring Horace "Gorilla Puckett and Bruce Hlesko for foundering the charitable organization Fireball, which benefits the Shriners Hospital for Children in Galveston. H.R. 878 by Margo. Honoring Dell Thomas Holmsley of El Paso on his 71st birthday. H.R. 881 by cane. Recognizing April 6, 2011 as Lamar County Day at the State capitol. H.R. 883 by Martinez. Commemorating the 75th anniversary of Valley Grande Adventist Academy in Weslaco.
REP. MCCLENDON: Members, the question is on the adoption of the congratulatory resolutions read by the clerk. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The Resolutions are adopted. Members, we're about to go on the memorial calendar. If you have conversations, please, take them outside the rails and we will ask you to please take your seats. Chair lays out the following Memorial Resolutions. Clerk will read the Resolutions.
CLERK: H.R. 83 by Alonzo. Honoring the life of Ceasar Chavez and recognizing the month beginning March 31st, 2012 as Ceasar Chavez Farm Worker Appreciation Month. H.R. 814 by Aliseda. In memory of Mark Lynn Cude of Pleasanton. H.R. 819 by Frullo. In memory of Harold Dennis Long of Lubbock. H.R. 821 by Frullo. In memory of Paul E. Taylor of Lubbock. H.R. 825 by Hilderbran. In memorial of Laudys Pittard of Novice. H.R. 826 by Gallego. In memory of Victor H. Garcia, Jr. of Del Rio. H.R. 827 by Gallego in memory of Guss Lines of Alpine. H.R. 832 by Gonzalez. In memory of Edmund G. Schmidt, the former Mayor of Hutto. H.R. 846 by Guillen. In memory of Miriam Smith Vale of Rio Grand City. H.R. 847 by McClendon. Commemorating the centennial of the death of the frontier General John Lapham Bullis. H.R. 848 by McClendon. In memory of Willie D. Barnett of San Antonio. H.R. 854 by Scott. In memory of Leo Raymond Vrana of Corpus Christi. H.R. 863 by Flynn. In memory of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Chauncy Ryan Mays of Cookville. H.R. 864 by Veasey. In memory of David Beckerman. H.R. 868 by Anderson of McClendon. In memory of Gail Cocker of Waco. H.R. 869 by Anderson of McClendon. In memory of Bernice Brown of McGregor. H.R. 875 by Hughes. In memory of Benjamin Palmer Bradley of Gladewater. H.R. 876 by Hughes. In memory of Skylar Brooke Carpenter of Quitman. H.R. 879 by Hunter. In memory of Joe Michael Plummer of Corpus Christi. H.R. 880 by Hunter. In memory of Monica Marie Villarreal of Corpus Christi.
REP. MCCLENDON: Members, the question is on the adoption of the memorial resolutions read by the clerk. Members, these are memorial resolutions. All those in favor, please, rise. The memorial resolutions are unanimously adopted. Members, that concludes our congratulatory and memorial calendar. Thank you all for your cooperation. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.
REP. TODD HUNTER: Madam Speaker and members, in connection with H.R. 880 I just want to note to the memorial resolutions that the stepson of Joe Michael Plummer, John Michael and the sister Monica Marie Villarreal, are here. Thank you for being here today.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Cain for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE ERWIN CAIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I wanted to take a moment and recognize some very special people from my district. We got the Titus County today and these folks are over here in the east gallery. They are here today to learn some things about the budgeting process, so, please give them a good show. Folks stand up and let us recognize you. Welcome to your House.
THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out committee substitute House Bill 4 on second reading. Clerk read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 4 by Pitts. Relating to making supplemental appropriations and giving direction in the adjustment authority regarding appropriations.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REP. JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, House Bill 4 is the supplemental appropriations bill. As all of you know in addition to making a few limited, critical, supplemental appropriations House Bill 4 implements the budget cuts that the Speaker, Lieutenant Governor, and the Governor began ordering fifteen months ago. These are not budget cuts the appropriations committee just randomly chose. They were proposed by each state agency and thoroughly reviewed for the full impact that they would have on the services Texans expect from their government. They have been fully planned and fully accounted for in House Bill 1. House Bill 4 captures the fiscal year 2011 savings and the 5 percent and 2 1/2 percent reductions ordered at the beginning of last year. Agencies are already prepared and members, agencies have already made these cuts. It captures additional savings identified by the Governor's office and recommended to the appropriations committee. Combined these budget reductions, which are for the current fiscal year, total $1.5 billion. Offsetting these criminal spending items, are totaling $648,000,000. The largest of this spending item is $600,000,000 supplemental payments to the Foundation School Program. This equates to payments to all of our school districts for the remainder of this fiscal year. The net effect of these budget reductions and supplemental spending items is $853.6 million. Capturing these budget savings is the first critical and necessary steps toward addressing the $4.3 billion shortfall we face in this biennium in meeting the State's obligation. Earlier the comptroller told the appropriations committee this is an amount of money that the State will owe before the end of this fiscal year. House Bill 4 along with House Bill 275 pays these bills. We are funding our current obligations. All of you can think of projects or things that we would like to add to both of these bills but that's not what these bills are about. These two bills are paying our current obligations. The citizens of this state expect the government will tighten its belt just like every Texan family in this state has had to do. H.B. 4 is a reasonable and are responsible reflection of what our state is facing economically. It only asks a state government whatever Texan family has had to do. With that Mr. Speaker I yield for questions or we can begin amendments.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Members it's on page 1 of the prefiled amendment packet. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment reduces the total reductions made in House Bill 4 by 6,802,203 to the Alamo Community Colleges by reducing funding to the trustee programs within the office of the Governor. The Texas Emerging Technology Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund by the identical same amounts. Providing Alamo Community Colleges with this funding will help ensure that San Antonio is able to maintain the high standard of education which it has attained and help provide higher education opportunities to all. As most of you know the Alamo Colleges have experienced a 23 percent two year enrollment growth and it just simply cannot continue to meet the demand without sufficient state investment and that is why this amendment is being offered for your consideration. And I ask for your favorable vote.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak an opposition.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Members, as chairman Pitts said, there are probably items in this current biennium's that you all of us would like to restore into our districts but if we start down this road, we will not accomplish the paying our bills that we need to do. So, essentially what this does is take from the Governor's Trustee Programs Account and earmarks that this one community college would receive these funds. I would ask that -- I'm going to move to table this amendment and I'm going to ask that you would stick with me.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I will not be the only member who will be up here fighting for the community colleges in the districts. And I am sure that I will not be the only member talking to you about using the Texas Emerging Technology fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund because what we all understand is that education begins from the level of elementary school, high school, and college. And we don't have the workforce when the new companies come to the State and we supply the funding for the new corporations then it doesn't make any difference because you must have a trained workforce enable for the new companies coming in that we will use the technology money for to be productive. So, that is why we're asking that we restore the funding for the Alamo Community Colleges because education is the key and we all understand that.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Otto voting aye, show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative McClendon voting no, representative Branch voting aye. Have all voted. There. Being 101 ayes and 41 nays, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Martinez Fischer on the floor of the House? The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Is Mr. Turner on the floor of the House? The amendment on page 3 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 4 is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment 3 by Burnam.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is similar to Ms. McClendon's amendment and that I want to lift up the community colleges and their importance the economic well-being of this State. I'm particularly proud of the Tarrant County Community College. They've just opened a fifth campus in my hometown in Fort Worth. They are having a rapidly growing student population in part because of the economy and the need to retool and retrain a workforce. This very simply suggest that the governor -- the single most important reason we have a $10 million structural deficit -- bear the burden with the rest of the people of the State of Texas. This transfer reduces the amount of money expended for the Governor's mansion and puts him in line with most people Texas. And gives the constituents of mine in Tarrant County a better opportunity for higher education and fulfill their dreams. I move this adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover in opposition.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Members, I also have a community college in my district and it is rapidly growing and it is doing a wonderful job of closing the gaps exactly what we have asked our community colleges to do. And in my sub committee on education there is huge support and a very protective attitude for our community colleges. So we worked very hard. They actually got the least of the cuts but I think it's important to know that everybody here benefits from the community colleges and we are working very hard to make sure that they are funded. So that I would ask that you vote against this amendment. Move to table.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentle lady yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Crownover, do you yield?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Yes.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Crownover, what is the total hit the community colleges are taking in this budget?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Do we have that? No. There is -- I'm not saying there's not a hit. And we have talked carefully with the community colleges and we have listened to them. But the hit is less in the community colleges than it is in the general academics and I think that was basically what we were trying to do very hard because we know that the community colleges are more important now than ever when people are having trouble with employment. But the point of this is that we have worked very hard to protect our community colleges and we don't want to get into the pet projects giving money back to one where we don't to the other because each of them throughout the State are closing the gap. So we need to keep the balance, the Article 3 members have worked diligently and I don't think this is time to unravel that.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well I guess I'll -- my first question was what is the total effect of this House Bill on the budgets of the community colleges.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Well, they had already taken the cuts. We went into Article 3. There were no additional cuts except for their health care.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: But do y'all have a number? Do you know what the number is in terms of the hits they're taking?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Seventy six million and this is, yeah, right. As Scott points out -- this is the supplemental bill so this is just for the next two months. We are not taking about the general H.B. 1.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And you understand that more than half of our high school students that go on to colleges are now going to community colleges; isn't that right?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: I absolutely do and it is a wonderful, wonderful step towards closing the gaps.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And that the mission of our community colleges among our higher education institutions is the most varied. In other words, we understand that they serve students not only coming out of high school or maybe returning to school at 25 or 30 or 40 years old but also they're involved with partnering with private industry for workforce training. Are you aware of that?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: I am. And I think they do a wonderful job. I think they're also so important right now for young people maybe do not -- are able to be employed. So it is a wonderful use as their careers are paused to be able to go back to a community college.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: But you understand that by supporting this bill that we are hurting not only folks that are coming right out of high school but also people that are trying to return to school. Folks who are getting workforce training for industry jobs, local governments who partner with these folks, with community colleges, with budgets for workforce training that we're hurting a bunch of different sectors. Do you agree with that?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Well, I absolutely understand that. There's not a person in this room that doesn't understand that. But these are the realities of the times that we are in.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, I would argue that it's partly reality and it's partly choice. But you also understand -- you referred to these amendments and I know that my colleague, Representative McClendon from San Antonio, had one just a minute ago -- as a pet project. And the fact is, we understand that not all 150 of us are members of the Appropriations Committee; is that right?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Right.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Or on the subcommittee that deals with Article 3; is that right?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Correct.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: So, for the overwhelming majority of us, this is our first chance to offer and be part of the process of amending the bill or getting something into the bill; is that right?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: I understand and there's a shared pain here --
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: But you have to understand that none of the other of us that were not on this committee have had a chance in allocating that pain.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Yes. But you are always welcome in the appropriations process. We were there at 7:00 in the morning until late at night and any member is welcome to come and sit in.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: But we just didn't have a vote in the appropriations committee.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Right.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Thank you, Representative.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Thank you.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr, Hochberg, for what purpose?
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman or lady yield?
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: The lady yields.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: And, yes, Representative Crownover, you did work from 7:00 a.m. until very late. And I'm not here to oppose your position or to support your position but just to clarify for the membership. We didn't work on House Bill 4, did we? We worked on House Bill 1. So --
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: But it's a comprehensive thing that has to all glue together.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: I understand but the choices that were made in House Bill 4 not choices other than the bill as a whole we ever voted on. We didn't review these particular cuts in our subcommittee one way or the other. We may have supported them or we may not have but that wasn't something that the subcommittees worked on.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Right. But we visited extensively with our community college.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Absolutely, absolutely. I think we spent a full day listening to just the community colleges. It was a very long day. Thank you.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: Thank you. I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam to close.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment like the first amendment that was tabled, is about setting priorities for the State of Texas. Representative McClendon suggested that her community college should be more adequately funded at the expense of the Governor's office. I'm suggesting that my community college should be more adequately funded at the expense of a lavish lifestyle of the Governor's mansion lifestyle. When we talk about the future of this state we're talking about whether or not we are going to adequately educate and train our workforce. The individual that signed the bill that caused the structural deficit has been living an excessively lavish lifestyle for the past several years. I am simply asking that he do his part in the sacrifices that are being made across the state by virtually everyone except for him. And I'm asking you to move to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam sends up an amendment. Representative Crownover moves to table this on the motion to table. This is a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, Mr. Otto voting aye, Mr. Burnam voting no, Mr. Darby voting aye. Show Mr. Johnson voting no, show Mr. Paxton voting aye. Have all voted? Being 103 ayes and 40 nays the motion to table prevails. The amendment on page 6 is withdrawn. This is the amendment on page 7. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. This amendment reduces the total reductions made in House Bill 4 onto The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio by reducing funding in the trustee programs by the same amount. The Health Science Center is a crucial part of the city of San Antonio and Bexar County and the medical community and it provides multiple learning opportunities for students in the area especially those studying at UTSA. With the addition of their recent ambulatory care center in the plan research facility these reductions will impact their ability to retain and recruit premium faculty and students. This is how we would build the job opportunities and businesses that may come here and that is why I ask you for your favorable consideration for this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Otto to speak against the amendment.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it was told to you earlier that you are going to have a whole series of amendments trying to restore funds. Essentially what we are doing -- and that's correct. What we are doing is going through a process of creating earmarks for individual member's districts. And this bill is about paying the remaining several months of the current biennium's budget. It's not about trying to put earmarks back in this budget for the remainder of this fiscal year. As worthy as all of these amendments are for trying to restore, we cannot begin to just piecemeal earmark funds when really what our HB 4 is about recognizing the cuts that each agency submitted at the request of the governor, lieutenant governor and the speaker. So that I move to table this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon to speak for the amendment.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we are earmarking individual districts. And we are earmarking individual districts because these districts were asked and the institutions were asked by the leadership to reduce the funding. And we're asked to reduce the funding without concern about what it would do and what the impact would be on the community and on the students and on the economy of the State of Texas.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REP. JOE FARIAS: Would the gentle lady, please, yield?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. McClendon, would you yield?
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: She does.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Representative McClendon, it seems like as we start the process on this particular bill, things are already being labeled as their earmarked for our districts and it's only own personal interest that you have in The University of Texas San Antonio and I would like to clarify a couple things. One, I don't believe UTSA is in your district, ma'am?
REP. MCCLENDON: No, it's not.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Okay. And the students that attend there are in the thousands of students; is that true.
REP. MCCLENDON: That's correct.
REP. JOE FARIAS: And where are all these students from.
REP. MCCLENDON: All over the State. All over the country.
REP. JOE FARIAS: All over the State of Texas. Probably a member in this House has a student at the University of Texas San Antonio in some form or fashion. I really would like to just clarify, if we are going to continue to use this term about local issues that only concern the member who is introducing the amendment. Let's just clarify that it is in San Antonio but it does serve the state of Texas and it is part of The University of Texas university system; is that correct?
REP. MCCLENDON: That's correct.
REP. JOE FARIAS: So, what you're doing is not about who Jones McClendon wants for her district; is that correct?
REP. MCCLENDON: That is correct, Mr. Farias.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Well, thank you for sticking up for all the students that are looking to advance in the higher education in attending the university that is in San Antonio but services the whole State of Texas. And I thank you for this amendment and for your courage to stand up and speak up for the University of San Antonio. Thank you, ma'am.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you. And you know we hear about this piecemeal and earmark and sounds like it is from the Washington D.C. And this is not Washington D.C., this is Texas and we are trying to protect the students in this State of Texas.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REP. LON BURNAM: I'd like to ask the lady some questions about --
THE SPEAKER: Ms. McClendon, would you yield?
REP. MCCLENDON: I certainly do yield to my classmate.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you, my dear classmate. We came together in the last century. In the period of time since we've been here hasn't it always been your experience that the supplemental appropriations bill is about adding funds to needed programs that were appropriated or approved of in the last previous legislative session.
REP. MCCLENDON: That has been my experience, Mr. Burnam, and this is the first time I have seen the supplemental bill being handled in this manner.
REP. LON BURNAM: So, in our seven previous sessions we've previously had the experience of not cutting funds, but appropriating additional funds to meet the needs of the State of Texas.
REP. MCCLENDON: That's correct.
REP. LON BURNAM: Then do you think it's wholly inaccurate to characterize your amendment or my amendment as self-serving for your own district? Or do you think it's more appropriate to characterize trying to establish priorities in this particular budget process?
REP. MCCLENDON: I think Mr. Farias said it very appropriately. This is not about my district. It's not about San Antonio. It's about the State of Texas and we are trying to protect the State of Texas and the students that are at this institution.
REP. LON BURNAM: Well, as an alumni of for two universities of The University of Texas system, I appreciate your lifting up the concerns about this campus in your home county. And I think it is also important that we all recognize, we are talking about priorities. Given the rules of the game, we don't have enough money to work with but we need to be wise and setting our priorities; wouldn't you agree?
REP. MCCLENDON: Exactly and since we are cutting and using this vehicle to cut from our colleges and universities, I think it's incumbent upon the members to try to find innovative ways to put the funding back into those colleges and universities. And it's been very difficult because we haven't had the opportunity to increase revenue in a substantial way, so, we are just doing what we have and using the tools that is we have to work with.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you for your commitment to higher education and your attempt to establish better priorities education in this process.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentle lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Would you yield, Ms. McClendon?
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: She will.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Ms. McClendon, at the end of the last legislative session when we funded this budget -- or during the last legislative session we funded this budget, do you recall members of this body saying how lean the budget was? How we had scrubbed it? How it was, I mean, it was a lean machine; do you remember that.
REP. MCCLENDON: I do recall that.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: But at the same time, these same institutions have experienced a five percent reduction and then a two and a half percent reduction. When institutions were expecting and had planned their financial plan was at this level what we had given them. And we dropped it down and we dropped it down. And so, at the same time the State has received an unprecedented four congressional seats because of our explosive growth. And so, what you're trying to do -- you are actually making a cut by restoring to the levels because when we just restore to the levels of the last budget it actually is a cut because we have on top of that this new population, correct?
REP. MCCLENDON: That is completely correct.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Gonzalez, for what purpose?
REP. GONZALES: Yes. Will the gentle lady yield? I would like to ask her some questions.
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: Yes, she will.
REP. GONZALES: Representative McClendon, what your amendment is trying to do is restore some funds for the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio; is that correct?
REP. MCCLENDON: That's correct.
REP. GONZALES: Are you aware that the Regional Academic Center in Harlingen, Texas is connected to the UT Health Science Center.
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes, I'm aware of that. I became aware of that when I first served on the Appropriations Committee and that was brought to my attention and have been working since that time to make sure that it got its adequate funding.
REP. GONZALES: Well, we are training many residence to serve as doctors in the State of Texas at the Regional Academic Health Center in Harlingen. So, thank you for your amendment that would restore funding to be able to fund some doctors to provide very much needed medical care in the Rio Grande Valley in the State of Texas.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you. REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose? REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: Would the lady yield for a few questions?
THE SPEAKER: Would you yield, Ms. McClendon?
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: She will. REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: Representative, thank you for working on this amendment. I want to reiterate some of the comments made by Representative Gonzalez regarding how important this amendment is to south Texas. Specifically to the Regional Academic Health Science Center which is tied to the UT Health Science Center San Antonio. We have been working -- my father and I and all the valley delegation to try to create a four year, free standing medical school in south Texas and there's so many hurdles and obstacles in the way. And things that we have to do and due diligence. But one day we will make that a reality. But so very important in this early stages of making that happen is to properly invest so we can continue moving down the right track. I truly appreciate your efforts in working with your UT Health Science Center and with the Regional Health Science Center in the valley and hopefully we can find a way to fully fund these institutions. Thank you.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Will the gentle lady yield for a couple questions?
THE SPEAKER: Will you yield, Ms. McClendon?
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: She will.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative McClendon, you know I'm no mathematician but I think I can add and subtract a little bit. I was looking through this proposed supplemental HB 4 and I noticed that The University of Texas system takes up about $95 million in cuts. Were you aware of that?
REP. MCCLENDON: I was not aware of that total amount.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Were you further aware that the Texas A&M system takes about $34 million dollars in cuts. And can you account for that disparity?
REP. MCCLENDON: No, I certainly could not.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Why do you think that is?
REP. MCCLENDON: I have no idea. Those -- I was not involved in the cutting.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I see. Well, Representative, thank you for your amendment I understand that you are trying to protect our community in San Antonio and protect the people of the State of Texas. I'm going to do some further adding and subtracting and figure out how many of these universities are south of Highway 90 and I think there will probably see a disproportionate share of those caught in theses as well. Thank you very much, Representative.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you. I ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. Question is on the amendment. On the motion to table. Vote aye; vote no, members. Show Mr. Hitch voting aye, Ms. McClendon voting no, show Mr. Otto voting aye. Have all members voted? Mr. Dukes voting no. All members voted? There being 99 ayes, 46 nays, motion to table prevails. Representative Woolley, Representative Woolley. Representative Woolley. Chair recognizes Ms. Woolley.
REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. It is my privilege to introduce to you Lyle Lovett, a fighting Texas Aggie. Born in Klein, this native Texan has made a name for himself as an Aggie and a accomplished singer song writer. Something perhaps not as well known about Mr. Lovett is his experience with horses. Raised on a horse ranch, Mr. Lovett breeds and raises quarter horses for reining, competes professionally as a rider and is active in equestrian charity work. Today Mr. Lovett joins us on behalf of the Texas Horse Organizations for Racing and Showing and Eventing, a group dedicated to preserving an industry in our State which contributes 5.2 billion directly to the economy. Please join me in welcoming him here to the floor of the Texas House.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative "Sly" Mr. Turner.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you I used to sing under the name of Sly. But I want to let you know that Lyle Lovett is from the same high school as myself, Klein High School. And we were there pretty much at the same time. So it's good to see you back.
THE SPEAKER: Was that a long time ago or what? Ms. Woolley and Mr. Lovett will be in the back hall, taking autographs and signatures and pictures and all kinds of things so -- all right. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 8 of the amendment packet.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon.
REP. MCCLENDON: Well, members I'm here again trying to find the funding for the huge reductions that were made in the budget of UTSA which is the largest university in the area of Bexar County with student enrollment reaches over 30,000 students. This amendment reduces the total reductions to the university by reducing funding to the trustee programs within the governor's office. And again as I said before we find the money where we can. By eliminating these reductions made to the school will help provide them with the funds needed to continue growing and is to ensure it's able to continue providing a high quality of education to its current and future students as we certainly -- our hope is we'll continue to do. We need to provide the educated workforce to fill these jobs. UTSA is doing exactly that. And by cutting the budget so severely we are putting that university at risk for being able to do what we expect them to do. And I ask you your favorable consideration of this amendment.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentle lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. McClendon, would you yield?
REP. MCCLENDON: Yes, sir.
THE SPEAKER: She will.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Ms. McClendon, you said something that sparked a concern that I have had and that is what the effects of these cuts are going to be to our recovering economy. And so, what you're saying then is this would be devastating to -- well, I'm concerned for near-term and long-term, but particularly long-term as we are trying to build an educated workforce. Are you saying that this would be detrimental to this economic recovery in the long run.
REP. MCCLENDON: It certainly will be. Just like you have a best budget the university has a budget. And its plan for enrollment and plan to spend certain amounts of money in certain places. And when they are told to cut so dramatically they are not able to take care of what they need to take care of. Therefore, we, as legislators, need to try to come to the rescue and try to find some funding to help them fill the gap. And that's what we are going to be doing all day today, I'm almost certain. Try to fill the gap so that we can take care of what we need to take care of and particularly -- and I continue to say this, if the universities and colleges and the education system does not do what it needs to do then the economy of Texas will not grow like it has the potential to grow.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So what you are saying we are cutting off our nose despite our face.
REP. MCCLENDON: Absolutely.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: As my mother used to say be penny wise and pound foolish.
REP. MCCLENDON: I couldn't say it better.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Otto to speak against the amendment.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Members, as we talked about in the other amendments that have been proposed, this is another one that attempts to restore some funding to UT San Antonio out of the governor's. Again --
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman, yield?
THE SPEAKER: Would you yield, Mr. Otto?
REP. JOHN OTTO: I yield.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you. Mr. Otto, I have a question of choices here because we're all obviously here to make choices. I'm making some choices right now about tabling some of these because I want to focus on the big picture rather than the specifics. But what I want to ask you about is the choices that we are making in regard to how we're paying our current obligation. I understand that we're talking about using the rainy day fund and in this particular bill is looking at cuts that have already been made by agency and rolling those in essentially to help us meet our current biennial obligations. But isn't there a choice there about how we do that. How was the decision made about the cuts. I guess what I'm trying to ask you is, what's the legislative involvement in making those cuts? Could we not have used the Rainy Day Fund to cover this amount as well?
REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: To cover, you're talking about -- to cover the--
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: -- the current biennial shortfall.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM OTTO: -- current biennial shortfall. Yes, you could have used, if you got the required number of votes, you could have used the economic stabilization funds to pay the bill for current biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Right. So, the fact that we made a choice to look at cuts, as part of that we want to address the current biennium, that is a choice. And we could have made a different choice.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM OTTO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And how did these cuts come about? How was the --
REP. JOHN OTTO: When you say "legislative involvement" this bill came before the full appropriations committee.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: I'm sorry, let me back up.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Okay.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: The cuts themselves.
REP. JOHN OTTO: The cuts themselves were the result primarily of the request by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker to all state agencies initially to find 5 percent cuts in their current budgets and submit that information and then later they were also asked when the economic outlook and the understanding that we were going to end up with a significant shortfall they were asked to find another 2 1/2 percent cuts. Some agencies were exempted from the 5 percent cuts, is my understanding. I don't know which ones, but the 2 1/2 percent cuts is my understanding that all agencies were asked. And that's the bulk of the cuts. It is what the agencies themselves submitted at the request of the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: But as you said, you don't know which may have been exempted and whatever because -- am I correct in saying that this was something that was done without the legislature's involvement.
REP. JOHN OTTO: You are correct. That's correct. It was known -- the comptroller recently testified before the full Appropriations Committee that the revenue estimate that she gave us last session for this current budget that we're now trying to pay our bills on --
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Right.
REP. JOHN OTTO: We were going to come in at 3.8 billion short of our sales tax collections in the current biennium, they originally resolved. House Bill 4 is a combination of taking the cuts that were -- that agencies submitted that they were asked to submit and utilizing then the rainy day fund in for the balance. In order to cover the 4.3 billion, I think, is still the number that she said we were short in order to pay our bills.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Right. And I appreciate that summary. And I think my biggest concern here -- what I'm asking you about and I think you are answering it already is that these decisions -- we did have choices here about how to cover our current shortfall. And we do want to cover our bills. We have to do that and I am supportive of that. But the choices -- it looks like you are agreeing that we do have choices here. We made a choice to go with using some of the rainy day fund and codifying the funds that were requested --
REP. JOHN OTTO: That's correct. It is a combination of the cuts that were requested and utilizing the economic stabilization or rainy day fund.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: But the cuts that were requested the legislature did not ask for those cuts, the legislature did vet those cuts.
REP. JOHN OTTO: And the legislature did not -- the legislature didn't meet when those cuts were requested.
REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: That's correct which seems to be kind of an issue here today but thank you very much.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Would you yield, Mr. Otto?
REP. JOHN OTTO: Be glad to yield.
THE SPEAKER: He will.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative Otto, in -- I have a concern based on some of the last questions that my colleague just remitted to you. And my concern is that I understand that these cuts came from the different agencies or at least I understand that there may have been a request for them. I have concerned about some of the exemptions. It's my understanding that the two university systems have some parity, financially, economically, number of universities and so on and so forth. Why is the Texas A & M system getting a pass by over 200 percent in cuts for the system of university of -- Texan -- UT system.
REP. JOHN OTTO: I don't know they are getting a pass. I would assume both university systems submitted their 5 percent and their 2 1/2 percent but --
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Well, there's 95 million in cuts here, Representative, and 34 million cuts to --
REP. JOHN OTTO: I would have to go back and see if the UT system budget exactly equals to the A & M university system.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I'm not representing that it is. But we have two university systems that always -- that seem to maintain parity most of two.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Is that why you are not willing to share the permanent university fund half and half.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Pardon me?
REP. JOHN OTTO: Are you now willing to split your permanent university funds half and half?
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I'm not suggesting that Representative Otto. I'm suggesting that only $95 million in cuts to the UT system and 34 million in cuts to the Texas A & M. I just want to know how that happened.
REP. JOHN OTTO: And I can't answer that because I was not involved in arriving at the numbers. The -- each university system was asked to submit the cuts and that's what they did.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Was Texas A & M given further examinations than UT.
REP. JOHN OTTO: I'm not aware of that.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Okay. Is there somebody that is aware of such examinations.
REP. JOHN OTTO: I'm advised by chairman Pitts that it's a difference in the budgets for the two systems.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a significant problem and significant disparity. We are going to start looking at the disparities between universities in the south of Austin and north of Austin and we are going to analyze the kind of disparity we have. Thank you.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon to close.
REP. MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, as I close on this amendment, I can only emphasize the fact that as long as you do not properly fund your public education system, you are going to have problems as you try to gather the workforce and when you have -- put your top priority on green and new companies which we have to have in order to bring in new jobs but you forget to realize that you must have an adequate workforce in order to support that new industry. So with that Mr. Speaker, and members I ask that you favorably consider this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. It's a record vote. Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Johnson voting no, show Representative McClendon voting no. Have all voted? Being a 100 aye and 46 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat for an introduction.
REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, listen up. Emily Grant is our reading clerk and does an outstanding job and with us today in the gallery are her parents Martha and CJ Grant and her brother Josh who is an intern in my office. Let's welcome them to the State Capitol.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We're here today to make some cuts. And that is important. And that is necessary. We do need to cut. But I want to make sure that you pay some attention to this amendment because it is different than some of the others that have come before you. I believe our voters send us here and this particular year, to take on difficult budget challenges. But I believe they're sending us here not to take across the board cuts, blind cuts that a computer could do. By simply applying a fixed percentage across the board. No, I believe our voters send us here to prioritize. They are going to judge us by the priorities we set in our budget. They want to know where we stand on education. They want to know where we stand on nursing homes. When they go into the booth to pull a lever, they are going to ask themselves, who was with them in prioritizing our children's schools, and making college affordable and accessible to all? This amendment I believe serves all of our interests. This amendment is not going to a particular school or university in just one part of our state. This amendment gives us an opportunity to -- with a finer comb prioritize an item in our budget that I believe really deserves being lifted up. And that is the priority of higher education. Let me tell you what this amendment does. This amendment would reduce the cut to the higher head quartering board because that is the organization that oversees a variety of different programs in higher Ed. It reduces their cut by $6.2 million. And it finds that money from the Governor's Trustee Programs. I believe that the priority of making college accessible is so much higher than allowing the governor to pick winners and losers in the free market. I believe it is more important to make an investment in our children and in young adults and in old adults who want to retool their skills by going back to school. It is more important to make an investment in them than to allow a government official to pick winners and losers in the free market. So that's what this amendment does. Let me describe to you because I want to make sure you know that how I'm shifting the money is going to benefit all of us. So if you believe in funding our universities, enrollment growth this amendment shifts money in that area. If you believe that we have a nursing shortage, Ms. Chairwoman of Public Health, if you believe that we have a shortage in nurses and doctors this amendment will move money into the physician education loan repayment program into the GME program, into the -- primary care residency program, into the financial aid for LVN's and for professional nursing students. So across the board. Let me tell you what else this amendment does. And I believe this is another value that Texans believe in. Texans want us not to divert money. If we tell them that we are going to collect money for them for a certain purpose they want us to spend it for that purpose. This amendment prevents money that Texans have spent on fees from -- from being used for a different purpose. Let me give you some examples. Fifth year accounting student's program. This is actually a scholarship program for students who want to pursue a CPA and they need a fifth year to get that degree. Well,CPA's today pay a fee when they get their license and they're told that the money is going to go for a scholarship for a needy student to get their degree. And they willingly and happily pay that fee. In this bill, we take the money. And divert it from that scholarship program. Let me give you another example of a diversion that my amendment prevents. The Be on Time Program. You may not be familiar with this Be on Time Program. This is a loan forgiveness program. So if you are a college student and you sign up you basically agree to pursue your degree and complete on time in four years. And if do you do your loan is forgiven. Great program. How is it funded. Let me tell you how it's funded. It's funded by the increase in tuition from students. Okay. It's not funded by general revenue, it is actually funded by tuition revenue. Whenever tuition revenue goes up 5 percent of the increase goes to support the Be on Time Program. We are taking our children's money that is intended to support this scholarship program and we are diverting it. This violates, I believe, two values that we all hold dear. Number one, is investing in our children's education; and number two, not lying to taxpayers not diverting money from one area that it is intended and sending it to another. And so with that my colleagues, I believe I bring you, you an amendment that serves us all. That will help us all distinguish ourselves --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: -- for those who want to invest in our education.
REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you. The priorities that your talking about include health, human source services, public education, and of course higher education.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I think those are all important priorities but I think this amendment holds up higher education.
REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And higher education.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: It is focused on mitigating the cuts in higher ed.
REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Higher education is directly related to maintaining high levels of funding and commitment to health, human services and public education. right and many of this financial program.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: You are absolutely right and many of this financial aid program -- (audio problem) are actually for graduating more LVN's and more RN's and more doctors serving in all areas.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And would you agree that people of Texas are not happy with seeing funds continually diverted from their purpose.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: You're absolutely right. And they want to know who is coming to Austin and not fighting that effort. Who is on the side of transparency and who is on the side of being honest about how we spend money.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Well, I agree that if we want to continue to focus on enhancing and improving health programs, human services programs, public ed programs, that your amendment must go on.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I trust that everybody in this room knows how dedicated both Representative Villarreal and I are to higher education. We spent many hours working on this budget in trying to find these painful cuts. H.B. 4 is not about looking forward into the subsequent budget. H.B. 4 is about paying the bills presently. It's made some very difficult decisions. These are painful decisions. They're painful to me, they're painful to each of us. But, nonetheless, I move to table this amendment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for some questions?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Aycock, do you yield?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you. Representative, is it not true that the higher Coordinating Board has the authority to incumber funds?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They can incumber funds unless we restrict them from doing so. Yes.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And so while it is true this bill is to cover our bills, is it also not true that what I'm doing is not impacting in a negative way our attempt to cover our bills but rather just prioritizing how we do that.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think it would be very difficult at this time in the year for them to make really good decisions to redistribute all of that out -- that money into the scholarship funding. We are far into the year, they have already been notified of the cuts, as you know, we've made that painful decision not to use any Texas grants in the following budget unless we can find some money somewhere. And I think that this is one of those difficult decisions just like that where we need to say we're going to move forward and try to pay our bills and take those cuts that we've already laid out.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Representative Aycock, but isn't it not true that they just became aware of more cuts in the last two weeks?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I disagree with that. They have been aware of those cuts. They have not been made official until the last two weeks.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I'm not arguing about the 5 percent and 2 percent cuts. I'm talking about the further cuts in agencies that this bill executes.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: No, are you speaking specifically about COO board cuts this bill executes.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I'm specifically talking about the higher coordinating board. But I mean, it's for all agencies. There is a around of cuts above the 5 and 2 percent that came much earlier and so I would suggest that this new round -- they actually have plans on how to spend that money. And just about two weeks ago when we took House Bill 4 out of committee they learned for the first time that there was going to be deeper cuts; isn't that accurate?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I don't believe that such has been identified for student aid. I don't believe those were student aid cuts. They will cut into the agency absolutely --
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And I just want to -- I just want to make sure that everybody understands. My amendment does not reduce the total amount of cuts committed by House Bill 4.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Understand?
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: That -- that -- isn't that right?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I believe that's correct.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: So, I'm not making -- I'm not preventing us from cutting. I am just prioritizing.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: You are making a move from the suggested sets absolutely and I respectfully disagree with those moves. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker would the gentleman yield?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you. Representative Aycock, on the amendment itself, the money that's been appropriated in this amendment, is going to students that's going to the universities and colleges, correct?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It's my understanding that Representative Villarreal would propose that it be used for student aid.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This is financial aid by Texas grants, Be on Time, Work Study Programs.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Six million -- $6.2 million, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the money that would be going to these college and university students, the money is being pulled from where?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It will be pulled from the governor's trustees' accounts which would cover a whole array of other functions of the governor's office.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the cuts to the bill, remain the same.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes. The bill would remain the same.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me -- let me ask the question. Let me just ask the question. You will agree that it is important for us to prioritize what our interests are. Would that be a fair statement?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And like you and Representative Villarreal, I certainly prioritize education.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand where you are going.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. The money that would be going to these college and university students. The money is being pulled from where.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It will be pulled from the government's trustee accounts which cover a whole array of other functions at the governor's office.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And the cuts to the --
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And the cuts would remain the same.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, let me ask the question. Let me just ask the question. You will agree that it is important for us to prioritize what our interests are. Would that be a fair statement?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And like you and Representative Villarreal I certainty prioritize education. I understand where you are going.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Let me lead you to where I'm going. If this body had to choose between providing financial aid to our college students ands universities and leaving money in a governmental agency, like the Governor's trust account, tell me which one do you think would receive a higher priority.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think we are fixin' to have a vote to that effect.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Say it again?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think we will have a vote that will decide that issue.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I didn't hear you.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think we will have a vote that will decide that issue.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: No, but what I'm saying is that as a legislative body, because I'm having a hard time hearing you, if we had to choose between helping providing financial aid to college students and universities and leaving the money in a governmental agency, in the governor's trust account, which one do you think the people of the State of Texas would choose as a higher priority.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There are some of those things in the Governor's accounts that are very important. If we remove them completely those functions will cease to exist.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Name me something in the Governor's trust account that is more important than providing an investment to our college students and those who are going to our universities. What is left in the governor's trust account?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm not sure how much is left in the government's account.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And that's the point that I'm making. If you or anyone up front can name me something that is more important in preserving and maintaining than -- giving this money to our college students and those who are going to our universities let me know what they are so we can have this -- so we can compare the two.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I just have one suggestion put -- you've bent my ear about disaster funds for folks along the coast. That were put in -- disasters down there. There are many programs that effect the entire state in the governor's office. And, yes, I understand that these are painful cuts about education and about especially student aid but in a program that had $300 million last time that's been painfully cut this $6 million devastates some of these other programs. A difficult situation and actually allocating the money between now and the end of the year.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Please explain to us how any money set aside for disasters. Okay. That have yet to occur but we know that there's not a one dollar in H.B. 1 for Texas grants. There are 80,000 students. Eighty thousand students that are not going to receive any financial aid as relates to Texas grants. Now what the amendment says -- what the amendment says is that we will take the money from the governor's trust account and we will provide financial aid to college students and are you indicating that -- that it is a greater priority for us to protect the governor's trust account because I'm having a hard time understanding the two.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I found -- back to your other question about priorities. There are criminal justice grants and there are other.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Did you say criminal justice grants?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: So are you indicating, Representative Aycock, that it's more important to save the money in the governor's trust account to provide criminals those grant dollars than it is to provide our college students with financial aid? Because if that's what you all are defending -- if that's what you all are defending, I think -- I do not believe that the people in the State of Texas would agree with those priorities.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand your position.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I will not vote. I will not vote to maintain the governor's criminal grant funding and not provide financial aid to the college students who are in need of financial aid. And let me just be clear after we vote on H.B. 4 and H.B. 1, the students in the State of Texas will need more financial aid than ever before because their tuition will go up whether you're from rural Texas, suburban Texas, urban Texas. Black, brown, or white, rich or poor, you are going to pay more. And so my question is, why would we not support this amendment that provides more financial aid to our students? Why are we more interested in protecting the governor's agency than in providing financial aid to our students? And if the governor wants his agency protected why don't he release more of the rainy day fund?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Since we've been talking I've gained some information here. Let me convey that in response to your question, if I may. Other programs, Homeland Security, certainly one of the vital interest in our state is securing that southern border. Securing all of our state with homeland security issues. The criminal justice program has been mentioned, disaster funding has been mentioned. Some of the colleges including A & M have already agreed that they will not increase their tuition. And, yes, I will work with you to try to find money for student aid. I think it is critical but I do not believe we can decimate all these other programs for $6 million in a program that has over $300 million in needs.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me just say, you know, I respect you highly Representative Aycock, and all of you who are defending these cuts, but I don't believe that there's a greater investment than to invest in our young people from pre-K to 12th grade and to invest in our college students and those who are going to our community colleges. And so, I think the governor can defend his agency himself but I believe when it comes to this amendment I think the priorities are out of whack. My respectful opinion.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal to close.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I want to thank Representative Jimmy Don for clarifying that this is a choice between criminal justice grants and the governor's trustee program, versus financial aid grants for students trying to get an education at a university. Today we are here to make cuts not blindly but to prioritize. Our voters want us to balance the budget in a way that first things first. This amendment I believe serves all of our interest by saying, higher education is more important than criminal justice grant programs or any other programs in the governor's trusteed account. And it is important to use money that taxpayers have paid the State for specific purposes like the Be on Time Scholarship Fund or the five year Accountant Student's Program on those programs. I ask you colleagues to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: A vote no is a vote to prioritize education and a vote to bring transparency to the budgeting process. Thank you. Representative Villarreal sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is the motion on the table. Vote aye; vote nay. Show Representative Villarreal voting no, show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Darby voting aye. Have all voted. There being 97 ayes and 48 nays motion to table prevails. Amendment on page 10 is withdrawn. Madam doorkeeper.
THE DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we are on page 11. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal. Members, we're not going to break for lunch and the lunch will be provided in the lounge. Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 12. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Amendment is withdrawn. Amendments on pages 13, 14, and 15 are temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 16. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This simply takes an unused portion of the System Benefit Fund and puts it -- cuts it for what's the remainder of the year. It does not effect the total account. The fund stays in existence and it uses the unused portion of that for any cost we have in the next three months.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Certainly.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Representative Christian, I have spoken to you in reference to this amendment; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's correct.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And I did ask you to pull it down.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And I provided some reasons. Let me just ask -- tell us the purpose of the System Benefit Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's to help low income individuals to take care of the electric bill during times of extreme high rates or need or emergencies. The fact, Mr. Turner, is that PUC has faded and has become a Rainy Day Fund for them. It currently has been used for three months of the year. It has a current balance of about 650 million dollars. And all we are asking for is in the next three months to use the excess dollars, 86 million is, I believe, what the number is-- which will not affect the total fund of doing what it's designed to do and what is happening is cutting from the slush fund just sitting there.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Well, it is certainly, well it does not necessarily just -- well, part of it is sitting there, but let me just ask this: Have you checked with the almanac to see whether or not we're going to have a cool summer?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, I do believe that 650 million, the current balance, if we leave about 550 million, we'll cover that 3 months. It has historically, there has been no 3-month period that 550 million dollars wouldn't cover, the needs you are suggesting are. We are not taking the entire fund. $550 million is enough.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Are you aware that from the System Benefit Fund, we have already taken the 5 percent? Are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, I'm not.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: We have already taken the 5 percent. Are you aware that we have already taken the 5 percent, taken 2.5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That still leaves us around 500 million.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Well that 500 or the 600 million --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: There's still 100 or 500 million in there now --
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: -- I'm just talking about 86. But what the members need to understand is that most of the money is being used to certify the budget. The moneys that you are taking, you are taking money away from what will be used as discounts for people for the months of May, June, July, August, and September of this coming year. You're not touching the money that's being used to certify the budget. When people -- when people vote on this amendment, they should be fully aware that they are taking money that's been set aside for people for the months of May, June, July, August, and September of 2011. That's what this amendment does. Are you aware that we are already taking, $63 million of the System Benefit Fund moneys in H.B. 4.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well we have 500 million dollars to go around for the next four months -- and honestly with the gas prices -- I remember when we served together on natural resources back when I was somebody and you were -- you were somebody too. We served on the natural resources. At that time we had the highest electric rates. It was a great emergency and there was a great need at that time. We have experienced the lowest gas rates in decades. Which means not only will we have half a billion dollars left in the fund for the next four or five months, which I think is adequate, but also have the lowest potential electric rates that we have had decades because of the low price of gas which puts fuel about 70, 80 percent of the electric generation in the State. So with low fuel cost the projection is the fuel isn't going to spike. If it does we got more than enough to cover the last several years worth of needs -- decades -- that's a billion dollars.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Representative Christian, that's not how the program works. That's not how the program works. We pay the surcharge on the electricity bill every single month for those who are in the deregulated market. If I'm not mistaken the only area of your district that's in the deregulated market is Nacogdoches. The other parts are not in the deregulated market. But the point that I'm making is that we pay on the surcharge. It comes to the State. Right now, the State is taken most of the money. The money is not going to the low income and to the elderly. It's not doing that now. Your amendment takes from that very small portion that is actually going to the people for the months of May, June, July and August, and September of this year. You are not touching what's left in the dedicated account. That's the point I'm making to you.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I respect Mr. Turner. And nobody respects your work for the needy, elderly, and I respect you totally but I simply disagree at a time that there's not good decisions being made in this House today and over this week. It's good versus good, it's bad versus bad. It's not anything that we necessarily want to do. It is that we have to be accountable. We are limited to what dollars we have, it's a tight budget. This is about $89 million that we can take that will not effect an emergency crisis or need that will come up in the next five months. If they are misusing the funds for the purpose intended I suggest that we file bills to correct their use of letting half a billion dollars sit there and be used for bond ratings which I agree is not the intent we had for this fund. But to sit here and not use money for the crisis situation that is needed when education is hurting, senior citizens and old folks homes are threatened severely, when all these things are happening, and for us not to cut in places and to leave a pot of money on the table of $650 million, it is not needed. It is evil on our part not to do the responsible thing, not being responsible to those people in need. We want to do that.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: But Mr. Christian, that's not what your amendment does. Let me tell you what your amendment does. We are already taking the reduction in H.B. 4. Your amendment will remove an additional 23 to $24 million. If the members on this floor accept your amendment, the only thing that this amendment does is that it reduces the amount coming from the rainy day fund and it takes the money away from the seniors and the low income. That's all that it does.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I will agree that it takes those targeted dollars that would accumulate in that pot for the next five months and uses them against the rainy day fund or wherever else we need in this emergency budget. This is the largest shortage of dollars we have had in my career in the Texas House. Your amendment -- after the largest downturn since the Great Depression that we are suffering from. So we are not here voluntarily and we are not making good decisions and we can't be generous with dollars and we have to be frugal. And it didn't make us evil it's just the that's the responsible thing for us to do. This is not stopping the account that now has a balance of over a half a billion dollars sitting at PUC and taking a million out of that is just logical. I don't know how I would answer people in public education and nursing homes other issues that are hitting whenever we're sitting here saying I've got a pot of money sitting over here at the PUC regulates, it helps to lower the bond rating for some of the programs that we have but it's supposed to go help the needy. It's sitting in there building interest for somebody somewhere and I think we should fight that.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Representative Christian, does the TCC support your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No they've asked me -- and it's kind of interesting I'll be happy to do the conservative coalition's request on this. See they don't like the idea of taking the dedicated funds, partial dollars to fund other programs. But what they do want to do is take the entire fund and close it. So if you want me to do the conservative coalition thing and I appreciate you asking me -- instead of taking 86 million I will take the whole 650 million if you desire me to do TCC's desire. I thought we were being generous in working with your side on this issue of TCC.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Representative Christian, would you be shocked to hear -- would you be shocked to hear that I support TCC's position that if we are going to take money from people for one purpose and use it for another, we need to cut it out and return all of the money back to the people of the State of Texas. I support.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Will you join me in amendment, in tomorrow's amendment by one to -- if I stated here. If you join me with that, I think, the House would appreciate us for taking the entire fund. I can agree with you on that.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The fact of your amendment is that you will turn off the lights for seniors and low income people in the months of May, June, July, August, and September of this year if we support your amendment. If that is the choice you want us to make, if that's what all of this reductions are about reducing the rainy day pool in order to turn off people's lights then so be it. I shall vote no against your amendment. I do not think it is the right thing to do, it's not the compassionate thing to do, and your cuts are getting in people's way. I disagree. I disagree.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I respectfully disagree and I appreciate and respect your view chairman Turner. I really --
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: You know I respect you and you know I love you. But in the name of love and respect, I also will respectfully say that this amendment is not in the best interest of the people of the State of Texas and I would ask that you pull it.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gerren raised the point of order. The gentleman's time is up. The point of order is taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak against the amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker and Members, in a system benefit fund, for those in the deregulated market would pay on every single month. I will say to you, we've already taken the 5 percent cuts in appropriations, we've already taken the 2.5 percent cut in H.B. 4, we're taking $63 million from this fund. Okay. With respect to the amount that's sitting in the budget for certification purposes, that amount is still there. We can't touch that. It's still there. The amount that Representative Christian finished taken is that small portion that the appropriators and that the leadership has decided would go to your elderly individuals and no income people for this coming year. And the months of June, July, August, and September of this year. Now, unless somebody can say that the temperatures are going to go down, the Bill, H.B. 4 combined with H.B. 1 already reduces the monthly discount to the elderly and to the low income from 17 percent to 12. We already reducing what they are going to get. The effect of his amendment is to reduce it even lower than that. Now that should be some sad shared sacrifice. We didn't touch the governor's trust account. I got that. We didn't touch that. You want to touch the elderly and low income on the electricity bill? If that is the choice of this body, if that's what this means, so be it. I am no on this bill. It's not good public policy, it's not the right thing to do.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, he yields. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Mr. Turner, let me first say that your work on the systems benefits fund is the moment I walked into this building as a member of the legislature has inspired me to be a better member. You have done a tremendous amount to educate us as a body as to how we should approach this. You have always taken the stance that we should not take money from the American people on the electric bills to dedicated purpose and then you use it for something else; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And that is your consistent position.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And that the majority of time since I've been here, all the money that we have raised has not been to subsidize the very old and the very poor but to balance our budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's right. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And so what you are saying is that when, it's misleading when they say, 500 something million would be left in the slush fund account because that's not the case. It's a small portion of that that is used. The rest of it is to certify the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: So this extra 23 million dollars is a significant further cut and not sure in the (2:36:07) -- to the 500 million but it's a much smaller number that is actually spent to subsidize these.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If you accept the amendment, the cuts are not only that 7.5 or 10 percent, the cuts for this program goes up to about 20 percent. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Wow. 20 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If you accept the cuts. Now, Chairman Pitts, Chairman Darby, and others will tell you when it came to the shared sacrifice, I did not object to us utilizing some of the money from the system benefit fund for the reductions. I did not object to that shared sacrifice. But cuts in the particular amendment goes too far. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: So you've already compromised on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I've already indicated to them, I did not raise an objection to utilizing the $63 million, moneys that is allocated in this current year in order to help balance this budget. This amount is over and above. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Now, Mr. Chairman, we can continue to hear that these have already been taken in committee that all of us had the opportunity to go to the appropriations committee and participate in this discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And that is why a number of our colleagues who have gone up there to fight for higher education in their district, another noteworthy causes have been told no; and basically their amendment have it voted down because they are trying to keep these bills clean. Because these bill discussions have already taken place.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And this work has already been done.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And you yourself the champion for the systems benefits fund has worked to sacrifice out of this amount to help in this very tough economic times.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: I thank you for your work. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Representative Turner, I just want you to explain to me about this systems benefits fund. Where does this money come from?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: It comes from -- it is a surcharge on everyone's electricity bill, monthly, if you're in the deregulated marketplace.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And for the most part, where is this deregulated market?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: All of the Houston, Harris County areas and surrounding areas all of Dallas and its surrounding areas, down in south Texas. And then heading towards east Texas as well. Not all of the areas in let's say a Beaumont and Jefferson Counties were in it but some of those areas have been pulled out. South of Representative Christian's area, the only area that's in the deregulated place is Nacogdoches the rest of this district is outside.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So we put a surcharge on individual's bills to do what?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The surcharge -- it was initially setup to serve for three purposes. To offset any losses in the local school district. We have done that. To educate people on the new marketplace. We're still in the process of doing that. And third, is to provide up to a 20 percent discount for the elderly and the low income on their monthly electricity bills.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So when we -- if we move this money basically we will be doing what we've done before is to tell them we're raising money for one thing. Charging them money for one thing and then using it for something different; is that correct?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. And the danger with this amendment is that we are taking away from the months of May through September of this year. This program would take effect starting in May.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, basically we're lying to the public again.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: We are certainly taking money not using it for that purpose and we are lowering the discount that we have initially said that we were going to give them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And if we move this money, where we moving this money to?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, if the amendment goes on, the only thing we are going to do is reduce the reductions on the Rainy Day Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, we in fact are again placing a tax on the citizens for the State of Texas with regard to providing a safety net for those individuals who might need help through these economic times; is that correct?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The elderly and the low income will be significantly impacted by this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Representative Turner, we want you to elaborate if you can just a little bit more about what this program actually does and what it means to the citizens of this state. What it would do.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: In 1999, when we deregulated the marketplace a part of the safety net was the Systems Benefit Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM KEFFER: Mr. Turner, one second. Members, this is really important. We need to listen to this. This program, we all have a vested interest in how this program works. What we've already done in the cuts and I think this is something that Mr. Turner has explained the program to those of you who might not have been here in 1999, to understand what we're doing on this thing.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: In 1999 we deregulated the electricity market. As a part of the safety net, we put in the System Benefit Fund. There is a surcharge on everybody's electricity bill, monthly, if you are in the deregulated marketplace. It generates approximately $140 million a year. We do not expend most of that money and giving it as a discount. We hold most of it in the budgetary process to certify the budget and on average, out of that $144 million a year, we only give about a 130 or less than that to people on their discounts. We reduced the program. It used to be an annual program, now it's only five months a year. Balance in this account, in the dedicated account right now, is approximately $650 million. By the end of this biennium, if we do not touch it, the balance in the account will be over $900 million. The only thing that we are given to the people on their discount is approximately a hundred and some million, and we are leaving in the account to certify this budget over $700 million that is not going to the elderly and not going to low income.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, Mr. Turner, I want you to talk about it from this perspective that this was a dedicated fund; what does that mean?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The money comes in for a specific purpose to be utilized for a particular purpose. It cannot be used for any other purpose but we determine how much money will actually go out.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so all of the rate payers in these deregulated markets are paying a surcharge to have those funds available dedicated to specific purpose; is that correct?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: For the discount program, for the elderly and the low income individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And today, are we using that money, are we using most or a majority of that money for that?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Four-fifth's of that money is simply being used to certify the budget. It is not going out as a discount on the people's electricity bill. Now in Representative Christian's amendment, doesn't touch the four-fifth that remains in the budget.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Geren raises the point of order. Gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I would vote no on the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker and members, I think that we should also know that although this does not technically violate the calendar rule, because it simply increases the cuts to the System Benefits Fund. We will have to come back tomorrow I believe and after talking with Chairman Pitts to reduce the Bill H.B. 1 by $23 million. Because H.B. 1 assumes that there is going to be this net amount in the fund to certify the budget. If we take 23 million out this year, and there's is no UB authority to carry it out to next year, then next years budget will be unbalanced by $23 million. And Mr. Pitts has an amendment to shore up tomorrow what we do today. So just know that you are going to have to cut tomorrow's budget to another $23 million to make it balance if we take this money out of the System Benefit's Fund.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Craig, I remember a lot of testimony about this issue in committee and I believe you were there that day to hear it.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Do you remember that this money comes to be available, in Mr. Christian's words, I guess, because the commission chose to cut the subsidy rates?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, the PUC cut the subsidy rate, without being asked, from 17 percent to 10 percent --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Did they have --
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: -- which is more than the 5 percent or the 2 1/2 percent cut. They just voluntarily cut the discounts that people are going to receive this summer from 17 to 10.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, they created this surplus simply but cutting the benefits without any direction from the legislature, without any justification that they could give us in committee, without any showing that there was too much money being spent. They just said we're going to be nice guys and help the governor and they made an arbitrary decision to make that cut without any justification at all. And now it shows up as surplus funds; is that close?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I don't know who they thought that they were helping but the people that are hurting is the elderly and the people that depend on this program through the summer months to get a discount.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And did they say anything about those -- about determining that those people did not need the money. About determining that they had too little demand? They just said, we made the cuts because we thought we should.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: They did it all on their own and did not have a valid reason when they were testifying to us under oath.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, this isn't really a surplus anymore than it is a surplus to say that there is a hole in the roof and we are not going to fix it now we've got extra money in the bank.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yeah, they left the surplus charge on the bills the same. They just lowered the benefits which creates more money.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's a good point. They've decided to make a cut but they continued to tax the rate payers for the money as if they were spending it and now they come to us with what they claim to be a gift of this extra money that they are giving us out of the goodness of their heart. But it's not their money to begin with and they cut benefits to get it, didn't they?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That is it.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: The tax remains the same.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I would move -- I would vote no on the motion to table, so that you don't have to cut more tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: I -- Mr. Speaker, would Mr. Christian be closing?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: So, I won't have any opportunity to ask questions?
THE SPEAKER: For the motion to table? No. That's correct. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Let me clarify. I did not move to table. So we are going to vote on the amendment straight up and down. So vote no on the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to say a few words and the speaking against this amendment. One, is because I come from the one of the hottest areas in the State, the Rio Grande Valley. If you have ever spent your summer down there then you understand what this area goes through. It is extremely hot area that is becoming more and more hot as we experience climate change. Two, is I also represent if not the single most poorest county in the State, we rival Hidalgo County to our West, every year to be the poorest county in the State. I served both on appropriations and on state affairs. I have seen Chairman Turner's passion for the System Benefit Fund in both those arenas. One of the biggest complaints that we receive is that we tax for certain purpose and spend money with those tax dollars for another purpose. What we have here today is an opportunity for all of us to be consistent. We've consistently said that we're not going -- all of us, whether Democrat or Republicans. Democrats are trying to be part of the process but the majority votes have consistently said we are not going to change what the appropriations committee has already said will already be done. I ask you to be please be consistent. I ask you to be please be mindful that we're not dealing with a $500 million pool of money. We're dealing with a small pool of money in addition to what we used to certify the budget here. And I ask you to vote no on this amendment. Mr. Speaker I think we'd like just a straight up and down vote and allow Mr. Christian to close. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Christian to close.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I think that there are clarifications that might need to be made on this. Technically this has already been done. Chairman Pitts and the PUC at the last board meeting reduced by 10 percent this allotment. We're just doing -- all we're doing is matching -- it's pretty closely what the PUC has already taken out from this allocation this year and we're able to use it on the people's budget to reduce it. If we leave this money over at the to PUC they can PUC it or whatever they want to do. I would rather take the money that is not going to be in the Systems Benefit's Fund already by action of PUC and use it against our budget, the people's budgets that we've been dealing with. So your choice really is do we leave the money that's already been taken over at PUC for them to play with or do we bring it home and use it in our general budget to reduce the money against the taxpayers that we're trying to work with and this emergency session. So the question is not whether or not it's going to be done. The question is that $86 million are going to be used here on the people's budget or over at one of our agencies. Now, which do you think is the best? Okay? And I will take questions.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Mr. Christian, I'm just confused. All right. Bottom line what the purpose of this System Benefits Fund, as I understand it, is to supplement low income family's electric bill. So Grandma Smith get $10 a month off of her electric bill. And we all pay. Every electric bill you and I, there's a little extra charge, goes through the Systems Benefit Fund and out of that theoretically low income folks are supposed to get a small size to help with their electric bill.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: That's correct. So the question is. If we vote for your amendment, will Grandma Smith -- will she receive any less in her -- as a reduction of her electric bill -- will her it stipend -- will it reduce any if we vote for your amendment?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not because of this amendment. The PUC still has authority on this. Now the last board meeting they've made the cut pretty well equal to what we're doing here to match. So this amendment will not effect at all how much grandma or grandpa or any poor person will get --
REPRESENTATIVE KING: -- PUC, under their rule making authority, and their oversight authority for the Systems Benefit Fund they periodically adjust that up or down based on what electric rates are and they adjust it within the amount that the legislature has allocated to be used for those supplements out of the System Benefit Fund; is that right?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Okay. And you are saying that they have already recently lowered that amount leaving an excess in the PUC budget that isn't go to Grandma Smith.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: And so basically what you're doing, I'm trying to understand what -- I'm trying to see if I'm correct. So what you're saying is and I understand that before -- but what you're saying is your amendment recaptures that amount of money and brings it back into CR?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well we capture -- what the exact accounting methodology I don't know the terminology. It just -- gives us the ability to reduce our budget instead of money sitting there and allocating to PUC.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Okay. The bottom line if we vote for your amendment, it's your position that it will not lower the supplement that Grandma Smith gets to help pay her electric bill.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: And may I ask you who brought you -- who proposed this amendment to you?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It was brought to me, trying to recall, by an individual in the House that said that we need to take care of this because this is wasted moneys --
REPRESENTATIVE KING: I was thinking this is one of the TPCS; is that not correct?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: One of the things that they smiled about -- Arlington and Talmedge were talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Yeah. But it wasn't brought to you by TPCS. All right. I remember that incorrectly. Thank you.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you very much. Members, this is specifically absolutely sure fund that has a good purpose and have more than enough money to accomplish and this particular --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield for some questions.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- one minute. The electric rates already projected are not likely to pivot upwards to any large extent which is the purpose of this for excessive time to help the needy. The reason is not because the -- or what generates a vast majority of electricity in Texas. So not only do we have money over there sitting that we could use today but this choice is to use that $86 million for our purpose from the budget are legal --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I will yield to questions, respectfully.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Mr. Christian. You made a statement that this money would be available for the PUC to use on anything they want but it's a slush fund for them. Isn't this a dedicated fund do? They have the opportunity to simply just spend it on birthday cakes or something if they don't choose to use it?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's not true, sir?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, that's not true. But it is not allocated for you this year. They voted at the last meeting not to allocate --
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: They voted not to allocate, please, just simply in answer to my question, so that the floor is clear, this money cannot be arbitrarily used by PUC if your amendment do not pass. It is dedicated to the System Benefits Fund for use now or in the future depending on how those rates are set; isn't that correct?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's correct. In fact there's $615 million instead of that $87 million being used by us budget. But it will not be used for grandma this year. It will sit there. And so we got money to be added to the half billion dollars are not in use over there, not dedicated, allocated this time for use for the next month. So why not take it in this emergency scenario. Money that's sitting there not to be used for the purpose which I believe we intended it to be used. It won't be used and we will just save it for the PUC and so we have a choice. We can use it for the people's budget to make it available to decrease this debt instead of sitting there for another year at least drawing interest for somebody -- until somebody maybe used in that large Rainy Day Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I would like to understand in the context of this bill, there's some questions that members have had, when Mr. Christian's amendment creates a cut within this which increases the dollar amount. I see on page 1, line 13 of House Bill 4, that there's a sum total amount of $1,133,626,000. And I'm just trying to figure out -- that number is going to be grossed up based on the cuts he's presenting; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: That number may float up or float down.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. That number will float up and down. Mr. Christian's amendment does not have to correct that whatever cuts he makes will be reflected in enrolling and engrossing for the third reading; is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we don't need to worry about that? The cut he's making, the amendment as it is work ands doesn't create a problem within the bill.
THE SPEAKER: The bill has to be corrected at some point depending on the actions of the floor on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: And that is all the amendments, not just one. Because they are talking about it is an adjustment that will be done and they're trying to make it sound like that this bill is going to make adjustments to those bills, it won't. It will be for all of the total of the adjustments at the end of the bill today. Okay. Chairman Pitts supports this -- at least endorses it. It does exactly what I said it did. They have $87 million dollars sitting in an agency that is not being decided to be using --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- it would be irresponsible not to. Yes, ma'am.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Christian, do you yield?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Christian, let me ask you a question. Would you say that this money was -- is being collected for a specific purpose?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And would you say your amendment takes it from that specific purpose?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. So we will be disingenuous if we continue to collect this money and telling them we are collecting it for one thing but in fact we're moving it around on as needed basis for other things; is that correct.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay so. For members that want to vote on this amendment, they need to be aware that this money was being collected to support effort and your amendment takes it out of that -- from that and you are going to be using it for something else.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That is correct. That is also the reason that the people sent us to this capitol to make the tough decisions in tough times. And if we are not willing to make the tough decisions that we know are right -- we are responsible to the voters who sent us here, then we're -- the reason why we have an elected body is -- by the way I believe your check is probably one of the reasons to dedicate the money in the first place.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But we are -- we told people that if we were able to collect this surcharge we would use it for certain things. And now we're saying we are going to leave it there, we are going to collect it but we're not going to use it for what we are saying. And you now are doing what the appropriations committee had an opportunity to do and they didn't do it; isn't that correct?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: They probably were not aware at the time that PUC was going to do this. Which they now have done and have already did this and locked this money away. And I think what we've told the people who contributed this is that we are going to take care of the purpose for which we told them the dollars were being taken. We should do that and I can tell you that with $650 million sitting in the pot and the allocation this dollar away from the immediate purpose that we're being concerned about, which is this current --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Would you.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- we are the ones that are saying they're taking care of the need, we are not taking any of the -- the lowering will be accomplished but -- so the folks have the bonus of lowering the budget in a crisis situation or having to take dollars from teachers or whoever else that it has to come from. This bill takes money that the voters sent us here to scrub the budget for dollars that are not being used. These dollars are not being used and they have now been dedicated that they intent to use it.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So, you restored it to education is this -- does your amendment restore to education or community colleges? Education, does it do that. Your amendment doesn't do that. Your amendment restores it where?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No it doesn't do that. That's tomorrow's vote.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. But --
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mine puts it in the pocket for tomorrow. It can be used for education, nursing homes, mental health all these thing that is are --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So, tomorrow you are suggesting that you are going to have an amendment tomorrow to take this money and restore it to public education, to community colleges, to nursing homes like you are articulated? Because this amendment doesn't do that.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, we can't do it today. It's impossible to parliamentarian to do that. They can't do that. They can't allocate this fund in this amendment today. But today's budget which is available tomorrow and which is not available. So if you don't put this money there. There will be less money available for teachers, for hospitals, public health all of the different thing that is we should be concerned about. Now, if you want less money to allocate tomorrow then you don't want this 87 million here. You will just leave it with the PUC and just have it there, so that now we have maybe $700 million next time sitting in that slush fund instead of using it appropriately in the days when there is emergency needs and people are hurting. I would rather see the lights stay on for the poor and needy than see them kicked out of nursing homes and on the streets. That is the decision that we will have tomorrow. This money has already been allocated by the PUC so let's take the money and put it to work for us and no old or poor person in need will see a bill that will be unpaid because we pass this amendment, yet education and other needs of this State will have an extra $87 million tomorrow for us to debate. I move passage.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Lozano, for what purpose?
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: I just have a quick question for Representative Christian.
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I yield.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you. And I am just trying to learn the process. So you're going to get this money and put it in the Rainy Day Fund?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No. It goes to the general budget.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: General revenue.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: General revenue.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: General revenue. And what was it that you said about where it's sitting right now. That it's just sitting there idly, I believe.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes. It's sitting there and we might be getting some interest but the PUC has accumulated all this money -- this money over here and they got more than they started with and they haven't spent what was needed over the years. And I'm sure that Speaker Turner is much more advised up on all the specifics and details, I just want you to know that the PUC has already voted indeed this last board meeting not to allocate this money this year. Because they got enough money sitting there with what they got meet all the projected need this year. We have a need here, this year. So why would it sit there being unused by the PUC in an account where it is not needed to meet the purposes.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: That's what I was --
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I would take it -- I don't want to see it put in a slush fund over there I want to bring it here?
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: I heard you say that earlier and that's when I jumped out of my seat because isn't that essentially what the money from the Rainy Day Fund is doing right now just sitting there?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: And that's why tomorrow, we can debate what to do with the general budget. But the more money that we have in the general budget to talk about, and to have we can solve those purposes that we all legitimately feel need to be met. If we don't pass this amendment, I mean, it's not going to cripple the whole budget but I mean that's $87 million that's just sitting there we could have tomorrow for the purposes that we are concerned about. Which are schools, nursing homes, mental health care and all of these other needs. So it will increase the dollars available for that consideration tomorrow --
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: So, would you support the rest of the money in the Rainy Day Fund being used for hospitals, teachers, instead of just sitting there idly?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's what the purpose of this motion and, you know, not pertinent to this motion. That's the debate that is -- that is the decision that we need to make. But we won't make that in this one we just have $87 million dollars more either for or against the slush fund wherever it comes from to solve the needs of the citizens of Texas at this time.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Okay. Thank you for your comment.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Appreciate it.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Christian.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I move to temporarily withdraw the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The amendment on page 17 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 18 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 19 is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: That has been your consistent position.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And the majority of time since I have been here all the money that we have raised has not been to subsidize the very old or very poor but to balance our budget.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That's right.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And so what you are saying is that when some hundred million will be left in the slush fund account, because that's not the case. It's a small portion of that that is actually used. The rest of it is to certify the budget.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: So, this extra 20, $23 million is a significant further cut and not truly in proportion to the 500 plus million but it's a much smaller number that is actually spent to subsidize these people.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: If you accept the amendment, that cuts a not only that 7.5 or 10 percent that cuts. But this program goes up to about 20 percent.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Wow, 20 percent.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: To accept the cuts --
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a recognition.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the other day we had a little discussion about the differences in some of the districts that we all representative. And we talked a little bit about West Texas. So, today I'm happy to introduce in the north gallery a group of folks from the district that I represent, from Ward, Loving, and Reeves counties including the mayor of the city of Pecos Venetta Seals. The president of their hospital district board of Linda Gholson, county judge Greg Holly from Ward county and county clerk Natrell Cain, Teresa Burnett, who's their chamber director. And also from Loving county, Judge Skeet Jones, Sheriff Bill Hopper and several of the commissioner's court are in the north gallery. So, please, help me in welcome them to the Texas House of Representatives. They're getting to see democracy in action.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Castro on the floor of the House? The amendment on page 32, 33, and 34 are withdrawn. Amendment on page 35 and amendment on page 36 are withdrawn. Is Mr. Coleman on the floor of the House? The amendments on page 37 and 38 are temporarily withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Christian for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I'm not moving to take I it back up I promise. Not right now. I want to recognize my good friends from Shelby County in the gallery. It's Shelby County Day to home folks and see they got to watch you people just holler at me and yell. And I'm so embarrassed now in front of my home folks. But seriously I think it's a great day for my folks to see how the government is done. And this is how it's done. I'm glad that my home folks can see us work it, to argue it, to debate and try to do what's best for them and we're not just sitting here. So if the good folks in Shelby County who won the Texas -- let me say the good award they won. I have it in one pocket somewhere, Texas -- Go Texas award for one of the best communities in the state for the work that they done hard. I want to recognize our delegation also Mitch Minfy and his two daughters are here at the Capitol for the first time and I want to recognize them. County Judge, Rick Campbell, Mayor David Chadwick and all the folks from Shelby County, please, stand up and be welcomed to the Texas House.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we are on page 39. Following amendment. The Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment helps to protect important state priorities by offsetting the damages -- the damaging effects of H.B. 4's budget cuts to our public junior and community colleges. This amendment simply states that any revenue that is collected in excess of our expected revenue is given back to our community and to our junior colleges. Currently H.B. 4 cuts $76 million to these vital programs. This is a devastating cut for the community college that are economic drivers in many -- in many of our districts. This amendment assures that any extra money that we get back is given to them. I think we all agree that education is a critically important to our future workforce and our state. We should be expanding our higher education not gutting it. I hope you would consider the gravity of the situation that we face as you cast your vote on this amendment and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock for opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me begin by saying there are a number of amendments in this package beginning with this one that have the same sort of strategy that if we get money that we should spend it in designated ways, and designate it not by an appropriations process but by an amendment on the floor. I want to tell you that the position of our committee has been that that money that has been -- if it gets credited back should go into HB 1 rather than being designated out this time. It's a choice between appropriations basically by amendment process or appropriations by committee where the entire state is represented and I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again let me reiterate that this amendment simply requests that any excess revenue -- again let me be clear, any excess revenue we might generate from the State's 2010, 2011 general revenue receipts be given back to junior colleges and community colleges as they face $76 million cut currently. With that I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Walle sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Aycock voting aye, show Mr. Walle voting no, show Ms. Farrar voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 98 aye and 48 nays this motion to table prevails. The amendment on page 40 is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment simply states that excess revenue collected by the comptroller beyond the revenue estimate will be allocated for the School for the Blind and Visually Impaired protecting the schools from dangerous budget cuts. The School for the Blind is facing a cut of 1.3 million for this fiscal school year alone. This amendment gives us an opportunity to prioritize the school's needs if and when additional revenue is collected. This amendment sets a reasonable goal for the State to prioritize assistance to the blind and visually impaired as the revenue becomes available. Any budget is about setting priorities and I think the proven return on investment we receive from this school is more than enough to justify a dedication of the State's excess revenue.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could ditto the previous discussion about we need to pay our bills presently with this bill and we need to carry any money that we have generated into H.B. 1 where the funds are more needed. And I might also add regarding --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: -- I will yield in one moment.
THE SPEAKER: Not at this time.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Also regarding the School for the Deaf and School for the Blind our subcommittee treated them a little differently in the coming budget so they will not be dinged as bad as the rest of the folks for this budget. So I do love these people and care a lot about them but at any rate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Aycock, we've heard a lot this afternoon and a lot this morning about our responsible decisions. That we've got to be responsible. We got to pay our bills. Let's illuminate and hallucinate a little bit in the process. We came back here last session and we came up with a proposed budget, correct?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Correct.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And that proposed budget was for the biennium ending in 2011. August 31st, 2011, correct?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's correct.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And so now the shortfall that has come about, the greater discussion that needs to be had about this shortfall, is how has it come about?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: If it's a question then --
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: It is a question. Do you know how it's come about?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I know a great deal of it has it come about --
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Part of it is this margin's tax, is it not?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Oh, the immediate part right now, in this part, is the declining sales tax revenue and also we are having a decline in the property tax values.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Well, let's talk about the declining property tax values. That decline came about when this legislature in 2005 didn't listen to its comptroller and passed legislation on the margins tax that doesn't work. Isn't that right, Representative Aycock?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Wasn't here in 2005.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative Aycock, neither was I. But this margin's tax does not work, does it? And yet -- so you are trying to have us pay bills that, if you will and act responsibly if you will -- I doubt that even Lindsay Lohan would subscribe to this bill paying method.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think as we have gained revenue in these last few months of the year, that revenue should be retained and had we should pay our bills. Remember we're paying our bills with a combination of cuts -- let me finish this, just a moment. We are paying our bills with a combination of cuts. Hopefully later today we will be paying our bills with a combination of rainy day money that would be used. And we got a little bit of bump in the revenue estimate. These amendments including this one, direct that increase in revenue to go to this specific purposes rather than let the budgeting process work out through the appropriations committee and I will oppose to that on all of them.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: The comptroller told us that Republican controlled body and Senate, House and Senate in 2005 that they would face a $25 billion deficit. Did they not? In five years?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The then comptroller may have.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Is there anything in H.B. 4 that fixes the margin's tax problem?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: In all due respect, I don't believe H.B. 4 addresses margin tax. It addresses paying the bills in this biennium.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Is there anything in H.B. 275 that addresses the margin's tax issue?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm not advised of anything there. It addresses paying our bills by using the rainy day funds.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Is there any willingness on the leadership or anything H.B. 1 that suggests that the margin's tax will be fixed?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: H.B. 1 is an appropriations bill. It is not a ways and means bill.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: There's nothing that fixes the margin's tax problem which is the greater problem of this budget. So it's disingenuous for certain people in this body to tell people that we're acting responsibly when in fact we really are not. Back in 2005 they weren't acting responsibly, the margin's tax has not been fixed and there's nothing hear that fixes that problem; isn't that correct?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: With all due respect I believe the most irresponsible thing we could do is to not pay our bills. This H.B. 4 is about paying our present bills and we have come up with a combination of ways to do that. It's a recommended strategy, there are certainly other strategies that people might have but my best guess is that this is the best strategy we have been able to come up with.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Last session that we had a $16 billion gift handed to us, did we not?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's approximate. I'll take that as an approximate number.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Okay. And no one in the last session talked about making cuts of this nature. I didn't here a body of Republicans come out and say that we need to make government smaller. We didn't hear that, did we?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There was a cut in the budget last time in general revenue.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Nothing substantial like this cut.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Nothing as desperate as this cut. That's correct.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: In 2007 when our economy was blowing and going, we didn't have people say let's make government smaller, let's cut some jobs, let's cut some money to the blind, let's cut some money for our nursing homes. We didn't have that, did we?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That year -- I was elected and came hear in 2007 with that was my campaign theme and I believe in smaller government. And I still believe in cuts and I'm willing to accept some of these cuts as painful as they are.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Well, as painful as they are, we need to focus on the problems that are at hand. The problem is the margin's tax that this body, this Republican controlled body, is unwilling to fix. This is why we're here, this is what we need to do. If you want to make responsible decisions, Representative Aycock, and others in this body, that's what we need to focus on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Certainly.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I would just like an assurance on the record. Because I was told yesterday that the School for the Blind and School for the Deaf are not going to be effected by this budget. That we are making -- we are making -- that we're making the proper provisions throughout this entire budget process that if -- that we are prioritizing to ensure that the Texas School for the Blind and Texas School for the Deaf are not going to be adversely affected. I'm okay with what you're saying if that's going to occur in H.B. 1. But at the end of the day I want that assurance today on the floor.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think I understand what you are saying. Let me be specific. Present budget, the present bill that we are discussing, H.B. 4, regarding the 2011 year, there are cuts that were made to School for Blind and School for the Deaf, I believe. If not I will stand corrected. In this coming budget H.B. 1 bill, our committee restored those cuts back to the School for the Blind and to the School for the Deaf.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: So, we don't do it now, I have your assurances and the committee's assurances and Mr. Pitts' assurance that we are restoring the budgets for at least those two entities -- those two schools that they are not going to be adversely affected by our budget process.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It was the movement of the committee and the --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay. We're doing it now, but tomorrow, or whenever, Saturday or whatever day, in committee House Bill 1, we're going to have those assurances. Because I can tell you right now, that this body should not affect those two schools.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, can I defer to my committee members at this point to get those exact numbers?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm more than willing to take that assurance from anybody who knows what they're doing on this.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Aycock. In House Bill 1, our subcommittee determined that this was the very, very first priority we were going to restore and we did restore the cuts that were in House Bill 1. Now that doesn't mean that we restored that plus this money. This is still a cut, is that fair? And we restored to this new base. We didn't restore to their original -- to the original level of the budget that was passed by this House two years ago --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: So are they taking cuts, tomorrow, in our budget?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: They are taking cuts from the base that this bill sets.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, today in this bill. You know what, this bill whatever happens today happens today. I'm talking about by the time we pass bills, assuming we do, that we can send it to the conference that the Texas House is not going to cut the Texas School for the Blind or the Texas School for the Deaf.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And that is not exactly correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well then what are we doing?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right. I'll tell you what we're doing. From -- if you start with the budget we passed last time we were here, H.B. 4 cuts that budget down to here. In H.B. 1 originally it cut it even further. We brought it back to here but we didn't bring it back up to the current level; is that accurate?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: So we are making cuts.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: To the Texas School for the Blind and the Texas School for the Deaf.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That are --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: At least until it gets the process -- at least in the versions that we have that are coming whenever on H.B. 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. We restored --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But we are going to have an opportunity in H.B. 1 to restore it back to the budget and make that priority if we want.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: If the floor so decides.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: If the floor and this membership decide.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. It was important enough to subcommittee. It was the absolute first thing that the subcommittee restored but we only restored it back to the new reduced base after the cuts, after the 5 percent and 2 1/2 percent cuts that went into the --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But at the end of the day when we finish the budgetary process and these bills go to conference or go, I guess, they are going to the conference -- at the end this body will have an opportunity to restore and make sure the budget for the Texas School for the Blind; Texas School for the Deaf are going to be -- we have this opportunity in the next couple of days or three, whatever, to make sure that we have all the adequate sufficient funding -- even though your budget right now will not do that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: You have the opportunity to do that for the next biennium. You won't have the opportunity to replace the cuts that this bill makes in this biennium. Because we have to do that at the end of this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: House Bill 1, now that doesn't mean that we restored that plus this money. This is still a cut; is that fair? And we restored to this new base -- we didn't restore to their original -- to the original level of the budget, that was passed by this House two years ago. So, in our budget they are taking cuts from the base that this bill sets.
REP. KEN LEGLER: Well, today in this bill. You know what? This bill whatever happens today, happens today. I'm talking by the time we pass bills assuming we do and we send it to conference that the Texas House is not going to cut the Texas School for the Blind or the Texas School for the Deaf.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: That is not exactly correct.
REP. KEN LEGLER: Well then what are we doing?
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right. I'll tell you what we're doing. From -- if you start with the budget we passed last time we were here, H.B. 4 cuts that budget down to here. In House Bill 1 originally it cut it even further. We brought it back to here but we didn't bring it back up to the current level; is that accurate.
REP. KEN LEGLER: So we are making cuts --
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's correct.
REP. KEN LEGLER: -- to the Texas School of the Blind and the Texas School for the Deaf. And at least it gets -- at least in the versions that we have they're coming -- wherever in H.B. 1.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. But we restored --
REP. KEN LEGLER: So we're going to have an opportunity in H.B. 1 to restore it back to the budget make that priority if we want.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: If the floor so decides.
REP. KEN LEGLER: If the floor and this membership decides.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. It was important enough to our subcommittee. It was the absolute first thing that the subcommittee restored but we only restored it back to the new reduced base after the cuts, after the 5 percent and 2 1/2 percent cuts that went into the effect.
REP. KEN LEGLER: But at the end of the day when we finish the budgetary process and these bills go to conference or go, I guess, we're going to go to conference at the end this body will have opportunity to restore and make sure the budgets for the Texas School for the Blind and Texas School for the Deaf or we have this opportunity in the next couple days or the next three or days or whatever to make sure we have all the adequate, sufficient funding even though your budget right now will not do that.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: You will have the opportunity to do that for the next biennium. You won't have the opportunity to replace the cuts that this bill makes in this biennium. Because they have to do that by the end of this biennium. Is that accurate?
REP. KEN LEGLER: As I understand it. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Miss Giddings, for what purpose?
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: I suppose I actually was going to talk to -- for question to Representative Hochberg but I can talk to Representative Aycock. But I can talk to --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Aycock, do you yield?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Aycock, I was reflecting on the conversation with Chairman Solomons. Actually when House Bill 1 comes up this body would have the opportunity to make any kind of changes that this body could get enough votes to pass, right?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That is correct. So --
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: It's cool for the blind school, for the deaf and it could be did junior colleges or it could be --
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Absolutely.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Some strategy in some human services. So any --
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Lots of amendments. Yes, ma'am.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: So any -- any -- any anything you could get enough votes to pass. Just as the School for the Blind and School for the Deaf. I just wanted to make it clear.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: This was our subcommittees first and highest priority.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gerens raises a point of order. Gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, if this was such a priority that it's the first thing that the appropriations subcommittee took up to restore and take care of then it's important enough to do that here. If you want to help the School for the Blind, then you can do that today and you can do that tomorrow in the prospective bill.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentle lady yield for questions?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.
THE SPEAKER: She does.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Jessica. This is most interesting listening to the priorities being discussed here. As you are just starting to talk about now. I'm certainly glad that Chairman Solomons talked about the priorities of education especially to these two institutions because I think what your bill is -- your amendment here is trying to address; is it not?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: And I also understood from the oppositions to your amendment that we have an appropriations process that we can follow that would be apparently the appropriate vehicle with which to deal with this. Is that what you understood with Representative Aycock's opposition?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Yes, I would disagree with that? That's why we are here today. That's why we have first reading, second reading, third reading, and the committee process in between. That's why we have a gallery. The gallery was conceived at the beginning before we had even radio as the public participation. That's why you have the reading so that the public can follow along. So all this process -- and then of course it goes the other chamber -- is to better legislation. Is to allow public input that's the transparency in the process and that's how it was designed.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you and if we don't agree with the choices that were made in the appropriations process --
(Audio cut off.) -- the process to make sure that our priorities for education in this case is School for the Blind are going to be considered as we come up with whatever kind of budget we are going to be coming up here.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: That's exactly right. It's also the very smart way of spending public dollars because anytime we can make our citizens productive citizens they can have jobs, they can function in their daily lives, and society then we save money. Otherwise we have to care for those same citizens and in ways that limit their freedoms and their ability to live lives the that they would like to live. It cost us money when we have to expend on social programs when these folks can move on and as I said be productive citizens.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you very much.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table members.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Show Representative Farrar voting no, show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 94 ayes and 51 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment is on page 42. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, not to belabor the points that were made earlier, this does the same thing except for the School for the Deaf. And I just want to tell you it sets -- it's again about prioritizing and again about making members -- productive members -- making people with disabilities in our community productive members of our society. I would like to add to how important it is that the school is a focal point for the entire deaf community. A lot of families move to Austin just to live and work and be around other deaf members of society. And so this is an important institution to this state and I go ahead and vote no for motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock for an opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Members, while I concur in the value of the School for the Deaf just as we did in the School for the Blind and in the interest of time I'm going to say this that was in the previous discussion. We're trying to get this money to pay the bills presently and move the balance over into H.B. 1 for the appropriation process. Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Again, this is not new money. This is money extra that comes in, if it doesn't come in it doesn't get spent, but if it doesn't come in then it says that the School for the Deaf is a priority for our state -- for this legislative body. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to close. This is on motion -- I mean moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative Farrar voting no, show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Branch voting aye. Have all voted? There being 94 ayes and 52 nays. The motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 43.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment is the same song but a different dance step. Instead of taking the money that would come in as before from -- that was additional from the revenue estimate, this would take money from the governor's mansion restoration project. And we love -- I love historic preservation and I have several historic preservations in my district. It's a very important. But when we look at balancing that between people, real people with real problems and real opportunities, then I ask you to consider this amendment and again this will take money from the governor's mansion restoration project and place it into restore the moneys that were cut from the School for the Blind.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of these balances are already incumbered. The exact amounts of the balances is very difficult to estimate. Again, we are just trying to pay our bills with H.B. 4, move any balances over into H.B. 1 for the appropriations process. And at this time I move to table and see if we move.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Just like to make one correction. This is actually for the School for the Deaf. You'll get the School for the Blind, visually impaired next. But I would ask you to vote no on the move to table. I won't delay the points.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, Representative Farrar voting no, representative Aycock voting aye. Have all voted? Being a 100 aye and 47 nay, the motion to table prevails. Members we are on page 44. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Members, this is the amendment for the School for the Blind and Visually Impaired restoring their funding. And I would only ask this question. Which is the greater priority? Is it the restoration of the governor's mansion or is it the people -- students in this the school? And their ability to become productive citizens?
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Similar conversation. Pay the bills and move the money over to the next biennium. It's the thing you've heard before. Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Students at the School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and their families also need to pay their bills and they need to be able to function in society and the only way that they can do that is by the valuable education that they receive at that school. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative Farrar voting no, show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Being a 100 aye and 46 voting nay, the motion to table prevails. Members the amendment on the page 37 is withdrawn. This amendment is on page 38. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members you've heard the similar amendment but what this amendment does is it's a contingency based on the revenue estimate increasing and since the shortfall is based on education and on health and human services, particularly Medicaid. This particular amendment says that those new moneys that come in through the revenue estimate will go to Health and Human Services Commission to help balance, the shortfalls -- the shortfall in that area. Particularly the shortfall in Medicaid and this is what this does. You know these kinds of contingencies would allow us to fund things that we didn't know we could when we leave -- the legislature leave Austin. And it allows that to happen in the interim so that the programs that you care about are not cut and that money can be used for that purpose and that is what this amendment does.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Dukes, for what purpose?
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: Representative Coleman, Chairman Coleman. For how many terms did you serve on the appropriations committee?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Five.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: Five. Mine's my fifth term. And by the time that you get your third, fourth term you start learning about these contingency abilities through the appropriations process, right?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Correct.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: In any way does this contingency amendment increase taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: So it assumes that based on revenues that would have come in that generally would have been through the sales tax but for the fact that we are in a recession that did not come in that if we recover and they do come in, then programs that were cut by almost 40 percent in the Health and Human Services budget, based on the reasoning of not having the funds if such funds do arrive.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. In H.B. 4 there are cuts and that's if the revenue estimate is increased for this year of the biennium, then those dollars can go to restore those cuts between now and August 31st so that this particular biennium's budget is more whole. And believe me when you can put money in Medicaid that means any other dollars can be put somewhere else and we can lower the cuts for this particular biennium and at the end of this biennium and programs. So in other words, it would help those things that they were spoken about earlier where there was no money to actually fund those, so, that they had to be cut. That's in this biennium.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: So programs like the Medicaid dental program in which the court's slapped Texas' hand the day before yesterday on the fuel lawsuit, because we were not providing the dental care to the children as conditioned by the court, you would be able to fund that?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: So things like the Department of Family Protective Services which falls under Health and Human Services enterprise umbrella, that do have programs for medicaid and programs for foster care that was sued just two days ago because the State of Texas allegedly is not doing its job in ensuring that children are safe. There will be at no cost with your amendment to provide moneys to that agency to --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No. No cost at all because this is based on additional revenue coming in that doesn't come from any new taxes any increased tax any, anything, it comes from the fact that the economy has improved in the revenue estimate by the controller, is now more favorable than it was when these decisions were made. And it allows that new money coming in to be put to these priorities.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: So, with the nursing homes that have provider rates, Medicaid provider rates, that are being cut by almost 40 percent causing greater than 50 percent of those nursing homes to potentially go out of business in Texas. So grandmas, grandpas, and aunts and uncles and individuals who can't care for themselves won't get kicked out of nursing homes because there's no moneys available.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: -- that can be used.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. Let me say this for the people who didn't know. But you heard about the 5 percent cut, right, in this particular biennium that was approved by the leadership. But it already been discussed that there will be a 10 percent cut in the next biennium.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: And a two and a half percent cut in between that, so, it took us to a 17 1/2 percent cut --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Seventeen and a half percent cut because those two and a half, 5 percent cuts extend into the next biennium with a 10 on top of it is a 17 1/2 percent cut.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: And are you aware that because of Medicaid cases were not fully funded that in order to distribute the moneys appropriately it requires Medicaid provider rate reductions that on top of the 17 percent ends up for not only waiver programs that would be used by the elderly if they weren't in a nursing home, by the nursing homes, themselves, and other programs bringing them to roughly a 36.13 percent cut in the year 2012 and 24 percent cut in 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. Clearly people have forgotten that the cuts that were laid out for this biennium that we were in have been done. And those cuts ride through the next biennium and those additional cuts when there's no money to come in through HB 1 makes that a very large cut for nursing homes. And remember, the seniors are all of our seniors. This isn't, you know, these are people who spent their money down. They didn't have a lot of money and they were in a nursing home, they spent all of it and they went onto Medicaid.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: But Chairman Coleman, doesn't the mental health programs that have been cut by huge amounts as well by helping --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Huge.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: -- services. And with those amendments, if we were speaking on the appropriations bill, it would be a simple as saying had is a no cost solution.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. That's why in here it doesn't have a cost to the bill and because it's contingent on any revenue coming in and pulls -- make sure that revenue can be appropriated when -- if it comes in higher than what was expected by the comptroller and when she revises the revenue estimate and that revenue estimate actually increases.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: So you're taking this process back to what the legislative process is supposed to be. What the legislature determines, what the legislative body of the House and the Senate determines the priorities of the funding and not the LBB during the two year period in which we are not in.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. This is not an unusual type of action. As a matter of fact, in '99, 2001, in other biennium this has been done not just for bills but for funding of programs in the appropriations bill so that if more revenue comes in, those programs can be funded.
REP. DAWNNA DUKES: You have a good amendment, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Zerwas to speak against the amendment.
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'm going to speak against this and ask you to table this. I will say that Chairman Coleman and I are always together on most issues related that help Human Services and I have a great deal of respect for his insight and his experience with policy and I think in fact we are going to get in the same place with this. I ask you to move to table this in that because where we came in this time on Health and Human Services was actually extraordinary. The reason we have a shortfall in this particular biennium is not related to Health and Human services. And I don't know when that's ever been able to be to said from this podium. And so, we came in pretty close to what we had actually budgeted amount. Part of that was because we got an enhanced map for the past six months and that did kind of close the gap. But the point is that I think that any of the amount of money that we realize in excess in this biennium should be pushed into the next one. That is where we have a tremendous shortfall. In the Medicaid program we all agree there is a tremendous shortfall there. And in H.B. 275 which we'll take up shortly, we are going to suggest that there be $2 billion put into Health and Human Services. Now, to put that in perspective, we put $8 billion recommended just to cover case load. We continue to be extraordinarily short in that particular area. We need to push money into H.B. 1 and we need to work to try to fill that bucket of case load that is in Health the Human Services and particularly in the commission and then we can start to look at some of those things that we know need to be dealt with, such as rate adjustments, and so forth with the nursing homes, with the help with the health care providers that are out there. So that we can continue to deliver the services that we have committed to the People of State of Texas.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Otto for what purpose?
REP. JOHN OTTO: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Dr. Zerwas, if the comptroller were to certify between now and the end of the fiscal year August 31st -- if there was another $500 million dollars as she recently gave us 300 million in an update. If this amendment were adopted it essentially would take the decision away from this body of where that money would go in House Bill 1; is that correct?
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: That is correct.
REP. JOHN OTTO: That would basically be put into while a very deserving H.C. 1 currently does not have a shortfall.
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: Correct.
REP. JOHN OTTO: Thank you.
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman to close.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members, and thank you to you Zerwas. You know why we don't have a shortfall? It's because a bunch of us went to Washington and asked that if the F map that is a 70/30 rate be extended so that 70/30 matching rate is the reason why we don't. And that is $850 million that came in based on actions taken by the U.S. Congress to extend the 70/30 match rate to June 1. Also, even if this money goes into Medicaid in this biennium and is put in there to make up for the shortfall in this biennium it doesn't mean that effects the next biennium because what they can do is always reduce the rate such that it moves into the next biennium. This does not tie the hands of anyone. This is about making sure that things are done now that will leave the cuts in programs now. And you know usually people say you eat what you kill. I went to Washington to do this and I thought it was a very important to do so and that's how we got the $850 million to make sure this budget is not short. So I just believe that it's very important when the money comes to do certain things that that money is spent on those things. So that's why we urge you to vote no on the motion to table and, again, I appreciate Chairman Zerwas and Chairman Pitts worked very, very hard.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment, Representative Zerwas moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Members, vote, aye; vote nay. Show Representative Zerwas voting aye; Representative Coleman voting nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? A vote of 98 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. The amendment on page 45 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 46 is temporarily withdrawn -- Excuse Representative Hilderbran because of illness with motion of Representative Hopson. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King to explain his amendment.
REP. KING: Mr. Speaker and members, we have an amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment to the amendment. Members, back up. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King to explain his amendment.
REP. KING: Okay. Are we on the amendment to the amendment? Members, I have an amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by King of Parker.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Parker to explain his amendment to the amendment. -- King of Parker, sorry.
REP. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. Members, I think this is one that I know is acceptable to the author and I think it's one that everyone can kind of agree on. All it does, this puts in a what I would call a allow impact hiring freeze for state agencies. We got just under a quarter million state employees in the State of Texas. So there's one employee roughly for every hundred citizens. So you see hundred citizens out there they got a state employee for them somewhere. This simply says that through natural attrition last year we had an attrition rate of about 14 percent. This simply says that a State agency as natural attrition occurs essentially over the summer months that they will not fill those positions unless the executive director or the commissioner, whoever the chief executive officer is determines that that position is essential to the operations of the agency. Now, if they make that determination, the original amendment said that they had to go get permission for the governor and the LBB. The amendment to the amendment strikes that and simply says that they just have to notify if they decide they are going to fill in a position by attrition and determine that it is going to be an emergency position, then they she simply have to notify the LBB and the governor's office that they're hiring -- filling that vacate position and they have to provide any information relative to that that maybe requested by the LBB or by the governor's office relative to that rehiring decision?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Coleman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: To ask Representative King a few questions. In that determination if you -- what is the -- I just want to understand what the definition of an emergency need. Would that be having an eligibility worker there to make sure that when someone goes to put their grandmother in a nursing home that if it's actually someone to help fill out the application.
REP. KING: Well, no, no. If you were the executive director of the PUC and you have someone resign or retire and you decide that that position -- you decide as the executive director that that position is necessary to prevent or ameliorate an emergency related to the agency's public purpose. In other words, if you decide that's a really important position, it's not one that I can let it slide, it's not an administrative aid --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'm just talking about the Health and Human Services right now.
REP. KING: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Would that be an eligibility worker? Someone who goes and brings in -- does case work on abused children.
REP. KING: No, no.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Or someone who does eligibility for enrolling children in Medicaid for -- that are disabled or the elderly being enrolled in Medicaid because it's a very complex process and it requires specially trained individuals.
REP. KING: To my understanding this would have no limit -- would have nothing to do with that as long as the director of whatever the agency is decides that this is a critical position for their agency to perform its core functions then they can decide I'm going to go ahead and fill that vacancy.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: One last question. And it implies in your amendment that we're dealing with attrition and I understand that's done all the time, but I also -- we all in this legislature need to have a discussion about layoffs at some point; wouldn't you agree?
REP. KING: I agree and this does not imply layoffs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right. It does not.
REP. KING: It simply says natural attritions as it occurs, and it really you're talking about over the next few months. Natural attrition as it occurs that -- basically what I'm trying to do is make the agency say, you know, if that's a position I can do without for three months. The legislature wants me to do without it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I got it. Thank you very much.
REP. KING: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam, for what purpose?
REP. LON BURNAM: Ask gentleman couple questions.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. King, do you yield?
REP. KING: I yield for questions.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REP. LON BURNAM: Phil, I support the amendment, but I have a couple of questions.
REP. KING: Yes, sir.
REP. LON BURNAM: Where it says the agency, can the agency be a college or a university?
REP. KING: It would be anyone who would -- it would be any part of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.
REP. LON BURNAM: So the answers would be, yes, there. What about an emergency? I want to give you special examples in a college that I have. We just lost our provost. He took a job in New Orleans and we just our vice president for finance. Would those be emergencies at that college can fill?
REP. KING: In that case if the college board and the President of the college determined that that was a position that's necessary to perform the agencies essential public purpose then, yes, I believe it would be.
REP. LON BURNAM: And if I could say --
REP. KING: And I want to say that that's why we worded it that way. Because in one sense a low person on the organizational chart that's in administrative position, maybe that's like what Chairman Coleman mentioned, that may be in Health and Human Services a critical position, on the other hand it may be the CFO of an agency is a critical position. The intent is to allow flexibility for the executive officers of that agency to determine where it is an emergency position, but at the same time, to know that the legislatures strong intent is if they can do without a position for the rest of this fiscal year do without it.
REP. LON BURNAM: One more question, Phil, it says that on line 29 the agency notifies the governor and the legislative budget board of the need to fill emergencies, does the agency, like a college or a university, go directly to the governor's office? Is this the route that this is subscribing to?
REP. KING: I think that if they can make the decision they can go ahead and do the hire but then after maybe doing the hire, make the decision, whatever they want to do it. They are going to either write a letter to the governor's office or send an email for that matter or to the LBB. The idea is that there's going to be someone to say, hey, check in and say that, yeah, they seem to be carrying out the agenda of the legislature. And if they -- if it's a position that the LBB had a question about then they are simply required to provide supporting documentation as to that or answer questions that the LBB may have. But the LBB cannot tell them not to make that decision to rehire or hire.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you Phil.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. King, do you yield?
REP. KING: I certainly do.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Phil, I obviously have a little problem for your amendment, it's called Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We have positions called correctional officers, prison guards, okay. Where do they fit in your definition of emergency? How does that become an emergency? I have a prison guard who quits. I have turnover that's regularly there, that's 25,000 prison officers or correctional officers that we have. It's a regular turnover but I need to maintain the staffing levels to make sure we have the security within the units. Is executive director going to have to notify the governor every time that he has one prison guard quit and is he not going to be able to fill that position and leave us with shortages therefore in prisons -- that at some states -- it may not the first one but in some states it may make that facility very dangerous.
REP. KING: You know we talked about prison guards when thinking through this. And I certainly think that from a public safety standpoint security standpoint or critical positions, and that that would be an emergency fill. Now I would think that since we referred to positions and not person I would think they would simply need to notify the governor's office or the LBB that we have these vacancies. Guard 1A or whatever that position designation is. And that we designate those as emergency positions because they're necessary for the security of the facility so --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: So your definition would be that we have to do that on an individual basis or that he could do that --
REP. KING: No. I believe that's for the class of employee for that class of position.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: So he can do it as a blanket for all of that class is what you're saying.
REP. KING: If the warden or whoever makes those decisions at the executive level for that agency --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Geren raises the point of order. Gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Would the gentleman, would you accept the motion to extend time?
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Phil, as we went into this obviously you're saying that the wardens wouldn't make that decision. It would have to be the executive director.
REP. KING: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Who is going to do that because I'm assuming you are thinking about the individual units while I'm thinking about the bigger picture of the entire system that's there.
REP. KING: I think it would be totally appropriate for whoever heads that state agency to go ahead and sit down and if they've got a position that routinely becomes vacant, a guards position, or whatever it may be called, that they can go ahead and designate that now as an emergency position and simply send notices to the LBB and the governor's office that.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: So, we are going to continue to fill those and will not have vacancies in those positions.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: I can't imagine, at lease for my perspective, in terms of my (INAUDIBLE)-- whatever that's worth -- I can't imagine that a public safety position, a field of a safety public position, if a critical position to carry out an agency's core function. Now, whether they can get by when a secretary resigns, if they can get by without a secretary, that's probably a different deal.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Okay. But you could also understand I'm looking at other things within the Texas Department of Corrections, not just correctional officers but there are others. For example, our inspector general's division who have to routinely react to the same things like prison escapes or other crimes that may occur within the prison walls or those things are all -- would fit in that category?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: If that is a determination -- REPRESENTATIVE KING -- termination by his or her free will of the executive director for that agency. They have full authority to make the decision that it is a position that's necessary to prevent or ameliorate an emergency related to the agency's public purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: So that would also apply to my Texas Youth Commission where we have incarcerated youth at the same time.
REP. KING: You know, again it will be totally at the discretion of the executive agency. Of the executive officer of the agency.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: So that individual could in fact ask for a blanket exception for juvenile correctional officers also.
REP. KING: I believe so. But my hope would be that they would not do that for the administrative assistant or a secretarial position or a gardener or if they got a -- but the intent is we got right under 250,000 state employees. We have 14 percent attrition rate. We still have a quarter left in this fiscal year. So we can anticipate a significant number of retirements and resignations during that time and this is just simply telling the State agencies if it's a position you can do without for three months we want you to do without it.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And you are understanding that the 250,000, I believe, is right. You understand my Texas Department of Criminal Justice has a -- has 40,000 --
REP. KING: -- it's a big hunk of it. I get it.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Okay. Thank you.
REP. KING: Thank you, good questions.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REP. KING: Certainly.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you Representative King. Representative King, I have some concerns just from a number of different agencies perspectives. With regards to DPS. One of the interim charges last session I remember was we had a retention problem and so in order to retain and keep our officers is a huge turnover in that particular agency and I understand what you are going so say, you're going to say that that's an emergency position and as long as that they can fill it, do you see the draconian effect of this particular piece of legislation and how much bureaucracy you are actually putting forth in making these heads of these agencies let the governor know that something's being changed in their office.
REP. KING: Well, I don't think it's going to be that extreme. Now, obviously if the DPS has another class coming on and they need to hire for that class, that's a blanket notification. But I think, again, the purpose is, if you look at the state budget and you look at the growth in -- I mean we're pretty labor intensive -- and you look at the growth in our employees it's been substantial. And this is simply I think a pretty low impact way of telling all of our people in the position of making executive decisions on employment that we're in an exceptionally tight fiscal year, for the summer months -- for the summer months, if you got a position that you can do without that becomes natural attrition, then we are asking you to do that. Now we're allowing you to go ahead and fill it if it's a critical position but if it's not a critical position, the legislature is directing that you leave it open.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And what about TABC positions or Texas Funeral Commission positions, that actually go out and make the state revenue. Someone retires from the Texas Funeral Commission someone retires in licensing, and so that wouldn't qualify as an emergency under your scenario but that position makes the state money. Then what? Then they got to go ask the governor for his permission?
REP. KING: No, they don't have to ask for permission. They simply have to notify the LBB. And notify the governor's office that they have determined this position to be essential to the core function of the agency and they can go ahead and hire that. Now, if me as a legislator or you as a legislator or the LBB staff or the governor's office and looks back and says, hey, they're just -- they had these twelve openings and these are low impact openings. They could have been left available then that gives them the opportunity to call back and put some pressure on that agency to rethink through that decision. By being required to provide whatever information the governor's office the LBB may have.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I understand that.
REP. KING: The intent is clear. Let me -- the clear intent is to strongly encourage agencies to not fill positions that have become vacant by attrition if they can do without them. And that is the clear, complete intent of it.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I understand that. And, again, I think that you're missing the point where -- with regards to licensing, funeral commission, number of other agencies, that many of my colleagues are regulating, and there are different committees that make this state money. There's nowhere in this bill that says that they can be hired unless they have some kind of approval or let somebody know what's going on. So, to that end, that notice period, how long does that take for someone to say, okay, go ahead and hire that person. Yes, you can hire that person.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Have you looked at the paperwork that you have to fill out to hire a person, anyone? I mean, all you are going to be doing is really, I think this is a very modest approach to a hiring freeze. But I also think it's very important to think -- because we're about to be in a process of telling our schools, you need to look at cutting -- you need to be cutting your budgets. You're possibly going to be cutting your staff, and this is a way of saying, you know, we are trying to hold back our employees as well. We're trying to reduce our staff as well. We are trying to cut a very important signal I think for us to send to our schools and all the others that the state -- all the other organizations that receive state money that it's not just you who are cutting back it's not just you who are holding back and not hiring positions if you can do without them. The state is not going to hire this position if we think we can get by without it.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative King, here is my point here. They -- I realize you have a question, Larry, and you will get your time. Mr. King here is my point. There are position ins the State that make this state money. And you've added an extra layer of time in bureaucracy, Representative Thompson would suggest to you that folks in TABC, they make us money. And so, now, we've left that job open without the ability to make the State of Texas money. So, I think that there are some unintended consequences beyond this legislation that you need to think about. But thank you for your time. I don't mean to be argumentative here.
REP. KING: No, I didn't take it that way at all.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I mean I think that there's some components of what you want to do that are very good here but there are agencies that make us money. And we need to understand that more time and losing money brings us back here in the end. And the same argument two years from now. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: And to be honest, that's why I tried to leave this very flexible.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield for some questioning, please?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: Yes, he yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. Phil, I understand that what you are trying to do. I don't disagree with the premise. But I'm concerned about what you've described -- you used the words, critical and very important, and what the bill, or amendment says, at least on my screen, is "emergency." And I think that's a different standard than what you're laying out. And I think, with discussing with Mr. Madden, it seems to me that hiring a prison guard is critical when they escape, it's an emergency, and you would probably agree with me that you would want to be able to do that, hire when it's critical and would not have to rise to this word "emergency," could I ask you to at least reconsider that phrasing and see if that tightens it too tight?
REP. KING: Probably -- I think I should be more careful to stick with the exact language in the amendment. Which says, that the agency determines that filling the position is necessary to prevent or ameliorate an emergency relating to the agencies public purpose.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Sheffield raises a point that the gentlemen's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Is there anyone who are wishing to speak on or against Mr. King's amendment, H.B. 4. Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to speak for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just didn't have questions to ask questions. The time ran out so I thought it would be quicker to come down here to speak for the amendment. You know what, I met some great school board members yesterday and express that they're not able to fill people's positions or coming in. They are having to make tough calls. They are looking at us to make the tough calls. And that's exactly what this is. This is not the time -- this time, we are going to have to stay within our means. And I can't vote against his amendment after talking to those school board members and having to say, look, we are having to do this and the next day expect to say the same. So, I support his amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gutierrez to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Members, I don't discount that there is some merit to what Representative King wants to discuss here. The reality is that we have a lot of state agencies that rely on making us money. Agencies like TABC, agencies like Texas Funeral Commission, agencies that need inspectors out in the streets to go find people, and those people, those fines make the state money. And so, if we have to ask for permission if we can't impower those people who are in power to make those decisions, at the end of the day, if we are in a fiscal crisis as we are in now, the governor, and LBB, and anybody else that wants to call them and the leadership can say, I want you to cut 5 percent. They did that. I want you to cut 7.5 percent. That was just done. I want you to cut 10 percent. That was just done. And so, for us to have to go back and ask or tell this agency head to go ask for permission every time causes; number 1, an undue burden; number 2, an extension of a bureaucracy that many of us in this House don't want -- we are not supposed to have more laws, we're supposed to have less. And more importantly, it causes the State of Texas to lose money. I applaud Representative King for wanting to try to find ways to make -- to save money. This is not one of them. It abrogates people's ability to make decisions at the agency level. TABC is hurting. They make the State of Texas money. And for us to have to grant them permission every time somebody quits or somebody retires is ludicrous.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Would the gentleman yield for question?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REP. KING: I'll yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes. I know. I was just thinking this could really be misused. Do you think it's true that if somebody didn't like the particular person has nothing to do with anything else is that one person's job would be an emergency and the person that they wanted to get rid of, that wouldn't be an emergency? And I'm saying in terms of Phil, because, you can lay off people.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Certainly, Representative. We talked about some of the three evils that might -- unintended consequences that might come from this bill but the fourth one, are the abuses that you just mentioned. So, I'm sure that those abuses can be rampant.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I was talking with Representative King about maybe taking some third reading amendment to fix some of those unintended consequences in this particular language. I understand flexibility but when it comes to these types of things, we need to have some certainty about what words mean, like emergency, ameliorate, what the decisions are based on -- what action is going to be taken every time -- everybody understands what those rules are. And I seriously think about though and I just want to make sure people know that there are some things here that are problematic in how it's carried out.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And it's important to know that I am not just standing up here just to be contentious or argumentative. I think that Representative King has a point to some of the things that we have to downsize, I get that. I have to do that with my own business practice. But we have agencies in place that can make those decisions. Leadership can at times make those decisions for them by what leadership did in the last year, telling them, hey, you need to cut and they've cut.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Did you know that we have a hiring freeze on now?
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Certainly. As you are aware of, as you've just stated, we have a hiring freeze right now. But more importantly, be careful we don't cut off our noses on our faces because TABC makes us money, the funeral commissions makes us money. Those are just the ones that I regulate. DPS makes us money. We keep those gentlemen that gives traffic tickets. That makes us money.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I just think it's important that to not know -- if you know that something can have an unintended consequences that we do around here, isn't it right to make sure that we debug whatever it is that we are doing so that those unintended consequences don't happen. And I think that's what needs to happen with this amendment. And thank you for standing up for --
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Well, thank you for Representative. Hope we can talk about this, figure out how to make this amendment better because there are a lot of agencies that make us money like Lottery commission. We can go on and on. Let's just do something right. We don't want to be conservative fiscally. None of us out here are blowing money. We want to do the right thing and I think this bill is going to cause too many unintended consequences and lose the State of Texas money. And that's, we don't want to be back here again and trying to solve this problem. With that, I thank you and I don't know if we are going to move to table or we're just going to vote it up or down or maybe we can think about it. Can we withdraw it and think about it? Well, Representative King has suggested that he wants to vote this amendment up or down. I ask you to think about the unintended consequences of this legislation, of this amendment and every one of your districts, to every one of your agencies, to every agency you regulate. Whether it's DPS, whether it's the lottery commission, whether it's the funeral commission, the alcohol and beverage commission, any commission you want to think about, any agency you want to think about, we are going to lose money or we're going to be back at this situation 2 years from now contemplating where did all this money go.
THE SPEAKER: Representative King to close -- I'm sorry. Representative Madden to speak in favor of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Members, I talked to Representative King and obviously this question of whether the Department of Criminal Justice, he's obviously has made a mechanism here that the executive director of TDCJ and also the youth commission, can say that the correctional officer -- that we would be losing a certainly needed and one way to basically to take care of that. So I'm going to support his amendment. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative King to close.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Howard, for what purpose?
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REP. KING: I do.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you Representative King. I was just trying to figure out where the freed up money would go. Would it go back into the agency or would it be swept.
REP. KING: Very good question. It -- the amendment requires that on September the 1st, the comptroller will recapture that funds back into the GR, back into the funds from which it came. So, it will be swept in other words, the agency can't use it for other purposes.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you very much.
REP. KING: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and members, there really is, really two real simple things that I was trying to do with this amendment. First, to tell our state agencies for we do have a quarter million employees that if you have natural attrition occur for the remainder of this fiscal year, they really don't want you to fill those positions unless it's really, really important that you do. And the purpose of that was to simply save money. The other intent of the amendment was we're in the process of telling our schools and others that your funding is cut. Is reduced. And we know you're going to have to make some very hard decisions and some of those have to do with personnel. And we want you to know that the State is also making those hard decisions with regard to personnel. And we're doing things such as putting in place a hiring freeze to help hold back our employee costs. And those are the two purposes. I tried to keep it very simple whereas state agencies, director or executive director could go ahead and hire if they needed to without getting anyone's permission all they have to do is notify LBB and the governor's office and I believe this amendment is susceptible to the author and I would appreciate a record vote up or down, I would ask you to vote favorably for the amendment. And I believe we will have to do the amendment to the amendment first. We're on the amendment to the amendment so we are going have to do that first and we don't need to vote on it I don't think. We got to the amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. King has submitted a amendment to the amendment as an offer. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So adopted. Mr. King to close on the amendment.
REP. KING: Members, we are back on the amendment as amended, and I'd ask that you'd please vote for the amendment. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative King sends up an amendment and is acceptable to the author. Is there objections? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. I'm sorry. The amendment on page 50 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 51 is withdrawn. Mr. Coleman. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm not going to take a long time on this. There is money in the budget that is used for the Emerging Technology Fund which is 138,260,000. The attorney general has some unexpended balances, 7,000,885. Again, you've heard about the Department of Public Safety. This is an amendment to just be clear to make a point because I'm just going to say it just like that. When the governor says we have to keep the Emerging Technology Fund and other things, and says that that is a bigger priority than the needs of our children and our grandmas and our disabled folks and particularly children of CPS and other things it kind of begs the question.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Members, I'm not going to take a long time on this. There's money in the budget that is used for the Emerging Technology Fund which is 138,260,000. The attorney general has some unexpended balances of 7,000,885. Again, you've heard about the mansion restorations and the Department of Public Safety. This is an amendment to just to be clear to make a point. And I'm just going to say it just like that. When the governor says we have to keep the Emerging Technology Fund and other things and that says that is the bigger priority than the needs of our children and our grandmas and our disabled folks and particularly children at CPS and other things it kind of begs the question. In 2003, when the Enterprise Fund was created, that took all of the rainy day fund money and people, we argued about the rainy day fund, but the governor spent the rainy day fund money creating the Enterprise Fund and then took other money from unemployment insurance to put into both in the Enterprise Fund and to put into the Emerging Technologies Fund. Also we learned that there's money from the Emerging Technology Fund into the Enterprise Fund to do research that hasn't proven anything on a particular drug. Now, I understand. If I was governor I tried to do what I want to do too. But the priorities in this legislature cannot be continuing to not fund certain things like the mentally ill that 200 -- $138 million in GR actually would fix the shortfall in our mental health and mental retardation system. And/or would fix the shortfall in where people don't get those drugs they will die. And that's just the long and short of it. And having enough workers to make sure that children are safe in the Child Protective Services system. So that's the reason I bring this amendment I just want to make sure that every one understands that a budget document is about priority and in the final analysis we have to make sure that we are representing to our constituents what our priorities are and I don't think it's funding different companies with grants. We can go to venture capital market. And I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas in opposition.
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. We've spent a fair amount of time looking at this and I will say that I do have some concerns that this is perhaps creating a general law but that has yet to be determined and I'm not the one to determine that. So I'm not going to argue that before you here today. But what I would say is that the spirit of what is in this amendment in terms of looking at the best way to leverage various moneys and so forth is important and we should look at that. And the things that are listed here that Chairman Coleman -- that we should try to do within the waiver systems and so forth leveraging the dollars appropriately such that we do get the maximum value in terms of doing it. At the same time I have some concerns in terms of what it does in terms of limiting our flexibility and doing various things within the agency. And so I have is to speak against it on that basis that I just have concerns that perhaps we are not going to be able to leverage the dollars and move the dollars in a way that are going to be most beneficial not to this particular area but to the State of Texas in general. And so with that, Mr. Speaker and members, I would move to table of this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to close.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, again, I think that Chairman Zerwas said it very clearly that these are important issues and that we have priorities that must be taken care of in this legislative session. And we have to choose. So, again, I would ask you to vote no on the motion to table. And I think this is a good start of some of the discussions for tomorrow. And thank you very much and again I appreciate the members of the Appropriations Committee and Chair Zerwas, Chair Pitts and all the folks that worked hard on this bill.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Coleman sends up an amendment. Representative Zerwas moves to table this on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Zerwas voting aye, show Representative Coleman voting no, show Representative Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 97 ayes and 43 nays the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez to explain the amendment.
REP. MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, this is a very important amendment. Our schools are better than a foundation schools program and it helps them to become better. This amendment restores reduction to TA's foundation school program and also restores reductions in classroom instruction services. As you all know if we want to compete as a State we have to be number one in our education. We've been falling behind. The foundation school program that supports this basic instructional program for all Texas school children. So the money for this amendment will come from the general revenue collected by the comptroller that is in excess of the probable GR receipts from 2010 and 2011 biennium which is stated in the comptroller's biennium revenue estimate for 2012 and 2013. If the money is there, it should go into our best investment. And our best investment is our children of the State.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and we're seeing from the hymnal here this is like the 49th stanza of 13th page. This is money that is needed over in H.B. 1 for the next biennium. We've already realize these cuts. This time we're going to continue forward and use this money to pay the bills in the next biennium. Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez to close.
REP. MARTINEZ: Thank you, members, and I really urge your consideration to vote against this motion to table. And mainly because this is about our children and we want to be able to compete in this state. We want our children to be number one in this state. And if we want to get better, the only way we can do that is to fund our children, to fund our schools, to make us better. And I yield.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. MARTINEZ: I yield.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Martinez, Mr Phillips mentioned a few minutes ago that he had a visits from the school board here at the Capitol. Do you remember that?
REP. MARTINEZ: Absolutely.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And I went around the Capitol and every one of us hearing that the school board members here, they had a rally and what do you think that the board members was telling -- the board members were telling Mr. Phillips and not only Mr. Phillips -- I don't mean Mr. Phillips I mean the rest of the members.
REP. MARTINEZ: Well, Mr. Alonzo, I think you bring up a good point. I think all school board members across the State of Texas are telling the members not to cut the budgets. Not to cut the most important people in the State and that's our children when it comes to education. They are important, our education is important, and if we want to succeed, the only way to succeed is creating opportunity. And that opportunity comes through an education. So let's not cut the most important part of our education which is our children.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And have you heard some of the stories that we're hearing that the teachers are most important folks at the front lines are going to be cut with these budget cuts that are going to be proposed.
REP. MARTINEZ: Oh, absolutely Representative Alonzo, not only are there going to be cuts, they are going to lose their jobs. And if we don't have teachers teaching our children educating in the schools. We are not going to be number one. Everything is bigger in Texas and that is true especially when we lag behind in education and health care.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And although some folks are saying that we need to cut, cut, cut. It's my understanding from what we we've heard that's not the song and dance we are hearing. People are just asking -- I recently got a package of letter and emails from group of Hispanic Alliance for the Arts, again, talking about that there not be cuts. That we invest as you pointed out in our children which are our future; is that correct?
REP. MARTINEZ: That's correct. We need to invest in our children. We have to invest in what's important for the State and our children are important. Especially to be successful in this the State.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: So, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, we are going to listen to the board members that are there in our local communities in hearing from a folks back home just like I have in our area where the Magnet schools are going to be cut, the numbers of teachers throughout the Dallas area there is going to be cuts and we need to stop that and we need to do as soon as possible. And we need to stop the rain right now.
REP. MARTINEZ: Absolutely. We got a big leak in our roof and we need to stop that leak.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you Mr. Martinez.
REP. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Would the gentleman yelled for questions?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Martinez do you yield?
REP. MARTINEZ: Absolutely.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Martinez, can you think of a better investment of state dollars than our kids.
REP. MARTINEZ: I cannot think of a better investment for our kids.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: How many -- you've seen a will lot of campaigns in your time. How many campaigns have you seen that say that education isn't important, education is not a priority?
REP. MARTINEZ: That is a great point Representative, everybody campaigns on education. Everybody campaigns on wanting to be number one in education but when it comes to a budget like this, we are cutting the important part and that's our children and their education.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Well, if people want to prioritize education, what's the best way to do that? I would think that in a budget it's where you show what is or isn't important to you.
REP. MARTINEZ: Absolutely. And I think that it is -- if we have the opportunity to do it and we can move the money around to support education then let's do it. Let's make it possible for them.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: You are a parent, you have two kids.
REP. MARTINEZ: Absolutely.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And you want your kids to do well.
REP. MARTINEZ: That's right.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And compare today where you are versus where your grandfather or great grandfather was it's a pretty important -- a lot of progress.
REP. MARTINEZ: It sure is a lot of progress, Representative.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And so don't you want your kids to have that same kind of opportunity to progress so that your grandkids and your great grandkids can continue to make their futures better?
REP. MARTINEZ: I want them to continue to be better and I want them to have greater opportunities than I have had in my life.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And what's the only way to do that?
REP. MARTINEZ: Fund their education. That's the only way.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: If you are stuck at a dead-end job and you want to climb the ladder of success, how do you do that?
REP. MARTINEZ: Through opportunities and through education.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And if you are trying to break the cycle of poverty in your family, and you are trying to get ahead, how do you do that?
REP. MARTINEZ: You do that through education. That's a common equalizer.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Okay. And so why is it that this budget would cut education and why is it that there's a motion to cut an amendment that would cut money in education.
REP. MARTINEZ: Well, I guess, that's a very good question. I guess some people really don't understand how important education is for some of our children.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
REP. MARTINEZ: Thank you Representative. Members, I urge you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Martinez sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Pitts voting aye, representative Aycock votes aye, show Representative Martinez voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 96 ayes and 46 nays. The motion to table prevails. The amendment on page 54 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 55 is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment. This is on Page 58.
CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment on page 58 is withdrawn. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 60. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REP. DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members, I think there is an amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment for the amendment by Darby.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REP. DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this is basically an oversight. The Petroleum Water Conservation Board administrators flood structure and water bans throughout the State. They had created flood control operation maintenance grant programs and flood control structural repair grant programs. Those are already bidded out. They have local participation. And what the agency was asking was take the unexpended balance from 2011 and be able to sustain those programs so that those dams that are presently under repair can continue to be under repair and have the FDE and the oversight for the program. This restoration will allow the agency to complete those projects. With that I move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The amendment is acceptable to the author, Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 61 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 62 is withdrawn. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Members. This amendment says that comptroller notifies the legislature if she has identified additional revenue for this biennium which has done.
CLERK: Amendment to an amendment by Darby.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This was basically an oversight the Flood and Water Conservation Board administers flood structures and water bans throughout the State. They had created a flood control operation maintenance grant programs and flood control structural repair grant programs. Those are already bidded out. They have local participation. And what the agency was asking was take the unexpended balance from 2011 and be able to sustain those programs so that those bans that are presently under repair can continue to be under repair and have the FDE's and the oversight for the program. This restoration will allow the agency to complete those projects. With that I move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable with the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The amendment is acceptable with the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 61 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 62 is withdrawn. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment says that the comptroller notifies the legislature that she's identified additional revenue for this biennium which she has done in the past. Where the funding would go to one of our state's most urgent priorities and that's DADS, Department of Disability and Aging Services. This amendment helps protect important state priorities by shielding long-term health care services from dangerous budget cuts. If we don't pass this amendment to dedicate these extra funds to the DADS the department will have to cut potentially hundreds of jobs to vital programs to try to save the state money in the long-term. These cuts will harm the ability of the state to care for elderly citizens and it will hurt vulnerable people that are counting on the state. These are real people that are going to lose their homes, and real nursing homes that will close. And with that I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members. I rise in opposition to the amendment that Representative Marquez has promoted here. I think this is all about paying the bills at this time and if we do see an additional income during this biennium, moving it into H.B. 1 would be the appropriate place where we can actually sit and discern where this money can best be used. There is certainly a need in DADS and I won't cross over that. Nursing homes are looking at some substantial cuts and likewise in some other areas. But that exists across the entire budget. So, having the opportunity to consider where the greatest need and highest best use of those moneys are I think is appropriate. So with that, Mr. Speaker I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez. Mr. Lozano, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Would Dr. Zerwas yield for some questions?
THE SPEAKER: Representative Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REP. JOSE LOZANO: Dr. Zerwas, when it comes to medical care I was raised by a family doctor who still does house calls, at times my brother-in-law, my sister, my uncle, they're all medical doctors and we've all had a recent conversation about the fact that if we continue to cut nursing homes and those elderly are displaced that nursing home visits will become emergency room visits. And I mean as a doctor would you agree with that emergency rooms will increase in the amount of frequency of visits by the elderly?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I would agree that the challenge in terms of how we manage some of the elderly population is very important. And with some of the cuts that are in place in H.B. 1 that we need to as we continue to contemplate what this budget looks like by the end of this legislative session that is the one area that I think we need to pay very, very close attention to.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: I'm just concerned that the cost of an ER care; for example, for a gauze is ridiculous. It's like a hundred dollars or something but when you are talking about nursing home care it's a lot more reasonable in terms of the care. Emergency care, especially county hospitals, is a pretty large chunk of most counties' budgets. So wouldn't we be increasing the counties' budget allocation to the emergency room. Would you agree with that? That emergency room will increase in the amount of visits by the elderly?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well any time that we see a failure of sort of the area that takes kind of chronic care of patients, we're going to see the potential for emergency room visits to increase if we don't have an adequate infrastructure of primary care available out there. The nursing home certainly doesn't serve in a primary care role but is really kind of a nursing role type for the most part. So what you really want to see is an adequate infrastructure of primary care that in the event these nursing home patients if they have problems or if they found themselves outside and they needed to go to another place.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Okay. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this is very simple. If the money is not there, then we don't have a problem but if it is there the focus will be the nursing homes and we've had several discussions up here on the floor about this particular issue. So I ask that the membership vote no on the motion to table thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Marquez sends up an amendment. Dr. Zerwas moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Zerwas voting aye, show Representative Marquez voting no, show Representative Aycock voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 92 ayes and 47 nays. The motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment. Members, we are on page 64.
CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply says, just like the other one that if the comptroller notifies the legislature that we've identified additional funds, or that certain taxes are out performing their previous estimates the funding should go to one of our state's most urgent priorities, higher ed. This amendment helps the important state priorities by protecting universities from dangerous budget cuts. It will help ease the burden of federal budget cuts of the state's budget to demonstrate that education of our future leaders are a priority of this state. Members, Mr. Speaker and Members, tomorrow it's likely that this body will choose to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, pack classrooms, and raise tuition costs across the State. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Turn your handles to page whatever it is, we'll sing the same versus. We just need to pay the bills and we need to save that money over into H.B. 1. Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Again, members, this is similar to the previous amendment if the funds are not there then we won't allocate them but if they are we are asking you to make sure that we show a commitment to higher ed and place those funds to our universities. And I would ask that you vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Marquez sends up an amendment, Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Marquez voting no, show Representative Farrar voting no. Have all voted? Show Representative Otto voting aye. Have all voted? Being 98 aye and 46 voting nay, the motion to table prevails. Mr. Taylor. House bill 4, amendment 22.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker and members, I rise in opposition to the amendment that Representative Marquez has promoted here. I think this is all about paying the bills for this time and if we do see additional income during this biennium moving into HB 1 is the appropriate place where we can actually sit and discern where these moneys can best be used. There is certainly a need in DADS and I won't gloss over that. Nursing homes are looking at substantial cuts and likewise in some other areas but that exist across the entire budget so having the opportunity to consider where the greatest need and heist use is appropriate and so with that Mr. Speaker independent move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Marquez to -- Mr. Lozano for what purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Will Dr. Zerwas yield for some questions?
JOE STRAUSS: Representative Zerwas do you yield.
REP. JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Representative Zerwas, when it comes to care I was raised by a family doctor who still does house calls at times my brother-in-law, my sister, my uncle they're all medical doctors we've all had the recent conversations about the fact if we continue to cut nursing homes and those elderly are displaced and nursing home visits will become emergency visits and as a doctor do you agree with that? That emergency room visits will increase in the amount of frequency -- amount of visits by the elderly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I would agree that the challenge on how we manage some of our elderly population is very important. With some of the cuts that are in place in HB1 that we need to as we continue to contemplate what this budget looks like at that time -- end of this legislation that is one area that I think we need to pay very, very close attention to.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: I'm just concerned that the cost of an ER care for example for a gauze is something ridiculous is like a hundred dollars or something but when you're talking about nursing home care it's a lot more reasonable than care -- emergency care especially with county hospitals a pretty large chunk of those county budgets so wouldn't we be increasing the budget allocation to the emergencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, anytime that we see a familiar of sort of the area that takes kind of chronic care of patients we're going to the potential of emergency room visits to increase if we don't have an add quit infrastructure of primary care visual art there nursing home certainly doesn't serve in pa primary care role it really kind of a nursing role for the most part and so what you would really want to see a an infrastructure primary care that in the event these nursing home patients if they had problems or if they found themselves outside and need today go to another place.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Okay thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Marquez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Yes, Mr. Speaker, members. This is very simple if the summon not there then we don't have a problem but if it is there then focus will be the nursing homes and we've had several discussions up here on the floor about this familiar issue so I ask that the membership vote no on the motion to table thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Marquez sends up an amendment. Dr. Zerwas moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerks will ring the bell. Show representative Zerwas voting aye, showing representative Marquez voting no, showing representative Aycock voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 92 ayes; 47 nays, motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez. Members, we are on page 64.
CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply says, just like the other one that if the comptroller notifies the legislature that we've identified additional funds, or that certain taxes are out performing their previous estimates the funding should go to one of our state's most urgent priorities, higher ed. This amendment helps the important state priorities by protecting universities from dangerous budget cuts. It will help ease the burden of federal budget cuts of the state's budget to demonstrate that education of our future leaders are a priority of this state. Members, Mr. Speaker and members, tomorrow it's likely that this body will choose to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, pack classrooms, and raise tuition costs across the State. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Turn your hymns to page and we'll sing the verse as we did in HB1 and we need sthaif money over into HB1 I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Again, members, this is similar to the previous amendment if the funds are not there then we won't allocate them but if they are we are asking you to make sure that we show a commitment to higher ed and place those funds to our universities. And I would ask that you vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Marquez sends up an amendment, Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Marquez voting no, show Representative Farrar voting no. Have all voted? Show Representative Otto voting aye. Have all voted? Being 98 aye and 46 voting nay, the motion to table prevails. Mr. Taylor. The amendment on page 65 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 66 is withdrawn. Representative Gallego? The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members this is a amendment that would take away some money from the governor's mansion fund that's unexpended and give it to *SAWAS state university which is the smallest public university in Texas. And the cuts that have been made to *SAWAS are -- because it's so small, they pretty much been incredibly harmful and so this amendment would seek to restore some of that funding. However, I know that the House already kind of spoken on some of the other colleges and universities that members have had and so I will withdraw the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment on page -- the amendment on page 68 is withdrawn. Members this is in the supplemental printing. This is Representative Burnam's amendment. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you for the opportunity to offer the last amendment of the day. That was not by design but by misplacing the paper. This amendment is essentially the same amendment that I talked to you about this morning. It's about priorities. This morning when I talked to you about shifting $35,000 from the lavish lifestyle account that the governor enjoys it was to shift $35,000 to my community college district. This amendment -- this amendment will cover the cost of one schoolteacher. I think that's pretty symbolic actually for $35,000 taken out of the lavish lifestyle account of the governor suggesting that maybe he shouldn't be spending $9,000 a month on rent plus a thousand dollars in maintenance. Shifting those funds for the remainder of the year would fund one schoolteacher. It does not have any impact on the other tens of thousands of dollars that he maintains of that lifestyle -- that lavish lifestyle. We don't touch the funds for the two pool boys but maybe he shouldn't be having the pool where he needs two pool boys funded at state account. This simply shifts $35,000, it gives you the opportunity to say our priorities are public education not subsidizing the lavish lifestyle of the person who signed the bill that created $10 billion of this deficit. I would appreciate your support on this amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Castro, for what purpose?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would be glad to yield.
JOE STRAUS: He yields.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Burnam, did you say that he spends a thousand dollars a month on maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You know, I've never seen a residential lease agreement like this before where the tenant agrees to spend a thousand dollars on maintenance. Usually one of the advantages of renting is the landlord is supposed to take care of the maintenance.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: A thousand dollars a month on maintenance that is way more than the average Texan probably pays in rent, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I've never even spent even half that amount on housing cost for the month.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Do you know you know I like your amendment. Mr. Burnam, don't you think that if the governor is spending 9 or $10,000 a month on rent and a thousand dollars on maintenance that maybe --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Not to mention what they're spending on domestic help and pools boys, et cetera.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right. Don't you think that he should have made an emergency item fixing the governor's mansion so that the people of the State of Texas wouldn't have to pay so much every month.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, I would have thought that if we were really talking about emergency items that truly emergency we would have spent our time on cost saving measures as opposed to red meat for the electoral politic.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you I move to adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rising to speak against what I believe to be the last amendment of the day and I appreciate your patience. This is very much the same situation where we're going take a few months of money and put $35,000 against billions of dollars -- I think the paperwork might even outweigh the worth of the amendment. Move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, I think the verdict is already in but I think it also should be recognized that we have been voting on and talking about priorities all day long and, unfortunately, the majority is prevailed over and over again opposing the really important priorities which is to support public education and higher ed in this state. Well, I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Burnam sends up amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Aycock voting aye, showing Representative Pitts voting aye, showing Representative Burnam voting no, showing representative Martinez voting no. Have all voted? Showing representative Eissler voting aye. Have all voted? Being 99 ayes and 44 nays motion to table prevails. Members, we are on the amendment on page 33. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, members, this would return money to the University of Texas at San Antonio from any unexpended balances. And I actually have an amendment to the amendment so that we can roll Amendments 32 and 34 into 33 and argue them all at once.
JOE STRAUS: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Castro.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: As I mentioned this amendment to the amendment simply rolls in 32 and 34 which are Alamo Colleges and the University of Texas Health Science Center in with UTSA and it's acceptable to the author. I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment essentially does is it retroactively back to March 1 stops any encumbrance being made by the Office of the Governor, the Office of the Attorney General and the State Preservation Board. So essentially you're zeroing out their budget for the remainder of this biennium.
JOE STRAUS: Members, the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We're back on the amendment now. Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment would essentially return money from unexpended balances to University of Texas at San Antonio, the Health Science Center in San Antonio and Alamo Colleges so it represents restoring funds to all of the higher education institutions that I mention. And I want to know that the service area for many of these institutions goes well beyond just one city. The Alamo Colleges, for instance, has a service area that includes Atascosa County, Bandera, Bexar, of course, Comal, Guadalupe County, Kendall County, Kerr and Wilson counties. I would also point out that the Health Science Center in San Antonio has a partnership down in the Rio Grande Valley that is a regional academic health center, full-blown medical school and UTSA serves students from across the state. Many of them that are on their way to the University of Texas at Austin. In fact the highest number of students that come to UTSA outside of San Antonio come from the city of Houston. So it serves an incredible number of student from the city of Houston. So the reason that it's important to restore funding for these universities and communities in these college systems is because they serve an incredible vast area of people not only in one city but really throughout central and south Texas. I would also remind the members that the reason that San Antonio is so important in terms of service area is because the State has not built out what I've often referred to as the infrastructure opportunity in our state. In other words, if you try -- you can't get a medical degree anywhere south of San Antonio. You can't get a law degree anywhere south of San Antonio. There are huge swaths of land in south Texas, areas with huge populations, the Rio Grande Valley with probably a million five people where the infrastructure, the higher education infrastructure, is not there. And many of those students their pathway to success takes them through San Antonio. If they want to be a doctor, if they want to be a lawyer many of them will go onto UTSA and go from there. And so this amendment is not just a parochial amendment just to one city, it really is for an entire region of the state and I know that there are many members both republican and democrat who represent parts of south Texas and I hope that y'all will take an interest in this amendment. I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if you'll look at this amendment what it basically does is it takes the Office of the Governor, the Office of the Attorney General, and the State Preservation Board and restricts them to incumbering any money made after March 1st. That was 30 days ago. So essentially what this amendment does it defines the unexpended balances as what's left in their budgets as of 30 days ago. That means they cannot incumber the money going forward to pay their light bill, to pay any of their bills going forward. So you essentially are zeroing out --
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will Representative Otto yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'll be glad to yield.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Otto, I know you're debating the point about the starting date, about when we capture their unexpended balances. Do you agree with me on the substance of the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, the unexpended balance since I have been here, Representative, there has always been funds left in the budget at the end of the fiscal year not in the middle of the fiscal year.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: But you're not arguing that we can't take it from March 1st you're just arguing that the policy that you prefer another policy than we do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: The policy that we -- if you take the at March 1st or March 31st and you're basically freezing the ability of these three agencies to pay their bills.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, what we mean to do with the amendment is to make sure that they don't intentionally wipe away unexpended balances when it could be used for other purposes in a very difficult budgetary time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, and that's becomes someone's matter of judgment is what --
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Oh, absolutely and that's why it's an amendment to the bill and we'll get to vote on it. But do you agree with me that funding these universities in this community college system a worthwhile thing to do?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: No. I don't have any disagreement with you at all. A lot of the amendments today have been for very worthwhile -- whether they were in Article 3 or Article 2. My point being that this is not an appropriate way to fund those and this House Bill 4 is about paying our bills from now through the end of this fiscal year August 31st.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: No. And I understand that point but there are very many different organizations or governmental entities that need to pay their bills, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That is correct.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: So it includes the Preservation Board, the Attorney General's office the Governor's office and the entities that I mentioned, doesn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, it does.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And so I'm asking us to make a choice. Do we chose to use our -- any unexpended balances on the Preservation board, the AG's office, or the Governor's office or do we chose to use that money for these universities in this community college system.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And I guess I would just disagree with you on how you're trying to determine those unexpended balances.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Fair.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Castro sends up an amendment, Representative Otto moves to table this. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Otto voting aye, show Representative Pitts voting aye, Representative Castro voting no. Have all voted? There being 101 ayes and 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in session at that time 3:00 p.m., today, March 31st, place 3W15, to consider a calendar.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet at 3:00 p.m. today, March 31st, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
JOE STRAUS: We're on page 35. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment simply returns any money that we collect in excess of general revenue receipts back to the Higher Education Coordinating Board which in this bill faces a $57,526,851 cut. Upwards of $57 million that the Higher Education Coordinating Board is being cut. And so we know that the return on investment for higher education is incredible. For every dollar that we spend on higher education we get $8 back and that applies throughout the state no matter what part of the state you're in. Whether you're in the Panhandle, in east or west Texas or in the big metropolitan areas of Houston, Dallas or San Antonio the return on investments to our colleges and universities is just incredible. And that's why we need to restore some of this money. That's why we brought this amendment forward and I know that we have only got a little bit of time in this budgetary period for HB 4 but the fact is this $57 million cut includes about $12 million to Texas grants and TEG grants which the TEG grants, of course, are the grants that go to students in everybody's district when they go onto one of our private universities in Texas. For example, I have two of them in my district, St. Mary's University and Our Lady of the Lake University. It also includes -- not only are we losing a lot of money that is grant money but we are also cutting off access to capital. The Be on Time Program is the program that takes the biggest hit. In all we've got about -- TEG and Texas grant -- of course, TEG go students who are going "I" cut universities. Like I said, that includes two of mine St. Mary's, our Lady of the Lake. It includes Baylor, Rice, SMU, Trinity University in San Antonio, over there in Dallas I don't think there's a private university in El Paso but it includes universities all over the state. $53 million in this bill in cuts to the Higher Education Coordinating Board that have to do with financial aid to students. That really is in the next few months a devastating impact on our students. And I'll yield for a question because I also want to share with you guys a letter that's being sent out to students as we speak.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Gonzalez, for what purpose?
REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Castro do you yield?
REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Representative Castro, while the Texas grant programs is by no means limited to minority students do you know what a impact programs like Be on Time and Texas grants programs have had for minority students who have a tremendous need and are able to use those to go to college.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I think it would be fair to say -- and I think almost everyone would agree that for many students the Be on Time and the Texas grant and the TEG grant really is there lifeline that allows them to go to college. Without this money there are literally hundreds if not thousands of students, this year, in this biennium, not in tomorrows debate who are not going to be able to continue in school because this legislature is going to vote to cut $53 million in funding. In everybody's district thousand of students are not going to be able to enroll in your community colleges, in your public universities, in your private universities because of this legislation action today.
REP. VERONICA GONZALES: In fact isn't it true that the cut on the Texas grants will mean that any incoming students any new students that those grants will no longer be available. That they will be zeroed out.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. That's what we're expecting. That new students are not going to have the chance to benefit from these programs for at least two years at least the next biennium.
REP. VERONICA GONZALES: So the promise that we've made to students that if you work hard and you do well and you get into college the moneys will be there to help you go to school. The grants will be there if you can show the need for it. That promise is not going to be kept by us.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. And sadly we've never fully funded the Texas grants program, for example. But now, you know, we funded it at two-thirds. In other words, every two out of three students who qualified for it, who needed it, would actually receive it. That number is going to be scaled back dramatically.
REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you very much for bringing this amendment.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Members, because Representative Gonzalez asked the question about the effect on students before I yield to Ms. Thompson I'd like to read you a letter real quick that's going out to students at our public universities now. Some version of this letter has likely been received by students in your district and I would like to read it to you. It says, Dear students, As many of you are aware after reading about the status of financial aid in Texas and across the nation there is a strong likelihood that financial aid packages maybe effected this year. Currently we are awaiting the decision of possible changes to both state and federal funding including funding for Pell grants, Texas grants, the top ten percent scholarships and the Be on Time loans. Until the Texas Legislature and Congress finalize the debates surrounding these key funding bills the University of Texas, wherever, must delay sending your 2011/2012 financial aid award information. Currently we anticipate sending out financial aid award letters for continuing students June 2011. Although we deeply regret this delay in information we along with the other universities in Texas believe this is the safest course of action at this point. We thank you for your patience and currently encourage to follow further media for information et cetera. So the reason I --
JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. For the time I've been in office we are called, all of us, to visit high schools and talk about education especially from an area as underserved as mine, as indigent as mine, but the number one thing we encourage is education. The number one thing we point to that can be the great equalizer in our community is encourage our kids to seek a higher education. Teachers who -- and they are doing this because they sincerely mean it, are encouraging kids to not go to college at this time because they will incur so much debt in doing so that they will be placing themselves in an economic disadvantage and at a starting point they may never be able to recover from. So imagine that all -- that we have come this far as a state to encourage our kids to go college so that we can have great citizens in our community, great taxpayers in our community, future leaders, business owners, doctors, professionals, they are now being encouraged to hold off continuing their education because they can't afford and they will incur so much debt that they will never be able to overcome that initial debt in their career, in their professional lives. This has been the great equalizer in this state. I have now for two sessions stood in a bipartisan fashion to do everything we can to fund Texas grants. This is extremely critical that we understand this. We made decisions very quickly here without sometimes realizing the impacts and what we're going to have to do and answer to when we go back home.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Yes, sir, absolutely.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Lucio, you mentioned earlier in the earlier debate that you represent a county in Cameron County that's one of the states poorest, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: That's correct.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And have you come across students during your upbringing and during your time of service who are barely getting by and struggling to make their payments to attend school and improve their lives.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Such a few, Representative, such a few amount of my students actually continue their education. We still have a huge dropout problem that we're trying to address. For those that actually are college bound, who have the tools necessary, who have the ability to succeed in college now we're saying even though you can do it and you have the ability to do it we just don't have the money to invest in your education. We want to save money from what we are having to spend on all these entitlement programs, as they're referred to, yet on the front end where we can invest and essentially save millions and millions of dollars on the back end in services that they will later need because they can't afford basic living requirements, we won't invest that money up front.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And do you believe that these drastic cuts, the slashing of this financial aid is going to force students to try to work more and be able to study less and go to school less.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: I actually believe that they are going to forgo college all together and maybe at a minimum take night classes at the local university, which is okay. There are students who are going to need to do that. But for the past several decades we have encouraged kids to go to a four year university. To continue their education, to go on, to go to graduate school. Now we have teachers who are sincerely -- they are not trying to be mean, they are not trying to discourage people from success but they are sincerely saying you cannot afford to go to college. Without the Texas grant program, knowing your socioeconomic status you do not have the means to afford college. And given your earning potential if you do go to college you can never overcome the debt you're going to incur while an undergrad and you're always going to have that and you're going to be stuck in this cycle of debt and poverty even though you have an education because you were not given the opportunity to afford an education up front.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker --
(live feed show he did not say anything further).
JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez in favor of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And members. I would just like to point out and thank Representative Castro for bringing this amendment forward. I am the face of the benefit of TEG grants. I attended both of the universities nineteen ninety San Antonio both our lady of the lake and Saint Mary's. And I was privileged to have a very handsome scholarships to both universities however if it were not for the TEG grants that I received to supplement the tuition for those fine universities, I would not have been able to graduate within the four years and be where I am today. TEG grants are very important to minority students that have bright future. They are the key component to make sure that those students that do not want to attend public universities have an option to attend fine private universities throughout the United States and I would urge you all fine colleagues and team members to please vote in favor of this amendment. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members. I --
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Would my kind gentle friend be kind enough to yield --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Aycock, do you yield?
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: -- for friendly questions.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: You know, Ms. T, we've never been across the mic from each other and this day has finally come and I stand in awe of you. I yield.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Aycock, you are aware that this program has been around for a quite a while --
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm having difficulty hearing you, ma'am.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: You are aware that this program has been around for quite a while.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The TEG program?
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Yes.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And you're also aware of the fact that they have saved the state a lot of money.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Oh, yes. I love my "I" cut schools. My daughter is a product of an "I" cut school.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Had it not been for this program, we would probably have classrooms and buildings at various colleges and universities all over our state, wouldn't you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I have no problem supporting "I" cut schools to keep that from happening.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And would it surprise you to know that they are probably safe --
THE SPEAKER: Members, could we have some order? We have difficulty hearing. Thank you.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: -- would it surprise you to know that they have saved all the state in just building space alone probably about the size of Texas A & M University campus at College Station?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They are very large and educate many fine students.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And they have educated a significant number of our students at our colleges and universities for a very nominal fee.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They appear to save the State considerable money.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, let me go back -- Mr. Speaker and members, let me go back to the issue at hand. This bill talks about money that would be an unexpended balance for just a few months and like we said all afternoon I think that money is better spent going forward in H.B. 1 for use in the coming biennium. We have "I" cut school problems there as well and I'm sure they'll be taking up new appropriations process as we go through. Move -- unless my friend has questions. In that case I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Members, returning money to the Higher Education Coordinating Board, it would be a benefit to people throughout the state, would be a benefit to each and everyone of your districts, we know what this money is going to be use for by supporting this amendment. We know that the money is going to be used for good things. This would be unexpended balances from the offices that I described. So -- REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose? REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Castro, do you yield?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do. REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: Representative Castro, giving your experience in this legislative body, could you say that we can bi partisanly agree that higher education is not only important to the educational future of our state but also to the economic future of our state?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Absolutely. REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: And a strong economy essentially means more dollars coming into our state coffers to make us more viable as a state government and be able to afford the services we want to provide our constituents.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure. No I think that's absolutely right, Representative Lucio. And I'd like to point out that people from all over the political spectrum -- on the right -- what I would consider on the right, and I think most of us would, the Texas Association of Business, the -- and then, you know, coming all the way to the other end of the spectrum, the P triple P. All of these different groups throughout the political spectrum understand and respect the fact that an investment in higher education is one of the top priorities that our state should pursue. So when we talk about using excess revenue -- I would ask the question, if you don't want to use it for this, then what do you want to use it for because I certainly think that this is an extremely worthwhile cause that people on the both sides of the aisle can agree on. You know, I think that we should use some of it for public ed also but there's even more political fractiousness there. Everybody agrees that we need to invest in higher education. REP. EDDIE LUCIO, III: And this doesn't just touch poor families this touch also the middle income families.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Oh, no. Absolutely. And let me tell you a story real quick. I guess about a month and a half ago now in early February, I was speaking to the Community College Association of Texas and after I spoke there were folks who came up to me from the different parts of the State, and there was a gentleman who must have been in his 40's that said that he lost his job recently and that he had gone back to the community college to get work training, workforce training and now he was on a career path that hopefully on his way to getting back to being employed and back to being productive. He was very, I think, proud of that. Also had piece of mind because he had a family to support. But those are the kinds of lives that we are affecting. You know, we see this bill, all of us look at this bill in terms of black and white numbers on a page, but I hope we can remember that as we vote down these amendments or as we vote for this bill, that these are affecting real people's lives, real people that live around us everyday. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And this isn't some liberal agenda.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: No. No. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: We're talking about higher education.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: In fact, I want to point that out, Eddie, because I worked with Dan Branch on House Bills 9 and 10. One of them having to do with reforming Texas grants to make them more accountable, to make students more accountable when they accept Texas grants. That is considered more of a conservative idea which I joined him on, which the Texas Association of Business led on, I also joined him on doing the momentum points in reforming funding for universities. I supported both of those measures in the committee. I'm going to continue to support them when they come to the floor. Those are considered a bit more conservative leaning but I think it's important that we put accountability measures in place. So this isn't a liberal thing at all, it's not even a Democratic thing, it's, in fact, being responsible with our money and I can't think of a better place to use it than on this. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Do you feel that the health of our universities in Texas is directly tied to the health of our state as a whole.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Oh, absolutely. You know our universities right now are struggling. You know; for example, UTSA has the -- uses -- has the best use or most efficient use of space because we've got 40,000 students from all parts of the State who come there and, you know, we are basically busting at the seams, bursting at the seams because we don't have enough space. So it's not like you have a lot of -- a lot of fluff out there. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: So essentially, the Texas grant program is a twofold benefit. It's a benefit in that it helps kids go to college and two it's a benefit in that by those kids paying tuition or the Texas grant program paying tuition, we have a healthy university and community college systems.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. It's making sure that the universities install this but also the people get to pursue their American dream. You know, if people don't have the money to go to college, how do we expect them to become the lawyers or the teachers or the doctors or the firefighters that they aspire to become and the folks that will help everybody when they retire by paying taxes. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And the quality of life in a state is oftentimes evaluated by the education of its people.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Absolutely. That's right. And, you know, right now we've got the most number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered here but I doubt that it's going to stay that way very long if the population becomes a mass of uneducated people. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And just like you read from that letter, you and I are both concerned that now our teachers at the high school level are advising their kids to be careful with going to college because they will incur so much debt and they can never overcome that debt based on the earnings ability once they graduate.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. You know what? When people get this letter, you know what they are going to do? In every part of Texas --
THE SPEAKER: Point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Castro sends up an amendment. Mr. Aycock moves to table. The question is on the motion to table members. Vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Castro voting no, representative Villarreal voting no, show Representative Otto voting aye, show Mr. Aycock voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 93 ayes, 51 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 36, members.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Members, I have cut out the fat. I have trimmed the fat from the last amendment. And this amendment returns money back to just Texas grants. That means your students going to public universities and to the TEG grants. So your students going to private universities in your districts. We take from the Office of the Governor, the State Preservation Board, the AG's office, the Legislature, and the Comptroller of Public Accounts. So we're not funding administrators anymore, it's not the Higher Education Coordinating Board this is the meat and bones. These are the grant programs -- the money that your students require to go to school. We know that this state is way behind on closing the gaps; for instance, the target measures that we set for ourselves around the year 2000 that we're trying to hit by 2015. We are way behind. We are going to fall further behind if our students don't have the money they need in this biennium, for this bill, because remember, some might say, well, look we are going to argue that House Bill tomorrow. But people are receiving acceptance letters and making decisions about college right now. They are not going to make those decisions in September. They are making those decisions right now and when they receive letters like this, a lot of your people are just going to give up and I want to tell you what I believe that means --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Would the gentleman yield? But he can finish what he started if he likes.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That means we have asked people -- let me put it like this. We talk about the American dream. We talk about it throughout the United States. And in Texas, we ask our young people to dream big. To dream about being a lawyer or firefighter or doctor or teacher, whatever it is they want to do, an engineer. Those dreams and that advice is not unique to America. The dream of having a healthy life, being safe, having a prosperous life, those dreams are not unique to America. What makes America unique is the infrastructure in the system that we have setup in our country and in our state to make that dream possible, to make those aspirations come true, to help people achieve their American dream. And that's why people throughout the world want to come to the United States, because we have setup a system, an infrastructure of opportunity that helps people shape and catch their American dream. So what this bill represents if it goes down the way we suspect it may go down, is that you're undoing that infrastructure of opportunity. You are taking away from that system that we have setup as Texans and Americans to help people catch their American dream. I yield for Representative Lucio. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Thank you, Representative Castro. I think before you and I came here, there was a --
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: -- there was a policy decision to deregulate tuition regarding how we allow universities to raise tuition without the oversight of the legislature; is that correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And part of that compromise, part of that decision making process was that we were going to fund programs like Texas grants and although there might be a rise in cost of tuition we were going to ensure that every child who wanted to go to college could afford to do that. We made that promise as a State when we voted for tuition deregulation, didn't we?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: We absolutely did. And there were many of us who voted against it but it prevailed in the legislature and one of the provisions, one of the safeguards in that bill was that we were going to set aside money for tuition and not only for low income students but for middle class students who were seeking to go on to our public universities. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: So our promise is that we would not have a situation in Texas where if you wanted to continue your education and you couldn't afford it you wouldn't go to school. Our promise was we are going to help every child continue their education to get a college degree.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And we are moving in the opposite direction, aren't we?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well this bill backpedals from that promise. It backpedals from that assurance. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: So the guarantees we were given, the guarantees that we gave Texas families that even though we are going to take away the oversight of the legislature regarding the rising cost of tuition, we are going to ensure your child can afford to go to college. We are not fulfilling that promise today, are we?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, we are not. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And it's a sad day in Texas, isn't it?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: We are failing the students of Texas and failing the future of Texas. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And essentially, just like the decision made before, we are creating a hole by having them use financial aid without the grant portion of that strict financial aid to get an education that based on their degree they will have no ability, in terms of their earning power, to ever afford to pay back the very loans that are taken out to get that degree.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. Yeah, if they can even access capital because we see it as a Be on Time Loan Program is also dramatically cut, the grant program is cut. So not only do they not get the grants but they also may not even get the state loans. So if they do end up going to school, they are taking out these huge private loans with higher interest rates, with more restrictive payback periods and payback clauses, and in reality it makes everybody's lives a lot more difficult and makes it harder for them to be what they want to be, to accomplish what it is that they want to accomplish. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: And I know we are just dealing with the supplemental bill today.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure. REP. EDDIE LUCIO≤ III: Tomorrow -- this is a primer for tomorrow's debate regarding so many very important issues. But the Texas grant program is something that session after session we've repeatedly promised the American -- the Texas community, Texas families that we would assist them to send their kids to college because it's in all our benefit, it's in all our welfare to have well educated citizenry.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And that's right Representative, you know, in fact Texans are upset. They are very upset that we are doing this. I don't know how many parents, middle class parents, that I come across in San Antonio and other places. Their tone is one of indignation that their kids are not going to have the opportunity to go onto school because the State is compromising, it's cutting its loan program, and its grant program. They really feel that this legislature is trying to make it harder for their kids to succeed in life. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: You and I stood on this House floor last session and did our best to try to work on a compromise bill given the top ten percent constraints --
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: -- that UT Austin was experiencing. And part of that was that we were going to put our students first and we are going to ensure that programs like the Texas grants -- that was part of the compromise. We are still going to work on the affordability. We may not have access to The University of Texas like we did, given the top ten percent rule, but we are going to have a affordability and we are going to try to provide alternatives and not only that possible scholarship dollars to go to other universities. It was never debated, it was never argued that scholarship money for Texas families low and middle income families was a bad thing.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, not at all. I think everybody sees that as a positive thing. And folks have a choice here. Either we can take this money from the Office of the Governor, the Preservation Board, the AG, the Legislature, and the Comptroller -- either we can choose them or we can choose the kids of Texas. That's the choice in front of us. Choose these -- choose the State of administrators and the bureaucrats or you can choose the kids. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: You know we are all experiencing hard times, Representative, because of the budget that has been cut here within our own House administration. I now out of my own pocket have to pay for my own district office because I cannot afford rent. They no longer will pay for the district office. That comes out of my pocket. Off of my daughter's plate. But I'm not complaining. I am just saying, that's how dedicated I am, personally, to continue to serve in this capacity. And if we, as an administration, can work on trying to afford the Texas grant program, I think that's something that we should all do. We should all sacrifice.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Absolutely, I think our sacrifice -- if it foregoes the deeper sacrifice of students is well worthwhile. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: In the end we are going to have to go home whether we have an RAD by our name. And at some point we are going to be at a high school or we are going to be amongst a group of parents who are going to stress their concern and their newfound reality that they cannot afford to send their kids to college. And we're going to move in the opposite direction that we have for decades tried to increase the number of college students, increase our number of kids with a college degree.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. Look we're already behind as a state. We are going to be way further behind. REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO, III: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Aycock speaks against the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I certainly understand your passion for this issue. I assume, many of you are first generation to go to college. I grew up on a farm, a cotton farm and I understand the need to break into the education realm. But this bill is not about funding for the next biennium. And I understand the necessity of prepping the floor for the discussion tomorrow. But H.B. 4 is about the next few months. H.B. 4 is about the time between now and August --
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll yield --
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Castro?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: If the gentleman yield for questions when he's ready.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Let me finish just a minute. This H.B. 4, I would remind you, is about funding for the next few months and the cuts that will be made in that funding for the next few months. And on September 1st we will begin the new budget which will be appropriated through the normal appropriation process. These unexpended balances we have been talking about for hours now are very difficult estimate. I don't believe we really want to shut down the comptroller, the Texas Legislature, the attorney general, or the governor, between now and August 31st. And I think there's a potential that it would almost communicate to shut those offices down or at least hamstring their ability to function. We've voted against every one of these bills and I urge you to vote against this bill. And I move to table and I'll be glad to yield to the gentleman for questions.
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield, Mr. Aycock?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield to questions, yes, sir.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well we wouldn't have to shut these offices down. But, Jimmie Don, you and I both agree that what the bill that's in front of us House Bill 4 has to do with the remainder of this fiscal year; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It has to do with the time between now and August 31st.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right. You acknowledge, as I showed all of us with that letter, that students are making decisions about college right now not after August 31st. Do you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They are making decisions based on offers to Texas grant and TEG grants that are already known to those institutions.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well what do you tell the students who receive that letter then that says can't -- the university can't tell them how much money they are going to be offer to them. I mean, what are we going to tell those folks?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's an issue for H.B. 1 because we haven't told them yet in September what they'll have as far as their money this time. They know what those cuts have been appropriated to.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well there's $53 million dollars in the Be on Time -- I'm sorry, there is about $12 million, about 6 for Texas grants, 6 for TEG in this biennium, in this bill in front of us, that's being cut. Do you agree with that? Don't you?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I agree with those approximate numbers to the best of my belief. Yes.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: So what do you tell those students who are going to forgo that aid?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It is not near as painful as it is to the cuts to the next biennium which will have no new Texas grant money unless we move some of this money from this biennium into the next biennium.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well do you mind if I -- do you mind if I let you know what I would tell them?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Open to discussion.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I would tell them that if this bill goes through, that this legislature made a choice. It chose rather than use more of the rainy day fund which is sitting there, or rather than closing tax loopholes for certain corporations where some of them enjoying record profits, instead they chose to sacrifice your future.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: This bill does not address the use of the rainy day fund. This bill addresses cuts as one of the strategies to pay the State's bills between now and September the 1st. We will take a bill very shortly, I hope, that would address the use of rainy day funds.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative, not using the rainy day fund is not a matter of economic or political fate, it's a matter of choice, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And it's not about the subject of H.B. 4 which we are discussing.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well we could have used more of the rainy day fund for H.B 4, couldn't we?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: H.B. 4 does not have the right to appropriate rainy day funds. No.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: We could have found us -- let me give you a general question. We could have found ways to close the budget gap for this biennium if we were committed to it, isn't that true?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I don't think there is enough money available to close all the gaps that we need between now and September 1st nor do I believe that there's adequate funding in the biennium to come to close all of our needs. We have to make very difficult choices and my choice and the recommended choice is to move the unexpended balances into the forward looking budget.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And I understand that you understand that you're hurting people's lives when you do that and you are hurting their futures.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think that there are places in both this present cut and the budget to come that will be very difficult for many people, including myself. Yes.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Move to table.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr Alonzo?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield, Mr. Aycock?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Representative. The reason I came is that you acknowledge that you understand our passion for the students and making sure that there's funding for scholarships. Do you understand our passion?
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand that.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And you also understand the frustration because we know -- we know, Representative, that there's a way to fund these programs. You know that we know that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I do not knowledge that there's adequate funds to fund these programs. No.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Well let me help you how we know. First of all, we know -- you and I know that there's money in the rainy day fund. We know that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There's money in the rainy day fund.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: You know that we fix a structural deficit we get over $10 billion. You know that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Say it again, please.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: That we fixed the structural deficit that we caused in 2006 we can get over $10 billion dollars. You know that.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: H.B. 4 does not address the structural deficit --
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: I'm not asking about H.B. 4. I'm asking you about the $10 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm discussing H.B. 4.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Okay. Well the point I'm trying to make, sir, is understanding our passion, and understanding the frustration of people that are saying, what are you guys doing in Austin? You need to fix this problem and there's a way to fix it and you know and I know the deal is whether we want to. Let me tell you one of us wants to. Whether we want to spend the rainy day money, the money is there. It's for rainy days. It's raining. But this legislature simply does not want to, right?
THE SPEAKER: Representative Geren raises the point of order. The gentlemen's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Speaker Pro Tem Woolley for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, please help me welcome the Texas Horseman Partnership, you can see them sitting all over the gallery, we're happy to have you. They are here to support Win for Texas and Representative Debbie Riddel would like to welcome you also.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Riddel.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDEL: Members, I want to go along with you. Welcome all these wonderful horseman. These folks here represent all the different associations that have to do with something that is such a key element of our heritage and of our economy. And that is the horses and the horseman and the horsewoman and the people of this state. We appreciate and love the equine industry. Welcome.
THE SPEAKER: House, come to order.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDEL: Thank you and welcome.
THE SPEAKER: Thank you and Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Members, this amendment is a bare bone's amendment and it deals directly with the fate of our students. I am asking us to restore funding for Texas grants, students going to public universities and TEG grants, students who are going to the private universities in Texas. And I want to make a quick point about that. I mentioned that these students are on their way to achieving their American dream and each of your areas, each of your district. That's what we asked them to do. That is the promise of this state and that is the promise of America. And this budget is going to hurt them. And I also want to take issue with -- I know that Representative Aycock -- that throughout this debate there has been this. REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON, JR.,: Mr. Speaker.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I'll yield and then I'll finish up. REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON≤ JR.≤: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Dutton, for what purpose? REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON≤ JR.≤: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry. REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON≤ JR.≤: Do you know if the people in the gallery are here about gambling?
THE SPEAKER: Sir? I'm not sure why they are here sir. REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON≤ JR.≤: Because I wanted to say if they would take odds that every amendment is going to be 101 to 48, 100 to 49, 99 to 48, or 98 to 48.
THE SPEAKER: The chair is unadvised. But we thank you for those statistics, sir. REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON≤ JR.≤: I just wanted you to know that if they would bet on that.
THE SPEAKER: Well, you could go outside and certainly ask them sir. Thank you. Mr. Castro. Chair recognizes Mr. Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: This bill throughout the day has been presented -- this situation that we are in has been presented as one where our hands are tied. Where we are essentially handcuffed to this political and economic fate. Well the fact is, that's not true. The situation in which we find ourselves has as much to do with bad planning as a bad economy. In fact the situation we're in with a choice on a choice that was made by a governor, by a majority Republican legislature, and the bill in front of us is also a choice. We made a mistake -- or the legislature made a mistake in 2006. We are in a bad situation but we don't have to keep making those mistakes. Today is an opportunity to take a different path. To rectify the mistakes of the past. To go in a different direction. This amendment takes us in a different direction. And it should be something that all of us can support. Higher education of all of the issue that is we deal with is one of the few where you have almost bipartisan support about how important it is. Think about gambling for a second. There's split opinions on that. About public education even. There's some split opinions on that. Some people prefer vouchers. On the pro-choice and pro-life issue, there are obviously very deep opinions about that. I don't know anybody that disagrees that higher education isn't a worthwhile enterprise in our State and in helping our students achieve it to should not be of paramount importance. So a no vote on this amendment means that you are choosing the bureaucracy over the kids of the State of Texas. You are literally choosing the government bureaucracy over the future of the students and the kids of Texas. And again you have to ask yourselves what you stand for. Which one you stand for. Because I'm sure that the voters in November of 2012 will be asking all of us who we stood for. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Castro sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All in favor vote aye. Those oppose nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Pitts. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Otto voting aye, show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative Castro voting no, show Representative Gonzalez voting aye, show Representative Darby voting aye, show Representative Strama voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes, 51 nays, 2 present not voting, 4 abstentions the motion carries. Representative Farrar Representative, Representative Hancock you are on the floor. Is Mr. Walle on the floor? Mr. Hancock? The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have an amendment to the amendment and I will speak to that amendment. The amendment to the amendment basically strikes the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. And the Driver's Motor Vehicle Registration Fund. And with that, I wanted to explain to the body that this amendment is very important to many of our community colleges. As you've heard Representative Joaquin Castro, Eddie Lucio and many others in this body how important higher education is to a future of Texas because I was one of those kids. I was one of those kids who was able to and fortunate enough to receive an education, public education but I would not have done that without the grants that were offered to me when I received my financial aid package from the University of Houston. I would not have been able to finish college without the Pell grants that the federal government gave or offered to us when I was in college. And this amendment in H.B. 4 would sweep unexpected funds from several sources and use those funds to restore stuff to the junior and community college. Community college all over the State. Two in particular would be in my district, Houston Community College and Loan Star College. This amendment pulls unexpected balances from the AG's general litigation expense, the governor's mansion restoration fund, the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judicial Education And Administration Allocation. Those unexpended fund balances would be used to restore the cuts to our junior and our community colleges for the current biennium. This amendment is not cutting any funding from those programs I listed. Instead they make any money -- takes any money that hasn't been used and gives that money to our community colleges who desperate need it. And members, this is so important to many of the folks that we represent all over the State and the current biennium let alone moving forward tomorrow but in the current biennium. With that Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, we have had several amendments today. All dealing with very good programs especially in education, higher education. But what we're basically doing is taking unexpended balances from the restoration of the governor's mansion, the Texas forest service, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the judicial education, and if there are expended balances those are going to be needed tomorrow as we go into H.B. 1. So I would make a motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the Walle amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're now on the Walle amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Otto for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, for the reason that I just stated earlier, I move to table the amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Members, again, this is -- these unexpended balances are for this current biennium it's for many of the much needed resources that our students need today for their financial aid packages moving forward particularly with those in community colleges. As I mentioned before we have Lone Star College that's in my district. It's one of the fastest growing colleges in the State it has 70, 80,000 students. We have Houston Community College in Harris County of Houston that need these resources particularly to bridge the gap for those students that want to go to a four year institution. Currently I have students in a mentor program that I sponsor and I sponsor six kids. Six kids that are seniors going on to college and I have one particular young man that just got accepted to The University of Texas at Austin. He got accepted to The University of Texas at Austin but what I'm afraid of is that he won't be able to pay for some of those funds and will have to maybe resort to going back to HCC or to Lone Star College when the opportunities and those doors are closing to him in reference to funding. HCC and Lone Star college are very important to my district but these kids that don't have the opportunity to get to a UT Austin or A&M or University of Houston, do end up going to Lone Star College and HCC. And I really need those funds for those kids and with that I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle sends up an amendment, Representative Otto moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Otto voting aye, show Representative Walle voting nay. Show Representative Zerwas voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 98 ayes, 47 nays, two present not voting, three absent, motion carries. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker I would like to recognize some students who are here from the Pantego Christian Academy accompanied by Margie Rowland. Would you, please, stand and be recognized? Welcome to your Texas House.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Paxton.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Paxton.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment reduces salaries for those state workers making over 60,000 by .625 percent over a three month period. For those making 60,000 that would reduce their take home pay by about $85 a month over the two to three month period. I have an amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Paxton.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Paxton.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: This amendment brings in all the state workers including those not just funded by general revenue but all state workers. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield the floor?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Paxton do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Paxton can you tell me exactly -- I'm not sure I understood what your amendment does. So can you tell me exactly what your amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Yeah. So this would now cover all state workers as opposed to the ones that are funded to general revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So what does it do for all state workers as opposed to those funded by general revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: If a state worker makes over 60,000, $60,001. Then for the next -- for June July and August depending on when the bill is signed, then their salary would be reduced by .625 percent which is a less than one percent. So it would be about, if your making 60,000, it would be about $85 a month after tax dollars reduction in pay.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And what is the point of lowering the employee's salaries by that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: The point is to basically reduce general revenue spending and hopefully lower the amount that we have to use out of the rainy day fund eventually.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So for those Nobel laureates that we have, that the State has to compete for, we essentially recapture their salaries and we reneg on our commitment? So that those employees would go to California or MIT or somewhere else as opposed to staying here and teaching in our finest universities?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: It would effect everybody making over 60,000 at .625 percent. So yeah a neg -- a very small amount.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So our salaries here are already not particularly competitive with those of other states particularly in the higher ed arena, so you're making us less competitive?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I am reducing salaries by a small percentage and part of it, I mean in my district, people have lost their jobs they have had their salaries lowered 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. I mean this is -- many of them would be happy with this small reduction in their pay.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So this isn't even a hiring freeze. You are taking people that are -- we have a commitment to that we set their annual salaries or someone did and yet you are saying, I'm sorry, our annual commitment to you we're not going to meet that obligation anymore we are going to cut your salary.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Yeah, and in the long run, I'm hoping to avoid a hiring freeze.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And in the long run -- what was that? Mr. Paxton?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You don't even take the money to apply somewhere else, you just leave the money in the agency budget.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: That's correct and eventually I'm hoping that --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So you are not even using the money for another purpose, you are just taking the employee's money away?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: My hope is that it would be used in the rainy day fund. To reduce the amount of rainy day fund -- take out of our rainy day fund.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But the amendment sweeps the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And one of the previous amendments is that it sweeps the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Well, I think there's another amendment coming up that will reduce the rainy day fund and when we get to 275. Based on how much reduction in this bill we have.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But you don't reduce the agency amount. It's still appropriating the same amount to the agency you are just taking it away from the employees.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: No. It's not appropriating the same amount to the agency. The agency gets less.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You are reducing the amount of the agency appropriations to each agencies in your amendment? Or are you just taking the money -- your just lowering the salary of the employees?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: No. I'm just using the amount is to the -- the actual agency if they wanted to not reduce salaries we are figuring out how many employees they have and we are reducing the agency allocation based on the number of employees that are making --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And how much money are you saving?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: 5.1 million.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: 5.1 million?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And how much are we short?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: On what?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In terms of the overall budget fixture.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I don't understand your question.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I would argue that if you're only saving 5.1 million at this point and you are doing it on the backs of our employees that $5 million is -- doesn't get us that much closer, if not -- I would argue that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Maybe you would. But I mean it's one step closer to reducing what we are taking out of the rainy day fund.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: What you do to the -- how you damage the competitive nature of our workforce and the --
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I don't think you are going to damage the competitive nature of our workforce by reducing salaries for two and a half to three months by .625 percent. It just doesn't make sense.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I -- it's different for me if your asking the employees have you polled the employees? Have you asked them if they're willing to do that or are you just arbitrarily doing that?
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I'm in a legislature I'm --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So the answer is you are arbitrarily doing that?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Are there more amendments that are going to be added to this? Okay. Do we start seeing any fairness if we start adding amendments to this. I don't see where this is fair at all to our state employees. What we're doing we are cutting the amount of money, that we're talking about, here. And now I can understand furloughs, I can understand highering freezes, I can understand things that we have to do.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I said I'm hoping to avoid -- I mean this is hoping to avoid hiring freezes. It's just a small reduction in salary.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: I don't -- I don't -- I'm sorry, I don't understand what amendment we can add to this to make it fair. I don't see this at all.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: Yeah, a total statewide hiring freeze was not acceptable -- pay cut, I sorry, pay cut.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Paxton sends up an amendment to the amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears -- Members, is there objection to the amendment to the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment to the amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Naishtat.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this amendment basically says that the requirements of this subsection which has been amended shall not apply to the salary or wages paid by an agency to a peace officer or a tax auditor. And what I'm trying to do with this amendment is to protect important state priorities by protecting peace officers and certain state employees from dangerous cuts to their salaries. This would exempt peace officers who are employed by the state and tax auditors who are employed by the state from this percentage salary cut. And this is especially important because we rely on our peace officers to keep our communities safe. Without this amendment we risk loosing sight of the State's priority of providing for the public safety. Our law enforcement officers are already underpaid. Cutting the salaries further would be a detriment to public safety. State auditors as part of their job identify inefficiencies in our agencies they make sure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and appropriately. The savings they identify more than pay for their annual salary. With our current economic climate, their job is more important than ever before.
THE SPEAKER: Excuse Representative Geren, Lucio, Cook, Ritter, Truitt, Zerwas, Hunter, and Bonnen because of the Calendars Committee on the motion of Representative Legler. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Naishtat sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment to the amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Kolkhorst.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment takes it from 60,000 a year that would have been caught in this amendment to a hundred thousand annually and then it raises the percentage to 2.7 which means that you will meet the same 5.1 after the amendment by Mr. Naishtat which I'm sure reduced it to 5.1 somewhat. So this is an equalizing amendment to the amendment that raises it to -- to those making a hundred thousand or more of our state workers.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Mr Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. McClendon, for what purpose.
REP. MCCLENDON: Would the lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Kolkhorst, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Of course I do.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Ms. Kolkhorst, I'm concerned about where this amendment is going because I know how hard the state employees work for this state. And I know how dedicated they are. And I know as we talked about the budget we talked about how we would try to protect them as best we could and now we've already gone in -- and state employees and the state retired employees are going to be forced to pay now for their health care. And so now on top of that we are coming back on this floor and cutting them a 2.7 percent --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: If they make a hundred thousand or more.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: -- I mean it appears to me that we are not understanding the plight of our employees because if we look at just the ones in our offices, and they are not making $100,000 a year and we know that.
REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Ms. Jones McClendon, what my amendment to the amendment is attempting to narrow the number of people effected by Mr. Paxton's amendment. And in looking at this and talking to Mr. Paxton throughout today -- since earlier this morning I feel like I wanted to offer this amendment to his because we do know that the salary of $60,000 is not a whole lot. I mean it's certainly some of our more top paid employees but I thought it was very punitive so we're looking to raise that number will effect less people if this amendment is accepted by the House floor. I do share your concerns as someone who has lost more -- by the time we pass House Bill 4 today, I will have lost more employees probably than any other member. We are predicting -- in fact the RIF notices have gone out in Huntsville. And there's over 200 employees. So, I share your concern. I would say that -- you know and people have asked me does this include statewide? Yes, the attorney general, comptroller, the governor, AG commissioner, lane commissioner, railroad commissioners. So I share your concern. I wanted to raise that number to someone that was making over a hundred --
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Does this include the higher education employee as well.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: You know, I need to ask Mr. Paxton that because he did an amendment to the amendment.
REP. MCCLENDON: Okay. Also does this include the Judges? The district judges? Does this include the district judges and the higher education employees?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I have to ask.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: No your amendment, your amendment, Ms. Kolkhorst, include the district judges and the higher education employees?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: When Mr. Paxton put on his amendment that said it effects everyone in general revenue -- I would like for you to ask that question because I don't know. This was drafted off of the original amendment to the amendment. And I mean off the original amendment. It takes it from 60,000 to 100,000 and although I'm struggling with Mr. Paxton's amendment, if it is adopted I want to make sure that we don't hit those employees at that lower level.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Are you aware of the fact that the state employees are going to now have to pay for their health insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Oh, yes. We've had this discussion all day I'm very concerned about where we are going. And that's why I raise the level to 100,000 instead of 60,000. And let me just say --
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Let me, let me, let me just ask this question.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Do you know that someone with $100,000 income would have bills and have children in college, would have expenses that would maybe sometimes far exceed the $100,000 income.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Sure so it does between 60 and 60,000. The goal was is to reduce the amount of people that this effects with this amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: -- as my struggle has been all day.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Truitt, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Would the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes I yield.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Kolkhorst do you yield?
REP. VICKI TRUITT: Representative Kolkhorst, are you -- can you tell me maybe what the retirement implications might be here?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Ms. Truitt I think that you should ask Mr. Paxton on the whole amendment as his is a bigger group and I'm narrowing mine to a smaller group. I would think that and we've discussed that had all day that this is going to be --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Would you agree that either of them would encourage early retirements or expedite people pursuing retirement and have we even considered what the implications might be to the retirement funds when that happens?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: We have had those discussions off and on all day, Ms. Truitt. We are trying to get to the bottom of some of this. This has been a very difficult process and looking at this amendment Mr. Gonzalez and I have been working on this all -- I think Mr. Gonzalez all day. And so in trying to mitigate this, that -- members, that's what I'm trying to do here is --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Geren raises the point of order. The lady's time is expired. The point of order is taken and sustained. Representative Kolkhorst sends up the amendment to the amendment. Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the amendment to the amendment? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members we're back on the Paxton amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker and members, I'm going to let you know what you are doing. I want you to be very conscious of what you are doing today. What you are doing, you are telling everyone of those doctors in the M.D. Anderson Hospital to take care of the sick who are dying, that are trying to get well from cancer, I'm cutting your salary. Number two, all of the nobel laureates that we are proud in this university from the colleges, universities here. We're telling them we are cutting your salary. And you know why we're doing that? Because we think the price of the bread is cheaper for them than anybody else. And number three, let me tell you something else. We oughta start living up to our promises as the State of Texas. We've been lying to these people, telling them that we are going to promise to do something and we don't keep our promises. I hadn't plan to get up here but I'm telling you that I'm about to pop open inside. Because I am surprised with the conduct of trying to save 15 cents above breakfast and trying to be big and we are little as a (inaudible). Let me tell you something. We're not up here doing the dog and pony show. Why don't we get to the real people's business? These people have to spend increases of insurance premiums, cost of living is just as high for them as anybody else that you're going to be cutting their salaries and you can't keep your promises? You can't do things that you told them that you are going to do? You are going to cut the doctors and very people here who are taking care of your constituent and cover your family members? You want to cut their salaries like somebody is going to do them a big favor when they go to the grocery stores or when they buy their insurance. And then you are going to tell these people I want you to stay in Texas and teach and do all of these wonderful things and make us proud of our universities, but just wait until we get back to the -- we are going to cut your salary, baby. We don't keep our promises. It is time for us to start to acting like adults and do the things we promised to do for the people of the State of Texas. Rest of y'all can take it from here.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Paxton.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: I'm going to withdraw my amendment. My goal was -- I have to tell my superintendents and the teachers that we are going to be cutting them and I thought this was a minor cut that would not traumatically impact --
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PAXTON: -- any way, I withdraw my amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Truitt, were what purpose? Amendment is withdrawn. Is Mr. Strama on the floor of the House? Next amendment is on page 59. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Strama.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, before we get into this, can we do the amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Strama.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is the amendment that I worked out with working with Chairman Davis, Chairman Pitts and I'm just going to make this amendment acceptable to the author of House Bill 4. This is an amendment that freezes but does not sweep or reappropriate to any other purpose the funds in the Emerging Tech fund as this legislature continues to look at ways to optimize the expenditure of those funds. I move adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: So now we are on the amendment itself as just amended, all it does is freeze those funds that have not been obligated already in the Emerging Tech Fund as this legislature continues to look at the expenditures of those funds and I move adoption of the amendment. It's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Members, there are no further amendments. Anyone wish to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative -- Chair recognizes Representative Turner in opposition to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to just make a few points on H.B. 4. Within the bill itself, if the reductions are about $1.5 billion. In order to generate an amount to reduce the amount that we are going to find in H.B. 275, the rainy day bill, I just want us to highlight a few things. I know we have heard a lot about our local community colleges, the amount on the reduction in our local community colleges is about $76 million. All of this amount, these reductions to our local community colleges, could be avoided, can be avoided. We are intentionally making a decision to pull from our local community colleges. We respect you, we've been hearing a lot about the new textbooks and the firing or the laying off of a lot of our teachers and our local school districts. In HB 4, we are reducing TEA by approximately $90 million. A lot of that money can be redirected and we can use it to purchase new textbooks, instructional materials and to reduce the number of teachers and janitors and bus drivers that will be laid off. Within H.B. 4 we are reducing Health and Human Services by approximately $225 million. A lot -- we have heard a whole lot and I talked to a number of you about the fact that at least half of our nursing homes -- Mr. Speaker, I can't even hear myself.
THE SPEAKER: Members let's have some order.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you. I know I have talked to a number of you about the closing of nursing homes for our elderly as well as for those who are suffering with disabilities in our nursing homes. Within H.B. 4 we are taking out or reducing Health and Human Services by $225 million. We do not have to. We are choosing to do that and consequently we're leaving our nursing homes in a very precarious situation. When you look at how -- there has been a lot of talk about financial aid for right now I simply want to focus on one, on Texas grants. 80,000 kids are going to be effected. You will deal with that tomorrow but for those kids that are coming into the system in August or January there's not a single dime for Texas grants. We do not have to do that. We are choosing to do that in H.B. 4. We are making reductions. We are asking agencies to make reductions between now and August the 31st. And the primary reason, the primary purpose is to reduce the amount in H.B. 275, which we will be dealing with very, very shortly. And so, instead of there being $4.2 billion in 275, we are bringing that number down to about 3.2. These reductions, these cuts in H.B. 4 do not have to take place. They are painful. The situation is painful. I simply want for right now people to be mindful of the cuts that are taken place in higher ed, taken place for our local community colleges, taken place; for example, in instructional materials and teachers and started taking place with regards to our nursing homes and other health services. And because we don't have to do it, I just -- I will be voting no on H.B. 4.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would urge you to look very closely at the House research report that is on each one of your desks. And I urge you to read it. To be fully aware of the impact of the cuts that you are making. In your own offices you probably have an intern or two that goes either to The University of Texas or is on loan from some other university. I know that in my office that's the case. And I know that in my office those who are in school now have received letters from their offices of financial aid saying that financial aid may not be available next year. And the truth is. If you read the House research report you can tell exactly why that is. In fact, even in public ed, realize that the committee substitute increased the amount of cuts to TEA from 60 million to 90 million. It increased the cuts to Texdot from the original 20 million from 84 million. All of these cuts are deeper and deeper and deeper. And all of these cuts impact individuals that you and I know. That last debate on the Paxton amendment, gives you an indication of everything that is wrong with this process. As we so hurriedly look to cut numbers. We don't look at faces. We don't look at people. We came very close, very close, to cutting the salaries of physicians at M.D. Anderson as Ms. Thompson pointed out. We came very close to cutting the salaries of professors who could easily teach in other places like MIT or Cal Berkeley. We came very close to cutting things that make Texas what it is. And the truth is, that House Bill 4 makes too many of those cuts. And it puts us further and further and further behind. Members, I haven't been here as long as Ms. Thompson or Mr. Dutton or Mr. Craddick or many of the other members. But I can tell you that I paid attention to Texas and the legislature for a very, very, very long time. And I can tell you that this bill it doesn't make us to 2013 or 2035 or 2050. This bill doesn't take us down the road. With this bill, with House Bill 4 we are rushing head long to the 1980's. And that is not a very good thing to say about Texas.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Just want to speak very briefly against this bill. We have been here a long time. I voted against it in committee and notwithstanding my friendship with Mr. Pitts and the hard work that he put in and the committee put in all through the process. But members, I just want to point out that we have been told and we will be told that this bill is about making state government more efficient and finding ways to cut state government and save state government money but what we are really doing in here is kicking the can down the road to others. We're not -- we're not just cutting our own budgets. We are telling the community colleges, hey, we couldn't come up with enough of our own cuts, and we want to hit some target number even though we've got 8 billion or 9 billion in the bank, so, you guys take care of it. And you guys take care of it now and between now and the end of the fiscal year. That doesn't make us any more efficient. Doesn't make them any more efficient. It probably just them lay off people or raise tuitions or do both. Not an efficiency measure at all. If we are going to stand here and say, we're making hard choices, we are getting our government in shape, we are being leaner and meaner we ought to do it here. We ought to do it about these buildings around us if we know of some great way to do it. But we ought not get up on that mantle and brag about it when all we're doing is kicking it down the road and making it somebody else's problem. That's the primary reason I voted no on this and I'm going to vote no today. I cannot tell my community college trustee or more important the families of the students there that that trustee is going to have to cut their budgets or that the students are going to have to pay more in tuition when I know those families scraped the bottom of their savings accounts, but we're coming nowhere close to scraping the bottoms of ours and I encourage you to join me in voting no.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REP. JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members. Let me make sure everyone understands what House Bill 4 is. House Bill 4 is a bill that pays our current bills. It's a bill that pays the electricity, the salaries, the school districts for the rest of this biennium. These aren't cuts that are going to be all borne by these agencies in the next few months. These agencies were asked 15 months ago to make these cuts. And those cuts are already in place. And it's not something that the agencies have to cut once this bill is passed. This bill will not be signed by the governor until sometime probably in June but these cuts have already been made.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.
REP. JIM PITTS: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for questions?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?
REP. JIM PITTS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. I appreciate what you're saying and because you are saying it I thought it was a good time for me to ask my questions. As it relates to the fact that we're paying bills now this bill that we are looking at today is to pay the bills for 2011; is that correct?
REP. JIM PITTS: It's bills for 2011, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And the bills for 2011 should have been paid with the bill we passed last year; is that correct, the biennium that bill --
REP. JIM PITTS: It was anticipated that they would be paid by the bills we passed last session.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so is it based on I want to understand this process. By constitution we're required to have a certified budget; is that correct?
REP. JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So based on -- our requirement to have a certified budget who then certifies the budget and signs and say that these funds are available to run our government.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Comptroller.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. And in certification process of this budget it indicated that had we were going to have excess of $84 million; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is right.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And the previous biennium, we had about 2.9 billion that was a excess of what we were supposed to spend; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not sure about that number but I think that's about right.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Trust me, it's what they say.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay. I trust you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: My question is, how are we to determine as a state whether or not we can rely or count on the certification process for a budget if in fact we're here today paying bills for this biennium that we thought we already budgeted for?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, the comptroller would have no way to know that our sales taxes would go down. And that is one of the main reasons why our treasury does not have enough money in it to pay the existing bills that we will have the rest of this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, to the extent that you said this was happening 15 months ago. We had agencies looking at this, when did the comptroller notify us or when were we notified that we in fact could not pay the bills that we had projected, that we had already allocated the funds to pay?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. To the extent that this happens if we were not in session at this time how would those bills be paid? What mechanism would be in place to protect the commitments that the state's made?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I imagine we would be back in special session, Yvonne. And the reason that is, is there are some opportunities that she can borrow balances. And the big balance is that she could borrow is the rainy day fund. And she could borrow the rainy day fund right now to pay our existing bills but she has to pay that rainy day back before August 31st, 2011.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So, in fact we don't have the money based on her projections. They were not -- her projections doesn't represent what we need to pay our bills; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: The projections that she made a year and a half year ago did not -- they were anticipated but they did not become a reality and it's because of that we need additional moneys.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But in reading back and forth one of the questions kept coming up was that whether or not it was a 3 billion or 10 billion or 18 billion or 27 billion are we to think that we don't do better forecasting to know that we are 27, 18, 4, or 6, I mean --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, you have to realize you know about a year ago or so we started talking about -- the appropriations committee, we started talking about a shortfall for the next biennium. And with -- that's what we said was approximately $18 billion for the next biennium. We were not talking about a shortfall for this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, which is troubling because if we are talking about the 18 billion for the next biennium, what protections or what assurances or what methodologies or methods are put in place to protect us from having a similar situation so that what the projections are, are closer to what our actual needs would be? Is there something that triggers so that we, as legislators are not told when we get to session that in fact it is going to be this huge deficit?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Not that I'm aware of.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So we could very easily find ourselves in this same situations after we do H.B. 1; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So does it -- do we consider the fact that all of the stimulus or in some cases some people like to say, Obama or *arrow money that came in from the federal government, have we talked about that infusion of money? What it did to protect this budget?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, Yvonne, we had about $10 billion budget shortfall when we came into session last session. And we were able to cut our general revenue budget by over a billion dollars. And then we used some of the stimulus package as one time only money. In fact, we said in Article 13 that everything in Article 13 funded by the stimulus package would be one time only. But we did help -- the stimulus package did help to fill our hole on medicaid and public school growth.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Which is about $16 billion; is that correct? Is it 16 billion that we -- or --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, not 16 billion. I think it was -- I would be guessing but it is a whole lot less than that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Ten or eleven?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It was used to fill some holes on medicaid and schools.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And all I'm trying to ask Mr. Chairman is whether or not we as legislators being informed enough and involved enough to know how this moves -- how we get away from this same crisis with H.B. 1. Because you know, members, I don't know if you realize we really are broke and we are paying bills that we should have already had money and funds available for.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Representative Davis, you know we asked the comptroller to come in. We wrote her a letter and asked her to come in -- you know, why we missed it so much and then we asked her to come in and testify before the full appropriations committee, which she did.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And Mr. Chairman, do you remember any of her responses with regard to how we missed it so far.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Basically it was the sales tax.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So the sales tax difference is how much?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: No, I mean do you know what the gap between the sales tax gap that --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: 3.8 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So this is all on sales tax. This is not have anything to do with any kinds of problems with our franchise tax or other structural.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: 3.8 billion is sales tax I'm told. You know we covered -- that's why we have the $4.3 billion shortfall.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Is just from the sales tax.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, it's the sales taxes, it's the margin's tax, it's just the slow economy of the state of Texas, it's --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. So it's all of them and it's not just --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's a combination.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: It's a combination of all of them, not performing the way --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's the sales tax is a large amount.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: The last question I want to ask you Mr. Chairman is, you're asking us to vote on this bill, I'm just wondering is there anyway we as members of the legislature -- is there some way that we would have been notified could have been notified or that she could have provided us with a knowledge of this occurring before we got here to the session?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think -- I -- and let me ask you if I understood you --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. Let me just restate it. My question is.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No. I think I heard that you were going to vote for House Bill 4?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: No, no, no. You didn't hear that correctly at all. I said let me make sure I clear it up --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay. Okay. I was in shock and I didn't hear the rest of the --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: -- I was in shock as well, so -- let me ask you something. Would this kind of -- would this kind of issue before us today and potentially it could be before us after we pass H.B. 1, have you, as chairman appropriations, have you a mechanism -- I know you are notified. I know you are notified about the LBB but have you figured out a way to provide us as legislators some input with regard to this kind of crisis so that we can start communicating with our constituents with regard to what's going on because earlier projections from this biennium never suggested this kind of shortfall and the need to pay -- have a crisis with paying our bills right now.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, Representative Davis. I have seen either riders or bills that would require an annual BRE and things that would probably answer -- help answer your questions.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: So there are things that are --
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But you're the chairman appropriations and I'm going to assume you are going to be there until you decide not to be there. So, based on your probability of you being there, have you instituted or do you have something in place that we can be assured that you are going to be there to trigger communication to those of us in the legislature that we are broke and stop this nonsense about we got this flourishing economy when we come in here and make an emergency appropriations to pay our bills?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think -- I think there's things that are being considered right now that will answer your questions.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Great and are you authoring that as the chair of the committee?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No. I think somebody else -- I have seen some riders or some piece of legislation to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, do you think you need me to help you with some of those riders?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Sure do. Come on down.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on engrossment of House Bill 4. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 100 ayes and 46 nays, House Bill 4 is passed to engrossment. Representative Davis of Dallas moves that the remarks between her and Representative Pitts be reduced to writing and entered in the journal. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Today the sergeants will be coming around your desk and giving you a new I.D. card. It's going to look like this. The red I.D. card with your picture will peel off of it and this one will stick to it and replace it. It will be more recognizable by DPS. It's -- DPS is going to -- we're bringing a lot of DPS officers from around the State. It will not have my picture on it though. It will have your picture on it. This will be your new I.D. card. But the sergeants will come around and help you with this. This is a picture -- picture of my grandson -- you will have the same access with it and everything. It's just -- we will be taking up your pictures with the red boarder.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I will, Mr. Burnam, but I'm not sure why.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Will we need this new state issued I.D. in order to vote?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Burnam, you are going to need it to get in and out of the Capitol and that's it. Voting is your own problem.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: And it has been for some years. And members, if the photo on your I.D. -- if you don't like it we'll -- you can contact DPS and they will retake your photo and do another one so I won't look like I'm thirteen.
THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out on second reading. Committee substitute on House Bill 275. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: H.B. 275 by Pitts. Relating to making an appropriation of money from the economic stabilization fund for expenditure during the current state fiscal biennium.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members, just a reminder that a comptroller identified the shortfall for this biennium at $4.3 billion. We've already captured the budget reductions for agencies that were ordered more than a year ago in House Bill 4. Those reductions go a long way toward covering our shortfalls. The budget cuts alone were never going to be sufficient to cover our shortfall. Combined with budget reductions, using the economic stabilization fund is conservative, reasonable approach to addressing our shortfall. The substitute for House Bill 275 appropriates $3.1 billion for the economic stabilization fund. This amount combined with the savings from the reductions and House Bill 4, plus the additional $300 million that the comptroller added to the biennial revenue estimate, completely covers our current $4.3 billion shortfall. The LBB and the comptroller's office have been working in the back all while the debate on House Bill 4. In order to determine the exact amount that we would need from the rainy day fund. They have told me that there was no reductions in the need for the rainy day fund all because of amendments in House Bill 4. House Bill 275 does not use any of the economic stabilization fund in the next biennium. House Bill 275 appropriates only the amount needed to address our current shortfall and not a dollar more. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to questions or we can begin the amendments.
THE SPEAKER: Members the amendments on pages 1, 2, and 3 have been withdrawn. Mr. Turner? We're on page 4 of the amendments. Following amendment. The Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Many of us believe that we should be using more from the rainy day fund to reduce the cuts. The initially the bill was at $4.2 billion it has been reduced to 3.2. That does not eliminate or does not provide enough money to pay for textbooks, to pay to prevent teachers from being laid off. Right now as the budget currently stands in the Houston, Harris County area five out of six nursing homes will close, the numbers much larger across the State of Texas. I will tell you that one area that polls the highest in terms of what they do not want to see happen 90 percent of Texans say that they do not want the nursing homes closed. Ninety percent. It polls higher than anything else. What we are using of the rainy day fund right now will not keep the nursing homes open. They will close. Let me be very, very clear. And let me say it one more time. The $3.2 billion in 275 will not keep the nursing homes open, they will close. And over 50,000 elderly and disabled will have to return home or go some place else. By voting for 275 with 3.2 billion in it, that is what will take place. Teachers would have to be laid off, there will be no new textbooks but what this amendment does is it restores the amount back to 4.2 billion and it leaves roughly $5.2 billion in the rainy day fund. It is simple as that.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I will be more than happy to yield.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner yields.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Turner, I'm hearing you on this that we're going to be closing the nursing homes and a lot of us are very concerned of that. We have expressed our concerns to the citizens on that subject.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: But, correct my understanding of House Bill 275, is that not also experiencing the past at least the use of it or does it also effect House Bill 4. I mean House Bill 1 that we will be considering in days ahead. Can we not, is my question, without being entered into 275 correct the shortages to the nursing home problem in House Bill 1 in days ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In days ahead, let me just tell you what -- with respect to House Bill 1 that will be on the floor tomorrow, Representative Christian. The answer is absolutely no. Because any amount to add in House Bill 1 tomorrow you must take away in H.B. 1. There is no additional dollars in H.B. 1. You will not keep open one single nursing home tomorrow unless you decide to take from the governor's enterprise fund or the emergency technology fund or something like that but the cap is set in H.B. 1 at this point. Now, down the road, can we possibly do it? I hope so. I remain optimistic. I'm optimistic by nature. And if you join me -- with me on this amendment, my optimism will only grow. Because we will be moving in that direction.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I can imagine that. My question is though even though you don't foresee it, it can be done in House Bill 1 to move money from certain areas to the nursing home problem. It is possible to correct that in House Bill 1 in debates in days ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Just in day and days ahead. That's not today, that's not tomorrow -- it will be many the House Bill 1. Let's be very clear to the people in this room, to the press to those outside the room. Tomorrow when we vote on H.B. 1 we are not going to be keeping any nursing homes open.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: We can in the amendment process to House Bill 1 correct much of this problem if not all.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have looked at many of the amendments that have been filed for tomorrow. Nursing homes are not going to remain open tomorrow.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: But amendments to those amendments could correct the problem in House Bill 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If there are amendments tomorrow that will keep nursing homes open tomorrow, I will join with those amendments tomorrow.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: But it's possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But for today if you want more money going for tomorrow then you need to support me on this amendment. But the reality is, because I don't want anyone to be under the illusion that because we're pulling $3.2 billion from the rainy day fund, that is helping us in 2012 or 2013, because the answer is, it is not. It is only having to pay the bills in this current year and the original bill filed by Chairman Pitts, who I deeply respect, deeply respect, it was at $4.2 billion. This bill simply takes it back to $4.2 billion and takes us a little bit further in reducing the pain and the cuts won't get us all the way there but it's more than what we're dealing with right now. If you do not like some of the things that are occurring this simply eases the pain and that is why I offer the amendment and I hope you will join with me in supporting the amendment. It will still leave $5.2 billion in the rainy day fund. And that's quite a bit. I don't know if it's acceptable to the author but I hope it will be.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a commercial break. No, actually I request permission for the Committee on County Affairs to meet while the House is in session at 4:00 p.m. 31st of March 2011 in 3W.9 to consider pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on County Affairs will meet at 4:00 p.m. on 3/31/11 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members, I think we need to look at the caption of this bill. And the caption says making an appropriation of money from the economic stabilization fund for expenditures during the current --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. -- for what purpose?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I certainly will.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts is it a clear understanding that if any of the amendments to raise more money from the rainy day fund -- from the financial stabilization fund if any are successful even by a majority vote of 76, that at that point the parameters for passing H.B. 275 changes and would then require a hundred votes; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know and let me make sure everyone understands and I was saying the caption. The caption is for the current state fiscal biennium and the current state fiscal biennium if you use any part of the rainy day fund for the current state fiscal biennium, requires 90 votes. If we use it for the biennium that you'll see in House Bill 1 tomorrow, it requires a hundred votes.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: Chairman yields.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Pitts, I wanted to ask you the same question I asked Chairman Turner. Is it correct that we can tomorrow in House Bill 1 we have the ability to correct the problem that we share with Chairman Turner in the nursing home shortage of funding. Can that be done tomorrow instead of changing House Bill 275.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I think there is a number of amendments that are going to be able to help maybe the nursing home situations, the medicaid case pros, the schools -- the school's funding, there will be a lot of those amendments tomorrow. And we -- and we will continue looking for solutions to solve those problems I think we all share.
REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you Mr. Christian. I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I, like you, I have looked at H.B. 1 for tomorrow. And H.B. 1 is capped. And you all know the calendar rule for tomorrow. Whatever you put in one section you have to take out. The amount in H.B. 1 is capped.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: One second. And then I yield. And I want to stay on these nursing homes. I want to stay right there because I know I have heard a whole lot of people talking about smaller government, reduce the spending but I also know that 90 percent, not 9 percent, not 20 percent, but 90 percent of Texans and I know that not all 90 percent of Texans are Democrats. 90 percent of Texans do not want their nursing homes closed. And you are not going to keep them open pulling 3.2 billion from the rainy day fund. We are about a billion short from providing the funding to keep them open. This amendment takes you where you want to be if you just want to put it there. If you just want to direct it there. And if you want an amendment saying that you directed that, I'm all for it. But 3.2 billion is not going to do it. And we're not going to do it tomorrow. No use operating under an illusion. No use operating under an illusion. So let me just say this. Money does not magically fall and just because we say it doesn't mean it will be so. Doesn't mean that the nursing homes are going to stay open. And so I'm saying to you, you have to use more. You have to use more. Otherwise --
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- and otherwise -- hold on -- and otherwise, let me propose this. Take ownership of the cuts. Take ownership, say to the people of the State of Texas say to that 90 percent we want smaller government, we want to spend less, and if that means closing most of the nursing homes so be it. Take ownership. That's all you have to do. And that's what you will do if you don't provide more money in H.B. 1. And I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield for a question.
THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have yield.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Turner, based on your amendment you are not really adding anything you are just trying to bring us back to where we were; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct because Representative Davis, in H.B. 4, that you just voted on, the people just voted on, you were taking money out of Health and Human Services where the nursing homes were. Representative Christian, my good friend, you say you want nursing homes to stay opened but when you voted for H.B. 4, $225 million came out of helping human services. Some of that money was going to nursing homes. Now, I maybe a little -- graduate from a little law school. Okay. And I may come from the poor man's caucus but the last time I looked, you can't take from something without putting something back and say that it's the same. It doesn't balance. In H.B. 4 -- when you voted for H.B. 4 -- when you voted for H.B. 4, you voted to take some of that money from those nursing homes. That's what you voted for. And my amendment simply says. Put it back, add a little bit more to it, let's keep the nursing homes open.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: Chairman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Silvester, I defer to your many years of being on appropriations and I want to clarify some of the things that you just said. 4.2 billion was what we were originally looking at, was it not?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is the amount that was in the original bill as filed in 275.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And don't we typically in years past reconcile, make whole, the current biennial shortfall by putting money into the current biennium to cover those shortages not cut?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's generally what we do. We are doing it a bit differently this time.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: A bit differently, yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: To the tune of about $1.5 billion differently.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Indeed what we've done here is rather than go with the original 4.2 billion coming out of the rainy day fund that could then free up funds for the next biennium, this body, the majority of this body chose to use cuts as well as the rainy day funds to balance the current biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, Representative, and some of those cuts came from some of the key strategies that people want to protect, like the nursing homes.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And that is not typically how we have done this. This is actually -- is this something you have ever seen done before in your years here in the appropriations.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The approach we're taking is counter to the way we've operated in the past. And I know these are different times. I understand that. But the only way we are going to maintain the core, the essential things that we need, like protecting our children, and safeguarding our elderly, you are going to have to add more. And that's what this amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: So rather than doing it the way we typically do it, cover our shortfall with rainy day fund moneys or whatever we can bring in, we are actually using cuts in the current biennium which is making less money available for us in the next biennium to provide the needed services that Texans want and deserve.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that is true.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Members, number one, we are still under the existing biennium, existing year, for right now whether it takes -- it only takes 90 votes but whether it takes 90 or 100, is irrelevant. The point is, let's identify our priorities let's fund our priorities. Everything else can wait. We do not need to do anything but cover our priorities. Our children and the elderly. That's the intent of this amendment. That's why it's at 4.2 which is where 275 started I would ask that you vote no on the motion to table, respectfully.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Turner sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, Mr. Turner voting no. Have all voted? Show Mr. Otto voting aye. Have all voted? There being 97 aye and 49 nays, the motion to table prevails. Mr. Doorkeeper.
THE DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the Messenger.
MESSENGER: Mr. Speaker I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House of the Senates taken.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this amendment does is taps -- because you know 275 taps into the rainy day fund and we know the amount that we are being asked to vote on today, and so, as you know, to make up for the rest of the shortfall the legislature dealt with House Bill 4 today. What this amendment does is tapping into the rain any day fund for another $597 million to restore cuts to education and higher education in House Bill 4. So, again, what this amendment does is pulls another 597 million to restore cuts in higher education. So this is what we would go -- education, higher education. It would go to the Veteran's Commission and prevent reductions and funds that they received. 151 million would be given to the Texas Education Agency to prevent any reductions to public schools made by the legislature. 76 million would be given to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for public, junior or community colleges to prevent any reduction in the funds for those colleges that were made by the legislature. And 369 million would be given to the public colleges and universities of Texas to prevent any reduction in funds made by the legislature. If you look at the list, members, the list has every university, except for one, and there is going to be an amendment to the amendment. It is important that everyone know that after tuition has gone up about a hundred percent and -- to about $305 per semester hour, any additional dollars removed from higher education by not funding it appropriately will become higher tuition for all the students across the State of Texas. Also as you know when money is left out of the budget for education, and the local districts can't make that money up either through taxes because there is a cap, a de-facto cap, and these are the things that we need to fund. And so, we can fund those right now by raising the amount of the rainy day fund that we're going to use in House Bill 4 by $597 million. And I think there's an amendment to an amendment which is acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Farias.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Farias.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker members, after looking at the list of colleges and universities Representative Coleman has on his list, he did forget our university in San Antonio which is almost brand new, that's Texas A & M San Antonio and I believe it is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Farias sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable of the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is so adopted. We're back on the Coleman amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I was looking at the unemployment rates in Texas because we've had a lot of discussion about the 8.2 percent unemployment rate. And people have been talking lately about college not being important. Well, if you have a college degree in Texas it's a 4 percent unemployment rate. As you have less education, and particularly high school dropouts the unemployment rates goes to 10, 11, 12 and then for some segments of our population; for example, African American males we are talking about an 18 percent unemployment rate. So I think that college is important for everyone and this is the reason that I bring this and also the other provisions here like, of course, the TEA and the dollars they need. And I yield to the gentleman.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Mr. Coleman. You know we hear that $76 million out of the community colleges a lot. And it's a big number. And it doesn't necessarily hit home. Would you agree with me that that includes $6.8 million cuts just in House Bill 4 that you are trying to restore with this money. Yes, sir. For Alamo Community College in San Antonio. Yes, it most definitely means cuts to Alamo Community. A million plus to Amarillo college, three and a half million to Austin Community College, and I'm just looking down the list. Collin County Community College more than $2 million, Dallas County Community College, almost $9 million. El Paso two and a half million. Even little Frank Phillips 212,000, Mr. Chisum. Odessa College, Mr. Lewis, $635,000 dollars that you fought so hard to get back into H.B. 1. 635 off the top. Ranger College, a 156,000. Tarrant County 4.7 million. These are real numbers, aren't they?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, they are real numbers and of course that means reductions at those colleges, lost classes and that's what it really means. And they are starting now to looking to raise tuition to make up for these shortfalls or cuts that come from the State to the community college through the coordinating board budget.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And have you heard Dr. Peratas and others say that the community colleges are really the core of what our educational efforts are in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, I have. He's made that point and clearly based on the disparity between the tuition cost and four year higher ed in the lower cost in community colleges that more and more people are choosing community college.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I mean, I noticed Houston Community College will be down 5 million plus, Lone Star in the Woodlands, Mr. Eissler and Mr. Creighton, I guess, 4.6 million. McClennan in Waco, can't be that large of school, $1 million dollar hit to them, Navarro 1.1 million. We are heard an awful lot of testimony from community colleges about how this would affect them in both in this budget and in House Bill 1. Are you familiar with any of that testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, I am familiar with the testimony and I can tell you that -- and I wish you would tell me more about it but I know just based on watching a little bit on TV. You know, there's not that much money that they have to cut. Because you know margins are very slim and they are getting more and more enrollment but at lower tuition that means they are busting at the seams and need dollars to deal with those new population.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I see 697,000 cut at Texarkana College. Paris Junior College, 695. Northeast Texas College 317. So it's all over. It doesn't miss anybody, does it?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: We have to remember that we're not only talking about academic hours, we are talking about training and skill workforce either through clock hours for the types of employees that our businesses need in Texas in order to succeed.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: My dear friend, Ms. Morrison, has talked so many times about the importance of not only U of H, Victoria but Victoria College and the coordination and partnerships they are putting together there. And yet they are -- just in the House Bill 4, that you are trying to recover half a million dollars -- just in Victoria college. Got to hurt. That's got to really hurt, doesn't it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That really does, sir. And again, our commitment to higher education as a state has to continue if we are going to compete with other states that are continuing their commitment even in this recession.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And this is for the colleges that serve the students that are on the lowest end of the economic bracket looking for that way out. They are not asking for a hand out.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: They are not asking for welfare they are not asking for -- they are just trying to ask for a good education at a low price whether they are college student age or adults that are trying to do better and improve their economic condition on their own, aren't they?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: These are the people who everyone talks about when they say they want someone to be personally responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And they are the ones that are trying to get to a job where they can pay for their children's ability to go to college or their own or they're trying to get a job to improve their economic circumstances -- you know doing this to improve their economic circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And we have the money in the bank, don't we?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, we do. Yes, we do.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And you know we have the money in the bank -- where now -- where everybody has gotten gas lately three hundred -- you know, $3.50, if you drive one of those super imported cars you have to use premium it's like 3.80.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I wouldn't know about that, Mr. Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I know we both drive Mazdas.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you Mr. Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farias, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would the gentleman yield for question?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield Representative Coleman?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Of course.
THE SPEAKER: He yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Representative Coleman, one thing that I have not heard in the previous or all day is that we haven't spoken to the bill credit courses that high school students attend junior colleges in order to move them along quicker and cheaper, at less expense, by going to junior college. Do you have this in Houston?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, we do. And different places some -- we have what they call early colleges. And in those high school early colleges they actually go and do five years and come out with associate of the arts degree. But then in other school districts they actually are allowed to take duel credit courses so they go to the community college and get the community college credit for the -- for actually academic -- college academics and the credit for their high school graduation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: That has really caught on in San Antonio is that a lot of schools have partnerships with our junior colleges but you also have a question on the jobs here in Texas. I heard you mention -- we keep hearing that Texas is a magnet for companies who come to Texas with high tech jobs. How are we going to fill those jobs if we don't provide affordable education or higher education for our students?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: We can't and that's going to be a challenge if we are competing with other states that do. And one of the problems in our state is we made a policy change, as it's been called, to increase dollars going into four year higher ed and made it out of reach for a lot of folks. And then they moved to community college but now we are cutting those community colleges and their ability to make the education accessible at least to an associate of the arts or to a clock hour certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Have you heard of folks from other countries coming in and taking our jobs because they have the education and we don't have the professionals to be able to perform those duties?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No doubt about it. Because this is the land of opportunity. And people take advantage of that opportunity but we have to make sure that we're providing as a state that opportunity to our constituents, to Texans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you, Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Madam Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Lewis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Would the chairman yield for some questions?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield for some questions? Certify.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Of course. Of course.
THE SPEAKER: Chairman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Chairman, I like your concept. I think we should be taking more money from the rainy day fund than we are by this bill, personally. I think we need about a half billion dollars more so I like that. Here's my question to you and this is the problem I get. As I understood what Chairman Pitts said that if we accept these amendments, say we accepted your amendment and take over a half a billion dollars more from the rainy day fund that it triggers a numbers game and so instead of being able to pass this bill on 90 votes then it would take 100 votes to pass the bill. Now my question is --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well I think --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: -- let me -- my question is, is that correct, chairman? If we accept your bill will this mean that the ultimate bill as amended will have to get a hundred votes to pass?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I don't think so but I think if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it goes to the next biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Okay. So if -- so is it my understanding and I want to be clear that it's up -- your -- that's what I'm trying to find out. Your bill then would not -- it would still be -- this bill as in 275, as amended by you, would still only require 90 votes to pass. Is that what you are telling me?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: It says in addition to the amounts appropriated -- this is for the 2010/2011 biennium. So, it's for the rest of the year -- it's in this current biennium. Not the next biennium. And what that would do is reduce those cuts that are already in place and if gives that money back to these colleges and universities on this list. And that's what it does.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Okay. Then -- just to be absolutely clear. So in 275, if this amendment goes on and can still be passed with only 90 votes --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct because it's in this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallegos for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Madam, Speaker would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, I do.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you Madam Speaker. Mr. Coleman all that you are doing -- it has nothing to do, in this particular bill, with the next biennium. You are setting the money in this biennium is all.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so you are giving this additional money and it may actually be helpful in the next biennium and that it may free up additional revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, if you free up additional revenue for the next biennium, you are actually better off in the next biennium, are you not?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So why -- I guess I must be missing -- what is the issue if we are looking forward to freeing up more money in the next biennium? Isn't this the best way to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I think what it does is allow those schools to make up for circumstances where they wouldn't need as much money in the next biennium even though they wouldn't carry that money forward, it's only for this biennium.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It's between here and August 31st or --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Between here and August 31st.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So each of these as I go through the list of these schools, it covers the majority of the members of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah, it does. I mean I can't think of -- you know it's UT Medical Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Most of the House members have a university if not in their district then it certainly one that serves a fair number of their constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right, Texas State Technical College west Texas --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Geren raises the point of order. The gentlemen's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Pitts to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Madam speaker, members, all of these restoration of the cuts that we just took in House Bill 4 are good causes. But this is going to have an additional use of the rainy day fund and it -- we are trying to get the official position but wait until I take the hundred votes. Because House Bill 4 made these cuts. This is just the restorations of the cuts by using the rainy day fund. And I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Madam Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I have a -- will Mr. Pitts yield for questions?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Pitts, as I understand it, the governor currently takes the position that he only wants to use the funds for state emergencies; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I haven't -- I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Tell me is it constitutionally or statutorily required that the rainy day fund can only be used for --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Oh, no. It's an economic stabilization act.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So can you tell me what we paid for in the past from the rainy day fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I have a list of those. But we have --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In 1993; for example, can you tell me what we paid for from the rainy day fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We started at -- I think what you are getting at -- we started a -- the new program callid the Enterprise Fund. In '93, we appropriated a 126 million for supplemental needs to TDCJ for additional prison capacity. In 1993 we appropriated 72 million for future spending for TDCJ for additional prison capacity. And in 1993 the comptrollers estimated ending balance for 1994-'95 out of the rainy day fund was 197.8.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, in '95 what did we pay for from the rainy day fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I don't have 1995 the next date I have --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In '97 what did we pay for?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I have 2003, I think was the only use of the rainy day fund.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. In 2003, what did we pay for?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We appropriated $6 million -- billion dollars for various supplemental needs. Which was all of the rainy day fund or most of it.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. So 2003, we used majority of the rainy day fund, what did we use it for?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: 516 million went to TRS for retiree's health insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: $403.1 million went for HHSC for medicaid and CHIPS. $295 million was the establishment of the governor's Texas Enterprise Fund. We spent $6.9 million dollars for the Department of Health for medicaid and medical transportation. We spent $6.4 million to the Department of Human Services for disaster assistance payments. We spent $3 million to the comptroller to pay a judgment. And we spent $44,000 dollars to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to conduct misconduct proceedings.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So everything from hearings for Judicial Conduct Commission to medical transportation to CHIPS, the truth is that spending from the Rainy Day Fund has run the gamut, has it not?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so, is not spending on higher education is that not at least as significant a need and as important a need as the Judicial Conduct Commission or any of those other programs that you have indicated.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, it's a good use of the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, if it is a good use of the fund, then why are you opposing Mr. Coleman's amendment? Because it doesn't seem there's -- it's not groundbreaking, it's not precedent setting, to use the Rainy Day Fund in the manner that Mr. Coleman wants to use it.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: In those years we made those cuts to get to only requiring 1.26 billion dollars. Just like today, we made cuts to get to use 3.117.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: We've zeroed out the fund before.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We zeroed out the fund in 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And when -- when will the comptroller update her guess on the balance of the Rainy Day Fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I believe it is around $6 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. Is that the most recent number or will we get another number in the future?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think it's what the estimate was at the end of the next biennium we have 9. over $9 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: We have over $9 billion and Mr. Coleman is suggesting that we use an additional how much?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Less than -- the $9 billion less the 3.117 that we're using hopefully in this bill --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I said million but I meant billion. Right, so we were in the billions of dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Billions of dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. So, Mr. Coleman is suggesting we use an additional how much?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Five hundred plus.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Five hundred million?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Five hundred million.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: He wants to use an additional 500 million out of 9 billion. Mr. Pitts, you are the math whiz. What percentage of the Rainy Day Fund is Mr. Coleman trying to use here?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, I'm not the math whiz when I'm on the front mike. I would say it's just a small percentage.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It's less than a half of one ninth of the fund, so fifty percent of what is what would that be, if every billion dollars is one ninth of the fund and he's using half of the billion --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Nineteen.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. And you are going to begrudge him that much money over the back of these kids that are trying to go to colleges and universities and over maybe ten or twelve members of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know these cuts were made 15 months ago. Did you here from your constituents 15 months ago about these cuts?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I did.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: These cuts have been made. We're not talking about the budget in House Bill 1 we're talking about the budget that --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Coleman is attempting to restore those bills, is he not?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: He's attempting to restore the cuts that we voted on in House Bill 4. And we are going to see a lot of amendments like that.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so, again, you are going to begrudge him one-ninth of the Rainy Day Fund not even half of one-ninth, one-eighteenth of the Rainy Day Fund. That's your position.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm opposing this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: One eighteenth of the Rainy Day Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm opposing this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I move to table -- oh, no --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Lewis for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Would the Chairman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I'll yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Chairman. You of all people know how mathematically challenged I am on the budget. But I just want to be clear on this because I asked the question of Chairman Coleman. But it's my understanding that because -- because we have passed House Bill 4 -- because we have passed House Bill 4 -- because the comptroller has put some money in and there have been other expenses. It's my understanding that this bill could very well trigger -- that this amendment, pardon me, could very good trigger the necessity of having a hundred votes to pass House Bill 275. It will be right up to the limits if you add those other things in; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's -- the comptroller would certify the shortfall that we have. Now, we have 4.2, when we started -- when I filed this bill with our shortfall. She changed her biennium revenue estimates $300 million. In House Bill 4, we cut another $800 plus million. Anything over 3.117 triggers a hundred vote.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's what I'm trying to find out. So, in other words, this amendment, if placed on, would mean that House Bill 275 would have to get a hundred votes to pass or would not be able to access the Rainy Day Fund; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct and I don't want to damage getting the vote to use the Rainy Day Fund for our current bills.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And if we do -- if House Bill 275 does not pass then the ramifications on House Bill 1 are going to be disastrous.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Coleman to close.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Speaker and members. You know there has been a lot of talk about the magic of a hundred votes. I can tell you in 2003 no one said that there was a use of the Rainy Day Fund on the floor of the House. They just rolled the bill out there, put those items in it, did not bring out that there was a use of the Rainy Day Fund and got a hundred votes to pay for the Enterprise Fund and other things. Same thing occurred in 2005. Everyone acts like the Rainy Day Fund has not been used. It was used '03, it was used in '05. And I can tell you we have more money in it now. But we're going to have even more because what is going on in the Middle East and because of the things that are happening in Japan. Unfortunately the price of oil is going to go up. But that means more rigs in operation and more jobs here in Texas. More money in severance tax to the Rainy Day Fund and I guarantee you that the amount of money in there now, if someone did an estimate based on the price of oil today, that it would go up and we'd have more dollars. Now, hundred votes, okay. If a hundred people don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it. But if you want to see colleges and the people in your district have access to higher education, professional education, and can continue to improve this state, where we have more people who are part of a group with 4 percent unemployment as opposed to 18 percent or 12 and 13 percent. You know in the Beaumont area it's 12 percent. Port Arthur has a 12 percent unemployment rate.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Veasey, for what purpose?
REP. MARC VEASEY: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I definitely yield.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REP. MARC VEASEY: Representative Coleman, to me, what you're talking about sounds like good public policy. And I know that there has been a concern expressed about recent the 100 vote threshold but I think it's good public policy and if it's good public policy don't you think that we can reach that threshold?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I think so. And again, I've seen votes here be 140 for something, 130, 110, whatever the case maybe. And so -- and I've seen that coming together where people really, you know, believe in the same things. And I don't think that the -- budget cut.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Coleman have you counted the number of votes that we have over a hundred votes for, over a hundred ayes on the board?
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I would say just about a every one was a hundred or more.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It doesn't appear that getting a hundred votes is very difficult hurdle.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Not when somebody wants something.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And, again, the issue that you are trying to do is spend this money to restore those cuts from the Rainy Day Fund that were made for higher education institutions across the State.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is right and that --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: -- and republican districts and democratic districts --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: This is State of Texas --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Everywhere --
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, everywhere where they go to school, they are going to benefit from your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. Mr. Speaker and members, I ask you to vote no on the motion to table on this amendment. And I also ask the County Affairs Committee members to come to the meeting after I finish. Thank you very much and I move to ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Coleman sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. Record vote members. Record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, show Mr. Coleman voting nay, show Mr. Farias voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 96 ayes, 49 nays. The motion to table prevails. Members we are on page 9 of the packet. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, what this would seek to do is to take the money that we're talking about and move it into the Foundation School Program. The Foundation School Program as you and I know is the money that funds the public schools across the State. Mr. Coleman previously talked about the importance of higher education, this amendment talks about the -- or really prioritizes the public schools which would be K through 12 by putting money into the Foundation School Program. This would help districts from El Paso to Beaumont and from Brownsville up to the Texas panhandle. Every single school district across the State would benefit by having additional revenue in the foundation school program. So, Madam Speaker, I would move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker -- Madam Speaker and members, this is the same argument as I had for the last -- it's a good cause. Texas Education Agency -- Texas Education Agency did not get cut in our -- in House Bill 4. In fact they got $600 million additional dollars. I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to close.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, unless you've been living in a vacuum, unless you have been living in some area where you have no access to news or information, you know that school districts across the State are about to let go of the employees. And you know that cuts have been made. And you know that school districts across the State are facing some seriously hard times financially. So this idea that, no, they didn't get cut, is simply wrong. Because they're losing incredible amounts of revenue per student. Whether you are a fast growth district or whether you are a mid-size district, whether you are a small, you are in the small and sparse allotment, all across the formula, the Foundation School Program, the school districts are going to face less revenue. So what this amendment seeks to do is to put money back in the Foundation School Program. And again, those of you who are parents, those of you who are grandparents, those of you who have a nephew or a niece, or, frankly, just have an interest in the future of Texas. You ought to be for this amendment. Because that's what this amendment is about. It's about my son and yours, your grandkids, it's about kids all across the Texas. Who need and deserve the opportunity to go to top flight public school and I would direct your attention to page 10 of the HRO report where we've increased the cuts -- the general revenue cuts to TEA. Sixty million was cut in the original bill, 90 million was cut in the bill it substituted. More money was lost by the public schools of this State. This amendment puts the money back. Isn't public education what we all agreed to prioritize. How many of you -- how many of you ran on a platform of cutting money to the public schools? This is your opportunity to put the money back.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Martinez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield to Mr. Martinez.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Mr. Gallego, Representative, how important is the Foundation School Program.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It is essentially the life blood of school districts across the State.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: And how do we create opportunity for our students.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Martinez, I know that the only thing that will guarantee my son an opportunity is that he can read and write, is that he have a good, solid educational foundation. Your kids are the same, members, have kids and grandkids. We all know -- we all know that the foundation of success comes through education.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Would you agree with me that we all want our children to be successful.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: And the only way that we can become successful is through creating opportunities, would you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: And the only way that we can create that opportunity is through an education.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: And if there's further cuts in the Foundation School Program we will not be able to provide that opportunity for our children so that they can be successful in life.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely. And Mr. Martinez we all run for office and we all claim that education is important and education is a priority and we all talk to PTA's and we all talk to school boards and we all talk to teacher groups and we all talk to parent groups and yet, we come here and we vote for stuff like this.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Absolutely. Thank you Representative --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The cuts -- this is our opportunity to restore. Let's restore some money to the public schools of the State. This amendment gives us the opportunity to do that and I would urge you to vote yes on this amendment. Actually that would be voting no on the motion to table. Vote no. I want to show you in leaving this one last poster. Texas ranked 44 out of 50 states in educational spending for people. It's a poster by Raise Your Hand Texas. And it says our children deserve better. Let me leave you with that thought. Our children deserve better.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hochberg, for what purpose?
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield, please.
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield to Mr. Hochberg.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. I'm tempted to talk to you about the SWARMA again but I -- we already went that way once. Mr. Gallego, there are a lot of new members on floor and there are a lot of us who have been here for a while and who don't quite remember how everything works. But we've heard a lot today from our friend Mr. Pitts about a 100 vote requirement or a 90 vote requirement. Does that requirement apply to the second reading of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You only have to have the 100 votes on the third reading of the bill. If you don't get the 100 votes on the second reading of the bill you have the opportunity to make some changes, make some amendments or to go get your votes. But that 100 vote requirement is -- there is a 100 vote requirement it would apply to third reading.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. So, if an amendment went on this bill that increased the amount of bill, and if we took a vote at the end and got at least 76 votes, the bill would move forward to third reading until we get 90 or 100.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, if people are unsure about the impact of an amendment on the vote -- on the bill being able to pass --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right. No doesn't impact the bills ability to pass.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: They could safely vote for an amendment that they thought was okay.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Correct.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: And that they wanted to do. And if on the second reading, the bill didn't get 100 votes it would not be dead.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No. It doesn't kill the bill at all. It gives you -- actually that used to happen a lot where you would have the opportunity, you got to go get your votes. You got to work, you got to figure out if you got something you can take out or amend the bill, but it certainly doesn't kill the bill. The hundred vote requirement doesn't apply until the end.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Again, from this poster, education is an investment, not a cost. Think of it that way. Education is an investment, not a cost.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. The motion is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Pitts -- show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Gallego voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted. There being 97 ayes, 48 nays the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Madam speaker, I apologize. This amendment helps to protect important state priorities by restoring cuts to community and junior colleges. This amendment simply increases the amount of money that we're tapping from the Rainy Day Fund and uses that money for community colleges and junior colleges. H.B. 4 currently cuts funding for junior and community colleges by approximately $76 million. With these cuts our community college will be forced to fire professors, packed classrooms, and raise tuition rates. For the sake of our students and our future workforce we must do better and with that I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Madam speaker, members, this is the same argument we had for the previous this takes a hundred votes. We've made these cuts in House Bill 4. These community colleges are -- it's a worthy cause but these cuts were made 15 months ago. So I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Madam speaker. Again, we have to realize that these community colleges are bridges to higher education for many of our folks and folks that -- not let alone in my district but all throughout the State of Texas from east Texas to West Texas, the panhandle down to the valley. Particularly in my community Lone Star College and Houston Community College are vital economic engines that we need to restore funding to and with that I oppose the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Members Representative Walle sends up a motion -- amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Walle voting nay, show Representative Gallego voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 97 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair lays out the following amendment.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker -- madam speaker, I sorry.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Hochberg?
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Yes, state your inquiry.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Madam Speaker, just to clarify and make sure that the conversation that I had with Mr. Gallego was accurate. I would like to ask parliamentary inquiry --
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: If this bill -- if we were to add an amendment to this bill that increases the cost -- that increases the amount taken from the Rainy Day Fund, and the bill doesn't get a hundred votes on second reading, what is the impact on the progression of the bill?
THE SPEAKER: All right. According to the comptroller, the amount on line 6, page 1 of this bill if the amount of the funds after taking into account House Bill 4, that the House can use, to satisfy the requirements of the Economic Development Fund, relating to a vote of three-fifths of the House. If you add $1 more to this, the vote count runs to two-thirds.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Let me ask him some questions about that. Is there a requirement for any number beyond 76 on second reading or are they the numbers that were just read related only to third reading?
THE SPEAKER: The majority of the members must approve the measure to move on to the third reading.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, only 76 votes are required on second reading.
THE SPEAKER: A majority of the membership present and voting must vote to move to third reading.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. So it's not even a reading of a -- it's what we call a soft majority. All right. So you need a majority -- but you clearly don't need 90 votes or 100 votes on second reading.
THE SPEAKER: No. You don't need it you. You do not need that.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: All right. On third reading, the three-fifths requirement is that three-fifths of those present, three-fifths of those present and voting, three-fifths of the entire membership?
THE SPEAKER: Three-fifths present and voting.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Three-fifths present and voting. So, it's not even necessarily 90 votes. It's only 90 votes if all 150 -- well, close to 150 of us are here.
THE SPEAKER: That's correct.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: And the two-thirds requirement if money is added is, again, a soft two-thirds or a hard two-thirds?
THE SPEAKER: Soft. Soft two-thirds. Two-thirds present and voting. So, again, to clarify. Anybody who is concerned about an amendment being added to this bill that would increase the vote counts, that concern is not relevant to second reading at all. And then after second reading after the vote count on that, members would have the opportunity to either remove amendments or find additional votes between then and third reading if a two-thirds count was necessary.
THE SPEAKER: Members, are all free to increase the vote count.
REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you Chris.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I didn't here this question covered by Scott's round of questions. There are a number of amendments that draw down more money from the Rainy Day Fund. House Bill 275 currently draws down 3.2? Billion dollars? And thereby only requires 90 votes to pass House Bill 275.
THE SPEAKER: That would be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And so, my understanding is that, please, correct me if I'm wrong. We say in the 90 votes posture and I understand it's a soft three-fifths, but we remain in that position of only needing to hit that lower threshold as long as we are drawing down from the Rainy Day Fund to no more than $4 billion. Because the comptroller's estimates of our revenue shortfall in this fiscal year is 4 billion dollars. It was 4.3 but she recently revised her revenue estimate and added $300 million and now the current shortfall is $4 billion. And until House Bill 4 gets passed by both chambers and signed by the governor, the official revenue shortfall is $4 billion; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: It is our understanding from the comptroller and the Legislative Budget Board who are in the conference room immediately behind the chamber, the comptroller certification of 3.1 comes from deducting the comptroller's initial certification of 3.9, and deducting the value of H.B. 4, at roughly $800 million.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: But House Bill 4 has not passed yet. The senate may have a different opinion about House Bill 4. House Bill 4 does not make -- just because it passes on second reading here does not change the official revenue shortfall for this fiscal year. And my reading of the constitution describes what is allowed under a three-fifths vote which is being able to pull from the Rainy Day Fund to fill our current revenue shortfall.
THE SPEAKER: And the comptroller's current revenue shortfall to us is the value reflected on page 1, line 6 of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So are you telling me that if we go above 3.1 it requires a hundred votes?
THE SPEAKER: That's the chair's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members. Mr. King has a perfecting amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment to the amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by King.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REP. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members we've been calling this a link and it may actually answer some of -- Mr. Villarreal's issues or questions a minute ago. One of the concerns that was raised was the possibility that we would pass out and 4 and 275 and then the Senate theoretically never even take up 4 and turnaround and pass House 275. So none of the reductions that we did today would ever have any impact. And so, what this amendment to the amendment simply does is says that H.B. 4 -- I'm sorry. Says that H.B. 275 does not take effect until or unless H.B. 4 or legislation substantially similar in effect to that legislation is enacted and actually becomes law. It also changes the effective date for 275 from immediately to July 1st of 2011 because circumstances could change before that date. It is acceptable to the author and to the bill author and I would ask for a record vote for adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative King sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. There is objection to the amendment. There is objection to the amendment to the amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. This is a record vote members. The vote is on the King amendment to the Zedler amendment. Show Representative King voting aye. Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Harper-Brown voting aye. Representative Pena voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 99 ayes, 47 nays. The amendment to the amendment prevails. Now, the question occurs on the Zedler amendment as amended. Mr. Speaker, members, move passage.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Members we're on page 13. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Madam speaker, and members. This amendment is for The University of Texas at San Antonio. And as we talked earlier the enrollment has grown over 60 percent and it offers 135 undergraduate and graduate programs in different fields, including 65 bachelors and 49 masters and 21 doctorial programs. It's on track to become a tier one university and in order do that we have to have funding in order to make sure that we can provide for the need for the students. Using some of the Economic Stabilization Fund to insure an affordable opportunity to attend a high quality education should be a high priority for all of us. And that is why I am proposing this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, I respectfully ask to table this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to close.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Madam speaker. We are -- we are in serious trouble with our educational system. If we continue to ignore the tremendous cuts that will happen, it's already happened and will continue to happen on tomorrow. And we must do something in order to replace what's needed in order to provide for the students. And if we are going to have more than two tier one universities in this state, we have to fund them. And this is our way of dividing the resources to make Texas the best that it can be. And I just ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment and ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Show Representative -- The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative McClendon voting nay, show Representative Branch voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? 100 ayes, 45 nays. The motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I can just say ditto to this amendment except for the fact that this is for Texas A&M which is a new university in San Antonio and they're getting started and doing very well and in order to assure the success of this university, we must put the resources there to fund it. And we certainly do not want to set it up for failure. So I ask for your consideration of this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Madam Speaker, members. I guess I can say ditto also and I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to close.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: You know -- you know we talked about trying to help our students. And we talk about the educational opportunities that we have here in Texas. But yet on the other hand every time we get a chance, particularly today, we don't vote to provide the resources. We are talking about an emerging university in the southern part of San Antonio where economic development has not been that great, where jobs have not been that great but I can tell you when you have education facilities in an area you begin to see a difference. And with A&M in the southern part of San Antonio there is a great difference in the makeup of that community around the A&M university and in the whole area. Area is represented by Representative Farias and he is constantly at the university trying to do what he needs to do in order to work to get the funding. In order to make it work. And so I am asking that you favorably consider not letting this university down.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would the gentle lady yield?
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: I certainly will.
THE SPEAKER: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Representative McClendon, you mentioned that it's my district. And I do spend some time there with the administration because it's the first university that's been brought to the southern part of Bexar County and it not only serves the Bexar County but as well know the surrounding areas of Atascosa, Wilson and everything south of San Antonio. Are you familiar with how many different campuses they have at the current time that are just fill-ins while they build their new facilities.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: No, I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Well, right now there are five different locations. They operating out of an elementary school and they have -- and San Antonio has grown so fast that even the new building that's going under construction, the $40 million revenue bond that was passed during the last session will be out grown before it's built.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And so they need this money so that they can continue to grow. If they don't have the revenues then they are going to go flat and there will be no growth for sometime or very little growth. So, I thank you for bringing this forward and I share that with you because of all the members that are in this House that surround Bexar County and their students attend A&M university and will be producing great teachers and folks in the agriculture business. So, Representative, thank you for bringing this forward.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Representative Farias and you are doing a fantastic job working with them. They are a growing university. The population in San Antonio on the southern side is growing and we must have quality education throughout this state but we certainly want to make sure that our growing universities are funded properly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you Representative.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Representative McClendon voting no. Have all voted? Show Representative Branch voting aye. Have all voted. Being 101 ayes and 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members we're on page 15. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment is about community colleges. The Alamo Community College district that consists of fifteen different colleges in San Antonio, fifteen different campuses. And they operate with a high level of dedication to their students and the system serves about 100,000 students in the academic and continuing education program and employs about 5300 faculty and staff. It's the tenth largest community college system in the United States and the second largest system in Texas. And the removing the funding from this system would be devastating to all the students attempting to gain a higher education in San Antonio and the surrounding cities. We just find it just horrible and almost impossible to try to accept the removing of the funding which is causing the students to be unable to obtain a degree, an educational degree beyond high school. Something that we have been talking to them all through elementary school, junior high and middle school and high school and the kinds of cuts that we are talking about is just counterproductive and we must find a way to work to encourage education and not price our students out of range so they cannot get the proper educational background that they need to have. So, I bring this to you because I am so concerned about what these severe cuts are doing to the five different schools of community college in San Antonio. I ask your approval.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Boy, I wish I could accept this for my good friend Ruth McClendon and the people of San Antonio but we all have these community colleges. Every one of them in pain including mine. And, unfortunately, I got to move to table this. We got to find a better way to do it than to single out community colleges. I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon to close.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Again, we must find a way to properly fund our community colleges. And the way we are going now is backwards, it's not the way to go and I ask that you vote favorable for this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Aycock voting aye, show Ms. McClendon voting no, show Mr. Aycock voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 100 ayes and 43 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're on page 16. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: This is the last amendment that I will have for higher education in the Bexar County area. And we're talking about The University of Texas Health Science Center. Which is a crucial part of the medical community and provides multiple learning opportunities for students in the area especially those studying at UTSA. As an institution which provides students at UTSA an opportunity to make their studies at UTSA significantly more enriching. Allocating some funding from the Economic Stimulation fund would further the education to top UTSA students. And that's a collaborative and an agreement UTSA and University of Texas Health Science Center that would allow these students to be involved in the Ambulatory Care Center and the Plans Research Facility. And if we carry out these deductions as proposed I can tell you it will sincerely and seriously impact the health science and it's ability to retain and recruit the premium faculty and the students that are badly needed for this collaboration. This is how we build the economy in Texas and not tear it down. So I ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Same discussion basically. Here we have a single entity being singled out for use of Rainy Day funds and I respectfully move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes recipient McClendon to close.
REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: My real intention is not to single out any entity. My real intention is to be able to fund all of the higher education institutions and the UT Health Science Center, A&M, that took tremendous cuts. But since I am, someone has to stand here and support the institutions and the hometown and that's why I am here in support of the UT Health Science Center and ask for your favorable consideration because I know that you know what it does. You know the purpose and you know why we need to train the students in order to make them productive taxpayers. I ask for your favorable consideration.
THE SPEAKER: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Aycock voting aye, Ms. McClendon voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 100 ayes and 43 nays. Motion to table prevails. Amendments on 17, 18, and 19 are temporarily withdrawn. Is Mr. Castro on the floor of the House? The amendment on page 20 is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Hochberg.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, I want you to take a look at this amendment. It's a little different than ones we have been seeing. We had a lot of talk today about what we would like to do in the rest of this session, about things we hope we can do in the rest of this session, about things we wish we could do in the rest of this session. This amendment says, we support House Bill 275 but we really, really want to make sure that by the time we get out of here we can fund our schools. And so the amendment says that House Bill 275 goes into effect if an amount equal to or greater than the amount necessary to fully fund the school finance formulas as they exist today is appropriated. Now members, the bill we're going to here tomorrow based on the passage of 275 as it's currently written will get us to $7.8 billion down in the public education budget. That's just the formulas. That's plus the elimination of pre-K grants, Mr. Bohac, that I know your constituents are very concerned about. The elimination of teacher incentive funds, the elimination of the instructional materials money. All and all, you get down to about $9 billion down by the time you're done. Now we can divert some money from the last payments to school district and we can get about 2 billion of that back. But members, in 2006 this legislature made a promise that if we cut school -- if school districts cut their taxes and we told them to do that, we would cover them. At the point we're at now we are not covering them. And I don't think anybody in here wants to break that promise. I really don't. I've talk to enough members on the floor. I've heard members in appropriations, Ms. Riddels, talking about how hard this vote was. I don't think anybody in here wants to short fund our schools. We can't do it today. Can't do it today but we may be able to by the end of the session and we want to be able to by the end of the session. I don't want to hold this bill up today based on today's numbers. But our friends in the Senate and I think Senator Nichols was here. Our friends in the Senate are talking about trying to find ways to fully fund public education. They don't know what they are yet. But they are trying to find ways and I don't think they're any better than us or any more committed than we are to funding the schools. Right now members, after 275 passes and I'm sure it will, we're going to have $6 billion left in the Rainy Day Fund. $6 billion. That goes a long way. That goes all the way toward funding the formulas. But in the meantime our constituents are being laid off, our teachers are being laid off, our bus drivers are being laid off. Ms. Riddel, you and I had an interesting conversation in the appropriations where we both expressed our common concerns about key people in our districts who had used up the last of their savings were living week to week or paycheck to paycheck or didn't even have paychecks. And my question at the time was, how do I say to them after they've used up their savings that we're allowing teachers to be laid off, bus drivers to be laid off, classes to get larger and we haven't used nearly half of ours. I still don't know how to answer that question to a constituent. And I've heard one major argument about why we need to hold on to the money in the Rainy Day Fund. We have $6 billion left after 275. We'll probably have another $2 billion in the next biennium. And I am being told we need to save the Rainy Day Fund because next time we come back here, we are going to need it. Next time we come back here we're going to need it. Folks, if we're spending three and we are saving potentially nine, for next time, that means we got a pretty big problem next time. If we have that big a problem next time maybe we ought to be trying to figure out what to do about that now instead of waiting for next time and laying off teachers now and making classes larger now. In a couple of weeks with any luck and with the help of my friends Mr. Aycock and Mr. Eissler, I hope to bring the school finance plan to this floor. And based on House Bill 1 it's going to be a pretty ugly bill. We are going to endeavor to make it as fair as we possibly can. And it's still going to be an ugly bill. Members your vote on school finance is this bill. Not that one. Because by the time that bill comes to the floor the numbers are going to be capped. We move the numbers around inside but we can't add money to it at that point. We can't take all the districts that are going to loose $800 a piece and add money to them. We can move them around. We can say Mr. Castro yours looses 400, Mr. Aycock yours looses 1000. But we can't add money to it. This is your school finance vote. This bill is your school finance vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker:
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose Representative --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield for a question.
THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Scott, so just to simplify things.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: If I understood you correctly. If we want to send a message to our constituents, to our teachers, to our classrooms, to our parents who are afraid of loosing the special ed programs, for the parents who are loosing the gifted and talented, who don't want to see more than 22 children in elementary schools. The message is if we vote for this amendment, we are saying public education is just as important to us as it is to the senate; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's absolutely correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: So, it doesn't hurt anything. You are not hurting anything. You are not detaining this bill in any way are you?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No and I'm not increasing the number of votes that this bill needs. And I'm not making it an appropriation and if through the best efforts of all of us we come back from conference with this bill and we can't get there in House Bill 1 or in House Bill 1 and in House Bill 4. We can change it. We can change this bill in conference and go on ahead and pass 275 as it is now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: In essence, you are giving everybody in this room an opportunity to vote -- cast a vote that says we support our public education system in Texas. The students, the parents to everybody that's involved in this.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right and I think from what I heard back in my district even that vote will be very important to those teachers, to those school board members, to those administrators to the parents of students who are writing these things I don't want my class sizes to get larger. I'm afraid of what's going to happen. If they at least know that this House is committed to fund education. If they know, that we're going to try our very best. If they know we're not going to take any excuses or make any excuses that makes a huge difference to the folks that are outside of this building.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You know -- would it surprise you to know that there are thousands of first, second, and third year probationary teachers who are in many cases expecting children, have young children, have just purchased a home who are scared to death because of the uncertainty of what this bill is going to do to the future?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And so you're giving us an opportunity here to say we stand beside you, we want to fund it so that you don't have to lose your job.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right. I have a staff member whose going to school with some perspective teachers and she told me last night she says, you know, they are all looking for work out of state because not a one of them thinks that we are going to have room to hire anybody here regardless of the fact that they're getting two percent more students a year and in some areas in some districts far more than that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Would it surprise you to know that I -- we had a town hall meeting in San Antonio recently and a mother came before us and was crying because her fear was that the school district could no longer afford the special ed program that her child needs and she couldn't afford them.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It wouldn't surprise me at all. Those kinds of cuts are being made now. It is the prudent thing for school board members to be doing, to be looking at their budgets, and whether you believe or not, whether you believe as the governor has reported to have stated that not a single teacher has to be laid off, it all has to come from other people. That still a whole lot of other people in our district that are loosing their jobs and when they look at the House today and say they're not even trying to help us. This will send a strong message.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Is it less and expensive to incarcerate a young person or educate a young person.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It's less expensive to educate them, of course.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Thank you for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Will the gentleman yield for a couple questions?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Representative Hochberg, you were in San Antonio and speaking to our superintendents and our school board members here during the interim and we talked about what is on the floor right now, about the finance and the budget for public ed.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right. You were very gracious in having me in San Antonio.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you, sir. I guess my question is for school districts that are already at a $1.17, what happens to those districts who do not receive the proper funding. Can they raise any more money through taxes?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: No.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. They're capped. What about school districts that are already are at a $1.04? Do they have an option to raise taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: They do with voter approval but the equalization rate is much lower.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And the folks that are $1.00, do they -- the boards can raise their taxes by four pennies without having a referendum; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That is correct. That is correct, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Okay. So, is it the intent of this body to send this to the taxpayers and say, we are not going to fund you but you have to raise your taxes to make ends meet.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, Mr. Farias, I filed a bill that would allow the local districts to raise their taxes without the vote of the people in order to get back the current revenue. Just to get back to even. And the cost -- when we were at 9.8 down the cost of that bill to each district would have been somewhere around 35 cents to 40 cents increase in tax rates. I don't think my constituents expect to pay an additional 35 to 40 cents in property tax just to get back -- even if we could -- even if the statutes would allow it -- just to get back to where they were a few years ago before we made the promise from this chamber and from that chamber and from the governor's mansion that we were cutting their taxes and putting in more state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Aycock to speak against the Hochberg amendment.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Wow, it pains me to speak against my good friend Scott Hochberg. Nonetheless, members, not only will we need the money to spend the Rainy Day Fund for things during this budget which I think we will at some point at least have to consider -- we will need the money in the Rainy Day Fund at the end of the biennium as well. I don't think there is anyway to escape that unless the economy does far better than we think it will do. I wish I could plug all the holes in public education. I wish I could plug all the holes in higher education. I wish I could fix the shortages for the nursing homes, the disabled, the blind, the deaf, that you've heard about through the day today. Folks there isn't that much money available. We must spend it prudently. We must spend it very carefully and hopefully wisely and I respectfully move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker would the gentleman yield for a question?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll be glad to.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Jimmie Don, I appreciate you. I really enjoy working with you. I think you are one of the hardest working members in the House very conscientious and I enjoy teaming up with you on lot of items especially in education and higher ed. But what you just said I find it hard to believe. You just presented that you wish you could do more but you just can't. Your hands are tied. But that isn't the whole truth, is it? How much money is in the Rainy Day Fund, that we are not touching?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: After this amount presuming passage there would be -- let's see, there is about 9.3, 9.4, and we are talking about taking 3.11 whatever the right number is. So six, little over.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Right now an estimated $6 billion. And you know as well as I that gas is going up that there is unrest and chaos in the Middle East in the oil producing countries. And almost every day except a few in this year gas has been above what it was in 1987. And you know as well as I that 70 percent of all that extra revenue is going into our Rainy Day Fund. And experts estimate that it will be as high as $11 billion, that is one estimate. We don't know for sure but we certainly know that we are all paying more for gas. So the bottom line is that your hands are not tied. We have -- do we not have choices to make in this body?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Very difficult choices, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And so I just want to make clear that, you know, and you're making a choice. You are today making a choice not to spend a single dime in the year 2012 and 2013 to mitigate the cuts to our children's education. That is your choice today, is that not?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: When we passed 275.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes or no. Is that your choice? Are we spending a single dime in protecting our children's education in '12 or '13?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: When we pass 275 the net effect on the 2012/2013 budget will be to add $4.3 billion some to that budget.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: The answer is we are not spending a single dime from the Rainy Day Fund in '12 and '13 to protect the quality of education in Texas. And that is the choice that you are making. In life, you know, I tell my kids we have choices and we have consequences. And so, I just want to correct the posture that you are taking that your hands are tied and there's nothing you can do. Because there are other options. You're choosing not to take them.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I understand that you choose to spend from the Rainy Day Fund at this point in our debate. I respectfully disagree with that position.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Although I am getting a little hoarse, Donna.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: You know Jimmy Don, I understand what you're talking about in trying to protecting a certain amount of funds because we are anticipating things for the future. We anticipate that we're going to have greater medicaid costs that we are not going to able to change eligibility. We know that we have a structural deficit that if we don't correct it, it's going to continue to give us problems which again -- one of the things I heard earlier, of course, I think we need to be addressing that as well. But my question to you is about public education in particular. Public education in particular. Because as you are aware I know they are on a different schedule which is requiring them to lay people off now because they don't know what we're going to be doing. Would you agree that there maybe a unique situation in public education in terms of needing to give them more certainty about the direction we're going to go and the amount of money that is ultimately going to be available to them.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I wish I could give them certainty. Unfortunately, those 45 day requirements in those contracts probably most of them are being notified this week even as we're debating here. Or will be next week, I suspect, or what I call a tripwire rule is devastating, especially to our younger teachers who are probationaries that are going to be the first ones out the door -- and I realize that. And I wish I could do something about that but it's not only embedded in statutes, it's also embedded in every one of those contracts where the schools really don't have any option since we don't know what the funding will be and won't know for a couple more months. They really don't have much option, to tell you the truth.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And they don't have many options because we haven't been able to give them real clear information about where we maybe headed. And I think, would you not agree, that what Representative Hochberg has presented here in his amendment is an effort to at least give them some directions about where we maybe headed here and the kind of money that they could expect to have so that perhaps they don't have to follow through on as many layoffs as they are currently having to put in place.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think most of us are hopeful that as we go through this process in the coming time between now and the end of this session or whichever special sessions, we will be able to give clarity and hopefully give better funding to that. But at this point in time -- at this point in time, Donna we really can't say I will deplete -- basically which is what Scott's amendment does for all practical purposes, the Rainy Day Fund. And I will not address the other needs, the nursing homes, the disabled, the other things we talked about today and we must not put it all in one place. We've got to deliberately think through this process.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And believe me I don't like being put in the position of Solomon which it looks like we're doing here trying to cut this baby in half. But the fact is -- what I'm asking you is don't you think that it is still a unique situation for public education in terms of the constraints they are placed under with their calendar and why it would be good to give them some direction now rather than waiting until the layoffs have already occurred. The programs are not in place, they don't have the ability to bring these people back on necessarily later in the summer.
REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The 45 day tripwire rule will take place almost any day now, depending on when they are going to get it done. It's 45 days before the last day of instruction and they must give those notices or each one of those will have an expense from a lawsuit, probably.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Which again and I think is a reason to go ahead and tap into the Rainy Day Fund now. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Geren raises the point of order. The gentle lady's time has expired. The point of order is taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg to close on the amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table and Representative Hochberg to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment doesn't add a cost to the bill. This amendment doesn't increase the vote requirement. I've talked to members on the floor all day who have said, we really -- we really wish we could find a way to fund our schools. We really wish we could find a way to take -- put some of these amendments out on House Bill 4 if we knew it didn't mess up 275. Somebody far more creative than me on staff figured out a way. Our friends on the Senate have not given up on this problem. They are working on it. I don't know if they'll be successful or not but they're giving more than a college a try to get the money to fund the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Menendez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Scott, I don't know. I know you don't know this but I want you to know -- I want to -- would it surprise you to know I have a third grader and a fifth grader and my third grade little girl Tory, her teacher is pregnant and she is telling me that there is children in her class that are bringing their piggy banks to school because they are afraid of what's going to happen. She is asking me if I would help give some money so that -- she's worried because she's hearing that we're not funding the schools. And it's not coming from the teacher but the news is out there. Our kids are reading this and I mean if the Senate hasn't given up on the funding, why should we give up?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I don't know. I think we should give up. I really don't because I can assure you, Mr. Menendez, that when a school finance plan hits the floor, in a couple of weeks or three weeks or whenever it is people are going to be standing up at that back mike saying, how come my school doesn't get more money? How come my district doesn't get more money? How come that district got more money than this district. They are going to have that discussion because we haven't put enough in to make anybody whole or even anywhere close. We haven't, Mr. Menendez, we haven't gone into our piggy bank that was specifically designed for this purpose. We've only gone into our piggy bank to deal with this year. We're asking our school districts to go into their Rainy Day Funds. We are going to require them to do it just to get from August to September because we are not going to make the August payment I don't think. We're going to wait for September to do that so that we can push some money off but out of our piggy bank for the next two years. You're right, Mr. Villarreal, that thin dime we haven't spent. If we are in such bad shape for two years from now, then this House ought to be about the business of figuring out how to get out of that problem. We ought to be starting not today but two months ago. If we see a train coming down the track that is so bad that we have to lay off teachers now and hold money in the bank for that, that's the problem we've got to fix but I don't hear that being fixed. Instead we are just saying schools, it's your problem.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for questions.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields for questions.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Hochberg, there's a time in the life of every problem where it is big enough to see but still small enough to solve. You can see those things if you just project them out a little bit. And so we know that two years down the road our situation is worse. And yet right now as you said, we require and we're requiring school districts to dip into their Rainy Day Fund. Everybody is having to use their own savings account and yet there seems to be limitations on the State using its savings account. Your amendment -- your amendment helps delay that, does it not?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: My amendment says we are going to work together to find a way to do this. It echoes what we've heard all day from people. We say, just stay with us we're going to try to get there. Just stay with us, we're going to try to get there. Well, put that in writing.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Here's your vehicle to try to get there.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Let's put that in writing and make that the commitment of this House, of every member of this House today.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Not wait until conference. Here is your vehicle. Here's your vehicle. The opportunity to send the message that we are going to work on this problem. We're going to help you find a solution and we are starting on -- we are starting to work now.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's exactly right, Mr. Gallego. You know another thing I hear and I know you hear is people on the floor saying, well, you know we worked so hard on this budget. We do this and we do that. But it's all going to be done in conference by a few people. If we vote for this today, we're going to send a very clear message to who's ever on conference that we stand behind finding the money to do what we need to do.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: -- we stand behind finding the money to do the right thing.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: To do the right thing. That's absolutely correct. If every member who have said to me, if we are going to find enough money for the schools votes for this amendment it will pass --
REP. PETE GALLEGO: This amendment passes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: -- this amendment passes. It's not good enough just to say to me. I don't have a checkbook. I can't spend the money. It's this House that has to do it.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: If every member who has approached you and said are we going to be able to find the money, votes for this amendment. This amendment goes on.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's absolutely correct, Mr. Gallego.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Well, I hope that every member who's approached you about finding that additional money -- I hope every member who's done that votes for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And if they don't, I hope they'll at least have the courtesy to Mr. Aycock, Mr. Eissler, and I when we come back here with the bill that has the printouts of what this budget does to not get at that back mike and say how come you haven't given us enough money to keep our schools whole. Let's make that statement right now.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Hochberg, I want you to underscore what you said earlier. That your opportunity -- by the time we get those individual runs for school district this bill and the funding bills they're gone they've passed us by.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: That's right.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: So, if you want your chance, this is it. If you want to help your school district, this is it.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Please vote against the move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hochberg sends up an amendment. Mr. Aycock moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Aycock voting aye, show Mr. Eissler voting aye, show Mr. Hochberg voting no, Mr. Pitts voting aye. Mr. Castro voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes and 48 nays and two present not voting, the amendment fails to adopt -- I mean the motion to table prevails -- Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain his amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment makes use of the Rainy Day Fund contingent on the House restoring full funding for the Texas grant program in an amount equal to or greater than the current level plus additional funds to cover projective growth in the 2012 and 2013 fiscal year. You know we just heard Representative Hochberg make a very strong argument in favor of increasing funds for public education, the foundation school -- the foundation program. This is something narrower than that which is making sure that we restore full funding for Texas grants. Texas grants literally is the State primary, largest, grant program for folks, Texans who are going on to public universities in our states. That means that it effects people in all of your districts and the cuts -- the projective cuts to Texas grants are incredible. And let me give you some of the numbers. The amendments important because if we don't pass it, the current funding for the Texas grants is $622 million serving 111,443 students. Right now the Texas Grant Program which is not even fully funded, in other words, we only fund about 70 percent of the students in Texas who qualify for it. That means three out of ten students who qualify for Texas grants get no money from the state at all. That's the context in which we find ourselves. So, we're going from serving 111,000 students to cutting that from $622 million to $366 million. Down from 622 million to 366 million serving now only 50,945 students. Down from over 111,000. As you can see, the cuts to Texas grants would be drastic. Just incredibly dramatic. They would have a horrible effect on our universities, on our students, on families, on the economic development that is going on in many of our communities. These cuts, I think -- I think we would all agree would hurt our state incredibly and for that reason I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts in opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to table this Texas grants. It's a great program. And I hope before the end of May that we can add money to it to this but this is not the appropriate time to do it for '12 and '13. I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Castro to close on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I disagree with Chairman Pitts that this isn't the right time to do it. This is exactly the time to do it. We voted on House Bill 4 to fund the current biennium. We are voting to use the Rainy Day Fund. This is an assurance that the next budget bill -- if we are going to use the Rainy Day Fund here -- that the next budget bill, House Bill 1, will be responsible when it comes to Texas grants. Bear in mind that there are already cuts in House Bill 4 the current biennium. So if you disagree that we should use -- if you disagree with this amendment then I would ask you what takes greater priority? We've laid out our priorities. Right. It's not an incredibly long list there are many important things but it's not an incredibly long list. Education, higher education, health care, nursing homes. Right. You know I was speaking to somebody earlier a reporter was asking me about transportation funding. They were asking me about transportation funding during the rush hour in San Antonio. For those of you who have ever driven in San Antonio like many of our major metropolitan areas there is incredible congestion around highways that intersect. So in San Antonio around 1604 and -- there's an incredible congestion. And we're doing hardly anything for transportation so we're not even getting to those issues. We are talking about our bread and butter issues. And this is one of them. And I would ask for your consideration of this amendment to make sure that our next budget is responsible when it comes to helping our kids go on to college. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Castro sends up an amendment. Mr. Pitts moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, all those that opposed vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Otto voting aye, show Mr. Zerwas voting aye, show Mr. Castro voting no. Have all members voted? Including Mrs. Kolkhorst. Have all members voted? There being 95 ayes and 49 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're on page 22 of the amendment packet. Not almost done. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I have an amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Members the following amendment to the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to explain the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, the amendment to the amendment is basically the same as the amendment. Okay. So don't worry about it. One of the good things in my 12 years on appropriations this time it's been different than others, is that this time the Health and Human Services Commission and the LBB basically agreed to what the growth was going to be in the medicaid program on case load and pricing as well as what the impact in the change of the "F" map would be. And the difference was over $4 billion short. When they introduced the budget, they said we did not fund case load growth, we did not fund medical inflation and we did not fund the "F" map changes. And so we're supposed to pass a balanced budget and we know that this is not because obligations that we have to meet and that we will meet are not funded. And so what my amendment would do is to say that this bill, House Bill 275, does not take effect unless other legislation is passed, HB 1, which fully funds case load growth in the medicaid program and if there is no dispute as to what that's going to be. The committee did add 1.8 billion. So we moved that number down but there's still a $2.2 billion undisputed gap in Health and Human Services. So I move adoption as the amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: There is opposition in the amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to speak in opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I do rise in opposition to this. Not because of anything that Representative Eiland has said is not true. There is a big, big hole right now in the medicaid budget. But I will tell you that is the same kind of hole that we had in 2009 and similar in 2007. We have left that purposely unfully funded as we've gone into this and we have been able to fund other things. Now we understand that with the opportunity that come back and have a budget where we can come back and actually appropriate some money to fill that to somethings that's become a pretty routine part of our practice here. And it's been successful and no problem with doing that. It would require $4.3 billion for us to actually fill the bucket in medicaid. If we did that -- if we did that members, that would not do anything for the current nursing homes cuts that are in place. It wouldn't do anything for the providers that are being cut to the same extent. And so there is an amount of money that needs to go into the medicaid case loading and cost area. But that doesn't need to go in there right now and I think as we go down the road here, look at opportunities with this budget that we will have the opportunity to make the adjustments that we need to make. And so, with that I would respectfully move to table the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: See, what's going to happen after we leave this session in about the budget with all these cuts in it, is that sometime in about six to eight months, just like what happened last year, the Speaker, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor are going to have to have agencies who are already going to be reeling from cuts to cut their budgets further because the budget we will pass will be $2.2 billion short. And they'll start telling them to cut so that they can fill that hole. And if we pass this budget the way it is we will not be meeting or constitutional obligation to pass a balanced budget. So I would urge you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland sends up an amendment. Dr. Zerwas moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor say aye, all those oppose nay. The clerk will running the bell. Show Mr. Phillips voting aye, show Representative Darby voting aye, show Representative Zerwas voting aye. The question is on the motion to table, members. Have all voted? There being 97 ayes, 47 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we are on page 23. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain the amendment.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members as you might have image by some of my comments, one of the things that is most important to me is pre-kindergarten and early start programs. They are tremendously important because they make sure that our young children get that start that they need. They get the first foot forward and put their best foot forward and so it really is an important way to start them on their future of success. This bill or this amendment will make passage of this bill still contingent on the full funding for kindergarten, early start grant Program in an amount equal to or greater than that program was funded previously and in an amount necessary to meet the cost of the estimated growth and program enrollment for the next couple of years. In other words, we wouldn't retreat. This amendment makes a commitment that we are not going to retreat from our funding for kindergarten programs. We're going to do at least as well, at least as much money as we gave in the last biennium plus full funding for enrollment growth for next year. We know that every year there are more and more kids in the public schools of this state. So what this amendment seeks to do is say, we take the funding from the last time as our base, we do not retreat from that and we add to that the money that's necessary for enrollment growth. Not really any new bells and whistles, not any new additional funding we just stay where we are. We fund the growth, we fund the new kids that we are going to have in our kindergartens and pre-K programs but all of this amendment essentially does is require us to hold the line. Hold the line on pre-K early start programs, hold the line on making sure that our kids get an early start, hold the line in making sure that our kids get that opportunity for a better tomorrow by starting with this commitment today.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Otto to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Chairman Gallego, just briefly and continuing your presentation and discussion of what I believe you're making a good point. And as I mentioned we've had all these people coming to the Capitol. One of the things that I want to cover that you mentioned -- that's why I came up here, is the growth. Not only we have to deal with what we need to but we also have, I think, to talk about our growth. The number of kids coming into our kids -- into our schools is growing. The census just came out, the numbers are there. As you've seen through the years, I mean, look at what's going on. We are getting four congressional districts. That's just like an indication of where we are at. Can you tell us like you know where this amendment goes as far as the growth and the increased numbers in our schools.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Well, clearly, Mr. Alonzo, there is tremendous growth in the Latino community in Texas. Clearly there are significant number of Latino children who are coming into early programs -- early start grant programs, pre-K. And so, again, what this amendment does, it's not as if we are buying a new car, it's not as if we are getting something fancier. This amendment just simply says we're not going to retreat from what we've done before. This amendment just says we're going to fully fund what we funded last time. We are going to fully fund what we funded last time and if there's any new kids that show up, we are going to fully fund them too. But it's not like it requires an increase the Foundation School Program. It's not as if it requires a lot of money for a lot of extra things. It simply says that on this one issue of early start, on this one issue of pre-K we are going to fully fund it the way we did last time and we're going to fully fund the enrollment growth. Now when I say fully fund it may be a misnomer because I don't think that we ever funded it big enough. But, again, all it says is that we are not going to retreat. We are going to keep the level of funding steady. We are not going to go back and if there's new kids who show up, we are going to fund them too.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And Chairman, the discussion that we hear as far as the front mike is how are we going to do it. We can't do it now. And now we're starting to hear from the population, from the voters out there, the people visiting that there is a way to do it. And one of the things as you are well aware is that they are telling us use the Rainy Day Fund. It's there. Isn't that there even though we voted on -- we're voting on 3 billion, there's an extra 6 billion. Is the money there?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: There's clearly more money in the Rainy Day Fund than is being appropriated. And there are clearly other options. But again, I want to underscore that it's not as if we were spending $10 a kid and I want to spend 15 or 20. I just want to spend in this amendment the same amount that we were spending on those kids before. But I want to make sure that we don't retreat. So, whatever amount we were spending on these children for pre-K, we spend it again. And if there are new kids showing up, those new kids get funded too. It's a very basic thing and I will tell you that those new kids, many of those new kids who are showing up the vast majority of them will be children of color. And we need to make sure that they get the same opportunities that everybody else has gotten. Everybody's kids or grandkids needs to have that chance. It isn't anything new. It isn't anything fancy. It isn't anything that is cost prohibitive. It's very cheap to do this. And yet, it's the greatest single investment that we can make, that is investment in our kids.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there is a lot of items in education that we would all like to be able to put at the prior levels. Unfortunately, the times we're in do not allow us to. And with all the items that have been brought before us today, you can end up tapping all of the Rainy Day Fund. But what this amendment says is if you don't get back in this one area of pre-K to fund at the program enrollment, the estimated growth then this bill does not go into effect, 275, which would take away the spending. So, I respectfully move to table this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to close his amendment.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I'm happy to yield to Ms. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Gallego I was --
REP. PETE GALLEGO: I can't really hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. You know they probably cut the mike off on me. I don't know. Okay. Thank you. I was going to ask Chairman Gallego about his amendment. Are we -- based on your amendment is it my understanding that currently what we are about to pass would not cover where we were before we came into this session.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Right. There's a cut to the public schools of the State. We're retreating from our commitment to public education. I think, everybody would admit that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, Chairman Gallego, I want to just make sure. Not only do we not do what we already did, are we doing any -- having any kinds of appropriations for growth into our school districts.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely not. We don't take care of enrollment growth. Let me say this. I keep saying we and I don't want to include myself in this we. Because it isn't we. This bill does not take care of the enrollment growth in the public schools of this State.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And, Mr. Gallego, you aware that in Dallas at our school districts were laying off tons of teachers and we potentially will be increasing the classroom size for children?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: I will tell you that that 22 to 1 ratio which Texas led the on and was such an innovative thing that came about. Apparently the State is about to retreat from that because we are going to build these classrooms up with 30 or 35 to 1 and all that this seeks to do is to make sure that we maintain the level of funding for that pre-K program that we had before and we take care of the enrollment growth in pre-K. So, it's not cost prohibitive. I'm not adding gifted and talented, I'm not adding the reading or the science or the math initiatives. None of the other funding that Mr. Otto or Mr. Aycock or others have talked about today is in this. All this says is, if we can't make a commitment to anything else as a legislature, as a state, then at least through this bill let's make a commitment to pre-K. Can we at least make a commitment to pre-K?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so, Chairman Gallego, what would make you think that the members in this chamber are not listening to you with regard to their commitment to public education and particularly to their pre-K kids?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Well, I would argue that it's pretty evident that there is not a majority support for an amendment to do this. And I don't understand, frankly, why because it isn't cost prohibitive. It doesn't cost that much to take care of that one small segment of the student population which is the pre-K student. To say that we are going to spend what we spent last time. That's all that this amendment says, is at least then let's draw a line in the dirt. We are not going to return -- we are going to spend at least what we spent the last time. No more. Just what we spent last time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So basically we're not trying to take care of all our children even with this amendment. We just want at least throw kids out that have already been going to pre-K so that we at least maintain some semblance of a pre-K; is that correct?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: That's absolutely right. We're not taking care of the first, second, third or fourth grade or eighth grade or seniors in high school. All this says is I don't want those five year olds to lose their opportunity to have pre-K because of this budget. I don't want those five year olds across the State, and there are many of them, not to have that advantage of an early start in their education. And so all this does is again, it forces the State to maintain, not increase, but maintain its commitment to those pre-K programs and in addition it says, for the first time will actually fund enrollment growth. So, if there's more kids that show up, we'll educate them too, in pre-K.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Chairman Gallego would you be surprised that most of the members in this legislature said that they support public education or they support the need to have a strong education.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: I'd be willing to lay odds that every member of this House has at one time or another said they support public education.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Chairman Gallego, could you tell me what then is supporting public education is effected on funding and particularly the pre-K programs. What does it mean when somebody says they support pre-K education?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Well, if you support pre-K education, then you should put your money where your mouth is. Not very much money that's required. It's not very much effort that this Texas has done but let's at least maintain what we have and let's at least fund those extra kids that are coming in at the pre-K level.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And my last question is, don't you think citizens of this state oughta to be outraged that we are talking about these devastating and drastic cuts to education and pre-K education in particular, so, that we're not even committing ourselves to our own state as a legislature. We are undermining the integrity and fabric of our state by destroying education.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Ms. Davis, if I was a parent of a kid in the under -- in the lower grades, those proverbial soccer moms. I think there are going to be very, very, very unhappy when they show up to that classroom and see their son or daughter and instead of 22 to 1 it's going to be 35 or 40 to 1. And what makes it even worse is because of the custom personnel, it's going to be the one teacher. It's not going to be teachers, or teacher's aid, or two teachers aid, it's going to be 35 kids. I will tell you that for Nicholas' sixth birthday, he had thirty of his closest friends over and for about two hours, with thirty of his closest friends, that was a lot. All that I could take personally. And we are asking teachers across the State to do that eight hours a day, day in and day out with 30 kids and all this does is maintain our current level of funding.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Brown raises the point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. The Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for an introduction.
REP. MIKE HAMILTON: Members, fellow members, back up there, we got two of our gorgeous Representatives but one of them's mother is here. Ms. Alvarado, would you stand up and let us see this gorgeous lady here and how she did it.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment. Mr. Otto moves to table. The question is on the motion to table, members. All those in favor vote aye, all those oppose vote nay. The clerk will running the bell. Show Mr. Gallego voting no, show Mr. Otto voting aye, show Mr. Bash voting aye, show Mr. Anchia voting no. Have all voted? There being 95 ayes and 49 nays the motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez to explain the amendment.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment requires that before we spend the Rainy Day Fund we should commit for funding the State nursing homes programs at the same level as the current budget plus additional funds to cover projected growth in the upcoming biennium. This amendment helps protect important state priorities by protecting nursing homes from dangerous budget cuts. Budget cuts that would mean thousands of cuts in jobs, probable closure of just over a thousand nursing homes and the loss of millions of dollars in matching federal funds. There were four nursing homes in El Paso County alone that would potentially closed. That would leave more than 375 people without homes and 519 jobs lost. That's in my district alone. Multiply that by 150 and think about what that means to your district. Texas saw an increase in 23,000 jobs in February but the proposed budget would delete 60,000 nursing home jobs. Mr. Speaker and Members, the calendar rule in H.C. 1 does not allow us to fix this problem tomorrow. But this amendment we can fix it today. With this amendment we can make sure thousands of lives aren't changed for worse. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentle lady yield for some questions?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentle lady yield?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: She yields for any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Have you -- during the time that since the session started have you heard concern from residents in your district in El Paso about loosing funding for the nursing homes?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Not just my district but also my county and across the State. Different county groups have come in just to talk about how this is going to effect us. And I think -- you know we have talked about the rhetoric of cuts and we need to talk about the consequences. And people are seeing -- are so shortsighted they are not seeing what this is going to do us in the long-term, so, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And would you agree -- you know we've spoken a lot today about education and higher education which is mostly for folks -- for younger folks as they are still coming up and making their way in society. But nursing homes and what we do to nursing homes effects our senior citizens, many of whom have worked a lifetime and worked hard to be productive part of our society and now by cutting funding we really are compromising their life.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely. I'm not saying that the youth don't need exactly what we were debating earlier but they are more resilient. We are talking about the seniors that have worked an entire lifetime, that have raised families, that have ensured prosperity and growth for their families and now they need us the most and we need to make sure that we are up here doing the right thing for them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And would you agree also that these cuts to nursing homes would not only effect the senior citizens that rely on them but also this would affect the families because oftentimes a son or a daughter or another relative will have to take time off of work or not work at all to tend to elderly parent or relative?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely. That is a commitment, the choice that a few families are going to have to make in already difficult times. And so it's important that -- I mean I just want all of us to ask question, where are we going to put these seniors. Where are they going to go? And what about those seniors that may not have families? And I mean those are the fortunate ones that may have a child or grandchildren that are willing to take them in and care for them, but what about the families that don't? I mean those seniors that don't, I mean where would they go?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right so you agree that there are thousands and thousands people throughout Texas that don't have family members who are able to care for them and who would be relying on these state services to help them get into nursing homes.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely, that is the reality.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you Representative.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you Representative Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gonzalez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Will the gentle lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentle lady yield?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely not.
THE SPEAKER: She does not yield.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: No, I yield to my colleague from El Paso County.
THE SPEAKER: She has seen the light, she has changed her mind.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Representative Marquez, and so is it not correct to say also that the nursing homes that are relying on 70 percent or more on federal funds are going to be the most vulnerable in loosing or in closing their facilities; is it not correct?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely. That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: And is it also not correct that that really affects as you stated earlier many facilities in El Paso -- not just El Paso but along the border region, correct?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Okay. Just so that we are very clear, now the people that are in the nursing homes they're not just there because they are old but because they have some sort of physical ailments and many times they're suffering from dementia.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: They are not able to take care of themselves, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Exactly. And in particular if they have Alzheimers, what are families going to do when these people that can't care for themselves are going to be put on the streets?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: And that's what we are trying to -- that's the message that we are trying to convey up here. This is a very real thing that's going to happen in the next few months. And where are these people going to turn particularly if they don't even have friends or family that could possibly support them at this time. So, I'm glad that you are bringing that up. It's the reality not only in El Paso County but I want everybody to reflect on the counties that they represent and just understand how important that is.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: And to that extent too, Representative Marquez, would you not agree that you lived your life in the American dream in thinking that by the time you reach a certain age that society is going to care for you. That you've worked hard and that you've earned this ability to rest at some point in your life. And now we're taking that away from the senior citizens that have contributed the most, who have fought in world wars and have fought in other -- Vietnam -- yes -- freedom of our country and now we're taking that away from them; would you not agree?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Thank you.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Representative Gonzalez.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Munoz, for what purpose? REP. SERGIO MUNOZ≤ JR.≤: Would the gentle lady yield for a question.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely.
THE SPEAKER: She will yield for questions. REP. SERGIO MUNOZ≤ JR.≤: Representative Marquez, this -- kind of elaborate a little bit more about what you're saying about fully funding the nursing homes. Don't you think it would be more cost effective know that they can keep the nursing home versus it being it more expensive if they are let out of the home and they will to go to the emergency rooms?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Absolutely. You are saying that if we don't fund this at this level then we are going to put the responsibility on the local county taxpayers in order to facilitate where are those seniors going to go and they are going to end up in our hospital's emergency rooms, I think that's a fair assessment. REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ, JR.,: And if the nursing homes are not fully funded, then what are the options that some of the elderly have?
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: That's what we need to start discussing up here and that's where I'm talking about consequences. And we are talking about cuts and we don't have the money but we need to start understanding what the reality is when they don't have anywhere to go, when they don't have -- what they have known as home closes down and they don't have the support that they need, particularly, if they can't care for themselves because of health issues. REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ, JR.,: Thank you, Representative Marquez. And I totally support you're amendment. Because not only does it affect El Paso county but Hidalgo County as well.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Great. Thank you, Representative Munoz.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to speak in opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I just want to draw our attention to the point that the viability of our nursing homes is in fact is a very, very important thing. We are very concerned about the level of funding that exists out there right now. In fact the price tag, if you were to totally restore this is $1.2 billion. If you were to totally restore to the original level, it would be $1.2 billion. If you are going to restore the bucket in medicaid, it's $3.4 billion. And as you have already heard it's 7.8 maybe $8 billion to fill the bucket for education. That doesn't even cover everything --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Castro?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Would the gentleman yield, when he's ready?
THE SPEAKER: He will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Now the point I am making is that even if we use the Rainy Day Fund, even if we put in those three areas alone we have already overspent the Rainy Day Fund. Already overspent the Rainy Day Fund. So I think it behooves us to really take a very cautious, disciplined, a very pointed look on how we are going to do this. Now we are going to have the opportunity to continue to do this. We are going to have the opportunity to continue to look at what this budget ultimately looks like. And I can tell you it certainly where I come from nursing homes is a very, very important thing. And so it will be something that we continue to look at very closely everybody in this chamber is very concerned about the seniors. Nobody wants to see their parents put out on the street and not have a very high quality place to live those latter parts of their years. Everybody is very focused on that and I will tell you that as we continue this budgeting process we will continue to be focused on that. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully move to table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Castro, he yields for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you. Dr. Zerwas, you are a medical doctor; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And I know that you have been a conscientious member of this legislative body for several years now. Would you agree that nursing home care for senior citizens who maybe medically fragile and getting up in years can be fundamentally, medically different from care for at home. In other words, the level of care that they get can be much better at nursing homes than if they simply have a relative that is untrained caring for them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: To a point I would. That is a simply the only service that a relative caregiver is providing and not taking advantage of home health services and things of that nature.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: With a great deal can be done in the home environment today as opposed to a nursing environment. I would agree with you on that -- that point. But if you look at using the full breadth of home health services and some of the skill sets that can now be brought into the home, that are in fact cover under the medicare program --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But there are still cuts for that, aren't there?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: There -- well, a lot of these services are covered by the medicare program. Okay. So, if you are talking about the elderly and moving services into their homes. And I happen to be living --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Aren't the reimbursement rates being dropped though?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That for the medicare reimbursement. No, they are not being dropped. If there's some home health services in medicaid that are being, yes, they are being dropped. But if you are talking about the typical elderly patient -- my parents would be an example of that -- they live with me now. We bring in a number of home health services. Without that available to us and without that being covered by their senior plan, medicare, they would very likely be looking at something --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But nursing homes are even different from health care because nursing home basically is a 24/7 care, right? In other words, they are professionals who are 10, 15 feet away versus home health care which is perhaps intermittent during the day. Those are two fundamentally different things. But the reason I ask is -- I guess, let me ask a basic question. How many senior citizens in Texas are going to be denied nursing home enrollment because of this next -- the budget over the next few years.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I don't know exactly what the fallout will be. I do know that this is -- at the current level of funding that we have there -- you know with the 35, 36 percent cut it's going to be difficult for a lot of these nursing homes to stay in business. And that's why I think this is a high priority. And I share that with you. I share that with Representative Marquez in that same regard. That I think we need to continue to look at this and look at what the opportunity for solutions are, in terms of trying to remedy what the impacts of these cuts will be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: And I agree with you. Now, I take one exception to that which is, today, doctor, I mean the answer that you don't know, it's not good enough today. I mean today we have to know. Because what the State for these folks who have worked a lifetime, some of them working two or three jobs at a time just to make their way in life. You know you are talking about people who if they have to stay home, then it means that they are subject to falling, that they can break hips, that they can break bones, that they are going to have to rely on relatives to take time off from work. Don't you agree with that that this is going effect other relatives and family members because instead of going into nursing homes now somebody is going to have to quit their jobs or not take a job to take care of their elderly parents. It's not just the older folks that are affected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I'm not sure I agree with you that today is the day that you have to do that. I don't really agree with you on that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Tomorrow?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: No, I think we have the balance of this session to explore what are the appropriate remedies on this particular area.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, I know. And I know and I don't want to be too argumentative because, you know we are asking questions. But look, the governor stated that he didn't want to use any of the Rainy Day Fund and he doesn't want to raise any of the revenue. So, what's the solution then.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I don't know if he said that he didn't want to raise any other revenue. He said he didn't want to raise taxes. You are right. He said that he didn't want to use the Economic Stabilization Fund. I understand that. Okay. But there are other things that we ought to explore as we go down the roads here.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I agree. I agree. But -- and I agree with you we're on the same page. But you have a governor, a Republican governor, that the Republican legislature doesn't want to buck and they won't pass a bill unless they think he's not going to veto it, and he's threatening to veto it basically. So --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hamilton raises the point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I move motion to extend time.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? There is objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair hears none. The time is extended.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: The time is extended? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Zerwas, I don't want to personalize it just because you are one of my favorites. You solved my throat problem last session. You were interviewed I believe in one of the papers in the Houston area or something you came out with a comment that we would have to utilize the rest of the Rainy Day Fund to be able to cover many of the cuts. Was that not correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: No, that would be correct. It continues to be my opinion. Although it is mine and it has been deep in the weeds in this budget for quite sometime and considering what some of the other alteratives are for raising other revenues that we want to be in the position that we may need to look at asking for additional economic stabilization funds to the table.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I don't want to beleaguer some of the comments that my colleague, Representative Castro, had made earlier because what I have to say is much of the same. But you are a doctor and at the end of the day if you have a patient that's sick that's not much of a bedside manner to say, we are going to continue to study the issue. We're going to see what we are going to do tomorrow or the next day, when in fact you have a solution in hand. You know, I understand we've being talking about education, we've been talking about cuts in schools and universities at every different level. And I understand what we can absorb perhaps, maybe and what we can't absorb. But these are senior citizens that are going to be kicked out in the street. These are citizens in our nursing homes where the Pleasant Valley Nursing Home isn't going to be so pleasant anymore. So there is a solution, doctor. And so, if we are in a situation where rules are not allowing us to be able to take money out of House Bill 1 tomorrow and we have an opportunity to take some money out of the Rainy Day Fund right now so we can have it for the past cuts, the 57 million in past cuts, and potential cuts in this next biennium shouldn't we take that opportunity right now?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, not to belabor the medical analogy but the first thing we do when we have a critical patients especially a trauma patient, we stop the bleeding. And I would say that's what we've been about for the past several weeks here is stop the bleeding, let's look at where we can kind of control some of the expenses that we have and then let's start looking at what is step wide remedy to the things that we want to do. A prescription is one of them --
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Margin's tax would be one of the things that we needed to do but there's no solution for this session, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: There is perhaps some thought around that but I'm not seeing any solution by any means.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Perhaps getting rid some of these -- some of the exemptions that we have for high cost petroleum and things of that nature.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I think that any time that we have a tax out there we ought to be looking at it very critically because what may have met our needs sometime in the past may not be meeting our needs now. So we ought to look at all of those things continuously.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And certainly the elderly of all of our communities, every one of our counties have got to be more important than the tax exemption that we give to high cost petroleum drilling.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I'm sorry, I missed the point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: At the concern of our elderly and our communities have to be more important than the tax exemption that we give to high cost petroleum drilling, high cost of gas drilling rather.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, I don't think there probably anything that all of us as human beings value more than our relatives, our children, our parents and so forth. I don't think there is any question about that. That anybody is not going to value more on a human level than any other kind of intangible thing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Well, doctor, like I said I respect you a great deal. But I think that we have to have a solution and so if by rule we are basically prohibited tomorrow in H.B. 1 from doing what we want to do. We have an opportunity right now to save some money for our seniors into the future as you said. We have maybe another 45, 60 days to look at this. The problem with that, doctor, if nothing gets done. We have to be able to tap into some moneys right now and have them available. And so, I think that part of that prescription, part of that remedy begins today. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Representative, I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Dinner is available in the members lounge for any members that are interested.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Marquez to close on her amendment.
REP. MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a very important discussion and I'm glad that Representative Munoz, Representative Castro, Representative Gutierrez came up to talk about this. If you all can go back to your district and when it's election time and you're asking your seniors for their vote I hope you remember this. I hope you remember today. And I hope you understand what we're trying to do here and what the consequences are and if you can go back to your counties and with a straight face and look at these people and ask them for their vote and also know that you're voting a motion to table this particular amendment, I want you to think very seriously about what we're all doing here. And so, with that I would respectfully ask that you vote no on the motion to table. And make this a priority for your seniors in your areas.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Marquez sends up an amendment. And Dr. Zerwas moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye; all those who oppose vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Pitts voting aye, Representative Otto voting aye, Representative Truitt voting aye. Have all voted? There being 92 ayes, 51 nays, the motion to table prevails. Amendments on pages 26 through 41 have been withdrawn. Following amendment is on page 42. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: On the waive of that momentum, I'm only asking for 76 votes on this one. The rest of the amendments that I filed you all have heard and we debated all day. I'm pulling all of the other amendments with my name on them and I, of course, that is condition on this one passing. Now, this amendment -- no I'm pulling the other amendments. We have debated TEA's foundation, we have debated the nursing homes, we've talked about all of those other issues. Got the message where you are on all of that. This amendment deals with all of the community colleges, all of them. And essentially what it does -- because community colleges are picking up the slack. And when we are not on H.B. 1 yet, but H.B. 1 takes out over $400 million out of the community colleges. That's quite a bit. And what this amendment does -- what this amendment does it restores the funding to all of the community colleges, all of the local community colleges and I don't know -- I know there's a community college in your area. Blinn Community College and Blinn is on the list. So Blinn Community College gets just $2 million and 47 cents back. You can look at the list. This is the amendment this is what I offer we talk about the emphasis on community colleges and education and essentially what this amendment does is that it restores the funding to all of our local community colleges. That's -- I put it forth for your consideration and hopefully for your support of your local community college -- for your consideration.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Would the gentleman yield, please?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I always yield for a little help from my friends from Washington County.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you. I certainly have looked at all of these amendments today and you know all of them have been important. We talked about cuts and we have talked about as we move through the process looking at priorities. If we get a revenue, you know, revenue from any sources that we can put in there. One of the things that I want to ask you about in the bill we will debate tomorrow how much community colleges are cut and especially in the higher education group insurance.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I can't recall this but I want to say a little over 200 million, Chairman. I know total spending, community colleges have taken somewhere between 400 million total. Total cuts to community college is over 4 million dollars. That includes the insurance issue. I don't know specifically amount. For some reason 200 some million is in my head but I'm not quite certain.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Well, I just want to applaud you for your efforts because you do care about your community colleges you are and I both -- we laugh that we represent people who are trying to get into those -- that's the entry level of the community colleges and I thank you for this. I'm not going to vote for this but I got to tell you something. I am going to work with you to keep improving it.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Would you be willing to -- for me to just amend to take out Blinn and spread the money to the other colleges? I'm trying to get you to --
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And as we move forward, I think it's an important debate that we look at community colleges as well as nursing homes and things and I appreciate you opening the conversation.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: These are local community colleges. I'm not trying to select one over the other. I think we all recognize they are important. All of us have community colleges in our districts. I'm just asking for you to stand with your district. Stand with the people in your district. Stand with the community colleges. That's all I'm asking and I put it forth for your consideration and I believe that chairman Pitts after he takes a look at it, and to the extent that the chairman is not in favor of it I appeal to the Mr. Speaker for his override. I've been told that my time has expired. Mr. Pitts.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I reluctantly rise to oppose your amendment. This is the same argument we used before. This is an excellent cause we need to look into funding our community colleges. These cuts were made starting -- made 15 months ago and this raises the bar for using the Rainy Day Fund and I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner to close.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't quite know what to say and -- for me this is my election amendment. For those of you who don't want me to return, vote to table. I would ask that you respectfully vote no on the motion to table.
REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I want to ask the gentleman a question?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, do you yield?
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, I do. Charlie, do you have a community college in here?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I think the question comes from this end, Representative. I think you are asking me one. I just want to ask you a question.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Certainly.
REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Did you know that I walked upstairs to visit with my lovely wife and she said, do you know who is the best orator in the Texas House and I said no. And she said, Representative Sylvester Turner. You are admired by my wife.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Charlie, would you tell her that I appreciate her compliment. If you tell her to vote for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: No, she did say -- I'm afraid to tell you.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I would respectfully ask that you stand with your community college and vote no on the motion to table. And then we will come back and vote on the amendment. But you got to vote no in order to get two of the crux in the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. Vote aye, vote nay. This is on the motion to table. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, Mr. Turner voting no, show Mr. Gutierrez voting no. Have all voted? Being 94 ayes, and 52 nays. The motion to table prevails. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 45.
CLERK: Amendment by Gutierrez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I believe I have an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Gutierrez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gutierrez. Representative Gutierrez.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there are few issues that give me one of those John Boehner moments. But Representative Kolkhorst knows that -- like our speaker of the United States House of Representatives. And so if you push the right buttons -- and this is one of them when it comes to our seniors. But I will tell you that we've heard this all day long and we have heard the idea that our seniors are going to be kicked out on the street and there's no doubt about it. I came very well -- full well prepared to talk about the different nursing homes and the different counties. And I'm not calling anybody out on the carpet. I think you know which homes are going to get affected in your districts. And so, as I was listening to one of my colleagues earlier, Representative Eissler. He suggested to us that this is one of those issues that we should not cut. I agree with him. This is one of those issues that we have to solve today, tomorrow. I'm a little leery about waiting for the next 60 days. I'm a little leery about not having the tools by which we can fix this problem. This problem is not something where we can add more students to a classroom. This problem is not something where we can jam more kids into the community college, while all those are very serious, serious problems that we need to solve, the idea that we would have our senior citizens without a place to live, without a place to access health care, finds us in a very, very dangerous crisis in predicament. It is not the kind of crisis that we can say, let's kick it to the next session. It is not the kind of crisis that we can say, let's study it some more. It's the kind of real crisis that our counties are going to be wanting for us to try to solve now. And what this amendment does is it adds $500 million from the rainy day fund for DADS, Department of Disability and Aging, so that we can solve this problem. Nobody -- we have never touched on this issue. When we talk about the $500 million is a $500 million match from the federal government. We need to have the tools tomorrow. My amendment to this amendment allows us to carry unexpended funds from the 57 million that were lost in this last session. Members, this is important. I know a lot of you are ready to go home. I know a lot of you are tired. But we have to think about the senior citizens in our community. They deserve better than this. It is not the measure of our nation, it is not the measure of a state to take care of the senior citizens in this way. We should not allow ourselves to go home tonight with the idea that we're leaving these people, our senior citizens, in this very dangerous and critical condition. With that, I ask you to vote for my amendment. Move to adopt my amendment to the amendment which is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We're now on the Gutierrez amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Members, I think I just said it earlier we need to remember our senior citizens when we talked about earlier why we're here. It's important that we remember we're here because of the margins tax. We're here because we've given a lot of exemptions to a lot of very wealthy corporations. It's time that we start thinking about our senior citizens in this community and all throughout the State of Texas. I'd ask you to support my amendment. Move to adopt.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas in opposition.
REP. JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I once again arise to respectfully oppose the proposed amendment. I appreciate very much the focus on our elders and for them to have a safe place to live out their later years with honor and dignity. In fact, as representative said, this is the kind of thing that this country is built upon. And Texas can take great pride in having been able to sustain a very, very good foundation and infrastructure for our seniors and we need to continue that. But tonight is not the night that we necessarily need to commit the entire resources of our state coffers to this or to any particular issue. We have begun the process for the budget that you see before us that, you know, lives within the means that we have today. There are other opportunities for us to raise revenues, to look opportunities, for generating revenue, and we need to explore those. We have the time and we have the opportunity. Tonight, members, I don't feel pressured that we need to make this decision. I do think that -- I do feel pressured though that for the next few weeks, we need to keep our seniors front and center in all the discussions that we have. And so with that members I would respectfully move that we table this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, members, for the opportunity. At the end of the day, we don't have time. We cannot kick this can further down the road. We are in a very critical situation. Today is the budget. Tomorrow is the budget, tomorrow is H.B. 1. Right now we're talking about rainy day. We need to give ourselves tools in place so that we can talk about this over the next 60 days. We need to solve this very critical crisis. What I'm asking for is $500 million. Remember there is $500 million federal match, we need to consider our senior citizens. There is no way in the world that we should accept or any patient of any physician should accept the idea that, well, let's see how we're going to fix this tomorrow. We're going to see how we're going to fix this down the road. We are going to study this issue some more. Not when wealthy petroleum corporations are receiving billion dollar tax exemptions. I move that you vote -- I'd ask you that you vote no on the motion to table. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez sends up an amendment. Representative Zerwas moves to table this. On the motion to table vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, show Representative Zerwas votes aye, show Representative Gutierrez voting no. Have all voted? Show Ms. Giddings voting no. Have all voted? There being 97 ayes and 49 nays the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, right before you to start a conversation, with the local consideration, and the local consideration was to talk about desiring a streetcar named Desire. And I start this because all though this is a local consideration as I have heard the debate all afternoon, you heard a lot from our -- from different folks about what our desire is. And the reason we're expressing our desires is because people have come to see us and they said what it is. And what instance we heard from all over the State and definitely from our districts because I know I have. That we should not cut our nursing homes. We have heard from all over the State, that we should not cut money from our public schools. And to me that's critically important because earlier I was having a conversation and we know what the demographics are. We know what the demographics are. We know what's going on and we have to let people know what it is all the time. And I'll give you an example of that. I sit on the Redistricting Committee and we were debating and discussing the State Board of Education. And we had the chair of the State Board of Education come before us and I asked her what are the -- what are the percentage of students that are hispanic in the public schools and she said 50 percent. And then I asked her what were the percentage of the students in the public schools that are African American and she said she didn't know. And I said, ma'am I will provide that information as I am today. We have to know, be aware of what we're dealing with. Throughout the day we heard the desire that we should have more moneys for colleges, universities, and junior colleges. Throughout the day we heard we needed funding for kindergarten and throughout the day we heard different members expressing different those concerns. As I finish comments with the desire -- I think it's fitting that we are almost to close to this day. As we started today by recognizing Ceasar Chavez, organizer, a leader, this is his day and we must not forget and I say that because in the past, you know, year we were hearing debate to take it off the curriculum books. And we were having a debate on state employees, you know I got as energetic as any of us would because we cannot turn our backs on any of the people that we're trying to help. And I think it's fitting to close my remarks talking about the State employees because all of you stood up and told Representative Paxton we cannot talk about cutting the salaries of state employees when we're trying to help them. So, as I conclude and I withdraw my amendment. I conclude to withdraw all my other amendments because I want to conclude this day in remembering, remembering our desire. We must not forget that desire to get funds for the nursing homes, funds for the schools, funds for the colleges, funds for the state employees. We have to do what's right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker with that I withdraw amendments. Thank you, members.
THE SPEAKER: There are no further amendments does anyone wish to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and members. I am a joint author of this bill and so I am speaking for this bill but I want to say up front that the author of the bill knows that I believe that we ought to be using more of the rainy day fund. We discussed that in the very beginning and I know that today we're discussing closing the gaps and the holes in the budget for 2011. But in terms of looking at 2012 and I don't think you can look at House Bill 4, House Bill 75 without also looking at House Bill 1. I believe that ultimately we should be using more of the rainy day fund. Like all of you, I am very proud and very privileged to be a part of this great body. 25 million Texans and a 150 of us have an opportunity to serve here. And to be trusted as the leaders of this great state. We are trusted and it is trust in my mind that is the most important component of leadership. The question is, always, will those who lead do what is best for those who follow? After all, we are the servant of the people and we should not ask -- act as their masters. And I don't really believe that we are hearing the message that the voters are sending to us. Yes, overwhelmingly Texans want less government and more efficiency. And so do I. Yes, overwhelmingly. Texans want to cut back. And so do I. I don't know anyone who believes otherwise. But we must ask more specific questions to understand the message that the voters are giving to us. When we ask voters in polls, do you support the continuing of Texas grants the answer is overwhelmingly yes. When we asked do you support the continuation of pre-K, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. When we asked if nursing homes should suffer severe cuts, the answer is no. We should not leave the elderly out of a place to live. We must tell Texans the truth. When we don't take care of some of these things at the State level, the city and the county will do so. Our refusal to use more of the rainy day fund is relegating Texas to mediocrity. To a future that we will not be proud of. I don't want to be a part of that kind of Texas. I don't want to go home and tell students that there's no money for you in Texas grants. And other financial aid. And you're going to pay more in tuition. It is greatly disturbing to me to have to go home and tell folks that the elderly are not going to be taken care of. I don't want to say to those with mental health issues, I'm sorry, we have no help for you. Many of you, Republicans and many of you very conservatives have said to me on this House floor that you believe that we ought to spend more of the rainy day fund and I do believe that members are to be able to talk to one another confidentially and so I would like to certainly keep your confidence. But our conversations again say that you believe that we ought to use more of the rainy day fund and this is not the time members for us to divide ourselves up, us and them, and partisanship. We need to pull upon our statesmanship. These are difficult times the answers are not easy. But courage and conviction are required in times such as these. We don't get our character measured when it's easy or when it's convenient. It is moments such as these moments that are challenging that will determine our legacy and the future of our state. For many people in our state, what we're doing today and what we will do tomorrow will dash their dreams. It will abort their hopes. It will crush their opportunity. And these economic times Texans are hurting. Let's not let them down. Let's not be content to lose a generation of young people. And I ask those Texans out there to not give up hope. I hope that all of us will work together to make the changes that are necessary to take care of the People of Texas. God help Texas.
THE SPEAKER: Does anyone else want to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Pitts to close.
REP. JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members, this House Bill 275 is the second step in paying our current bills.
REP. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REP. DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of brief questions.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?
REP. JIM PITTS: I sure will.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you've tried to do and I want to ask a couple of questions because I think it's important. And I know everyone is tired and ready to go home but this is important stuff what we are doing and I think we need to take a minute to reflect. My question is, I noticed none of us could get amendments through today. There was no room for anybody to provide any additional input or anything with regard to what's important for their district. Is this what we should expect tomorrow as it relates to the budget process.
REP. JIM PITTS: Ms. Davis, House Bill 275 was to pay our bills that we owe today and that we will owe before August 31st, you know, and I know that we have some deep holes in House Bill 1. That we have to look at the nursing home situation. We have to look at our Texas grants, we have to look at funding public schools, and we have to look at the medicaid shortfall. And I assure you that we will do that tomorrow and we will do that until we vote House Bill one out on this floor.
REP. DAVIS: And I appreciate your answer but my question is tomorrow, will the process be open enough so that some of us who have perspectives other than your perspectives and some of your colleagues that are on the committee will it be open enough so that we can offer those with some reasonable thought that they will be considered based on the merit of the amendment versus just the numerical differences in the House.
REP. JIM PITTS: No. Yvonne, it's an open process. Every single member in here has a vote. And there's nobody telling anybody how to vote and I think there are some amendments today that you saw that and --
REP. DAVIS: Now, Mr. Chairman with all due respect Mr. Chairman --
REP. JIM PITTS: Not on House Bill 275 but we sure did on House Bill 4.
REP. DAVIS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect I want to just say a couple of times there were good ideas put forward and the sentiment or the discussion on the floor was that we couldn't do that because it might require more votes than we can actually get and we don't want the governor to veto it. So my question is a legitimate one in terms of whether or not we're going to do this based on policy to the extent we can have a real dialogue and discuss the merits of the issue or are we going to base it just on what the governor and/or the politics of the numbers are? If this is going to be a numbers game only, and the will of the committee is just to trust you all, then we need to know that because that's not what we came to do and it appears that -- and Chairman Pitts, and I'm going to say Jim because we are friends, I know that that's not your heart. I don't want our legislature to be relegated to just the politics of it. And right now, we've sat here all day long and various ideas that were good ideas, that would do anything but to strengthen some of the things we've broken down and they've not been accepted. So I just want us to talk about that because we're spending another 24 hours discussing how we protect Texas or we want to participate in a positive way. We don't want to just be here just to vote against your, the will of the committee that's not inclusive of our ideas.
REP. JIM PITTS: Well, Yvonne, there's Republicans and Democrats people from north Texas, south Texas, east Texas, and West Texas on the Appropriations Committee. And I'm here to defend the Bill that House Appropriations passed in committee. We had over 200 hours of testimony. And I've been working on this since last September. And I think we have an open process and I think if somebody comes with a good amendment and is not in violation of the caption, like trying to spend money in the next biennium and when 275 was just on the current biennium, I think we're going to look at that. And there's a 150 members that are going to be looking at those amendments tomorrow.
REP. DAVIS: And so, you know, this is the first time and I raised this because it was obvious this time the Democrats on appropriations were not participating and the dialogue in the front mike as they have before. So I offer that as a perspective that it appears that we've turned into an us and them versus good policy for Texas and that's why I raised the question.
REP. JIM PITTS: Thank you.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for question?
REP. JIM PITTS: Yes, I will yield.
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Pitts do you remember the conversations that we've had earlier about the difficulty of getting to a hundred votes? Do you remember that?
REP. JIM PITTS: Yes.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: How many votes do you think you are going to get on this bill?
REP. JIM PITTS: I hope I get 90.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: I think you are going to get close to 150. And I will tell you -- in fact, I will bet you that you will get way over a hundred. And if you can get over a hundred votes here, then the truth is that if you had spent more of the rainy day money --
REP. JIM PITTS: What was your question, I'm sorry.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Do you agree or disagree that if you had spent more of the rainy fund money you could have picked up those hundred votes one way or the other because a lot of the decisions that are made are made on they're predicated on losing perhaps 10 to 12 to 15 votes. But to follow up Ms. Davis point, their not predicated on gaining 35 to 40 votes.
REP. JIM PITTS: You told me two weeks ago -- asked me two weeks ago that we could get 90 votes to use the money that the comptroller told us to shortfall. I would have told you that was going to be very difficult. So we made some cuts. And I feel like we can get to 90 votes because of the cuts we made. And I could not tell you and cannot look you in the eye and guarantee you I could get 90 votes if we would try to get 5, 6, $7 billion out of the rainy day fund.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: I can tell you that you are about to get over 100 votes on this bill. And if you can get over a hundred votes on this bill, my expectation, my experience, tells me that you can get over a hundred votes on any other bill. That you choose so long as your fully funding the things that are important. You and other members of your committee as hard as you have worked will have to admit that this budget shortchanges higher education. Does it not?
REP. JIM PITTS: I think House Bill 1. There will be somethings I'm concerned about.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: It shortchanges public education.
REP. JIM PITTS: We need to take care of some public education funding.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: It sure changes Health and Human services.
REP. JIM PITTS: We need to look at the medicaid shortfall.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And when we say when, we look we need to look at these things, that is the equivalent to me of a -- of a doctor who kind of kicks you pretty hard and pushes you on the road to death and then says but here I will give you some drugs later that will help you. I mean we're causing -- you are causing the problems by underfunding things and then you are expecting the people will feel better because hopefully the conference will make things better.
REP. JIM PITTS: Pete, there's nothing to say that sometime before we're out we pass House Bill 1 that you or somebody else will have a bill or an amendment to use more of the rainy day fund. We are using the rainy fund in House Bill 275 to fund our current shortfall, period.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Correct. And you are going to get hundred votes to do that. And you could have gotten a hundred votes to do that -- to fully fund public ed. You could have gotten hundred votes to fully fund pre-K, you could have fully funded a lot of things. But you chose not to at this particular time. Is that not correct?
REP. JIM PITTS: That is not correct.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Why is that not correct?
REP. JIM PITTS: Because I don't think I could have gotten a hundred votes if I would have done all that in this particular bill.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: How many votes do you think this particular bill is going to get? Because if this particular bill can get it, and the other bill can get it too.
REP. JIM PITTS: That's your opinion, Pete. I don't agree. Not the people that I talked to and the polls that I took, I would have gotten us 90 votes.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Pitts, I have known you a long time. And I know that when you do the right thing, when you, Jim Pitts, when you do the right thing, you always get more than hundred votes.
REP. JIM PITTS: Thank you Pete. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on passage package of House Bill 275. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Show Mr. Coleman voting aye. Have all voted? Being 142 aye, ands 2 nays. House Bill 275 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for a motion.
REP. MIKE HAMILTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just like to suspend all the necessary rules, the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Licensing Administrative Procedure to consider H.B. 1882; H.B 2271; H.B. 2419; H.B. 2643 H.B. 3287 H.B. 3510, H.B. 1522, and H.B. 1822 on 8:00 a.m. on 4/4/11, room E2030.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Ritter for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Natural Resources Committee, we are going to have our committee meeting that was posted early today in 1W14. Hope you can join Chairman Keffer and I there. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Following announcement. Clerk will read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures will meet at 8:00 a.m. on April 4th, 2011 at E2.030. This will be a public hearing to consider H.B. 1822, H.B. 2271 H.B. 2219, H.B. 2643, H.B. 3287, H.B. 3510, H.B. 1522, and H.B. 1823.
THE SPEAKER: Members are there any other announcements? If not Mr. Pena moves that the House stands adjourned pending reading and referral of bills until 8:30 a.m. tomorrow. In memory of San Antonio attorney Hubert Green, father of Texas Supreme Court Justice, Paul Green who passed away on March 26th, 2011, at the age of 84. House stands adjourned. Following bills on first reading of referral of committee.
CLERK: Pursuant to rule 1, Section 4 the chair corrects the referral of the following bills and resolutions. H.B. 2545 by Hancock. Relating to the participation of the state in the Regional Air Quality Compact to State Sovereignty Select. H.B. 3374 by Murphy. Relating to the certification of a certified capital company. From Insurance, Economic and Small Business Development. H.C.R. 81 by Isaac. Expressing opposition to federal regulation of hazardous waste, water, and clean air and of the production, exploration, drilling, development, operation, transportation, and processing of oil, natural gas, petroleum, and petroleum products in the State of Texas. To State Sovereignty Select. H.C.R. 94 by Flynn. Urging Congress to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The State's Sovereignty Select.
THE SPEAKER: House stands adjourned until 8:30 tomorrow.
