House Transcript, April 8, 2011

THE CHAIR: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all members registered? Have all members registered? A quorum is present. The House and gallery will please rise. And for the invocation, Representative Dukes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you Madam Speaker and members. Today I'm honored to introduce a distinctive clergyman and a very good friend of mine, District Pastor Ray Hendricks. Ray Hendricks is an active Austin native and has served in many community-based capacities in Austin and surrounding areas, which include being an Austin Firefighter, where he faithfully served 23 years; until he retired in 2003. During his tenure with the Austin Fire Department he served as peer counselor for the Critical Incident Rescue Briefing Team. Additionally, he was president of the Austin African-American Firefighters' Association, fighting for the rights of all firefighters and diversity in the workforce. He also served as recruiter, screening and playing an integral role in hiring new, prospective candidates for the Fire Department; as well as a member of the selection committee to hire the current Fire Chief, Ms. Rhoda May Kerr. Serving our nation in crisis he worked as a team member on the first City of Austin Homeland Security Task Force after the 9/11 incident. He has served for seven years as the president of the St. John's Neighborhood Association, during the time that this neighborhood was noted as one of Austin's most at-risk neighborhoods, and he played an instrumental role in improving the lives of people in this community. Currently he's serving as chairman of the Austin Dis-proportionality Advisory Committee and Task Force addressing dis-proportionality in the foster care system. He is the pastor of the Rebirth Baptist Church where he leads, teaches and offers guidance, as well as encouragement to his members and the people in the community to not only live a well-rounded life but to be a light of hope for others as well. It is an honor to have Pastor Hendricks here with us today. Madam Speaker and members, a public servant and leader to the State of Texas, I present to you Pastor Ray Hendricks with the invocation. Pastor: Shall we pray? Eternal God, Our Father, we come to you now thanking you for allowing us this privilege of seeing the light of your brand new day. We come, Our Father, asking that you would just lend an ear and hear our call. Heavenly Father, we thank you, Oh God, for being our father. We come thanking you for things being as well as they are with us. Heavenly Father, we come now asking your choicest blessings upon this House. We pray, Oh God, that you will continue to bless our legislators, bless those who provide leadership. We pray, Oh God, that during these tough economic times that you will allow them, Oh God, to put themselves aside and to have your spirit to come and dwell, to lead and to guide them in the right direction; that those of us that receive what is provided might be the better. We pray, Oh God, now that you will bless us as we move on from this place. We ask, Oh God, that you bless all the agencies and services that are being rendered. We ask especially, Father, for helping human service. We pray, Oh God, that you will, Heavenly Father, heavenly fix the brokenness that exists in individuals; fix the brokenness that exists, Oh Father, in our families; fix the brokenness that exists in our communities. Heavenly Father, we ask that any evils that might be present, that you would move them away. Now, Father, as we enter into the workday we ask, Oh God, now that you bless all decisions that are made. We pray, Oh God, that you just enter into the room and let your presence be felt. We pray, Oh God, that you take reign of our legislators' minds and move them in the way that your will might be done. And when we're finished here we pray, Oh God, that you will provide us a place in your Kingdom where we'll continue to give you all the praise, the honor and all the glory. We just ask for your showered blessings from on high. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Madden to lead us in the Pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Members, if you'd join me? [PLEDGE]

THE CHAIR: The Chair will hear excuses for absent members. Please excuse Representative Mallory Caraway for April 8th, 2001, important business in the district; on the motion of Representative Gonzalez of El Paso. Excuse Charles Perry, important business in the district; on the motion of Representative Ritter. Please excuse Representatives Walle and Frullo, important business in the district; on the motion of Representative Ritter. Excuse Yvonne Davis because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Alonzo. Excuse Representative Geren, important business in the district; on the motion of Ritter. Excuse Representative Deshotel because of illness, on the motion of Representative Ritter. Members, is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Madden moves that the House dispense of the reading and referral of bills until the end of the day's business. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales to introduce the Doctor of the Day.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you Madam Speaker, members; please help me in welcoming our Doctor of the Day. Dr. Lamia Kadir is a state physician -- staff physician at Victoria Medical Center, and also the Medical Director at Austin Regional Clinic and Round Rock. She is a graduate of Ross University School of Medicine in Brunswick, New Jersey and completed her residency at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California. She is active at the Texas Academy of Family Physicians and the Ross University School of Medicine Alumni Association. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Lamia Kadir to the Texas House.

THE CHAIR: Members, we have two Sunset Bills on today, so we thought that -- I meant that we should have two Pastors of the Day. So the Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield to introduce our second Pastor of the Day.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, we will make sure that we really are taken care of from above today. I would like to welcome the recently retired Chaplain, Keith Wright, to say another morning prayer for us. He was at a Lieutenant Colonel Deputy Post Chaplain at Fort Hood. He is currently a co-pastor of the Faith Fellowship in Nolanville, Texas, in my district. And him and his wife, Melita, have two children, two foster children, and they live in the Colleen area now for the last twelve years. Please welcome our chaplain, Keith Wright.

CHAPLAIN: Thank you very much. Believers are asked to humble of themselves and pray and to seek and receive God's protection and their blessings. Believers are told to ask and receive boldly an abundant grace as they unite in one heart and one mind for a specific prayer. It's already been noted that this must be a tough session today. So let us pray. Dear God, we are thankful for the beauty of our great state, for the diversity of our land and its people. We are truly blessed beyond measure. Let us never take for granted the splendor of your creation for every good and perfect gift comes from you. We are blessed with great leadership and we are mindful of the Book of Luke that says for whom much is given much shall be required, and to whom much has committed, for them they will ask even more. We pray for wisdom and strength for our governmental leaders, may they each be aware of their duties as they continue to do their best to support this greet state. As they face critical challenges that affect people of the State of Texas may they ever be mindful of the essential qualities necessary to provide excellent leadership, and that they serve the people with integrity, compassion and unwavering moral character. Surround our elected officials with staff who are committed to serve this great state with integrity and loyalty. May your ever present hand guide this distinguished body of leaders to continue to create a sound future for our state. God bless each person here today as they endeavor to do what is right and good for our state. And God bless Texas. In Jesus' name. Amen.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, let me make sure that you all note this on your schedule: Next week, Tuesday, at 10:00 a.m. we pass the calendar rule to get amendments on eminent domain. That's Tuesday at 10:00 o'clock. Wednesday, we will be taking up eminent domain. But I want to make sure all members, especially our new members, are looking at their regular session calendar because, beginning tomorrow, you have 30-day deadlines. To remind everyone, May 9th, 30 days from tomorrow, is the last day for the House Committees to report House Bills and House J.R.'s. And you got to remember that takes some time to print and get to the Calendar Committees. And then, Thursday, May 12th, check your charts, is the last day for the House to consider second reading of House Bills and H.J.R.'s on daily supplemental calendars. So please make note that you're on a 30-day time period tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Chairman Hunter for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker and members, tomorrow is our Chief Clerk Robert Haney's birthday. Yes. And it is also Josie Holloman's birthday tomorrow. Let's wish them well. Oh, and Haney tells us he's only forty.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have -- I'd like to tell you a little bit about what we have here today. We have a resolution that is -- actually, I think it's been passed earlier by the House. But we have some very honored guests here today. I move to which suspend all rules and take up and consider HR1097.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Chair lays out House Resolution 1097. Clerk can read the --

THE CLERK: HR 1097 by Miller of Comal. WHEREAS, The French Legation was originally built in 1840-1841 to be the residence of the charge d'affairs who represented the government of France in the Republic of Texas, and the French Legation Museum is celebrating the building's 170th anniversary on April 8, 2011; and WHEREAS, Alphonse Dubois de Saligny, who was responsible for the construction of the structure, left Austin in 1841, and the building was sold a few years later; it had been designed to provide an appropriate setting for European diplomatic duties, dinner parties, and entertainment, but soon served as the headquarters for an effort to regain Texian missions for the Catholic Church in the 1840s and later became a private residence for the Dr. Joseph W. Robertson family, who owned the house for about a century; and WHEREAS, Miss Lillie Robertson was the caretaker of the property for many years; she felt that the structure belonged to the People of this state and would invite visitors in to see the house And to hear about its history; in keeping with her sentiment, the Robertson heirs agreed to sell the site to the State of Texas; and WHEREAS, Since 1956 the property has been operated by The Daughters of the Republic of Texas as the French Legation Museum with concerned Texans working tirelessly to preserve, protect, and restore the building and to retell the story of the house, including its fascinating architecture and construction, for the generations that have followed; and WHEREAS, A vital cultural resource, the French Legation provides a link to our state's beginnings as an independent republic and allows citizens an opportunity to better understand and appreciate their Texas heritage; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate the 170th anniversary of the French Legation and extend to all those associated with the French Legation Museum sincere best wishes for the future; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the museum as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Now, Mr. Speaker, thank you. We are very happy to celebrate to the 170th anniversary of this museum. And a what a link to history. When Texas was a young republic -- when it was a young republic, you know, France was the first country to recognize us as an independent nation and they sent an emissary (inaudible) say (inaudible) pretty good, huh? And he -- He came over here and he lived right down Congress for a while. And some of you may remember the famous Pig Wars that we had here in Texas, but they went home. And, Representative Dukes, would you come up here with me and -- because we're working on this together. Representative Dukes, as a little girl you used to play around the French Legation, didn't you? What an honor. In fact, Representative Dukes worked to preserve that historic visual corridor and pass that bill, the Capitol Corridor, to protect that memory and to see what a beautiful sight. And thank you, Representative, for doing that. And I know that this is an important link to history. Would you like to say something about the French Legation?

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Dukes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Yes, the French Legation has always been an important link to East Austin, located very close to the state cemetery. In particular to me, because I always wonder why my great grandparents moved to Texas in 1914, and actually chose to move about three blocks away from the French Legation. When Representative Miller and I were talking the other day. I said I wonder if maybe my French Creole grandmother moved to that location because she felt a comfort when she exited Louisiana, to be near the Legation. And we were always brought near, up to the French Legation to play around. Actually there were many parks in the area. So it was the closest thing that we could get to. So it always had a special meaning in my heart and in my neighborhood and in District 46.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you Representative Dukes, and thank you for all the work that you've done over the years to protect this important piece of our history. On the dais with us today we have Mrs. Joanne Moore, Mrs. Carolyn Reed, Dr. Patricia Horage*, Ms. Cindy Anderson and Dr. Gayla Lawson. And Frankie Smith is up in the gallery taking pictures. And I want to give them a round of applause for the work they've done and continue to help us preserve this piece of history. With that, I move for approval.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the committee on criminal jurisprudence to meet while the House is in session at 9:30 a.m. today in Room 3W9.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet at 9:30 a.m. on April 8th, 2011, at 3W.9. That will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

THE CHAIR: Please excuse Representative Smithy for important business in the district, by Representative Anderson. Members, we're about to go on the calendar. The Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 11.

THE CLERK: HB 11 by Cook. Relating to reports filed by the comptroller regarding certain alcoholic beverage sales; providing a penalty.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. This is a wholesale recording bill we passed yesterday. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak for or against? For what purpose, Representative Huberty?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I have a question.

THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield? Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: This is very dangerous for a freshman on my committee to do this, but go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: I understand that, Chairman Cook. But I want to make sure to that everyone knows in the House that it's your birthday today and I want to wish you a happy birthday.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you very, very, very much. I appreciate it.

THE CHAIR: Please excuse Representative Castro for important business in the district, by Representative Farrar. Please excuse Representative Perez for important business in the district, by Representative Alonzo. The question occurs on final passage of HB 11. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Mr. Solomons? There being 133 ayes and 0 nays, the measure passes. Chair lays out on third reading HB 175. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 175 by Jackson. Relating to the on-premises consumption of certain alcoholic beverages, providing a penalty.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Jackson to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Members, this bill (inaudible) for the licensing of BYOB establishments operators. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Ms. Giddings?

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, I just -- just wanted to -- for our record here, you and I have talked about this, Representative Jackson, Chairman Jackson; I just want to be sure there's nothing in here that would alter the distances and so forth that Dallas has for alcohol related businesses around schools.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Let me read you that section.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: It says consumption near a church, school or a hospital, a municipality or a county may enact regulations prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises of a commercial establishment described by Section 56.02 near a church, public or private school or public hospital in the same manner as the municipality or county may prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages near a church, public or private school or public hospital.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: So basically this is giving them more protection?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: This puts the amendment under the same rules as you have for the sale of alcohol near churches, schools and public hospitals.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes. Thank you very much, Representative Jackson. Sometimes we have a word here or there and somebody takes and it runs away with it. So I just wanted to make that clear. And, Mr. Speaker, could our exchange be reported in the journal?

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? (Inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I appreciate -- I appreciate your concern. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 175? The questions occurs on the final passage of House Bill 175. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 134 ayes and 1 nay, the measure passes. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 218. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 218 by Gallego. Relating to possessing a glass container within the boundaries of certain riverbeds; providing criminal penalties.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill we passed yesterday, Representative Gallego. And has to deal possession of a glass container within the boundaries of certain riverbeds. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 218? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 218. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 125 ayes, 11 nays; House Bill 218 is finally passed. Chair lays out third reading House Bill 243. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 243 by Craddick. Relating to the creation of an offense for certain uses of a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dean Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone House Bill 243 until the end of today's calendar.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? So ordered. Chair lays out for third reading House Bill 336.

THE CLERK: HB 336 by Marquez. Relating to the filing and posting on the internet of reports of political contributions and expenditures required in connection with the office of member of the board of trustees of certain school districts.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 336? The question occurs on the final passage of House Bill 336. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Ms. Giddings voting aye. Show Mr. Fletcher voting aye. Have all members voted? Show Mr. Bonnen voting no. Members, you can vote from your desk. Have all members voted? There being 105 ayes, 27 nays; the measure finally passes. Chair lays out for third reading House Bill 341. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 341 by Fletcher. Relating to the prosecution of and the punishment for the offense of burglary committed while evading arrest or detention.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members, this is just a bill about the vote.

THE CHAIR: Is anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 341? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 341. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 134 ayes, 0 nays; the measure finally passes. Members, can we have some order? Chair recognizes Mrs. Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, you know, in this House we passed a bill that raised the drinking age of students, of our young people, to 21. And we finally have a member of the House that's going to be qualified for that. Would you please join me in congratulation and wishing a happy birthday to Byron Cook who finally made 21 and will be allowed to take his first drink?

THE CHAIR: Please excuse Representative Legler on important business in the district, on a motion by Representative Martinez. Chair lays out the on third reading House Bill 27. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 27 by Guillen. Relating to the payment of fines and costs by indigent defendants on misdemeanor cases.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to move this bill to the end of the third reading calendar. Okay. Instead of that, I move that we move this bill to a time certain being 10:00 a.m.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out for third reading House Bill 125. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 125 by Legler. Relating to the inclusion of a job impact analysis on the notice of rules proposed by the Texas Commision on environmental quality.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill we passed yesterday that allows for a reporting on environmental rules passe. It's just a reporting bill. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 125? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 125. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 120 ayes, 13 nays; the measure finally passes. Chair lays on out on second reading House Bill 2271. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2271 by Anchia. Relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Racing Commission, the abolishment of the Equine Research Account Advisory Committee, and the authority of Texas Agrilife Research; providing and administrative penalty.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I move to postpone temporarily House Bill 2271 to directly following House Bill 1808.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out for second reading House Bill 1808. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1808 by Cook. Relating to the continuation and functions of the State Soil and Water Conservation Board.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Chairman Cook to explain the measure.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the Sunset Bill for the Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board. Just to give you a little summary, the Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board works directly with owners and operators of agriculture land to develop and implement conservation measures erosion control, water qualities -- and water quantity purposes. To achieve its mission, the State Board provides technical assistance to 216 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts serving as the lead state agency for the prevention, management, abatement of agriculture, forest related and non points source pollution. And just to tell the members the major provisions in this bill, it requires the state board to establish specific programs, goals and statewide grant practices. It clarifies the focus of water supply enhancement programs. It requires the state board to develop a system to rank and prioritize water supply enhancement projects based on water conservation, need and yield. And the last thing is to continue the agency twelve years. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1808? Chair recognizes Chairman Cook to close on the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of House Bill 1808. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 1808 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out for second reading House Bill 2271. Clerk please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2271 by Anchia. Relating to the continuation and function of the Texas Racing Commission, the abolishment of the Equine Research Account Advisory Committee, and the authority of Texas AgriLife Research; providing an administrative penalty.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker and members, the committee -- What am I saying? And members of the House, we're here to lay out House Bill 2271, which is a byproduct of commission recommendations. And just to contextualize it for the members of House, the Racing Commission has gone through a number of different audits. From 2008 to me 2009 the Racing Commission was audited by the Comptroller's Office. In 2008 and 2009 it went through its initial Sunset Review. 2010 it was re-reviewed. There was also a State Auditor's report in 2010. And, finally, there was just completed a study that was required by HCR 252 related to the functions of the Racing Commission and possibility extending racing. Now, this bill, members, does not expand gaming in this state. Flatly. I have seen some internet rumors about this bill and what it does, but I will say flatly, it does not expand gambling in this state, it just really doesn't expand racing in this state. It reducing the footprint of current racing tackles online gaming. The other thing that this Sunset Bill does is it Sunsets the Equine Research Committee. It was created in 1991, and the eleven member committee recommends funding for equine research projects. The director of the Texas AgriLife Research currently makes final grant awards. And for the past three sessions the legislature has not appropriated the account funds. Instead, the Texas AgriLife funded branch were recommended by the committee. The Sunset Commission found that the committee has not provided clear outcomes for its funding decisions, and that a statutorily mandated committee is no long needed. So we're going to Sunset the Equine Research Committee. It's a major provision of the Sunset Legislation. It requires the commission to develop an annual process to review inactive licenses. This is important, members. In the past, the Racing Commission did not have the ability to create active versus inactive licenses. There was language in the prior bill that we're taking out here that made licenses granted by the Racing Commission perpetual. And that created a problem for the Racing Commission to deal with some of the inactive licenses. The was also a problem in the legislation, the Sunset Commission found wherein there was no revocation authority for existing licenses. The drafting of the original legislation said you could only revoke an application. Well, how do you revoke an application? Really, the only thing that you can revoke is an existing license. So this Sunset Bill makes it clear to the commission that you can -- that you can revoke existing licenses. And it also makes it clear, by eliminating the perpetual license language that you'll either have an active track or an inactive track. And I know many people on the House floor, as is this author, are concerned about inactive tracks. There are a number of them around the state. And what this bill seeks to do is to make sure that inactive tracks either race or -- are non renewed. An inactive track will have to come back to the Racing Commission every year and be subject to an audit. And after that audit, the Racing Commission can non renew the track, if they find they're either not live racing or making a good faith effort to conduct racing. I think members, not I think, members from all parts of this floor have come to me and said, you know, Rafael, we really need to do something about the in active tracks. And I think this bill strikes a balance. It acknowledges the fact that people may be may have an inactive track but are taking affirmative steps towards racing. But it also acknowledges the fact that there are some actors out there who have not done anything with their licenses for years and years and years and years. And they're holding on to those licenses, sort of betting on the gun as it might be said, to see if there's an expansion of gaming. And I think that's bad policy. I think if you have a racing license you need to race and not just hold it and hold it and hold and in perpetuity without any affirmative steps to try to get to racing.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I'd like to ask the gentleman just a short question.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I yield for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Anchia, I'm looking at the House report on your legislation, I know it's quite a lengthy piece of legislation. But one thing that jumped out at me is that your legislation was opposed by the horse owners, the Texas Thoroughbred Association and the Texas Horseman's Partnership. And I wonder if that was the original bill or was that also the committee substitute? And what reason would they -- What is it about the bill that they don't like?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Honestly, it was a pretty short hearing. There were -- I don't know that, why they would have opposed the bill. We've been working with industry pretty closely. That may be on the original bill and not the substitute, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: You can understand my concern if the horse owners are opposed to your bill. I would like to -- Hopefully, we could work that out. I'm wondering if it was possibly giving so much power to the executive directors, particularly his power to overturn the stewards and the judge's decision. That's a lot of power in one man's hands.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: There were a couple of people who testified on that issue, but we pointed out during the committee hearing that that's the

(inaudible) appeal that's in bill does not limit their due process, it actually enhances it. So you have stewards who are on-site, have a relationship with the folks at the -- at the track. The executive director can appeal, can hear an appeal of the steward's decision. But even after that you still have the

(inaudible) right, if there's a problem with the executive director's position, you still can go to the

(inaudible) hearing, and even after that you can still go to district court. So there's -- my view is that it actually enhances due process, rather than limits it. But the reality is that -- and I'm very familiar with pari mutuals. Sometimes the -- there's a concern that sometimes the stewards and the judges, because they are on-site and may not always be rotated, have an intimate relationship with the racing track. And this just gives the executive director the ability to take an appeal or a review of those stewards and judges' decisions, if they think there's something out of whack.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: But if I read it correctly, it gives the executive director power to overrule the stewards and the judges.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: It does. It does. If they see something that doesn't make sense to them they can overrule them. However, that decision, just so people understand, that decision of the executive director is still appealable. Well, I even left out a step. Appealable to the commission, appealable to (inaudible), and finally appealable in a state district court. So there's a lot of due process built in.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: So it's not -- it doesn't end there?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: No, sir no, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Okay. Thank you for your time.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIR: Mr. White, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Yes. Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Yes, sir. The restrictions on betting, could you explain to me -- If I'm correct, does the commission have oversight on betting outside of Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: No, they do not. They do not. One of the challenges, and I think what you're talking about is the prohibitions against internet gaming here in the bill. One of the things that's hurting the track and reducing the handle at Texas tracks is internet gaming. And, frankly, it has been the current Texas Racing Act has been silent on internet gaming. So while there are some rules promulgated, and it is suggested that internet gaming and taking bets from Texas residents over the internet on racing by non Texas licensed entities it is illegal. This makes it clear that it's illegal.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Okay. So persons would be prohibited from accepting in person, by telephone, over the internet --

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: -- a wager on a horse, a greyhound race; run inside or outside of Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Right. Because you have some simulcasts -- you have some simulcast that occurs on the existing tracks. And that simulcast, for example, you may be looking at a race from Santa Anita or Calder or one of the other tracks, that racing is occurring outside the state. But the transaction, the wager transaction, has to occur; if it's going to occur in the State of Texas, with a licensed operator. You can't -- The internet guys are unlicensed, so we're making it clear in statute that it's illegal.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: So you mean internet guys -- Who are the internet guys? Where are they? Are they at home or where are they?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: They're all over the place. I mean they are typically in other states in the United States. They're typically outside of Texas yet they don't have a license in the State of Texas, yet they're accepting wagers in the state over the internet.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: And --

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: And that has always come into question but never made it explicitly illegal. That has made illegal in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: So on the internet in my house I'm taking a wager from someone in California and the commission will regulate that?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

(Inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Represent ative Anchia, question.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: The Racing Commission is obviously -- for the last decade has really been pretty much in a defunct, has it not, as far as going down; as far as revenues?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Well, racing in Texas, the handle in racing and the attendance in racing has been in decline probably since 1992. I mean there was a spike in 1991, I believe, and then right after that there's been a steady decline to where the handle is about a 163 million dollars lower than it was in its heyday.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: When the Racing Commission was set up was it not to be

(inaudible) a little more self-sufficient on funding itself?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes, that's one of the issues that we deal with here in the bill. In fact, we -- the revenue -- excuse me, the Racing Commission will be self-leveling, completely self-leveling after there. There was a big concern about outs, are you familiar with outs? Those are uncashed winning tickets. That represented about 1.3 million dollars last year in revenue. But the outs are a fluctuating revenue stream. You never know from one year to the next how many outs there are going to be. So what this bill does is it says we're not going to rely on outs from -- from uncashed winning tickets for revenue. We need a more predictable revenue stream for the commission. So we are going to let the tracks keep the outs but raise the fees on the tracks in order to create a predictable revenue stream for this regulatory body.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: What are we doing to cut the commission's budget, as far as staffing goes? I mean if they're not making the state any revenues at this date and time, I mean maybe that might change in two to four years, but I mean what are we doing to address that?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Well, to be clear, the state is making revenue off of racing. I mean you are correct to suggest that it is in decline, there's no doubt about that. But it still brings positive revenues to the state. It is not -- It is not providing zero revenues. And it certainly wasn't what it once was. But I mean it does bring revenue to the state.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Well, I like your recommendation. Are you going to lower the Sunset from twelve to six years?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yeah, we want to bring them back, I believe, in six years.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: You think maybe it might be reviewed in a shorter period of time, like maybe four?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: You know, here is the issue with that, Representative, this is a re-review. I mean, this bill that we have before us comes at the heel of a comptrollers audit in 2008 and 2009; a Sunset Review in 2008, 2009; a Sunset Review in 2010; a State Auditor's report 2010; and the study that was called for under HCR 252 that occurred just last year. So I feel like they've been studied quite a bit. I think we need to we need to have -- we need to let the Racing Commission do their job for a time certain. Keep in mind, we can come back in two years, and I suspect there's going to be an interim study both by the House Committee and the Senate Committee that's going look at the functioning of the Racing Commission to see how it's doing. But I'm not sure that we need to go through Sunset in a shorter period than six years.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you for your answers, Representative.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 1 of the prefile packet.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, the first amendment deals with the commission rules and the bonding requirements. So if you look at -- on page 6, really quickly, there was a concern by the -- by the industry that there was going to be a bond required in order to do commission business. And that bond could be drawn upon by the commission under the current wording of the bill without any major violation or major default by the track. So what this says is the commission needs to make sure that there are substantiative -- that there's a violation of the substantiative, not non-substantiative, substantive requirements of the act in order to draw down on the bond. You'll see that on page 6, line 23. And then on lines 21 and 22 we do allow the commission to rely on and create rules to suggest how the bond should be drawn down on, and the circumstances under which the bond can be drawn down on. And we -- The industry just wanted a little bit of clarity. And the response at the hearing, and then later on in subsequent meetings was we don't want to default on our bond if, for example, if we failed to pick up trash on a particular day and violated a minor commission rule, we want the commission to be draw down on the bond if there's a substantiative, as a opposed to a non-substantive violation. And I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a --

THE CHAIR: What purpose, Mr. Howard?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Representa tive, the way I read this --

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields, Mr. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: The way I read this is what you're basically saying is right now the commission rule will determine the post -- the security what's posted and what's not, and what you are substituting says reasonably necessary as provided by commission rule. Who determines what's reasonably necessary? Because already what you're striking is the commission makes the rule, they can make the rule whatever -- what they feel is necessary now. And what you are putting in there is reasonably necessary as provided by the commission rule. Who determines what's reasonably necessary?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: The commission.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: So I don't understand the purpose of striking one and putting in necessarily.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: It's just a drafting change. It just fit better in the passage. So it will now read that the commission at any time may require the holder of a racetrack license or an applicant for racetrack to post security in an amount reasonably necessary as determined by -- as determined by commission rule to adequately ensure a license holder or applicant's compliance with the substantiative requirement of -- the substantiative requirements of this act and commission rule. So there's no change. So if what you're concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is who is making the determination before the amendment and after the amendment, the determination of reasonably -- reasonably necessary will be made by the commission. There's no change there. What we wanted to get at is the initial language was very broad and it suggested that you could have a non-substantive violation of the -- either the act, the Racing Act, or the commission rules that would result in a forfeiture of the bond. We wanted to make it clear that the commission can develop rules and -- and we wanted to make it clear that the commission could develop rules so that they could set forth the guidelines for forfeiture of the bond. That's the only change that we're trying to come up with here.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Howard of Travis for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to recognize the Second Grade Class from River Place Elementary School up here in the gallery. If y'all would please stand and let us recognize you? Welcome to the Capitol. Thank you for being here today.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Elkins.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I would like for y'all to welcome the Seventh Grade Class from St. Mark's Lutheran School. Would you stand up, St. Mark's Lutheran school? I think they're over here in the south gallery. They may have already left. Welcome them to the Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I'll turn your attention to page 8, where we talk about this new concept of the active license. We're moving from a perpetual license to an active license. And just by way of further background, the perpetual license has created a problem in this state because the commission has felt it has not had the tools to revoke the perpetual license. We're moving from perpetual to active and incave. And in this case -- so because of that, the industry was a little bit concerned. They said well, what does moving away from perpetual license to active license mean? So we wanted to do in Subsection B, which is on page 8 between lines and 10, is articulate the ways under this bill that an active license can go away. And it's really four things. An active license can become inactive, it can be surrendered, it can be suspended or it can be revoked. So that's how the bill operates, and we just wanted to make that clear, that those are the circumstances under which an active license can be impacted; because we're moving from perpetual to active. Then there was another concern about the new revocation standard that we had included in the bill, and that revocation standard is also on page 9. We wanted to make it clear that the commission could revoke, but they would look -- they must reasonably determine that other disciplinary actions are inadequate to remedy the problem. So this is not uncommon in administrative law. If you have a minor violation you have certain tools in your toolbox to deal with that minor violations, like fines, for example; or required compliance. You can -- You can temporarily suspend, but revocation is really kind of the death star approach to a license. So if that happens, we at least want the commission to reasonably consider that the revocation that they're using is -- that they want to use revocation because all the other tools in their toolbox are inadequate to remedy the problem. And that's something that we ask agencies to do on a regular basis. There is a -- There is a weight given to the revocation as -- as a remedy for dealing with the most serious violaters in -- among active licenses. And this amendment's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia sends up an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Question.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Represent ative Anchia, maybe I missed this, but just out of curiosity; I know you restructured the commission to a certain degree, but how many people are now on that commission board is going to decide these license?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I think there's seven people on the commission board, if I'm not mistaken. And I had my book up here. I think it's seven. Five of them appointed by the governor.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: The head director of the commission leads this board, or who leads the board?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: No. The executive director is, I believe, since it's an ex

(inaudible) member, since it's not on the board at all. These are all -- these are public members and two members of industry appointed by the governor.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: And how often -- What's the terms?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: In the -- In the Sunset Report we've got a -- there's a diagram I could point you to, and I don't have it right now. I'll ask someone to bring it to me. There's a diagram that shows all their terms, they're staggered terms. Let's say they're four-year terms.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Anchia sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Members, the amendment's on page 2 of the amendment package. Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this does is the first part of this amendment, on page 7, on K-1, is to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or negative impact on a pending or existing license that has been purchased, but ownership has not been transferred. An existing license that has been purchased, but has not yet been granted full active license by the commission could also be affected by the legislation without this amendment. The commission, in many instances, controls the calendar of events and activities associated with the license process, and the applicant has no control over. So this is to make sure that a license that purchased has an opportunity to become an active license without preemption. (Inaudible).

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Hartnett?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'd be happy to yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: If I understand, with your amendment we could just have a shell game where the ownership changes, they have three years and they do nothing; the ownership changes, they have three years and do nothing and we can go on forever; right?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, that's not exactly true. Under the existing law with the permanent license they have an opportunity to own that license in perpetuity, as well. Remember, these are circumstances where this is an asset of the individual who owns the license, just like a nursing home license for Medicaid is an asset of the person who owns the license. And that license is often transferred within the context of that particular nursing home to remain a Medicaid nursing home. So it's a very similar circumstance.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: And what are you changing? Is it a one-year review under the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I just laid out the first piece, not that piece that you are discussing; but what it does is allow that to be in place for three years under the ownership of that license; in order to give an opportunity to be fully transferred.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: This bill calls for an annual review; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: What's wrong with an annual review? Why do we need three years?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, sir, I think because of the investment in -- I think that people want to make sure they have time in order to reap the effect of the investment and purchase of the license, actually having a chance for that investment to become hard; in terms of having that license become an active license.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well, you're talking about transferring one of the operating race tracks, so they're already in business. Why do we need to stall the review?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Some licenses are not already in business.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: No. This talks about an active license.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I understand that. But if you are purchasing an active license, again, which you want to have the opportunity to do is make sure that you're not precluded from the -- completing the purchase as someone who has already put out on investment for the purchase of that particular license. Is it -- So the license is incomplete because the actual Racing Commission has to approve the transfer of that license. That doesn't mean in this period of time that that license has been transferred -- has been approved.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I don't understand what you are saying on this. But I want to move to the next point, which is more important to me; which is the striking the discretion of the commission to non -- not renew the license if they find it is not in the best interests of the racing industry of the public. Why are you deleting that?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, the reality is that's a broad discretionary -- broad discretionary language that doesn't have criterium in it. Do you see any criterium in the language that says what is no in the in the interest of the public, in terms of the what the racing commission would decide? Well -- I'm asking you, do you see anything?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I agree with you that it wouldn't hurt to add some clarity, but to go the opposite way --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Sir, I'd be happy to take an amendment to my amendment. But the issue is it's overly broad. And since it's overly broad, no one has any idea what that means. If it said moral turpitude, if it said involved in an activity that is illegal, if it said whatever. But that means that the interest of the public is left to whatever the discretion is of the Racing Commission.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Isn't that what state agencies do?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, sometimes. But don't you believe due process is a good thing to have?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I agree. But you're going the opposite way. You're saying --

(Inaudible) I would like to finish my statement. You're saying that the agency cannot exercise its discretion to determine that renewing the license is not in the interests of the public.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Hartnett, what I said is I would take an amendment to make it more specific. I believe the information -- that the -- is overly broad.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's my answer to your question. I understand what you are saying. I would be happy to take an amendment to make it more specific.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Maybe we should move this to the end of the calendar, but I've --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Can I finish laying out my amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I'm sorry, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And so, again, when you get to page 9, it says that this amendment adds a Subsection F that notwithstanding Section A of this section, an inactive license that has changed ownership is not subject to renewal again to the third anniversary of the date that the change in ownership becomes final. And that's to give people an opportunity who have purchased an asset -- that is -- and they have an opportunity to have the purchase of that asset become fully realized. And I'll be happy to postpone it, if somebody's going to work with me. And if we just want to vote it up and down now we can do that. Certainly I would like to have -- But why would I wait until the till the end? Because I was going to move it to the end. But since Mr. Anchia doesn't want to talk --

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. I appreciate the good efforts of my good friend, Garnett Coleman, on this amendment. One of the concerns that I have on the -- on this amendment is that if there is any change of ownership or management that's currently undefined in this bill, what happens is the tolling period for the one-year review that would currently be in effect for inactive licenses gets moved back to three years. So it's unclear from this -- from this amendment, whether a change of ownership is a small fractional piece -- percentage of ownership, like 0.1 percent, 5 percent, 2 percent, 80 percent, 50 percent; we really don't have a lot of guidance there. So the thing, as it was suggested in the exchange from the back mike and the front mike that maybe even of more concern, is the discretion of the -- discretion of the commission to take action that the -- that's in the best interest of the public. And that's a power that they have not had, that we are giving them in the amendments -- in this Sunset Commission Bill, and, frankly, one of the things that's inhibited their ability to shut down inactive tracks. And so, for those reasons, I would move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Hamilton?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Thank you, Mr. Anchia. And I appreciate all the work you're doing on here and doing a great job and being open to us and working with us. We still have a problem, though, and I stated this back in the back, that we have a lot of problems with whether we trust the Racing Commission or not. And we have problems on different times of and different settings so as to say one will zoom through in two or three months, and one will zoom through in two or three years. And I know a lot of things that you've had in there address a lot of that. And it still concerns me about the power that we're with giving them on nontrack that are either in litigation now or tracks that are trying to move or tracks that are trying to be bought, on how is this going to help them out and get this settled so they can start getting to the game of racing?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Right. So you -- Mr. Chairman, you've laid out two important issues. The first one relates to the time it takes for the commission to take decisions, and I believe you and I have talked about over the last few days and we're going to deal with an amendment, we're going to have an amendment dealing with that issue. And the second issue is the Racing Commission and its discretion to get people racing. Because folks right now are just holding on to licenses and they're not racing. And we want to encourage that. So the Sunset Commission tried to strike a balance. We said, listen, we're not going eliminate all inactive licenses, we think not all inactive licenses are created equal. People are in a state of inactivity in their licensure for different reasons. So we're not going to have a hard cut of inactive licenses. But we want the inactive licenses to come back every year, undergo an audit and make a good-faith effort to get racing. It's really a use it or lose it environment. And, frankly, in the situation I think that Mr. Coleman is trying to get, an inactive license that may have been transferred, the Racing Commission should have the discretion to say whether or not A, it was a sham transfer, right; or if it's a legitimate transfer come to the commission and put on your good-faith effort that you are trying to get to racing. And I'm -- I understand where Representative Coleman is coming from. In 2007 you had licenses that were issued. You immediately thereafter hit a bump in the economy where credit was tight. This bill, in its current form, gives folks the ability to come to the commission after the acquisition, within a year, and say here's our plan. Here's out good-faith effort to race. And the commission would then renew them. So that's what the -- that's the kind of discretion I think the commission should have. It needs to separate the bad inactives from the inactives that are really trying to race.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: But we're asking the same people that made these bad inactives now to do -- turn around and do -- to be the good inactives. And that's kind of like you still have the fox guarding the henhouse, you just changed the doors and quit coming in the front door and start coming into the back.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Look, I am not here to defend the Racing Commission. They've made decisions where I've been left scratching my head. But the reality is the bill tries to strike a middle ground and says listen, we want to say to folks get in gear and get racing if you have a license. Don't be waiting for a possible gaming bill --

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: And I agree with you a hundred percent on that.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: -- so you win the lottery if gaming passes in Texas. We don't want people holding that lottery ticket in the form of an inactive license. If you have a license and it's inactive, get active and race. And that's what we're trying to do in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Well, I agree with that. It's some of the people who might be in the middle that we're kind of worried about.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I brought these thoughts to work with people who had made significant investments to make sure they have an opportunity to carry those out. I imagine that -- I appreciate if you'd vote with me to not have this amendment tabled, and then I can work with the author to come up with better language that meets the objectives of his bill. And I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment. Mr. Anchia moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor, vote aye. Those opposed, vote nay. It's a division vote. Show Mr. Anchia voting aye. Ms. Miles voting no. Mr. Coleman voting no. Show Mr. Strama voting aye. Members, you've got time. Vote from your desk. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 100 ayes and 24 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment. Members, this is on page 15 of your packet.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is aimed at the licensees that do nothing. They get a license from the Racing Commission, they promise to open a track and to hold live races and then they break their promises and do nothing. Under the existing law, subterfuge in the ownership and operation of a racetrack shall be prevented, and this act shall be liberally construed to carry out this intent. Basically, we want honesty in the ownership and operation of tracks, in particular the licenses. This amendment does not affect the five operating horse tracks and the three operating Greyhound tracks. They're doing what they promised to do. This amendment does affect the five Class II horseracing licenses that have never held a single race. Two horse track licenses have been held since 1989, and they have never done a single thing for horseracing. Three tracks received licenses in 2007 with very specific promises. All three defaulted on their promises. They forfeited the bonds that they had posted to the commission and have done absolutely nothing concrete since. They are clearly speculators and not operators. This amendment would make clear that the commission --

THE CHAIR: Representative Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I'll wait until he finishes.

THE CHAIR: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: This amendment makes it clear that the failure to conduct live races within three years after the issuance of the license issuance, will be presumed to be subterfuge. It's not conclusive, they can still try to defend themselves. But, basically, if they can't get their act together within three years this gives the Racing Commission an extra tool to try to shut them down or to force them to do what they need to do.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Howard?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: He yields, the gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Representa tive, the way I read you amendment here, all you're really trying to do is to make sure that when these people take these licenses out, that they start doing what they said they were going to do and not put their license on the market to try to sell it or to try to move it somewhere else, but to go ahead and start doing exactly what they said they were going to do; isn't that right?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Basically it just says if you don't do what you promised to do in writing in great detail to do, that you're presumed to have obtained your license by subterfuge, which is a term that's already in the act.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Right. I think it's a good amendment. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you. I do have one amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: May I ask a question, please?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Representat ive Hartnett, would this -- would this amendment encourage government sponsored or regulated horseracing in the State of Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: In effect it would, because it basically tells the people that get a license that they need use it or lose it. So it basically says once you you've got the license you have to fulfill your promises within three years and get the track up. And if you don't, and if you default on your promises, then you're presumed to have obtained your license by subterfuge.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: What role does civil government have in encouraging horseracing?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I think you're off my amendment. I'm not dealing with the Racing Act that passed in 1989.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Doesn't this amendment encourage and promote horseracing?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I would say no. I mean in the specifics of it. It basically enforces the -- the purpose of the Racing Act and just says the State of Texas is not going to be abused by people who don't fulfill their promises. You can cast it and spin it any way you want, but I'm trying -- this is a very targeted amendment aimed at people who don't do what they say they're going to do.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Bonnen?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: For a couple questions.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Hartnett?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Hartnett, let me begin by saying I understand and respect and largely agree with what you are trying to accomplish. My concern is, though, that we do have individual track license holders who due to the economic circumstances of the last couple years are making progress and are in good faith working towards having a race at their track, that this amendment would knock the legs out from under them and cut them off. I think you raised an issue that we must address, but I fear that it would have -- at least in my view, maybe not in yours, unintended consequences of taking the legs out from under those who have and are working towards a race. How would we resolve that matter?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Dennis, I don't know what you've just said, and it may be true that they are going through some motions. I don't know that. But they have had plenty of time. The two since 1989 have had plenty of time --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, with respect, Representative Hartnett, I'm not arguing maybe about those two; but I know specifically there are one or two tracks that have only in the last couple of years received their license and, due to the economic circumstances, paused on moving forward towards having a race. And I think there's a way we could work on this to ensure that we're not cutting the knees out from under those who are actively working towards a race, maybe not at the pace that you or I think they should have been, due to the economic circumstance; and then still address those who, for a number of years, have chons not to have a race.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well, Dennis, if they -- I mean, if they haven't been able to get it done we should cancel them and then they should come back when the economy gets better.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, I think the reality of it is what we're seeing from these individuals is that the economy is getting better and they are making their efforts to have the race. And, Representative Hartnett, I guess my point is, from a legislative perspective my concern would be, creating a scenario where we are changing the rules on someone who is, in good-faith, working towards meeting their requirement or commitment for the state.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Dennis, when you forfeit your bond you are not acting in good faith. I read from the Racing Commission's latest report. The commission issued three new Class II licenses during 2007. Two of the licensees posted security and agreed to schedules that called for simulcasting to begin on a certain date and for the facilities to be ready for live racing on a certain date. A third licensee also posted security and agreed to a schedule with a specific date. None of those new licensees met their obligation and they forfeited their posted bond as a result. I don't know of anything they're doing and, you know, you can correct me if you know something specific that shows that these folks are more than speculators and really want to be operators, I'd like to hear it. But I sure don't know what that is.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I believe there is fact basis. I'll get it for you if you would like. But I do believe that there is fact basis that those individuals are sincere and moving towards a license. And I'm not suggesting that we give them till forever, I just have a great concern that this legislative body today take an action that cuts the legs out from under a group that only since '07, and we all know what's occurred since '07 in the economy of the nation, that we take an action today that cuts them off. I mean, I want to be clear, members, it will cut them off.

THE CHAIR: Representative Cook raises a point of order. The gentleman time's has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Please excuse Representative Bohac because of illness, on the motion by Representative Madden. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members, just as I spoke against my good friend Representative Coleman's amendment because I thought it broadened the -- it reduced the amount of review that the commission would engage in, I have to rise and speak against my friend, Will Hartnett, because I think this amendment is overly restrictive; because it treats all inactive licenses alike, and it creates a presumption that they're engaged in subterfuge. I hope you listened to the discussion from the back mike and the front mike between the representative an Chairman Bonnen, because I think he illustrated it very well that not all active licenses are created equal. You've got the really suspect cases, for example, like the license that's been in place since 1989. And the licensee, because they have they had a perpetual license previously, did nothing. The current Sunset Bill gets at them by making them show -- making them come back to the commission, show an audit and make a good-faith effort within one year. It is likely that a track that has done nothing since 1989 will be unable to do that and they face nonrenewal. So we deal with that basket of inactives. There is yet another basket of inactives that deal with what I think Representative Bonnen was getting at. And Representative Bonnen, as the chair of Sunset, had an opportunity to sit through a lot of these hearings and listen to the testimony. There are some tracks that got their licenses in 2007 and they have been unable to race, because they lost their financing, their zoning didn't work; or they -- or their credit just dried up. So you've got some tracks like the track in McAllen, the tracks Laredo and others who just got their license four years ago and have been making good faith efforts. Representative Hartnett says we're not going to consider those good faith efforts. Yes, they're not racing four years later, but we're not going to consider those good faith efforts we're going to immediately create a presumption that they are engaging in subterfuge. And I don't think that strikes the right balance in this bill. What the bill does is said if you haven't been doing -- if you have an inactive license, whether you got it in 1989 or 2007, you have to come back to the commission on an annual basis and undergo audit and show that you are trying to race, that you're making good faith efforts to race.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: -- and if you're not your are subject to nonrenewal.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Anchia, you make excellent arguments and I'd like to point out for your knowledge, to see if you're aware of the fact that specifically the track in McAllen is very respectfully and successfully working towards a race. And this amendment would cut them completely and totally. And they are, without a doubt, actively working towards a race. And I think it's unconscionable that we take a legislative action that cuts off an organization, a business entity that is meeting their requirement and that here today we make a decision that shuts down the track in McAllen who is actively working towards that race. I don't know if you are aware of that information.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I am, I am, Mr. Chairman. And, members, this is the really important, okay? Because if this amendment goes on it really strikes a different public policy tone in the Racing Commission Bill. What we're -- Representative Hartnett and Representative Bonnen and I, I think all have the same goal. We want to get rid of the speculators, we want to get rid of the inactive tracks. But we on the Sunset Commission heard testimony that led us to conclude that not all inactive tracks are equal. And to take a one size fits all approach to this amendment is not advisable. We want all inactive tracks, whether they've done something or they've done nothing, to come back before the Commission and show what they're doing, show that they're making a good faith effort to race. If they're -- if they fail that good faith test they're non renewed by the commission after one year. And that's the balance -- that's the public policy balance that this bill strikes. I think -- I appreciate Representative Hartnett's concern about speculators. I share it. I think if you have a racing license you shouldn't be holding it like a lottery ticket. I think that's wrong. If you have a racing license for dogs you should race dogs. If you have a racing license for horses you should race horses. But if you have a racing license and you want to win the lottery on gaming, I think that's wrong and you should have your license pulled. This bill gets at that. So, respectfully, Mr. Chairman and members, I will move to table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Members, I know this is a somewhat complicated policy issue but, bottom line, these licensees have had a long time to do what they promised to do. And we've got to have a cutoff. I've said three years. You know, we can do -- I'll be happy to consider any kind of cutoff, but we need to stop the speculation in licenses. It doesn't do anything for the horseracing business. And, by the way, this amendment does not automatically cut off any license. This just creates a presumption that then the commission can use to cut off a license, but it's not automatic. It's just a presumption.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Representa tive Hartnett, under your bill if they were to lose that license they could immediately reapply for a --

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: -- license; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Absolutely. Let's not support the deadbeats anymore. Let's make them pony up or ship out. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment. Members, there's an amendment being drafted -- Members we're just going to step back for a short one.

THE CHAIR: Members, we do have an amendment being drafted to this amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, we understand that there's an amendment being drafted. I'm going to unwind my motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Anchia. Mr. Martinez? Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I need to move for permission to introduce a bill, a bill for one of our mayors in the Rio Grande Valley in my district, Mayor (inaudible) he's going to have a road named after him in Alamo, that he's been a mayor there for over 20 years. We just want to show some respect for him and I ask for your support on the -- on the permission, please.

THE CHAIR: Members, this is a record vote on Mr. Martinez's permission to introduce. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Bonnen voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being a 130 ayes and 1 nay, the motion prevails. Chair -- Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Just -- I just want to reiterate the public policy choice that we're making here. We've got a one size fits all solution proposed by Representative Hartnett that is going to create the presumption that all tracks that are inactive are engaging in subterfuge. You heard the back and forth with the Representative and Chairman Bonnen. They are not -- There are different states of progress for different tracks and there are different levels of effort for different tracks. Some tracks that, under Representative's Hartnett's bill, like the one in McAllen who are making good faith efforts to get racing, they would -- this would create a rebuttable presumption that they're engaging in subterfuge. And that's a pretty -- that's a pretty significant charge that we'd be making a legislature. Members, I just ask you, Chairman Bonnen sat through the hearings, I sat through the hearings, Chairman Cook sat through the hearings. We listened to testimony and we arrived at this middle ground that said if you have an inactive license you have to come back every year to prove that you're making a good faith effort. And if you're not -- if it's determined by the commission that you're not, you are non renewed and you lose your license. And that's what we're saying. I share Representative Hartnett's concern about speculators who hold licenses. I think it is a problem, but I think this bill strikes the right public policy balance to deal with those speculators. They're going to be back before the Racing Commission within a year, and they're subject to nonrenewal within a year. So, members, I'd ask that you stick with me and the members of the Sunset Commission and table this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to close.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, these folks have had plenty of time. This amendment does not automatically cut them off it just basically recognizes their action for what it is, that they essentially obtained a license under false pretenses, and the burden is on them to prove otherwise. And then they can show their good faith to the commission. So I urge you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Members, a record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. The question occurs on Mr. Anchia's motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Anchia voting aye. Mr. Hartnett voting no. Mr. Bonnen voting aye. Members, have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 65 ayes and 68 nays, the motion to table -- 64 ayes and 68 nays, the motion to table fails. Members, a verification has been requested. Members, please take your seats. Please take your seats, members.

THE CHAIR: Members, we're going to begin the verification. We're going to start with reading the prevailing side, which are the nays. Clerk will begin the verification.

THE CLERK: Anderson of McClendon. Anderson of Dallas. Aycock. Beck. Berman. Burkett. Button. Cane. Callegari -- Callegari.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Callegari on the floor of the House? Strike his name.

THE CLERK: Carter.

THE CHAIR: Temporarily.

THE CLERK: Craddick. Creighton. Crownover. Davis of Harris -- John Davis of Harris. Eissler. Elkins. Fletcher. Flynn. Giddings. Gonzales of Williamson. Hamilton. Hancock. Hardcastle. Harless. Harper-Brown. Hartnett. Hopson. Howard of Fort Bend. Huberty. Hughes. Hunter. Isaac. Jackson. King of Parker. Kolkhorst. Landtroop. Laubenberg. Lavender, Louis, Madden. Margo. Martinez Fisher. Miller. Morrison. Nash. Orr. Parker. Patrick. Paxton. Phillips. Schwertner. Sheets. Sheffield. Shelton. Smith of Tarrant. Solomons. Taylor of Galveston. Taylor of Collins. Thompson. Torres. Torres.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Torres on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Truitt. Turner. Veasey. Weber. White. Workman. Zedler. Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Clerk will now proceed with calling the ayes.

THE CLERK: Aliseda. Alonzo. Alvarado. Anchia. Bonnen. Branch. Brown. Burnham. Chisum. Cook. Darby. Sarah Davis of Harris. Driver. Dukes. Dutton. Island. Farrar. Gallego. Garza. Gonzales of Hidalgo. Gonzalez of El Paso. Gooden. Guillen. Gutierrez. Hernandez Luna. Hildebrand. Hochberg. Howard of Travis. Johnson. Kepper. King of Taylor. King of Zavalla. Kleinschmidt. Kuempel. Larson. Lozano. Lucio. Lucio.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Lucio on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Lyne.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Lyne on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Marquez. Martinez. McClendon. Menendez. Miles. Miller of Comal. Munoz. Murphy. Naishtat. Oliveira. Oliveira.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Oliveira on the floor of the House? Strike his name temporarily.

THE CLERK: Otto. Pickett. Pitts. Price. Quintanilla. Raymond. Reynolds. Riddler. Rodriguez. Scott. Simpson. Smith of Harris. Strama, Villareal. Vo. Wooley.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Callegari on the floor of the House? Strike Mr. Callegari's name. Is Mr. Torres on the floor of the House? Strike Mr. Torres' name. Is Mr. Lucio on the floor of the House? Strike Mr. Lucio's name. Is Ms. Lyne on the floor of the House? Strike Ms. Lyne's name. Is Mr. Oliveira on the floor of the House? Strike Mr. Oliveira's name. The following members were present voting aye but their machines malfunctioned: Representative Coleman, Representative Eissler, Representative Hamilton, Representative Hunter and Representative Margo. Please show them voting aye. Members, there being 66 ayes and 62 nays the motion to table prevails. Please excuse Representative Pena on important business, by Representative Guillen. Please excuse Representative Lyne on important business in the district, by Representative Hardcastle. Please excuse Representative Bill Callegari because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Miller. Please excuse Representative Oliveira because of illness, on the motion of Representative Alonzo. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this amendment is on page 4.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain his amendment. Representative Hartnett withdraws his amendment. Excuse Representative Lucio because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hernandez Luna. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 5.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain his amendment. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 6, Mr. Miles. Members, the amendment -- the following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 6, members.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miles.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miles.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would like at this point to just take a minute and get the elephant out of room, if we could. Okay? Members, we all know we all know -- bad choice of words. We all know that this has been going on, the problem that we've been fighting on Representative Anchia's bill has been pasturing for -- and waiting, anticipating big gambling and gaming coming into our great state of Texas. And some people have been pasturing and positioning themselves since 1989, as we heard earlier this morning. And, you know, I really don't have an issue with all of that. But what I do have an issue with is as we prepare for big gaming to come into our state, it becomes, if it shall come, for the people (inaudible) since 1989, my brother. I found that history has found that big gaming and racetracks have been supported by middle to low income minorities, for the most part, in most of the states that have gambling and racetracks and horses and all those kinds of things. So what my amendment is trying to do is make sure that because we can't participate, Representative Anchia, at that big level as far as investors and owners, I'm asking that the State of Texas give something back to the people that are supporting these gambling institutions; racetracks, horse-tracks, casinos, whatever it may be, whatever shape and form it may take; I'm asking that we, as Texans, support and try to give something back to those middle to low income minorities that support these gambling institutions by allowing and making sure and mandating that these licensees have to do business with Texas-grown minority individual companies. And what the amendment says is the Racing Commission has currently nothing in place that will allow them to keep records from minority participating and racetracks and license holders or even require racetrack holders to adhere to a standard (inaudible) All those Texas Racing Commissions will handle the Section 6.03 (drop) states (inaudible) and human contract of (inaudible) the commission shall attempt to ensure the involvement of Texas minority owned businesses. Texas minority owned businesses, whenever possible. I find it (inaudible) to offer up this amendment that expands upon the language to include and clarify the intent behind the language. This amendment requires --

THE CHAIR: Members, can we have order so we can have a debate? Chair recognizes Representative Miles. Chair recognizes Representative Miles one more time.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Members, I'm going to temporarily pull this down (inaudible) support from some other people on this amendment. So we're going temporarily pull this down and we're going rework it now that we got (inaudible). Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is on page 7.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a -- If you followed the debate with Representative Hartnett. You understand the issue. There's lots of speculation about racetracks, horse racetracks and people who seek licenses but never then follow through on their commitments. Some may be outright delaying and we heard that from Vice-Chairman Bonnen, or Chairman Bonnen. And there might be people that have legitimate reasons. That's a fair point. This amendment, what it simply does is it says if anybody wants open a new racetrack we take it before the local voters and we let the stakeholders make a commitment to the community. And if they're going to open a racetrack, if they're going to create jobs, if they're going to create opportunities; what better measure to hold them accountable than an election process? And the only thing that's different from the traditional election is that in order for this to pass in the local option election they must succeed by 60 percent of the vote. And so that's the only thing this does and 60 percent of your voters should say you should do this, then you can have a new racetrack. In that entire campaign, that entire process, let those commitments be made from racetrack owners or prospective racetrack owners and the community in which that racetrack would likely impact the community. So that's all it does. I'd be happy to yield to Representative Anchia.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Do you yield, Mr. Martinez Fischer?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Chairman Martinez Fischer. I just want to understand the purpose behind the local option election, and putting it in Section -- in a new section, 65011, as opposed putting it in Article 16 of the Texas Racing Act or amending Article 16 of the Texas Racing Act. Why is that approach versus using the existing local option election?

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: To be very candid with you, Representative Anchia, this is

(inaudible) draft. We submit our amendments online like everyone else. If you think it belongs in Section 16 I'll be happy to pull this down temporarily, you know, make an amendment to this amendment and we'll take it to 16. I don't mean anything undue about this, though.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I want to thank Representative Anchia for pointing something out and my intent is that we have an election, we set a high standard and we make commitments from racetrack owners to the community. I'm going to bring back an amendment that will take this to Article 16 per his suggestion, so I'm going to withdraw it temporarily.

THE CHAIR: The amendment on page 8 is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 11, members.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Martinez Fischer to speak on this matter.

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment that I drafted because I thought it was a Sunset recommendation that wasn't part of the bill. I've learned early this morning that it is, however. I believe there is an amendment to the amendment that Representative Isaac thinks is germane to this. So I will let him -- give him that opportunity to lay that out and then I guess we can debate the merits of that. But, otherwise, I would have withdrawn it.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Isaac.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment to the amendment. If you notice that over the last biennium general revenue contributed a little over 1.5 million. Dollars. I think the number is actually 1.8 million dollars, to the Texas Racing Commission. I don't think it's appropriate that money from the general revenue, our tax dollars, be going to the Texas Racing Commission. In my amendment -- (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'd like to raise a point of order.

THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down. Point of order is well taken and sustained. The amendment on page 12 is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is the amendment on page 13.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hamilton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker, we have an amendment to the amendment.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hamilton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Basically, members, what this does is -- the second amendment clears it all up. It basically -- Whenever you go through the whole application process you go to a -- the background check, and then it's presented to the -- to the commission for them to vote yes or no. Basically what this says is that after all that's completed, the commission has 120 days to decide on whether they're going accept it or not accept it.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hamilton, do you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields, Mr. Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Just so that the body knows what this amendment does, you have expressed some concerns when this, the Sunset Bill came before your committee about the slow response time of the Racing Commission to pending applications. There were some applications that could take as little as four months, and there were some applications that were taking up to a thousand -- over a thousand days; is that not right?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: That's exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: And what you're doing in this bill, in this amendment to the amendment is saying if, in fact, an applicant has complied with all of the prerequisites of Article 6 of the Texas Racing Act then the commission should give them an up or down decision no later than 120 days; is that not right?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: That's exactly right. We want them to make a decision with the all information that is given to them, they have to make a decision.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: What we don't want the Racing Commission to do is to just sit on its hands and not decide -- this gives them up to two meetings to consider the application and to either vote it up or down, but not to let it linger in perpetuity; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: That's exactly right. We've got to get those people racing whenever they get the application. Mr. Speaker, I move to adopt the amendment.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Howard?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I'd like to ask a question of the Representative.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Hamilton?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Are we on the amendment? I'm on the amendment to the amendment. You changed the timeframe from 180 days to 120 days, is that what you're doing?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: We changed the timeframe from 180 days to 120. So we also said that he had we had to complete everything in Article --

(inaudible) everything in Article Six first.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Why are you putting a timeframe on these guys? If they've got the information and they've got everything they need, why are you trying to say you've got a make the decision now, rather than letting them sift through the information and verify everything?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: That's what they're doing in Article 6. All the information and getting them to make sure all the information is right, the application is (inaudible). Then we get to the parts where they get okayed by the (inaudible). And after all that and everything run and done, then we say the commission has 120 days to do it.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Okay. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Now, we're on the Hamilton amendment as amended. The Hamilton amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're now on page 14. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain his amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. (inaudible) earlier about the possibility of changing the rules midstream on the existing licensees where they haven't done anything, but they may be doing something, which I don't know about, but maybe they are. I still want to try to have a hard cap on when these licensees must have a -- their first race. So the purpose of this amendment is to simply provide that from today on everybody has three years to hold their first race, or they are -- Or let me say it backwards. If you don't have a race within three years from today or the issuance of your license in the future you lose that license. It's a hard cap. I'm not interfering with the annual review. It's certainly not my intent to interfere with any of the good procedural powers hidden that the Racing Commission here. It's just my intent to have a hard cap that forces these folks to put up or shut down within a three-year period.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield? I just want to make sure --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, can you hang on for one second?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I apologize.

THE CHAIR: Amendment to the amendment. Clerk please read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: This changes my (inaudible) amendment which was potentially retroactive and just makes this purely prospective.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields, Mr. Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I just want to make sure that I fully understand what this amendment and the amendment to the amendment does. You are amending section 606, which relates to the issuance of license, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: And what we have set up in 606 is an annual review of active license, the 606K sets up an annual review of active licenses. It says your amendment applies to both active and inactive license, or just inactive licenses?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Any license.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So if you are an active license it is presumed that you would -- so if you are an active license that goes inactive for a period of three years you will -- your license will be revoked or suspended?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: If you are an inactive license that has not raced within three years you are going to be revoked or suspended?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: If this, however, does not impact the ability -- and I want to make sure we get this for intent purposes, this does not impact the ability of the commission to review a license holder on an annual basis for inactive licenses under the current rules, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: This amendment does not interfere with that --

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Under the current bill?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. The -- Let me ask the following question: Currently the Racing Commission reviews active licenses every five years. Okay. How does this square with that five-year review? Because you say it applies to both active and inactive licenses.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Again, it's just a hard cap. It doesn't change any of the statutes dealing with the review. It just says if the commission has reasonable grounds to believe and find that the license holder has not conducted any live race during the three year period starting today forward, it shall -- the commission shall, after hearing and notice, cancel the license.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Walk me through the timeframe really quickly. I believe it's embedded. It doesn't exactly say from today forward, so walk me through this language so that our --

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: The amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. I see. I see. So -- And what date is fixed in the amendment to the amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: It says the three-year period under Subsection 1 begins on the later of September 1, 2011, or the date a new racetrack licenses is issued under this act.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Okay. Very good.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of questions. Representative Hartnett, I'm not -- I am completely advised as to this. But I understand that they pay inactive fees, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: No. As written it says any -- any license.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: No, no. What I'm saying, what it currently -- under current law the inactive tracks pay inactive fees of about -- approximately about a million dollars a year; is that not right?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Not that I know of. I'd like to see that.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Well, I believe that that's the case for many of the inactive -- inactive --

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: (inaudible) the commission wouldn't be needing GR from it right now.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Perhaps. But I know some of them have paid inactive fees. So let me go ahead and see if I can hunt that down for you before we make this vote.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Mr. Speaker, members, we need to discuss my amendment. So I move to temporarily withdraw my amendment to the amendment and the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. Members this amendment's on page 16.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is very simple it just simply says that a licensee can't move the location of the license more than 60 miles from the location for which the license was originally issued. So basically it's if they want to move more than 60 miles they need to go get a new license. Because when you apply for a license it's site specific.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Anchia to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Members, this is important because some of you have tracks in your areas that this will impact. Okay. Currently the Racing Commission has the authority to determine whether or not tracks can move. In fact, the way Section 14 or Article 14 of the Texas Racing Act reads, there is very little discussion by the Racing Commission if an applicant otherwise complies with the rest of the act and makes a -- makes a request to move their almost -- they are practically required to let them move. Representative Hartnett is making a policy choice. And I want you all to pay attention, because this is important because this may impact your district. The policy choice here is that because -- because licenses are given on an geographic basis, Representative Hartnett says he doesn't want these licenses to move than 60 miles. Okay. So it will significantly restrict the value of licenses that are in areas that maybe have low handle or low population, and it restricts their movement to other parts of the state. So we're calling balls and strikes here on the value of existing licenses. I just want y'all to know that. I'm speaking on the amendment and I'm going to leave it to the will of the House.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Would you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Anchia, you are leading us to the will of the House. One other point I would like to get your opinion on is one thing I am very proud of, Representative Taylor, Representative Harper Brown, Representative Cook, yourself; is that we worked extremely hard in Sunset not to make major policy decisions. We simply were trying to deal with the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency and not get into policy. Is that fair?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Even to the point where multiple times we voted against our philosophic policy desire to keep bills clean of policy, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Would it be reasonable -- And, again, I agree with you (inaudible) to the will of the House, would it be reasonable to suggest that that is major policy change that we would be making with this amendment in this Sunset Bill?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I agree with that.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I will.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: All right. Representative Anchia, right now, when these licenses were approved, they were basically approved for a certain location, a certain (inaudible) perform a certain (inaudible) and in the process of that the locations were vetted, people had the opportunity to come up and either support that location or not support it, and take that information to commission who then made a decision whether -- that was just one portion of the influence of the license. So now they can say okay we want to take that license and take it from Galveston to Tampa if they want. To and now the people in Tampa won't have no opportunity to do it (inaudible) it's going to be moved. Isn't that right?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I didn't catch it. I'm sorry. Just repeat the last part of the question.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Right now the people that -- where the license would be moved to, would have no opportunity to have any public hearings or anything else to have their input, isn't that right?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yeah. I'm not sure. I think they still have probably still have to have the local option election under Section 16 of the Texas Racing Act, so I think that is true. But really this is a policy call. Two issues: The first issue is do we want to make policy in the Sunset Bill? That's the first policy and I think that's what Representative Bonnen talked about from the back microphone. The second issue is if you want to make policy in a Sunset Bill then does it make sense to restrict movement of -- of licenses within the state? And, again, that's what I'm going to leave to the will of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Taylor?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I will yield.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Anchia, you're aware that I'm on the Sunset Commission. We sit next to each other.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: And as I'm going through this bill, there was an conscious decision, and we've also had this discussion on the House floor, after numerous sessions when these Sunset Bills come up and it just becomes a Christmas tree and all these different policy things, all these bills that people either weren't able to pass or still in process became a part of the Sunset Review process. We made a conscious decision this time we have so many Sunset Bills in the session that we not made huge policy decisions about Sunset Bills; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That is correct. And I will say in response to that, Chairman Taylor, that you just can't be a little bit pregnant, right? If people take this decision that they want to make policy in a Sunset Bill then I assume they should want to be consistent, because we've got a bunch of Sunset Bills coming through. Representative Harper Brown's got the transportation Sunset Bill. So that is -- That is -- We're really taking two decisions: One is on the substantive policy that Representative Hartnett trying to put on the bill, but it's also about what we want to do on policy and future Sunset Bills.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well I rise, and I hope members are listening that we can make and agreement as a body that we do not make policy on these Sunset Bills, because we can spend days on these Sunset Bills. The Sunset review process is designed to go through the (inaudible) should continue (inaudible) is it operating efficiently as possible, (inaudible) those types of process decisions, not policy decisions. So even though whatever I say on some of these other issues, I'm going to put those aside and defend the process of Sunset reviews to sticking to just the issues at hand, which is process and not policy. So, Mr. Anchia, I'm going to stick with you on these amendments for now. We've got to not make policy on these Sunset Bills. We need to get these bills through the process and move on. Members, I'm hoping you are listening and that we can all decide to join together and let's make the Sunset review process where it's supposed to be, even though we may have strong feelings (inaudible) on the policy, this is not the time and this is not the place to make it. Thank you, Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Representative Taylor.

THE CHAIR: Representative Branch, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: In following up on, you know, the discussion about doing policy or not doing policy; what we're talking about here, Mr. Anchia, aren't we talking about an investor who has invested in an asset of value that he thought, or she thought, had a certain value. And now, if we do this, we're going to change the rules on them and so an asset that they've -- they thought had certain parameters and would be guided by the Racing Commission decisions and policy decisions, all of a sudden now we're going take away value from an investor after the fact?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I mean, we're not even doing this in futuro, we're doing this retroactively on people that bought something under certain parameters and we're going to change the rules on them?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And that's why this is -- that's why i wanted people to pay attention. This is a pretty significant policy change. Some people may feel good about that. They want to express that -- their (inaudible). But I will tell you it's a major departure from the language in the Texas Racing Act, Section 6.14. And we didn't deal with movement of license in the Sunset Commission Bill or recommendation. That wasn't part of it. So this is outside of what we dealt with. And if you look at Section 6.14, I think I already stated it was in Section 14 of the Racing Act, earlier. It's really in 6.14 Sub D, and this is a pretty big departure from the existing language and expectation of an investor.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I just don't like government changing the rules on people when they make decisions, big decisions on purchase, because that discourages future investment in our state. It's one thing to go into policy versus

(inaudible) Sunset Bills and I heard that argument and appreciate that discussion. But the effect of going into policy here is to have a negative impact on people that made decisions in the past under a certain set of rules, and then to change those rules on them as opposed to changing it going forward is a problem to me.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Eiland?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Anchia, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So, Mr. Anchia, I want to make sure that my vote in a minute is not misconstrued, because I'm go going to vote with you on the motion to table. However --

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Just to be clear, I'm going leave this to the will of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. So I'm going to vote not with my good friend and well respected member, Mr. Hartnett. However, I want to make sure that my vote is not misconstrued to say that I don't think that everything should be fair and open on Sunset Bills. We have committees that meet year after year after year, and bottled up many good ideas; and those ideas may never make it O the House floor, even though they may be widely supported. And so I want to make sure that there's no misconstruing on my vote today, when I vote not with Mr. Hartnett; because I think that policy decisions and every other decisions related to Sunset Bills should be aired out, in the open, in public on Sunset Bills. All this policy versus procedure nonsense does not have my support and I think we ought to air it all out every ten years on every Sunset Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Chairman Hamilton.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, I make a motion that we table this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this just says when you get your license and you ask for a specific site that you've committed to that particular community, and that if you want to move to another community you just got to get new license. And we've got several licensees wanting to move from the top of the state to the bottom of the state, hundreds of miles away; and I think they should just start a new license process. I urge you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment. Mr. Hamilton moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye. Those opposed vote nay. It's a division vote. A record vote has been requested and a record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bring. Show Mr. Hamilton voting aye. Show Mr. Hartnett voting no. Show Ms. Farrar voting aye. Show the Chair voting aye. Show Mr. Ancilla present but not voting. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 74 ayes and 53 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're on page 20, members. The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.

THE CHAIR: The amendment on page 20 is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 21.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gutierrez.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment does is it seeks a blue ribbon commission to study the economic impact of authorizing gaming in our racetracks around the State of Texas. And I believe that Representative Fischer has an amendment to my amendment.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Martinez Fischer.

THE CHAIR: Clerk recognizes Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, members, I have an amendment on page 20 that was a study amendment, and I realize that Representative Gutierrez also had a study amendment. So what this amendment does is it just adds three components of the study that was in my amendment, and adding it to Mr. Gutierrez' study amendment. So I believe that the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author of the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez Fischer sends up an amendment to the amendment and the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk, please read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Zedler.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, what this does is -- as I understand the intent of Representative Gutierrez' amendment, what we want to do is add a little clarification to it. Since he calls for an official government study, my amendment clarifies that the panel created is, in fact, a government body and is subject to open meetings requirements of

(inaudible). My amendment also requires an examination of the costs and benefits of gambling to the state including, the effects on the county and municipal governments. And, lastly, this adds one more appointee that will be specifically representing the public, it requires the board to elect a chair to coordinate its activities. Members, I think it's no secret that we should have concerns about the physical impact that gambling brings to this state. If the study Representative Gutierrez calls for is the will of the House, or the amendment he calls for is the will of the House, we need to make sure it's transparent and balanced, to not only show the positive impact but also the detrimental (inaudible) as well.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'll wait for Mr. Gutierrez.

THE CHAIR: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I'll yield.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: First let me ask you a parliamentary inquiry. Where are we? Has the Zedler amendment been accepted or is he opposing it or what is the status?

THE CHAIR: It has been accepted.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: So we are back on at Gutierrez amendment, which has been amended twice?

THE CHAIR: It has not been accepted yet.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I understand. We're on his amendment, though?

THE CHAIR: And there's another amendment being drafted.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Okay. Could we take a vote and go ahead and kill the amendment before the amendment's drafted?

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Speaker Pro Tem Woolley for an announcement.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, will you help me in welcoming St. Michael's Grade School, in my district, to the Capitol? Stand up, kids. Thanks for coming in. Good to have you. I hope you enjoy your visit to our beautiful Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Please excuse Representative Huberty on important business in the district, by Representative Cook. Is Mr. Coleman on the floor? Is Mr. Miles on the floor? Is Mr. Martinez Fischer on the floor? And, Mr. Hartnett, please -- please come to the dais.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips to explain his amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you. I read Mr. Gutierrez' amendment and I was quite concerned that it started naming the conservative coalition, the head of some legislative study group, the Republican Caucus, the Democratic Caucus and the Chair of Licensing. So all I did was reformat to say it's going to be the Chair of Licensing; Chair of House Culture, Recreation and Tourism; Chair of House and State Affairs; and the Chair of the House Agricultural and Livestock Committee; and the Chair of Public Health Committee. I believe that those all fit right in there and we don't have to get out to organizations that are really not part of the body. These folks are working on these types of issues. And I think it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Representative Phillips sends up an amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Now, we're on the Gutierrez amendment, as amended. The Zedler amendment was also adopted. Is there any objection, members? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're back on the Gutierrez amendment as amended. Members, we are waiting on another amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I request that we cut all amendments off on this amendment, and we take a vote. I make a motion.

THE CHAIR: Chair does not recognize you for that motion at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I sit next to you, how do you not recognize me?

THE CHAIR: You got a good point. Mr. Martinez Fischer, please come to the dais. Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Lozano.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Lozano to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is acceptable to the author and basically all it does is add an addition to the five Senators that the Lieutenant Governor can appoint. It gives our Speaker of the House the opportunity to appoint five members from the body of the Texas House of Representatives. And it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lozano sends up an amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're now on the Gutierrez amendment. Chair recognizes Mr. Gutierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Members, since we've now included the entire House of Representatives on our study group, that perhaps the Senate and the Conservative Coalition and a bunch of other faith based communities, I suggest that we vote this up. I appreciate your support.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker and members, I'm going to -- I just want to describe a short list of all the studies that have been already done on this thing, okay? In 2008-2009, the comptroller did a study. In 2008-2009, Sunset did a study. In 2010, Sunset did a study. (Inaudible) in 2010, did a study. As a result of HCR 252 we did a study. Now this amendment wants another study. Members, these studies aren't free. Studies cost money. I sat with the Sunset -- with the Racing Commission earlier today and asked them if they had the capacity and capability and expertise to do these studies and they said no. They were going to have to hire outside consultants. These consultants were going to cost from a hundred thousand to five hundred thousand. Members, I ask that we vote these extra studies down.

THE CHAIR: Representative Gutierrez to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: He said he closes.

THE CHAIR: Representative Gutierrez sends up an amendment. The question is on the adoption of the amendment. Vote aye, vote no, members. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 4 ayes and 119 nays, the amendment fails to adopt.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, can we get a verification?

THE CHAIR: Members, we're going back to page 5. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment deals with the renewal of the inactive license and says that under the renewal process timeline that anyone who comes in to purchase under that timeline has to complete the timeline laid out with that's under the bill. And that way people have an opportunity to move forward with their license --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman, we have an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Sure.

THE CHAIR: Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'm sorry this amendment -- It's not a -- It's a substitute to the original amendment. And so what this amendment does is to make sure that, again, there's no gaining of the system by starting the process over again, because someone has a license. And that if there were any change in ownership during that renewal process timeline, that it must be -- that the new owner must complete under that process timeline. And there may be some issues, but I promised I'd work with the author if there are any changes that need to be made. So --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Coleman, for spending time working with the Sunset staff and the Racing Commission and others, counsel on this. I just want to make sure I understand the impacts on the other part of the bill. It is not your intent that this in any way limit the ability of the Racing Commission to review inactive license on a yearly basis, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Not at all.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. It is not your intent to limit the ability of the Racing Commission to conduct audits of inactive license on an annual basis?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Not annual.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. And can you talk to me a little bit about the four-year period and what that means, and the time period? I may not have it right.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, it's a one-time, all-time period. And that's with the enactment of this particular law, that people have an opportunity -- they have that time to get their stuff together in terms of acting on the license, similar to what Mr. Hartnett was talking about; getting that ownership. If they purchased a license, making sure that they're licensed themselves in that time or approved. And no one can come in change that time period by purchasing a part of the license, whether it's a majority or minority ownership, that it has to be completed within that time period.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So if -- So if there's a change in ownership it is your intent that it not affect the annual review? So, for example, I'm ABC Racing Co. and I have an inactive license, a newly acquired -- I go in and acquire a license from XYZ Racing Co., I will still have to go before the commission within one year and undergo an audit and a review and show that I am making a good faith effort towards racing, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. Because we don't show the intention of it as you so well explained. The intention of this bill is to make sure that people aren't gaming the system. So what I did was put it in a period of time that says folks have this period of time to do these things. If somebody bought someone's license, they would be capped at that period of time. They would have to pick up the process, whenever the previous licensee is, if it's not done in that period of time then it's null and void.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. On -- On section -- And I know you just got this drafted, so we're both familiarizing ourselves with this.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: On G2, we're going to be -- Excuse me. Yes. On Subsection 2 there, line 13, we're going to be inserting a Subsection C that says notwithstanding Section 60602; and I left my bill packet. Okay. Here we go. It says not with --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: This is tracking Mr. Bonnen's proposed amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Okay. My only concern is that 60602 is -- Is the renewal of inactive racetrack licenses. So that's a provision that requires an annual review. That's my only concern about this. I'm worried that it may cut off the review unintentionally. I know that's not your intent.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No, it's not. What -- Mr. Bonnen and I was trying to roll in those two things. He was trying to give people that opportunity where it didn't change the rules within that time. I'd be happy to work on it and make any repairs to it that need to be done and amended between now and third reading.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Hartnett?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Garnet, I've been trying to cut off these deadbeat inactive licenses. But your amendment will prevent the commission from cutting them off for three years. They're all -- They'll get to sail merrily on for three years, right?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Sir, they have to complete the process, just like your last amendment, in three years.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: No. Yours says no matter --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No, it doesn't, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: It says that the commission may not refuse to renew an inactive license during the next three years.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: The deal is that's only three -- This is -- I just got this back from (inaudible). The three-year period of time was to allow a finality, because after that three years that's it.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well -- But the commission, under the bill, gets to review these licenses every year and decide whether the inactive licenses should be renewed. And you're preventing the commission from doing that review for the next three years.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: No, the amendment as drafted, I was trying to bring in the amendment that Mr. Bonnen had that was looking at a three-year period the same as yours. Yours said term dirt. This is completed, all the processes, and no one can purchase a license and then start the process over.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to Mr. Coleman, the author.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I temporarily, withdraw the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Members, we're on page 6.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miles.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miles.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Members, we have now worked out am amendment to the amendment by working together as a team. And I understand the issues and the problems, but the amendment to the amendment, I believe, is now acceptable to the author and his team.

THE CHAIR: There's an amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Miles.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miles to explain his amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: The amendment to the amendment has been rewritten to say that historically (inaudible) utilized will be encouraged, broad (inaudible) employment of contract opportunities to encourage the development and implementation of good faith plans to participate of the historical (inaudible) businesses under Chapter 2161 Government Code monitor and document the commission's actions and efforts under the supervision of one and

(inaudible) of this section. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker and members, I just want to make sure everybody knows what's going on. This is not a requirement. In an earlier rendition of the bill there was a requirement to have an HUB program. This is simply an encouragement. And I know that the author has been working with Representative Taylor and other members that this was not a requirement but merely an encouragement.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: You know, I thought we were trying to not make policy here. And once you go down this road of making policy on private business -- On state business we have the policy of underutilized businesses. But on private businesses we don't. And this can go all the way down to the unions, this can go all the way down to every private industry they are. And that's not really what we're talking about here. That's the not the purpose of this bill. This doesn't relate to the Racing Commission whatsoever. Would you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Well, Charlie, that's why I wanted to explain it to everybody. I am going to tell you exactly what this does. It says that with respect to the issuance or renewal of a racetrack license, so this is -- this is a new renewal, all right, they're just going to simply encourage participation of HUB's and encourage a good faith plan. It is not conditional, this does not create any additional conditions on a new applicant, it is simply an encouragement. But, members, I wanted to make that very, very clear for the membership. And these are state licenses.

THE CHAIR: Representative Miles to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: I want to make sure that -- just for my good friend, Charlie, these are state licenses, charlie. So we do have some state law involved. And I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: (Inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: The way I just read this, it says that it requires the -- It says requires. What's on my screen. Well, it's not on our screen. Mr. Speaker, I think our --

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Howard?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Just a question to the speaker here. We just not getting this amendment to the amendment. So, you know, can we hold off discussions till we get the right amendment on to the screen so we know what we're talking about? We just now getting it. Yeah. Thank you. That was a parliamentary inquiry, by the way.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry, Mr. Howard. Mr. Miles sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. Chair hears the objection and there's a request for a record vote. Members, we're going to vote aye or nay on the Miles amendment. Members, Mr. Bonnen has indicated he'd like to speak on the amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'll be brief, members. Representative Taylor and I worked with Representative Miles. As you know, he brought this amendment forward requiring that they do this. He's worked us, we've worked with him to encourage that they do this. And I want to very clear, all this does is encourage the commission to take this under consideration. It doesn't make them do anything, they don't have to do anything. It's just a polite statement suggesting that they think about it. So I would encourage you to support Mr. Miles' amendment as amended.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Hartnett?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be happy to yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Quick, Dennis, have we done this to private businesses before?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'm not aware of us having someone who doesn't receive state money. I'm now -- I don't know about encouraging them. We're not requiring them to do anything. We have not required -- We do not require private business who doesn't receive state money to do this. But this doesn't do that. This simply encourages the commission to take it into consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well, I guess the word shall, the commission shall, and it also refers to the commission to document how it makes its decisions.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It actually says commission shall encourage, you are right. It does say shall encourage. I want my son -- I'm going to encourage my son to hit a home run in his Little League game, but I can't make him hit a home run.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: (Inaudible).

THE CHAIR: (Inaudible) for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bonnen, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be happy to yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Mr. Bonnen, on No. 3 it says monitor and document, that is a requirement based on No. 1 and No. 2. So we are requiring to do something, not anything.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I didn't say we're not requiring them to do something. We're not requiring them, though, to force minority contracts. We're simply having them keep track of whether they have minority contracts street or not.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: But you are pushing a mandate down on --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I want to be very clear, we're not pushing a mandate down. Don't turn this into what it's not, Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I believe

(inaudible) to monitor and document. We're a growing government.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Oh, garbage. Simply because -- Simply because you tell them you encourage them to do it, in all respect to Mr. Miles, if you are going to have any idea whether there are minority contracts or not you must track it. So you're tracking to find out if they have them or not but it doesn't say they have to.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I like No. 1 and No. 2 but --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I understand that (inaudible) then you ought to be able understand No. 3. And No. 3 simply says we're going to see whether we have these contracts or not. Not because we're required to, but because we need to understand whether we are doing it or not.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you for your time.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Please excuse Representative Wooley because of business in the district, on the motion of Representative Kleinschmidt. Representative Miles to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I move passage, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of the Miles amendment. Vote aye, vote no. Members, this is a record vote. Members, this is on the Miles amendment as amended. The Miles amendment as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Parliament ary inquiry. How long is this vote going on?

THE CHAIR: Just a little while, Mr. Howard. Members, Mr. Hartnett asked for a record vote on the amendment. Clear the board, please. Here's what we're going to do. To make everyone's complaint acceptable, Mr. Miles sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Now, on the Miles amendment as amended, Mr. Hartnett has requested a record vote. As soon as the voting board shows, we're voting on the Miles amendment as amended then we will open the voting. Thank you. Members, the member -- the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. And we are voting on the Miles amendment as amended. Clerk ring the bell. Has everyone voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 41 ayes and 81 nays, the amendment fails.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, members. I appreciate it.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hartnett. On page 14, members. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is my last amendment today and this is the one we heard a few -- a little while ago that I pulled down to polish it. Basically, the goal of this amendment as amended is going to be to make the hard cap cut off prospective for three years. So it's going to give everybody a maximum period of three years to get -- on the inactives to get their act together and hold a race.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Represen tative, earlier we discussed the idea that that these people paid some inactive license fee; do you recall that conversation?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Yes. And your response was that they didn't pay anything.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: They didn't pay a million is what I said.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: They didn't pay a million. But you do understand that they do pay some kind of inactive fee?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I'll take your word for that.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: They pay a hundred thousand dollars to be inactive. And let me tell you how that works. A regular track that's open pays an annual fee, a simulcast fee, a live racing fee and something called an outs fee for tickets that go uncollected. And so all the in-operatives pay a hundred thousand dollars a year. And so under your scenario we're losing money, because not only have they made a substantial commitment to the State of Texas by having their -- purchasing their property and so on and stating that they want to have their -- stating their intention that they want to have -- paying their up front fees, which are several hundreds of thousand dollars. But there's one hundred thousand dollars that each one of these is paying per year, that we're losing, especially at a time when we don't have a whole lot of revenue coming in; do you understand that?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I hear what you're saying. But I'm just saying they need to do what they promised.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Okay. And so you understand that we're losing -- the State of Texas is losing money under your amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: That's right. If they don't hold a race within the next three years, then they will lose their license.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: So, under your scenario, the State of Texas will lose 1.8 million.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Oh, I don't know how you calculate that.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: It's a hundred thousand dollars times six. That's six hundred thousand dollars a year, times three is 1.8 million dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Okay. So we will lose $1.8 million if we approve your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well, if they build their track then we'll make a whole lot more money.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Members, I would argue that, you know, at a time when we cannot be losing money, Representative Hartnett's amendment suggests that we lose a substantial amount of money for people that have (inaudible) and invested in Texas. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Coleman?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hartnett. I understand what you're doing here but one of the things that I was doing in the previous amendment was actually using the same time period in order for people to do -- get -- finish their business with anything having to do with the -- a license that is inactive, indoor a purchase, so that no one could come in and purchase and then extend the licensure period, or start it over. So I think we had similar goals in terms of keeping a cap on the movement of -- of the track licenses, particularly those who were selling interest to start the clock over again, or at least on paper interest; wouldn't you agree?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Well, I think that's maybe what you're trying to do. But the amendment you had basically said they can't revoke any inactive licenses --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: It was written in the negative, as opposed to in the positive. But I understand what you're doing. But I just wanted to make that clear, because even if it was written that way it's still the same thing.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I yield.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just want classification, Representative Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You mention after three years --

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: They have three years to hold their first race.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your amendment says four years.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: No, the amendment to the amendment says three.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry.

THE CHAIR: The following is an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hartnett.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hartnett to explain his amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: And that one says they have three years.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Okay. Thanks. Sorry.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. Now we're on the Hartnett amendment. Mr. Anchia to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: All right. Mr. Chair and members, we're getting close to the end. I know everybody's excited about that. All right. So, I just wanted to explain what you'll be voting on. I am going to leave this to the will of the House. We talked about earlier about the approach, the public policy approach embedded in the bill, which says if you have an inactive license you had to come back before the commission each year and undergo an audit, plus the potential for nonrenewal. Okay. Representative Hartnett's amendment does not impact that schedule. What it does is it says after three years, prospectively, from I think September 1st, 2011, if you do not do live racing within three years, from that point in time you will still have to come back every year and -- if you're inactive and undergo the review. But at the end of the three years is a hard cap and you're done and you will lose your license and have to get a new license. Okay. And it is mandatory. So that is the public policy, this issue that you will be taking today. I am going to leave it to the will of the House.

THE CHAIR: Hartnett to close. Excuse Representative Helen Giddings for important business in the district, by Representative Turner. Excuse Representative Turner for important business in the district, by Representative Raymond.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm just kind of -- Did you just say you were going to leave it to the will of the House (inaudible)?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'm going leave it to the Will Hartnett of the House.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment. Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk read -- Record vote has been requested. Record rote is granted. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Anchia voting aye. All members voted? Show Ms. Farrar voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 88 ayes and 35 nays, the amendment passes.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, could we have Mr. Anchia to come up so I could ask him a question before we get on to the next amendment?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Do you yield, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I yield, Mr. Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Gentleman yields. Thank you, Mr. Anchia. Mr. Anchia, I just listened to you and said you didn't want to make any policy in this bill, or change policy; is that right? Okay. In the bill on -- you may want to get a copy or whatever, on page 1, on line 10 through 12, okay, it says performance means a consecutive running of a specific number of greyhound races as determined by the commission. Okay. And you struck that. It used to be not more than thirteen greyhound races. So now you've left that up to the commission. Isn't that changing policy?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: It's changing a definition. You could argue that that's right, yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Okay. Do you open up the number of tracks under this bill, also?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: No, I don't believe we do. In fact, I think what we're putting in place is a mechanism to reduce the number of licenses and, therefore, the potential for tracks.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: This is on page 5, members. Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much. The amendment now addresses the criterium under the determination of the license is -- should be denied, based on the commission's subjective criterium. All it does is (inaudible) establish criteria to make a determination based on some factors.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I explained the amendment and that replaces my previous amendment. And it just says that the commission by rules establish criteria to make determination under Subsection C 1 and 2 and that's the subsection that has some vague language in it about the commission saying that that's not -- the licensee is not good for horseracing or for the state. It just has them go and come up with some distinct criteria under that section and that's it.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment to the amendment. An amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're now on the Coleman amendment as amended. Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield, please?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes. I'd be happy to.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Coleman. I appreciate your working hard on fixing this amendment. Just to be clear, I want to get some intent. The insertion of this amendment will be on page 9. It will be a new Subsection F, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes. It'd be a new Subsection F under 2 on page 9, so that is -- So if you look at the -- starts with a renewal of the license is not (inaudible) the commission may refuse to renew an inactive license after notice of the hearing the commission determines that is bad for the state, bad for the racing industry. And this just gives the commission an opportunity lay out rules and -- and particular criterium that's for that sections gives it more definition.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Right. So what you're concerned about are the parts of 650602 that talk about good faith, by way of example, the ability to conduct live racing, the ability to construct and maintain a racetrack? You want to put some meat, further meat for commission rule on that criteria?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes. And particularly the next provision, which is D, which is open so the people have a pathway to understand, whether or not they are complying with the commission's rules; and that would be determined by the commission, what -- it may be three things they say, it may be two; and that allows them to make that determination and gives people a road map once they've gotten to that place. And I even think that even though it's probably -- somebody might actually say they didn't have enough guidance.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: And this is permissive for them to make rules?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: It's permissive.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: So they can make rules to interpret Sub C 1 and 2 where the renewal of the license is not in the best interest of the racing industry or the public, and the license holders fail to make a good faith effort?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: The commission may make rules to clarify those two provisions, right?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, it says that they -- that's what procedure or policy -- it's not in there as a policy, but that's the intent.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Coleman sends up an amendment and the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, that complete our amendments. Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for or against House Bill 2271? Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to close.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Members, I know it's taken a long time, and I'm not going to be the dumb guy who stands between you and lunch; so I'm going to say thank you to the membership, thank you to all the members who brought -- to brought -- who brought amendments forward, who worked collaboratively with people down here on the floor, and I think we've got a good bill.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: I want to ask a quick question.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, he yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Yeah, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Raphael, this bill is much better than the existing law; don't you agree?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I agree.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Representative Isaac, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Representativ e Anchia, is it your understanding that the Texas Racing Commission will not receive funding from general revenue?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: That is correct. After this bill we expect it to be completely self-leveling.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Great. Thank you. And, Mr. Speaker, I request that our comments be reduced to writing and added to the journal.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, members. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Question occurs on passage to the third reading House Bill 2271. All in favor say aye, all against no. The ayes have it. House Bill 2271 is passed to third reading. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 27. Clerk --

THE CLERK: HB 27 by Guillen. Relating to the payment of fines and costs by defendants who are unable to pay the fines and costs in misdemeanor cases.

THE CHAIR: Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HB 27 provides defendants who can't pay court fines up front the ability to pay court costs in installments.

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, members, I have a -- I had an amendment yesterday that dealt with the food bank, and I've had a lot of discussions with a lot of members. And let me tell you what the discussion was about. The discussion was who had this idea, and I said it was my idea. In this amendment, in the amendment we adopted, I had it -- my idea is because of what is going on in the economy, that one of the things we could help, for those to encourage that weren't paying the fines, that they donate to the food bank. But I know that in this session we're having two forces here, the forces of need and where we may get that need. I am of the position that we have a way to fix that situation by using the rainy day fund, among other things. But I know that one of the concerns with this legislation that I added was that they were going to hook the counties. That is not the intent of my legislation. In fact, in my vote on the budget, my vote was to help the counties. And if there was at concern about that, that was not the intent. So to make sure we're very clear that Roberto Alonzo (inaudible) helping the counties, I'm going to ask that we adopt this amendment. I know some folks were trying to do a point of order, that was cleared out. There was no point of order in my amendment. Also, this amendment is going to allow for my amendment to be withdrawn, as shown to the parliamentarian, and that made it clear what this amendment does is to take the prior amendment off.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Jackson?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Alonzo?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I just want to be clear, Representative Alonzo, I just want to be clear this amendment returns the bill to as it was before the Alonzo amendment yesterday?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: In fact, Mr. Jackson, this is the same amendment that you drafted. But let me ask you, does this amendment do what you want?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: It does what I want.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Any way, the same amendment, it just has my name, because I wanted to make sure that that was the intent.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: I appreciate it, Mr. Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against House Bill 27?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. Louis?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: May I ask a question of the gentleman?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. -- The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Chairman, as I understand the bill right now as it stands here, is that if a judge finds that the defendant is immediately unable to pay the fine, then the judge is required -- the judge has no option, regardless of circumstances, the judge is required to allow periodic designated payments; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: When you were preparing this bill, did you visit with judges to see -- in your area, or other judges, to see if it would work in their courtrooms?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes. We got an agreement from the Municipal Judge Associations and I believe the JP's Association.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: All right. Thank you, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on the passage of House Bill 27. All in favor say aye, all against no. This is on third reading. Okay. Back up. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 27. Clerk, ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Show Mr. Miller of Comal voting aye. Show Ms. Button -- that she's going to vote. Have all members voted? There being 80 ayes and 42 nays, the measure passes. Chair lays out House Bill 362 on second reading. Clerk, read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 362 by Solomons. Relating to the regulations by a property owners' association of the installation of solar energy devices and certain roofing materials on property.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Chairman Solomons. There's an amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I appreciate the opportunity to do this. This is a bill relating to the regulation of property owner associations installing -- and the installation of solar devices and roofing materials, a certain type of -- certain types of roofing materials. And it's a bill that basically allows for solar panels and these kinds of wind resistant and hail resistant shingles be put on homes with the --

THE CHAIR: Following amendment. Clerk, read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is a corrective amendment involving the wind resistant roofing shingles. I move passage. It's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Solomons sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against House Bill 362? The question occurs on the passage of House Bill 362 in third reading. All those in favor say aye, all those against say nay. Ayes have it. House Bill 362 is passed and engrossed on third reading. The Chair lays out House Bill 364. Clerk, please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 364 by Turner. Relating to condominiums in certain municipalities, including the exercise of eminent domain authority by those municipalities with respect to certain condominiums.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone consideration of House Bill 364 until Monday, April the 11th, at 10:00 a.m.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Bill 411, second reading. Clerk, please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 411 by Laubenberg. Relating to the confidentiality of newborn screening information.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg to explaining the measure.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: There is an amendment.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Crownover.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and members, this is just an amendment that will clarify the public health purpose; which means a purpose that relates to cancer, a birth defect, an infectious disease, a chronic disease, environmental exposure, a newborn screening; once again, this is just clarifying. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Crownover sends up an amendment and it is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Members, in 2009 the state was sued for storing over 4 million newborn blood spots without parental consent. The state

(inaudible) the state had to destroy 5.3 million blood spots. In the 81st Session we took (inaudible) address parental consent, providing a process for parents to decide if the child's blood spots are retained by the state. The Department of State Health Services has recently again been sued, this time for allegations about how the (inaudible) blood spots. Okay. Well, any way, this bill protects -- protects the newborn screen program. It also is going to protect and preserve the research that is done once the blood spots have been used for the screening. And having looked into this with Representative Crownover, we have found how important it is for research to be done on these diseases. And what this bill does is it now allows the parents to get permission to have these blood spots used for continued research. And I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Does anyone wish to speak on, for or against House Bill 411? The question occurs -- All those in favor of the passage of HB 411 to engrossment say aye those against say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 411 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out House Bill 6 -- House Bill 443. Clerk please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 443 by Fletcher. Relating to the amount of a fee paid by a defendant for a peace officer's services in executing and processing an arrest warrant, capias or capias pro fine.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Fletcher, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I yield.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's this about?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: This is relating to increasing the capias pro fine from $50 to $75.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How old do you have to be to understand it?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I would think that someone in their 50s would be able to comprehend this.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you getting pretty close?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I'm real close, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So you might get an idea of what this is about?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I have a concept, yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tomorrow or the next day?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Tomorrow, positively.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You want to announce it what that would be if the age of recollection would come?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: That would be 56, sir.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Riddle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield, Mr. Fletcher?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Fletcher , considering that tomorrow is your birthday and you are my deskmate, there has been discussion on the floor that we saw you dozing and it looked like you were drooling on that lovely tie. Are you feeling okay?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I'm doing just fine, and I don't think I've ever slept on the House floor.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: And regarding this bill, tell us your background and why you have such an expertise for such a fine bill?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Well, I am a retired Texas Peace Officer and I retired from the largest law enforcement agency in the State of Texas, the Houston Police Department. And this increase hasn't occurred since 1999. And even the increase to $75 will not actually cover the cost of the 40 percent of the citizenry of the State of Texas, but we thought it would be a nice starting spot.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: And how many years have you put your life on the line for the people of Houston?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Well, in Houston 21 years but I've been a Commissioned Texas Peace Officer for 35 years.

THE CHAIR: (inaudible) Point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Does anyone want to speak on, for or against House Bill 443? The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 443. All those in favor say aye. Please tell us a little bit earlier if you have amendments, members. Members, we're waiting on apparently another amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do it on your birthday.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I'm going to temporarily withdraw this to the end of the calendar.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Bill 630. Clerk, please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 630 by Pickett relating to the authority of the Texas Department of Transportation, counties, regional tollway authorities and regional mobility authorities to enter into funding agreements to expedite the entity's environmental review duties related to certain transportation projects.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this would allow for expedited environmental review by getting some additional resources in there to approve these documents. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 630? Chair recognizes Representative Pickett to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 630. All of those in favor say aye, all those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and house Bill 630 has passed to engrossment. Chair lays out House Bill 2193, second reading. The clerk please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2193 by Truitt. Relating to service and qualification for membership on an advisory committee established by the Employees Retirement System of Texas to provide advice to the board of trustees and investment-related issues.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the (inaudible) board of trustees created this investment advisory committee in 1966. The board has grown to rely on the advice of that committee over the years. Today's (inaudible) statute relates to eligibility -- ineligibility review or removal of IAC members, nor are there guidelines on the quality of an ICA member to ensure that they have no conflict of interest with their duties. This bill adds statutory guidance to the ERS board of trustees and the IAC, and would require the members to have demonstrated financial expertise in this industry work (inaudible) strong academic credentials and (inaudible) investment experience. And it establishes qualifications for membership and a few other good things, that it makes (inaudible) members subject to (inaudible) review to ensure the absence of conflict of interest of those (inaudible) members. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Is anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2193? Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to close. Chair -- Representative Truitt closes. The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2193. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have and it House Bill 2193 has passed to engrossment. Chair lays out HCR 18. Clerk, please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HCR 18 by Creighton. Urging the Congress of the United States to impose and submit to the states for ratification amendments of the United States Constitution to provide for a federal balanced budget.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Members , we've got a few of our colleagues out today. And so in order for them to vote on this fine measure I want to move to postpone further consideration of HCR 18 until a time certain, Wednesday, April 13th, at 10:00 a.m.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 243. Clerk, please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 243 by Craddick. Relating to the creation of an offense concerning uses of a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill we passed yesterday. This is to passage on third reading. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against House Bill 243? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 243. This is a record vote. Clerk, ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 107 ayes and 16 nays, the measure passes. Chair lays out for second reading House Bill 443. Clerk, please read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 443 by Fletcher. Relating to the amount of the fee paid by a defendant for a peace officer's services in executing or processing an arrest warrant, capias, or capias pro fine.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Lozano.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Lozano.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, members. Mr. Speaker, this amendment just basically raises the costs from $75 to $95 so that the counties won't have to pay any other costs. As you know, the counties are going through a hard time and this bill would help mitigate that. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lozano sends up an amendment and it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Can you explain that amendment again? I'm sorry.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lozano, do you yield to Mr. Gallego?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, Mr. Gallego. The bill, as it right now, imposes a fee of $75. And the while whole purpose of the bill is make sure that counties have less of a cost on them, I want to make sure there's a little of a cost as possible to the county, because of times right now --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I appreciate, that Mr. Lozano. The only -- that I have, and the committee's discussion was as you add more and more fees, because there are other bills in committees that add other fees. And so the difficulty is as you raise fees, and particularly on those people who are indigent or who are having a harder time, then that's -- at some point that becomes an issue. And so, typically, bills that come to the Committee for Criminal Jurisprudence, we would have looked at the fee structure to make sure that they're -- how that bill has increased fees across the board. Behind you, the member from El Paso, for example, we raised additional fees. And I just worry about the overall fee structure, because you get a point of diminishing returns, where people just can't pay the fees. Mr. Hartnett tells me that that's a 90 percent increase in the fee. And so while you may be taking care of the county, it does a disservice to the person. And then, in the end, there may be diminishing returns because fewer and fewer people can be -- can end up paying. And think that's something that you all -- Before that amendment is accepted, I think that's something that you all should take into consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I understand your concern, sir. I think we also should take into account that the judicial system at the county level is being strapped for cash right now. And the possibility exists being strapped for cash, they might not be able to prosecute as many people, and this is a way to ensure that that doesn't occur; to the greatest extent possible.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Isaac, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: And does this fee apply to law-abiding citizens?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: No, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I didn't think so.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, of course.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: You are for raising 90 percent fee?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes. My fee is going from --

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I'm saying you raising it $45?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: No, ma'am. My fee is going from 75 to 95 in my amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Well, it's $50 now.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes. So it's going from 50 to 95 in my amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. That's going from $45?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: So that's a 90 percent increase?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, that is.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. Okay. And if that person doesn't pay that?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: If the person doesn't pay it, it's up to the will of the Court.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. And so (inaudible) there anything in the (inaudible) uncollectible, that that's going to be more money that this court is going to be unable to collect, right?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, there are --

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, ma'am.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Of course, yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Now tell me why we're doing this.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, sir the whole purpose of legislation was to ensure the counties had less of a cost burden on them. There is still a cost burden on them and I want to make sure there's as little cost burden on them as possible.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: How does, I mean has your county or something asked you to do this, then?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And is it okay if we make it just applicable to your county, because my county hasn't asked me to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, I -- Okay, Mr. Dutton, I'll just withdraw my amendment, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: That's a good idea.

THE CHAIR: Members, the amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher to close. The question occurs on passage of the House -- to third reading, House Bill 443. All those in a favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 443 has passed to engrossment. Members, there was an items eligible calendar distributed to you yesterday. At this point, I'm going to recognize Representative Harless for a motion to grant the request for the Senate to appoint a Conference Committee on Senate Bill 14. Chair recognizes Representative Harless.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move that the House grant the request of the Senate for appointment of Conference Committee on SB 14.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, are there any motions to instruct the Conference Committee? Chair recognizes Representative Martinez for a motion to instruct.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, since 1975 Texas has been governed by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because of our state's history of excluding Mexican-Americans from the political process. So Texas, unfortunately, leads the nation in the amount of violations we have committed under Section 5. And Texas has the second highest amount of violations with 201 objections. So many of my Republican colleagues look at Indiana as an example of a state that has passed voter ID legislation that survived the Supreme Court ruling. However, Indiana is not covered under the voting rights and therefore is not subject to the same standards of review that we face from the DOJ. At Committee Hearings several witnesses have testified that Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 14 would be the strictest form of voter ID legislation in the nation and would disenfranchise several groups, including women, African-Americans, Latinos and elderly and college students. So I move the adoption of the motion to instruct the Conference Committee on Senate Bill 14, or Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 14. And the changes are -- they are determined by the United States Attorney General, the United States District Court; for the District of Columbia to

(inaudible) have the -- neither the purpose, nor the affect to deny or bridging the right to vote on the account of race or color in contravention of the guarantee set forth by this amendment. That is my motion.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: I yield.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you tell us the instruction of what your instructions are?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Right. And that's what I just mentioned. I'll say it again. This instruction is to include a provision in the bill that requires the changes a law made by

(inaudible) not to take effect until the changes

(inaudible), but the United States Attorney General, the United States District Court or the District of Columbia. So that's all it's saying.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I guess we better look at that. What would the effect of it be?

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Excuse me?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What would the effect of an instruction to the Conference Committee be?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Well, the effects would be that we would instruct that -- that to include this provision on the bill requiring the changes by law, and not to take effect until they are determined by the United States Attorney General and the United States District Court.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that common in voter -- voter rule law that we wait on the (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: I have never had a voter ID bill, so I wouldn't know that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Generally, state law doesn't require the Attorney General of the United states to (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: That's correct, Representative. And that's why this is an motion to instruct a (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But there's no evidence that they're going to do it, right?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: There's no evidence of voter fraud, either; or voter impersonation. So we passed the voter ID bill.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Since we're about 80 days from the end of the session, I think that might be a problem for us.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Well, I suspect it might be a problem for a lot of our minorities to vote, as well.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. King?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: I sure will.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Just to clarify, you said that Indiana was not under the Voting Rights Act, or did you just mean not under preclearance? Because I believe all the states are under the --

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Preclear ance (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. I'm -- You misstated that? So you understand that Indiana is under -- that all states are under the Voting Rights Act?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Is that correct? You do agree that all states are under the Voting Rights Act, including Indiana?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: They are not covered under the jurisdiction under Section 5.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They're not cleared to go through preclearance.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: But they're not covered under Section 5.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I understand about Section 5, and everybody else may not. I was just making sure that we're talking about -- The only difference between us and Indiana is we're all under the Voting Rights Act, every state is. But some states have to go through preclearance with either the DOJ or --

THE CHAIR: Representative (inaudible) 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 this motion?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Representative Harless to speak against.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Members, I would ask you to move to table. We are going to comply with the law. We need the widest latitude possible, and we don't need to tie the hands of the Conference Committee.

THE CHAIR: Representative Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.

THE CHAIR: The lady yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you. I don't understand why you wouldn't want this instruction. We have provided instructions to Conference Committees over and over and over again. And it's to make sure that they adhere to the intent of the law, and what is the law, and what is right and fair. And that's all this amendment attempts to do.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Represen tative Berman, we are going to comply with the law. We will do everything in -- to do that. And this ties the hands of conferees, and we need to have that

(inaudible). I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: In what way does it tie the hands of the conferees? Just lay that out for me, unlike what you did during the bill process, please.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I've already explained it.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Try again, I'm a slow learner.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Quite likely goes beyond the (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Oh, I'm being told you don't mean literally it's going to tie the hands. Well, explain to me beyond the metaphorical it's going to tie the hands? Explain to me how it would encumber the work of the Conference Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We are going comply with the law, the federal law, and we need to have the widest latitude possible.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And how would this motion to instruct interfere with that?

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It delays implementation of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: How would it delay implementation of the bill? This is an emergency bill. The governor will probably sign it as soon as he gets it.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It ties the hands of the conferees.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: It instructs the conferees to do what, now?

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I ties the hands of the conferees.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: I'm just asking you to elaborate. I'm not asking too much.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I just elaborated. It ties their hands.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: You didn't explain how it ties their hands, and I'm understanding that it's just a metaphor. Explain beyond the metaphor.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We're all under oath to follow the law.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Well, that's an interesting concept.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Move to vote.

THE CHAIR: Anyone else wishing to testify -- speak on, for, or against this motion?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Does Mr. Martinez get an opportunity to close on his motion?

THE CHAIR: Yes, he does.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So no one has the floor? Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So the practical effect of the motion to instruct the conferees, if Ms. Harless had indicated that the conferees are going follow the law, and an instruction to tell the conferees to follow the law; is there -- What is the impact, then, of that motion?

THE CHAIR: The impact of the motion to instruct is that the chamber has given instructions to conferees.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And the con -- the instructions are pursuant to the motion --

THE CHAIR: Pete, you and I both know that doesn't mean much.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: The question is on the motion to instruct.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. Motion to table.

THE CHAIR: I mean -- The question is on the -- Mr. Martinez sends up a motion. Ms. Harless moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no; members. Show Representative Gonzales of Williamson voting aye. Show Representative Anchia voting no. All members voted? Have all members voted? There being 83 ayes and 37 nos, the motion to table prevails. Members, the motion to instruct by Mr. Anchia should be found in the chamber document. Chair recognizes Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, the motion -- this motion to instruct instructs the House conferees to the Conference Committee on Senate Bill 14 to follow the Senate version of the bill as it relates to making the act effective, only if a specific appropriation for the implementation of the act is provided in a general appropriations act of the 82ent Legislature. When the bill came over from the Senate, there was an amendment on it by the senators, commonly known as the Ogden amendment. It says if we have to pay for it if it's going take effect. So we're instructing the conferees to just adopt the Senate version of the bill and say if we're going to pay for a new photo ID standard -- if we're going to implement a new photo ID standard we have to pay for it. If not, it doesn't take effect.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose, Mr. King?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Anchia, if I am recalling correctly, did not Mr. Eiland offer Senate Bill 14 in its entirety as the last amendment of the vote of that day?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I know he offered it as a complete substitute, but I'm not sure if it was the last one.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And if I recall, didn't it fail with 83 votes against his amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'm not sure of the final vote. I'm not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And so this has not -- And so has not this House already voted on the very issue that you're bringing up before us for instruction? So would that not mean that your instructions are going contrary to what has been the voted will of the House?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I don't know why people voted against the complete substitute, which was the Eiland amendment, essentially the Frasier bill, and I wouldn't want to impute anyone's intentions. I think this is a completely different subject and so I would suggest that that prior vote bears no bearing, because people may have voted on it or against for different reasons.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But isn't it normally practice of an instruction to instruct the conferees to follow what has been the expressed will of the House? In other words, to follow the certain points of the bill that we passed? What you're doing is asking them to go outside the scope of the bill, and vote for -- and approve things that the House did not have in its bill. In other words, a normal conference committee instruction says that this particular section of our bill is really, really important to us, and we don't want you to compromise away from and it. And you are doing just the opposite, is that not correct? And you're asking this body to confer against what we have put in our bill?

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'm asking the body to express its -- right now, that if we're going implement a new photo ID standard that we pay for it. Plain and simple.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Harless.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Members, this was debated in the 12 hour discussion we had on voter ID. I move to table the motion.

THE CHAIR: Representative Anchia to close.

REPRESENTATIVE RAPHAEL ANCHIA: I'm hungry. I close.

THE CHAIR: Representative Anchia sends up an motion. Representative Harless moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. It's a record vote. Clerk, ring the bell. All members voted? Show Mr. Hardcastle voting aye. Show Mr. Aliseda voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 86 ayes and 36 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Human Services to consider House Bill 3051 by Pickett and Taylor, at 1:00 p.m., or upon final adjournment or recess, on April 12th, 2011, in room E2.030.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair announces the following conferrees:

THE CLERK: House conferees on Senate Bill 14 by Harless. Harless. Chair. Bonnen. Truitt. Aliseda. Veasey.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules -- to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Pensions and Investments and Financial Services to consider House Bill 3747 at 8:00 a.m., April 12th, in room E2.014.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Darby for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Transportation to meet while the House is in session during the reading and referral of bills on April 11, 2011, at 3W15; that's 3W15, to consider pending business.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Elections to hear House Bill 3409, House Bill 1925, House Bill 1975 and House Bill 2814 at our already scheduled meeting for 2:00 o'clock, or upon final adjournment, on Monday, April the 11th; in E2028.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk will read the announcements.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Human Services will meet at 1:00 p.m., or upon final adjournment or recess on April 12th, 2011, at E2.030. This will be public hearing to consider HB 3051 and previously posted agenda. The Committee on Transportation will meet during the reading and referral on April 11th, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Elections will meet at 2:00 p.m., or on upon final adjournment or recess, on April 11th, 2011; at E2.028. This will be a public hearing to consider HB 3409, HB 1975, HB 2814, HB 1925 and previously posted agenda. The Committee on Pensions, Investments and Financial Services will meet at 8:00 a.m. on April 12th, 2011, at E2.014. This will be a public hearing to consider HB 3747 and previously posted agenda.

THE CHAIR: Members, anyone have an announcement? Representative Dukes moves that the House stand adjourned, pending the reading and referral of bills and resolutions, until 1:00 p.m., Monday, April 11th. The following bills on first reading and referral:

THE CLERK: HB 3838 (By Oliveira), Relating to the appointment of bailiffs for certain courts in Cameron County. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 3839 (By Giddings), Relating to grounds for modification of child support. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HR 1139 (By Johnson), Commending Lamontry Lott for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1140 (By Johnson), Commending Mark Baker for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1141 (By Johnson), Commending Kathryn Hines for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1142 (By Johnson), Commending Daniel Clayton for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1143 (By Johnson), Commending Deborah Parish for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1144 (By Johnson), Commending Lorraine Birabil for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1145 (By Johnson), Commending Jean Ball for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1146 (By Johnson), Commending Jean P. Mackaly for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1147 (By Johnson), Commending George Collins for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1148 (By Madden), Congratulating Plano Police Department volunteer Neal J. Katz on being named a 2010 Outstanding Crime Prevention Citizen by the Texas Crime Prevention Association. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1149 (By Madden), Welcoming members of the Texas Catholic Conference to the State Capitol on April 6, 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1150 (By Sheffield), Recognizing April 4 through 8, 2011, as Connect a Million Minds Week. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1151 (By Sheffield), In memory of Eldo Johnson of Temple. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1152 (By Flynn), Congratulating the Martins Mill High School girls' basketball team on a successful 2010-2011 season. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1153 (By Flynn), Congratulating the Canton High School girls' powerlifting team on winning its second consecutive Class 3A state title. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1154 (By Flynn), Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Santa Fe Depot, home of the Wolfe City Public Library. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1155 (By Eissler), Congratulating The Woodlands High School on winning the 2009-2010 UIL 5A Lone Star Cup. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1156 (By Harless), Congratulating Dr. David Anthony on his retirement as superintendent of Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1158 (By Giddings), Honoring the National Council of Negro Women, Inc., Minnie H. Goodlow Page Section on the occasion of its ninth annual Spring Hat Extravaganza and Tea. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1159 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Arthur Schaffer of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1160 (By C. Anderson), Congratulating the A. J. Moore Academy in Waco on being designated as a Distinguished Academy by the National Academy Foundation. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1161 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Eileene Musson Anders of Whitney. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1162 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Edward Maurice Arnold of Bosqueville. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1163 (By C. Anderson), In memory of Lois Mae Haynes of Waco. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1164 (By Callegari), Congratulating Dr. Mark Bing on his induction into the Texas High School Football Hall of Fame. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1165 (By Callegari), Commending Oakmont Healthcare and Rehab Center of Katy for providing an outstanding level of care. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1166 (By Workman), In memory of former Lakeway Mayor Cuth Kenneth "Ken" Shepherd. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1168 (By Flynn), Congratulating Jesse and Peggy Elmore of Caddo Mills on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1169 (By Flynn), Congratulating Calvin and Naomi Thompson of Canton on their 60th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1170 (By Flynn), Congratulating Jerry and Judy Pugh of Canton on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1171 (By Vo), Observing the 36th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1172 (By Landtroop), Honoring Leadership Plainview for its promotion of civic leadership and volunteerism. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1173 (By Isaac), In memory of Raymond Oren Whisenant, Sr., of Dripping Springs. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1175 (By Zedler), In memory of Peggy Darlene Carriker of Arlington. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1177 (By Craddick), Congratulating Susie's South Forty Confections, Inc., on its 20th anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1178 (By Eiland), Commemorating the reopening of the main terminal building at Scholes International Airport at Galveston. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1179 (By Madden), Honoring Conquer Chiari for its efforts in behalf of those with Chiari and syringomyelia. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1180 (By Madden), Commemorating the 40th anniversary of Edward Nahas's immigration to the United States and honoring Mr. Nahas and his wife, Alda. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1181 (By Lyne), Congratulating Taylor Levy on winning first place in the 2010-2011 Texas VFW Voice of Democracy essay contest. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1184 (By Quintanilla), Congratulating Martha Serna on her selection as the 2010-2011 Texas Adult Educator of the Year by the Texas Association for Literacy and Adult Education. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1185 (By Marquez), Congratulating the Mithoff Burton Partners advertising firm in El Paso on its 80th anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1186 (By Marquez), Congratulating Bob Kitchens on his retirement as the track coach of The University of Texas at El Paso. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1187 (By Marquez), Honoring The University of Texas at El Paso men's basketball team on its achievements during the 2010-2011 season. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1188 (By Marquez), In memory of Hector Licon of El Paso. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1189 (By Flynn), Congratulating Roy DeWitt Deen of Wills Point on his 99th birthday. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1191 (By S. King), Congratulating the Wylie High School tennis team on winning the 2011 Texas Tennis Coaches Association 3A state championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1192 (By McClendon), Congratulating Dr. Dianna Burns-Banks on her recognition as a Gracious Giver at the North Star Gives event. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1195 (By Creighton), Commemorating the dedication of the Lone Star Monument and Historical Flag Park in Conroe. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1199 (By Patrick), Honoring the Pantego Youth Leadership Council for its work to develop community leaders. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1200 (By L. Taylor), Commending the Friendswood Senior Citizen Program for enriching the lives of seniors in the community. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1201 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Craig G. Story of the Arlington Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1202 (By Fletcher), In memory of Detention Officer Dionicio M. Camacho of the Harris County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1203 (By Fletcher), In memory of Sergeant Timothy Gerard Olsovsky of the Victoria County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1204 (By Fletcher), In memory of Deputy Sheriff Francis David Blake of the Burnet County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1205 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Jesse Thomas Hamilton of the Pasadena Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1206 (By Fletcher), In memory of Deputy Sheriff Shane Thomas Detwiler of the Chambers County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1207 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Henry Canales of the Houston Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1208 (By Fletcher), In memory of Border Patrol Agent Cruz C. McGuire of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1209 (By Fletcher), In memory of Deputy Sheriff D. Martin Robert Harvey of the Lubbock County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1210 (By Fletcher), In memory of Sergeant Randall Dewayne White of the Bridgeport Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1211 (By Fletcher), In memory of Lieutenant Stuart Jay Alexander of the Corpus Christi Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1212 (By Fletcher), In memory of Detention Officer Cesar Arreola of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1213 (By Fletcher), In memory of Senior Corporal Norman Stephen Smith of the Dallas Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1214 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Jillian Michelle Smith of the Arlington Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1215 (By Fletcher), In memory of Deputy Sheriff Michael R. Schaefer of the Uvalde County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1216 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Ann N. O'Donnell of the University of Houston Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1217 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Andrew J. Rameas of the Harker Heights Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1218 (By Fletcher), In memory of Trooper Jonathan T. McDonald of the Texas Department of Public Safety. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1219 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Sergio A. Antillon of the San Antonio Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1220 (By Fletcher), In memory of Deputy Sheriff Odell McDuffie, Jr., of the Liberty County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1221 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Karl R. McDonough of the El Paso Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1222 (By Fletcher), In memory of Corporal David Ralph Slaton of the Texas Department of Public Safety. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1223 (By Fletcher), In memory of Corrections Officer Kellie Pena of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1224 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Leonard Reed of the Cedar Park Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1225 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Craig L. Shaw of the Lancaster Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1226 (By Fletcher), In memory of Border Patrol Agent Mark Van Doren of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1227 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Eydelmen Mani of the Houston Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1228 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Rodney T. Holder of the Abilene Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1229 (By Fletcher), In memory of Deputy Sheriff Jacob Rene Rayos of the Reeves County Sheriff's Office. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1230 (By Fletcher), In memory of Constable John William Brown of the Calhoun County Constable's Office Precinct No. 5. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1231 (By Fletcher), In memory of Officer Timothy Joseph Zurovetz of the Forest Hill Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1232 (By Woolley), Congratulating Village Republican Women on its 50th anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1233 (By Margo), In memory of Colonel Milton Leland Haskin of El Paso. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1234 (By Landtroop), In memory of Texas Department of Public Safety trooper Jonathan Thomas McDonald of Post. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1235 (By McClendon), Honoring Fiesta San Antonio 2011 and commending the event's organizers. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1236 (By Alonzo), Congratulating the Mountain View College men's basketball team on winning the National Junior College Athletic Association Division III championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1237 (By Guillen), Honoring Lori Peterson Perez for her community service in Rio Grande City and Starr County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1238 (By Guillen), Paying tribute to the life of James Edwin Peterson of Rio Grande City. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1239 (By Guillen), Congratulating the Benavides High School Lady Eagles basketball team on winning district and bi-district championships during the 2010-2011 season. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1240 (By Burkett), Congratulating Elaine Whitlock of Ed Hodges Elementary School on her selection as the 2010-2011 Elementary School Principal of the Year by the Mesquite Independent School District Council of PTAs. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1241 (By Shelton), Congratulating the Paschal High School science team in Fort Worth for winning the 2011 5A Science State Championship sponsored by the Texas Math and Science Coaches Association. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1242 (By Shelton), Congratulating scout executive Dan Clifton on his retirement from the Longhorn Council of the Boy Scouts of America. To Rules and Resolutions. SB 655 to Energy Resources.

THE CHAIR: Members, the House stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. Monday.

(The House stands adjourned.)