JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? A quorum is present. The House and gallery please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Elkins to introduce our Pastor of the Day.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Today I'm honored to have my pastor from the Faith Assembly of God Church in Houston, Texas here to say our prayer. And also we have our Associate Pastor Raymond White over there. And, Jason, come and say our prayer.
PASTOR JASON: Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I like to call on Brother Elkins, on behalf of my family and our wonderful congregation, let's pray. Heavily Father, what an honor and an absolute privilege it is to stand before you and to know that, God, to whom much is given, much is required. I believe that there is plenty of wisdom in this room, I believe there is plenty of talent and ability. But, God, we are nothing without you. You said if we would remain in the vine, that's where our strength would be. You said that if we would stay within you, there would be the peace that we need to manage the chaos, God, that you're asking us to somewhat walk through and stretch through sometimes. I also believe that, God, decisions that are made in this chamber often weigh heavy on our hearts because it affects people's lives. Lord, your heart beats for people. I thank you for these men and women. I thank you for the call on their lives. I thank you for the decisions that will be made today in the best interests of this great State of Texas. God, I thank you that my family is represented in this room. God, bless these people, give them wisdom, give them peace, give them the rest that they need, give them focus. In the name of Jesus I pray. Amen.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Spe aker, members, please, join me in doing the pledge to our flags, starting with the U.S. flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance.) Thank you, members.
JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Thompson because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Anderson. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Madam Doorkeeper?
MADAM DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.
SENATE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following action. The Senate has passed the following measures: SB266 by Williams, relating to --
JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo moves that we suspend the reading and referral of todays House bills until the end of todays business. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR120, which honors the life of Thomas Peter Whalen of Schertz, who passed away July 30th, 2010, at the age of 87.
JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. Please take your seats. Chair lays out HCR120, the following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: HCR120 by Kuempel. WHEREAS, Memories of a life filled with joyful times and Meaningful accomplishments remain to comfort the family and friends Of Thomas Peter Whalen of Schertz, who passed away on July 30, 2010 At the age of 87; and WHEREAS, One of seven children, Tom Whalen was born on December 3, 1922, in Hoboken, New Jersey, to Peter and Mary Goggin Whalen; he enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942 and spent more than Three years in the Pacific theater, serving mostly on the Minesweeper USS YMS-365; after World War II, he married the former Rita Garille, with whom he would go on to raise six children Daniel, Christine, Mary, Philip, Regina, and Ken, and share more than six decades; and WHEREAS, Mr. Whalen reenlisted in the Navy in 1946, and through the years, he was stationed in California, Saipan, Cuba, Rhode Island, and Florida; trained as an electrician, he served on the aircraft carrier USS Shangri-La, the ammunition ship USS Mauna Loa, and the cargo ship USS Jupiter; he retired in 1964 with the rank of Chief Petty Officer; and WHEREAS, Along with his family, Mr. Whalen settled in Tampa, Florida, where he worked as a journeyman electrician at Florida Steel; in 1972, the Whalens moved to Schertz, and Mr. Whalen became the maintenance supervisor at Structural Metals in Seguin; he had Several other jobs before retiring for good in his seventies; and WHEREAS, Mr. Whalen was a longtime member of the Knights of Columbus Council 6358; he was active in the group's charitable works, served as Grand Knight in 1975, and eventually attained the Rank of Fourth Degree; moreover, he contributed his time and energy as a volunteer at Brooke Army Medical Center for many years; among His favorite pastimes were fishing, boating, and eating seafood at The Texas coast; and WHEREAS, Those fortunate enough to have known Tom Whalen will remember the way he touched their lives with his optimism, sense of humor, and devotion to his family, and he will forever hold a treasured place in their hearts; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas Hereby pay tribute to the memory of Thomas Peter Whalen and extend sincere condolences to the members of his family: to his wife, Rita Whalen; to his children, Daniel Whalen and his wife, Maureen Behan Christine Young and her husband, Michael, Mary Swift, Philip Whalen And his wife, Daria, Regina Maxfield and her husband, Mike, and Ken Whalen and his wife, Jackie; to his sister, Margaret Kurz; to his 10 Grandchildren and 4 great-grandchildren; and to his other relatives And friends; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for his family and that when the Texas House of Representatives and Senate adjourn this day, they do so in memory of Tom Whalen.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you. Members and Speaker, Mr. Waylon was one of seven children born in New Jersey and raised in a large Irish, Catholic family. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942 and was very proud for serving in World War II. Thomas married Rita Whalen on June 1st, 1946, in New Jersey and had six children. He re-enlisted in the Navy, which he retired from in 1964 with the rank of Chief Petty Officer after 22 years of service. The family moved to Shertz in 1972, where he began working for Structural Metals, today known as Commercial Metals, and remained working until his 70's. He was a long time member of the Knights of Columbus Council 6358, in which he served as a Grand Knight in 1975 obtaining the fourth degree. He also enjoyed volunteering at Brook Army Medical Center in his frequent trips to the Texas coast. Behind me on the dias today we have three of Thomas' children. Ken and Jackie Whalen and Phil Whalen and a daughter-in-law. And I think in the gallery we have Mike and Chris Young, there they are in the back. Thank you for being here today. Members, please join me today in honoring the distinguished life of Thomas Peter Whalen today with the passage of HCR120. Move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. Resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Frullo moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Flynn? Chair recognizes Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1377 celebrating the 60th wedding anniversary of Dan and Suzy Perez.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR1377. Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: HR1377 by Flynn. Congratulating Dan and Susie Perez of Canton on their 60th wedding anniversary.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Members, I recommend adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is Ms. Burkett on the floor? Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle to speak about the wildfires.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. I know y'all are getting tired of hearing this, but we are still under a critical fire weather situation once again. The wind has let up a little here, but it hasn't let up in the rest of the state, and it's supposed to blow harder here today. So if you go to our service website, any of the fires that they say are partially contained are theoretically out, except that the wind goes to blowing 40 miles an hour this afternoon and starts pushing sparks again. We had two severe fires yesterday. We have one new one this morning in far west Texas, and we encourage you to go to the Forest Service website or the State Operations Center for emergency response, and either one will keep you updated on the fires. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, today we would like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1359.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, you might want to listen to this resolution very closely. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: HR1359 by King. WHEREAS, The Legislative Ladies Club has distinguished itself through its outreach to the spouses and families of Texas state legislators; and WHEREAS, Members of the organization share the distinction of being married to current or former lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives, and through their steadfast support of these dedicated public servants, they make their own important contributions to the Lone Star State; and WHEREAS, The club serves as a resource for spouses of newly elected legislators by helping them transition into public life and by providing opportunities for fellowship at luncheons, educational programs, and other events; and WHEREAS, A positive influence on many, the Legislative Ladies Club has a long-standing tradition of offering support, friendship and recreation to the families of hardworking state legislators and it is indeed a pleasure to recognize the group at this time; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor the Legislative Ladies Club for its contributions to the life of the Texas Legislature and extend to its members sincere appreciation for their efforts; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the club as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now it's very important to recognize these people today. Now it is known as the Legislative Ladies Club. However, I don't have a lady that's in the club for me. My husband, Dr. Austin King, who is not here today, has tried; along with Denver McClendon, to change the name of the club to Spouse's Club. However, he was told roundly by Mr. McClendon no, no, no, it will always be the Legislative Ladies Club. Back here in the gallery we would like these esteemed members to stand, please. I would like to mention their names. I can't see everyone, but I will mention the officers, beginning with the president Nancy Otto, whose long suffering -- I mean wonderful husband, John, is right here. Marie Aycock Vice-President, again, the better half of Jimmy Don Aycock. Recording Secretary Debby Sheffield, who is not here yet; no doubt contributing to the economy in Temple and in Austin. It's also her birthday today. Corresponding Secretary Clarissa Darby and Treasurer Peggy Ritter. These are officers and there are other wonderful people up there that are here today. Also, I want to give a shout out to Nikita Johnson, who is helpful in giving a little link to the style show through Neiman's last week. Please, members, if you know what's good for, and you what will help you for the rest of the session, please honor the Legislative Ladies Club composed of these wonderful ladies. But, also, some long suffering husbands as Mr. Truitt, of course I can see you back there.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Would the gentle-lady yield?
JOE STRAUS: Representative King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Representati ve King, are you aware that not every male member of the Legislative Ladies Club is in favor of that change -- of a name change from Ladies Club to Spouse's Club?
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: I agree. And your husband, I think, is one of those respectful members.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: I'm pretty close to a bald headed dude who is strictly opposed to changing the name and maintaining the fine integrity of the Legislative Ladies Club. And he's proud to be a member.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Absolutely. And I thank Mr. Truitt and I thank Denver McClendon, Dr. Ned Patrick and my husband, as the four main leaders as the male contingency. But, perhaps not. So please, members, notice these wonderful people in the audience, up in the gallery. It's very important. They are -- and I hate to say it, the wind beneath your wings in this lovely session of budget and redistricting. Please honor these women. Do any of the husbands -- would any of you like to make a comment? Okay. Yes, please.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: We are so privileged to have these women behind us, and there's no other state that has the beauty and the wisdom and the determination and support that we have with our wives. I think it's really a testament that they're willing to come down here and put up with what we have to go through. And I just thank you and God bless all of you.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Mr. Speaker, we move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: We've all heard that motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. And all of these folks in front of me move to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're about to go on the calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair lays out on final reading and final passage House Bill 2605. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2605 by Taylor. Relating to the continuation and function of the Division of Workers' Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Murphy for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to postpone consideration of House Bill 2605. Yeah, I know, I asked him to turn it on. Members, are we awake up there? Good. Distinguished guests in the gallery, Sergeants of Arms, I'd like to move that we postpone consideration of House Bill 2605 until 9:50 Central Standard Time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, you've heard the motion to move -- postpone House Bill 2605 until 9:50 this morning. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on third reeding House Bill 44. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB44 by Menendez. Relating to the authority of a property owners association to regulate to use of certain lots for residential purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Menendez to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I've had some good conferences with many of you. There's some confusion about this bill. If you believe in private property rights then you would support this bill. If you have a constituent that buys two adjacent lots and the home owners association gives them permission to do something on the lot their house is on, what this bill does is it ensures that they can't change the rules so they can't do it on the adjacent lot. So in some case is we've had issues where people have had to go to court to allow to have their children's play scape, their little jungle gyms allowed on the lot that's adjacent to their home owners lot. There's no opposition to this. We've worked through all the issues with the home owners associations. Everyone is in support and I ask for everybody's support in third reading and I yield to my good friend.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely I will.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Menend ez, I want to make sure I understand, because it's kind of a -- you know, when you buy into that community you kind of know the rules and you have some agreements and you know all that and so --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: We're going to kind of do away with some private property rights of other people in those communities. So it's cane of a tough question. But, at the same time, if I own this lot and I want to put my kids' jungle gym over there it seams like that's kind of a far reach to say as long as you do it within the parameters of the home owners association that it, you know, fits their criteria; because I'm sure they have criteria for all of that. But -- And on the HRO report it says that the builders association was against it. So was that as testified in --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: No, no one -- In the committee the testimony came from home owners associations, the people who run them. They had a concern that we wouldn't give the architectural control committee sufficient notice. They had concerns that we would allow, or we would want to do uses that weren't permitted. And so what we worked with the builders association, the home owners association, we put language in that there that says -- we put language in there that says if you have permission to do it, and you've cleared it on your existing lot, no one should preclude you from doing it on the second lot. It's a private property rights bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So I just want to make sure. So the builders association was against it in committee, they're no longer against it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely. There's an e-mail in everybody's box that says the builders association is for it. I have that e-mail, if any of you want to see it. I have a letter, a copy of that letter if you would like to see it as well. I think our good friend --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. Because, you know, this is a -- And that's what I just want to make sure, because this is a tough issue. We're talking about -- You're not only talking about the private property rights of the person that has the adjacent land, but the private property rights of all that's in that community that have said we want to live in a community that has these certain standards. Now I don't always agree with what home owners associations do, and I don't live in one. I live in the city and the city has certain restrictions. And I'm just trying to really work through this issue, because I voted one way yesterday and I'm thinking about voting a different way today. And I just need to -- And I think there's several of us that there's this balance between the home owners and their particular lot, and then those within the community. And we've got a restriction in the deed that says you can't do this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely. And we're not looking to circumvent that. As a matter of fact, if you look at your copy of the letter from the builders association it says providing that a --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Jose, could you pull the mike up just a little bit more? They're having a hard time hearing you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Sure. What it says here is providing that a owner must seek prior approval through an architectural control committee, before the residential purpose improvement on the adjoining lot. So we're not circumventing any rules. All we're saying is you can't throw up an artificial rule if this is already a permitted use. There's been court cases where they've asked to tear down a children's playscape where it's permitted on your lot. So we're saying if you have a lot side by side, adjacent, that you should be given the right to do that on your own lot. There are no fences, there's no -- you know, I mean, really this is a nonissue.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you. Thank you, Representative Menendez. As I told you, I voted against this yesterday and I'm taking a second look at it. Let me borrow this, if I may. On your committee House Bill 444, on line 6, on page 2; if you have it there in front of you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: If you would read it to me, Randy?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I will. I need to you speak a little closer to the mike. Line 6 B says a property owners association may not adopt or enforce a provision in a dedicatory instrument that prohibits or restricts the owner the lot on which a residence is located from using, for residential purposes, an adjacent lot owned by the property owner. Is that to say that we're not going to allow home owners associations to have deed restrictions or enforce a provision in a dedicatory instrument? Is that a deed restriction, is that a title? What is that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: No. What we're saying is that they can't create new rule. If they have already in the first section, we way here in this section we define residential purpose with respect -- we define all the uses that they have given and then it says and if otherwise specifically given by the provisions of the dedicatory instrument. So what we're saying if the home owners has existing rules, you can't come up with an arbitrary rule after the fact, and that's all we're trying to do. Because we've had cases where people have changed the rules, they've come out against the residential homeowners and said you know what, we don't really like what you just put up, even though you have permission to do that originally. And so we vetted this, both in committee. We vetted this with the home owners association groups, the builders groups, and everybody is no longer in opposition to this bill; because we've voted all the issues that we're not taking any powers away from any home owners association.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So they can't come up with any additional rules? Does that affect deed restrictions that might already be in place?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: If the deed restrictions are in place, what we don't want them to do is change the rules on someone once you've already purchased your property. It's kind of like what Larry Phillips was saying, when you buy your property you read your deed restrictions before you close and you know what the deed restrictions are. And so if you know what the rules are you either agree or don't agree to buy. And what we don't want is people to have rug pulled out beneath them once they've purchased two lots. And so, you know, you may want to have the two lots so that you have room to put your pool, to put your children's playscape. So if you know that for a fact the rules say I can put up a jungle gym, I can put a pool here, I can pull a tool shed and you get it approved from the --
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Would you repeat that last sentence?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: What we don't want to happen is when you go to purchase and you read all your deed restrictions and they say you have the right to put your swimming pool here, you can put your children's playscape, you can put your storage shed; we don't want them later to come and say after they've already said you can do it no, we don't want you to put that on the second lot. That's what we're trying to do. Because you wouldn't have purchased the second lot in the first place if they -- if you wouldn't have had the right to do that, it's very simple.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Those are future provisions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: But you're not addressing -- It says it may not adopt, but it says enforce a provision, that current provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: We've run this by all the lawyers from the homeowners association, the builders; this is all the agreed to language. They agree that this protects the provisions they have in place, and it would restrict them from changing the rules on the homeowner once they have purchased. This is strictly a private property rights bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So your bill actually increases the ability of a homeowner to use that property?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Exactly. That's all it's about. But -- I don't know about you, but I keep hearing complaints about homeowners associations, and what people want know is once they have purchased the land under the rules that they have in their existing deed restrictions, that they can do what they are allowed to do. That's all they want to do.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, sir. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak on or for or against? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 44. Clerk will read ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being a 105 ayes and 34 nays, House Bill 44 passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 213. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB213 by Rodriguez. Relating to the duties of a mortgage servicer of certain residential mortgage loans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill one that provides certain information to home owners whose home loans are not federally related. Move to final passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, anyone wishing to go speak on, for, or against House Bill 213? If not, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 213. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 140 ayes, 0 nays; House Bill 213 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reeding House Bill 265. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB265 by Hildebrand. Relating to lease of space by or for a state agency.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Chair recognizes Representative Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill is relating to the lease of space by or for a state agency. (Inaudible). Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 265? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 265. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Castro voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 139 ayes and 0 nays, House gill 265 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 345. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB345 by Kleinschmidt. Relating to limitations on awards in an adjudication brought against a local government entity for breach of contract.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Mr. Kleinschmidt to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, house Bill 345 clarifies the recovery of prompt pay interests and breeches of contract of local government entities. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 345? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 345. Clerk will ring the bell. Has everybody voted? All members voted? There being 142 ayes, 0 nays; House Bill 345 passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage, House Bill 499. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB499 by Rodriguez. Relating to the additional penalty for collection costs for certain delinquent ad valorem taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this bill will provide notice and penalty for property owners who have failed to timely pay their tax ability following an appeal from the appraisal review board, supported by LSG and the Conservative Coalition. Move final passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 499? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 499. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 499 passes. The Chair lays out on third and final passage House Bill 968. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB968 by Strama. Relating to expulsion from school, or placement in a disciplinary alternative education program for certain conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Strama to explain House Bill 968.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the bill we passed yesterday to make it an offense -- to bring some consistency in statute for the education code for what qualifies for a removal to a DAEP or expulsion to a JJAEP. Representative Hochberg had added an amendment clarifying the standards under which a student misbehaving in a DAEP can be expelled to a JJAEP. I move final passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Is there anyone wishing to speak against -- on, for, or against House Bill 968? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 968. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 141 ayes and 4 nays, House Bill 968 passes. The Chair lays out on third and final passage House Bill 1064. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1064 Pitts. Relating to exempting certain customers from certain demand charges by transmission and distribution utilities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill will provide for demand ratchet charges for certain qualifying customers. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 1064? Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1064. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 145 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 1064 passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 1118. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1118 by Ritter. Relating to the resale of property purchased by a taxing unit at a tax sale.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Ritter to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is dealing with the post-judgment taxes on foreclosed properties. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 1118? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1118. Vote aye, vote no; members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 143 ayes, 1 nay; House Bill 1118 passes. The Chair lays out House Bill 1380 on third reading. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1380 by Truitt. Relating to the graduate medical training requirements for certain foreign medical school graduates applying for a license to practice medicine in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill Representative Taylor passed for me yesterday that graduates of the U.S. medical schools are only required to complete one year of residency before being allowed to obtain a license. This lets the INGs do it after completing two. No known opposition. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, anyone wish to go speak on, for, or against House Bill 1380? If not, question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1380. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? All members voted? There being 145 ayes, 0 nays; House Bill 1380 passes. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 1965. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1965 by Kolkhorst. Relating to the expansion of faith and community-based health and human services initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, House Bill 1965 pulls off of a bill from last session, and it expands the faith and community based initiative from 15 to 26 agencies and it establishes a task force to work with the interagency coordinating group. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 1965? If not, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1965. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 144 ayes, 0 nays; House Bill 1965 passes. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2131.
CLERK: HB2131 by Geren. Relating to the issuance of a pass for expedited access to the State Capitol.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Chair recognizes Representative Geren to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Members, this is the bill that allows Capitol access if you go through the same background check as a CHL, same fingerprints process as CHL; and is available to the general public, any one that wants to get it. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the bill? The Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Members -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, honored guests in the gallery, you're about to witness a train wreck. If you notice a couple of names on this bill, you have the chairman of the House of Administration. I think my furniture is being taken out of my office as we speak. And then redistricting as well. I hope my district doesn't change too much. But I've got a significant number of CHL instructors in my district, which is close to the capitol here, and they would see a significant decrease in demand if this bill were to pass. And I just need to be on the record opposing this bill. Please vote with me. Let's protect the CHL instructors in our district. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to close.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I just move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, the question occurs on final passage House Bill 2131. It's a record vote. Members, the clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Showing Representative Burkett voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 143 ayes, 3 nays; House Bill 2131 passes.
JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Burkett for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE CINDY BURKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1424 in honor of the City of Balch Springs.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR1424. Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: HR1424 by Burkett. Recognizing April 19, 2011, as Balch Springs Day at the State Capitol.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burkett.
REPRESENTATIVE CINDY BURKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to recognize some folks that we have from Balch Springs up in the gallery. If y'all would stand and wave, we would appreciate it? Y'all, Balch Springs is a bustling city home to nearly 24,000 people, and they serve a south eastern gateway to the metroplex. It offers convenient access to the surrounding areas, as well as to major interstates. And we look forward to the forward looking civic leadership that we have, y'all. I would really like to recognize them. Additionally, folks, I want to let you know we have a great mayor in Balch Springs, Carrie Gordon. Unfortunately, we lost her husband yesterday. And I would like to recognize today as Balch Springs Day in the Capitol. And I would like to make a motion that we adjourn in memory of T. Bird Gordon. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE CINDY BURKETT: Move passage. Oh, once again, let's have Balch Springs stand up and wave. I'm sorry, Carrie is obviously at home. We are missing our mayor. This is a great community in the Dallas area and I'm glad that they've here today. Thank you so much for honoring them today with Balch Springs Day here in the Capitol.
JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on final reading and final passage House Bill 2541. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2541 by Solomons. Relating to the regulation of traffic on certain roads by counties.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this bill we heard yesterday that would allow residents of special districts located in un-incorporated area of a county to have some traffic rules and safety without a cost to the state and county. And I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against passing of House Bill 2541? Question occurs on final passage of 2541. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 143 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2541 has finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2559. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2559 by Truitt. Relating to commercial motor vehicle installment sales.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this just reorganizes the law to make it easier to understand for commercial and consumer motor vehicle transactions. Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2559? Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2559. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Being 148 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2559 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2904. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2904 by Zerwas. Relating to the administration of the Glenda Dawson Donate Life-Texas Registry.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this is the bill that transfers the administration of the Glenda Dawson Donate Life-Texas Registry to the three federally certified OPO's.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairm an, would the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Dr. Zerwas , I just want to take a moment. And there's many of us that came in in the 2003, in the 78th Session, that had a great admiration for Glenda Dawson, our colleague. I just want to take this moment for us to acknowledge what an amazing lady she was. And every time I go into to get my license renewed and I get to check off that mark to support this and see Glenda Dawson's name it really it lifts my spirit. She loved this institution and she loved Texas, and she mainly loved children out there, schoolchildren. And she was a great member of this body. And it brings me -- just to see her name here brings me great memories of a great lady who had great love for all of us.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Chairman Phillips. Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Eissler, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Mr. Speaker, will Dr. Zerwas yield?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, sir. I just had one thing to add, of course, I was a classmate of Glenda Dawson, who was just fantastic. Thirty-three years as a wonderful school teacher. And she used to tell this story and, of course, I would remember this; where she encountered a student in the haul way and said son, do you have an I.D.? and he said of what? So I wanted to add that to the Glenda Dawson memory bank. Thank you for doing this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Chairman Eissler.
WOMAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Zerwas, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE MYRS CROWNOVER: I would have to add to that Glenda Dawson could tell the funniest jokes of any human in this building. One night we had delightful evening of amazing stories. She is missed and you freshman really missed a treat, not getting to know Glenda. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Dr. Zerwas, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Dr. Zerwas, are you aware of the story that I think applies to your bill, Glenda Dawson as a schoolteacher doing dialysis every day and sitting in a waiting room of a dialysis clinic and, as you know, she was very friendly and visiting to the gentleman next to her, and he asking her what do you do? And she says what do you mean, what do I do? He says what do you mean, what do I do? I'm on dialysis. I'm in dialysis every day. And she said so am I, and I teach school every day, and my life goes on and I live my life. That's one of the great memories that I have of Glenda. She proved you could life your live to its fullest regardless of what medical challenges you may face. She may not have preached that word to those in those waiting rooms with her, but I wanted to make sure you knew that. Thank you for what you've done.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Chairman Bonnen. And, Mr. Speaker, I would just add that my chief of staff is one of the former legislative aides to Glenda Dawson, and has been a great mover and a great inspiration to me in terms of moving this bill forward. And I would also say that I think the position we're taking in moving the administration to the OPO's, which I think it will I think dramatically increase the number of donors that we have is exactly what Representative Glenda Dawson would have us do and so, with that, Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2904? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2904. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2904 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 3174. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB3174 by Madden. Relating to the state of recognition or enforcement of a foreign country judgment to allow for the de novo review by a contract or agreement for a sale, offer for sale, or sell under the Securities Act.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with states of recognition for enforcements of foreign country judgments to allow de novo reviews of an agreement with the DTPA or Securities Act. I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Is there anyone wishing to Speaker for or against House Bill 3174? Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3164. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 144 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 3174 is finally passed. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on third reading House Bill 2605. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2605 by Taylor. Relating to the continuation and functions of the division of Workers' Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the Division of Workers' Compensation Sunset Bill we passed yesterday. We do have one amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Riddle.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Members, this is simply a correcting amendment from yesterday saying that we would add volunteer firefighters and volunteer E.M.S.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Riddle sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative -- Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we just had a brief discussion in making sure that this is the correct process, and we've established that. And now we're going to visit on this amendment. Members, let me get your attention for a minute. And the reason I did that is because this is an issue that we all deal with, every single one of us. You heard Mr. Phillips, you heard Mr. Zedler, the issue of Workers' Comp. has been an issue that has had plenty of discussion, plenty of debate. For those of you who are new members, this issue costs a ton of special sessions, a ton of special sessions. Because there was a big debate on how we work the Workers' Compensation system and what's better, and what was decided -- and that was decided back in 1989; a couple of decades ago. But one of the things -- one of the things I can tell you that we can still debate and we can still have a discussion on, is the rights of workers, the rights of the injured worker; and this is issue about this amendment, and I ask each and every one of you to think about this. And let me tell what you the thought is. The thought is when the person, an injured person, an injured worker goes to see the doctor, and the injured worker disagrees with the the doctor, it is very hard -- very hard for him to get another opinion. Listen to what I'm saying. You will hear many, many, many times from constituents many, many, many times, from constituents, many times, that they want a fair opportunity. As Mr. Phillips put it out, you know, sometimes you put the person back to work and he's injured, he's injured. That's why this is a bipartisan effort, because it affects the injured person. There's a lot of -- there's a lot of ways that both the insurance company, the workers, the employers help. What we're trying to do with this amendment -- what we're trying to do with this amendment is to give the injured worker a fair opportunity. Members, I wanted to bring this up because when I heard the debate I know a lot of you, you know, were probably busy, probably working on your bills. And people will come and they will see you on the phone, they see you on the computer, I know you-all are dealing with your constituents, you are dealing with your bills. But on this one -- on this one, I think about the injured worker that all he or she wants is an opportunity. And let me tell you -- let me tell you, Mr. Taylor will come up in a minute and say we already voted this amendment up or down yesterday, and that is correct. This is the same Zedler amendment. Under the rules we are allowed to do that. I will tell you I will not do this again. I will, you know, if I'm doing to offer an amendment in the future I'm going to make sure that it's a little bit different, a little bit more about a different topic. And very few times, and but because this is such an important issue, members, this is such an important issue. As you decide to vote on this amendment, please remember all the phone calls you get from people that say they don't have a lawyer, you can't get represented. The Workers' Compensation system is there, but at least this amendment would give them another fair shot. With that, members, I ask you to please vote in favor of this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You know, this is the same exact amendment we dealt with yesterday. We had over a hundred votes to table. But just let me remind you, talk about '89 we made significant reforms in 1995 to Workers' Compensation. Since then, it's much improved. There's fewer claim disputes, lower insurance rates, fewer lost days of work and we have better return to work and employers are happier with the system we have today. I'm going to ask you to move to table and vote with me on the motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for not asking to table. I appreciate that. That's a small victory. But, members, again, yeah, I hear Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor has done a lot of work. And I'm going to vote for this bill. I'm going to vote for this bill because there's a lot of reforms that have been done on Workers' Compensation. I know this issue has been around for years. I know that -- I can tell you that the injured workers are hearing us. I can tell you with this they're going know that we made an effort on something that's very important to them. You know, health is very important. We see Representative Lucio talking to each and every one of you on how you can better your health. Well, that's what we're trying to do with this amendment. We're trying to say we want healthy workers to get back to work and that healthy worker wants an opportunity to be heard. With that, members, I ask you to vote for this amendment and vote for a healthy worker. Thank you very much. Take it back. I thought -- he said he was going to vote up or down. I was hearing what you said but any way. Let me start all over again. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. No. But now that I have your attention, I do ask to you vote no on the motion to table and that's it, no more. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. Representative Taylor moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. Showing Representative Taylor voting aye. Representative Alonzo voting no. Show Representative Marquez voting no. Showing Representative Villarreal voting no. Have all voted? Being 94 ayes and 51 nays, motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Gallego because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Martinez. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Anyone wishing to go speak for or against House Bill 2605? Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2605. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 2605 has finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB423. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB423 by Lucio. Relating to health insurance coverage for eligible survivors of certain public servants killed in the line of duty.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday on second reading that has to do with allowing the surviving spouses and family members of those first responders killed in the line of duty. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 423? Question occurs on final passage of SB423. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and 0 nays, SB423 has finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB691. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB691 by Estes. Relating to the exemption from permitting by groundwater conservation districts for certain water wells used for domestic, livestock, and poultry watering purposes.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill that clarifies conditions that are required for a well to be declared exempt by a ground water conservation district, that we visited with yesterday. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 691? The question occurs on final passage of SB691. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 146 ayes and 0 nays, Senate Bill 691 has finally passed. Representative Berman? Chair recognizes Representative Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1435.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR1435. Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: HR1435 by Berman. Honoring Robert W. Cartwright for his 30 years of service to the Texas Nursery & Landscape Association.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Callegari for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker , members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1165 in honor of the Oakmont Health Care and Rehab Center of Katy.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR1165.
CLERK: HL1165 by Callegari. WHEREAS, The Oakmont Healthcare and Rehab Center of Katy has earned distinction for the high-quality care it offers patients; And WHEREAS, Oakmont of Katy was among 32 facilities in Texas recognized in 2009 for outstanding commitment to continuous quality improvement (CQI) with the Step I National Quality Award from the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living; the center was subsequently named the Texas CQI Home of the Year in 2010 by its corporate owner, Diversicare Management Services of Tennessee, which has also presented the Center with an Innovation Award; and. WHEREAS, Additionally, Nursing Home Compare, a tool on Medicare.gov, has bestowed a five-star overall rating, its highest Ranking, on Oakmont of Katy, and the Department of Aging and Disability Services has given Oakmont a 75 out of 100, a score well Above the statewide average for facilities of its kind; and WHEREAS, Dedicated to helping patients achieve their highest level of independence, Oakmont Healthcare and Rehab Center of Katy enhances patient confidence through compassionate care and excellent service, and the facility serves as a valuable resource to area families; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Oakmont Healthcare and Rehab Center of Katy on the high ratings it has received and extend to its staff sincere best wishes for continued success in their important Work; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the center as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker , members, it is my pleasure to honor and offer this resolution in honor of the distinction and national recognition that Oakmont Healthcare Rehab Center of Katy has earned. It's a great facility. I've had some opportunity to become more familiar with them, they do a very, very great job. Also I want to use this opportunity to talk to our members, and particularly Appropriation members, it is important that we do provide proper funding for our nursing homes and I ask you to consider that. Here on the podium with me is the administrator of Oakmont, Mr. Ken Washington, and director of operations for Oakmont Healthcare, Ms. Terry Stefanovitch (inaudible). Please help me welcome them here. I would also like to recognize members of Oakmont who are up in the gallery. Would y'all please stand? Members of the Oakmont Healthcare up in the gallery, please stand. Members, thank you for helping me to honor this great institution. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 1633 on second reading. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1633 by Bonnen. Relating to a person's ability to read and write English as a qualification for service as a petit juror.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker , members, this bill -- Simply, current law says that you must be able to read and write to serve on a jury. And this simply adds the word English. The reason for this, it was brought to me by local prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys and judges; and the unfortunate situation is that currently, with not having the word English in there, what occurs is that the judge does not have the accountability and responsibility for ensuring that these folks are qualified to serve. And it then leaves it to a bit of a negotiation between attorneys as to whether to strike a juror. We've had one specific instance in a murder trial where a juror was set, and approached the bench and the judge at the very beginning of that trial, and explained to the judge that he did not understand any of what was occurring and what was going on. And then the judge was in the unfortunate position of having to, in essence, negotiate between both attorneys as to how to deal with the fact that they had set a juror who was not qualified. And then the more offensive and unfair part is that they chose, they agreed, the attorneys, they agreed to strike the judge on the grounds that the juror was unable -- was physically or mentally impaired, which he was not, which he was not. And I think that is inappropriate and unfair. So it simply allows the judge the ability to take control of this process. Thirty-seven other states in the nation require the word English in their law. So this is a common sense bill that is to help allow our judicial process work efficiently and respectfully for everyone involved.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Walle , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Would the gentleman yield just for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Bonnen , would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be happy to yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Representat ive Bonnen, thank you for your bill. And I just have a few questions. And I know there's a line behind me and I'll be respectful of their time and your time as well. But would you agree that jury duty is an important civic duty?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: One of the concerns that was brought to my attention about your bill would be that it could potentially preclude citizens who are from Puerto Rico, whose primary language is Spanish, from discharging him or her civic duty to serve on a jury.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, I think the simplest answer would be if they can speak English they would fine. Current law says they need to be able to read and write. Thirty-seven other states require this. Federal law, federal courts this is currently required. We're not changing -- We're not coming up with a paradigm shift here, we're frankly getting in line with what already exists to make sure our judicial system is fair and efficient.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Good. And can you briefly explain parts of your bill? Under current law, what happens if a juror is able to comprehend English but can't read or write English? How does that -- How do we make that assessment so that we don't go too far in -- in -- is there a test that will be given?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, there's no test that's given and you're well aware of that. I want to be clear, it's already law that you have to be able to read and write, which is already a requirement. And, presumably, you can understand then the language. Literacy is already -- literacy is already a requirement of Texas law and the individual judge currently makes a determination whether a juror can read and write, since its already a requirement. It would be exactly the same process to determine whether a juror can read and write English, as we have today. And, frankly, it actually makes it more clear for the jury process.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: So what I'm gathering is that you're codifying what's already existing practice or how does that --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Largely, I think -- I don't know. I don't want to represent to the House we're doing exactly that. But largely I think you can, in a simplistic way, you can say that's what we're doing.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: But are there any --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: What we're really doing, Representative, is we're making it -- and this is what the judge made the point on, what we're really doing is putting the control back into the hands and that authority where legally it's supposed to lie, of the judge. And we're not leaving it as a negotiation between lawyers, and we're not leaving it to the responsibility to of the lawyers to figure out and establish whether someone can read and write English or what have you. We're putting that back to the judge.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: That's sort of the concern, how do you determine, is there an assessment --
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No. You determine it the way you currently determine it, and we're actually trying to create more clear and direct authority to the judge to be responsible and accountable to deal with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Do you believe that maybe this potentially could be an unfunded mandate for those courts?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, I actually believe we're ensuring that there's not an unfunded mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. So how -- could you explain on that? How is it not an unfunded mandate on those?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Because we're actually making it clearer as to what is required of them, instead of leaving it open to what could be.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. Thank you, Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you very much. I appreciate your questions.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Lewis , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I would be happy to yield to the judge.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Chairman, I have a few questions of you. In any trial, is the main thing in any trial is that the parties get a fair trial?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And that's really why we're going to all those procedures and all that trouble, so they'll get a fair trial, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And if you have jurors who cannot understand what's going on, not have the basic ability to read and write or understand the testimony, then would that deprive the parties of a fair trial?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It would be very depriving of any individual that comes into that courtroom, and I want to be clear, it doesn't matter who that individual is, what their background is, what their understanding is; but that individual who is a party to that trial would be deprived a fair trial.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And what your statute would do, or your bill would do, it would clear up in these statutes that when we use the phrase read and write, we're talking about the basic ability to read and write the English language, and that the trials would be in English; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: That is absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The courts, it would bring the statute, the written statute in line with what the courts have decided; which is that read and write means the English language, so it just clarifies and confirms that the courts are right and what they have decided for a hundred years; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Judge what the reality of it is is that the case law is there that says they've decided read and write English, and what we're ensuring that we're able to do is actually codify that in statute so that they're no longer relying on case law, and they're no longer having to negotiate between opposing counsels.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It's a very good bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Judge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Spe aker, would the gentleman yield? Parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Alonzo , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I'd like to raise a point of order against further consideration of House Bill 1633 on Rule 4, Section 32C of the rules of the House, 82nd Legislature -- on the grounds --
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Bring your point of order down here, Mr. Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Members, the House will stand at ease for five minutes to allow the parliamentarian to research the point of order.
(The House stands at ease.) Members, Representative Alonzo raises a point of order. The Chair has reviewed the point of order and it is respectfully overruled. Members, we're back on HB1633. Members, that concludes the amendment. Is there anyone that wishes to speak on, for, or against House Bill 1633? Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: I had actually a question for Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Bonne n will be closing in just one moment. The opportunity would be there to ask questions.
REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Very good.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to speak against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I rise to speak against this bill. Members, please look at this bill. I know that for the most part folks would think this is about English and Spanish. Well, no, members, let me tell you what this is about. This is about each one of our districts.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker , would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Represent ative Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: A question.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Represent ative Alonzo, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: In a few minutes.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Fair enough.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: He does not yield yet, Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you. Members, again, this is about each one of our districts. If you look at the bill, if you look at the bill, the bill says you must know how to read and write English. Regardless of where you're from, according to the research I've done through our Texas Legislative Reference Library, there are -- 33 percent of our population can't read, all over the state. And in each county there's a percentage of people that cannot read, regardless -- regardless of if you're black, brown or white or Asian. This bill is about knowing how to read and write English. Let me tell you just a little bit about where I'm going. One of the debates that we had when it came to the voter I.D., voter I.D. was there are some folks that are not going to have an I.D. to be able to vote. There are some folks all over the state, all over the state, all over the state that cannot read and write English. They understand English, they know English, they have common sense; but with this bill we're saying that they can't be a juror. Let me tell you, members, I was at the hearing two years ago. It was one judge, one district attorney, one defense attorney that said this was a problem. I'm from Dallas County, we've got thousands of people. Harris County has thousands of people. San Antonio has thousands of people. El Paso has thousands of people. The valley has thousands of people. West Texas has thousands of people. Have you heard anybody from any one of our districts and Moore County asking for a change in this system? The answer a no. The reason they haven't come and asked you for a change, because there's no need for a change. Just because one judge, one D.A., one defense attorney says there's a problem, now we've got to fix the problem for the whole world? For the whole world, members, for the whole world. For one county, one D.A., one district judge, and one defense attorney. So, members, let me tell you, I ask that you vote no on this bill. There's no need for this bill. Let me tell you why there's no need. There are so many technical things that a person has to deal with when they serve as a juror. It could be about silence, it about an accident, it could be about a murder trial. What the law says, and for years, and years, and years, it's worked. If it worked, and worked for so long for Texas then why change it? I ask that you vote no on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Represent ative Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: A question.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Alonzo , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Alonzo, were you in the hearing this year when the bill was brought up?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: No.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Have you reviewed it?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: The bill? Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Have you reviewed the hearing?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: No.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Are you aware that Representative Thompson expressed her support of the bill and voted for the bill out of committee, and the reason that she gave, Mr. Alonzo, is that a trial that she was involved in in Harris County, they had the exact problem of having a juror who did not know how to read or write English. And her exact quote was, this is good judicial efficiency. This is an issue and it is not an issue, with all due respect, would you not agree that is simply, as you stated; and I take offense to, about Spanish or English? That is not the issue here.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: And I said that.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: You began your conversation, Mr. Alonzo --
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I said that. Let me repeat, I said this is not about just English and Spanish, it's about common sense, about common sense. And, Mr. Bonnen, I do have the House Research Organization report, and it does indicate just as you indicated, it indicated that 11 people voted aye, which I guess are all members of the committee. Just because the members voted aye, that's why, Mr. Bonnen, we have the opportunity to come before this body and express our concerns and our feelings and our opinions, and what we think it should be. So I thank the body for allowing me to do that, and that's why I express my -- my feelings, my desires, my issues. And my request to you, members, is that you vote no on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Alonzo , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Than k you, Mr. Alonzo. I'm a lawyer and you're a lawyer?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: The way the statute reads now, this statute is related to jury selection; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And so it's related to whether or not a lawyer will have an opportunity at some point during the voir dire, or after voir dire, to actually strike a juror for cause?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Is that the way you understand it? And the way the language is written now in the statute it just says read and write, but it doesn't say read and write what.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And so I'm trying to figure out now, if this bill didn't pass would it change -- Well, I guess what I'm trying to understand is if this bill passes or it doesn't pass what's going to change?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I don't think much will change, but I think what is important is that people understand, that you don't have to be able to read or write English to be able to be a juror.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Now some states, some states use the term read, write or understand English. There are a number of people who don't read English, there are a number of people, unfortunately, who don't write English. I mean, I'm talking about people who are native to Texas who don't -- who can't write and who can't read English. But most of them understand English. And I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if we just take Mr. Bonnen's bill and simply add the word English, how does that really change what goes on today? Because I assume that the court can only make a determination based on whether or not a person reads and writes English. I assume that's the only thing they can do. They wouldn't do it on a basis of read and write some other language, and so it would have to be English. And so I'm a little curious as to whether or not this bill passing changes life for me as a lawyer, during the jury selection process, at all. And I'm really struggling with it, because, as you know, I was asking questions before this bill got postponed last week, and I was -- I'm still kind of in a -- somewhat of a conundrum, because I'm not sure for this bill makes any difference or against this bill makes any difference.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Well, I think it does make a difference, Mr. Dutton, because we're trying to tell the people that what really counts here is common sense. And, members, as you know, right now, if an attorney wanted to strike a person they can strike them for whatever reason, they get a certain amount of strikes right now and they can do it on their own right now. So they're able to strike somebody if they want to. What we're doing here is adding another layer here for years, and it continues to work and --
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well , I guess that's what I'm getting at. So at some point, if, as a lawyer, I want to say to the judge, juror No. 37 I don't believe can read and write. Do I have to say that they can't read and write English, or do I have to just say that they just can't read and write, under this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: My understanding, under this bill, you would have to require the ability to read and write English.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay . And once I raise that, as a lawyer, how is the judge going make the determination as to whether or not that's a strike for cause?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: There's no, you know, criteria for that. There's no criteria for that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: So you don't -- As one of my law friends says, if you want to have a jury of your peers maybe --
JOE STRAUS: A point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker , members, I need to be very clear. Current law allows a person to request an exemption if they have a physical or mental impairment or inability to comprehend the English language. It's current law. All this bill is trying to do is create efficiency in the court so that the Judge has an ability to address this issue appropriately, as 37 other states and the federal government already do. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1633? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1633. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. A record vote is being requested. Record vote granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Showing Representative Bohac voting aye. Have all voted? Being 111 ayes and 31 nays, 3 present not voting; House Bill 1633 is passed to engrossment. Excuse the Redistricting Committee members for the District Committee meeting on the motion of Representative Brown. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Chair lays out on postponed business House Bill 743. Chair will call Representative Sheffield. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB743 by Sheffield. Relating to requiring a public institution of higher education to notify the federal student and exchange visitor information system regarding the withdrawal or nonattendance of certain foreign students.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Chair lays out on postponed business House Bill 229. Clerk will read the bill. Representative Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker , for parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Why is it that the Redistricting Committee is meeting in a room with no live broadcast on internet available, while the House is in session?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: The House gave the committee permission to meet while the House is in session several days ago.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Correct, but why is that occurring without the public, the possibility for the public to be able to view? We have several committee rooms that are available now that have a possibility of internet and TV broadcast but are not --
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Chair has not been advised.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Could the Chair become advised?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: You're welcome to visit with the committee Chair, who is down front. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 229. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB229 by Solomons. Relating to the duties of the county tax assessor collector and voter registrar regarding exemptions from jury service.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Mr. Spea ker and members, the bill is over and eligible now, so I would like to use this.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair lays out Senate Bill 85. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB85 by Nelson. Relating to the duty of the county tax assessor, collector and voter registrar regarding exemptions from jury service.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Senate Bill is identical to my House Bill 229. The bill simply strikes tax assessor collectors and the references from the government code and certain voter registrars in certain counties to directly -- direct control of document commission and retention of usage if they so choose. It's not mandatory, it's optional. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, the question occurs on passage of House Bill or Senate Bill 85 to second reading -- third reading. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 85 passes to third reading. Representative Solomons moves to lay out House Bill 229 on the table subject to call. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 346. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB346 by Kleinschmidt. Relating to the award of costs and attorney's fees in certain proceedings concerning mechanics, contractors or materialmans' liens.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, the Senate Companion Bill 539 is over and eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, Senate Companion to House Bill 346 is over and eligible for part of Senate Bill 539. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB539 by Carona. Relating to the award of costs and attorney's fees in certain proceedings concerning mechanics, contractors, or materialmans liens.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, Senate Bill 539 allows in lien disputes between homeowners and mechanic liens and contractors and subcontractors. It changes the current lien language from may obtain attorney's fees to shall recover attorney's fees.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: For what purpose, Representative Eiland?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Representative Kleinschmidt, I know we've talked about this and I want to make sure that I have a proper understanding of what your bill does. So if I'm building a house and I hire a general contractor, and this general contractor hires three subs, if I keep my 10 percent retainage, but yet the sub put a lien on the property; because that would be a proper way for the subs to protect their interest, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: If the general contractor screws up, but the lien on the property is against me, it's not against the general contractor, so those subs from the general contractor recover can they -- because they're going to name me also, will I be liable? Because, you know, a good chance the home builder, the contractor is off in the Bahamas; will I have to pay for those sub contractors' attorney's fees?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: It would depend, Representative Eiland, on whether the Court -- the award with the general contractor or the judgment was against the homeowner. If the subs, you know, the judgment ended up being against the homeowner successfully, well, then yes, the Court should award attorney's fees. If the judgment is just against the contractor, between the contractor and the sub contractor, the attorney's fees award should only be against the contractor.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. Well, if I keep my 10 percent retainage, if the contractor is gone, absconded, not around; how can -- can I be liable to the sub contractors as the home owner, if the general contractor did not pay them properly?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: If you properly kept your 10 percent retainage, did what the law requires, then based on that; attorney's fees would not be awarded against the homeowner.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And how do I know that? What I want to make sure is that homeowners don't get stuck with mandatory attorney's fees from some sub contractor that's filed a lien on their property. If the sub contractor has properly filed a lien, but yet the owner was not the one who, you know, cheated them.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Right. Right. As you know, all of these types of liens have to be foreclosed in a court of law. They're not foreclosed in any other fashion. And so if the court, once the court finds that the homeowner did everything properly under the law, there would be no judgment against the homeowner. He would, in essence, he's got his 10 percent retainage. He could pay it to the registry of the court to pay whatever. But he's complied with the law, he's got no fault. There would be no judgment against him.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. But now let's take it to the next step. Let's say I'm the homeowner I've, you know, hired somebody I think is a good home builder or general contractor, and I don't withhold my 10 percent retainage. I think everything is fine and the sub contractors did not get paid by the general contractor, a lien is placed on my property. I'm brought in. I didn't have my 10 percent retainage and can I now be stuck mandatorily with those sub contractor's attorney's fees?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: You would be liable for at least a 10 percent retainage that you should have, statutorily.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I understand that it's statutorily, but that's part of what they are owed, I'm talking about the attorney's fees that it takes them to get that 10 percent retainage.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: I suppose if the Court awards and makes the fine in favor of the sub contractor against the homeowner, I think that could be.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yeah. I think so, too. And I think that's what concerns me. I think your bill was well intentioned, but I'm concerned for home owners and home builders and people that are building homes, they might get stuck with attorney's fees for something they are not responsible for.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Well, I think what you're going to find in those instances, you know, we still have -- The court still has to find reasonable and necessary attorney fees. I think what you're going to find in the discretion of the court is that the court doesn't think that the homeowners should incur fees if they've got a mandatory possibility, the homeowner is going to find reasonable necessary deeds to be quite low or nonexistent, to that extent. This lien this bill also helps -- you understand it helps the homeowner, if there's a wrongful lien placed on their property, it helps the homeowner recover attorney's fees and gets that lien removed, also.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: But before the Judge would have discretion to say homeowner you didn't do anything wrong, you hired a bad builder or bad contractor who took off with the money but you didn't do anything wrong itself. I'm not going to charge you anything that you have to pay this retainage or whatever. But under this bill as it is written now that a homeowner could get stuck for the attorney's fees of the sub contractors to recover that 10 percent retainage.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Well, I don't think an innocent homeowner would because an innocent homeowner shouldn't have a judgment rendered against him by the court.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Anyone wishing to go speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 539 Chair? Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to speak on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I think before we speak for this we need to make sure we understand all the ramifications, because I believe there's going to be circumstances where an innocent homeowner under this law will be mandatory to pay the attorney's fees of sub contractors when the general contractor has run off and gone hiding. And I'm very concerned about that. Where as now, the judge could say look, you got to pay some but you don't have to pay attorney's fees. You're going to have to pay for the retainage that you held out on, you got to pay for what you owe but you don't have to pay attorney's fees. But I'm just concerned that the judge doesn't have the discretion, given the fact of the innocent homeowner.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Hello. There we go. You know I think the bill itself is well intended. I guess my question to you would be to alleviate that the question that you have about the home owner getting stuck with the attorney's fees, is there a way to put an amendment on this bill that would clarify that that would be acceptable to the author? I think that would be worth discussing.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: What I think you might want to do is pull the bill down and, you know, for the amendment or wait for the amendment, whatever y'all decide.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield, I mean Representative Kleinschmidt; I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: I'm postponing to consideration. Can we postpone temporarily? Until 1:00 o'clock today? 1:00 p.m.?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 115. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB115 by McClendon. Relating to the creation of a commission to investigate convictions after exoneration and to prevent wrongful convictions.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you Mr. Speaker and members. I move to postpone House Bill 115 until the end of the calendar.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business, second reading House Bill 521. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB521 by Elkins. Relating to the applicability of certain laws governing cooperations to limited liability companies.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative allicins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Senate Bill is over and eligible.
JOE STRAUS: Members, the Senate Companion House bill is over and eligible to House Bill 521. The Chair lays out Senate Bill 323. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB323 by Carona. Relating to applicability of certain laws governing corporations to limited liability companies.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 323 is the business organization code providing managers of limited liability companies. It has to do with some court cases and it shows that the LLC laws are the same as the corporate laws. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 323, question occurs on the passage to engrossment of senate Bill 323. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 323 is passed to engrossment. Representative Elkins to move House Bill 521 to table. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2694. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2694 by Smith of Harris. Relating to the continuation of functions of a Texas commission on environmental quality and abolishing the on-site waste water treatment research counsel.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, members. This is the TC to the Sunset Bill. I'd like to go back in history a little bit. On April the 19th, which is today, on April the 19th, 2001, was the last time this Sunset Bill was heard. So we're even exactly ten years later doing it. And it was done by the same -- by the Representative from the same districts I represent. So there's some either as far as aligning or not aligning, whichever the case might be. Representative Chisum was Chairman of Environmental at that time and Representative Jeff (inaudible), which I replaced nine years ago. This is -- Committee Substitute House Bill 2694 is a Sunset Bill, and they are on the side of the waste water research counsel. Sunset commission found that Texas has a clear and ongoing need to regulate environmental quality, but DCQ needs changes to be effective on its core duties. TCEQ, the committee substitute to House Bill 2694 continues to TCEQ for 12 years and puts structures in place to ensure that TCEQ can identify and take action against regulated entities appropriately, the board is transparent in a way that communicates decisions and it has a proper way of funding mechanism in place to meet its responsibilities great ability and transparent simultaneously for TCEQ important process improves TCEQs ability to enforce action. The TCEQ approach to allow to agency to use it as a meaningful tool to target regulation. It also enhances TCQ's public assistance function, gives TCEQ tools to (inaudible) ground water contamination and leaking underground storage tanks, transfer the responsibility from making ground water protection recommendation from TCEQ to the railroad commission. They will adjust the water regulatory assessment fee to the same 1 percent for all types of utilities for paying for regulatory cost and eliminates existing water and waste water utility fees clarify the executive directors authority to actively manage water rights and permits hotel water use during shortages or droughts, creates a structure for the legislature to fund the allow level radioactive waste for compact and at the on-site research water treatment counsel which is a separate entity with its own sunset date but it abolish that is counsel and TCEQ continues to make a grant. Committee put this up this morning and they took 31 minutes, so members, it's a challenge to see if we can beat the Senate one more time.
JOE STRAUS: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. It's on page one.
CLERK: Amendment by Smith of Harris.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: This amendment indicates that a commission may enter into an agreement with landowners on the land safety issue. There's been a number of you that have been talking about the land safety issue. This allows TCEQ to enter into agreement with the propertier. The land safety issue will discuss more in a few more minutes but it allows communication to exist between TCEQ and the land owners and opportunity to have an agreement and the opportunity to establish some timelines for the work that the landowner that I need to do. It will be my recommendation to Speaker and the interim for us to take up land safety as interim study issue. So that's what that amendment does. And I accept it.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Smith sends up the amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Smith of Harris.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment on page 137, line 27, where it is establishing fees. The bill lists some minimum fees. This strikes those minimum fees and allows that that funds that they cannot exceed what they comprehend to exceed and I --
JOE STRAUS: Representative Smith sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. On page 3 in the packet, the following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Smith of Harris.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Yes, the amendment that we're discussing up here is the amendment in the sunset commission consideration they felt that the regulatory fees are water districts and investor owned utilities should be equated or, actually, should be made equitable. Currently, the industrial investor owned utilities, say 1 percent, whereas the water district only say half a percent. There is an amendment to the amendment that -- that is forthcoming. But I move that we accept this amendment to the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 5 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 6 is temporarily withdrawn. On page 7 the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Shelton.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton. page eight. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Reynolds.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment seeks to specifically define the misstatement of the TCEQ and asks for protection of human health as part of the definition of the water code. This amendment simply states that part of the responsibility of TCEQ is to make sure that the security of each of our constituents are accounted for. This stands to help make sure the agency is accountable to protect not just the environment but also against human health.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Reynolds, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Can you tell us why this amendment is necessary?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely. This amendment is necessary because TCEQ doesn't have a codified mission statement.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And why the interest on human health?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Because there is a need to ensure that the balance -- need to support a sustainable economic agreement with the needs to protect the environment without sacrificing human health in between.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And are there certain communities more adversely effected by environmental degradation?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes, absolutely. Poor and low income communities.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So you would say this is an issue in environmental --
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Phillips.
JOE STRAUS: Is Representative Phillips on the floor of the House? Representative Phillips on the floor of the House? Amendment to the amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker , members, this was actually considered by the Sunset Commission and we made the decision not to do this. We have an agency that deals with public health in the State of Texas. I also want to --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: In a moment, I would be glad to. I have a few quick comments. Representative Burnam, I want you to know I also remove the situation in the current mission statement. And let me first tell you the mission statement is simply on the web, is it the mission web, it is does not codify. We also made the decision it shouldn't be codified in statute, but it also removes the portion of the mission statement that says trying to protect our state natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development. That portion is removed from Mr. Reynolds' amendment, so we would respectfully ask that this amendment be tabled for many reasons, that demonstrate the reasons by adding this language; which I'd be honored to yield to Mr. Burnam. Oh, no, Mr. Anchia is up.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Question for Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, Mr. Anchia is present, so I'm glad to yield to him for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And I just want to clarify something, Representative Bonnen. I seem to recall that we or we had adopted a change to either the mission statement or the purpose, can you recall what it was?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yeah, what we actually did was we requested that the commission include in their mission statement -- we did a directive TCEQ.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Correction action.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: I remember we had done something on that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: That's exactly right, Representative Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I would be honored to yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Representative Bonnen, isn't it true that while the health department exists and has all sorts of responsibilities, that much of TCEQ falls under the regulation under the health code? In fact, we'll see several amendments today in reference to the health code.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: You are right. But I want to be clear, one of the major issues here -- we're not currently -- I want to make sure members understand, currently the mission statement of TCEQ, it's kind of funny. During the hearing, hey, where's this mission statement come from on your website? And they say oh, just staff came up with it and we put it out there. I don't believe it's appropriate to create a statutory mission statement and put in to the law -- Let me finish. The other point is that currently the statement says strives to protect our state's human and natural resources. I mean, that is pretty conclusive.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Don't you think it would be more conclusive if we specifically made reference to public health issues that this agency is supposed to be addressing?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I think you have the right to that point of view, but there are those of us that are concerned that this could be used as an opportunity to create a more litigious situation and permits, and in other scenarios, by putting this exact language in their statute in their mission statement. And I think a lot of us don't want to create more lawsuits being viable in that record.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chairman, I'm having a difficult time following that thinking. What do you mean that adding to consideration?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It would create a new cause action for a tort.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That is not a tort, even on this House floor to make -- it would not create a cause of action, all it does is the principle of law is being stated up front that one of the major resources -- the agency exists to protect public health, and I cannot understand why you would oppose that up front, that pre-amble to the statement of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And I can't understand why you oppose protecting our state's human and natural resources within the the sustainable economic development.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I simply am suggesting, only stating human resources without clarifying health issues, that is what it states here, and we should be more direct and honest with the general public.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Unfortunate ly, you and I are going to have to continue to disagree, since we've done together 15 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
JOE STRAUS: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I would be honored to yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Did you say or did I mishear you when you said in a there was a misunderstanding in the health department statute?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, what I said is that we have an entire agency responsible for human health.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Did you say something about their mission statement?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, I did not.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: We have one, and do you know what the connection is between that and this agency?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: What is it?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The connection is that they're dealing with health and human services, and this is dealing what's stated from their mission statement, which is protecting our state's human and natural resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And can you tell us where that overlaps; the concerns of those two agencies, where they overlap?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I couldn't tell you specifically, no.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So you can't really say then that you have an agency that's overseeing the health aspects of the TCEQ?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, no. I never said that they're overseeing the health aspects of TCEQ. I actually asked Representative -- former Representative, Fred (inaudible), I said why is public health not somewhere in the mission statement? And his comment to me was well, when we did the TCEQ Sunset nine years ago, we made the addition that you have a department of health and have a specific mission of being concerned with public health. And so we decided that we would leave that to them. And we (inaudible) dealing with protecting our state's human and natural resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Are you aware that in the Sunset Review that TCEQ is highly criticized for public participation and for its public advocacy, and so you may have a different need to go around in this Sunset process than you have prior?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And I want to be clear that they were criticized by the public.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And the public doesn't matter?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, no. I want to be clear, I want to be clear to membership, though, it was public comment; it was not Sunset staff and my --
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I can imagine that would be the alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I want to be clear, though, that my experience; you usually have a group of the public who is very concerned. But I would caution the members to know that public participation in this process is actually as open as it's ever been.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: You said something about a local group, are you diminishing their participation?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Not at all. There will always be a group of citizens that are vocal, and probably believe there ought to be a greater position with public input, that anybody can be an effective party; for the most part, on any case in TCEQ.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: It sounds like to me that you're diminishing the ones who are more vocal.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. That's far from what I'm trying to do. Members, I move to table the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: House recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Speaker, members, out of courtesy to Representative Davis, she would like to add an amendment to the amendment. So I'm going to withdraw my motion to table my amendment for the moment and I will be courteous to Ms. Davis and offer her amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Chairman Phillips is in a meeting and couldn't get up here and asked if I would offer the amendment to the amendment. And it's kind of restating the mission to protect human health and natural resources in this state, for maintaining sustainable economic development; the mission of those clean air, clean water in the state management. And he asks that I offer that, because it's important that we, as a state and state agency, at least put in statute the goals of a agency that deals with this kind of --
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Phillips.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. Again, members, this amendment was an amendment just to establish the commission's goals, so that we never lose sight that it is to protect human health, natural resources and the state, while maintaining sustainable economic development. The mission goals are clean air, clean water and state management of waste. And I understand the author would not like to have this language in statute. However, it was important for us to remember that the statute was -- substantially what kind of intent we have as a legislature, and it values that. And so I would ask that you-all support this amendment to the amendment and then the full amendment as we move forward.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Davis, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Chairwoman Davis, I just want to make sure you are carrying an amendment for Chairman Larry Phillips because he cannot be on the floor right now.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And that amendment not only lists state legislative intent to include health concerns, but maintained everything else that has ever been in here before, insofar as the concerns that the agency is supposed to be addressing?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct. His attempt is to clarify and it is said in statute what the mission is so, that it demonstrates what the values are in this legislature, what needs to be considered by this agency.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So in any given session we spend hours and house on this house floor establishing legislative intent. Larry Phillips' amendment clearly establishes that its legislative intent -- that this agency is supposed to be looking out for public health?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you for your clarifying amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I think this amendment is acceptable to author.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Reynolds amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bipartisan amendment. Chairman Phillips and I came up with this amendment basically to make sure that we are adding protection to TCEQ. Members, I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Members, this is pretty much the exact same conversation we just had. We made a decision in Sunset, I'd ask to make that same decision now, that we don't need to put the mission statement into statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I yield again.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Bonnen , are you aware -- I just got this information the Department of Agriculture, this mission statement to partner with all Texans to make Texas the leader in Texas agriculture, fortify our economy, provide rural communities -- promote healthy lifestyle and cultivate winning strategies for rural -- suburban and rural service and the common threads of agriculture and our daily lives. There is one that this Department, Texas Department of Insurance has that I would be glad to read to you, and also the Texas Education Agency also has a brief one to provide leadership guidance and resources to help students meet the educational needs of all students. Are you aware of any lawsuits that have resulted from any of these mission statements and what do you think would be an example of a lawsuit that could result from having this mission statement?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'm not familiar with that lawsuit on those other agencies, but I think they have very different responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: But all they are doing is saying what they would like their agency to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I understand. It's a steering wheel, isn't it? I think the agencies have very different responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield for a question, please?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, I would be glad to yield for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Chairman Bonnen, I appreciate you allowing us to amend this amendment. Tell me what is your objection with regard to the language of this amendment? Is it the language?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: We don't believe we should be putting a mission statement for this agency into statute.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Chairman , who determines what the responsibility of the legislature that determines -- or who has the responsibility to determine the mission of agencies? Is it the legislature or the governor?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I think it's a question that this body would have to ask themselves. To some extent I would argue that I think the mission, being it's a commission, I would argue that the governor of those commissions -- the executive manager of that agency should probably help guide the mission to that agency (inaudible) help guide it.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Do you think that Texas has a responsibility, has some opportunity or some has some role in defining what the mission of the various agencies we have is?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I think this Sunset Bill before us is overwhelming. I think you have a specific piece of legislation creating statute about many multiple different issues in front of this agency that would absolutely be pretty clear as to the commission the direction that we would expect they go.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And to restate that in terms of a mission statement, verses not restating it, tell me the harm it does to restate what the values are, based on what the different things we put in statute. Tell me about restating it. What is the harm?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I don't think we're restating it. I'm not saying that we're restating it. I think that you ask a question about does the legislature not have a role in what their mission or direction would be, and I think that we do and I think we do it through policy that we pass, and I don't think that we have to create a statutory requirement of what a mission statement is with which to do that. And I think there are concerns. Whether y'all agree with them or not, I respect that in doing so.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Are you suggesting if we were to restate, based on what this amendment does, it conflicts with any of the statutes that we deemed are reflective of our policy, would they be in conflict? In fact, the second part of my question is based on your conversation with regard this already being what you deemed a management issue, is it in convict with the management role as you see it?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'm not suggesting whether it is or is not in conflict. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's appropriate to put it in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. As it relates to when we have or what makes sense to put things in statute, can you define what makes this different? What is the defining difference of when something goes in statute or when it doesn't, from your perspective?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: From my perspective, we've never had this mission statement, TCEQ in statute, and I don't think we've ever had one.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Because we've never had it is not a basis for defining why we can't have it, can we argue that point?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: You ask me why we can't take that position and I tell you why.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I'm saying, based on what you're saying, because it never was; that's not really a reason why it can't be, is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'm not saying I'm absolutely correct.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Callegari raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time has expire. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak -- Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Again, members, I'm moving to table the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, members. I respect and appreciate Chairman Bonnen's position as it relates to this being a Sunset Bill. And we shouldn't be putting certain things in statute. However, I think that there's always unique situations and in this instance this mission and goal clarifies or establishes what our values are from a legislature in terms of what's important for our agencies. Many times, I know you said in hearings when agencies will say to you we weren't sure what the legislature meant, or what it needed to be; include this restatement of the values based on what we said or identical to the kinds of initiatives we put in place should not be offensive to put it in statute. If in fact we're saying it's consistent, we told our agency to do it at the management level. I think we, as a legislature, ought to take some responsibility for these things instead of shirking our responsibility and moving it to management. We, as legislatives, have an opportunity on this amendment to set out what our value system is, and for us to just make some arbitrary decision because they didn't have it in statute, we ought not do it now. It ought to be unacceptable. We came here to lead. This is your opportunity to lead by example. If you believe clean air, clean water and a safe management of waste water -- if you believe we ought to protect human health, that's our natural resources, why are we electing to put that in the statute? I would ask you, members, to think about what it is we're saying. We're not changing, we're not altering, we're just making sure that the statute reflects what we said to the agency what we want them to do. At some point we've got do say what we mean, and mean what we say, instead of giving these responsibilities of delegating our responsibility over to staff. And with that, members, I'd ask that you support this amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds to close.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Members, I think Representative Davis said it best. I strongly urge you to vote no on the motion to table so we can make sure that this session is more than just a soundingboard of committing interest, or rather can be sure that our constituents, children and family members are living in a reasonably safe environment. I move to vote no on motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Reynolds sends up an amendment. Representative Bonnen moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Bonnen voting aye. Showing Representative Reynolds voting aye. Showing Representative Hancock voting aye. Showing Representative Smith voting aye. Representative Farrar voting no. Have all voted? Being 88 ayes and 40 nays, motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Anderson for a recognition. CHARLES "DOC" ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Representative Beck. It's our honor today to recognize some students, the entire seventh grade class from St. Lewis Catholic School near Waco, and Representative Beck and I would like to welcome them to their Capitol. Would you-all please stand so we can recognize you? These are great future leaders, members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: Page 13. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, I have three revolving door prohibition amendments. They are all designed to the same issue, some of you even had the opportunity to look at the material. I know press has had the opportunity to look at that material. We have a extreme problem at this agency. The problem is quite simply too many commissioners and senior staff leave TCEQ to lobby on behalf of industries they were supposed to be regulating. At worst, this is an obvious conflict of interest for agency heads, handling for big bucks when they leave the agency. At best, there's a public perception problem with impropriety. Regardless of that, I want to make sure that you-all know that every single executive director, and all but one of the commissioners over the last ten years, have left the agency to become a very well paid, registered lobbyist. This clearly is contrary to the public interest. It clearly undermines the decision making process of the (inaudible) and it clearly undermines the perspective or the perception that the public has. The first amendment that is before you is for a four-year prohibition. I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, this is -- What this really does is it prohibits people to make a good honest leaving once they leave the agency. I don't think we ought to have these prohibitions, so I move that we table the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, I'm going to pull this amendment, which is the four year prohibition, four year revolving door prohibition.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, we're now on page 11. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, we're discussing the same revolving door problem that I discussed earlier, but in the interest of moderation, rather than prohibit their becoming registered lobbyists, (inaudible) four years this amendment simply says that they may not become a registered lobbyist for three years. You're going to have to find an honest way to make a living other than representing the people they were supposed to be regulating in the most recent years they have been at the TCEQ, either as a commissioner or as a director. And, if you're at all curious, I do have copies of this material and it is available to you online, listing every single executive director and commissioner and the line of lobbying that they went into immediately following their service either to the public, many of the people in the public feel like their service has been to themselves, in the capacity as either the director of the agency or the director. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, this is the same thing. We have good, qualified, intelligent, smart, hard working people at our agencies and to prohibit how they make a living when they leave here is I think just, disingenuous. I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'm going to withdraw this amendment that would prohibit these individuals in question for a three-year period for making a living advocating for the people they were so most recently supposedly regulating. I withdraw this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, we're on page 9. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, the third and last revolving door amendment that I have to offer to you today, and I am going lay this problem out to you very clearly, so if you would like to go to your screen to look at it. (Inaudible) was the director from '93 to '94. He retired to become a lobbyist to make almost anywhere between one and one-half million dollars each year lobbying on behalf of the agency that he was supposed to regulate. Dan Pearson was an executive director from '94 to '98, did the same thing. Only it may appear that he's making (inaudible) a year regulating the district lobbying for the industry he was supposed to regulate.
(Inaudible), executive director from '98 to 2002.
(Inaudible), 2004 to 2008, the same, only more shameful; given his record with Waste Management. John Hall was the Chair commission for '91 to '95, became a lobbyist making anywhere from five to ten million a year shortly after leaving his role as serving as Chair. Rafael Marquez, commissioner, '94 to 2006; the same. Lobbyist, making anywhere from $35,000 to a $155,000.
(Inaudible), chairman from '95 to '98. The trend is clear, but the last is the most damning. Kathleen Harnet* was the Chair from 2001 to 2003, retired. The director of the think tank, lobbying for various industries that she was supposed to have been regulating when she was appointed there. For over a decade, maybe the entire time since the last time we went through Sunset, the commissioners and the directors have been participating in a revolving door process and retiring (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would gladly yield.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: I love the concept of what you're doing. Could it not be extended to representatives and to everyone in time, between getting out --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would be glad to do that, but this is not the right time.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: That's what I did.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's not the right time or place. But I think the revolving door legislation that would affect legislators, anybody that was supposed to be serving the public interest, in a position of power and influence, like the three commissioners of the TCEQ and (inaudible) I think they should all be, including the governor.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Include
(inaudible) representatives and so forth? Not in your bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. This amendment is simply addressing the Sunset Legislation regarding TCEQ. But I definitely support revolving door legislation and always have, throughout my legislative career.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Happy to work it out, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Smith to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, it is the same reason for the first two. I do believe that two years already exist in some regards to this, but same reason before, and I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, the chairman is only partially right. That was the reason I tried to carefully explain the amendment earlier. What my amendment does is expand -- this amendment expands the existing revolving door laws as they relate to the commissioner and industry by expanding the prohibition from prohibiting former TCEQ officials, from requesting former clients (inaudible) TCEQ to all governmental entities, it's fine they don't go directly before TCEQ, they just tell everybody else what to do and how to operate, and it expands the prohibition, any matter related to a former TCEQ official's former position. I think this is fundamental to good government. How I got involved in state government, back in the early 70's, talking about open and reform government. I am disappointed that the chairman is unwilling to accept such moderate revolving door legislation. This is only for a two-year period. I ask you to stand with me and vote against the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Burnam sends up an amendment. Representative Smith moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no; members. Clerk, ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 84 ayes, 40 nays; the motion to table passes. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam. Members, we're on page 15. Chair recognizes Representative Burnam on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Hi, I'm back. The whole issue of office of public -- excuse me, the whole issue of public interest (inaudible) is at least 30 years old. In the mid '70s we created one for the Public Utility Commission. We have one for the Insurance Commission. This is for TCEQ. Unfortunately, the rewrite undermines the intent of the agency. The office for Counsel was created to ensure the commission promoted the public interest. These are functions that have always performed in that capacity. This bill would limit the ability to do that by restricting it to represent public interest in matters before the commission only. The bill removes enabling language providing responsiveness to environmental and family concerns. While this may allow more resources representing public interest before the commission, there are other ways that counsel can ensure the commission promotes the public interest. It is important that being responsive to environmental concerns and citizen's concerns is the appropriate language the executive director is --
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Rodriguez?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Let me just finish this one thought. -- executive director is directly involved with the applicant in permitting matters. For example, environmental concerns may conflict the apparent intentions of the ED. Citizens are more likely to have trust and confidence in an independent officer whose
(inaudible) public interest is in all matters. I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields, Mr. Rodriguez.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is one of the ways that OPEC currently ensures that the commission is responsive to citizen concerns?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, first, they are a point of entry that -- for citizens that don't understand the process and have just received notice of a permit application. This enables them to go to a neutral party to get basic information. Many of our district office's facilitate this, because people call, they are trying to figure out how to work in the context of working with the agency, and that's kind of a front line of defense for this agency.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: How does providing procedural assistance provide assurance that the commission is responsive to citizens?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I said how does providing procedural assistance help the agency be more responsive to citizens?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, the fact of the matter is, for better or worse, the agency is pretty much in the business of making permits. Having a signed agency over here, the OPEC, it allows the citizens to have that access to understand what the process is.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Do you think there's a conflict of interest between directors' recommendations and the public opposition to -- I think there's an obvious conflict of interest. If you have the executive director making an opinion, making a ruling, moving forward on a recommendation, and the executive director also controls and supervises the activity of OPEC; that's the reason we need to have this standing apart and alone from being subsumed -- it's kind of a pointless bureaucratic finesse to have them under the executive director.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: OPEC is kind of a neutral party?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's right. Anybody that understands anything about negotiating, you want to have two parties instead of one party in a negotiation.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think this is good goverment, a good amendment. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Smith to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you. Before I do that, I'd like to recognize my granddaughter in the audience, Jenna Craig*. She is a student at (inaudible) Edwards and I hope she's getting class credit for attending. Actually, I'm going to move that we table this amendment. This addresses OPEC. OPEC --
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Burnam?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for some questions about how OPEC operates?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Would you yield, Mr. Smith? Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Smith. In the instance of a contested case hearing is being held, has the executive director already rejected the position of persons opposed to the draft permit?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Has the executive director done what?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: If there's a contest case hearing being held, has the executive director already rejected the position of a person posing a draft permit?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, the answer to the question is, yes. Is it reasonable to expect the public to seek advice from the executive director's office if that office just overruled their objection?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: This doesn't permit this. This is accountability to the bill but
(inaudible) accountability to the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, actually it is supervised by the executive director, because the executive director supervises everything; am I no correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: It doesn't read that way.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Isn't there a conflict of interest between the executive director's recommendation that a permit be granted and the public opposition for permit that puts OPEC in an inherently conflict situation?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Say that again into the mike.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Isn't there an inevitable conflict between the executive director's recommendation that a permit be granted if the public is opposing that permit? Doesn't that create a conflict for the agency that is supposed to be deemed responsive to the public, as opposed to the executive director's position?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Not necessarily.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I don't understand how you can see how that would be the case. As a neutral party, as the public interest position provides better procedural advise to the public during a contested case hearing, than if they are compromised and not a neutral party?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: You got to ask that again. Could you speak -- When you look down, look up.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: In the current role, current legislation, public interest counsel has a neutral party role; aren't they in a better position to provide procedural advice to the public during a contested case hearing if their neutrality is maintained?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't think so. Currently they have no accountability, they kind of do their own thing. It's taxpayer's money. They need to be responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Aren't they responsible to the commission, ultimately?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Excuse me?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Aren't they ultimately responsible to the commission?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: They are now.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But this proposal in the Sunset legislation would put them directly under the executive director, and in direct conflict with the executive director's wishes?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: No. It puts them -- They still stay accountability with the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, we just disagree.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Okay. Members, I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes representative Burnam to close on this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, I think this is pretty straightforward. Either they are going to be advocates for the public, as is the case at the public utility commission and at TDI, or they're going to be (inaudible) by the executive director and subject to the whims and the will of the subject director. This is clearly closing access down, it's clearly closing the process down, and it's clearly going to make it more difficult for you in your district offices, when you're trying to help people understand how the TCEQ works. I ask you to vote against the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Burnam sends up an amendment. Representative Smith moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk, ring the bell. Showing Mr. Smith voting aye. Showing Mr. Burnam voting no. Showing Ms. Farrar voting no. Showing Ms. Kolkhorst voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 88 ayes and 38 nays, the motion to table prevails. Excuse Representative Bohac because of important business, on the motion of Representative Patrick. Members, the amendment upon page 16 is withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, currently the TCEQ is required to use past violation notices when compiling a compliance report for a particular entity. This amendment would remove the requirement that TCEQ does this, and would make it very difficult for TCEQ to use any -- actually, this bill, I'm sorry, would remove the requirement that TCEQ does this and would make it very difficult for TCEQ to use any past violation notices when considering an escalation in penalties. It also greatly affects the advance notice provisions that TCEQ uses. Right now, the TCEQ is not allowed to announce notice of an inspection to an entity that is considered to be unsatisfactory, based on a compliance history report. This bill would take away that requirement. So if an entity to known to be consistently noncompliant, why would we allow them to have advance notice of an inspection? Essentially this bill, as proposed, would now allow violaters to know that we're going to go and inspect them. Why in the world would we want to do that? And, finally, on page 16 of the bill, it would allow an entity to be exempt from TCEQ rules if the entity can prove that their method for reducing pollution is as protective of the environment as the TCEQ rule would be. The current law, which is more strict, says that an entity must prove that their method more protective of the environment than is required by TCEQ. So the bill would also drop the threshold for allowing a company to use their own method to ensure that basically they're complying with regulations and standards. Also, I would note, there has been a lot of discussion on many of the amendments that have been proposed so far. And the point by those who have motion to table the amendment has been that the amendments were not part of the Sunset recommendations. Well, members, this part of the bill, the part that I'm trying to remove with my amendment; this part of the bill was not part of the Sunset recommendation. And I want to be clear about that. The part of the bill that I'm trying to take out, that part of the bill was not included in the Sunset recommendation. In fact, the part of the bill that I'm trying to take out is the bill that failed in the legislative process on three separate sessions. That bill was in the 78th legislative session, it was HB1063. In the 79th legislation it was HB86, which was never heard on the House floor. And in the 80th Legislation session it was HB2318 and was never reported from the environmental regulation committee. So I am simply trying to keep current law and now allow law to be put in there that was not part of the Sunset recommendation, that has not even been at times given an opportunity to be heard here on the house floor. So if we're going to stick by our rule, which we have agreed to, which was not to take anything that was not recommended by the Sunset commission, then I hope that you'll favor this amendment. Because it takes out part of a bill that was not anywhere on the Sunset recommendation, and also was the bill that had not made it successfully through the legislative process. And I would yield if my colleague had a question.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mrs. Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Castro, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Castro , you've mentioned that you're putting back in the bill surprise inspection for bad actors, right? Only bad actors get the surprise inspections, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Only those that have those repeated notices of violation. And so unannounced inspections are only for companies with a bad compliance history rating. And this is proven to be one of the best incentives for improving that rating for a company.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Right. That was my next question, what this does to making -- it's a carrot and a stick, so to speak, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Also, your amendment strikes Section 4.08 on page 16 of the bill. Can you talk about that section a little bit more that dealt with the different control technologies?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yeah. TCEQ requires companies to use certain pollution control technologies. So if they want to use a different control technology they have to apply to TCEQ to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And then TCEQ requires that that technology be more protective, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And this bill weakens that, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: This bill would weaken that standard, that's right.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: All right. And tell us what else your amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, you know, it basically keeps current law as it is. It makes sure the evidence support -- for example, it makes sure evidence supports alternate control methods be documented, it also requires it to be specific.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And why is that important?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, you know, basically it's important because you have folks that are committing repeat violations. And we want to make sure that we have a clear record about those violations, that when companies are violating these rules that -- when they're repeat offense offenders, that we can go back and inspect them without telling them that we're coming. It would be like announcing to somebody whose house you're going to inspect that's violating whatever standard, that they're doing something wrong, and you tell them I'm going to go visit you in a week. You know, well, what are they going to do? Well, naturally, they're going to clean up, they are going make everything look pretty. We want to make sure that repeat offenders are not able to just put on a show on a specific day the day that TCEQ goes out there to inspect them.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: You know, you're putting back in the requirements also with this attempt that a company adequately demonstrates its alternative control methods would be effective, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. It leaves in place requirements that a company adequately demonstrates that its alternative control methods would be effective. So my amendment is simply keeping current law, and it's staying true to the idea that we're not going to take -- we are not going turn this into a Christmas tree, we're not going to put on other bills or other legislation that was not part of the Sunset recommendation, especially a bill that never made it far in the legislative process. This bill, basically this bill that my amendment is trying to take out, it had at least three sessions to move on the House floor and go over to the Senate and it failed in each of those three sessions. Now it's showing up as part of this Sunset bill. And so my amendment would take that out. And I would move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Smith to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, we're going hear a lot about notice of violation in the next few amendments. Notice of violation is actually like a speeding ticket, if you're going down the road it's a notice to you, but it doesn't mean you actually committed the offense. And if you're a sewer plant operator in one of your small cities, and you have a notice of violation, you happen to go on vacation, you only have ten days to respond or that notice of violation may become a record. You can appeal them, but notice of violations have had too much influence in the assessment process. So you're going to hear considerably more about it regarding the bills that have been before the House before. We have passed it from this House and, for different reasons, it didn't pass the Senate. But this House has always supported changing compliance history and not putting so much emphasis on the notice of violations. And so, with that said, I move that we table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Again, members, a repeated justification for tabling the other amendments which adds supplemental legislation to the bill is not part of the Sunset recommendation. This part of the bill, not only was it not part of the Sunset recommendation, but it also was a separate bill in three legislative sessions that didn't make to the House floor, and was certainly never passed by the other chamber, either by the House or by the Senate. And I would move adoption of my amendment or argue against the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Castro sends up an amendment. Mr. Smith moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed vote nay. This is a record vote. The clerk will please ring the bell. Showing Mr. Bonnen voting aye. All members voted? All members voted? There being 87 ayes and 38 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're on page 18. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Smith of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, members. We just talked about notice of violations and compliance history. This -- this amendment -- this amendment adds something back, I guess, in the regard that the past amendment was -- it reinstates Sunset commission recommendation language, and previously there was conversation that this was not part of the Sunset commission. But the Sunset commission actually recommended that there be some changes made to compliance history because compliance history wasn't working. So this one allows a consistency in the way you do compliance history. And -- anyway. And I accept the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the accommodation on the first part of your amendment, the first two parts of your amendment, that help provide the tools that TCEQ needs on enforcement. I just have questions about the third part, because it wasn't part of the TCEQ recommendation. So we're saying here that the penalty enhancement escalations cannot be included? Can you explain that?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I'm just confused about that part, that language. I don't know where that came from. Can you explain that?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: This indicates that we can still use compliance history to do notice of violations in compliance history to be able to increase the amount of penalty enhancements. Now, if you recognize in some of the rest of the bill, we moved the amount of penalty cap from TCEQ from $10,000 to $25,000 so --
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Do you plan on keeping that limit?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Keep that, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So we're just saying that notice of violation cannot be used for penalty enhancement? That's basically --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: For multiple penalty enhancements, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Smith sends up the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection, members? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're now on page 19. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment adds to the compliance history rating system, criminal convictions; I repeat, criminal convictions of the local government to which the commission refers complaints for investigation. This is when someone -- this is what Harris County supports, this one. There is a compliance to Harris County, and there has been -- Harris County has found a criminal conviction. So this would also limit these convictions to those that are readily available to the TCEQ, it would avoid requiring the TCEQ to seek out every local conviction in the state. The compliance history rating equation currently includes convictions of the state and federal government, but not local governments. TCEQ often refers these citizen complaints to local governments that have the capacity to enforce them, such as Harris County. Harris County has referred nearly every complaint that occurs in the un-incorporated area of the county, and that is why this is important. Entities in un-incorporated areas can be enforced against over and over, without damage to their compliance history ranking without this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would like to ask her a couple questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Ms. Farrar, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mrs. Farrar, as you were explaining this are you suggesting this is very analogous, a blue color crime, where you have felons that you will expunge their record where you can't look at their records for establishing a penalty?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: You could look at that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So almost any prosecutor would oppose this kind of proposal from the standpoint of it would undermine our ability to seek justice?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I would imagine that, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you for that clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Smith to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, it this is still a compliance history issue, and if you -- if my memory serves me, we have at least in this House voted once to completely do away with compliance history.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: May I ask the chairman a question, please?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Do you yield, Mr. Smith?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Chairman Smith. I assume that you heard and listened carefully to the exchange between Ms. Farrar and I and we understand that there are different opinions about compliance history, but doesn't this specific situation completely undermine the activity of Harris County District Attorney's Office in trying to make sure that people are in compliance with the law?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know that it undermines it, but TCEQ is the responsible party for issuing the permits and so it should belong to TCEQ, and TCEQ shouldn't be controlled and dictated by the local entities.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: We're not talking about control and being dictated, aren't we talking about TCEQ looking at the public record to ascertain what a company has done in violation of the law?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: We have no idea what local entities, whether it be Harris County or anyone else, has done in relation to this. And so TCEQ should be the defining person that issues the permit for the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. But shouldn't the TCEQ have the opportunity to look at the public record on a cooperation that may be a major offender?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I assume TCEQ even looks now, it's a matter of whether they're required --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But you want it excluded from the record?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I want to -- I want TCEQ to be the entity in demand.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You want the TCEQ to do what now?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Be the entity that controls the permit process.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, we're not surrendering the control of the -- Well, we probably are. As a matter of fact, if you look at the broader picture, the Sunset and what's going on, we're probably in the process of surrendering TCQs ability to control the permitting process. But specifically, right now, aren't we talking about history, compliance history in violating the law?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: We're talking about compliance history, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. And you were proposing --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Not necessarily a violation of the law, if you're talking about compliance history.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But that's what Representative Farrar and I were discussing.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Compliance history really should be called performance history.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I said compliance history is really more of a performance history than a compliance history.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. Sometimes in dealing with the violations of the law. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker , members, the only thing I would add or reiterate really is that this is a very low bar; this is including criminal convictions. I ask you to please vote no on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mrs. Farrar sends up an amendment. Mr. Smith moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye. Those opposed vote nay. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. All members voted? Show Representative Bonnen voting aye. Representative Smith voting aye. Representative Farrar voting no. Have all members voted? There being 90 ayes and 41 nays, the motion to table prevails.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Burnam?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'd like to ask that the exchange between Representative Farrar and myself, and the exchange between Chairman Smith and myself, all discussion on this particular amendment be reduced to writing and put in the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're on page 20. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Reynolds.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment will maintain TCQs ability to take into consideration previous violations by an entity when deciding to escalate or enhance the penalty amount for a violation. Allowing TCEQ to enforce stricter penalties for those who have a track record of repeated violations is no different than a municipal judge increasing the penalty for a repeat DWI offender. So if we feel such punishment is appropriate for repeated traffic offenders, then the same should apply to those that do not abide by the safety guidelines governing their operations. Furthermore, this allows TCEQ to keep up its level of funding, so that it can effectively carry out its enforcement duties, and preventing this would cost the state a significant amount of money.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mrs. Farrar?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Reynolds, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Can you explain what your amendment does because it's sort of difficult to understand. Can you repeat what some of the highlights were?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely. It allows -- it limits how the TCEQ can use past violations. For example, right now, photos of violations are used to rate an entity's compliance history. They are also used when calculating penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And so this is -- So what you're trying to do then, you're trying to get us back to where we were before, because basically we're saying if you have been naughty in the past we're not going to count that against you in your history; but we're also not going to count that against you in the amount of your fines, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: That's correct. The TCEQ would have to chose between using the the notices of violation to rate compliance history or using it to calculate penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So they can only do it one or the other, but they can't do it in both?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So. Okay. What's going happen if TCEQ doesn't do this anymore, what's the result?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Officials at TCEQ have said that this would decrease their penalties by 40 to 50 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Wow. And we're in a budget crisis.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Interesting . And so I guess another alterative would be just to make everybody else's penalties go up, would that work?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: No. This would punish everyone. Not just the bad actors.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So where does the penalty money go to today that we're not going to be getting?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: The collected penalties go towards the general revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So it will hit the general revenue fund that the state has available, right?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes. That's exactly why I brought this amendment forward.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Burnam Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Reynolds, you must be aware that there are a number of proposals in the bill as written that's going to cost the state a lot of money.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And your amendment is an amendment to make sure that we don't needlessly cost the state a lot of money in a period where we have a billion dollars deficit, is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely. My amendment would actually put money back into the general revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And are you aware that there are a number of amendments proposed to this bill that will cost the state a lot of money?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: There absolutely are, Lon.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And so you're just trying to balance it out, make sure we don't lose any money because of the proposed way that it's written?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you for your efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: We were talking earlier the the loss of revenue, so we're grappling right now with the state budget, so there's all kinds of things. One of those things could be a tax increase, but probably won't see them, I'm guessing. But we will probably see a lot of fee increases to all kind of occupations, business interests and so on. But what we're saying with this bill, though, is that polluters -- these are people that are acting improperly, breaking the law, those folks would get a break on their fees, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Smith in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, we are going to increase the level, or cap the penalties and the balance of this bill. The concern about it costing money is not there because there would be the opportunity for the TCEQ to increase the penalties on -- as they -- on permit violations. Also, in amendment prior to this, we added some language about notice of violations being able to be used and penalty assessments, and we added some language that allows a notice of violation to at least be included in whenever you have multiples of the penalties. So I move that we table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to table. And this amendment simply gives the TCEQ the tools necessary for it carry out its task effectively. The other reason I ask you to vote no is so that we can do what we all agree is necessary, that is make sure the TCEQ is accountable to the citizens of Texas, and not hampered in its ability to support sustainable, economic development. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Reynolds sends up an amendment. Mr. Smith moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye. Those opposed vote, nay. It's a record vote. Clerk, ring the bell. Showing Representative Reynolds voting no. Showing Representative Smith voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Show Representative Branch voting aye. Have all voted? Showing Representative Keffer voting aye. Have all voted? There being 94 ayes and 42 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're on page 21. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, sorry for the confusion. This is really a simple amendment that the Chairman has agreed to accept. It simply says in deterrence (inaudible) permit economic benefit of noncompliance. The concern is that too often the business plan includes noncompliance as a way to make money, and we want to try to deter that. And this is a simple, seven word amendment and I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Burnam , if we don't ask TCEQ to at least consider it, this information, is it possible that they might completely ignore what the economic benefit would be to someone that chose an emission over a control technology, unlawful control technology?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That is a concern, Mrs. Farrar. The chairman said he would accept this amendment. It will be quick.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Bye bye.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Burnam sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The amendment on page 22 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 23. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , members, this amendment just allows for a delivery to a petroleum underground storage tank. It allows an affirmative of defense, if it had a certificate from the TCEQ that it could take it, or if that certificate was there within the last 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Could chairman Chisum clarify amendment he's discussing?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Is that a question?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: On page 23, I believe it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And, okay, would you repeat it; what the amendment, what your proposed amendment does?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah. It allows for an affirmative defense for the holder of the product, to the underground storage tank if they had --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I think you're describing page 25, Mr. Chairman. I've been wrong before, but let's make sure we've got it right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: We're on page 23. Okay. Maybe I did have the wrong amendment up there. What this amendment does, members, it allows if that's a violation, it just says if they have a violation you charge on the violation, not the multiple gases that might have come out from the violation. These can be from $10,000 to $25,000 per day, so if you have a leak or a release that the TCEQ makes their assessment of the penalty based on the emission event, not on each particular gas in the event.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Chairman Chisum, for explaining to intent of the amendment on page 23. I want to ask you some questions about this amendment that will apply to a couple of other amendments that you had. And as you heard me speaking earlier about Mr. Reynolds' amendment, one of the things I'm concerned about is amendments that will cost the state money. How much money does the state collect from assessing these penalties currently?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You know, the violation is up to from $10,000 to $25,000 a day, and so I'm sure it runs in that range.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: How much would the state be able to collect if the TCEQ were to assess different penalties for different pollutants, as opposed to what you're proposing?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, it just has one event of a release of the product, and the fact that it may have four or five different products in there; they shouldn't penalize them four or five different times.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Depending on what the product is, and that may be what we're discussing right here, but the fact of the matter is there will be a cost to the state. Would that be more or less if TCEQ cannot assess separate penalties?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, they could use the highest one, or they could set whatever penalty within the range that they have. It doesn't change.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But what you're proposing to do is restrict them to one penalty as opposed to potential multiple penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I'm just saying they can't separate the gases and have twenty-five penalties on the same release.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. But a lot of times they're very dependent, and have many variables involved. Do you have any idea how much money this amendment is going to cost the state?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Oh, it won't hardly be anything.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But we're talking in the millions, aren't we?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I don't think so.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I think we are, Mr. Chisum. We're talking in the millions, this is one --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But they can do $25,000 a day.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. But we're talking about multiple violations by multiple companies over a period of a year, and this, as well as two other amendments that we're offering up, are going cost the state million of dollars. And I just wanted to point that out in my line of questioning.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Mr. Speak er, would the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chisum, can you explain when you say a single release are violaters releasing multiple agents?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Any products. For instance, crude oil. It contains octanes, methanes, all of which are volatile gases and will create DLCs. What I'm saying is that you can do the penalty that they release crude oil into the atmosphere, and so you make a penalty on that, not on the 12 or 15 different products that were in that stream.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Since you're former chairman of Environmental Regulation, at some point there is a either a piece of legislation or a policy decision that we were going to identify each of these agents individually and penalize them individually; do you think that the reason for doing that, that policy decision, was to one -- and mainly act as a deterrent?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, there is a deterrent and the deterrent can be by the amount of the fines or the frequency of the release. And I'm fine with that. I mean -- And it should be a deterrent. But you shouldn't go in there and pick out 25 gases or 25 products that maybe in a crude oil stream, as an example. Now it could be -- It could be a natural gas release or something like that, in a natural gas there's also different products in natural gas. Propane and methane.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Can you, in this case, make a comparison in criminal law, when you go -- when you break into a home and you have one; burglary of habitation, you have two; whether or not you have assaulted someone in that home, during the process of burglary --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That's a different issue.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: -- you have property damage. But it's the same in that we want to individualize --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: -- and categorize violations based on that individual violation. So when I get pulled over for speeding, if I get pulled over for speeding I could have also -- be charged with reckless driving, I could also be charged with --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: All those are separate offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: We made one policy --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: If you have a burglary and they stole your watch and your ring and a jar, I mean you want to do three penalties, three burglaries of the home?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: No. But what you do in that case is you aggregate the value of that jewelry, so in the sense --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And I don't stop them from doing that.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Essential ly, it's the same. If you want to make that comparison. If someone breaks into my home and they steal my TV, they steal my computer and they steal another appliances, they don't just get charged with the cost of the TV, they get charged with the cost of each one of those individually. So, by comparison, the very example that you gave is a perfect example.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: If they have three offenses they are not punished three times for getting your TV and your record player.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: So would you be in support, in that case, though, if you want to make that comparison; would you be willing to support a cost penalty that's the same? So, for instance, if each individual agent is penalized at a dollar, and you want to say let's not charge them with each releasing of each agent; so why don't we charge them for crude oil, there are twenty agents, twenty dollars. So would you be favorable to an amendment, to your amendment that says fine, we won't charge them with individual agent releases; but we'll charge them the same fine as if they, you know, for one release?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I'm not telling them what the fine should be. I'm just saying that it just be one case, it's one release and whatever you release, whatever the penalty for that release is all right. And that's consistent. But if you're going to say that you're going to get fined for releasing something that had four different gases or four different products in there, that you actually are fined four different times, because remember, these could be $25,000 a day.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: They're not small fines. And they will change the habit of whoever released it, so they wouldn't get that again. Now, listen --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Well, $25,000 for a multi billion dollars company. --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It makes a huge difference, and they don't reduce -- that doesn't reduce their tax bill at all. They can't charge these off. These are really serious stuff. And I'm just saying --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: And I understand that.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: They don't have to go through and pick out every little gas or every something like that within a release.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: The reason, deterrence and fines exist are so they can be penalizing enough for folks to change their habits. And that's why I think the policy was made.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And that's why $25,000 seems pretty serious.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: I think, depending on the size of the company who is being penalized --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: They don't penalize based on the size of your company. I mean they can't look at your billfold for them to (inaudible) penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: To have consistency in the law, from which everything that I have seen as a practicing attorney, you categorize and individualize all penalties, all crimes, so that we have something to look at to show what in fact was the criminal act, or the administrative penalty, or the administrative act. So I feel if you aggregate these things then you're not depicting a true picture.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Maybe you ought to change criminal law so that if you stole a watch or you stole ten watches you get charged ten times.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: You do get charged ten times. You get charged for the aggregate of the cost. That's what I'm trying to tell you. So if you just want to say that there's one violation, but you aggregate the cost for each one of those agents, I could support that. But if you break into my house and you steal multiple things and you're saying that you should just be fined for the cost of the first thing and then everything else is written off, you're not making correct comparisons.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't think you're making -- breaking into a house, this is not what this is. That's a criminal violation. And these, many times they don't have to prove that it was an annoying release, the release could have been accidental, could have mechanical failure. So the penalty for getting the release is there. And I'm not advocating that these people were -- that anybody that had this release was actually -- it was an intentional release, because I don't think it was in most cases.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Well, we're making assumptions here.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I understand.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Right. So the thing that we are trying to do is to provide a deterrent, provide a penalty and provide for the administration protecting our environment in cases where pollution has occurred. By individualizing these agents we have made it very clear how seriously we take these type of infractions and violations --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And so they can take into consideration --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: And so what I'm afraid of is by lumping it and saying there's a infraction or there was a violation, and not truly indicating -- You used crude oil, and that may be a good example. But there are other cases where I've seen real bad violaters say as a business decision, since we're only going to be fined this much, we are not going to put corrective measures in place and we're going to allow that violation to occur because, from a business decision, it costs less to pay off that penalty than it does to make proper corrections within our business model, or engineering, or mechanics. And so by narrowing what they possibly face in terms of infraction, you could incentify them to continue to act poorly, because now it's more cost effective to pay off violations than it would be to --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Violations have a cost range from $10,000 to $25,000 a day. I think that's plenty to discourage anybody from doing that. So I think you're putting an analogy out there that somebody actually makes a decision, a business decision, to violate. And I don't think that you can make that case. But, if you can, then they would fall under the multiple violations if they regularly did that on a regular basis. So I just think the argument is small.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Hancock raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, I know it's been difficult to follow the discussion, but this is a major policy discussion that we're taking on a Sunset Bill. In the past, I know that this body has been very concerned about Sunset Bills articulating major policy decisions. What Representative Chisum is bringing before the body today relates to (inaudible) and that is the ability to charge multiple fines for emissions of different elements, whether it be air emissions or water emissions; that is a major policy decision that he is asking us to take on a Sunset Bill. My argument, members, is this should be left to a stand-alone bill that is vetted through committee where we can hear testimony, in fact we heard testimony on the Sunset Commission related to speciation, and it was related to the Sunset Commission that that was not the right place for that type of policy discussion in the bill. And it was rejected. In fact, I know, because I carried the amendment related to speciation. And it was decided by Sunset now this is not the place to do it. Okay, so I would ask members, and there will be another amendment coming up here shortly that will affirmatively call for speciation. And on that amendment I will suggest that we not make that major policy decision on this bill. But for Mr. Chisum's amendment, or any amendment that follows, that relates to major decisions of policy with respect to speciation we should not do that today on the Sunset Bill, and instead allow the committee process to work and allow Mr. Chisum to bring that to the floor himself in a stand-alone bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Mr. Lucio in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, just to kind of emphasize a few of the points that Representative Anchia made, this is a major policy decision that is being proposed to this amendment. Not as a stand-alone bill, not as something that has been vetted in committee, but something that will drastically change enforcement policy at the TCEQ. For those of you who have any experience with how other aspects of the law work, for how criminal law works, for how other administrative penalties are assessed, they are assessed on an individual basis. You don't just break a law and have that one thing be labeled as breaking the law and not have to answer for individual infractions. Because of technology, because of the cost of cleaning up our environment can be itemized by the individual pollutants, we have made a policy decision that the infractions will be made on a pollutant basis, not on the aggregate that pollution has occurred, but on a pollution basis. Most of the companies who are assessed these fines are multimillion or multibillion dollar companies. You could be creating a scenario where they could be making a business decision that says it is easier and less expensive to pay for infraction than it is to implement things to keep it from happening in the first place. Members, again, just like what Representative Anchia said, this is a major policy decision that needs to be vetted further through committee, and be stand-alone, so that we can make this decision. I thank you for your time and I ask you to move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker , members, this amendment, what it says is that basically somebody would get away -- would be charged with one of the emissions and get away with everything else. Can you imagine that? Wow, what a nice way to get off with doing wrong. I just want to add that Mr. Chisum was Chair of the environmental committee at one time and is now a member of the environmental committee, and he has not proposed this. To do this in an amendment, this should be as a bill that the process would vet, and this is a terrible direction to go in. I ask you to vote no on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Anchia sends up -- Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , members, we are talking about the speciation, and that means that it violates with several different pollutants having one emission. And you heard argument here that somebody might manage their business by saying that well, it would be easy to dump this and pay the fine than comply. I just don't think that that's true. I don't think anybody makes those kinds of decision. We have a permit -- We have a violation here that can be between $10,000 and $25,000 a day. That is pretty serious stuff. And if you go in there and you make a pollutant that might have five different things in it or twenty-five different things in it, it just it's just an issue there that you're trying -- you can raise the price of the violation or you can have it down here with twenty-five violations at $10,000 dollars a piece.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: The bottom line is, this is a good amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Chisum, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields, Mr. Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Chisum, I appreciate you -- Mr. Chisum?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Can you hear me?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I can hear you.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Can you hear me, Craig? Yes? Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So I appreciate you bringing this amendment to discuss, because I disagree with what my good friend Mr. Anchia says, because I believe ideas like this and other ideas good, bad, ugly, pretty, should be brought to this House floor on these Sunset Bills, because ideas get bottled up in committee year, after year, after year; and there's no ideas that make it to the floor if it's not on an opportunity like this. So I appreciate you bringing it to our attention and I think that we should vote it up or down on the merit that you have brought it to us and explained to us.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And I thank you for that. Let me tell, you just because a bill goes through Sunset and they talk about it, there's not a reason we have not to do it. This is the body that makes policy decisions and we need to make that decision. Mr. Speaker, I vote no on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment. Mr. Anchia moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no; members. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Chisum voting no. Mr. Smith voting no. Mrs. Farrar voting aye. Mr. Burnam voting aye. All members voted? Show Representative Alonzo voting aye. Members, you can vote from your desk. Showing Representative Veasey voting aye. There being 44 ayes and 95 nays, the motion to table fails to adopt. Members, we're back on the Chisum amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Members, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Chisum, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Warren, you will acknowledge that this is a policy change?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, sir, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I think I notice that some of the people on Sunset, on the Sunset Committee -- Commission, also voted against tabling your amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No kidding.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Did you notice some of them?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Give me their names.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But this is a policy change on a Sunset Bill?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And now help me to understand what we're doing here. Right now, if there is a violation, there can be a penalty imposed on each one of the pollutants if there's a violation, right?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now you are changing that?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I'm changing that to say that the violation is the fact that you had the emission, and if the fine needs to be $25,000 you can assess that fine.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sorry, say that again.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: If the fine needs to be up to $25,000, which is in the bill, it can be $25,000 a day.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker, Mr. Speaker? I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Turner?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I can't hear Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, will the House come to order?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay, I'm sorry, Warren. Let me make sure that I understand.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah. And you're exactly right. This is a policy change. And what I'm saying is instead of going through each pollutant that's in there and proving what that is and arguing what it is or isn't in the product that was released, you make the fine based on the release.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But so if I vote for this amendment this would be providing some relief, it would be lowering the penalty for people --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Not necessarily. Not necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Why not?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Because they could charge up to $25,000 a day. It doesn't necessarily say that they don't -- the fact that they made the release, this is just expedited through.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Can they charge up to $25,000 a day right now?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't believe so. I don't know what the current law is.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then why are you proposing a change? I mean, who does -- I mean tell me who it benefits by voting for -- if this amendment goes on.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, what it does is instead of using the speciation and having to go identify every product that you think might have been in there, and having the debate of whether it was or wasn't in there; because sometimes these are gases that escape and if they escape you might not know what's in there.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So who benefits from this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I think maybe TCEQ does, that they can make the violation and assess the penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So companies, for example, that may be accused of polluting; are they the ones that who ultimately benefit from your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I don't think so at all.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Why not?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Because they can make the fines $25,000.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But you're reducing the -- the act of --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I'm reducing anything --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But you're saying that the commission may not assess a separate penalty for each type of pollutant emission; you are watering down the existent rules, are you not?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: What I'm saying is that they can't go in there and have 25 different fines for the same violation.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If I live in the surrounding community, if I live in the surrounding community where some sort of pollution may be taking place, am I going to be happy with this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I think you would, because you would know that they are very swift and they came in and made their action and they determined what the violation was and the penalty for it.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Warren, are you saying that if I'm a homeowner, if I'm in the surrounding community, that I'm going to be pleased if I vote for this amendment; that they're going to be pleased with me?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I think they're okay with it. I mean, you know, that's what we are to be about, is having swift justice and applying whatever fine that they need to apply.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I want it to be speedy, but I want it to be prudent and fair.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I do, too. And I think this makes it fair.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: How long has this existing rule been in place, Warren?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, twelve years.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It's been in place twelve years?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now did this amendment go through the committee process?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, I believe we heard that it was discussed in committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Who did?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Anchia, I believe, said it was discussed in committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And is it still in committee?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Sunset Committee. In the Environmental Regulation Committee?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, it was not.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It was not discussed?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So in voting for this amendment, in voting for this amendment, those people of those companies that are being accused or lead to violating the pollution laws, now they are going to be pleased with this amendment; aren't they?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't think that they will. I mean they may be pleased that they don't have to prove that something wasn't in there that somebody said was in there. I mean I'm just saying if you had a violation you charge for the violation. That's all I'm saying. You don't do the speciation and go through a very investigative process and --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I'm like Representative Eiland, I'm not opposed to anyone bringing an amendment down here to deal with it, I'm not opposed to it at all. As we move forward, I probably will be bringing a few of my own, especially when it comes to electricity, you know. But, for now, the only reason why I stand, Warren, I just believe that if I voted for this amendment, if I voted for this amendment, I will be watering down the existing rules and laws that exist, and those who are polluting will benefit from it, and homeowners in surrounding communities are the ones who will be adversely affected.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I beg to differ with you. I think that the violation and the fine should be a deterrent, and if our fines are not enough we need to raise the fine.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Hunter raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Members, there's an amendment to the amendment being drafted. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, anybody that was willing to testify, we have one bill left on licensing, which is from Mrs. Truitt. 1480. We're going to move that to next Tuesday, so licensing won't be meeting today.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, over in the southeast corner of the gallery today I have some people from Bute, Mr. and Mrs. Murray and their friends from Colorado. Please, give them a warm Texas welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Is Mr. Castro on the floor? Chair recognizes Mr. Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, members, one of our former House members is back, and he is now United States Congressmen, and he used to sit in the same seat that I sit in. And would you welcome Congressmen Kenny Marchant.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment essentially says that -- this amendment to the amendment essentially says that polluters can be charged for -- a separate penalty for each type of pollutant admitted -- emitted. Now, bear in mind, to give you some context, historically penalties that have been assessed by TCEQ on companies that emit pollutants into the water, into the air, have been generally lax. And I want to give you an example of some of the types of chemicals that were emitted into the air. I have an example here, an emission event report from the Emission Event Reporting Database: The Exxon Mobil facility in Baytown, on February 22nd, 2011, at 9:28 a.m., began emitting a series of chemicals that included butadiene, butene, isobutylene, benzene, butane, carbon monoxide, cyclo pendentive, cyclopentamine, ethylene, Betadine, hydrogen sulphide, mythylcyclopentane, MLX, pentane, pantine, propane hydrogen sulfide, opacity pentane, pentene, propane, propine, sulphur dioxide, translybutine, cyclohexane, trans one three pentane and trance two pentane. Most of those, obviously, we have problems pronouncing. That is about twenty or so chemicals. Many of them cancer causing. Before I yield for questions, I hope that I can point this out; one of those chemicals, benzine, for example, just as one example, is a known cause of cancer. There's question here, and this is from the American Cancer Society. It says does benzine cause cancer? And the answer, it says benzine is known to cause cancer, based on evidence from both people and laboratory animals. Cancer has largely focused on leukemia and cancers of other blood cells. These companies, and we're not picking on any one company, this is a rule in the amendment to the amendment that is to be applied across the board. These companies are admitting sometimes twenty or more toxic chemicals into the air, or into the water. And the only penalty they might be assessed on any given day under Warren's amendment is $25,000. $25,000, to emit as many chemicals as you want, that cause cancer, into the air. Why not just dump them all out in one sitting? What my amendment to the amendment says is that you can be personalized for each and every single chemical that is released. Now it doesn't say that you have to be penalized for every chemical that is released but, look, if you release six cancer causing chemicals into the air then, yeah, you should be penalized for each of those. And releasing one chemical into the air, I hope you'll agree with me, is different than releasing 25 chemicals into the air. Warren's amendment says that there is no distinction. It makes no distinction at all. So you can turn 50 chemicals into the air under Warren's amendment and pay the same price as somebody who dumped one chemical into the air. How is that a fair law? How is that fair policy? I would yield to my colleague, Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Ms. Farrar?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Would the gentleman yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: So the current policy is that there sort of is no policy? And Mr. Warren's amendment says then that we cannot -- It ties TCEQ's hands, it cannot look at the various chemicals, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: What do you think that would have -- what sort of an impact do you think that would have in terms of incentives for companies to act right, to do the right thing?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I think it would be a horrible incentive. Because now they understand they can dump whatever they want, as much as they want, and they're going to pay the same fine. Now part of Warren's argument, part of the argument is look, isn't $25,000 enough to discourage somebody from dumping these chemicals into the air? And my answer to that is no. No. When you're dealing with a company that is one of the largest companies in the world, making billions and billions of dollars in profit; and we don't have to begrudge them that fact, all I'm saying is that as an incentive, as an incentive to correct their behavior, a $25,000 penalty is not enough.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Hancock raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , I raise a point of order that this amendment violates Rule 11, 3 three in Article 3, Section 30 of the Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Bring your point of order up front. The Chair recognizes Representative Farrar speaking for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Speaker, Mr. Speaker, members, I just want to point out why this amendment is important. This is from Monday's Austin American Statement, and it picked up Bryan College Station's news article that talked about after a fire, where there was an undetermined amount of fertilizer that was released, it in fact caused the Texas A&M University to be closed. And this occurred in 2009 at the Eldorado Chemical Company. Right after that, in the seven months after that fire, there were five cases of a birth defect known as Edward Syndrome, also called Trisome 18. And it leads to life threatening medical problems that kill about 90 percent children born with it, this is before their first birthday. And this is why this is important, because if we don't have a deterrent, if it's okay, the most you're going pay is $25,000, then we have no deterrent and our enforcement system doesn't work. That's why this amendment is critically important. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum in opposition to the amendment -- Castro Amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , members, what we're doing here now is debating the two amendments. There was an amendment after mine that he's trying to amend my amendment with. But right now, TCEQ does not separate, they do not speciate a fine. And all I'm trying to say is that the way you're doing it is fine, we've raised -- we've raised the limit to $25,000 and it just says let's keep doing what we're doing. It's just fine. And not have the speciation. And not have the separate gases that were released and have to go through that kind of process, rather than just fine them for a violation. And so Mr. Castro is trying to change it where you would do a speciation with every one of them. And, therefore, I move table the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Members, I read you a list of about 20 different chemicals that were released in one instance by Exxon Mobil at their Baytown facility on one day in February of 2011. They were releasing into the air known cancer causing chemicals.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Naishtat , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields, Mr. Nash.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: You listed a number of chemicals which would clearly have an adverse effect on human health?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: How many did you list?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I haven't counted them exactly, but probably about twenty of them.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: About twenty? And I'm reminded of an amendment that was offered a little bit earlier concerning changing the mission statement to read the mission is the protection of human health and the environment; do you remember that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And that was defeated, wasn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: It was.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And in light of the fact that an amendment concerning the mission statement, and focusing on human health was rejected by this body, are you surprised that there isn't that much concern about the impact that the twenty different pollutants would have on human health?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I would be surprised if we allowed Warren's amendment to go on to the bill as he has proposed. That's why I am proposing an amendment to the amendment, which allows for penalty for each particular chemical or emittent that is released. I think the danger of allowing Warren's amendment to go on to the bill is that a company know that they can go out and dump fifty different toxic chemicals into the air, and it's just like dumping one. There's no difference. You know. And I would close, members, by saying this: A few years ago we passed --
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Workman? I have a question, too.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Castro, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Castro, you've talked about big, bad Exxon having a release back in February, let out 26 chemicals as I counted them. Do you know how that release lasted?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: It lasted from 9:28 a.m. to 9:46 a.m. that morning.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: So less than an hour, 20 minutes?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Do you know what concentrations all these chemicals were in?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: The report doesn't say it. Well, actually the report may say that. Yes, it does.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: So do you think that they were all equal concentrations?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, they were all different concentrations.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: And so should the fines be equal for all of them, regardless of the concentrations, or regardless of how long the penalty -- how long the emission was?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, I think it should be different.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Okay. So the fact that they had a release is a violation, that should be enough. It shouldn't be separated, because you got -- you have no way of knowing all the concentrations that these were in.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, actually, it specifies the concentrations.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: It differentiates, it allows for speciation.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: So each fine should be the same, regardless of the concentration?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: No, each fine -- You should be allowed to give a separate penalty for each chemical, depending on the type of chemical and the amount that was released.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Regardless of how long the release lasted?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure. I mean, releasing benzine may be different from releasing another chemical for twenty minutes, wouldn't you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Not necessarily. I don't know. But I'm just saying that if somebody has a release of four or five minutes, and one that lasts four or five days, it seems like there should be a difference there.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But Representative Workman --
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: A single violation should be enough.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Not at all.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: So a few years ago we passed a bill to allow for billions of dollars in cancer research to try to combat cancer in Texas. And every session, folks come up here from every part of Texas and ask us to support cancer research, to do something about the growing rates of cancer in different parts of our state. And every single Representative, I would bet, talks to them sympathic and says I agree with you we have to do everything possible to eradicate this disease. But eradicating the disease is not just about supporting charities or supporting cancer bonds or cancer research, which is obviously very important. The way we do something about it also has to do with the policies we enact. A so the question is, when you have companies that are multibillion dollar companies, some of them are you going to allow only a $25,000 fine regardless of how many chemicals and what type they turn into the air? And I would move adoption, unless there's a question from the back.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Castro, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Castro , are you aware that TCEQ already speciates for other mediums other than air?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Yes, I do. So the infrastructure, the system is there to allow for this.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And are you aware that they used to speciate for air until they were told by the commissioners not to?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I am, unfortunately.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I would move adoption of my amendment to Warren's amendment. I vote no on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Castro sends up an amendment to the amendment. Mr. Chisum moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed nay. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Showing Mr. Chisum voting aye. Mr. Castro voting no. All members voted? Have all members voted? Show Mr. Eissler voting aye. There being 94 ayes and 46 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're now back on the Chisum amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Smith for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, I'm just going speak for a minute or two, but TCEQ already does this. This is not like we're reinventing the wheel. And I just wanted to make a comment, when we talk about a long list of chemicals, if you go back in the member's lounge or go out in the hall and get a drink of water, you're drinking chlorine, you're drinking zinc, you're probably drinking touches of arsenic; these issues all exist in our atmosphere. You can make a long list of what breathes out of your body. So -- and there are also -- In fact, there's even trihalomethanes in the water, that ought to scare you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Smith, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chairman Smith, in our opening sentence just now you said that TCEQ already does this. What you mean is they already speciate; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: No, they do not speciate.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: All right. The three line amendment specifically prohibits -- it says may not assess a separate penalty. But isn't it correct that, in fact, when these things move forward to the Attorney General's Office, the attorney general does have penalties for multiple digressions?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know what the Attorney General does, but I know that TCEQ does not.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. We know that TCEQ doesn't handle all the penalties and assessing penalties, right, in everything?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: And we've increased the penalties from $10,000 to $25,000, which should be --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But we know that TCEQ does not handle all the penalties, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: That they do not what?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: We know that TCEQ does not handle all the penalties in every case, correct? We know that sometimes these go to the Attorney General's Office?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: They don't handle all the penalties in every case.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Right. And when the TCEQ relates to the case that the violation is so significant that a penalty won't adequately address the violation, what happens?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Do you think the BP case would be an example of a situation that might end up at the AG's Office?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know. I'm addressing the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Is the BP accident an example of one incident, but multiple violations of multiple laws?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Rephrase your question. You're looking down and I'm not hearing you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Is the BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico last year, a good example of one incident where multiple laws were violated?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, I think it's common knowledge, Chairman Smith, that that is the case. And the point is that right now we do one thing, and this amendment prohibits and changes. And it will also change our working relationship with the EPA in a substantial way, as far as whether or not they try to continue to work with us with regards to air pollution control; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't agree with that. They don't speciate now.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, you're not advised?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't -- anything different.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mrs. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I just wanted to ask the gentleman, Mr. Smith, a question.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Smith, do you yield? Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Smith, are you for this amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I am going vote for this amendment, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And so as it relates we are changing what the Sunset Commission had in the original bill; is that right? When you put this amendment in is this what came out of Sunset?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: It's my understanding Sunset did not address it. Our Sunset members here, but it was not something that Sunset addressed as part of their recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And to the extent, I'm just going back to the policy issue as it relates to the Sunset Bills coming forth and the folks carrying the bill saying that we don't want to do anything different that was not part of the Sunset discussion, would that fit this protocol or would it be different? And I just want to you consider it differently.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I wasn't on Sunset Commission. I understand this was discussed, but I don't think it was brought forward.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But you are an author of this bill, are you one of the authors of the bill? You are, right?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't think so. I'm the author of the Sunset Bill, yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And to the extent that you are, it's my understanding that the Sunset Bills were only going to contain those kind of measures that Sunset Commission considered, isn't that, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Actually, the Sunset Bill will include what the members voted for it to include.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Right. And so under this -- When you put this amendment in, if you vote for this amendment, we will be doing something different on this bill than we have done on previous sunset bills, pretty much; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know if that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: You don't know if that's correct? Okay. The other thing as it relates to this particular amendment, it says it may not assess a separate penalty for each type of pollutant emitted. Is one time of pollutant a penalty? If you emit one type of pollutant is that a penalty?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: It's my understanding that you can have a penalty for a pollutant.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But I mean -- And so if there is two different pollutants are we saying that those two should be treated as one, is that what this amendment would do?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Penalize for the one, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Penalize for the one, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so to the extent that we're doing this, are we now making -- Do you think that we would be setting precedent that believes or says that if there is one law violated that we only get penalized for one law, versus two laws? If we violate two laws currently we get a penalty for both of the laws that were violated; is that correct, under most standards?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't hear you. Ask the question again.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Under most standards, where we have violations; each violation is typically an independent violation and the penalty is for that particular violation. Is that correct? When we deal with violations in a more generic standpoint, in any other aspect --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't about the rest of the standards, most standards.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: When you are doing -- If you think about any other penalties that are assessed, typically we assess them for a penalty; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And, typically, when there are two penalties there are two fines assessed; is that correct? Or two determinations that two penalties were broken and, therefore, two there were two areas of punishment; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know if we normally do that or not.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: You don't know if we typically provide a penalty for each violation that we typically have in most instances, when there is a violation of the statute? Don't we typically have a penalty for each violation?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: We often do, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So we do, we often do, right? So when we do this we're basically now saying it cannot be considered because you are now saying that it cannot be assessed separately; isn't that right?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: We do this, we will be continuing to do what we're doing right now.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But right now, isn't it the discretion that determines the penalties, the cause of the penalty? There's some discretion based on what the penalty is; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: You're going to have to say it again.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Isn't it correct that discretion -- Does the commission have discretion based on the level of the penalty, and this would, in fact, take that away to say automatically they cannot charge him for both penalties?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I don't know if that's what they do or not, but that could be.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Maybe Chairman Chisum can know, because this is hard trying to get some answers out of you. I'll wait.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker ?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield for just one question?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Smith, do you yield? representative allen: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Smith, you spoke in favor of this amendment. Does this amendment prevent speciation both for water emissions and air emissions, or just air?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: No, just air.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Is that clear to you from the language of the amendment that it just does that? Because it appears to be fairly broad.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Where do you see the qualifier for only air emission?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I'd have to look the bill up, the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Deshotel raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak against the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak against the amendment. Back up, members. Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move to withdraw the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Chisum moves to withdraw the amendment. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Castro? The amendment on page 24 is withdrawn. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , members, this is something that is a lot simpler; it's a delivery of fuel to tank. It just says that if the driver had a certified certificate out there that is legitimate to take fuel, that that's an (inaudible) offense to a penalty that might incur for doing that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Burnam?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Can I ask Mr. Chisum to speak more clearly against the mike so we can hear?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Come down closer and you'll understand it better.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: This is a disadvantage, because I had questions I wanted to ask you from this mike in just a minute.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Wait a minute. I want to hear him lay out the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Wait a minute. Mr. Speaker, I'm waiting on a question.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Burnam, I have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But I didn't ask for the the floor yet.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Burnam?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'd like to ask the gentleman some questions. Would he rather not deal with the questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: You had the opportunity, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, well then should I lay his amendment out from back here? This amendment is a special interest amendment that enables people to not pay what they need to pay in the remediation fund. Can we have some questions, Mr. Chairman?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: You have the floor, Mr. Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chairman Chisum, what exactly does this amendment do?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: If you're driving a truck and a have a load of gasoline and you show up in Ms. Kolkhorst's station, and she had a permit on the wall that said she was able to accept that load of gasoline, and you unloaded it in the tank and yet you found out later that that permit had expired; this is simply an affirmative defense of the fact that she had a permit on the wall.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: She had a permit on the wall, which may or may not have been --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It may have been expired, but I did not know that. That's all this does.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: The delivery person did not know that?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Delivery person would not have known that. I move passage. I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Chisum sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're going back to page six. This is Representative Geren's dam amendment. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Chairman Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. There's an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment to the amendment strikes most of the language in the original amendment, and just says the commission shall exempt dams that pass one thousand acre feet or less from meeting requirements related to dam safety. And the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Geren sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Now we're back on Representative Geren's amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, this amendment simply eliminates TCEQ oversights on tank dams on farmers, on farms and ranches; so they can't come in and make some guy who has already spent a bunch of money to impound water have to come back in and rebuild that dam to bigger specifications, based on probable maximum storm, which may be a thousand year storm. And I mean the unrealistic rainfall totals. And so that's what it is. And I think that Chairman Smith is not going to oppose it, he's going to leave it to the will of the House. But I think he wants to explain to you the other side of the story.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Smith on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: On this whole dam issue that we've been talking about all this week, there are two sides to the story: The person who has a dam, if an individual has a dam on his property, and I know some that were built back in the 40s and 50s, and the farmers and ranchers are still using them. And they are doing a great job. If someone came in downstream down the property line and built a home or built a subdivision, and then the dam should fail, the dam would then affect those people downstream. And TCEQ is charged currently with the responsibilities of looking at those dams, and those who present the highest hazard are the ones that the bill, all that it asks for them to do is to look at the one that presents the hazard. But that hazard is defined by what's downstream. The person who has the dam on his property, the dam may have been there long before the person had moved downstream. So, to me, it's a property rights issue. The landowner that has the dam has the property right to continue to have his dam and live like he wants to, and then the people downstream, who purchased the land and built the house, then they want to be protected from this. So it's a conundrum, if that's the right way to use it. And I will recommend to the Speaker that this be a part of the interim study for environmental reg, regardless of how this vote goes. So I'm going to leave it to the will of the House for Geren's amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Geren to close.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Chairman Smith. Members, I ask you to vote yes on this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: The question, members, the question is on adoption of the Geren Amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. Ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're back on page 26. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, what this amendment does, we've had in this state a long history of taking care of underground tanks, and we have had a special fund set up in the treasury where we -- when we load a load of fuel at a rack we put a charge for each load of fuel, and it describes in that. We appropriated this year $43 million, the fund raises much more money than that; this just reduced it down to $51 million that we are going to raise in this fund. It's a dedicated fund, it has money in it now and there's no reason to collect any more money than what we need in this dedicated fund. I yield to my --
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Warren, does this have a fiscal note? Looks like we're cutting down the revenues.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, it perhaps it would. It cuts down on the revenue. But it goes into a dedicated fund, so it's not a fiscal note to GRD. And we have appropriated it out of that fund $43 million, this raises 51 million, so it just leaves more GRD money in the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Okay. So you didn't think this has a fiscal cost as far as the budget?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I don't.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Chisum , these fees right now go to the petroleum storage tank remediation account; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And what does that account do?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That account cleans up abandoned storage tanks in this state, some of them are orphaned tanks. We take money out of the fund to do that. There are about 500 tanks left, that we know of. And we appropriate the money each year to take care of the ones we think will be cleaned up. And so every abandoned service station, they go in and find them, and this money does this. Actually, this money here, if they charge this money, you actually pay it when you buy gasoline; so this will reduce your cost of gasoline, you know, because this is a fund that actually ends up in the gasoline cost.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So the TCEQ Sunset Report had information about leaking petroleum storage tanks, do you know how much TCEQ spent in 2009?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't know. But I do know that we have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars across state cleaning these up. They have dug very deep holes. And this program has been going on since about '89 or '98, and then we've recovered these leaky tanks, took them out, took all the dirt out; and we're above any state spending money to take care of this problem. It's a problem completely across the nation, but the issue has been worked out in the State of Texas; and we're nearing the end of this program.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I will tell you, there was 49 million that was spent.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, we're going to spend another 40 million this next year.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: If we decrease these fees, who is going to pay these costs?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: If we -- We know what we're going to spend, we're going to spend $43 million and we're going to raise $51 million.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. Well --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: This is a very thought out process. We have been reducing this fee for several years, and it just keeps us in the same track we are on.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Well, I'm concerned, because current owners and operators aren't always equipped to pay these costs. And, in fact, the TCEQ -- I mean the Sunset Commission, it recommended that TCEQ actually extend liability to previous owners and operators, as well. Are you aware of that? Because we couldn't come up with the money.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I am aware of that. And this fund, you know, this fund is a fund that it has actually added on to your gasoline bill because, remember, this is collected at the rack, so it's in the cost of the gasoline before you put it in your car.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I understand that. Are you also aware that a lot of these places where you have leaking tanks and owners and operators can't clean them up, they are in neighborhoods and neighborhoods have to live with these?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't believe that's the issue. You can ask Ms. Kolkhorst, she operates several of those tanks and they're all checked on a regular basis. And for you to stand up here and tell there's a lot of leaky tanks that we can't clean up, that's just not true.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: There are some. Are you saying there are none?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, there aren't any that we know of, because we would be cleaning them up. We do not allow tanks to leak and us not know about it.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Chairman Chisum, isn't it true that this money is used to certify the budget? The money that you're taking out wouldn't that impact the budget?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, it wouldn't. Because we have already gone through budget and this is just a dedicated fund. But we don't --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But, in fact, dedicated funds is what certified budget, if I recall Chairman Pitts said --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It might affect the certification some, but that's all. It wouldn't be for very much, because we're not reducing it very much. But if you reduce it for any amount, it reduces it. So, therefore, the (inaudible) would not be certified.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: We wouldn't be building more money in the GRD account, you know. But we have plenty of money in the account to take care of the purpose. There's no reason of taking your gasoline money and putting it into a GRD account.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, I know that.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Turner can tell you there how it works.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But isn't it true -- Isn't it true that we use a dedicated fund to help certify our budget, and in this instance, if you move -- if you remove any amount of the money, it has the effect of having a budget that is not going to be certifiable; because the money that we think we've voted to certify it for is being stripped down; isn't that, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, that's not really correct. Mr. Turner, provides --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Explain to me --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Turner provides plenty of money to certify the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Turner provides plenty of money to certify the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Turner is up here saying to me the same thing. I'm asking you, because he has the understanding that this will in fact create a budget gap because we use these funds to certify and to balance the budget. That's what Chairman Pitts indicated to us during the budget process, that all those dedicated funds were used to help certify the budget. Now you're saying you can take a little bit out?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I'm saying that this fund right here is not enough to uncertify the the budget. The fund will certify with the passing of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is it any amount that this -- that your amendment will take any amount out? Will this amendment remove any funds available to help certify the budget? Because, if it does then --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I guess you can go ahead and pay more for your gasoline then.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You would have to pay more for your gasoline then, I guess we could use that.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: We can -- No, without paying more for your gasoline, this effect of your amendment; don't tell me how to fix it, tell me how -- if your amendment goes on, doesn't it have the effect, the limited amount of money available from this account to certify the budget?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, it might reduce it. It won't be a violation of the certification. And based on certifications, to get it certified, but this does not keep it from certifying the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But why would it be a problem for certification if, in fact, we're removing money from an account that was used to help certify it? We're decreasing that amount of money so, therefore, those funds would not be there and, therefore, you would not have the necessary funds available to certify the budget. So why is it that your -- the reduction in money doesn't have that effect?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It's just not very much money.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, it doesn't matter if it's two million or ten million, it has to affect the amount.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: We put plenty of money in there to certify the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, there's not plenty of money to certify the budget, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, help me. This money is going to affect the certification of the budget, just admit that. Just admit that.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You know, I am -- There is some funds that are not swept, and I am not -- I'm not in a position that these funds are swept or not swept.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Chairman , you and I both know you are in a position, because you charitied and you know that this fund was swept. You just don't want -- it doesn't apply to you, is that what your thought is?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No. My thought is -- What this does is raises enough money to do what we need to do to clean up the tanks in this state, and that's all we need.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker? Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Warren?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I know we've gone back and forth on question and answer, you are going to pull this amendment down; aren't you?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I have not reached that part yet.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Warren, Warren, now you know this amendment has to come down, which I really tell you this is we have always maintained this fund for the general purpose. I understand that, Warren, but you -- when you reduce --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: For those tanks it still raises the excess money --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. I hear you in all of that.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: If you drive your car enough --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I hear you on all of that.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But let me tell you, the high cost of gasoline, which you can find some gasoline here for four dollars, this reduces the cost of gasoline.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Warren, I understand that. Warren, I understand that. But because you are lowering the fee as of September 1st, 2011, you know this is this is upsetting the budgetary process.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It will not upset the budgetary process. We will go right on through this.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But what I'm saying, Warren --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Fuel raises plenty of money to do what we intend to do.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand all of that, and I'm sympathic to you on it. But you know that we are counting on every dime. This amendment takes money from the upcoming budget and, Warren, respectfully, you've made your point. I will respectfully ask that you pull it down.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Sheffield raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, I just -- I want to draw your attention to page 61, for those of you who are online and have been reading the Sunset Committee regulations. If you look at page 61, the fourth paragraph down, the Sunset Commission found very clearly that to maintain the new program and take on the new state lead sites, the agency estimated that the remediation of regulation rates will cost the state 31.4 million in the first year and 30.4 million in the second year; if the fee expires, even the cost operation of remediation if it just declines as the agency cleans up leaking sites, the balance would be depleted in five years. I understand what Chairman Chisum is trying to do, but you will seriously jeopardize the long-term viability of the clean up fund if you start reducing the fees in this statute. The Sunset Commission looked at this, they thought that the commission had the ability to set funds, to set fees in a way that would sustain the long-term viability of the clean up fund. If we do what Chairman Chisum is appropriating, we can deplete the clean up fund in about five years, and I think it's very dangerous, members. I think we should leave it to the TCEQ to set these rates and we should not be involved in this, because they are in the best position to assure the long-term viability of the clean up fund. So, again, if you look at page 61 of the Sunset Commission recommendation, I think we would be taking a very dangerous step in reducing the long-term viability of the clean up fund. I know that the clean up fund impacts each and every one of our districts. Each and every one, members. I just think this isn't good policy, shouldn't be in the Sunset Bill, and this should be left to the TCEQ to set rates and for the long-term viability of the clean up fund.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Members, and I hope you will pay attention to this amendment that Mr. Chisum has put forth, because it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the amendment, and I would like to think that Representative Smith would be opposed to it. This amendment does affect HB 1 that we just passed out. If you look at Representative Chisum's amendment, he reduces the fee as of September 1, 2011. As of September 1, 2011, which means he is reducing the amount that we used to certify the budget for HB 1. Whether you agree with his amendment or not, it does impact certification. And, so, if you vote for this amendment you are reducing the dedicated fund balance that we use for HB 1 in certifying the budget. As much as I hate fees, and I do hate fees, same thing would (inaudible) extend the fee benefit fund. Or if you reduce the fee on the trauma fund, all of these fees, whether we appropriate a lot of them or not, those dollars are used to certify the budget. Representative Chisum understands that, he fully understands that, and as a former Chair of the Appropriations Committee, and as a member of the Appropriations Committee; he understands that. But even with that understanding he is putting forth this amendment. I would only ask that to the extent that we have now approved HB 1, and HB 1 is based on all of the dollars that the comptroller has certified, this amendment runs contrary to that. And I would ask, respectfully, that you not adopt this amendment because the moneys are used to certify the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker ?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Does Mr. Turner yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Turner , we have been hearing in our offices from parents and students and educators about the effects of HB 1 to their local school districts. What would -- For those of us that don't understand what a sixth of the budget means, what was the direct impact to those folks who have been calling our offices?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: What I wanted them to understand, with respect to the general revenue dedicated account, whether we expand all of those dollars for the particular program or not, or keep some of the moneys in the budget, we use every dollar to certify the budget. Because Representative Chisum's amendment takes place on September 11th of 2011, he is reducing the amount of dollars that the comptroller is planning to use to certify the budget. It throws HB 1 out of whack, whether it's by one dollar or by one thousand dollars or a million dollars. And that's why I would respectfully ask Representative Chisum, knowing that, to simply put down his amendment. I think the point has been made, but I don't think I will ask that he not go forward with it.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, would you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I would be more than happy to yield, Yvonne.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Turner, as you talk about the appropriation process, are you aware that Mr. Chisum's amendment goes on that this entire bill would be subject to requiring us to hold up before it can be certified, according to Article 3, Section 49; because it impacts the budget?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It impacts the budget for the biennium of 2012 and 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: His amendment, basically, would hold up the entire Sunset Bill with this amendment, this entire Sunset Bill could not -- could not be implemented in September until after the budget has passed?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I think in the entire time that I have been here we have we have not passed, or been very reluctant to pass any bill that would take money out of the certification process on an appropriation bill that has already been passed, when we have utilized every single dollar. Representative Chisum's amendment has the effect of reducing the amount of money that we relied on in HB 1. This amendment runs counter to HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And the only bill that we're required to pass during (inaudible) is what?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: HB 1 is the Appropriations Bill.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And it has to be what?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It has to balance.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And this amendment would do just the opposite, if it takes any money away; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: This bill would throw HB 1 out of balance. I regret that Representative Pitts is not here, but this amendment would throw HB 1 out of balance and Representative Chisum, (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: As well as it would jeopardize this bill, this bill cannot be implemented, it violates Article 3 of the Constitution; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The only way that this amendment would not impact HB 1 is if Representative Warren Chisum's amendment did not take effect until after this upcoming biennium. But because it takes effect September 1, 2011, it throws HB 1 out of whack.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And it also jeopardizes the Sunset Bill that its on, also? It cannot be implemented, isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is subject to however the the parliamentarian should chose to look at it and interpret it. But I was able to say that the only way his amendment would not affect HB 1 is that it cannot take effect for two years down the road. If he choses to amend his amendment to do that, then that takes care of that. But as long as he's reducing the fee, and September 1st of 2011, and if the monies are going to a dedicated account, a GR dedicated account, which it is; it has a direct impact on HB 1 certification and I stand firmly on that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I would be more than happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, Representative Turner, what you're saying is if you look at the bill as a whole, it came to the House floor revenue trail at the first of the day, we have an opportunity to enhance that, but we didn't improve the Reynolds' amendment. During the discussion of the Reynolds' amendment you may have heard me ask about upcoming amendments. There are three Warren Chisum amendments that would have a negative impact on House Bill 1. He was a gentleman and took his first amendment down. Have you revisited with him and asked him about taking this second amendment down, that would have a negative impact of HB 1?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I have asked him to take --
JOE STRAUS: Representative King has raised a point of order, that the gentleman's time has expired --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I would ask that you vote no on Representative Chisum's amendment, because it does impact certification for HB 1.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Smith of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, what this amendment does is take out the Sunset provisions that were in that bill. It means that this fund would continue to be collected and not sunsetted in two years. I think it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Smith sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Chisum amendment as amended? Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Mr. Speak er.
JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Please excuse me, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Has someone asked whether or not this amendment will in fact affect the certification of the budget from a parliamentary inquiry standpoint, as opposed to member to member on the mike?
JOE STRAUS: Under Rule 8, Section 21 -- there are rules relating to the consideration of bills involving stated funds. Most of those rules require that if there is an item that affects the certification of the budget there must be a designation on the bill that the item cannot be effective until issues related to certification of the budget are resolved.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: I'm having a hard time hearing you, Mr. Speaker. Excuse me.
JOE STRAUS: We also would note that under Subsection E, that these provisions do not apply to bills providing for the reduction of taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: I see by the parliamentarian's look that was an answer. Okay, well, let me ask this another way: Would the Chair -- Would the Chair of Appropriations kindly answer a few questions if he would be so obliged?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Parliame ntary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Darby, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Sure will.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative Darby, I mean there has been some communications going back and forth on the this fee. Please explain now where the reduction has taken place, so that we are all clear, so that I can understand --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: This fee was being sun-setted. It was going away. And so it's not figured in the certification of the existing House Bill 1, okay?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And has it already sun-setted or it's being sun-setted?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It's already sun-setted. It expires at the end of August. Okay?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: August of 2011?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The fee is going to expire?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It's going to expire.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So as of now, under the current law, current law; the fee was -- it's scheduled today expire as of August 31st of 2011?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And it's a sunset provision in the Sunset Bill or is that in another bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, what I have -- What we've done is that we already have this in the fiscal matter bill. HB 3418 as an extension of this bill for the lesser amount, for the figures contained in warren's amendment, those figures generate about 51 million dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. I'm going to stick to the first part, to the sunset provision. The fact that the fee was going to sunset on August 31st of 2011. That's in -- Is that already in statute?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It's already in statute. It's already being sun-setted.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. As of now, if we do nothing, if we do nothing, the fee that currently is in existence will expire as of August 31st of 2011?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And because the fee is scheduled to expire, as of August 31st of 2011, then the comptroller is not utilizing the fee for the certification?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's my understanding. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Now, and in the fiscal matters bill that was voted out in the Appropriations Committee yesterday --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- the fee, there's another fee that is being instituted or implemented for this program?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And for the Fiscal Matters Bill that we voted -- Is that a smaller amount than what existed in the past?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And it is that new fee in the fiscal matters bill that Representative Chisum's amendment is addressing?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It does.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: The same amounts of money on each one of those sections is the same as in my fiscal matters bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, with regards to the fiscal matters bill, because we are using the fiscal matters bill as a part of funding HB1, is the fiscal matters bill or the fee in the fiscal matters bill being used to --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Remediate the existing projects. The reason why there is a lesser amount of being raised is that the number of projects being remediated has gone down. Therefore, there's less money to be needed for the remediation of the remaining projects. So that fee reduction is actually -- generates about 7 million dollars less. It goes from 58 million to about 51 million.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And that's in the new fee that we have created?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct. That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That we are proposing to create?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then Representative Chisum's amendment then only deals with the proposed fee --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- that is not being used by the comptroller for the certification?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I would move that the comments between Representative Drew Darby and myself be reduced to writing and placed in the record.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Will Chairman Chisum yield, please, for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We are back on the Chisum amendment. Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Chairman Chisum. You are proposing to take 7 million dollars, reduce fees in this program and therefore reduce the program by 7 million dollars; correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And this is the PST remediation fee?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. How much -- How many states were remediated last year and actually in 2009? Do you know?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe we heard the testimony, 4,800 sites or 480 sites.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Apparently --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: -- about 500 left.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Apparently, when -- In January 2011, there were 650 sites requiring state funds for remediation. By reducing this 7 million dollars for each year of the biennium, is this per year for two years?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So it's a 14 million dollar reduction over the biennium, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: How much was spent in 2010 for remediation?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe they appropriated 46 million. This year we appropriated 42 million -- 43 million.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. And had you taken into account the amount of stimulus funds that were received in 2010 and will not be there in 2011 as a further reduction of the fund? Do you know how much we received for the stimulus funds for the year --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe -- We just took an amendment that took out the sunset date for 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Not the stimulus. I mean we had a certain amount of stimulus dollars that came in and bolstered the fund in 2010. Those won't be there in 2011 and 2012. Do you know what that further reduces the fund by?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I'm not exactly sure that we put stimulus funds into this, maybe we did.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: In 2010 we put almost 11 million dollars worth of stimulus funds in.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Those stimulus funds are not going to be there. And then you are reducing the fund by 7 million dollars per year, for a total of 14 million dollars over the biennium. And what is that going to do with the long term viability of the fund?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, the fund --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Would it -- Sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, the fund is still is on every load of gasoline. So the fund moves on. The way I understand it is this has enough money to clean up the purpose of the fund, which is clean up the tanks. And every time we charge $12,000 for $8,000 worth of gasoline, all that goes into the cost of the fuel, so --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: So it turns out that the sunset was actually concerned about the long-term viability of the fund. And I think that's why Representative Harper-Brown placed a fee cap as a modification in the sunset recommendations, so that we can't go any higher than this. And then there is an automatic ratcheting mechanism that when the number of sites decline the fund declines in size. So how did you arrive at the 7 million dollar reduction?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I arrived at it -- the fact that it was raising 58 million dollars, we're only spending 43 million dollars and this reduction brings that down to 51 million dollars. So the way arrived at it, it's a way not to charge 7 million dollars for the cost of gasoline at the pumps across the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: But you would agree that the PST remediation fund is important, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Oh, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And it's important in urban districts and rural districts, right?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah. It's across the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And did you visit with anybody from TCQ to determine whether or not this would impact the long-term viability of the fund?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Did you visit with anybody from the sunset commission to determine if that would adversely impact the long-term viability of the fund?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I visited with people that are in charge of getting these tanks removed there --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: But not anybody in the sunset commission, right?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't believe I had anybody at the sunset commission --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And nobody from TCQ, right?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move passage. Well, wait a minute.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield, Mr. Chisum?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, Representative Chisum, you and I both sat on the Appropriations Committee. And yesterday we passed out some fiscal matter bills, I think that was yesterday. And the committee substitute for House Bill 3418, is this the same language that's in that bill?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. So that's why people are a little bit confused, don't you think? Especially those of us who are on Appropriations, because the same information is in House Bill 3418?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I sure hope it passes.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: You mean you hope 3418 passes?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: And so the reason that you are putting it -- I think -- I don't mean to interpret what you are saying, since you can interpret it yourself. So what are you telling me, that you are just putting it in this bill so it will be in two places in the event that the other bill does not pass?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah, I've been noticing what the Senate's done to our Appropriations Bill and it's not nice.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Well, I think for those of us anyway who sat in the Appropriations, it would have been a lot clearer for us if we had understood from the beginning that this language is the same language that's in the fiscal matters bill, the committee substitute for House Bill 3418. We were confused because it looked like there was an additional amount of reduction. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Johnson for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to take a minute to recognize two very important people in my life who are in the east gallery. My mother Alice Johnson, and my brother Darrel Johnson, who are here visiting today. And my niece Taylor Johnson, who is here on the House floor as an honorary page today from Virginia, as well, on spring break. So thank you very much. It's good to see you. I love you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'll be brief with my comments. Chairman Chisum I know is well intended. And he doesn't want to adversely impact the viability of the PST remediation fund. It's important in all of our communities. But he admitted up here that he spoke to no one at TCEQ about this amendment, he spoke to no one at Sunset about this amendment. This was an important issue that we considered in sunset, ladies and gentlemen. It was extremely important, because we want to make sure that this PST remediation fund is there for the long-term, for my constituents and for your constituents. Representative Harper-Brown did a very important modification in the sunset process. She said that as need the for remediation goes down, because there are less inactive wells out there that need to be remediated, the fund has a self-leveling mechanism that causes the amount in the fund to go down. But it is only after there's a determination that no more remediation needs to be done for those specific sites. What happens with Mr. Chisum's amendment is that he removes Representative Harper-Brown's motivation in the sunset commission to reduce this as a self-leveling mechanism and, instead, arbitrarily places these fees in place without having to talk to TCQ or Sunset. And I think that's a problem. I think it's bad policy. I don't think we should be doing this, we should be adopting this in this bill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative -- for what purpose?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I'd like to ask Representative Anchia a couple of questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield, Mr. Anchia?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Sir, Representative Anchia, this has been a developed in the void of talking to anybody that's relevant players in the process. What we have learned in the exchanges over the last several minutes is that we are reducing the fund by 7 million dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: 7 million dollars per year, 14 million dollars per biennium. And when you net out the stimulus funds that were used for the PST, that's another 10 million that's gone for the fund. So, members, I just think it's -- I just think that we need to vote this down. I don't think it's good policy and should be done here. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: So Mr. Anchia, who is going to pay for these clean-ups?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Ultimately, if the fund is jeopardized it comes out of GR. And, you know, I just don't think it's good policy. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: So in addition to those projections, isn't it true that we just passed an amendment that provides affirmative defense, so we are not even going to be able to find a lot of the people that are guilty of creating the problem?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to close.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, this bill just reduces the cost of your gasoline by 7 million dollars a year. And that's basically what it does. It still collects plenty of money to do what the purpose was for it to clean up the forfeit tanks around the State of Texas. And I just move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is on the Chisum amendment as amended. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Chisum voting aye. Representative Smith voting aye. Show Representative Anchia voting no. Representative Farrar voting no. Representative Villarreal voting no. We have plenty of time. Just a moment. We understand the board is not working. Strike the board. Members, there's a software problem. We are going to stand at ease for ten minutes.
(The House stands at ease.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we are going to try this again. We are back on the Chisum amendment. Chisum amendment as amended.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Everybody turn on a green light.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment. Question is on the adoption of the Chisum amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk, ring the bell. Show Mr. Burnam voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 92 ayes and 48 nays, three present not voting; the amendment is adopted. We're on page 28. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, what this amendment does is it clarifies a problem that we have had, we've heard a lot from the public about. It clarifies that TCEQ has the authority to deny a deficient air permit. TCEQ has stated publically that it believes it lacks the authority to deny air permits. And this was a problem in 2008 when in El Paso, a company, named (inaudible) applied to reopen an old copper smelter. This was literally a metal smelter in the city. There was no way to make it safe or healthy for residents. El Paso opposed the permit renewal. A contested case hearing was held and an administrative law judge recommended denying the permit. TCEQ granted it anyway, claiming it had no authority to deny the permit. This amendment would bring parity with other permitting statutes. Let me tell you what kind of statues I'm talking about. In Water Appropriations, the water code allows where there is a permit for the use of state water, that permit may be denied if no permit -- if no water is available. Under waste water, for a permit to discharge wast into surface water, that permit may be denied for a low compliance history, and it may be denied upon the need or availability of other waste disposal options. In solid waste, a permit for a landfill, it can be denied for reasons pertaining to public health, air, water pollution; or land use. And it may be denied, also, for low compliance history ratings. Injection wells, a permit to dispose of liquid waste by injecting into the ground, into the -- far underground, it may be denied for a low compliance rating history. Sub-service area drip dispersal systems as well, this is a permit to dispose of liquid waste by dripping it into the upper four feet of the ground where it is absorbed. This may be denied for low compliance history rating. And so, even with this amendment, a permit applicant still has several chances to fix a permit. TCEQ may issue a report explaining any objection to a permit and then the permit applicant may apply -- may alter the permit to fix those objections. Only if the applicant refuses to fix the permit can it be denied. I ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker and members, in respect to Representative Farrar, the first issue she raised is an issue we discussed in sunset; it's a significant and important issue in El Paso, the Ozarko* situation. But the peculiar and unfortunate scenario that existed there is that they were simply trying to do a permit application renewal. So this amendment of Representative Farrar's would not even apply to the Ozarko* situation in El Paso. It's under 382.0518, which is preconstruction permit. So it wouldn't even apply to that renewal situation. It was very unique and an anomaly. And I think, fortunately, thank goodness, I think that permit renewal application has been withdrawn, and it wasn't an agreed to situation. The other thing is the current law says that TCEQ is required to deal with the best available controlled technology, considering the technological predictability and economic reasonableness. This amendment would change that situation to where the agency would not have the ability to continue with the -- they're using the most technologically advanced technology and it would force the agency to deny that permit at that point. For those reasons, members, I respectfully move to table Mrs. Farrar's amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker , members, what this amendment does, again, it says that no means no; and it brings the air permitting process into the same -- We do water permits in all the other -- the exact same way that we would do other air permits. Only in an air permits do we treat it differently. I ask for your adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Bonnen moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Bonnen voting aye. Shows Representative Farrar voting no. Show Representative Smith voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 98 ayes, 39 nays; motion to table prevails. We're on page 30. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Bernam.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, there's an amendment to amendment that will probably make the amendment acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Chisum.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , members, this just strikes lines 8 and 9 of the amendment. And it makes it only apply to new facilities as they're built, not modified. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Back on the Burnam amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Representative Burnam's amendment is not acceptable to the author now that it's been amended by by chairman Chisum.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Burnam sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Higher Education to meet while the House is in session at 3:45 p.m. today, April 19th, 2011, at 3W..9 to consider pending business.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on Higher Education will meet at 3:45 p.m. on April 19th, 2011, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.
JOE STRAUS: Members, we're on page 33. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a very simple amendment; three and a half lines. Commission shall adopt rules to minimize emissions of air containments resulting from activity associated with the drilling or reworking of oil and gas well. Move for adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Smith to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, TCEQ is currently doing some of this and TCEQ, through -- may compile issues and permits. So I move that we table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, only inadequately is TCQ doing this. It has clear authority to regulate (inaudible) oil and gas equipment, but current law is unclear regarding the regulation of emissions from drilling, completed and reworking oil and gas wells. This amendment clarifies and fixes that. You know, it's great to live in the Barnet Shale, but drilling rigs and diesel engines and venting and clearing gases completions are significant sources. Mining municipality demands green completion. Some municipalities have been required to green completion. We're asking that the TCQ be given authority to move in that direction as well. There needs to be a reasonable approach to effectively reduce this pollution.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Burnam sends up an amendment. Representative Smith moves to table. Question is on the motion to table, members. Vote aye, vote no. Showing Mr. Burnam voting no. Representative Smith voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 97 ayes, 79 nays; motion to table prevailed. Members, we are now on page 34. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: We heard a lot about this, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment creates a method to hold previous owners and operators liable for the clean up cost of leaking, large underground storage tanks, as we discussed earlier. Leaking underground storage tanks are the largest source of ground water pollution in this state. Right now, the State has to cover some of the cost of the clean up, as we heard so much about. It does this with the TCQ petroleum storage tanks remediation fee, which as we belabored, and we know that we just reduced the amount of that fund. In 2009, however, TCQ spent almost 50 million on petroleum storage tank regulation and remediation. This amendment implements recommendation 6.1 in the Sunset Advisory Commission Report. It would hold previous owners and operators liable for their share of costs in the clean up of these leaking tanks. Owners and operators are not liable if they prove that the the tanks did not leak under their ownership or operation. Liability among owners and operators would be proportionate to their fault. As have we spoken about earlier, this state is in a budget crisis and can't continue to afford to pay the cost when bad actors leave us holding the bag. And neighborhoods can't continue to live next to sites whether neither the State nor private entities can afford to clean up that area so that development can occur.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Smith in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, members. This Sunset Commission considered this and decided not to do it, because it created a condition of liability that they weren't certain of. It would mean that if you own a piece of land and you have a tank on it and that tank is there and something was found on it then you would have to prove that it wasn't yours. So I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: With the reduction of the fee that was made earlier, we have to do something to be able to clean up these sites. They are hazardous to our neighborhoods, they are eyesores and I ask you to please stay with me and vote for the amendment, or against the motion to table. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Naishtat, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Question.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Does the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you. I just want to make sure that I understand there are protections for previous owners or operators in your amendment, that they wouldn't be held liable if it could be proved that no release had occurred during the period of their ownership ; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: So the protection is in there?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Smith moves to table. The question is on the notion table. Vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Smith voting aye. Representative Farrar voting nay. Representative Ritter voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? 95 ayes, 45 nays; the motion to table passes. Members, the amendment on page 37 is withdrawn. We are now page 38, members.
CLERK: Amendment by Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this amendment addresses some concerns that TCQ had with Sunset Recommendations pertaining to water use reports, and it ensures that water rights holders will continue to report the same level of information and the annual report is already required by law, and it provides that the TCQ may also request the monthly water use information in response to a compliant, and I think it is acceptable to the author. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Ritter sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. Members, we're on page 39. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, this amendment clarifies existing statutes on emergency orders concerning water rights. It provides that any suspension of water rights would be in accordance with the first in time, first in rights doctrine that we use for surface water. Madam Speaker, I do have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Following the amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this amendment to the amendment gives TCEQ the authority to require those who are receiving a water transfer to comply with drought management measures. And it is acceptable to me. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Ritter sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We are now on the Ritter amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, again, this amendment clarifies the existing statute. It is language agreed between TCEQ and all the industry, it clarifies the executive directors authority to curtail water use and water storages in times of drought, and it requires executive director to minimize the impact of water rights holders, maximize the beneficial use of water and prevent waste. And I think the amendment is acceptable to author.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Ritter sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're now on page 41. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer. Members, the amendment on page 41 is temporarily withdrawn. Members we are on page 42. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have an amendment to the amendment. Would you lay that out?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Members , this amendment to the amendment is clerical in nature, it strikes one line that shouldn't have been in there. It was a mistake to begin with. It corrects that. The amendment is acceptable to me, the author of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Aycock sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're now on the Aycock amendment as amended. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we are now on page 44. The amendment on page 44 has been withdrawn. Members, we are on page 45. Following amendment the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Chairman Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, this is Representative Calgary's amendment, and I told him I would hear it for him if he wasn't in his chair at the time. But this returns it back to one-half of one cent when the substance fee for water utilities is one percent for investor owned utilities, and it makes it -- keeps it from one percent from investor owned and a half a percent for water districts. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Smith sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we are on page 46. Members, the amendment on page 46 is withdrawn. Members, we are on page 47. Page 47 has been withdrawn. Members, we are now on page 48. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This amendment simply adds aquaculture to the agriculture definition in 117.002 of the Water Code. Aquaculture is already defined in the agriculture code, and it clearly states that aquaculture is an agricultural activity. The background on this is that providing water at interruptible water rates for aquaculture has been raised regarding water contracts with aquaculture producers. Currently, the aquaculture water customers are considered by the water providers to be agriculture enterprises. However, reading the Chapter 11 of the Water Code indicates that the water for aquaculture use is not equivalent to water for agriculture use. Applying the industrial definitions to aquaculture uses would require that firm water charges be applied to aquaculture customers. This would increase the cost of water to the aquaculture customer by about seven times the interruptible agricultural use charges. At a time when domestic water culture is severely challenged by foreign fish imports, and their operating margins are already reduced; a substantial increase in operating costs will adversely effect the survival of many, if not most of the current producers and will preclude the expansion of aquaculture. And I believe this amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Ritter , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RITTER: Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Zerwas , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Dr. Zerwas, this is for -- would this be similar like for shrimp farms or catfish farms or things like that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's my understanding of it.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Or big water users and -- that basically are, in many people eyes, are more compared to a manufacturing industry type concept versers actually watering hogs or cows or chickens?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I think that -- you make a good point. And that's where it is currently categorized, as an industrial use. However, it's also, I think, clearly recognized that these are -- that these people are producing live products and they're used ultimately for consumption. So I think that most people would recognize this as an agricultural activity.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: I don't know if I'd agree with you, Mr. Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I appreciate that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Burnam, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: May I ask the speaker a question, please? Or Representative Zerwas, please?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Gentleman yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. We discussed this earlier today and you understand some of the concerns, so would you just, in very simple language, say what the intent of this amendment is; what are you trying to accomplish for this industry? I use that word advisedly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Aquaculture is defined as an agricultural activity in the Agriculture Code. However, in the water code it is being treated as an industrial profession, if you will. And, therefore, there's a higher rate that is charged to those individuals. If it's considered an agricultural activity then they should be charged at what is the interruptible water rate.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So one of the things there is that higher rate is because there's a just much higher use in aquaculture as opposed terrestrial agriculture, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: One could assume that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And so the effect of this amendment is to reduce the cost of water for aquaculture?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That would be the effect of this amendment, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask that all of Dr. Zerwas' comments on the lay out of the bill, and the in exchange with the Chairman and myself be reduced to writing and put in the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Anyone wanting to speak on, for, or against the amendment by Zerwas? Chair recognizes Representative Ritter in opposition to the Zerwas amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, I'm going to have to stand up against this, because of a lot of unknown consequences. To me, this is like shrimp farming, catfish farming, any other water mine that might be that has a different intent than what we look at for normal agriculture uses. So, Madam Speaker, I would have a motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. And, members, I think this really comes down to whether we believe that the area of aquaculture is actually an agricultural activity, and if it's an agricultural activity then they ought to be subject to the same water rates of those in other water agricultural activities, and that is an interruptible water rate not a firm water rate. Again, if we impose a higher rate on this particular industry, because the margins are fairly narrow, I think we'll see a lot of the domestic aquaculture be forced out of business and it will be taken over by some of the foreign companies that are involved in there this. So, with that, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to vote on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Zerwas sends up an amendment. Representative Ritter motions to table. The question is on the motion to table. Members, vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Zerwas voting nay. Representative Ritter voting aye. Representative Smith voting aye. Have all members voted? Oh, Representative Smith voting no. Representative Zerwas voting nay. Have all members voted? There being 75 ayes and 60 nays, the motion to table passes. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. Members, we are on page 49.
CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. Notification of water rate changes requires currently to be given in writing 60 days prior to the effective date of the changes, as well as 30 days after the change has occurred. However, Austin customers get notification of rate changes through television print use coverage, as well as Town Hall meetings. But, additionally, more and more people are now switching to electronic billing and online payment systems. This simple amendment extends the post-rate change notification from 30 days to 60 days to allow notification to be cycled into the regular billing cycle and avoid a separate mailing and expense. Depending on the billing cycle for water bills, a customer may receive bills and notice after the current day 30 day window. The amendment would also allow for the rate change notification to be delivered electronically to those customers who are currently using electronic methods in place. It applies to municipally owned water utilities and it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Menendez sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we are on page 50. Amendments on page 50 through 63 have been withdrawn. We are on page 63. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you Madam Speaker and members, this is a little amendment that has to do with the size and (inaudible) entity to require a full blown audit. The statute was placed in 1995 requiring statutes of a -- requiring entities of a hundred thousand or more to prepare an audit. We are raising that to keep up with inflation. It's acceptable to the author. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Hughes sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 64. Members, the amendment on page 64 is withdrawn. Members, the amendment on page 66 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 69. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, there's -- What this amendment does, there has been a federal court case that's going to require us to abide by maximum available control technology called Mac Rules, in order to capture mercury that the federal court has said that we only have between three and four years to get that done. And, right now, a contested case hearing would take at least twenty four to much as forty eight months to get it done, so we would be in violation of that. So what we are trying to do with this is just say that in order for these specific cases under Mac Rules, that we would use the federal regulatory commission to -- under Title 5 at EPA, which is notice and comment, in order to permit these facilities to reduce the amount of pollution that they are putting out and capture mercury under the rules. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Chisum , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Ms. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Chisum, I have some questions for you, even though your amendment is acceptable to the author. For right now electric generating facilities are subject to a case by case maximum achievable control technology permitting for their hazardous air pollutants; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah, but these are the existing plants and they are going to raise their -- they permit the best available technology, but in order to reach the mercury regulation they are going to have to use Mac technology, which is increasing -- the technology, it increases it. And we are going to do that. But we are just wanting to have the opportunity to do it through noticing comments, just like the federal statutes call for.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So then there would be no discovery, no live witnesses and no cross-examination; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, there would be notice and comments, just like it is when you do any federal permitting process. A lot of states use this. Texas uses a contested case hearing, but a lot of states use Mac. They use the notice and comments practice.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It's allowed under Title 5. It's a way the federal government does their permitting.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: But we are changing things so that we now there will no longer be discovery and live witnesses, or cross-examinations; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, we would not have the contested case hearings on it.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Right. That's what I'm trying to get down to. You wouldn't have that opportunity?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Right. We are going to permit these so they can get about making their adjustments and bringing these plants into compliance, so we don't run out of electricity in this country.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Have you questioned the EPA, how they would feel about whether removing the opportunity for a contested case hearing, would it still satisfy the federal permitting requirements?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe it will, because what we -- what this says in this amendment, and what the practice would be to use exactly the same permitting process that the federal EPA uses right now under Title 5. So we are just using the same technology that they use, and would allow for the noticing and comment period.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I'm just concerned, though. I mean are we comparing apples to apples or is this different?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, it is different. Because we have an existing plan and you are raising the bar on them, and this allows them to meet that through notice and comments.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Are you afraid, though, that this might invalidate our permitting process --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: -- for these pollutants?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Chisum sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Members, we are on page 70. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Ms. Speaker and members, this amendment just changes a little bit what we do in the course of a contested case hearing. Right now, in contested case hearings, there's no requirement for the TCEQ director to be a participant in the contested case. This requires him to be a part of the contested case hearing. Also, currently the burden of proof lies on the permit applicant, and what this does is it says if you want to complain and cause us to go to the contested case hearing, the burden of proof lies on you; like it does in any other civil case. In addition to that, the TCEQ could, as the amendment would allow the state agencies to comment on the permit application that TCEQ, but prevents them from doing it in a contested case hearing. This would just allow TCEQ to do that when the permit is challenged. And so that's what this does, it just allows the (inaudible) case, the contested case hearing, to have the best available evidence as to whether or not they would agree to stop a permit, and would for those people who are going to contest a permit, it would be up to them to lay out the program for -- what the grounds they contest the case on. Be happy to answer any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Reynolds, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Would the gentleman yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Chisum , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Madam Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you. Chairman Chisum, in Section 1 at line 15 through 18, in Section 2 at line 23, and in Section 6, this amendment says that the burden is on the affected person to show that the permit should not be issued or renewed, or that the related permit condition should not be imposed, modified or omitted. Doesn't that shift the burden of proof away from the person seeking the permit or license change, to the neighbor fighting the permit?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, it does. And it's -- This is after TCEQ has gone through the normal process of having all of the materials presented in an open case. So they have a benefit of all of the evidence that they had up to this point, because the permit is technically complete at that point. And if they disagree with the technology then they ought to state what why they disagree with it, and we will let the SO -- the (inaudible) judges move forward from there. And I would just like to say that, you know, we've had a lot of cases that just because of the length of our permitting process, we have avoided having a lot of businesses come to the State of Texas. And I think this will speed this process up where we can get on with it. And the fact that we now allow the commissioner who -- the one that issued the permit, or the one that signed the permit, to be a part of the contested case hearing, so he can depend what goes in there.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Don't we require when an applicant asks for a permit that they approve that their emissions are safe?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Does federal law require the burden of proof to be on the applicant?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: No, I don't think it does.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, it's my understanding that --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, on the applicant for the permit? Absolutely. Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And then if you question that, then we will take it to (inaudible) and they'll have to prove that.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Doesn't Texas law go farther than the federal law?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I believe it that it does go farther than the federal law. But it just takes us longer to get there and I am not sure that it's always good for the process.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Aren't contested case hearings lengthy and expensive?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, they have proven to be quite lengthy and expensive. And I thank you for bringing that up.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: How many contested case hearings have we had over the last several years?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You know, the issue is not how many we've had, it's just a fact that they take a long time to get them done. And if every permit has to stand on its own, so if you are an investor out there and you know that you have to put up your money when you build a hundred million dollar plant, then it's going to take four years to get it permitted in the State of Texas, when you might could do it in six months in another state; and you are going to tend to move that to a different state. And that's happened in the -- just the last few months.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Has the number of hearings actually gone up or down?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Gone down, because we have less people applying for the permits.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: They have been cut down at least a third, wouldn't you say?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Probably.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: If so few were granted over term, what good is the hearing?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, I'm not trying to cut the hearing out. I want you to go ahead and have the hearing and if you want to say our technology is wrong, our permit is wrong, if you want to bring it up in the contested case hearing that the permit should not have been -- should not be issued, I'm fine with that. It's just that you have to tell us on what basis that we do that.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Doesn't your bill have provisions that also limit discovery?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I don't think it does.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: It actually does in two ways.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: How is that?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, it says here that in a contested case hearing, delegated by the commission to the state office of administrative hearing that uses prefiled written testimony, all discovery must be completed before the deadline for the submission of that testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, it does say that. And I believe that's common in any civil case, that there has to be an end to the evidence that you bring in. And so it follows that track.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And also, normally, in a civil case, the judge will allow the parties, the -- both sides to usually work out a discovery tailored to the specific case; are you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, I am.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And it also states that scientific and technical available at the time the technical review portion of the proceeding closes is the only scientific and technical information that may be considered in the proceeding; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yes, as you can't hold on to something that you haven't -- you are not asking for.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: These amendments both will limit the amount of information on better controls or impacts on (inaudible) communities that are available to the commissioners and commission officers, if you can't do a second round of discovery, then you have to do far more discovery up front to investigate all possibilities; increasing the cost to the applicants, do you agree? Do you agree with that proposition?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Would you say it again, now?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: If you limit discovery -- Well, I'll go ahead and withdraw that. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe I have an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: There's an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Members, all this does is limit the river authorities and not treat them like state agencies so they can still do their stuff that they have always done. I move to adopt.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: For what purpose Mr. Burnam? Mr. Chisum, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I yield, Ms. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Representative Chisum, would you say again exactly what this last amendment to the amendment does?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, in the area of river authorities it just treats them like a river authority and not like a state agency. And so what this does is it says that for the purpose of this contested case hearing, in part, that a river authority is not a state agency and if they want to contest, they want to enter into something in the contested case hearings, that they can do that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: River authorities, because what we found is that in 2010 that TCEQ had the LCRA entered into like four hundred fifty different applications and you know twenty eight of the applicants were -- had significant issues for the LCRA. So it allows them to be a part of it.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So the effect of your amendment is only on river authorities?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: River authorities, that's right. Clearly just for LCRA, but I just didn't want to --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And it exempts the river authorities from your --
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: It just allows the river authorities to be treated as -- as -- not as being a state agency for this purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Chisum sends up an amendment to the amendment. Is there any objection? It's acceptable to the author. Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We're now on -- Is Mr. Phillips on -- Mr. Phillips? Representative Phillips for a recognition. We are now on -- Mr. Phillips? Representative Phillips for a recognition. Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Turner. Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. There is simply some confusion as to whether or not the amendment by Representative Chisum was affecting the water and sewer rate making proceedings -- this amendment just clarifies that it is not. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Turner sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're now on the Chisum amendment as amended. Members, anyone wanting to speak on for or against the amendment? The amendment is acceptable -- the amendment is acceptable to the author. The Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak against the Chisum amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. And I ask the body to pay attention to this amendment. There are some pretty significant policy changes that occur here. The first one, and keep in mind that much of this is included in a bill that Chairman Chisum has, 3137, that has not come to the floor of the House; so he's putting it in this bill. The first thing it does is it shifts the burden of proof for contested case hearings, and that is no longer the applicant who has the burden of proof of why they deserve the application. It is shifted to a contested party, or a party that is contesting the application. And that's a pretty dramatic policy change. I'm not sure this House wants to undertake without having have this gone through committee and vetted. Most are concerned about the limitation of discovery. I know chairman Chisum said his bill did not do that, but if you look at the bottom of page 2, Section 5.315, line 29, there's a change in the amount of discovery that can occur when you have these cases. It does some other things that I visited with TCQ about, and the Sunset Commission folks about. Again, a major policy change should be going through committee. Instead, it's coming here to the -- to the Sunset Commission Bill. And, folks, I'm not comfortable with shifting the burden of proof from an applicant, a person who is receiving a state license, should have the burden of proof of showing whether application is valid to a party that's contesting that applicant. Could be anybody, some of your constituents in the community that's contesting the application, and I don't think you put it on the community to bear the cost and the burden of proof, you put it on the applicant that seeks these privileges from the state. So I think it's bad policy. It shouldn't be done on this bill, and that's why I rise against it.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Smith on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: I will be brief. Representative Anchia, is correct it is a major policy change. He is also correct that it changes the burden of proof. But what it changes is the burden of proof for the person making the accusation, and not necessarily the person making the application. So I'm going to leave this decision to the will of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to speak for the amendment and to close.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mrs. Speaker and members, I just tell you that it's time this state moved up to making sure that when we have a contested case hearing it's handled like we handle any other court case in this state, and that's what this does. If you're going to follow suit you have to say why you're following the suit. That's all this does. So the burden of proof is on the -- on the -- the one making the claim. I just move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tives Chisum sends up an amendment. Question is on the adoption of the amendment as amended. Members, vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Weber voting aye. Representative Smith voting aye. Representative Chisum voting aye. Representative Farrar voting nay. Representative Quintanilla voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 96 ayes and 44 nays, 3 present not voting and 7 absent; the amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is the last amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mrs. Speaker, members, this is at the very first of the bill, it was one of the amendments that was postponed. This amendment is to revisit Sunset with TCEQ. Current bill says 12 years, the amendment says 6 years. There are many serious problems with this agency, and we have had the opportunity to address some of those problems today. But, instead, we have done nothing to improve the quality of air in this state. In fact, we have taken many actions that are contrary to this best interest. We've done nothing to improve water quality in this state. Instead, we've taken actions that run to its contrary. And we've done nothing to improve the access that citizens have to the agency. In fact, we have completely undermined that. There are so many things up in the air with TCEQ that we're going need to revisit this systematically, as opposed to the process that we have witnessed over the last few weeks. We had a seven hour hearing on this bill, but there were no amendments entertained in committee. We didn't know what those amendments were going to be until they were filed yesterday. What we have now is an agency that is in the stream flux. It is supposed to be adding some issues that are of great importance to this state, and they seem to be failing over and over again. We have a situation here in the State of Texas where there are ten cases in federal court right now fighting the EPA over the way we do our business and how we try to clean up our air. There is no way that we can continue at the path that we have continued on and make our citizens healthier. We are catering to permit applicants, we stack the decks against public interest, we have ignored the obligation to protect human health, except in the most minor of ways. There are to many new federal standards coming down the pike that because of the restrictions that were adopted on this bill today we are going to literally handcuff this agency and preclude it from being able to do the job that it should do. I think at minimum we should be prepared to revisit the whole structure of this state agency in six years. So this amendment is to change the Sunset timeline to rather than a 12-year period, a 6 year period, so we'll be in a better position six years from now once, these ten cases are resolved; once we understand and know what is being done to change the regulatory environment at the national level, how to respond and how to work towards cleaning up our air.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Madam Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Naishtat, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Burnam , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would gladly yield.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Lon included in some of the changes that went onto this bill through amendments are some serious policy changes resulting from bills that have been introduced in various committees, but have not gone through the Sunset Review; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You're absolutely right. I have never seen, in my entire ten years of the legislature, a bill going through Sunset adopt as many policy changes on the House floor as I have seen today. It is incredulous and incredible that we have taken this action. It violates the process that we have all agreed to, it undermines the process in the long-term.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And your amendment wouldn't negate any of the amendments that were adopted today, but would simply give this body the opportunity to review this agency at an earlier period, so we might be able to have meaningful input into changes that appear to be necessary in the next few years.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's absolutely right. The only thing this amendment does is change the timeline on Sunset so that we're in a position to be more flexible and nimble in addressing the numerous things that are going to be coming down the pike over the next three to five years, in order to make this agency a more responsive and effective agency for public health.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And many of the changes that were put in place through adoption of the amendments today are so important that we should revisit this agency sooner rather than later?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's absolutely the case. I think we made a number of mistakes today, not carefully taking into consideration what should be. But see how it works out and let's revisit this issue six years from now.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Madam Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Christian, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Burnam , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I gladly yield.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Represent ative, I heard you talk about that we in Texas have not done a good job, and we have allowed this to go awry as far as our environment is concerned. Are you aware that in Texas, we in this House passed a law several sessions back that we would exceed every EPA regulation regarding the EPA in the Texas Legislature?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, if we passed the law we certainly haven't enforced it, because we're certainly not achieving that objective.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Are you aware that we have exceeded every EPA requirement consistently, and that we have cleaned our air up and water up and environment up in the last twenty years?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Wayne, that is absolutely incorrect. You don't have to look no further than my home area in north Texas to see that the State of Texas has been in violation of federal health standards for almost twenty years.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That would be the health standard, that would not be the EPA or the TCEQ, that this amendment refers.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: The ozone standards are established by EPA, and we have been in noncompliance for twenty years. That means we --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Can you tell me what specific EPA requirements we did not meet when the EPA came into Texas this past spring and decided that they were taking over our processes for our regulation of our industry? We could find not one single emission or error that they had they had, no evidence whatsoever that we exceeded one requirement. Can you give me one?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, Wayne, that's absolutely incorrect.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, it's not. Can you give me one?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And all it takes is a review of any TCQ commission meeting over any period of time over the last 10 or 15 or 20 years, to know that we've completely undermined the chiefing clean air objectives, because of decisions made by this commission and this agency. Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The agency has not followed the legislative demand that we put upon them to exceed the EPA requirements?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: They have not.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: So why haven't they been called into violation of the laws of the State of Texas that we require they do that? It's not been reported to anybody or any reporting that I have heard.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, I guess you don't follow the daily newspapers in north Texas, because in any given week in the Dallas Morning News or the Star Telegram you can see notices and information about how we're not doing what we need to do to bring -- And that's the reason why we have such a high asthma rate in Fort Worth. Cooks -- Children's hospitals in Fort Worth reported that our asthma incidence are four times higher than the normal rate. And part of pollution --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Did you know that the only reason there are parts of urban areas that you are over is because of emissions from automobiles, it's not industry, it's not refineries; it's all over emissions from vehicles. And are you aware --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I couldn't be possibly aware of that inaccurate information. That's wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, it's not wrong. The only thing that we're over in any regulation that the EPA has, is emissions of vehicles. Did you know that we in the State of Texas and our TCQ cannot regelate emissions on vehicles?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Wayne, you're absolutely wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No, I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You are completely wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's why we had -- by the used vehicles --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You're entitled to your opinions.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- the old car amendment, where we were purchasing old cars. Previously, the reason we did that, was to try and help out. I disagreed with that, but the reason was we have no regulating authority over emissions code, because it's inter-state production of vehicles. We have no authority there.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So, Wayne, would you like to talk about the amendment or just this broad, global conversation about whether or not we're doing a good job?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No. The amendment is saying because we have not done our job in Texas of cleaning the air, you're saying we need to do it every 6 years and 12 years. I'm just challenging that we have exceeded the federal EPA requirements in the State of Texas on our gas emissions, on our environmental emissions; and we have done a better job than almost any state in the nation in cleaning our air, water and other environment up. Not perfect, but we done our job and we have exceeded EPA requirements in Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, Wayne, you're wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Smith to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, the Sunset Commission recommended 12 years for the next Sunset TCEQ. From what I could tell that they reported, TCQ has done a good job. In the ten years I have been here, they have done a good job. I think it's those people who did Sunset before us, in 2001 did a good job. And so I want to show support for the the state agency, TCEQ, and therefore, I move to table this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Sunset Commission recommended twelve years before they saw the work product coming out of this House. Today I recommend six years. I oppose the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Burnam sends up an amendment. Representative Smith motions to table. Members, the question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Weber voting aye. Showing Representative Smith voting aye. Showing Representative Farrar voting nay. Representative Burnam voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 103 ayes, 41 nays, 2 present not voting, 4 absent; the motion to table prevails. Members, that concludes all of our amendments. Does anybody wish to speak on for or against House Bill 2694? Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mrs. Speak er and members, we have had a tough debate today on this very complicated bill. The TCEQ is the second largest environmental agency in the country, after EPA. The agency's statement, as it exists today, and as it will remain, is to "protect our state human and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development", not beyond it. Texas has reaped the benefits of economic development for decades. Industry earned billions and earns billions in our state every year. But there are costs associated with all this activity, hidden costs. We generate more hazardous waste than any other state. We release more toxic chemicals into our water than any other state and, members, we release more carcinogens into the air than any other state. The benefits of these activities are measured in billions, but the costs are not. The cost defense line communities who suffer birth defects and cancer, they are there. The cost to urban citizens who suffer from asthma, they are there. The costs are measured not in money, but in human lives. We've been told that protection of human health isn't part of TCQ's mission. I cannot accept that. This is an agency that permits and permits the industry that damages our health. If we don't demand that the agency protect us, then who will? The original Sunset Bill was, on its face, acceptable. But since the time that the bill was negotiated with TCEQ and the Sunset Commission, it's gone under dramatic changes. The committee substitute, which I voted against, completely undermined the compliance history rating system. Today we have tacked on amendments that hinder enforcement, weaken clean up efforts and defund the agency. This session, we were going to try to keep policy proposals out of Sunset Bills, but that has not happened. Today I was hopeful we would have a thoughtful debate about human health and our state's environmental priorities, but that hadn't happened either. I do not support the changes that have been made to this bill today and I'll be voting against HB2694. I encourage you to do the same. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Members, I wasn't even going to engage today. I was going to stay off the mike and, you know, thought that the Sunset Bill was -- Mr. Villareal, I thought the Sunset Bill was the bi-product of some really good work that we had engaged in over the interim. It was the bi-product of quite bit the of testimony of some thoughtful decisions among the members of the Sunset Commission. So I stand here extremely disappointed that this Sunset Bill is going leave this body, if it passes, worse than current law. We have, in my view, we have significantly changed state law and made it worse for protecting members of the public. I think it will be harder for members of the public to contest cases, because the burden of proof is shifted in these cases. And I think we've loaded this bill up with, frankly, bad policy. I no longer feel proud of this bill, so I'm going to be voting against it. And I will just end, members, by saying if you can't breathe the air, and you can't drink the water, the rest doesn't matter. And I think we've taken some pretty detrimental steps towards protecting the air and water in this state by loading up this Sunset Bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to speak against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mrs. Speaker and members, I'll be brief. There's a reason the three members of the committee voted against the bill coming out of committee, because it was inadequate. There's a reason that the three of us that have served on that committee are going to be voting against the bill today, because it's worse than inadequate, it's become unacceptable. Hopefully, we can count on the Senate to clean it up, but I think it's important to vote against this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Chairman Smith to close.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members; I would like to thank the Sunset members for their work. They spent the interim developing and working, doing a lot of background work that was quite helpful. I want to thank the House members here today who have testified on or against the bill. I want to thank the TCEQ staff who have met with the last several weeks in developing the bill and developing the presentation today, and particularly thank my staff and the Sunset Staff for the efforts that they put in to get prepared for today. I think Texas is better off than it was ten years ago, because of TCEQ. I think they've done a good job. And, with that, I close and move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of HB2694. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. A record vote has been requested and record vote is granted. All those in favor vote aye. Those opposed vote nay. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Weber voting aye. Show chairman Smith voting aye. Show Representative Farrar voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 107 ayes, 38 nays, 2 present not voting; HB2694 is passed to engrossment. The Chair announces the following signing in the presence of the House.
CLERK: SB309. SB386. SB458. SB525. SB567. SB684. SB737. SB737. SB785. SB832. SB890. SB983.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Following bills on first reading and referral.
CLERK: SB650 by Hegar. Relating to management of certain metropolitan rapid transit authorities. SB653 by Whitmire. Relating to abolishing the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission and transferring the powers and duties of those agencies to the newly created Texas Juvenile Justice Department and to the functions of the independent ombudsman for the Texas Youth Commission. SB662 by Nickles. Relating to the continuation and functions of the State Board of Examiners for Speech Language Pathology and Audiology; providing an administrative penalty. SB1420 by Hinojosa. Relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Department of Transportation providing penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Madam Doorkeep?
MADAM DOORKEEPER: Madam Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Admit the messenger.
SENATE MESSENGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the the senate has taken the following actions:
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Walle, Mr. Sheffield? As a matter of postponed business Chair lays out House Bill 743. Clerk will read the bill. Members, we have a Senate Bill over and eligible. Mr. Gonzalez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: I would like to ask the author a question when he's ready.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: We have to lay out the bill first. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB743 by Sheffield. . Relating to requiring public institutions of higher education to notify the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) regarding the withdrawal or nonattendance of certain foreign students.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: For what purpose, Mr. Gonzalez?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: I would like to ask --
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Sheffi eld, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Sheffield, very much. I'm very familiar with the piece of legislation that you're fixing to lay out. I just want to over a few questions with you about the bill that kind of sets some groundwork for the House. Is this the first time that this body has seen this piece of legislation, Mr. Sheffield?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: No, it is not.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: In fact, this bill has been a work in progress for at least four years that I am familiar with, that I have been a part of. Does that sound about right?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Very much so.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: And would you agree when a piece of legislation takes time like this, that it's usually because the stakeholders are involved, and there's a lot of conversations going on, and usually we're trying to take into consideration the various opinions and trying to make the bill much stronger?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: We have taken our time and dealt with a lot of different stakeholders, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: And that's the case with this bill, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: You have listened to many of the concerns that have come together united behind this one bill?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Yes. And we've been speaking to our friends in the board of higher education as well, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Yes, we have.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: And the initial concerns from some of the schools have been addressed?
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: They have been addressed, very much so.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Okay. Thank you Mr. Sheffield. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mrs. Speaker, I move that the Companion Bill is over and eligible and --
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Alonzo , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I'd like to raise a point of order against further consideration of House Bill -- Committee Substitute to House Bill 743, under Rule 4, Section 32C.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Alonzo raises a point of order for further consideration of HB7343. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 539. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB539 by Carona. Relating to the award of costs and attorney's fees in certain proceedings concerning mechanic's, contractor's, or materialman's liens.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, Senate Bill 539 allows for the -- or requires the mandatory imposition of attorneys fees in lien situations between property owners and contractors and subcontractors in contract situations. There is an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland -- Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, after the bill was postponed, Representative Eiland and I conferred; and had what he wanted to was add a clarification to that bill that states that a court is not required by this amendment, by this bill, to order the property owner to take costs and attorneys fees under the section. It merely clarifies the bill to ensure that the court does not have to impose attorney fees on a property owner.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Phillips, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Do you yield, Representative Kleinschmidt?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: This is for intent -- legislative intent, you're representing that -- and in here, his language specifically relates to residential construction contracts?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It would be your position, would it not, for legislative intent purposes, for even for those nonresidential contracts that, if the judge did not think that it was appropriate, that the judge would not have to order attorneys fees?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: That is correct. The current statute has the language, award costs and reasonable attorney's fees as are equitable in justice found by the court.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So for legislative intent, even though the amendment that you're going to put on here, that you're going to accept by Representative Eiland, specifically says that the court is not to require to order them in a residential construction contract; it's also your position, as you discussed earlier today, that if they don't meet -- if the judge doesn't make that determination, in a nonresidential construction contract matter, that the judge does not have award attorneys fees?
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: That's correct. The Judge would have to find that they were equitable and unjust.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Madam Speaker, I would move that the colloquy, or the discussion between Representative Kleinschmidt and I, be reduced to writing for the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against SB539? The question is on passage to engrossment of -- Representative Kleinschmidt sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Now we're on the Kleinschmidt as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB539. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 539 passes to engrossment. Representative Kleinschmidt moves to lay HB346 on the table subject to cause. Is there objection? Chair hears none and it is so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading HB268. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB268 by Hildebrand. Relating to the exemption from sales and use taxes, including the motor vehicle sales and use tax, for timber and certain items used on a farm, ranch, or timber operation.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a bill that we've brought that clarifies the agriculture exemptions and who is entitled to them, to clarify and make sure that they're not misused or abused. And it clarifies the law and makes it more effective. And would move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Following amendment, clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Davis. Is Representative Davis of Dallas on the floor? Representative Davis of Dallas on the floor? Is Representative Davis of Dallas on the floor? The amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of HB268. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and HB268 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out House Bill 470.
CLERK: HB470 by Anderson. Relating to the addition of Salvia Divinorum and its derivatives and extracts to Penalty Group 3 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson. CHARLES "DOC" ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This is a bill relating to the hallucinogen, Salvia Divinorum and it's derivatives. And adds that to Penalty Group 3 of Texas Controlled Substance Act. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of HB470. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and House Bill 470 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading HB663.
CLERK: HB663 Kleinschmidt. Relating to procedures for amending restrictions governing certain residential subdivisions.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt. Representative Kleinschmidt.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, House Bill 663 allows certain counters that have outgrown the 65,000 population limit to amend their restrictive covenant to take those certain counties back to the census figures of 2000 Federal Census, or subsequent stimulus federal census to allow them to continue to amend their restrictive covenant. What I have is several of my rural counties have grown, and they have outgrown the brackets that they were in, and they still have the need to amend the restrictive covenant on their homeowners association.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against HB663? The question occurs of passage to engrossment of HB663. All those in favor say aye, those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and House Bill 663 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 896. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB896 by Howard. Relating to auxiliary members of an appraisal review board.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Howard of Fort Bend.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair and members. What this bill does is permissive, it authorizes the board of directors from appraisal review boards to hire auxiliary appraisal review board members to hear tax protest. I move.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 896? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 896. All those in favor say aye, those opposed nay. The ayes have it. HB896 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out House Bill 1137 on second reading. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1137 by Darby. Relating to the transmission of records regarding over-the-counter sales of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and nor-pseudoephedrine and a person's civil liability for certain acts arising from the sale of those products.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, current Texas statute requires that retailers place products with pseudoephedrine hehind the store counter. It requires an ID to purchase, and limits purchase to 3.6 grams per day and 9 grams per month. Customers are required to provide their name, address and signature to a store clerk for a paper log. What this bill does is simply allows an electronic processing system in a realtime tracking blocking system that can be implemented by retailers as zero cost, and provides law enforcement a more effective tool to identifying possible meth labs. This has zero fiscal impact to the state, it's all implementation, upkeep costs would be funded by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. I have two amendments, one that will address several indemnity provision, and one which allows local state, federal law enforcement realtime access.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Representa tive Eiland, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Do you yield, Representative Darby?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Certainly will.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Representati ve Darby, we've talked about this a little bit. Buy on page 7 of the bill it says that the drugstore or pharmacy or whatever that has my name, my date of birth and my address, if they -- that they are not physically liable for the release of my name, date of birth and address unless the release constitutes negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I'm trying to figure out -- Okay, so it's a negatively post of information on a website then they are civilly liable?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: If they willfully do it, they are liable. So I'm trying to figure out in what situation would they be protected. And I understand that if they are entering information into their computer that they are protected for complying with the law.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And so -- You know what, am I missing anything?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No. What this bill says, as long as they properly enter it into the system, they are not civilly liable as long as they are not negligent, reckless or they have some willful misconstruct in the entering in of those records.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. So you believe that if somebody takes my personal information that I'm required to give in order to get some cold medicine, and that person's information negatively winds up out there and somebody steals my ID, or whatever, if I can trace it to that source they are not immune?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct. And if -- As long as they weren't willful or negligent or exhibited some gross misconduct on their part.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Darby yields.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Okay. Drew, I have a couple of questions because you know that we are kind of in this age of technology and information is rampant everywhere, our personal identification information, personal information. On page 6, line 12 through 17, it talks about the over the counter sales of, like Craig said, the cold medicine, would be stored and given to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. What other agencies would that include?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, the electronic tracking system is designed to permit all law enforcement the opportunity to view that data. Now I have a perfecting amendment which clarifies that -- includes the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, also; in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. So, do you think there could be the potential of innocent people, having their information, again, kind of like what we saw at the comptroller's office, taken and put on the internet or misused? Does this set up another -- yet another avenue for private information to be exposed publically?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, this data is only going to be viewed by the law enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Do you feel --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Local, state and federal.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Would that be like sheriff, city police?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: They are not supposed to share with any non law enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. But police is law enforcement, local police is law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Sheriff is a law enforcement. DPS is local law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: And the --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: So they are going to know if I am ordering Benadryl, Tylenol Cold -- So they are going to know my whole medication history, basically?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, what they are trying to track electronically -- Right now they have paper logs, and if you go into the CVS then you write this information down on a paper log. And what people are doing is going from that CVS on this corner, and going to the Walgreens on the next corner and then going to the HEB on the next corner, and buying legal limits. But they are in excess of the allowable dosage for the person for the day, either the date or the month.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: And I understand the well-meaning intent of this, but do we risk losing personal liberties and personal information, private information, you know, at the risk of -- It's almost like -- Do you feel like the law abiding citizen is being treated like the criminal?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, obviously, you know, my family and I'm sure your family uses these pseudoephedrine from time to time to cover their allergies and other maladies, but you know the reel reality is the system as we have it now is being abused. And there are folks that are gaming the system. They are buying in excess of the legal limits allowed by law and combining this -- This is called smurfing. This is an anti smurfing bill, which says if you can't buy in excess of those legal limits. And it simply gives an law enforcement an effective tool in order to deal with that problem we have, these separate sales of information that are not communicating with one another. And so when law enforcement is trying to track the use of these drugs then they are able to do it better, quicker and identify where the abusers are.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But would you say that in doing this, well-meaning that it is, it still sets up the potential for abuse and potential again, for identity exposure, theft, issues by folks that are not well intentioned?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, the system is designed to track the users of these drugs, and it gives law enforcement the tool to do it. And I think the public purpose for that --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this is the amendment that I was referring to, this simply limits the civil immunity provision in the bill. Acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this amendment simply allows local, state and federal law enforcement realtime assess to the data and it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to talk to Leo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Burnam in favor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker and members, about four sessions ago I and Representative Phillips, Representative Driver and Flynn, Dan Flynn, along with Senator Leticia Van de Putte and Senator Craig Estes, were asked to try and do something to slow down the amount of meth amphetamines that were being cooked in the back of cars and trailer houses. Law enforcement officers were putting their lives at risk by going into houses with people high on meth. They were getting shot at. And they found children in these houses with highly explosive chemicals. So we passed the bill that session after a lot of work, which require drugstores to put all products containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter. And the only way we can track was to list each person as they bought a product with pseudoephedrine, they listed their name on a chart. And in order for police officers to find out who was buying what, they had to go from one drugstore to another. Now we have a situation where pharmaceutical companies are giving us device which will let individuals swipe a card and put it in a central location where police officers or other law enforcement agencies can go and see that the amount of product that any individual is purchasing, by Smurfing, by going from one drugstore to another. And they will investigate. And the outcome of this, just two years later, was an award from the U.S. Attorney's Office in East Texas, because we dried up almost all of the individual meth labs in Texas. And the only meth that we have coming in now is the through the Mexican drug cartel, which is pure. This is a great innovation that the pharmaceutical companies are giving us for nothing to allow us to centralize in one location where police offices and law enforcement officers can now go and see who is purchasing large quantities of meth amphetamines by Smurfing and could be manufacturing meth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I yield.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Leo, and again, thank you once again for, four years ago, letting me play a part in that, a small part. Because when I was first elected the one thing I heard from my constituents is this is out of control. They had a truck run into a street post right down my street that had a meth lab in the back. They had young people that were living around these meth labs and they were testing toxic, their blood work. We had meth labs in hotel rooms, they would rent hotel rooms and cook meth and leave and it would totally ruin that hotel room. Throughout rural Texas and in the urban areas, and Oklahoma did something similar so what we did prior to that and it forced us -- we started seeing them all from Oklahoma, those that lived in the north of the -- south of the Red River, this bill compliments the hard work that you did and that we did four years ago; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That is correct. And your story about Oklahoma is exactly correct. Oklahomans are coming into Texas and Smurfing our drugstores.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And you keep saying Smurfing, what Smurfing is that someone will go to the CVS pharmacy, they would go across the street to the Walgreens pharmacy and they would go into the HEB pharmacy -- and they can't go to the 7-11, but they would go to those pharmacies and then they would even go to the next town. And they will blanket. And they do this today; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's correct, and at this time, before we put them behind the counter, they were just stealing them off the shelves.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And they are still going to all these locations, and when I talked to law enforcement I said what can we do? And they said that was a great tool. But they said if we had the ability, because otherwise I've got to go from here, to here, to here, to here, and sometimes go across county lines to try to follow these Smurfers, because they are still making it illegally. You are right, they slowed down. I agree with you, I think this is a very helpful tool and I think it's something that if we don't take advantage of this -- because they kind of resisted us from doing this, the drug companies or the pharmaceutical companies, they weren't sure about what we did.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: But they were very happy when they found out that their pseudoephedrine products weren't being stolen off the shelves anymore. And --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Right. And they are now partnering with us like they never have before, and the federal government kind of followed the regulations that you passed as well. And the federal government may come right behind us if we don't do this, so it's better for us to do it and I think it's a good bill, too. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thanks, Larry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Would Mr. Darby be closing? I just want to ask him a question.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Be glad to answer your questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you. And, look, I was a cop and I ran rage on meth labs and, believe me, I get the danger and the evil and all that they are. But the sad -- The question I have, my wife, we have six children and five grandkids and she and all of us are pretty much on Sudafed 24/7 this time of the year. And the problem that she had is that she would go to a drugstore and not be able to buy enough to get, you know, even four or five of us through a couple of weeks and has had to go to extra drugstores. We have kind of lived through that and that's just part of the deal, no big deal. But does this now mean that my wife's name, because she's out there buying it for the kids, that she's going to be on a register that law enforcement will check?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No, right now, her name is registered on paper logs in each one of those places that she bought that. So in the system, there is simply -- it allows to block. If she were to go and exceed her either daily or monthly limit, then it would be blocked. And the pharmacy has the ability to override that. When he recognizes that Mrs. King is there with her, you know, normal monthly six children purchase of pseudoephedrine, then he'll be able to override that, that blocking mechanism, and go ahead and sell her those drugs.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: So there is not going to be a central registry that all law enforcement has assess to they can go scan and see my wife's name on it?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: There will be a database that law enforcement will be able to go to check and to see who has exceeded their limits or tries to buy more than their legal limits.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Will it be available to all law enforcement officers in the State of Texas or is it just -- How does that -- It works --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It will be available for all state, federal authorities, law enforcement agencies; that's correct. But right now that information is available anyway, Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: But it's not --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It's manually entered at the CVS, it's manually entered at the HEB across the street, it's manually entered at the Wal-Mart --
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Is it manually entered into a central state website right now?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Right now it's just a --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No. It's contained on each paper log in each --
REPRESENTATIVE KING: I'm not trying to fight you, I'm just trying to make sure I understand it. But -- So they'll be pulling all those together into a central repository?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Central repository of that data.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: And only licensed police officers, not -- CVS won't be able to look at one store and see if my wife bought something at Wal-Mart?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Only law enforcement, certified Texas Peace Officers, just like the checks there are for NCIC and for our protection?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Yeah. And it's my understanding that Walgreens, for example, already has this system. And so if she were to go into any Walgreens it will be in their system.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: But one pharmacy is not going to be able to look at another pharmacy's register?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No. No.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Only law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Simpson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: To ask him questions, please.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Darby, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Representative Darby. Could you explain the realtime electronic logging system that's proposed?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Once the information is entered into the system of that HEB or CVS pharmacist, then that would show; it would immediately come up whether the sale was authorized or being blocked. And it would be realtime. And automatically -- realtime that would come up whether that sale is permitted or was being blocked. The pharmacist would have the ability to override that, if he knew Mrs. King, for example, and he knew that she has six children and that they needed those pharmaceuticals, and the pharmacist could override that. And it would just show in the system that the system has been overridden in this instance.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Who installs the system?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: This equipment would be paid for at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry and would be maintained by the pharmaceutical industry at no cost of the drugstores.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And who receives all this information?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It would go into a central -- a repository information database, and that would only be accessed by law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Who controls this database?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, there's a provider. But that information has been provided to law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But who is going to control access to it and have a --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: There will be a provider, and there could be multiple providers that will be bid out, I'm sure. And those providers would, of course, I presume, give assurances of security for that information database.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Would other states have access to this and --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Other states have this system being operated right now. Other states are enjoying this same electronic tracking system.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But will the information of the citizens of Texas, innocent users of these medicines --
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Lawful drugs, these are lawful drugs.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's right. Are other states going to have access to this information? Are we sharing with them?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No, it's my understanding that this information would be only available to law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But without probable cause?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, law enforcement has an access to that information right now, Representative Simpson. They have the ability to go into any drugstore and look at purchases of these drugs.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But we are going to be facilitating the access of this information to every law enforcement agency in the United States?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: You know, I think this is a legitimate public purpose, I want to make sure that these drugs are not being abused and that law enforcement has an effective tool, and it's been demonstrated that this is an effective tool, in order to do away with the pharmaceutical sales that are being used to cook meth.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Why do you think that there are so many pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies that are in favor of this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, they understand the abuse and they are trying to limit that abuse. They want to make sure that the drugs are going to the lawful purchasers and that these drugs are not being abused by meth cooks. And so they recognize that this system facilitates effective law enforcement oversight of this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: So we're asking drug companies to enforce the law?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: We are not asking drug companies to enforce the law. They have offered to contribute the technology to the -- for the system to provide a tool for law enforcement --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Price raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against? Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill will enable pharmaceutical companies who will be given immunity for collecting permanent information about you and me, about innocent purchasers of these drugs for legitimate purposes. And they will be given immunity for disseminating this information. I believe that's on page 5, page 6 and line 5. And we are going to be sharing this information with law enforcement agencies all over the United States, without probable cause. This is a Big Brother Bill. This invites your neighbor to be your police. This invites your pharmacist to be enforcing the law. This is a bill that invades our privacy and shares private information all over the state, even though you have innocent, just use of these products. I'm all in favor of punishing wrongdoers and that is the main goal of this body. But to burden, to invade privacy --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Burnam, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: May I ask questions of the gentleman?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: David, do you understand that they are collecting this information right now, and that the only reason we don't have the little machines at the time that we passed this bill was because we didn't want the pharmacies to have to pay for them? We didn't want to put the burden on the pharmacies so we didn't. But you understand that we are getting this information right now? And right now a police officer, a local law enforcement officer, has to go from one drugstore to another trying to search for the name of someone who is cooking meth amphetamine; do you understand that?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. Knowing that, do you think that pharmaceutical companies are going to gain from this bill, or are they just making a contribution so that we can centralize this in one location where a law enforcement officer can go in and look and say this person bought ten times the amount of pseudoephedrine that he should have purchased, he might be cooking meth amphetamine, and he probably is. Because if your local drugstore knows you, as in the case of Phil King, they can override it and give him whatever he needs. So the question is, what is the opposition for?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, we could do it real simply, we could do it very simply. As one of the members proposed, we could just put a chip in one's hand and would just really track what they do, what they purchase, even though they are innocent users. I am all for punishing wrongdoers. But why do we have to invade the privacy of --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: They are doing it right now, David. Do you understand? They are doing it right now, but they are doing it manually.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: They are not trading it, I believe. They are giving access to this information to other states, are they?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: They are giving information to local police officers who are trying to track down people who are cooking meth amphetamine. Meth amphetamines are probably the worst drug you can possibly incur if you are a police officer. And we had police officers going into homes, getting shot at, being exposed to high explosive chemicals. There were children in these homes who were being exposed to high explosive chemicals. And we got an award from the U.S. Attorney's Office in East Texas for getting all this stuff out from in front of a drugstore, behind the counter, and enabling police officers to stop the cooking of meth amphetamine in the back of car seats, in trailer houses, in rental houses; so that now we don't have that problem. Mr. Speaker that's all I have. Thanks.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm opposed to having pharmaceutical companies collect private, personal information about our purchases of these items, being able to share it all over the state with any law enforcement agency; it could be even a dogcatcher, and they could share that information with other states without probable cause. We are creating a database that can be -- we are giving people immunity for collecting the information for and disseminating that information. I think this is wrong. I'm all for punishing wrongdoers and I'm all for supporting the police and their legitimate endeavors to enforce the law, but this goes too far. This creates a Big Brother and it asks for the pharmaceutical industry to be our police. I urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this bill simply brings the ability to -- brings the ability of drugstores to monitor the sales and to provide communication between various drugstore and competing chains. This simply brings us into the electronic age and we don't have to use paper products. And I appreciate Representative Simpson's concerns about privacy, but I don't see any Black Hawk helicopters waiting outside of the drugstores to monitor the sales of legal drugs. We are trying to shut down the meth labs, and I think this bill helps us to do that. And, with that, I would urge you to pass this bill and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the passage to the engrossment of House Bill 1137. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 1137 is -- A record vote has been requested. The record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Price voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There 113 ayes and 25 nays, House Bill 1137 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1601. The clerk will read the the bill.
CLERK: HB 1601 by Price. Relating to consecutive sentencing for certain offenses involving injury to a child, an elderly individual, or a disabled individual and arising out of the same criminal episode.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. House Bill 1601 provides sentencing flexibility for first degree felony offenses of injury to a child, disabled or the elderly that cause serious bodily injury or serious mental impairment to the victims. It allows sentences for such crimes to run consecutively or concurrently. It's common sense and it protects the most vulnerable in our society and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1601? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1601. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 1601 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1617. Clerk, read the bill.
CLERK: House Bill 1617 by Deshotel. Relating to uniform law on secured transactions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: The Senate Bill is over and eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the Senate Companion to House Bill 1617 is over and eligible. Accordingly, Chair lays out Senate Bill 782. Clerk, read the bill.
CLERK: SB 782 by Carona. Relating to uniform law on secured transactions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Senate Bill contains a package of amendments to Chapter 9, the Texas Business Commerce Code. What it does is that in the National Conference Of Commissioners on uniform state laws, they have adopted this across the state and I'm just bringing Texas in line. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill -- Senate Bill 782? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB 782. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 782 is passed to engrossment. Representative Deshotel moves that House bill 1617 be tabled subject to call. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1682. Clerk, read the bill.
CLERK: HB 1682 by Weber. Relating to prohibiting school districts from requiring or coercing school district employees to make charitable contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Weber.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. House Bill 1682 simply prohibits school board members or school districts from coercing employees to contribute or participate in a particular charity or fundraiser. Likewise, it also prohibits board members, school district or employees of a district, from preventing participation with a charity. And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 1682? Question occurs on the passage to engrossment of House Bill 1682. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. Ayes have it. House Bill 1682 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1862. Clerk, read the Bill.
CLERK: HB 862 by Anchia. Relating to a tenant's remedies regarding a local government's revocation of a certificate of occupancy due to a landlord's failure to maintain the premises.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this bill provides the exact same recourse, the landlord that lets an entire property get shut down and the tenant loses their dwelling, as we have essentially in Section 92.08 of existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 1862? Question occurs on the passage to engrossment of House Bill 1862. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. Ayes have it. House Bill 1862 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1907. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB 1907 by Madden. Relating to notification requirements concerning offenses committed by students and school district's discretion over admission or placement of certain students.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Members, this bill is about teachers', staff and students' safety. Routinely teachers and staff are alone with students to provide tutoring and other activities, this bill requires that all staff that have responsibility for supervision of the students be notified about the offense, as well as the details of the offense the student has committed. The bill gives specific time lines for notification and I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1907? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1907. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 1907 has passed to engrossment. Chair lay us out on second reading House Bill 1964. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1964 by Villarreal. Relating to discharging fines and costs assessed against certain juvenile defendants through community service.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill provides options to judges in municipal and justice of the peace courts when dealing with the many juvenile Class C. misdemeanor cases that come before them. In San Antonio our municipal court judges have had the great success with community service for young people who have committed low-level offenses. Currently, crimes like truancy are punishable by a fine of up to 500, but if the offender is found indigent or fails to pay, that person may discharge that the fine by performing community service instead. This bill would allow municipal judges and JPs to directly order juveniles to community service, to discharge their fines. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1964? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1964. All those in favor say aye, opposed say nay. Ayes have it. House Bill 1964 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1979. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1979 by Laubenberg. Relating to strategic partnerships for the continuation of certain water districts annexed by a municipality.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to postpone this bill to a time certain until next Monday, April 25th, 2011, at 8:00 a.m.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2017. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2017 by McClendon. Relating to the organization, governance, duties, and functions of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you, Mr. Speaker and members, House Bill 3907 created the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles during the 81st Legislature to assume responsibilities for the administrative functions of TexDOT. After two successful years of operation, the Department of Motor Vehicles looks to play a large, positive role in caring for the transportation needs of this state. As is the case with many new agencies, an early evaluation of the DMV uncovered several potential areas of improvement. HB2017, the bill that we are hearing today, is called the DMV clean-up bill because it addresses several small structural changes that would improve the general functioning of the agencies. I have a couple of amendments that I would like to offer.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Memb ers, this amendment makes just a few changes which will address some concerns raised by the Department of Information Resources and Online dot com, and these same changes have been made in the Companion Bill, SB1401, carried by Senator Williams. Without this amendment the bill would contain provisions allowing the DMV to provide online services that the Texas online dot com has already contracted to provide being a service provider to the DIR, and I move adoption of this amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes the following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you, Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment will resolve concerns about leading the agency's need for advisory committees that play a valuable role in informing the DMV board about important issues, that members require that there will be advisory committees instead of making them optional. Either the standing committees that already exist will be continued, or the board may establish new ones. And I move adoption of this amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Representative McClendon sends up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes -- Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez. REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO "MANDO" MARTINEZ: T hank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this simple amendment by Representative Gallego helps certain public servants to be issued, without charge, specialty license plates that we already get from the Department of Public Safety moving them to the DMV.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you, Mr. Speaker and members, as I said earlier, this is a clean-up bill for the the Department of Motor Vehicles, and they have done a fantastic job and so I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2017? Chair recognizes Representative Harper Brown in support. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just wanted to clarify, I hope you have gotten some correcting information on some of the reports that were put out this morning. This is, as Representative McClendon said, a clean-up bill for the Department of Motor Vehicles, where some of the information -- some members were given today talks about it remaining -- certain sections regarding the board or regarding the participation of the board members, or the -- actually executive directors; all of these things were repealing it out of the occupation code, but it's already in the transportation code. So there still is board involvement. There still is the opportunity for the different types of incentive pay and those sort of things. It was an error on the part of the bill reader, because they didn't realize that all of this was in place in the transportation code and the Department of Motor Vehicles was still covered under all of these different statutes and codes. So I am in favor of this bill, it's a good clean-up bill, it's going to help the Department of Motor Vehicles serve our constituents and I am in support.
JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of HB 2017. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2017 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2112. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2112 by price. Relating to priority groundwater management areas.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 313 is over and eligible.
JOE STRAUS: Members, the Senate Companion to House Bill 2112 is over and eligible to Senate Bill 313. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB313 by Seliger. Relating to priority groundwater management areas.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Senate Bill 313 extends the current 25 year planning horizon for possible groundwater management areas, designation to 50 years. The 50 year planning horizon would better correspond to the current statewide water planning process currently in place. I understand there's an amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Miller of Comal.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment -- and I rushed to make sure we got this -- filed this bill right. And it's coming over from the Senate, pertains to a couple of things about existing GVBs and forming new groundwater conservation districts. Also amended the process to give voters more of a choice in what it is saying, and their say. And there is an amendment to the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Miller.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Members, this amendment in fact adds language originally from HB1212, which extends the planning time from 25 to 50 years. Also, removes any fee language and replaces it with limitation on what fees could be charged and it removes any related loopholes for pigment not having Incorporated into the groundwater conservation district. It is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Miller sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're on the Miller amendment as amended. Chair will recognize Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment as amended is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Miller sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 313? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB313. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. SB313 is passed to engrossment. Representative Price moves to lay House Bill 2112 on the table subject to call. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2334. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2334 by Hardcastle. Relating to the operation by the Department of Agriculture of programs of rural economic development and the marketing and promotion of agricultural and other products grown, processed, or produced in this state.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to postpone House Bill 2334 to Tuesday the 26th at 9:00 a.m.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2468. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2468 by Phillips. Relating to providing a patron of a pay-to-park or valet parking service with certain information; providing a civil penalty.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill I talked to many of you all about, which provides some basic information for those of us who pay to park a valet service or parking. This just requires certain display or information on a ticket. It protects those of us that have to trust one of our most important assets to complete strangers, and I would move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wish to speak for or against House Bill 2468? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2468. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2468 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2561. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2561 by Eissler. Relating to the definition of "school year" for purposes of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 2561 standardizes for TRS purposes the school year. And I will yield to Mr. Hochberg.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Eissler, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Eissler. I have just two quick questions. For legislative intent, first, will retirees be affected or see a rate increase as a result of HB2561?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: No, they will not, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: The second is is it your understanding that according to Texas Administrative Code, Title 34, Subchapter A. retirees are exempted from the effect of HB2561?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, they are. The bill does not say retirees.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I move that the remarks between Representative Eissler and me be reduced to writing and be placed in the journal.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2561? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2561. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2561 passes to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2581. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2581 by Murphy. . Relating to the computation of a surplus credit for certain successor employing units.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Murphy.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, the Senate Bill is over and eligible 638.
JOE STRAUS: Members, the Senate Companion to House Bill 2581, it's over and eligible, according to the Chair. Chair lays out Senate Bill 638. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB638 by Jackson. Relating to the computation of a surplus credit for certain successor employing units.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Murphy.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. House Bill 638 would grant the Texas Workforce Commission the authority to issue a successor-employer a surplus credit from a previous
(inaudible) credit. Currently, if the company merges or is acquired, the successor employer would get the tax rate and any debits, but they won't get the surplus credit. This bill would simply have the benefits that go along with the burden. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 638? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 638. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 638 passed to engrossment. Representative Murphy moves to lay House Bill 2581 to table, subject to call. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2619. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2619 by Callegari. Relating to emergency preparedness information about water facilities.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Murphy.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Members, this is about emergency preparation for a water facility, and I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for pour against House Bill 2619? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. House Bill 2619 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2632. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2632 by Driver. Relating to access to the criminal history record information of certain persons by the Texas Facilities Commission.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Driver.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill simply allows the Texas Facilities Commission to take the criminal history records from DPS, very similar to what 13 other agencies do. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2632? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2632. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2632 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2680. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2680 by King. Relating to the procedure for certain small local exchange companies to propose to offer certain services or to make a minor change in a rate or tariff.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is House Bill 2680, gives small telephone co ops flexibility to change their rate of up to 50 percent, change the rate on certain rate elements. Second issue directed by this bill in regard to timeline needed to make these changes, a lot of companies make these necessary changes and offer a 10 day window or a 91 day window. Thank you. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2680? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2680. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say, nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2680 passes to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2779. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2779 by Bohac. Relating to provisions in the dedicatory instruments of property owners' associations regarding display of flags.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bohac.
REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Speaker, members, House Bill 2779 is the compromised bill between homeowners associations and homeowners that affords every single Texan the right to fly the flag on a freestanding flagpole on their property. The inspiration for this bill was from a Marine Veteran Michael Morola*, who was sued by his homeowner's association over a twenty foot flagpole that he put in his backyard. House Bill 2779, I believe, will clear up this issue once and for all, so that every Texan can display the Stars and Stripes and I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2779? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2779. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2779 passes to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2991. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB2991 by Deshotel. Relating to a determination of the reasonable relation of certain transactions to particular jurisdictions.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, sir. This bill deals with the business of commerce code, it clarifies certain types of relationships on very large transactions. And I do have an amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the following amendment? The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Yes, sir. This changes the word and to or in the last section, it just expands the provision wherein it does not bear a reasonable relationship with the original transaction. I move paunch.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Deshotel sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2991? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2991. All those in favor say aye, all those supposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2991 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Marquez for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the following rule: The five day posting rule, to allow the Committee on County Affairs to consider HB1564 by Coleman, relating to the authority of the certain county hospital to appoint, contract or employ physicians, upon final adjournment today, April 21st, in E.2016.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection?
REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Oh, I'm sorry. That would be not today, that would be the 21st.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on County Affairs will meet upon final adjournment on April 19th, 2011, at 3W.16. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending agenda. The Committee on County Affairs will meet upon final adjournment on April 21st, 2011, at E2.016. This will be a public hearing to consider HB1564 by Coleman, and a previously posted agenda.
JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 3004. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB3004 by Nash. Relating to prepaid funeral benefits, contracts and the prepaid funeral contract guaranty fund.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Nash on her first bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Mr. Speaker, fellow members, House Bill 3004 addresses the issue of what happens to prepaid funeral contracts when a funeral home goes out of business and extends a guaranty fund coverage to a third party funeral provider under the prepaid funeral benefit contract.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker ?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Will the lady yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Nash, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I'm sure she's going to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Madam, I'm not sure how this prepaid funeral guaranty works. How does that work? It says you got a fund there that's going to cover losses, and can you explain that to us? I mean --
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Under the current law --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Does that mean that if somebody loses a casket somewhere along the way, with a body in it, that you got liability coverage; is that what that means?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Something like that. Another nail in the coffin, something like that.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Another nail in the coffin? Now, that's a good code. What if you have two nails in the coffin? What if you only put two nails in? You could lose that in a hurry.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Woul d the lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes.
JOE STRAUS: She yields for a question.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Than k you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Nash, I'm just you curious about one thing. As I understand the bill, a portion of the guaranty fund now can be deposited either with a comptroller or a financial institution; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: What happens to the other portion?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: I'm not advised. But I have been working with the Texas Department of Banking and this is the way they want the bill to be so that the person who has purchased the prepaid contract would be protected in the event the funeral home goes out of business.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, having been the creator of the guaranty fund, I just wanted to be sure that something didn't happen to it that we didn't really know about. But it's your understanding that this guaranty fund is still protected?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes, it is protected. And if the funeral home goes out of business then the purchaser is protected under this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Yeah , I understand that. But what I'm asking about is the guaranty fund itself, and whether or not the guaranty fund stays intact.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes, it stays intact. And it's the Department of Banking, it oversees that fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay . And who is all these groups that you have up there?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: They're my fellow friends up here, and I need all of them.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Are they your friends and neighbors?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: And I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, I think you have a good bill.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, just one question. This is your first bill, right?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And is this a dead bill right at the start?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Oh. To begin with, yes.
REPRESENTATVIE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Patrick?
REPRESENTATVIE DIANE PATRICK: Would the gentlewoman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes, of course.
REPRESENTATVIE DIANE PATRICK: Representat ive Nash, is it true that you claim to have the Cowboy Stadium and the Ranger Stadium in your district?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: That's absolutely true.
REPRESENTATVIE DIANE PATRICK: Are you not aware that I represent Arlington?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Well, you just represent the wrong part.
REPRESENTATVIE DIANE PATRICK: I want to say I'm proud to have you as a colleague from Arlington. It's a good bill. Thank you for bringing it.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentle-lady yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Nash, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Representative Nash, those friends behind you, are they kind of like the undertakers that will be the last to let you down?
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Something like that. They would never let me down.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: All right. Very good bill. Congratulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Thank you. Move passage, please.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3004? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 3004. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 3004 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 3234. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB3234 by Hernandez. Relating to the prioritization of requests to release certain case records maintained by the Department of Family and Protective Services.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hernandez Luna.
REPRESENTATIVE ANA LUNA HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill would require the Department of Family and Protective Services to establish guidelines that prioritize requests to release records, including adults, who are CPS for children. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3234? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 3224. All those in favor say aye, all those oppose say nay. They ayes have it. House Bill 3234 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 3372. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB3372 by King. Relating to standards for a structure that is connected to a public water supply system and has a rainwater harvesting system.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, House Bill 3372 amends the Texas Health and Safety Code to allow for indoor potable use of harvested rain water, if the structure is connected to a public water supply system; as long as the structure has appropriate cross-connection safeguards. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3372? The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of House Bill 3372. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed nay. House Bill 3372 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 3389. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB339 by Workman. Relating to a seller's disclosure of natural or liquid propane gas on residential real property.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker and members, as you know the real estate sellers disclosure form resides in statute, and what this bill does is it simply amends a line on that form. Currently the form has the seller of the home circle either natural gas or a liquid propane gas as a source of fuel for the home. This bill breaks that out a little further and asks the seller to identify that it is a captive community propane system. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Will the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Can you just briefly explain to me why that is important for them to be able to disclose that?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Certainly. The community propane systems are a system where you have a large tank in a subdivision, and they are piped underground to the homes. And these systems are captive systems, meaning that you don't have any choice in it. And a purchaser of the home needs to know if they are getting into one of those captive propane systems.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3389? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 3389. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 3389 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 115. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB115 by McClendon. Relating to the creation of a commission to investigate convictions after exoneration and to prevent wrongful convictions.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Than k you, Mr. Speaker and members, I move to postpone House Bill 115 to a time certain, tomorrow morning, April 20th at 10:00 o'clock a.m.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Cook -- Members, the speaker's desk is clear. If you have any announcements bring them down front. Chair recognizes Representative Cook.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request permission for State Affairs to meet while the House is in session during reading and referrals, April 19th, 2011, 3W9; to consider pending business.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend the five day posting rule so the Committee on Corrections can meet on HCR42 at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, or upon final adjournment or recess, tomorrow, Wednesday April 20th, 2011; in E.2014.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Rules and Resolutions to meet during the reading and referral of bills today, in the Ag Museum, so we can consider a congratulatory and memorial calendar.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcements. Clerk will read the announcements.
CLERK: The Committee on State Affairs will meet during the reeding and referral of bills on April 19th, 2011, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Corrections will meet at 2:00 p.m., or upon final adjournment recess, on Wednesday, April 20th, 2011; at E2.014. This will be a public hearing to consider HCR42 and previously posted agenda. The committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence will meet at 8:00 a.m. on April 20th, 2011, at E2.036. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.
JOE STRAUS: Are there any other announcements? Hearing none. Representative King moves that the House stand adjourned, pending the reading and referral of resolutions, until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, in memory of Representative King's mother-in-law, Mrs. Carolyn Louis Baker of Hondo, who passed away April 19th, 2010; and in memory of Larry, T-Bird Gordon of Fall Springs, who passed away April 18th, 2011. The following bills on first reading and referral.
CLERK: HB 3857 (By Dutton), Relating to the creation of the Near Northside Management District; providing authority to impose a tax, levy an assessment, and issue bonds. To Urban Affairs. HCR 135 (By Legler), Honoring Bill Bailey, retiring constable for Precinct 8 of Harris County. To Rules and Resolutions. HCR 139 (By Beck), In memory of former Texas secretary of state Myra McDaniel. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 930 (By C. Howard), Endorsing Taiwan's participation as an observer in the International Civil Aviation Organization and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To Environmental Regulation. HR 958 (By Hunter), In memory of Diana Maria Kirby of Rockport. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1260 (By Marquez), Honoring Ciudad Juarez Mayor Hector Agustin Murguia Lardizabal on his visit to the State Capitol. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1309 (By Orr), Welcoming members of the Burleson Rotary Club and guests from the Open World Delegation from Ukraine to the State Capitol on April 21, 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1310 (By W. Smith), Recognizing May 4, 2011, as Texas Environmental Excellence Awards Day and commending the 2011 award recipients. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1311 (By W. Smith), In memory of Dorothy "Dot" Berry of Baytown. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1312 (By W. Smith), In memory of Baytown community leader Doug Huddle, Jr. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1313 (By W. Smith), In memory of George H. Ferguson, Jr., of Baytown. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1314 (By Lozano), In memory of Aurora A. Garza of Kingsville. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1315 (By S. King), Honoring the achievements of chef and restaurateur Tom Perini of Buffalo Gap. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1316 (By Huberty), Congratulating the Kingwood High School girls' swimming and diving team for winning the UIL 5A state championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1317 (By Huberty), Congratulating Jordan Jones of Kingwood High School on winning two swimming titles at the 2011 UIL 5A State Meet. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1319 (By Johnson), In memory of Sam Milton Bussey, Jr., of Dallas. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1320 (By Castro), Recognizing Marco Andres Juarez of San Antonio as an honorary page in the Texas House of Representatives on April 13, 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1321 (By Hilderbran), Commemorating the 100th anniversary of Sanchez Barber Shop and Hair Design Studio in Kerrville. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1322 (By Flynn), Congratulating Chris and Imogene Bell of Grand Saline on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1323 (By Harper-Brown), Congratulating the girls' basketball team of MacArthur High School in Irving on winning the UIL 5A state championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1324 (By Scott), Affirming the importance of folic acid in the diets of women of childbearing age. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1325 (By Harper-Brown), Honoring Kimberly Ventura on her receipt of a 2011 Best of Texas Outstanding Marketing Student Award from the Texas Career & Technology Council. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1327 (By Alonzo), Paying tribute to the life of Selena Quintanilla Perez on April 16, 2012, the 41st anniversary of her birth. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1328 (By Morrison), Honoring Beverly Fletcher of Tivoli on her 80th birthday. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1329 (By Margo), Congratulating Elizabeth Reeves on her selection as Miss Texas Intercontinental 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1330 (By Margo), Congratulating Betty L. Shuvalov on her retirement from the Texas House of Representatives. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1331 (By C. Anderson), Commending the Daughters of the Republic of Texas for their stewardship of the Alamo and calling on all Texans to commemorate the achievement of Texas independence and the creation of the Republic of Texas. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1332 (By Johnson), Commending Lettie Searles for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1333 (By Johnson), Commending Shannon Bailey for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1334 (By Johnson), Commending Randall Parker for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1335 (By Johnson), Commending Gloria Nightingale for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1336 (By Johnson), Commending Pat Stephens for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1337 (By Johnson), Commending Camile White for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1338 (By Johnson), Commending Michele Flood Luce for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1339 (By Johnson), Commending Betty Carter Hooey for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1340 (By Johnson), Commending Gloria Hogg for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1341 (By Johnson), Commending Brandi Hill for serving as a Democratic Party precinct Chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1344 (By Workman), Commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Austin Waldorf School. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1346 (By Naishtat), Commemorating National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day on May 3, 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1347 (By Anchia), Honoring Gerald "Jerry" Brown for his service as Chair of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System Board of Trustees. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1348 (By Straus), Expressing the importance of pedestrian safety and driver awareness and welcoming the Alamo Council of the Blind to the Capitol. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1349 (By Murphy), In memory of Paul Oliver Naut of Katy. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1351 (By Schwertner), Congratulating Alexander James Tatro on achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1352 (By Schwertner), Congratulating Jonathan Reed White on achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1353 (By Schwertner), Congratulating John Henry "Jack" Schmalstieg IV on achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1354 (By Schwertner), Congratulating Leander City Council member Michell Renee Cantwell on her graduation from The University of Texas. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1355 (By Schwertner), Congratulating Lewis Shannon Pierce on achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1357 (By Craddick), Congratulating the Reverend Milton Jochetz and Wanda Jochetz of Stanton on their 65th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1358 (By Craddick), Congratulating Dennis and Becky Edwards of Midland on their 40th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1360 (By Murphy), Honoring the Harmony School of Innovation in Houston for its achievements. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1361 (By Harless), Recognizing April 30, 2011, as Comcast Cares Day. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1362 (By Giddings), Congratulating Paul Quinn College on its receipt of the 2011 HBCU of the Year Award. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1363 (By Price), Commemorating San Jacinto Day. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1364 (By Truitt), Congratulating Donald J. Hamilton on his receipt of the Bronze Star Medal awarded for his actions in the Vietnam War in 1966. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1365 (By Truitt), In memory of the Reverend Dr. Kenneth John Diehm of Grapevine. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1368 (By Lucio), Congratulating Herbert A. Miller, Jr., of Austin on his receipt of a 2011 Texas Exes Teaching Award. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1369 (By D. Howard), Congratulating Alex Crisara and Jahan Rabii of Anderson High School on winning Best in Fair at the 2011 Austin Energy Regional Science Festival. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1370 (By D. Howard), Honoring the students of Grandview Hills Elementary School in Austin for their participation in the Pennies for Peace initiative. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1371 (By D. Howard), Commending the students of Steiner Ranch Elementary School in Austin for their efforts in behalf of the 2011 Students Helping Students, Pay It Forward project. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1372 (By Pitts), Commending the SkillsNET Foundation for its efforts to improve employability in Texas. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1373 (By Brown), Congratulating the Texas A&M University women's basketball team on winning the NCAA Division I national championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1374 (By Flynn), Commemorating the dedication of a Texas Historical Marker at Van Common School. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1375 (By Flynn), Commemorating the dedication of a Texas Historical Marker at Van High School. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1376 (By Flynn), Commemorating the dedication of a Texas Historical Marker at Swindall School in Van. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1378 (By Perry), Congratulating Laroy and Connie Hawkins of Lubbock on their 60th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1379 (By Perry), Congratulating Julio and Refugia Camacho of Lubbock on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1380 (By Bonnen), In memory of Leland B. Kee of Angleton. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1381 (By Bonnen), In memory of Coach L. Z. Bryan of Lake Jackson. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1382 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating Ray Biles, head coach of the Lorena High School football team, on winning the 100th game of his career. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1383 (By C. Anderson), Honoring Father Joseph F. Geleney, Jr., of the Church of St. Mary of the Assumption in Waco on the 10th anniversary of his ordination. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1384 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating Lorena High School baseball coach Greg Blanchard on winning his 500th game. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1385 (By C. Anderson), Honoring the Junior League of Waco on the 75th anniversary of its founding. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1386 (By Raymond), Honoring The University of Texas Community Outreach for its achievements in promoting community-based prevention and control of diabetes and obesity. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1387 (By Schwertner), Congratulating Greg Bergeron of Georgetown on the occasion of his retirement as Williamson County Unified Road System administrator. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1388 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating the Lorena Independent School District on its receipt of a 2011 Gold Leadership Circle Award. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1389 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Orvis W. Marrs of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1390 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Alinda Marie Fickel of Hewitt. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1391 (By C. Anderson), In memory of James Gillaspie of Tokio. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1392 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating the Crawford High School Lady Pirates on winning the 2011 Waco ISD Softball Tournament. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1393 (By C. Anderson), Honoring Spring Valley Elementary School for winning a 2010 Food for Families Award. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1394 (By C. Anderson), Commemorating the 2011 Women in Construction Week and commending Waco Chapter No. 14 of the National Association of Women in Construction. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1395 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating Bryse Ed on earning a Student Leadership Award from The University of Texas Cockrell School of Engineering. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1396 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Juanita M. Jay of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1397 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating U.S. Army Reserve Specialist Sherica L. Redrick of Waco on qualifying for the 2011 Armed Forces Boxing Championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1398 (By C. Anderson), Honoring Midway High School for winning a 2010 Food for Families Award. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1399 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Bernice L. Brooks of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1400 (By C. Anderson), Honoring Velma Wiethorn of McGregor on her 85th birthday. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1401 (By C. Anderson), In memory of John David Burton of Moody. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1402 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Patricio T. Escalona, Sr., of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1403 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Bruce Washington Dyer, Jr., of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1404 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating Jacklyn Nicole Sims Lackey and Christopher Blake Lackey on their wedding. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1405 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Nathan Andrew Romo of Lorena. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1406 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Christine Kocian Vanek of West. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1407 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Doris Lee Breeding Jones of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1408 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating Shelby Jurek of Hewitt on being named to the honor roll at Oklahoma State University. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1409 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Scott Rentz of China Spring. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1410 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Pilar Villegas of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1411 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Mary Winzer Hall of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1412 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Alvin Dulock of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1413 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating Willie and Mary Youngblood on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1414 (By C. Anderson), In memory of William E. Nelson, Jr., of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1415 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating the Crawford High School basketball team on its successful 2010-2011 season. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1416 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating the boys' golf team of Midway High School in Waco on winning third place at the 2011 Marvin Dameron Invitational. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1417 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating the all-district academic and athletic honorees from the West High School Lady Trojans basketball team. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1418 (By Frullo), Congratulating Laroy and Connie Hawkins of Lubbock on their 60th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1419 (By Sheffield), Recognizing October 26, 2011, as Texas Chicken Fried Steak Day. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1420 (By Sheffield), In memory of the Honorable Hiram Childress of Temple. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1421 (By Sheffield), Congratulating James and Sandy Champ of Little River on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1422 (By Sheffield), Congratulating Carrol and Blanch Ward of McGregor on their 60th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1423 (By Sheffield), Congratulating David and Betty Hester of Temple on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1426 (By Hughes), Congratulating the Wild Hog Hunt Committee of the Gilmer Area Chamber of Commerce on receiving that organization's Top Hand Award. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1427 (By Hughes), Congratulating Henry Troell on his selection as the 2010 Outstanding Citizen by the Gilmer Area Chamber of Commerce. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1428 (By Hughes), Congratulating Martha Davis on being named the 2010 Educator of the Year by the Gilmer Area Chamber of Commerce. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1429 (By Hughes), Congratulating Alston Johnson on attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1430 (By Hughes), Congratulating April Fry on representing the Winnsboro Independent School District during the Halftime Spectacular at the 2011 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1431 (By Hughes), Congratulating Gary and Lyle Jean Foster of Mineola on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1432 (By Hughes), Congratulating Shirley Chadwick on her receipt of the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award from the Mineola Chamber of Commerce. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1433 (By Hughes), Congratulating the volunteers of the First United Methodist Church Clothes Closet in Gilmer on receiving the Unsung Hero Award from the Gilmer Area Chamber of Commerce. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1434 (By Cain), Congratulating Hazel Walker Trammell of Mount Pleasant on the occasion of her 100th birthday. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1436 (By Hilderbran), In memory of Emory Chapman Thompson of Austin. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1437 (By Hilderbran), In memory of Jack Autry Bills of Kerrville. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1438 (By Lucio), Honoring Princell Hair on his achievements as a media executive and welcoming him to Texas. To Rules and Resolutions. Pursuant to Rule 1, Section 4 of the House Rules, the Chair corrects the referral of the following bills and resolutions: HB 2903 (By Zerwas), Relating to the program of all-inclusive care for the elderly. To Health and Human Services.
(Whereupon, the House stands adjourned).
