REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please, register. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and gallery, please, rise for the invocation. Chair recognizes Representative Craddick to introduce our pastor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Members, we are fortunate to have with us today to Pastor Randall Everett from the First Baptist Church of Midland. He's only four months into the job and I asked him how he liked the wind and the sand and he did not really comment. So I'm not really sure. He and his wife, Sheila, are becoming key members in our community. I felt a fitting welcome to him today was give him -- give the invocation to the Texas House. Many of you may remember him as executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Before then Pastor Everett spread word through Texas, Florida, Arkansas, and Virgina. We're incredibly blessed to have him back in Texas. Pastor Everett is passionate about his ministry and that is evident in his teaching and preaching. He is an author and even founding president the John Leland Center for Theological Studies of Virginia. Many of you all remember John or maybe just I do. Pastor Everett comes from a long line of good Baptists, with his father and two brothers serving as pastors. He has served as pastor of the day in Arkansas and he was telling me that he lived close to the Capitol so he did it every day that they didn't have a local pastor. And he's even been the guest chaplain of the U.S. House and Senate but never in Texas House. So please give him a warm welcome. Thank you. Pastor: Thank you. Let's bow together as we pray. God you are a refuge and strength a very present help in times of trouble. Therefore, we will not fear. Though the earth should change and though the mountains slip into the heart of the seas, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake at its swelling pride. We know that there is a river whose streams make the city of our God the holy dwelling places of the most my God. Lord, you are in our midst, the Lord of host is with us. Help us to cease striving and to know that you are God. Lord, such so much of our land has been scorched with drought and others have been devastated by storm and fire. We're helpless in the face of these disasters. Lord even with our intelligence and combined resources we're powerless. God, use these events to awaken us to our need to know you. Help us to recognize that you are God before we formulate our plans or before we implement our remedies. Help us to stop and seek your face. God, what are you doing in Texas? Lord, what are your plans for our lives? You have put these men and women in positions of leadership in our state. Please, give them wisdom and give them strength. Lord, may they make you first in their lives because you alone are God. Remind us that the Lord of host is with us. The Lord our God is our strength. In thy name we pray. Amen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton to lead us in the pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker and members and those in the gallery, would you join me in saying the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America and to the State of Texas. [PLEDGE] Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Doc Anderson because of a funeral on the motion of Representative Kleinschmidt. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Howard to introduce our doctor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We're very fortunate to have returning physician she has been here many, many times Dr. Julie Grace Moy and I want to tell you she works for the Department of -- which one? I get these confused. Aging and Disability Services, with state supported living services. And the main thing that we want to let y'all know about today is that we really need to keep that funding there for state supported living centers because these children are disabled, they don't have any other services. Without this we need to be supporting them and we're so grateful for having Dr. Moy with us today. Please, give her a hand. We're so glad to have her with us today.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker? The main man -- to quote Mr. Dutton, the main man is at the door and I've been reminded that his grandfather served in this Texas House even though he works in the Senate.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit your main man.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you. One of the things about each of our districts is we have schools in those but today I want you to help me welcome the greatest sixth grade campus on planet earth which happens to be from my district. It is the Cobb sixth grade campus. They are located in the south gallery. Let me ask them to me stand and be recognized. These students have traveled all the way from Houston. They woke up at 3:00 o'clock this morning and don't they look wonderful, members. They are accompanied by a number of teachers and even parents who have accompanied them here. Let me ask you to join me in giving them a great round of applause for being a great sixth grade campus. Thank y'all for being here. Now, go to school get your lesson and get a job.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Taylor, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, Rule 8, Section 3, the two subject rule which comes into the Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 43. In the past while you served as speaker in the last legislative section you ruled that and I quote. The threshold for finding a violation of the rules is very high and only that when there is no conceivable single subject that describes all elements of the bill. Was that your ruling last session?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor the chair's ruling is reflected from last session in the journal on page, I believe, it's page 3739 and 3740.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Very well, Mr. Speaker. And your predecessor Speaker Craddick, in a previous session, and I quote. The standard for finding a violation of the one subject rule is very high. That a violation would be sustained only there when there is, quote, no conceivable single subject that describes all elements of the bill? I assume that's that is the standard we can continue to expect in this chamber during this section?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, the chair's prior rulings laying in the one subject rule are in the journal.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Can we continue to expect the speaker to maintain the same standard that's you and your predecessor have ruled in the past?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor the chair will deal with points of order as they arise.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Very well, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that our conversation be placed in writing and reduced in the journal?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to suspend all necessary rules and the unnecessary ones to take up and consider House Resolution 1957 which honors Ms. Ashley on her 100th birthday.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1957 by Dutton. Congratulating Cleo Johnson Ashley of Houston on her 100th birthday.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker and members, Ms. Cleo Johnson Ashley has been a member of my community for as long as I can remember. She is celebrating her 100th birthday on Saturday. And so, I would ask to not only adopt this resolution but move that all members' names be added.

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

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Today it's my privilege and honor for me and John Frullo out of the Lubbock area to recognize some people that are an integral part of county mediation system. On the dais today I have Gene Valentini, Robert Martin, Judge Lee Norman and Christy Thompson mediation has been a vital part of our community and Gene Valentini has been pioneer in bringing things that have are eligible mediation and celebrating 25 years this year. I just ask you guys to give them all welcome on the dais today and come by and shake their hands. Appreciate that. Clerk's got a resolution.

THE CHAIR: Representative Perry moves to all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution No. 1739. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Resolution 1739.

THE CLERK: HR 1739 by Perry. WHEREAS, The Texas Dispute Resolution System celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2010; and WHEREAS, Created in 1985 by Lubbock County, the Texas Dispute Resolution System is the most active statewide public Alternative dispute Resolution

(ADR) provider; Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to the use of a trained and neutral third party to formulate a viable solution to a problem; and WHEREAS, The Texas Dispute Resolution System operates four distinct programs: the Dispute Resolution Training Institute which has provided ADR training and continuing education workshops to more than 1,000 trainees, the South Plains ADR System, which handles thousands of mediation activities each year for 10 counties, the Domestic Relations Office, which offers family-related mediation services, and Texas Rural Mediation Services, which addresses disputes between consumers and various USDA agencies, as well as other issues affecting rural Texans including estate settlement, land boundaries, crop insurance, and compliance with farm programs; and WHEREAS, The governor designated Lubbock County as the state-certified mediation program to mediate USDA disputes in Texas through the Texas Dispute Resolution System; and. WHEREAS, D. Gene Valentini played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Texas Dispute Resolution System; he became the system's director in 1988, and he continues to lead the program today as the most tenured director of any ADR system in Texas Created under Chapter 152 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and WHEREAS, The commissioners court and the board of judges of Lubbock County have supported the growth of the Texas Dispute Resolution System; and WHEREAS, For a quarter of a century, the Texas Dispute Resolution System has upheld its mission to provide an effective alternate resource for the resolution of disputes while saving taxpayers millions of dollars, and the program is indeed worthy of commendation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby recognize the Texas Dispute Resolution System on its 25th anniversary and extend to all those associated with the program sincere best wishes for continued success; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the Texas Dispute Resolution System as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Mr. Speaker, move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Frullo moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Smith of Harris. Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suspend all rules and take up and consider House Resolution 1774.

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

THE CLERK: HR 1774 by Smith of Harris. Recognizing May 15-21, 2011, as National Public Works Week in Texas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Thank you members. This resolution recognizes this week as a National Public Work Week. The nonprofit organization made up of public works professionals who primarily work for cities and government agencies and work to support each other in public works fields. Every year locally and statewide they provide scholarships to students going into the public works field. The most important part about this presentation, members, is that they invite you to join them for a barbecue on the Capitol grounds today. In the gallery we have Ronny Bates the state president American Public Works Association and he is accompanied by members of Texas chapter and they're in the gallery. So welcome them here. Thank you for service to our state and welcome to your House. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none? Resolution is adopted. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcements.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Agriculture and Livestock will meet during lunch recess on May the 19th, 2011 at desk No. 25 on the House floor. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Members, the following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Agriculture and Livestock will meet during lunch recess on May the 17th, 2011 at desk No. 25. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up SCR 25, HR1760 and HR 1761.

THE CHAIR: Members, is there any objection to the suspension of the rules? Chair hears none. Rules are suspended. The following resolutions. The clerk will read the resolutions.

THE CLERK: HR 1761 by Geren. Designating the grandchildren of house members as honorary mascots. HR 1760 by Geren. Electing the children of house members to the office of mascot. SCR 25 by Hinajosa.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I move approval.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on adoption of the resolutions. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The resolutions are adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Howard of Fort Bend.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 1742.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the resolution in full.

THE CLERK: HR 1742 by Howard of Fort Bend. WHEREAS, Members of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance are celebrating 100 years of community leadership at their 51st Biennial National Convention in Houston on July 27-30, 2011; and WHEREAS, Founded in San Francisco in 1895 as the Native Sons of the Golden State, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance is the Nation's second-oldest community support organization focusing on civil and immigration rights; it soon expanded to other California cities and incorporated on May 15, 1912, to open interstate chapters called lodges; in 1915, with lodges in Chicago Pittsburgh, Detroit, Boston, and other cities across the country it adopted its present-day name; the national growth of the organization eventually led to the establishment of two Texas chapters, the Houston Lodge and San Antonio Lodge; and WHEREAS, The organization began admitting women in 1977, and less than 20 years later, regional lodges had almost equal numbers of male and female presidents; the first female national grand president was elected at the 1997 convention, and today the Alliance benefits from the skillful leadership of grand president Carolyn Hong Chan and executive vice president Virginia C. Gee; and WHEREAS, Through the years, members of the Alliance have worked with steadfast resolve to promote civil rights, social justice, and family unity; they have supported innumerable civic and educational programs in their communities, and their good works are guided by their cardinal principles, "to fully enjoy and defend the rights and privileges of American citizenship, to support and obey the laws and Constitution of the United States, to cultivate the mind through exchange of knowledge, to effect a higher character among the members, and to observe and practice the fundamentals of brotherly love and mutual help"; and WHEREAS, The members of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance have devoted themselves to the betterment of their communities, and they are indeed deserving of special recognition for their dedication to civic life and social progress; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby welcome the members of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance on the occasion of their 51st Biennial National Convention and congratulate them on their organization's centennial; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the Alliance as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes representative Howard of Fort Bend.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Today Representative Button and I would like to take just a few moments to recognize members of the board of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance many of whom live in my district and some in Representative Button's district. They include past presidents, present officers. Please help me welcome and why don't you waive your hands when I announce your names back there. Dorothy Chow, Daniel Chow, Linda Wu, Jack Choe, Tommy and Shelly Dean. This year members, of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance are celebrating 100 years of community leadership and the alliances 51st biennial convention which will be in Houston. Thank you for the work you perform on behalf of communities in Texas and around the nations. Members, please, join me in welcoming past presidents and members of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance to the Texas House of Representatives. Thank you for joining us today.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Chair recognizes Representative Button.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of the resolution and any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Button moves to add all members' names.

REPRESENTATIVE ANGIE BUTTON: Thank you, Speaker. I like to move to add all the members' names on the resolution.

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

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Mr. Speaker members, I come here this morning to warn you that there are robotics in the House. In case you haven't noticed. And we do hope that you will take time to go down to the floor and see what exciting things are going on. Best, B-E-S-T, stands for boosting engineering science and technology. Robotics, a nonprofit organization run almost exclusively by volunteers involves both middle and high school students. The organization was founded in 1993 in Texas and has since grown to encompass hubs all over the nation. The 2010 season involved 15 competition hubs with 252 teams and approximately 5,000 students here in Texas. Schools participate for no charge through the support of sponsors. These students will be on the ground floor rotunda today where they are demonstrating their robotics. Help me welcome them to their House. Thank you. I move to me suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1950.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Resolution 1950.

THE CLERK: HR 1950 by Beck. Recognizing May 17th 2011 as B.E.S.T. robotics day at the State Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Beck.

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of the House Resolution 1950. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Harris.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I am so excited. We have just been joined by some very well special guests in the gallery. They are the High School Republicans of Texas. Would y'all all stand up so we can see you? Thank you. This is a newly formed group that I worked alongside conservative mentors from area Young Republican and College Republican clubs and they help spread the message of conservatism and connect like minded students. And I would just like to say that many of these young adults spent their summer with me block walking in the Houston summer, the heat and the humidity and whether you're a Republican or at Democrat you have to admire young adults getting involved in politics and caring about the future. So, members, please, join me in welcoming the High School Republicans of Texas to their first ever day at the Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on HR 1950. We've got some guys leaving that were recognized a while ago. The B.E.S.T. robotics competition started in Grayson county and I just wanted to do a shout out to Douglas Hanson. Where's Douglas at? There's Douglas right there from Howe, Texas and Jeffrey is with him. I want to thank y'all for coming to the Capitol and recognize these are the bright future of this state and this nation. Thank you for participating in this program and making us proud. Especially Grayson County proud.

THE CHAIR: Representative Driver, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask Representative Phillips if he was picking sides if they had robot wars?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: If they had robot wars. Well, I just know that the Mavericks are going to win.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Well, okay, that works too. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Members, Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen for a memorial resolution. Please, take your seats and take your conversations outside the rail.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution 2045.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 2045 by Bonnen. In memory of Michael Anthony Davis of Lake Jackson.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Thank you for your attention this morning. This is a difficult one. April the 9th of this year I was at the Angleton little league fields with my boys playing little league and as the game was going on I was visiting with some close friends of ours their son was on my son Jackson's team last season, Lee and Darin Farris. And it turns out that basically at the exact time on this beautiful Saturday afternoon we were having a very normal conversation discussing Darin maybe going to the A & M spring football game next Saturday. Lee's brother, Michael, was risking his life and lost it. They were out on the river and a three year-old fell into the river. Michael instinctively jumped in to save him. It was the last act he ever had. We lost an amazing teacher, coach, and father that day. He was 33. Michael's four year-old Michael Anthony Davis his son, Anthony, is in my son's class and Anthony is a wonderful young man. His wife, Tin -- I apologize. He met in the first grade. They went through school together and when I say they went through school together -- Representative Workman, they were Aggies together. They both graduated A & M and they graduated Angleton High School. And she taught and continues. Thank you. A year ago Michael and Tin both middle school teachers and Michael a coach who is beloved. He teaches Texas history. He came up to me at the little league fields last year and said, I just have to thank you for that calendar you gave me. I said the calendar's no big deal, Michael, I'm proud to give it to any 7th grade history teacher. You don't understand I use it everyday in my classroom. You're incredible to have done that. He was the right kind of teacher. He was the right kind of coach and the tragedy is we lost an amazing father. But I appreciate your attention this morning. I'll leave you with words of comfort to the family. Who is a great family, who has roots throughout my district. At the service the priest said, we all want to go to heaven but we forget must die to get there. Michael gave his life to save a three year-old and he is now in heaven. And we will all join him there one day. Thank you for your attention. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, that is memorial resolution all those in favor, please, rise. Resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Ritter moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, I'm going to make a recognition of a real person. All too often when we talk about the severe budgetary cuts the legislature will be making we talk about numbers. I believe it's important to remember that we're affecting real people and their members of our families, our friends, our neighbors. While we're debating the details of the budget we can't ignore the real Texans behind the numbers. Today I want us to look at one of the people who will feel the consequences of the decisions we make. In this case it's the decision to cut funding from medicaid as it relates to people with disabilities. I'd like to me introduce you to Carol Moxey Gemba, Carols's daughters, Stephanie, is 38 years old does has neuromotor damage that has compromised her physical, intellectual, and social development. Stephanie has osteoporosis and a seizure disorder that could be life threatening. Cuts to medicaid in the House budget would threaten Stephanie's well being and way of life. Stephanie is client of Educare and is served through medicaid's home and community services program. She lives in a home with a caregiver family who help her live as normal a life as possible. Stephanie's mother and father are concerned that Stephanie and others like her in Texas will no longer be able to find providers for the health care and community service programs they need to stay in the community. The Moxey Gemba's trust the people of Educare and take comfort in believing Stephanie would be well cared for if they were not there to support her. Members, the most important bill we'll pass this session is the budget. Vulnerable Texans deserve much better than House Bill 1. Let's, please welcome, Carol Moxey Gemba to her Texas Capitol. She's in the east gallery on the right, please, stand up. Thank you so much for being here.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Today I have the pleasure of bringing before the House a great group of kids from Dallas, Texas. Specifically Oakcliff, Texas which is my district and I'd like to have the resolution read in full. These young men are the National Junior College Champions in basketball. Please, read the resolution in full.

THE CHAIR: Representative Alonzo moves to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution No. 1236. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the resolution in full.

THE CLERK: HR 1236 by Alonzo. WHEREAS, The men's basketball team of Mountain View College in Dallas won the National Junior College Athletic Association Division III championship with a victory in the title game on March 12, 2011; and WHEREAS, Competing in the championship tournament at Sullivan County Community College in Loch Sheldrake, New York, the Mountain View Lions reached the title game by defeating the College of Davidson and Davie Counties, North Carolina, and Ocean County College of New Jersey; and WHEREAS, In the championship showdown, Mountain View met a talented team from Rochester Community and Technical College in Minnesota; despite the fact that most of the Lions team members are freshmen, they played with calm precision and emerged with a 72-64 triumph and a national championship, while improving their final record to an impressive 26-8; and WHEREAS, Mountain View head coach LeRoi Phillips and assistant coaches Belvis Noland and Frederick Washington received valuable contributions from each member of the roster: Marcus Price, Stephen Manago, Jr., Gary Talton, Jhordan Mason, Elisawa Baker, Simeon Brinkley, Ashley J. Crayton, Darnell Taylor, Bryan Rollins, Horace Hicks, Josh Harris, Jeremiah Ford, and Patrick Howard; and WHEREAS, Through hard work and an enduring commitment to excellence, the Mountain View College basketball team reached the ultimate level of success during the 2010-2011 season, and these skilled athletes may take justifiable pride in this accomplishment; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate the Mountain View College men's basketball team on winning the National Junior College Athletic Association Division III championship and extend sincere best wishes to the team's players, coaches, and staff for continued success; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the team as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Members, with me is, Representative Barbara Carraway, who also represents (inaudible) club. Members, let me tell you. On March 12, 2011, the men's basketball team of Mountain View College in Dallas won the National Junior College Athletic Association division three championship with the victory in the Loch Sheldrake, New York at Sullivan County Community College championship tournament. The Mountain View Lions reached the final game by defeating the College of Davidson College of Davie counties, North Carolina and Ocean College in New Jersey in the tournament. In the championship showdown Mountain View met a team from Rochester Community and Technical College in Minnesota. Despite most of the Lions being freshman they played with calm and precision and emerged with a 72-63 triumph a national championship while improving their final record to an impressive 26 to 8. We have with us the members of the -- head coach LeRoi Phillips. There you go. And assistant coaches, Belvis Noland, and Frederick Washington.

(inaudible) contributions from each player on the national team including -- I'm going to introduce the players and if you could, please, raise your hands Marcus Price, Marcus Price was the tournament most valuable player. Steven Manago, junior, Gary Talton, members, Gary Talton made the All American team and has been recruited to play at University of Illinois in Chicago. We also have Jhordan Mason, Elisawa Baker, Simeon Brinkley, Ashley Crayton, Daniel Taylor, Bryan Rollins, Horrace Hicks, Josh Harris, Jeremiah Ford, and Patrick Howard. I would also like to recognize -- thank you, please give them a round of applause. We also have with us the president of Mountain View College. Mr. Felix Zamora, he's the tallest one of the group. Through hard work and enduring commitment to excellent Mountain View college basketball team reached the ultimate level of success during the 2010, 2011th season. And these skilled athletes take the pride of their accomplishments. My esteemed colleagues of the 82nd Legislature, please, help me in one more time because they did it, the National Junior College Athletic Association division three championship by giving them a huge round of applause. Huge round of applause. I think they (inaudible) being the national champions we think from our district and after the presentation I ask each of you to join me in the back hallway of the chamber to chat a few minutes with the team, coaches and enjoy some refreshments. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it, members. Thank you. I move adoption, members.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. The question occurs on the adoption of the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add all members' names to the resolution.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Howard moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we're about to go on the calendar. Chair lays out on third reading Senate Bill 420. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 420 by Deuell. Relating to determining eligibility for indigent health care.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the bill we passed yesterday which allows county indigent care programs to use federal law to deem the income and assets for U.S. citizens sponsoring resident legal aliens. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 420? If not the question occurs on the final passage of Senate Bill 420. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Workman voting aye, show Representative Carter voting aye. Have all voted? There being 102 ayes and 40 nays Senate Bill 420 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading final passage of Senate Bill 1338. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1338 by Eltife. Relating to the membership, powers, and duties of the State Preservation Board.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I move passage, members.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment that -- that is very, very special to me because the first place I ever broke bread and probably the only place that I've had dinner with Speaker Strauss was at Guerros down on south Austin. And thank you, Mr. Murphy, keep that in mind. And what this amendment seeks to do is that Guerros and that area of town historically has been commercial and they're actually promoted as tourist areas in the city of Austin through a residential permit has made it where you can't park there without a residential parking permit 24/7. And it has is made it very difficult for people to be able to go and park at those tourist attractions, in those restaurants. So what this amendment simply does is allow to ensure that those knows commercial areas are respected and are cooperative with those local neighborhoods in that they have the ability to continue to have parking in the times that they are trying to meet their business needs of having customers come through. I'm certain Representative Rodriguez will have a question for me and I'd be honored to answer them.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Representative Bonnen, I too enjoy Guerros taco bar as much as the next guy. This is actually going to be in my district south Congress, these businesses. The deal is maybe you haven't quite expressed it but I'm going to ask you a question -- the people here. The deal is about the neighborhood folks the people that either side of Congress, residents of Representative Naishtat's district and soon to be my district. They're having trouble parking because of the businesses that I support. I support all the time. But they're having trouble parking. This is about them being able to determine if they can have residential parking; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, the

(inaudible) it is but this is so the members, understand. The process now is it takes simply a few residents seeking a 24/7 permit access to the area in the commercial centers all they have to do is get a petition signed and pay a fee. There's no real due process so that the business owners have the ability to communicate, state their case, and work in agreement with the city in the neighborhoods. And that's the most appropriate thing to have happen here.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Are you aware representative that there is negotiations going on currently with the neighborhoods the businesses and the city.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, I want to be very respectfully about this. My understanding is that there is no real negotiations going on. The term we're negotiating has been used frequently but the businesses would argue that there is zero negotiation going on and they continue to get stonewalled by the city and the neighborhood.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, you're talking about local businesses in my district or soon to be in my district and Representative Naishtat's district now and neighborhood people in the city of Austin -- do you -- now you want the legislature -- if I understand this correctly we're talking about local control. You want the legislator now to say what a group of -- a neighborhood a specific neighborhood what they can and cannot do. If I am understanding your amendment correctly.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It's close but not dead on. What we want to do is try and help the city of Austin bring agreement, a fair agreement by allowing both parties, being the neighborhood and the commercial businesses, that the city of Austin regularly promotes as tourist attractions to the community to the table to reach a fair and appropriate agreement on how they can continue to serve the people that they bring into this community to spend dollars and allow those neighborhoods the access of parking that they need.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I would respectfully request that you let the representative, the state representative, the businesses, and the city -- let me do that for my district and we can -- and maybe we can work something out and with that I'm going to call a point of order on this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Please, bring your point of order down front.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: I'm sorry. The point of order is respectfully sustained. It's a habit. Mr. Bonnen we'll call a taxi next time we go to lunch.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1338? Now, the question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1338. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Thompson voting aye mean the. Have all vote? There being 144 ayes and 1 nay, senate Bill 1338 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading, final passage Senate Bill 118. The clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 118 by Uresti. Relating to a court's authority to order a proposed patient to receive extended outpatient mental health services.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this insures that a judge whose dealing with a patient who is frequently assigned involuntary inpatient mental health services be able to assign lower cost extended out patient services if deemed appropriate. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 118? If not the question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 118. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 144 ayes, no nays, Senate Bill 118 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 156. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 156 by Huffman. Relating to health care data collected by the Department of State Health Services and access to certain confidential patient information within the department.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the bill that we passed yesterday for at data registry that would allow D identify information data to be shared with HHSC to improve patient shared with to improve treatment --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And ultimately save lives.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Simpson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: May I ask several questions, please?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Chairman Gonzales. Can you tell me what the original purpose of the Texas Health Care Information Council was?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I'm not sure if I know what the original purpose of the council when it was created but it is to collect information and to be able to do some research on how to find cures for different illnesses.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: And where did they collect their information from?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: They get a lot of information from the hospitals, in fact, when we had the bill in committee I showed the committee members a chart that showed the hospital sending the information down and dish gets it and D-identifies the data.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Okay. And do the patients at these hospitals have -- are they giving their information voluntarily or is this required when they take this information and collect it.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well it's information about discharged data of the patient. It's the patient's -- what they went into the hospital for and what they got discharged. The purpose of this bill, for instance, is to take that information and to be able to say, let's say that a child has Downs Syndrome and also then developed a particular type of cancer. This is to say, perhaps there's amount link between the two. And so if the -- if HHSC and if they can share that information or get that information and it would not have the name of the patient, it would not have the doctor's name. All of that would be removed but perhaps they could find a linkage between the two and be able to find some cures.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Okay. But the information that Texas Health Care Information Council collects is collected without the consent of the patients; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, no when the patient goes into the hospital the patient signs many forms and patient's data with regard to what they were discharged for is made known --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But are they consenting for that information to be disseminated to all these other organizations under NHHSC.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: The patient data that is shared, I believe, the patient is already informed that that information is -- I mean their data is collected and let me look here to see because I know that there's certain things that the information -- let's see. Tell me your question again because I want to make sure I answer your question specifically.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I'm concerned that these patients are not giving their consent for this information to be shared for any other purpose and yet that's the purpose of this bill is to share this information with all these other organizations --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: It's not all these organizations. It's the state dish and HSSC.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, what are those organizations?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Those are the two organizations that would share the information DISH and HSSC.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But the HHSC -- just give me example, what are the organizations underneath them?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I can't tell all the names of different organizations under HHSC all the agencies --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Is the Department of Health underneath there.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: What about the Aging and Disability.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And disability? Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: What about State Health Services.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I believe so.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: What about assistive living and rehabilitation health services.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I believe they are, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: What about family and protective services.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I'm not sure about family and protective services if they're under DISH or not.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: So, we're going to take this information that the --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: The purpose of this information though is -- this information is being used to find cures for things like cancer. That's why this bill had so many groups that supported it. March of Dimes, American Cancer, Texas Medical, THA, Pediatric Society, Live Strong. It is to find cures. We're not looking to send it to protective and family services so that they can use it for some purposes. It's simply to say is there a linkage between one illness and another perhaps so that we can go ahead and find a cure? And we can do research on it. And I understand your concerns are with regard to confidentiality but again the patient's name, the doctor's name is information not being revealed. That is being did de-identified before the information even goes out. In fact, only the important critical information is what's been shared.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Look on page 4 of your bill. I'm not so sure that's the case. It says the department may disclose data within this chapter within the department, lines 10 and 12. Then on line 14, it says confidential data collected under this chapter that is disclosed. So, I think they are saying kind of like we often do inappropriately say, I'm sharing something that someone told me was confidential and not to share. So, I'm going to share it with you and you can keep this to yourself. So you won't because it's confidential and there's --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: You didn't read the rest of it. Confidential data collected under this chapter that is disclosed to a program remains subject to the confidentiality provisions of this chapter and other applicable law.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: But we're saying just like I said, we're telling the next person who it wasn't originally disclosed to, to keep it confidential.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: So, it's really not keeping it confidential that was originally given. We're just spreading it throughout their government and we've not been really good at keeping information confidential. I agree with your purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: There's actually a private organization named Traitwise and they do some of these things but they -- people voluntarily give this information and they know that it's going to be disseminated so that traits can be aligned and cures can come about this. But I'm concerned that people's confidential data might be disclosed. Perhaps if we have a public health care and they have preexisting conditions those might be taken into account.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, and again and I understand and we could always -- we could always let perfect get in the way of good and I think you want perfect. And I understand that you want perfect and (inaudible) absolutely no disclosure.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I just want --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: My concern with that, Representative Simpson, is that we -- meanwhile we have the ability to conduct research and to have linkage between illnesses (inaudible) support.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I support that but we should have voluntarily that they give this confidential information.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And the thing, again, is that, for instance, if you went in and it was your data -- your name and your doctor's name would not be anywhere on there. So they would not know if --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It says preexisting data will be disclosed.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: It -- but it's de-identified data. It's de-identified data.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It doesn't say that there. It just says keep it confidential within those departments.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: No. It gets de-identified before the information is revealed. It has to go through a -- it has to go through de-identification process. Then it goes to the registry program within DISH the data is then merged and it's de-identified and the data is destroyed before access time expires. That is the cycle that it's going to go through. So it's de-identified in terms of patient and name and physician name. And I do understand -- I do understand that your concerns but again I think that you -- you don't like the idea of any information going anywhere and this is information --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I do support it when it's given voluntarily but when it's collected for one purpose kind of like we do with our taxes and then we use them -- the dedicated funds for other purposes I believe that is unethical. I think we need to ask them before we disseminate other information for other purposes.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And I know we're going to continue to disagree on this. I understand your concerns. Again, I'll point to you on page 4 where it talks about the program shall maintain the confidentiality of the disclosed confidential data and part of that is the de-identification process.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, I think that's for them to keep but they know that information. So, again, I'm sharing with you what someone else told me to keep confidential but I think it's okay because I'm asking you to keep it confidential. And I think that violates the purpose --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, and if we were sharing it among many hospitals that would be one thing but we're sharing it within the agencies that other state agencies. And it's, again, there's so many precautions that are built in. So many not identified. And that's why this bill when it went before our committee received unanimous support. And it was fully vetted.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Well, when private information wants this data what do they want to do? They want to sell more products. I'm concerned that the government wants more data, yet some of it may be for good purposes perhaps to for cures but it also may want to control us or to keep us from receiving some insurance that we might want to receive if they didn't know that we had a preexisting condition.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, I don't think that's the purpose of this bill and I'm not going to go into conspiracy theories about how the government -- simply --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It's not conspiracy theories --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I mean I --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: We take funds right now that are dedicated and often may use them for other purposes. This is the same thing with the information. I appreciate the goals you have in mind. I'm concerned that they might be abused. Thank you for answering my questions.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I understand. You're very welcome.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Does the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Let me see if I can give some clarification. Obviously, this bill came out of the Public Health Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And we have been super sensitive about these issues. In fact, we passed HB 300 which heard in the Senate Health and Human Services Commission today. So, to clarify one of the points that I think I share Representative Simpson's concerns. As you know, we've worked through this bill but --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: -- but all of this information stays within the agencies.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: It cannot be sold for research.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: In fact HB 300 builds upon that and absolutely prohibits the sale of (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And then to clarify for the body that the Texas Health Care Information Council does not exist anymore. It actually was transferred in 2003 to the Department of State Health Services, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. So they're going to gather this information and then it's not just about disease prevention but we're also looking at the escalating cost of health care in general.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes. We're looking to try to find a way -- actually, I think, this will not only help in disease prevention and linkage between diseases but it will also save money in the long run.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And so, hopefully, when we come to the floor with SB 8 there's a buildup in that we're creating an institute that we'll gather this information and we'll be dealing with hospitals and stuff. But not selling this information again. We have Dartmouth Atlas and other agencies that are gathering this and we had really no recourse on our own information this interim. Do you remember those hearings that we had?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I do. And I think that this bill along with your bill 300, along with SB 8 are all collaborative bills that will work together.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: But -- and we have to protect this data not just the identified but like in HB 300 it has -- you have to have the patients -- have to agree to electronically transfer this information so.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So, these bills are moving and building upon each and other I want to make sure if for the body's assurance that you and I and other members of the Public Health committee will be very hard on making sure that none of this leaks. We saw that with the blood spots and this interim --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And we were quick on pulling that trigger. And we're working on Jodi Laubenberg's bill which is in the Senate. Any help over there could --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: That's correct. And I think that anyone that's been into your committee, chairwoman, knows that the committee's is very engaged fully vetted on these bills before we vote on them so -- okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Will the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you. Thank you, Representative Gonzales, for all your work on this I know it's been a lot of hard work.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Could you remind of when the THCIC which is now of course abolished in the sense that it does not exist. When they first started collecting data that you're talking about?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I don't have that data. I wish I could tell you --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: That's been quite a number of years.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: It's been quite a number of years that they've collected the data and I don't think that we've seen, you know --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And are you familiar with some of the data is, very specific disease oriented data is -- that they're -- that they are basically acquiring information on?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, I do. I have a -- for instance, they can track hospital readmissions, access mortality rates associated with various diseases, study various side effects of cancer treatments, that type of information.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Correct. And do you know what they do with that information after they have collected it and assimilated based on those parameters, mortality, complications, readmissions, and so forth? Do you know what they do with that data?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I think the data is then ultimately used to try to link an a illnesses but, unfortunately, because they haven't been able to talk to each other and share it. Many times it gets lost in the process in terms of -- and I know that's in -- that's why this state wanted to pass this because we're only a handful of states that does not have the merging of these data sets.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Right. The reality is that that information is actually sent back to hospitals where this information is ultimately obtained from. And it's obtained from discharged diagnosis and so forth and it's completely de-identified. And when the information comes back it actually is very helpful to the hospitals in terms of driving improvements that care for fairly complicated conditions likes, hip replacements, like cardiovascular diseases, and things like that. And never has there been a breach of the data involved in this. The de-identified data which -- let's face it we've been about the business of de-identifying data for a long, long time. I'm not saying that it can't occur and, in fact, probably get even stronger considering the level of seriousness around security and so forth. But the level of protection that we're realizing with this is really very, very good.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, in fact --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It's a tragedy. I think you would agree with me that because we have other areas that are collecting data on very disease specific conditions like cancer, that we don't have the ability to kind of merge these different data bases and determine are there, in fact, some things that are going on here because it's a very robust data base.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes. And I think you make a good point that in the number of years that this has been collected we haven't seen some type of mass disclosure that the public has to worry about. I mean, recently we saw some information lost, private information from the comptroller's office. Can it happen? Possibly could happen. But in all of these years that this data is collected we haven't seen that occur and I know hospitals are very careful with the information that they obtain. And that's why we wanted to make sure that all the confidentiality provisions that have been in place, all the safeguards continue in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I think you've vetted this bill very well. And I think the body has vetted it very well and I think ultimately this bill will go a long way to improve the health of Texans and I --

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you Dr. Zerwas. I appreciate it. I think there is one amendment, actually two.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you members for letting me interrupt this debate. I wanted to introduce -- we've got some special guests with us today. We have a lot of students and parents and teachers from Stewart Elementary in Aledo, Parker County, Texas. Would y'all stand up. Let us see you. Welcome to the State Capitol. Hope you have a great visit today.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, in the north gallery I have a group from Schiller Intermediate School in Church, Texas y'all stand up. Please, help me in welcoming them to their State Capitol.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Yesterday we passed in this body amendment to the King amendment with regarding to health care collection information. Today I'm adding a perfecting piece to this to not have the inpatient hospitals in this bill. I knew that they liked the collection system. I knew that the small businesses, the ambulatory surgical centers. It was a big unfunded mandate. It was problem for them. So this keeps the hospitals in as they wish. It only removes the ambulatory surgical centers which is what we passed yesterday in this House and I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative King sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Mr. Speaker, members. This is a physically neutral amendment that simply allows the Texas Bleeding Disorders Advisory Council to continue its important work rather than expiring. Although the Department State Health Services commissioner can accept gifts, grants, and private donations to the council. The amendment specifies that no new appropriations for the council might be made for the 2012, 2013 biennium and DSH and administrative support of the council is permissive rather than mandatory. The Texas Bleeding Disorders Council was abolished September the 1st, 2009 and this in amendment will reestablish it through September the 1st, 2015. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Fletcher sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 156? If not -- the question occurs on final passage -- Chair recognizes, Representative Simpson in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm going to be very brief. We've had a number of discussions in this body about taking funds that were dedicated to one purpose and then using them for another. This is doing the same thing with information. Information that people must give but just because they show up at a hospital. They -- all we would have to do to do this voluntarily is to get them to have agree to disseminate this information for other purposes. But this bill will override that option and require that this information or enable this information to be disseminated within these other organizations within the State of Texas. And I urge you for the sake of privacy and the for the sake of freedom over force to vote against this bill that does have good purposes but could be used -- misabused. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Members, while I greatly respect Representative Simpson and the points that he makes, this information is already required that the hospitals report it. All this bill does is allow the agencies that we have to share that data on some of -- the information that we're trying to use to better utilize. For me one of my driving goals as the chair of Public Health is bring down the cost of health care. There was an interesting article in the Huffington Post today that says, health care costs have doubled in the last ten years. It will be the issue that defines our nation going forward because we will go broke if we don't get this under control. So, I ask you respectfully to vote for Chair Gonzales and bill here that we have vetted very heavily in the Public Health Committee. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I know you've heard a lot about this bill. I appreciate my chairwoman speaking in favor of it along with Dr. Zerwas. I think it's important for you to hear from people that are very involved in this aside from myself. I know it has been fully vetted in the Senate. It's been fully vetted in the House and I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 156. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 112 ayes and 24 nays, Senate Bill 156 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading Senate Bill 42. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 42 by Carona. Relating to the requirements for reinsurance contracts covering title insurance policies issued in this state.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 42. The question occurs on final passage Senate Bill 42. It's a record road. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 144 ayes, zero nays, Senate Bill 42 is finally passed. Chair lays out on final passage SB 328. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 328 by Carona. Relating to notice of a hospital lien.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 328. If not, the question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 328. It's a record vote. The clerk ring the bell. Have all voted. Being 145 ayes and one nay, Senate Bill 328 is finally passed. Members, we're going to take a break for lunch and if any committees need to have formal meetings, please bring your announcements down front. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, and members, since there may not be a lunch break tomorrow the Capitol Commission Bible Study with Don Garner will meet upon the adjournment at the Austin Club, lunch is provided. So today I am personally inviting everybody here to the Capitol Commission Bible Study and I guarantee you, you will be better when you leave than when you came.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. This just a reminder the Agriculture and Livestock Committee will meet at my desk, desk 25 on lunch recess. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize some people from JL Borne Elementary, right here, all in the turquoise. God bless you. Welcome to the Texas State House. Hope you have a great time while you're here. Are there any further announcements? If not, the House stands in recess until 1:00 p.m. May 17th, 2011,

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Bonnen. The Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 652. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 652 by Hagger relating to the Governmental Agency Sunset Review Process.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, Members, I move to postpone this bill to the end of second reading today. I'm working with Representative Taylor and Representative Eiland, and I think we are close to figuring things out. And we will be able to handle the bill at that moment, end of second reading today. Thank you. The end of general state second reading today.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading SB 5. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 5 by Zafrini relating to Public Institutions of Higher Education including, the administration, operating, financial management and reporting requirements of those institution.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. SB 5 is a Higher Ed Bill designed to facilitate operations, institutional costs and provide flexibility to our institutions of higher ed. This is particularly important in the current budget climate in which institutions are being asked to do more with less. Members, I've, in the interim, went around the state talking to a lot of institutions, a lot of universities and colleges. And one of the push backs was always, well, if the legislature would just quit making us do so many redundant reports, or if you'd just reduce so many unfunded mandates, then we could be more nimble and efficient and use our resources better. So I will say, well, fine. If you've got an unfunded mandate or a redundant report, please submit that to me in writing and we'll aggregate all those and we'll try to see if we can try to be helpful. So Senator Zafrini and I and our Committee, this is our attempt to reduce the cost of higher ed at a time when we're going to be able to have only limited resources in this area. And, I believe, Mr. Speaker, there's some Amendments.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Branch.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill is divided up into about eight areas and one is the financial management. One those do with Human Resources. One has to do with real estate and construction. One has to do with goods and services. One area has to do, as I said, Human Resources and real estate. One has to do with reports. And so in the financial management area, I had worked with Representative coal court and some others about tightening up some language with respect to financial management of higher ed resources, including foreign banks. We have some institution material. Operations overseas, for example, Texas A&M University System has a campus in Cutter, and therefore in order to manage their operations overseas, they do have to have some funding oversees. But this Amendment tightens that up and looks like --

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Yes, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification when I first read the bill I was a little concerned about the broadness of the bill. Certainly, you know, we could debate and this is not the bill to debate, Mission Creek and, you know, I mean, we've got Texas Universities, I just found out yesterday, Houston Community College is in several different countries and Cutter in other places. And again, we'll debate that at any time about Mission Creek and where we should be and what our purpose is. But to clarify for the body is that we really didn't want them to take their money and be vesting. It was pretty broadly written. So we've now narrowed it just for operations of that particular facility, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: To have a banking relationship, and that any of the tuition and the moneys that they derive here in Texas aren't shipped across seas to build new schools. We keep Texas money here working to build finer institutions?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And the Amendment's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Branch sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Branch.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This second Amendment, again, cleans up some of the business practices in the Human Resources payroll area. We had some concerns from one group that if you paid someone's salary or wages on a pay card, that there would be some inefficiency because of the costs or overhead on those pay cards, and we had some bad experiences in the Public Ed Sector. And so we addressed that and struck the ability to pay someone on a pay card. We also added the ability for the UT, and A&M Insurance Systems to have adopt payroll deductions for premiums in case they were to at some point charge some amount for the individuals, the employees healthcare benefits, which currently they don't. So this gives them latitude to do that if that ever changes. And also makes some other changes to payroll deductions. And it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Branch sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Branch.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: This is an Amendment to the Section on Reports. Members, I believe that's Section 6 of the bill, and we have a lot of areas here. This is, again, one of the major themes of the bill is to try and reduce the number of reports that our colleges and university and our university systems has to make to the various groups. As is the case, they asked to get rid of a lot of reports, and on further review, as different communities and groups looked at that, some of us thought that well, at least some of these reports we ought to keep. And so some of these reports are going to come back in. Some would be Sunseted in 2013 if the next legislature doesn't find a need. So it gives us a time to look at them and decide whether or not we need these reports. In fact, this will clean up our Reports' Section. And Representative Crownover and I are offering this Amendment together. This is something that she's been -- Representative Crownover walks in. It's something that she's been a real advocate of in reducing the number of reports for our higher ed, but doing it in a thoughtful, balanced way. So I offer you, if you wanted to say anything else about our Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I just think this is a very respectful Amendment. You know, people get angry and demand a report be written and we have we're going to have to hire people to read the reports. So we've been very selective on taking the necessary reports. There are many reports that I think are absolutely vital, but I think we're trying to hold the line on studies and reports and this is the study that we found.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Branch sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Perry?

REPRESENTATIVE PERRY: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Perry, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PERRY: A couple questions.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does Mr. Branch yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PERRY: Representative Branch, just a few questions in going through the bill, and it gets kind of --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Mr. Perry, do you have a question on this Amendment or on the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE PERRY: On the bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Branch sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Do you want to have this colloquy after the Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: It doesn't matter. What's easiest for you on that, as it, kind of, relates to the last Amendment, but, in general, the bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're in the process of laying out an Amendment. The follow Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gerren.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gerren.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER:

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this Amendment just keeps the public universities from buying utilities at one rate and then being able to sell it, keeping them out of the utility business, I believe it what it does. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gerren sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, Members, this just keeps current law on their dependent coverage. Keeps it at 25. I believe it's acceptable to the author. That's in their healthcare system.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: And this is also acceptable to the author, and this clears up our area on benefits policies.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Could you explain that again. I think I missed it and I don't know if other Members caught that.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: The bill, as came over from -- I'd be happy to. The bill as it came over in from the Senate, it changed the benefits package to allow -- to increase it to dependent 25 years of age and younger.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: So this means if you're son or daughter is enrolled, then benefits would extend to them till they're 25?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: It's my understanding, Jessica, and you can move passage, this has got like I say, six sections with a lot of different technical stuff.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: But it gives them the flexibility to have the coverage up to 25 years of age.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: And under current law, it is? What's the maximum right now under current law?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Current law, what are you talking about Federal law or state?

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: However it's effected it. A lot of things are flying through here right now, and I just want to make sure that we're clear about this.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: And if you want, also, I'll have the author of the Amendment come back. What the SB 5 did was change the statute quo of current law and what his Amendment does is return us to current law for these policies. So whatever the universities are currently operating under, the bill was an attempt to expand the coverage, and this returns it to current law. I don't know where each university system is on their various benefits plan.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: So you're saying right now, some universities would be -- well, they're different, are you saying and do you know what some of those ages might be? What that range might be?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: I don't know the range of the current law.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Is it 15? 22? I just want to know --

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: I don't know if it's 21 and this is expanding it to 25 or if there was a variance among university systems. But I can find that out with you and we can get back to you before we finish the Amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: I just want to make sure that we're clear. So conceivably it could be 21 now and we're raising it to 25 and I just wanted to make sure that the body was aware of the Amendment that you're accepting.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Absolutely. And that's my sense is that this went up and Mr. Chisum wanted to return it to current law. We checked with the various university systems and they said they were fine with that.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Interesting. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Chisum sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection. The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Miller for recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Speaker, Members, I have very special guests in the West Gallery today. Over here on the south side we have the Correll County Rising Republicans. Young men, stand up. We have Colton Buck who's the Chairman, we have Austin who's the secretary, who will be moving down to Corpus Christi to further his education in pre med. He'll be in Representative Hunter's District. We have Cody Blackstone, the vice Chairman. We have Dillan Pruitt with the media relations director. Welcome to your House, gentleman. Glad to have you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Carter.

REPRESENTATIVE CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I also have some very special guests in the House today. sixth graders from St. Aloquin Montessori School. There are 24 students. Please stand up, guys. Welcome to your Texas House and please join me in welcoming them.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: To the students from St. Aloquin, I'm very proud to have you in the legislature today. I'm Rafael Anchia and I'm a member of the legislature. Good to see you, and my daughters, Sophie and Maya are also students at St. Aloquin. So I'm really happy you're here and I hope you have a great day at the Capitol.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, if you had a red bill book at the Austin Club, it is now located on Representative Hughes' desk. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, Members. This is an Amendment that is similar language that has been approved by the Higher Education Committee. The Amendment seeks to bring transparency to higher education spending. It will require certain financial data be posted on-line. I believe it's acceptable to the author and I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This is acceptable to the author. Representative Zedler sends up an Amendment. The Amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment's adopted. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is about transparency. Over the last few sessions we've set up advisory committees to take a look at what universities are doing with the student fees that seem to be growing and used for strange things. So the advisory committees exists but they're not subject to the Open Meetings Act. And so this Amendment simply says the Student Fee Advisory Committee are subject to the Open Meetings Act. Transparency. Sunshine. It's acceptable to the author and I move passage. Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hughes sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted. Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against SB 5? The Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this will go a long way to allowing our universities and our university systems to use their resources more efficiently. Hopefully we'll reduce redundancies and allow these guys to operate more efficiently in an environment where we're going to have fewer resources. So thank you and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The question occurs on passage engrossment of SB 5. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. SB five has passed to engrossment. The Chair lays out on second reading SB 544. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 544 by Zulliger relating to unlawful acts and criminal offenses involving the criminal Medicaid Program.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.

REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members. House Bill 544, Senator Zulliger's bill dealing with Medicare fraud, Medicare company, and it also has a bill in it that deals with the Medicaid Fraud Claims Act. This is a Committee Substitute and I appreciate Chairman Coleman's language that he submitted for that. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 544? If not, the passage occurs on the passage to engrossment of SB 544. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. Ayes have it. SB 544 is passed engrossment. The Chair lays out on second reading, SB 688. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 688 by Nichols relating to the investigation, prosecution, punishment of criminal Medicaid fraud and other offenses regarding criminal Medicaid fraud, providing penalties.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE CREIGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. SB 688 is what Senator Nichols and I refer to as the Medicaid Fraud Bill. This same bill passed the Senate and got through the House last Session but died in traffic on the floor. It received unanimous support in Chairman Gallego's Committee, and it aims to help the Texas Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in investigating Medicaid fraud with updated statutes for more efficient prosecution and procedures. And I believe we have an Amendment.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REPRESENTATIVE CREIGHTON: Okay. Mr. Speaker. Members. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The question occurs on passage of engrossment of SB 688. All those in favor aye. All those owe posed nay. The ayes have it. SB 688 has passed engrossment. The Chair lays out SB 1106 on second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 1106 by Harris relating to the exchange of confidential facility information among certain governmental entities concerning certain juveniles.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Members, this is a Public Efficiency Bill. Other SB 1106 will provide for greater steering of confidential information, including juvenile care for multi-system use. I believe we have one Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Otto.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Madame Speaker. Members, what this Amendment does is it, basically, says that any video recordings that are made of children at Child Advocacy Centers in the commitment of a crime, that the defense attorney would have a right to view it, but he does not have a right to make a copy of it. Some of these videos have found their way on the Internet, been distributed. It is not to in any way impinge on the Rules of Evidence, but it basically says that. It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Otto sends up an Amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Madame Speaker, I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. The question occurs on passage to the third reading of SB 1106. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and SB 1106 has passed the third reading. The Chair recognizes Representative Eiland for a very, very important announcement about lunch tomorrow.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Madame Speaker, Members, while the camera is still here, I want to make sure I told you all that the boats are headed back to the dock, and we will have oysters and shrimp in the Members' Lounge tomorrow for lunch from my District.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair lays out SB 1404 on second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 1404 by Zulliger relating to the disposal of Non-Compact Disposal Radioactive Waste and the Compact Disposal Radioreactive Waste.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes. Representative Alonzo, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: I'd like to raise a Point of Order against current examination of SB 1404 that it violates Rule 4, Section 332(c)4.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Please bring your Point of Order down front.

(Point of Order)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Alonzo temporarily withdraws his Point of Order and the Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: I'll move to postpone my further consideration of SB 1404 until 2:20 p.m.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading, SB 1683. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 683 by Huffman relating to the competition of the Board of Directors of the Gulf Coast Water Authority.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I have an Amendment, and Representative Eissler and I are going to create some legislative intent.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair lays out the following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Members, this is simply doing immediate effect clause in the bill. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Bonnen sends up an Amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Madame Speaker, this is the Gulf Coast Water Authority Bill to the Members to have a seat on the already Port Authority Board, and the Members to also have a seat taking it to nine, and I'd be proud to yield to questions from my colleague, Mr. Eiland.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Eissler, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Does the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does the gentleman yields for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Mr. Bonnen, so, basically, the Water Authority in my District that was created back in the '40s for their industry water needs, bringing water from the resort, Brazos River, mostly down to Texas City for BP and Valero and all kind of chemical plants and refineries, right?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That is absolutely correct.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And several years ago, I think it was back in the '90s, they determined that it would be beneficial for them to have Brazoria County, cities, municipalities and Fort Bend cities and municipalities as customers. And, therefore, they told them if they would enter into option contracts, basically, that they would put a member of each county on the board.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That is correct. And, also, I want to point out that Brazoria County industries are also involved.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And we fought this early on because we don't want any outsiders on the board. It was created for Galveston County water and industry water. However, the promises are pretty well documented. They're in writing. They're in the board minutes, and it would be pretty --

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Egregious.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Not credible to make an argument that this shouldn't be done.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: You're exactly right. And I appreciate your saying that.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Now, but one concern that arose during the Committee process is that one of the motivating factors of the Gulf Coast Water Authority not putting Brazos and Fort Bend County on this board previously was because after some kind of Texas A&M Water Assessment tool came out, they realized that they don't actually have as much water as they thought, and they may be not have water to sell to Brazoria or Fort Bend County.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And part of the reason of that is because industry, apparently, because it's their original water systems, they have the first right to those waters, Senior Water Rights. And just as I found out that Dow Chemical in your District, as of yesterday, I think, gave notice to TCEQ that they are exercising their Senior Water Rights and everybody else needs to be notified. They're going to take all the water because they need it all. There may be at some point in time when Gulf Coast Water Authority is not able to fulfill the contract that they currently have with Brazoria County, which is Pearland and Fort Bend County, which is Sugar Land, right?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That is correct. And also to be clear, Dow has a facility also in Galveston County, a much smaller facility but that is correct. There is a great concern as to whether there will be the water resource to meet the contractual obligations to Brazoria and Fort Bend. And in those contracts as you well know, it also states that they do have the authority to refund money that those communities paid to Gulf Coast Water Authority and terminate the contract if they're not able to meet their commitment.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Right. And so if in good faith after -- and I want to make sure this is after. If in good faith after the board members are put on, if they go through the contracts, and all of the obligations that they have, if they determine that they don't have any water to sell. A. If in some future legislature we come back and ask them to give space, analysis, and they terminate the contract. And according to the contracts, repay the money, the option payments that have been made and they refund that money and whatever else the contracts require, there may be a good-faith effort in the future that we come back and say, Fort Bend County, Sugar Land, you know longer have the right to buy water from us. We would like you off our board. We all recognize that that might occur.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: We recognize that, but we also need to make certain we mention the assets in those counties. Also, that they would deal with the fact that Brazoria County, City of Pearland, any of them have put up bond money for the assets in those counties. Fourth, would make a similar argument that all those matters have been respectfully and fairly and agreeably dealt with that it would be logical and they would be agreeable to having the two board Members once the issue of the water contract and the assets in those communities are resolved.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And I had Amendments and Mr. Taylor had some Amendments today that we were going to bring and try to put it on the bill in case that happened so we could provide a trigger mechanism. But rather than involve the rest of the House in a local matter, which is just now getting brought together, instead of tearing it apart in the future, we'll just wait until that time and try to come and address it then.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I agree. And the final point, I want to be clear that you agree with me that it would be needing to resolve the water contracts and the assets that those communities may be a partner in Gulf Coast with?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Madame Speaker, I'd request that our conversation be reduced to writing and placed in the journal for legislative intent.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for or against, SB 683? The Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Members, I appreciate your time. I appreciate working with everybody. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on passage of the third reading of SB 683. All in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and SB 683 has passed the third reading. The Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business SB 652.

CLERK: SB 652 by Hagger relating to governmental entities subject to the Sunset Review Process.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker. Members. This is the Sunset Schedule Bill, and we are obviously needing to move the schedule, as always happens with this bill. We are going to review 25 agencies in the 2013 schedule, and 20 agencies in the 2015 schedule. And I believe there are an Amendment or two and so I'd entertain those at this time.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Members, this simply is adding the Texas Endangered Species Committee on soil process, that it fall in line with the soil and water conservation, which it's a part of. So that's why we're doing that. I move passage. Move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Bonnen sends up an Amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. The Chair lays out the following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor of Galveston.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Taylor. Thank you, Madame Speaker. This Amendment just strikes Gulf Coast Water Authority from the Sunset Scheduling Bill, as per hour agreement on the earlier bill. Thank you. It's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Representative Taylor sends up an Amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Weber.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, Representative Eiland. For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Since Chairman Bonnen added that last Amendment taking Gulf Coast Water Authority out of the bill, we're not calling our Point of Order.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: All right. Thank you very much, Representative Eiland. The Chair recognizes Representative Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Thank you, Madame Speaker. This is an Amendment that puts the Process Server Review Board under review. If you read the Amendment, it says the Process Server Review Board was established by Supreme Court Order subject to review under 325 and will be scheduled to be abolished by 2013. It's basically under review. And I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen in opposition to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Madame Speaker. Members. I'm not really certain why we would put the process servers under Sunset at this point. And all of you are abundantly aware that we have cut every state agency's budget. Sunset has not been amenable to that, and we are trying to keep the schedule to what we have it at. So that we don't add a greater burden and don't add agency after agency if they don't really have the resources at this time to be managing.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Jackson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I'll be glad to yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Representative Bonnen, this Process Server Review Board is set up by the Supreme Court. Is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I assume it is. I don't know much about it.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: It's really not an agency created by the Texas Legislature.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Oh, that's good information. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: And their duties that they have to control the judicial process, the Supreme Court has set up a court that, in fact, process servers don't need to be certified to serve in any particular court. They can do it out of the court. But statewide, they serve without being appointed by each individual judge. They've got to have the certification from Supreme Court, set up by the Supreme Court. It was not created. All we did was allow the Supreme Court to charge a fee to administer the process. But this is not an agency we set up. So I don't know how you --

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: It sounds like to me you and your Committee have a pretty good handle on --

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: We have a pretty good handle on it.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And I think we'd be wise to leave it to you all's responsibility.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you, Madame Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Madame Speaker, does the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Absolutely.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Thank you, Dennis. It's true it was set up by the Supreme Court. Of course, this agency, as its becoming actually be registering and will take on the job of enrolling and licensing and charging a fee for process servers. Is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I really don't know to be candid, Representative Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: It's actually started happening already. So my --

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: What do you mean it started happening already? I imagine there was a date by which that occurred.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Well, I can't give you the exact date.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Was it within a year?

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Dennis, I'd like you to if I told you. It's been several years back.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: But they're wanting them to be registered and licensed. Okay?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And who's they?

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: That's the Supreme Court.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: And what we're dealing with is an agency that affects everybody's lives because they deliver, it may be divorce papers. It may be legal papers and a whole variety of instances. And so it has a pretty substantial impact. Are you aware or were you aware that it has a pretty substantial impact?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Well, I'm aware of people who every day deliver documents, I mean, but I don't fully understand how that's threatening or concerning to us in this process. There's things that happen every single day in our lives but I'm not sure I'd put them under Sunset.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Well, they are an agency, if you will, that will effect the legal process in a great manner.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And I think your point's well taken. But my concern is I've not heard a single word out of a local judge. I've not heard a word from a regional judge. I've not heard a word from the Supreme Court, who has the greatest responsibility over this, from the little I'm learning here today. And I'd be incredibly hesitant to add someone into Sunset when we're short on staff at Sunset and when none of those involved in it from a responsibility of governing and reviewing them is suggesting that there's a problem and they need help with it.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Well, I think it's an important function as they provide, especially when it comes to court papers, that there should be legislative oversite. And that's why I believe that they go under Sunset Review.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I understand that, and putting them under Sunset doesn't guarantee legislative oversite. And I would also really recommend that you look at the schedule. A lot of other things happened from a judicial perspective in 2017, and again, we don't want an agency that no one's brought to us as being a problem, a concern or an issue, when we have a short budget for not only Sunset, but the entire state to be dealing with.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Well, isn't it a possibility that if we get them into the Sunset process, if they have to be moved to a subsequent Session, they can be?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Absolutely. But I would recommend you choose to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Okay. Well, I hope that we will --

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: But your Amendment -- I want to be clear, Members, your Amendment says that we're going to do it this next interim, right now.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Right. Well, I think that's something that's important enough of the agency that it should be looked at, and as they begin to register process servers, the sooner the better in my opinion. Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, Representative Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: I want to move that the comments between me and Representative Bonnen be placed in the journal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Real quick. I move to table the Weber Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: While he's doing that, I request the permission for the Committee on Public Education to meet while the House is in Session at 2:30 today, May 17th, at three W 39 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Public Education will meet at 2:30 p.m. on May the 17th, 2011, Room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Weber.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Weber.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Representative Weber has been very gracious, and we have other judicial agencies that will be up in the 2017-cycle to Representative Weber. Pulled his Amendment down. The Amendment that we're now on, Mr. Webber's Amendment is that we will put process servers into the 2017-cycle, along with other judicial agencies. I'm willing to accept that Amendment and appreciate Mr. Weber working with me.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Mr. Weber sends up an Amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for or against SB 6652? The question occurs on passage of the third reading of SB 652. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it and SB 652 is passed the third reading. The Chair lays out as a matter of pending business House Bill 1504.

CLERK: SB 1504 by Zulliger relating to the disposal of Compact Low Radioactive Waste and the Texas low level radioactive waste and Compact Waste Disposal Facility.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: That's SB 1504. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lewis and Mr. Alonzo to come down front, please. Mr. Alonzo to the front, please.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, Representative Veasey. For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: While we are in intermission here, may I make a Parliamentary Inquiry, please?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Is Tuesday the 24th the last day to pass non-local and consent SBs on second reading?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Tuesday the 24th is the 134th day and the last day for the House to consider on sustained Senate Bills.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Is Saturday --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Joint Resolutions on the Daily and Supplemental Calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Is it your understanding that Saturday the 21st is the last day to pass non-local and consent SBs out of the House Committee?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Saturday the 21st is the 131st day. It is traditionally the last day for House Committees to report Senate Bills, Senate JRs out of Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: So for a SB to be heard and passed out of Committee by Saturday, assuming that we work to suspend the Posting Rules for a hearing, would it have to be referred to that Committee by Friday?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Can you state that again, Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Okay. For a SB to be heard and passed out of Committee by Saturday, assuming we suspend the Posting Rule for a hearing, would it have to be referred to that Committee by Friday?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, the Parliamentarian is confused with your math. Do you mind coming down front to discuss this?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Yeah. Absolutely.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Madame Speaker and Members. Members, this SB has to do with the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Site, which is ready to open in my District, Andrews County, in the late fall of this year. The people in my District are for this site. They think it's an appropriate site and a safe site. In 2003 the legislature authorized the disposal of out-of-state waste, but did not set limits on the amount of that waste or set a surcharge to be assessed. This SB by Senator Zulliger, with Joint Author addresses those issues. It passed the Senate unanimously and it's now before us. I have an Amendment with regard to that, which I would like to have laid out at this time.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Lewis.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: This Amendment does several things. It first of all has a surcharge have the surcharge in the bill has a stage in. There's a ten percent surcharge on out-of-state waste. It lasts for a period of time and then it goes up to 20 percent. This Amendment increases that surcharge and so it starts off 20 percent and stays percent. It also sets out a Surcharge Study, which has been suggested by Chairman Hildebran. So after five years of operation the TCEQ takes a look at the amount that's being made, what the costs are, and makes a recommendation with regard to adjustment of the surcharge. It also has provisions for interim and permanent rate is settings for in-state waste, that it's all regulated and what the charge is regulated, as its disposed. It also has some provisions on non-party waste so that the TCEQ can regulate.

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Mr. Christian?

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: In just one second. It provides for approval of contracts by the TCEQ, and it provides that the rate that's charged for out-of-state waste has to be at least the maximum that can be charged for in-state waste or higher. So that's basically what the Amendment does. I move adoption of the Amendment and it's acceptable to me.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Representative Lewis sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. Representative Christian. Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Madame Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Wait just one minute, Representative Gallego, please. Representative Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I will, and I'm not mentioning that we have one more Amendment that I'm going to accept to the Amendment. Do you want that --

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm happy to wait.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So that we can discuss the Amendment as amended.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment to the Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment to the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Gerren.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gerren.

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: Thank you, Madame Speaker and Members. This is a Perfecting Amendment to the Amendment which corrects the drafting error related to the rate-setting terminology. It clarifies that no surcharge or fee will be retroactive and a licensed holder will go through the extra effort of amending their license to conform with this bill. Finally, it places a specific time requirement on the agreed-to language that was added in the Senate regarding temporary storage. And I believe it is acceptable to the author and I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gerren sends up an Amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there any objections? Hearing none. The Amendment to the Amendment is adopted. Now, Members, we're back on the original Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Madame Speaker, and I do happily yield to Chairman Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Judge Lewis, I have several --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Wait a minute, Representative Gallego. On the Lewis Amendment, as amended, are your questions on the Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Yes, ma'am.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Or on the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: No, ma'am. They're on the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: All right. The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Judge Lewis, as I read your Amendment, not more than 30 percent of the volume and Compact capacity shall be for non-party Compact Waste; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: That's correct, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Now, when you brought your bill originally to State Affairs, one of the issues that I raised with you was capacity and making sure that while, as I understand the facility now will serve other states, as well, but making sure that there was enough capacity, not only for the other Compact states, but for Texas. And so I want to make sure that as amended, your bill continues to prioritize, I guess, if that's the word, or at least treat Texas in the same manner or better than we treat other states.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Well, I would say better is the right word, Chairman. You know, under the original act that we had and under the Compact, it was specifically debated whether or not to accept out-of-state waste. And it was decided by this legislature that we should do that. We needed to do that. That the facility really could not operate most years unless it was out of state. But the inspect state -- what we call in Compact, because it includes both Vermont and Texas -- it does have the priority. And there are a number of safeguards in this Amendment, and in this bill to make sure that Texas has ample capacity. And Texas and Vermont have ample capacity. All applications for implication have to go through the Compact permission. So their approval that it needs capacity. All those applications have to go through TCEQ to make sure, again, that it complies with the law and the capacity requirements. And immediately, there is a capacity stud Friday the TCEQ to review this in the first year, make sure that so that the TCEQ can make sure that there's no capacity problems and the TCEQ Executive Director can shut this importation of any out of state waste down, if that study shows within a year, if it shows that we don't have the capacity or their capacity concerns, that importation immediately stops. So there are a number of safeguards to make sure that there are no capacity issues here.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: What I don't see in the Amendment that we also discussed in the Committee, Judge Lewis, is some sort of -- I note on Line 23, on Page 1, with respect to surcharges, my impression is that we had talked about essentially a floating cap to determine how much money was in-coming. And we had talked about a certain mechanism to determine how much revenue the facility would be sharing with the state so that in the event -- think we talked about five-year increments. Study period. I don't see that in your Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: There is some provision in the Amendment. Be sure to point out here. The original bill, as presented, had a five percent surcharge on out of state, with an addition to the charge that there is on anyway. It's got a five percent surcharge. The SB had a 20 percent surcharge. This Amendment conforms to the Senate where it was raised to 20 percent. But in addition to that, we did add a study that you might be referring to, on the very bottom of that Page 1 that you're referring to, Line 29. It begins the paragraph where the TCEQ is to conduct the study to the surcharge. It gives enough time that there's some operational data. In other words, it let's the plant get going. It gives us some history on what's coming in. How much is being made. And by December 1, 2016, then that review is to be given to the legislature so that we can see if any what adjustments if any can be made to that surcharge, to see if 20 percent may be adequate or if it needs to go up or it needs to go down in line of reality.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And the reason I asked was I was under the impression that the trigger would kind of be an adopt, as opposed to something that requires legislative consent. Or the passage of legislation to change that surcharge. I was under the impression that we could give the commission the opportunity to float the rate up in the event that that study came in because one of the things that I think makes people uncomfortable is a potential profit margin, at least that's what we hear about and I've read about lately. And so the idea that you would be able to float the surcharge up in the event that this study determines that our charges are too low or are not in keeping with what other facilities have done, as opposed to just having to come back and work through a Session and pass the bill and work through the lobby and all those kind of things. As opposed to us having to raise the rate, letting somebody else raise the rate and we can come in and say, we think the rate is too high or it would take a legislative action to overturn the commission rate setting authority.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: You know, I think, Chairman, for me, I think that would not be a good idea. I think it's best for this body to make the decisions on what the surcharge ought to be, based on the circumstances that we have. You know, the decision was made in 2003 that we ought to go this way because Texas, you more painfully know than anybody, Texas went 20 years in the wilderness after deciding to do this, spending millions of dollars, digging a hole in the ground in your District, that was, you know -- I know you felt was not appropriate. It was a nightmare for you. The people in your District did not want it. And the legislature made the decision that we wanted to go a different way and put an operator at risk. I don't think we want to put an operator at risk, ask people to put in $100 million, put something that's afloat that's totally up to the bureaucracy and not up to this legislature to decide. A number of Amendments were put in the Senate. And as you know, this was unanimously adopted in the Senate. And one thing that they decided is that it ought to be a higher surcharge, but that 120 percent on what we know now. We don't have any history on this, is where we ought to start. And then when -- as I said, there are several hundred million dollars invested in this, and as maybe some of that gets paid off, Chairman Hildebran said, let's take a look at it. Let's give them five years. Let's take a look at this thing. We ought to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I agree. I like the review. The issue that I have is this has the potential to turn into the Lobbyist Full Employment Act in the event that whenever we look at that rate. It would take a statute to change the rate. And it seems to me that it's easier to have the legislature veto a rate as opposed to having to come in and having an argument about it on a regular basis of what is the rate going to be. That was the same argument, for example, that was used, you know, the legislature no longer spent directly the tuition rate. The legislature no longer statutorily sets a lot of the rates. Now, we defer to the agencies as a routine matter of business or a routine practice. We defer to the agencies and if we don't like what the agencies are doing at that point, we come in and say no, you're not going to do that. As opposed to saying, from the starting gate, you can't do this unless we give you permission.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Chairman. I think that will be extraordinarily complex thing to do. Certainly if we're going to do something like that, I think that would require hearings and people to come in and testify how that could be done, how the TCEQ could do that, if it could. And I think it would be improve dent to do it. I might mention, also, Chairman another thing: The original bill, as I said had the five percent surcharge. The Senate had a 20 percent surcharge.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: But the money didn't go up --

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I understand that. But what I'm saying is that for example in the insurance industry, they bring in their premiums and their rate and that's how the rate information is adjusted. What I would suggest is that if somebody is making more than a 50 percent profit margin or a of percent profit margin or a 70 percent profit margin, then obviously our surcharge is way too low. And so the opportunity to do that and put in a trigger that says if you're making more than a percent profit, you've got to do better by the State of Texas and you've got to do better by the taxpayers of Texas. So it seems to me that that would be a very simple thing to --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Shields raises a Point of Order. The time period has expired. Representative Lewis sends up an Amendment as amended. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Farrar for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Madame Speaker and Members. In the east gallery we have a terrific group of kids. It's the entire fourth grade class from Travis Elementary in Houston. It's located in Houston's historic Woodland Heights. They are a Vanguard Program and they attract all kind of gifted and talented students. They also have a kindergarten outdoor learning center that keeps kids, gets them hooked and keeps them hooked on school. If you will stand and be recognized. We want to thank you parents and Ms. Walker, your principal, Leslie Baugh, you're PTA President. Thank you all for making this a possibility every year. We're delighted to have you all. Welcome to your Capitol.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Hildebran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Madame Speaker. Members. I'm a member of the State Affairs Committee. I've been working with Representative Lewis on this issue, and I really appreciate the hard work he's put on it. He's been as always when he does his work is very thoughtful and considerate. He put the language in his Floor Amendment dealing with the review and analysis of the financial conditions at my request when I voted for the bill to come out of Committee. And however, I'm just not sure that we've done enough. I'm concerned that we don't have specific enough language to protect the state interest in that if I agree with the five years, if we come back and look at it right now, it's 20 percent. And I'm proposing in this Amendment that we consider if there are their margin exceeds 30 percent, that that triggers what the surcharge is going up. And what I'd like to do is have a discussion with Mr. Lewis on it, and if can persuade me that he's covered this issue sufficiently, I'm open to that discussion. But at this point in the debate, I'm not there yet so I'd like to have a dialogue with you about that.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Driver, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: I'd like to ask the gentleman a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: The surcharge that you're talking about -- what is it applied to?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: To the out-of-state waste. See, what we have now under current law is we have only waste coming from two states that are in the Compact.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: And us. We're opening up the waste site to the rest of the country, and we're not only opening it up to new waste, we're opening it from other states. We're opening it up to hire level waste. And I think --

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Higher level being higher level radioactive?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Exactly. And so what I'm wanting to make sure is if it's hard to predict the future, what happens, and I want to make sure that if we have new costs that we're not anticipating now, we have the money to cover that. I also want to make sure that if this things -- these investors have made tremendous investment of time and energy and money and I appreciate that and I don't knock them for that. But I just want to make sure that we have the ability for that surcharge to go up in time, if in fact, and only, in fact, their financial condition prospers much more than is anticipated in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Is this 20 percent of the entire gross receipts?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Do you have an answer? Yeah, ask him that. And really, I'd like to have a dialogue with him about it because he may persuade us and assure us that he's got the right language in here. But I'm concerned. You know, these bills, we passed a bill and we may get another bite at the apple, but as you know, Members, it is difficult to change things in the future. And we're on the ground floor now and I want to make sure that we get it right now. So I would welcome Mr. Lewis to rebut me.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Well, before Chairman Hildebran yields microphone, just a quick question or two.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: All you're looking for is that the taxpayers of Texas who are partners in this facility that, we get the best financial deal that we can negotiate on their behalf, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes. Basically, the Amendment adds a trigger to the WCS is making more than 30 percent, the surcharge goes up to make sure that it escalates as is appropriate. And it does not specify how much the increase will be. The TCEQ will have the authority to set that amount and it will not cut into the WCS's ability to make a profit. We want them to get a return and a profit. And it will not go into effect unless there is a 30-percent margin.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Well, Chairman Hildebran, you're Chairman of Ways & Means, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: So you've heard quite a bit about our tax system and you're hearing quite a bit of our shortfall. What you're trying to do is ensure that we don't pass something that later people are going to say, you gave away the store. You didn't get the state their fair share; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yeah, I want to make sure we get our fair share and that it's not frozen in some number. And if it turns out that certain circumstances are different than we anticipated, I want to make sure that we have the ability to escalate our part of it.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: I think you have a good Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Members. Now, you know, it's kind the kind of thing, I haven't seen this before now and I haven't had an opportunity to talk to Chairman Hildebran about this, but I can tell you what's wrong with it. In 2003, the decision was made that we would go down a route. That we would ask an operator -- well, actually we would ask that this facility have minimum applications from different operators. And one operator actually applied, and they had to put in all the money. They had to put in over $200 million, my county had to do a bond issue of $75 million to get this facility open. The State of Texas decided after having tried to do this for 20 years, the state wouldn't put out the money. That the facility operator would put out the money. And so this facility operator at totally their risk, has put several hundred million dollars into this facility, and for us to now come in and say, after having gone through all this, well, what we're going to do is, we're going to have a regulated rate of return on this.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Driver, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: I want to ask him A QUESTION.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Joe, could I just finish?

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: To now change the game plan and do that, I think is very imprudent. I don't know what their rate-of-return is. I don't know if it will be good or bad. I don't know if they'll lose their shirts or they'll make some. But I do know that we're profiting from this, we're getting a surgeon this, and we have decided in, surcharge on this, in the rate applications. And in the law we put, we put a charge on the facility operator, and it would be, basically, a ten percent charge on their gross receipts. And now, when they're ready to open, we're saying, well, you know, come to think of it, you put a couple hundred million dollars in this, now we're going to make the charge everything you make except percent. I think that this is wrong. I think it changes the deal, and I do move to table, and I'll take questions have.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Thank you, Madame Speaker. Representative Lewis, a minute ago you said that the 20 percent or whatever we settle on was on the entire gross receipts S that --

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: No. That's not right.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: I think that's what you just said.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: I'm sorry. If I said that, then I misspoke. Ten percent is a gross receipts charge, is a gross on the facility operator. That's ten percent of anything from any source. In addition to that, from out-of-state waste, the SB, the bill that's before us, has a percent surcharge on top of that, but only on out-of-state waste.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Okay. So we're not talking about 20 percent of the entire gross receipts, which would be a better return for the State of Texas? That's what you're saying?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: We're talking about -- not of all the gross receipts. It's not 20 percent. The 20 percent surcharge is not on income or income tax waste. It's the 20 percent surcharge is on waste that comes from other states that aren't in the Compact.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: So I'm trying to find out is: Is it on the entire gross receipts 1234.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: No. No. It's not on the entire gross receipts. It's only on the contract for out-of-state waste disposal.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: The State of Texas would make considerably more if it was on the entire gross receipts, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: You know, you think maybe not, Joe. Maybe not at all. And I'll tell you why. When they did this substitute I on the percent, it was five percent was the first bill and then the SB came in with 20. And when the LBD looked at those numbers, you had a four fold increase in the surcharge, but the income only doubled. So it's kind of like the curve, you think we can just raise taxes and raise taxes and charge more and more and we'll get proportionately more. There is a point that declines so I'm not sure that I can say that that's right. People will say, well, they've been waiting for us to do something. People have been storing this waste here in Austin in San Antonio. In Dallas have at these sites, and there's a point that they'll just say, we can store it 20 years, waiting for Texas? We'll just store it another 20 and you can worry in your towns about that waste.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Right. I understand. But I just think the State of Texas could do better on the deal. Maybe that's what Representative Hildebran is trying to get at. Let me ask you a question quick question and I'll let some of these other guys talk. If an accident occurs at this facility or if something happens at this facility, be it next year, five years from now, ten years from now, we as Texans or we as taxpayers -- don't we incur all of the liability that goes into this clean up?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: No, sir. No, sir. That's not right at all. Had we done it ourselves, as we originally planned to do, that would have been true. But under the contracts and under the license granted, all of that liability is on the facility operator, and to assure that, before the days, I think it is, before the first bit of waste is placed in that disposal facility, the operator has to put up $136 million's worth of financial assurance, and then continue, I think it's either 7 to $9 million, every year thereafter, and Chair. And Chairman Oliveira has a very good idea that we really need to do. And even that needs to be study I had and by the next time this legislature meets, a study on even the adequacy of that amount. And that amount came from an independent third-party study from the TCEQ.

REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Because of this way of doing it, we're not at risk. WCS just doesn't have the money up.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Madame Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: I'd be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Representative Lewis you're aware that I was intimately involved in this bill in 2003, not that I went looking for it or asking for it but I was.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: I'm aware of that, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: In regard to the Hildebran Amendment, would it be fair to point out to the membership that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent as private investment into an opportunity for the State of Texas to safely store waste?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And the Hildebran Amendment and by bonds quoted by Andrews County, which I believe you Representative, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And I believe it's a county who repeatedly I agree and until today is excited about this had project and in opportunity to this county?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Correct. And as they always say to me, it's not just us. We think it's good for us and it's good for this country. We've got a place we're happy to have it.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I guess in respect to the Hildebran Amendment, a concern that I think is important. Is that hundreds of millions have already been put into this project and what has the return been?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Zero.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Zero. So while we're all pumped up and worried about capping and deciding what percent we should take away from these folks who have already put hundreds of millions into a private project that actually solved a problem that the state themselves would have been forced to solve and they, in turn, take the liability. We're more worried about, instead of making sure this is successfully done and the waste is taken out of every community hospital in the State of Texas and put into a place where they want it, we should maybe consider that we need to first see this be successful before we get too excited about taking their profits away from them?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate your comments and appreciate your previous work and I agree to get this done.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Madame Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Chairman, would you be happy to yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: I'd be happy to yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Judge Lewis, I heard that this bill came out of the Senate unanimously. I am confident that this body is going to pass a version of this bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises a Point of Order. The gentleman's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: I just need to finish this one question, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The first suspension is done. Is there an objection?

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I'm saying to you, judge, in the way I see this Amendment. We have other industries in Texas where the state is a partner, and that we want the industry to be strong and solvent and we take into account their costs, we take into account their losses, their premiums. But we say, but you need to have a fair charge. And in this case, you know, the residents both of Andrews County, and as the state of the whole are your partners in this. This is our site. We're offering the company a monopoly, in other words. It's going to be the only nuclear dump site in the state, is that true? .

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: It's the only low level radioactive waste site. And again, by law, it was opened up for applications, companies to make applications. I think this was the only company that actually made an application, and so it's the only low level waste site that we have, yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: I understand, and I agree, and I think that's fine. But what I guess -- but what I understand here is that Chairman Hildebran is saying we think that you should have a reasonable profit margin, and that if your profit margin is succeeding 30 percent, then you should look at increasing your surcharges. I believe that's the only thing he's saying so that the state can end up sharing more of the profit. I don't know. Do you find that unreasonable?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: You know, I do. I do very much. It's not what we set out to do originally. We're letting these people take all of the risks. I don't know if they'll make a dime. I don't know if they'll make a dollar. $10 million. $100 million. I don't know what they'll make or if they'll lose money. But I do know for us to come in and say we want 20 percent surcharge. We want ten percent of your gross receipts on what we know right now, you know, that's reasonable, and I don't think before they even opened the door doors to say we're going to all of a sudden, after eight years here, we're going to change all the ground rules and change it to a cost plus operation. I think it's totally unreasonable. It's totally unfair, and I just don't think we ought to get into that. You know, every day, there are contracts entered into with university lands to drill oil wells. And there's a set royalty. And we don't sit there and say, well, you know, you did a little bit better than we thought. We're going to regulate what you're costs are and regulate how many barrels you're producing and we're going to change the deal that we made. I don't think that's a good idea. That's why I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Judge Lewis, there's two estimates on capacity today, is that not correct? On the Andrews Radioactive Waste Facility in one by the TCEQ and one by the Compact Commission? Is that correct, Judge?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: This on this particular Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: I'm just asking you. My understanding is that the two studies are showing that there's going to be much, much business, a lot of waste out there that's necessary for. And so when you say you don't know if they're going to make a profit. I think in Committee you testified that there was waste all around the state that was waiting to go to this particular site. Is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: There is waste that's been waiting a long time to go into that facility, just like any other state, the waste in any particular one state is not enough to have a viable robust facility. You have to have any facility out there is going to have waste coming in from other states.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: You talk about the viability being all on the one company. Isn't the long term liability really lie with the citizens of Texas with what ends up really happening with the radioactive waste?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: No.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Really?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: No. Under the contracts that we have, if the facility operator has to take all risks, has to put up financial assurance for the entire risk that's out there, and in addition to that, and that's the $136 million, I think is the number to open the facility, and then in addition to that, Chairman Oliveira has requested and we put in a bill, a study to make sure that that is sufficient. That amount was set by third-party, research deal hired by TCEQ. I might say it's also consistent with what South Carolina, they hired a third-party and they came in with $140 million was their estimate.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: So, Judge, the $136 million, you said it was some kind of self insurance of some kind?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: It's in a Financial Assurance Package that's negotiated between TCEQ and the facility operator within their permits application.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: What happens if there's something that causes the liability to go above the 136? Who's responsible at that point?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Well, TCEQ adjusts it. It's always the operator of the facility is always on the hook for any expenses. They are the ultimate party who's responsible, is the facility operator.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Simpson.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Simpson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: To ask a few questions.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Lewis, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Sure. I don't know if this is on this Amendment or --

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Well, it relates to it with respect to the risk that you're saying. If it was truly a free market, I want to be opposed to them making as much money as they could make, but this is really akin to a utility, is it not? Where we're regulating and choosing who's going to have the market?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: In part, David. Here's how this comes out. As far as in state generators, and when I say in-state, I always mean Vermont, as well as Texas, it is in a sense similar and there's a regulated rate for them. So if you're in the Compact, if your Texas or Vermont, the TCEQ sets a rate, and of course that will have a rate-of-return in it. And they'll have an amount, a maximum amount that the facility operator can charge. So it is a regulated rate. The only rate that's not regulated and that is not fixed is what out of state people pay, and that's just a pure contract. They don't have to use this facility. They're not required to. The facility operator is not required to take their waste for disposal. It's purely an arm's length negotiations between the two. And so that's not a regulated rate. The in-state is a regular date regulated rate, and in-state, it is similar in that sense, similar to a utility, that there is a regulated rate set by the TCEQ. And there will be a set rate-of-return on that. There will be a rate-of-return just like there would be, when they decide what the rate is going to be. One thing this bill does, David, about that, is since there's going to be income coming in from outside the state, as well, the generators, meaning the people who are generating waste in the State of Texas, and the facility operator and TCEQ, have looked at this. And what this bill does, it does not allow the facility operator to re-coupe some of those costs that would normally be allowed to be please placed in getting the rates. They can't do that because there's going to be some outside money.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Just quickly, let's go back to the risk.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: What if the operator goes bankrupt? What if the insurance claim is not sufficient? I mean, the insurance is not sufficient to cover the damage that occurs to the environment? Who's responsible then?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: That's the reason that the financial assurance money is up before they can ever take the first scrap. And that amount is the entire amount that a third-party decided would be the risk. It's the $136 million. And that's before they take any. The study that Chairman Oliveira had mentioned we should do will be ready in a year. And in that time only 50,000 cubic feet can be accepted. That's two percent of the site can be accepted from out-of-state waste. So we will have a study in addition to that, before this legislature meets again. So we're well protected on financial assurance, but I think that Chairman Oliveira was exactly right. We need to keep studying this and updating this. But the 136 million is before we start.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Who ultimately owns the radioactive waste?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Under Federal law, it is the Federal Government or a state must take a title to all waste ultimately.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: So ultimately the state is titled to this, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: And so the ultimate liability is with the state; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes. And that's true whether the state had decided to go ahead and do this, as the original plan, or if they would hire a facility -- if they would contract with the a facility operator to do it. Either way.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: And my concern is that we're separating the ultimate liability from the responsibility of the operator, and its process. It all ought to go together. Whoever has the process -- they ought to be able to make as much as they want. But they also should be responsible for the risk as much as that is. And if we believe that the state, there should be a floor as far as what would be a minimum amount to get into their fine. But right now there's a seal as to how much they're ultimately responsible for. And so that's my concern about why it probably is appropriate if we're going to proceed in the manner that we are doing, that there would be a cap. So they would be treat more like a can utility. Would you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: No. I think under present law, the facility operator is obligated for all of the expenses. Everything. And has to put up financial assurance for all of the circumstances that the TCEQ finds is foreseeable to do that, to make sure that it's done, regardless of what happens to the operator in the future.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: And, again, I emphasize: If this were not the mechanism, it would be Texas, our money at risk, and I have moved to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises the Point of Order. Gentleman, your time has expired. The Point of Order is well taken. The Chair recognizes Representative Hildebran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Mr. Lewis talked about that we're changing things after the company has made the investments and done all these things. Well, yeah, we're changing things have we're allowing waste that was never intended to come into this site to come into this site. We're changing things to have them take more waste than they ever been allowed. Instead of just from two states and the State of Texas, we're allowing it to dump in from all over the country. So yeah, we're changing things and this is the appropriate time to change some of the terms of the deal, too, when we're changing the deal to allow them to bring in more waste and do better. The bottom line is this is a regulated entity and I'm only asking that the margin which most regulated industries make around ten percent, what they're allowed to make under the regulatory system, somewhere around ten percent. Sometimes it's eight. Sometimes it's 11. Appraisal is it 15 percent, and we're allowing them to make twice that before the commission can consider raising the surcharge. I think that's reasonable and something we ought to consider. I do think that I would like to keep working with Mr. Lewis to fine tune this because he does raise some issues and it is it's a complicated matter. But, again, this is a regulated industry and we have a stake in this as all Texans. So I'd ask you to vote not to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to ask the question of Chairman Hildebran before he left the podium.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Hildebran, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Hildebran, you were here in the year 2003 when the legislature passed, correct? And the author of the bill was not? In 2003, my memory of the legislative history is there was an exemption for exemption situations where we might go beyond the intended national Compact legislation and we might at some point want to be able to accept more waste than just from Vermont and then Maine and Texas. But now, as you say, one of the reasons this bill is moving forward this Session is they want to change and put into statute, such that they can take from as many as 36, 38 states. And so what you're trying to is if we're going to increase our risk, and, in fact, the true answer about risk is we absorb and assume all the risk at any time that the company goes under, we assume all risk for management, et cetera. All you're saying is we should make sure the State of Texas is getting what it should get to cover those risks under the change circumstances that the company is asking for today?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: That's correct. Thank you, very much.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman yields.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does Chairman Hildebran yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Chairman Hildebran, are you familiar that with the state of South Carolina, we heard earlier about that example, that they set their rates for imported waste, and the maximum return for the state, South Carolina gets 71 percent of the profit off imported waste. Were you familiar with that?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: I am.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: So they give the dump-off rate or operating costs and 29 percent of the return. So the Andrews County Waste Dump is a state-owned facility, is it not?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: As I understand, yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: So it's going to be leased to WCS, the operator, you're saying is they should get their operating of operating cost and a percent return, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: And so at the end, the State of Texas gets stuck with the waste and the liability, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDEBRAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hildebran sends up an Amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Lewis voting aye. Representative Hildebran voting no. Show Representative Gerren voting aye. Excuse Representative Hunter because of Committee business. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. Have all voted. There being 87 ayes and 56 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following Amendment. Clerk read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This Amendment is an Amendment regarding transportation, and it asks the Commission to work with TxDOT to conduct a study to determining the impact on transportation and public safety, public health of importing waste from non-party state generators. It essentially asks the Commission to work with TxDOT in combination with hospitals and first responders and essentially the interest groups and Members of the public to make some implementations regarding what to do if there's accidents or spills along the anticipated transportation route. The idea is to have some designated routes to look at the adequacy of the emergency preparedness to respond to those accidents or spills. And to look at the potential costs of the clean up and potential compensation of property owners so that in the event anything ever happens we don't look back and say, you know, why weren't we ready. This is kind of a proactive approach ahead of time to make sure that we have the information that we need to have. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to my friend from --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Does the Chairman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Pete, I know you're aware under transportation of hazardous and these kind of products that the Federal Highway Department has jurisdiction and not TxDOT.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Well, they have jurisdiction on federal highways, but not state highways.

REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Well, they have the money, and they make the regulations, so I'm fine with working with TxDOT doing this kind of thing. But, you know, I don't think we have very much we can do about it, and I understand there's $150 million in place that will be for any kind of clean up or accident that might happen. And before the facility opens, there will be $200 million in place to do that --

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm not sure that it's that much, Mr. Chisum. But regardless, one of the issues, potentially most of the waste may not be an issue, if it's solid, if, but there may be some others. Frankly, I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Well, I don't disagree that, Pete, but we're not transporting liquid waste. We're transporting dry waste and it's in some kind of container, it's in some kind of condition before it leaves and it's regulated by DOT and, you know, I don't like to just continue to deregulate. But if the judge figures it's okay to talk to TxDOT about it, I think you'd find out that TxDOT would explain to you that they don't have very much jurisdiction over it.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I understand the Federal Government has preemptive authority over the state government. But I will tell you it's incumbent on the state to tick take the steps to make sure it's ready in case something happens. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't expect anything bad to happen, but I always think, as I indicated, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Would the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield to my friend from San Antonio.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned transportation as one location to where it's going to be buried. Will that transportation be through rail or with trucks?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Typically, there's two ways to transport waste. I mean, one of them is on the highway and one of them is by rail or a combination thereof. But that's usually the most common way that this is transported. And I would think most of it, the easiest way to get into that neighborhood, for example, would be through the Interstate system, but then you'd have to get off on some state highways in order to finish the journey. And so, again, my effort is just to have TxDOT in the loop, and working to make sure that the local communities are ready in the event that there is some HAZMAT -- I will tell you if there is some HAZMAT thing, Alpine and Martha and Port Davis communities would be fairly well stretched. I mean, we have some maintenance and Port Authority people that are pretty well trained at their jobs. But in terms of the resources, training and those types of things, we may not be fully where we need to be. And this Amendment seeks to make sure that the communities on the route are ready and we know they're ready in the event anything ever happens.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm asking you is I worry about the state decides -- you know, everybody's been talking about the surcharges and the moneys to the state.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: But I worry about our waterways and my background is in power generation. So I'm more familiar with power plants and also the purification of water, which is used in the deminerilizers. And in those deminerilizers they use what they call resin, and there's little bitty beads that they use to purify the water to get all the contaminants out before it's use in the turbines.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: It helps the contaminants coagulate.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: It clears and purifies the water.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: And my concern is, they have to change those vats out every so often after they've been used for some time, they have to change out that resin and they put them in these barrels. My biggest concern is these barrels, when they remove that resin, it's wet. It's not dry because it comes right out of where they're at. But and I'm not familiar on the nuclear side, but on the gas and the coal side, we don't have dry it. It comes out of there and it's put in barrels, it's not hazardous waste, but we dispose of it in a way of safety manner. My concern is if they're transporting these barrels with this resin, and they happen to have a derailment or an accident with a vehicle near a water way on the way to their destination, that they open those contaminants will get into our waterways. And then people in the rural communities use that water to either provide water for their animals and/or for agriculture. And I think that would create a great hazard to our environment. And the other part of it is: Are you familiar with whether the volunteer fire systems or companies -- are they equipped to deal with HAZMAT spills in your community?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: That's the challenge. Right now volunteer fire departments are very stressed, and frankly, we don't have the volunteers, as our population has shrunk out more in Texas. We don't have the kind of volunteers, the numbers of volunteers that we used to have. And so there's some challenges that we used to. That's one of the planning processes. That's one of the things I would need to look at in the study, to make sure that people are actually ready. I will tell you that in my lifetime, as you know, you've been to Alpine, and you know that there is a railroad track through the middle of town. And in my lifetime there have been several derailments right through the middle of town. I mean, a couple of car loads of Zest soap, where we all smelled clean for a month, even as the cars of Zest became derailed. Or different other things. So it happens. I would hate for something along the lines of something more hazardous to derail and not be ready for that.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Well, just an FYI -- in Bexar County, we had a derailment of chlorine gas and I've had the privilege or not privilege of working with chlorine gas and been trained in working with it.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Special training is required and most people don't have that and most volunteer fire departments don't have that. There may be one or two individuals in each department who are ready to train the rest. But for me, that is exactly why I would like the opportunity to study this issue and to ask the Commission and to work with TxDOT on what are the implications of transporting this waste from one site? Because we're literally going across the state. None of it is really generated in the West Texas neighborhood, but it's all going to be brought into the West Texas neighborhood. So that transportation, I think --

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Are you familiar with the equipment that has to be worn whenever they handle any kind of materials, such as hazardous waste? Radioactive waste? Are you familiar with how they dress? What they wear, just to handle it? Handle the barrels?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely. I would think there's some pretty significant -- depending on what the material is, and depending on whether it's gas or what form, you have to be ready for it. And it is a complicated, many times. It is a complicated business.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Well, I'm sure that the folks that will be at the facility will be prepared to handle it. My concern is between there and where it's coming from.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: For me, that's what this Amendment is aimed at and geared at, is you have the generator over here and you have the disposal facility over here. And so the question is what happens in between? I think is the question. And so this is an opportunity for TxDOT to work with and to make sure that the health and safety of the citizens of Texas, all through the state, and throughout all of these routes is protected.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Very simple and straightforward.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Thank you for your patience. I have worked around some pretty tough stuff, and I know what we're dealing with here and I appreciate your Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you Mr. Farias. I appreciate that.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you very. First of all this transportation. This is the kind of issue that came up in a brief, I'm sure when this facility was going to be discussed. Transportation is a matter that is not really a very big issue with regard to this. I have had the opportunity to talk to the TxDOT, TCEQ, Department of Health Services about this. Transportation of this material is heavily regulate bid the Federal Government. It's regulated by the Regulatory Authority, the United States Department of Transportation. They have containers. This is solid waste, non-corrosive low level, again, low level stuff. And so it may have containers and that you have to run a locomotive in it, as it's described to me. It's just going to dent it. It doesn't destroy the integrity. If there were a spill, they'd get a backhoe and they'd load it up.

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gerren, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: Would Judge Lewis yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes, sir, I will. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: Judge Lewis, is it true that the liability for the waste is not on the state or on the operator of the Andrews facility until the waste gets to the Andrews facility? Is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: That's correct, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: The liability is on the person that is shipping the waste and it is heavily insured as well as very heavily regulated? Is that also true?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes, sir. Everyone who ships has to be bonded, and that's the Federal Government requirements.

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: So the state is not liability and the operator of the facility is not liable until the waste actually is stored at Andrews County; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes, sir. That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE GERREN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: And I move to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to close.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Let me make three quick points. The first is we're not talking in terms of liability here. We're talking in terms of preparedness. Who pays for the spill is not the issue. The question is: Should we be ready for the spill? Let's not worry about liability and who's paying for it. Let's worry about our first responders and who's going to be responding and are they prepared to do that? That's what this Amendment does is making sure that we're ready in the event that something happens. It has nothing to do with liability and, in fact, that's not really an issue for me. The issue at this point has to do with if you think about this, before this bill, I mean, the theory was that there would be 4500 trucks of waste per year that would come to these facilities, and that was essentially just was Compact Waste. That was two states, that was Texas and Vermont. We're not doing two states anymore under this proposal. We're opening it up for other states, as well. And so if you were doing 4500 truck loads at two states, just think how many truck loads you're going to have as a result of opening it up to other states? So the truth is, that the waste will be coming through some of our larger cities, and it will also be going through some of our smaller towns. And if it was appropriate to analyze transportation impact when we were talking only about Texas and Vermont, we were talking only about those two Compact states, why shouldn't we do the same for non-party waste that will go through many more communities as it travels through this facility? Bringing in radioactive waste from all over the country is going to require a lot more shipping by trucks. A lot more shipping by train. And it's important that we be ready. The last point: A study, working with TxDOT in consultation with hospitals and first responders and the public to consider and make recommendations about spills and accidents and anticipated transportation routes. What's wrong with having a study to make sure that we are ready? That our emergency preparedness is adequate to meet the challenge? The task at hand? That we're ready, willing and able to respond to accidents and spills along anticipated routes? That's what this Amendment does and I urge you to vote no on the motion table.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Representative Gallego, I appreciate the distinction that you made early in your comments about we're not talking about who's going to pay, we're going to talk about how we deal with an accident.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Oh, absolutely. This is not an issue of liability. I mean, I can tell as I look at the faces out of my fellow Members about where this Amendment is going. But I will tell you: This is not an issue of liability. This is an issue of preparedness. Of just making sure that: Forget who's paying for it. Are we ready to handle the challenge? That's all this Amendment deals with.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: And so it's your second point that since we are radically changing the legislation that was established in 2003, where we were only going to have waste were little old Vermont and Texas and 98 percent of the waste generated in Texas comes from two locations.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Not in Corbin --

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: My second point was: If you were going to study and it was worth studying the transportation system when we had two states, what happens when you add 48. We're now up to 50. And if we studied it at two and it was appropriate to study it at two, then it's really appropriate to study it when it's 50.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: And did you make the point that all that is reserved right now for transportation issues is a half million dollars?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: That's my understanding. That's when Mr. Chisum offered of a question up earlier, I thought his numbers were a little off. It's my understanding that it's much less than the numbers that he gave. But, again, this is a worthwhile study. It's proactive. It gives a level of comfort to, you know, the Police Chief s and the mayors and the county judges, up and down those highways, who in the event something happens, will be the folks who will be dealing with it.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: And the study won't delay anything? It will be internalized and it will simply be a way of finding out what's going on?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Well, I hope it fares better than some of the other studies this Session.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield to another one of my fellow Texans.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Gallego, I'm looking at your Amendment, and I'm just wondering what's wrong with it. I don't understand why we wouldn't do this? Because the community that I live in is on two Interstate highways if you envision a situation which is highly unlikely. But if an two 18-wheelers collide and one of those 18-wheelers happens to be carrying this low-level waste, we can say, yeah, it's low-level waste. But still, if we did have a low-level waste spill on, for instance, Interstate 40, there's houses, 100 feet away from the Interstate there. Now, if I live in one of those houses and my child lives in that House, you know, it doesn't help a lot just to call it, well, it's just low-level nuclear waste. I want to know if that's going to pose a safety problem. And so your Amendment, as I read it, only deals with studying this and seeing that if this worse-case scenario does happen, are we adequately prepared, under the Federal Rules and the Federal Guidelines, are we still unprepared to deal with this and to have some plan in place?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I agree with that. I will tell you on the one hand, we've often argued about how we don't like what the Federal Government does and we're a sovereign state and we should do our own thing. On the other hand, the argument a few minutes ago was, well, the Federal Government already does this. I will tell you that whether the Federal Government already does it or not, it pays. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should be ready in our own right.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Here's my question: Even though the Federal Government may have rules and guidelines in place, shouldn't we be looking at those rules and guidelines to see if they're adequate to protect our citizens?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely. Absolutely. Because those rules, you know, first responders, whether they're EMS or Fire Department, those people who are going to be handling that call or that 18-wheeler and that accident, they need to be prepared and we need to make sure they're prepared and we gotta know where the fault lines are. Where the kinks are in the armor of Texas. So I think that is the important part of this study. And I agree with you. I don't see anything wrong with this idea. I think frankly, this is a commonsense approach. You'd want to know it as a business decision. If this was a business decision, you'd want to know what the risks were and you'd want to know as you prepared, as you embarked on a new venture. And that's what this does. It helps you know as if you're prepared, as you embark on a new venture.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Members, I appreciate the time, and I really urge you to read the Amendment, to think about it very closely, and to vote no on the notion to table because this study, I this is tremendously important in the long term.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gallego sends up an Amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye. Vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Lewis voting aye. Representative Gallego voting no. Have all voted? Being 81 ayes and 61 nays, the motion table prevails.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: I raise a Point of Order against any further consideration on any SB, and it's the same as before, Section IV, Section 32 is the same as before, C is the same as before, but now we're talking about 3.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Bring your Point of Order down front.

(Point of Order).

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Legler.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Legler. The Amendment's withdrawn. The following Amendment. The clerk read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, you know this bill already has a study that has a date, December 1st of 2012, when it has to report to the House and the Senate. All this Amendment does is to require that the study that's in place already, that it is finished before any non-party waste is imported into the State of Texas. And the reason that I'm asking for this is because I'm concerned. I believe the TCEQ study originally said that we need 2.5 originally to receive for our reactors and our nuclear waste. I also believe that the Texas Compact Commission said that we need 6 million feet of capacity for the waste from Texas and Vermont. So I'm concerned that we don't have the percent capacity for the out of Compact generators. And so my concern is that before we start importing any out of Compact Waste, that we actually know what we have and I think that, you know, the study is already in the bill. It doesn't add a study. It doesn't add any costs. And I think by doing this, we're really being judicious. I think that in doing this we can hopefully eliminate any kind of liabilities. And so I'm offering this Amendment to Judge Lewis. We discussed this in Committee. I haven't discussed this with him recently but I want to make sure that everyone understands that the study is already in place. We're not adding it. The Amendment simply says that since we need to make sure that the site takes care of our own waste first. And since two previous estimates show that there's not enough space for the waste, that we need to update our estimates to make sure that there's enough space before we let the companies start selling our capacity to the highest bidders from outside our state. And that's pretty simple. I hope the author can find it acceptable. The site is not supposed to be finished until late 2011. So I don't think that we're going to be impeding them from doing anything. They'll just be importing the waste from around the state and Vermont. So what we're saying is bring in all of the Texas waste. Bring in the Vermont waste, but before you bring in any out of the contract waste, let's see what the study says and see how much capacity we actually have. And with that, I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: I'm going to move to table this Amendment. Basically, this facility was supposed to open years ago. It's been through every vetting process one should have. As this facility got ready to open, the application for a license, it is in the license capacity of it, is far in excess of what our in state generators have told the TCEQ, told us, told the operators that they need. So there's excess capacities in, and our generators also need to be taking the out-of-state waste so that the price can be lowered to a price that they can afford to actually dispose of this waste and get it out of Dallas, get it out of Fort Worth, get it out of Austin and get it out to my District where it can be safely disposed of. I might also mention this: One of my counties, Andrews, passed a $75 million bond issue. Those bond issues have to be paid. We need this facility opened. It's ready -- it's going to be ready to open later this year. We don't need to put it off with another study. I think this is one thing that's happened to us time and time again. Every time we get it ready to study, to open, somebody says let's have another study. And for that reason, it is ready to open and I think that we should do it, and I move to table this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Judge Lewis, your kind to make motion to table. You have the votes. You don't even have to make the motion to table. But I'll close and this is how I'll close. Members, on Page 5 of the bill, on Line 259, it already says that there's a study, if you look at Line 1010, study of capacity is in the bill. It's not a new study. All we're saying is let's wait for the study to show us how much capacity we have or we don't have before we bring in out of Compact Waste. That's all. It's pretty simple. We're not stopping them from bringing in the waste from Texas or Vermont. We're just saying don't import any out of Compact Waste. This is our facility as a state, and we'd like to make sure we get in all our waste in first before we make sure how much waste we can bring in. And so, Members, I'd like to ask for you to stay with me and oppose the motion to table. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Menendez sends up an Amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye. Vote nay. Show Representative Lewis voting aye. Representative Menendez voting no. Show Representative Alonzo voting no. Have all voted? Being 96 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I'll make this quick: All I'm saying in this one is before we enter any contracts to receive out of Compact Waste, let's see what the study says. If we allow for contracts to start before we know how much we have, we may end up in litigation, when we say no, stop, we don't have the capacity, the study came back in. We can't take it. So all I'm saying is just wait before you sign up any contracts from out of Compact Waste. Wait to see what the study says. It's pretty simple. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: This is pretty much the same. It's another version of the same Amendment we had. In addition to that, you know, all these contracts, they have to be approved by the Compact Commission that's designed to look at the capacity. They've got to be reviewed by the TCEQ and approved. So there's ample fallback, ample way to handle this. And therefore, I move to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Menendez sends up an Amendment. Representative Lewis moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Lewis voting aye. Representative Menendez voting no. Have all voted? There being 95 ayes, 47 nays. The motion to table prevails. Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against SB 1504? The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Members. I really appreciate your listening. These are important issues and my District is ready to do this and ready to protect this. It's a good thing and I move passage of the bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to speak on the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Members, I just want to correct the record on a couple of things that have been said this afternoon. There's been a lot of misunderstandings, misrepresentations. I'm going to tell you my understanding of this bill. This bill is brought forward by someone who is going to make about a billion dollars on this project, and they are not going to incur any of the liability when they abandon this project, a dozen or years from now. Everyone of us have seen apartment complexes built and people are glad to see it built initially because they like the idea of having that housing. But as the person that owns that apartment complex loses interest in it and they maximize their profit from it, 10, 12, 15 years later, that apartment complex looks really shotty and it's poorly managed and they ultimately abandon it. Essentially, that's what we're going to see or 15 years from now and the State of Texas is going to absorb all costs of managing this waste forfeiture. I'm speaking on the bill because there's actually some good things in this bill. We've put into statutes that we won't be importing international waste. Unfortunately, we put into statute that we'll be importing waste from 36 other states, maybe 38, it's kind of unknown for sure right now. But what this does, is guaranties the irresolvable question of whether or not there will be enough room for our waste. percent of the waste made in Texas is made at the two nuclear power plants and that's our first responsibility. Our first commitment is to have set up the Compact that we did in all good faith with Vermont and Maine. Maine has withdrawn from the Compact. Vermont only has one nuclear power facility. That represents about 98 percent of the waste for their state. So we know that we can take care of what we are responsible. That's the reason the Compact Legislation was set up by Congress over 20 years ago. We are meeting our responsibilities. What we're doing with this bill today is we are guaranteeing, and you could have voted for Chairman Hildebran's Amendment and that would have rectified some of the financial issues a little bit, but we didn't vote for that. What we're doing is guaranteeing an incredible rate-of-return for somebody who is taking the risk and the front-end investments but they have none of the risk at the back end. You know, I'm going to vote against the bill. I'm not asking anybody else to vote against the bill. I think it represents some progress, but fundamentally, what it represents is the biggest park bill project in history because we've guaranteed to this monopoly because we've set up such a huge rate-of-return.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Chisum in favor of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and Members, I just want to take just a minute of your time to tell you where we've been with this project. 1981 we created the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority. It was created with your dollars, thank you if you were in Ercot, because you got money from the or you got electricity from the nuclear plants. And so if you got electricity from the nuclear plants, thank you very much for your contribution, you'll center spent $53 million. You'll have spent 30 years getting to this point. 30 years getting to this point. I think we've done a great job here today. I encourage you to vote for this bill. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I close.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB 1504. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. Record vote's been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Lewis voting aye. Have all voted? There being 108 ayes and 36 nays. SB 1504 has passed engrossment. Madame Doorkeeper.

DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Senate of the Door of the House.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Go ahead messenger.

MESSENGER: Messenger. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to the inform the house that the Senate has taken the following --

(Brief recess taken.)

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Earlier I was asking a series of questions about bringing up bills from the Senate and wanted to clarify for him. I think that he was having a hard time understanding the question so I wanted to just go ahead and ask it again. If a SB is referred to a House Committee on Friday, could it be heard in Committee on Saturday without suspending the rules?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The answer is yes, Mr. Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Okay. Could a SB be referred Saturday and still be heard and pass out of Committee on Saturday without suspending any rules?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, it could be done.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Would you have to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule to --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Not if it was kicked out in a formal meeting.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: So if a SB, let's say that the Senate is hearing a bill Thursday, if a Senate is hearing a bill on Thursday, and it is passed out of the Committee on Thursday, and then it passes the Senate on Friday, it would be possible for the bill to be heard for the first time in the House on Friday? Would that be even --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, it depends on the type of referral and the type of hearing that the Committee conducted.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Could you expand on that a little bit what you mean by the type of referral.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The time of referral.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: It depends on the time of referral?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: When the bill is referred.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Okay. So if we did have a hearing on the SB on Saturday and it was passed on Saturday, that would get it to the House Floor on Tuesday?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, there are a number of possibilities and I'd invite to you come talk to the Parliamentarian.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Let's be clear on that last question: Let's say that we had a hearing on Saturday -- because I may have been a little unclear: If the House Committee had a hearing on the SB on Saturday, I'm trying to figure out, and the bill was passed on Saturday, with would it be able to get to the House Floor by Tuesday?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, there is a possibility that could occur.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Okay. So just to be clear on what I just asked you because I know there was a series of questions, would there have to be any rules that would need to be suspended in order for a SB that is passed out of the Senate on Friday in order for it to be heard and passed out of the House to Session? There would be no rules would have to be suspended or would there have to be a Posting Rule that would need to be suspended?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, it depends on the bill and the type of hearing held by the Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: And -- okay. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: I request for the Commission on Energy Resources to meet while the House is in Session at 5:00 p.m., on 5/17/11 at 3W.15 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Energy Resources will meet at 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair calls up House Bill 716 with Senate Amendments.

CLERK: HCR 716 by Miller regarding to using a helicopter.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Speaker and Members, this is House Bill 716 that we passed earlier in the Session. It's back from the Senate. It hasn't changed much. This is a bill that would allow hunting apparel hauled from helicopters. Basically, the only Amendment they put on it is they would like to give a little more authority to Parks & Wildlife to limit those people that would be unsuitable as a gunner on the helicopter and I'm going to move to concur.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Sure, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Mr. Miller, I voted for the first bill that came out. Now is there a language in there for coyotes also?

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Yes, it's a language in there for coyotes.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Okay. Answer me the question: I think you probably know a little bit more about the outdoors than most of the Members in the Chamber, but when the Feral hog really has no natural or otherwise predator out in the wild; is that correct? Is that why they multiply so quickly?

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Well, they multiply because they have two litter per year and they have 8 to pigs per litter and some people say 8:00 to 10:00 of them live.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: What predators do they have besides man?

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Man is the biggest predator only and I'm trying to increase that predation through this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Yeah, and obviously with the growing problem that we have, that's probably --

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: That's the only major predator.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: That's probably a good idea. Now, while the pigs are -- what would they be suckling or small? While the litters are small. Will the coyotes not help? Will they not, know, see the small pigs --

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Not really because they're guarded by the herd. They have a herding instinct. So the more mature animals will put the show to the pig let's in the middle of the circle and the larger bores and sows will keep the cows at bay.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but they're becoming a problem in Fort Worth. They're becoming a problem in the larger cities. But I want to make sure is by eliminating the coyote, you're not taking away an animal that can be pray for the piglets?

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: No. They recently trapped 300 heads from the city of Irving, not too far from you.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against? The question occurs on incurring with Senate Amendment on House Bill 716. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Sheffield voting aye. Have all voted? There being 141 ayes and one nay. House Bill 716 has finally passed.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair calls up House Bill 2694 with Senate Amendments.

CLERK: HCR 2694 by Smith of Harris relating to functions of the Texas. (Inaudible)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, Members. I move to not declare with Senate Amendments and to side with a Conference Committee.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion not to declare a Senate Amendment to House Bill 2694, and to appoint a Conference Committee. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The clerk will read the following conferees. Is there a motion to instruct the Conference Committee? The Chair hears none. The clerk will read the conferees.

CLERK: House Conferees or Conference Committee on HCR 2694, Smith of Harris Chair. Bonnen. Burnam. Chisum. Gerren.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mr. Speaker, Members. Thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk about the Conference Committee on the budget. And as you know, we passed our budget in the House bill one on April the 3rd. The Senate did not pass a budget and to get it back to us until May the 5th. This has put us in a real time crunch. We've had less than a week, so far to meet in conference. But we have made really incredible progress. Your conferees working with the Senate have been able to reach consensus on almost all of the budget items, except Article 3, which is he had education, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a minute. First of all, I want to thank you all the conferees that are standing with me for their hard work. You know, when you all were home this week end, we were busy, Saturday and Sunday, and we had some guests with us, like the man in the back mic, helped us with education. As you well know, we had to make some tough choices in order to live within our means. But as we knew it would be, when we passed House Bill one out of this Chairman, that was just the beginning of the process. And the budget that we will bring back to you will be a better budget. It is better for you and better for your constituents have it will be a budget you can support when you go back home. Let me tell you a few significant changes that your conferees have already made, based on the priorities of Members of this House. As you know, House Bill one substantially cuts rates to nursing homes and your providers. None of us wanted to do this. If there's one thing that I heard since we passed House Bill one was we cannot close nursing homes. And a know a lot of you wanted to add that funding for the nursing homes and providers. The Conference Committee has added enough funding to ensure that these providers will remain open and in business for our state's most vulnerable citizens. And I know Dr. Zerwas has spent hours working in the Conference Committee and, John, I want to thank you for all your hard work. We were able to fund transportation bonds. The citizens of Texas voted on proposition 12 bonds. The Conference Committee added $65 million in debt service so we will be able to fund our transportation projects over the next two years. I want to thank you Representative Darby and Representative Turner for their hard works on these projects. And I told Mr. Sheffield yesterday that we added money to help congestion on Interstate 35 in the Temple area, and I think a lot of you who drive Interstate 35 know the problems in temple. House Bill one underfunded prison capacity and the healthcare to inmates. The Conference Committee has added $128 million in prison capacity and $150 million in healthcare to adequately fund that system. And I want to thank you Representative Turner and Otto for their hard work on this, and Representative Madden who's been involved in of course, the prison, healthcare, and Representative Shelton for being involved in that, also. And do research in a way that say significant amount of general revenue when it left this House. I know, Debbie, you've always been concerned about border security, and it continues to be a significant challenge to the State of Texas. The Conference Committee was able to boost our presence on the border with an additional $50 million in general revenue to fund Homeland Security initiatives. Members, that was one area that the introduced bill did not cut other than at one time Capitol budget items that was purchased this last biennium. But we gave an additional $50 million for that effort on Homeland Security. Members, we are only able to fund these priorities with the savings and the additional non-tax revenue items that are found in SB 1811, which will be on the floor tomorrow. The passage of SB 1811 is a vital -- is vital to completing the Conference Committee work, especially on education. Without SB 1811 we will not be able to provide the initial funds for the nursing homes, transportation, border security or our prisons. I have heard concerns on this floor about the tax speed-ups that were in the House bill, as the companion bill of 1811, SB 1811. Members, there are no tax speed-ups in SB 1811, as I bring it to the floor tomorrow. All of the tax feed ups have been removed. Likewise, some of you have expressed concerns about the suspension of the Sales Tax Holiday. My Perfecting Amendment will remove it this provision, as well. But there's a cost to take these items out. Over $1 billion of costs that we were depending on for the Sales Tax Holiday, and the speed ups. That brings me to the pending items still being considered by the Conference Committee. I think it's the top priority of the Members of this House, and that is public and private education. The House and Senate today are nearly $3.83 billion apart, just on public education, and an additional $1 billion apart on higher education. Despite these differences, we are still talking. We are still negotiating, and we have not given up that we can find a Resolution to these differences. I know the Members of this House want to fund our public schools, as they want our states to live within their means, just like we as citizens of the State of Texas have to live in our means. When we're talking about public education, we are talking about two distinct problems. The first is the amount of money and the second is how that money should be distributed. Representative Crownover and Mike Villareal, and Rick Hockberg and Representative Aycock have worked hours on trying to come up with a solution with our public schools. This morning with our Senate counterparts, they tried to hammer out a solution as to how that money will be distributed. Make no mistake: We are looking for additional revenue in order to fund education but as you know, our budget must balance have we must live within our means. We need to find additional revenue without raising taxes and without using additional money from the Rainy Day Fund. Let me give you some examples on what we're doing. SB 1811 which comes up tomorrow, which I'll side has nearly 200 Amendments, has $1.8 billion for public education. Once this bill passes, the difference between the House and the Senate will be reduced to $2 billion. Even at the Senate level of funding, we are still reducing public education funding by nearly $4 billion. We have bills which is HJR 109, which has now passed this House and is now over into the Senate. It allows the Land Commissioner to provide more money directly into the available School Fund for our schools, which will generate approximately 300 million more dollars for public education. Senator Ogden has another bill which allows the state bill to allocate $184 million from the permanent School Fund. Today, the Comptroller increased her revenue estimates by $1.2 billion. This is a significant development that reflects the Comptrollers faith in the Texas economy. This along with SB 1811 will help us finish up the work of the Conference Committee and help us close the gap on education funding. I want to assure you that your conferees are doing everything possible to reach an agreement that we live within our means, yet also provide additional funds for public education, nursing homes, prisons, border security and our highways. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to update the Members on with where we are today and hopefully before too long we'll be able to bring you a Conference Committee Report.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Villareal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: First, I want to say thank you for this update and thank you for your compliment to improving the budget. I think we still have some important steps forward to make, and other. And more accurately, we still have a long way to go. I want to just ask you a couple of questions on the education part of the budget. My understanding is that we have not finalized the difference between the Senate and the House yet?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And finalizing that, really, is going to follow the passage of SB 1811?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct. And we have to pass 1811 before we know exactly how much money we have to spend for education.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: If I heard you correctly, we have a gap between the House and the Senate of 1 billion for higher ed?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And $3.8 billion for public ed?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is right.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: So those combined, nearly $5 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: How much does SB 1811 raise?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: It raises about $2.5 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: 2.5. If you add the Comptrollers revised revenue estimate, 3.7.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We're getting closer.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: So there's still a gap, and I guess my question is: Will the Senate come down even if we pass 1811?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We are negotiating with them.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Where will the 1.24 billion in new revenue be allocated to? Will it all go to Article three or will it be spread across the other articles?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Well, Mike, last night, the conferees met and adopted all of the articles, except Article 3, which is education, and Article 9, which is kind of our clean up Article. And so we have adopted all of the articles before we received the words from the Comptroller.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: But were you anticipating? Did you finalize those articles in anticipation of a revised revenue estimate?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, we did. We anticipated some money that that she was going to revise her revenue estimates.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: What was that figure that was going to take away from the 1.2 billion and not go to Article 3?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We were estimating that 7 hundred million would be our figure from the Comptroller today.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And how much of that in articles?

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: It allows you to finalize those articles and send them to the printer?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We were anticipating using most of that for our -- for other articles.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: For other articles, okay. So about 7 hundred million?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Kind of throughout the whole budget, we were.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: So maybe half of the 1.2 billion in new revenue that the Comptroller is going to be available for Article three.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Three.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Less than half so that leaves a much wider gap.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We have to pass 1811 in order to close that gap.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And I want to help you do that.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Pardon me?

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And I want to help you do that, and I think we have -- we need to put on the table, as you know, I've held this opinion for some time, every option to mitigate the cuts to public education, the quality of our children's education from Pre-K through college. But this is not -- it appears to me we're not moving the needle. We're not even funding the Senate's budget.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know, Mike, there's still cuts. Our revenue in the State of Texas is considerably down. Even with the $1.2 billion that the Comptroller gave us today, it's still a huge decrease in the amount of money that we had the last biennium. And we are making cuts throughout our budget.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Are we using any Rainy Day Funds to mitigate the cuts to our children's education over the next two years?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We used $3.1 billion of rainy day funds for our current budget in House Bill 275 and also in House Bill 4.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And that allows us to not run out of money in this fiscal year.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That pays our bills for this fiscal year.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: That pays our bills for this fiscal year, and it prevents us from the embarrassment of not paying our bills this fiscal year?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Are we using any rainy day funds to finance the next two years?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Mike, we are not anticipating the use of any new rainy day funds for the next biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Not a single dime?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: We are not anticipating that.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Of this self replenishing fund?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: I just want to make sure.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: And let me make this clear: That not only do did the Comptroller give us $1.2 billion for available revenue for the next biennium. She also announced that she was estimating that the Rainy Day Fund would grow by 300 million.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: By 300 million. And so we'll go from about 6 hundred billion to 6.3 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Is it true that part of financing Article 2 is based on the assumption that the Federal Government is going to provide us certain waivers to our CHIP's Program and our Medicaid program that provides health insurance to children?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: And I would have to call in Dr. Zerwas if we get too deep on this. But the Commissioner of Health & Human Service has worked with us and said that he could apply for certain waivers that would save us money in our Medicaid expenses or our appropriations we have to do for Health & Human Services.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: I understand some of these waivers have already asking for flexibility on chips and Medicaid. Dr. Zerwas, is that accurate?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yeah. These really aren't new waivers. The ideas aren't necessarily new. It's just a different time and it's a time where we think that as we all know, the Federal Government is looking at ways to try to let the state create some efficiencies, which I don't think we should translate into efficiencies at the federal level.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Is it accurate that this particular waiver that we have requested of the Federal Government during the Bush Administration and been denied?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I think -- a couple of those things you're talking about. I think that one you're talking about is a Block Grant Waiver. And yes, we were denied that. Rhode Island was given a block grant and has seen a substantial reduction in the cost of their Medicaid Program without compromising services. Small pilot project, if you will, about the size of Houston, but it does give you the sense that you can make that work. The Medicaid Waiver that, perhaps, you're referring to, is a $700 million waiver that has multiple facets to it, that is intended to enhance the flexibility of the current program that we have in terms of being able to deliver the care.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And we've asked the Federal Government for that waiver once before.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: We've probably asked for parts of that waiver before. Whether we've asked for it as a port folio of opportunities in order to try to enhance the efficiency of our program, I don't know that we've actually ever done that. And I would also say that there's other states that are asking for this exact portfolio of waivers.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: I also understand we are asking for a waiver that would have the Federal Government assume financial responsibility for 100 percent of the healthcare services provided to unauthorized immigrants.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: That's part of that portfolio, initiative within that flexibility waiver.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And the LBD is estimating that the Federal Government will grant us of this waiver, and giving us credit to balance our budget?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Well, it's a comment I made the other day: If you don't ask, you're surely not going to get it.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Certainly, but it appears that the LBD is assuming that we are going to get that waiver, and giving us credit at this time to balance our budget.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: It depends on how you look at it, and Chairman Turner and I had this conversation last night, as we talked about how does the LBD apportion these savings. They do not use the savings assumed or, at least, the full amount of the savings assumed in this bill in order to determine how far we can fund Medicaid in this biennium. So when we say how much money do we have to keep the Medicaid Program flowing in terms of dollars, these dollars are not included? These savings are not included in that projection. They are included in the things that we do within the budget to help provide some provider rate reductions and so forth.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: I have one final question for Chairman Pitts and I'll let the gentleman behind me take over. Based on some of the figures that you've offered, it appears that if you add -- let's see, the SB 1811 raises -- how much does the SB 1811 raise?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Well, I want to be clear that we have some Amendments to that bill that will also add some money. But I think that at end of the day that we'll get somewhere around 2.5 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: 2.5. And if you add the unobligated, new revenue from the Comptroller, that's three point -- that's 700,000, unobligated about. Is that 3.2? Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Branch, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Branch, I just wanted to make sure I understood the math because you I thought I heard it differently than what I thought. On the Rainy Day Fund, the Economic Stabilization Fund, Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: The current Comptrollers estimate was 9.4 billion, before today?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: It was 9.4, and then we took out --

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Right. So it was 9.4, and we were going to use 3.1.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Okay. So that leaves 6.3, and then we get today, we're hearing $300 million?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: 300 additional million.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: So 6.6.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: I'd like to ask Mr. Pitts a few questions.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That would be fine.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Thank you. And again, like others around here, I thank you very much for your hard work and the committees hard work. I mean, I haven't been there, but I've been in situations almost like yours, trying to make something good out of not so good. I've got a concern, though, that has been bothering me. We, along with a lot of other people, have been working with Mr. Hockberg through the Session on formulas, on changes, on -- we have all heard from our ISDs about the $4 billion gap or the whatever -- whatever the money is going to be and also the problem of not reaching the base and the problem of having to reformulate, to meet the criteria there. And whether it's just straight-out formula or career and technology or bilingual or all these other programs that are there and for whatever reason are important to the different ISDs in a District like mine that has multiple school districts, Mr. Chisum, Mr. Hardcastle, you know, us out in rural Texas. I'm concerned that tomorrow, that we gets on the floor, and we're taking up this bill and we're flying fairly blind on what the runs are going to look like. What the end result on the formulas are going to look like. And not having the ability to really study anything, as in the past we have been able to do. Where we already know we are in a hole or in a problem, and then we get on a bill like this tomorrow where we know we have to pass something or feel like the pressure is there to do it and we have a very sensitive issue on what its going to mean to our school districts. You know, to make a matter worse is a concern of mine.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Tim, I'm going to let Scott visit with you about that.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hockberg.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was waiting for Mr. Pitts and his Appropriations Conferees to finish their discussion, and then I had asked the Speaker to come up and visit with you all as well. But you've raised a question. Members, as an Amendment to 1581 or whatever the education fiscal matter still is, I have filed essentially a modified version of House Bill 2485, the School Finance Bill that our Committee passed and that I was the primary author of. I've made a couple of changes since the bill left Committee. One is that we found we were able for a very small amount of moving money around to cap any district court's loss at no more than ten percent in the first year. And then for those Districts that actually have more loss than ten percent, no more than a five percent loss, sort of rolling down in future years until they hit had whatever the number is. The second thing I did, Mr. Keffer, that I know is of interest to you is I restored the current technology allotment to point 35, and made appropriate adjustments elsewhere to take care of that and to fund that. We also added, I think an Amendment from Ms. Kolkhorst that dealt with the situation that one of her Districts and one of Mr. Hopson's Districts had and a couple of other Districts over the interim and there's an interest that Mr. Huberty has and a couple of other small things like that. I was asked by the Speaker to have that ready to go onto the Education Fiscal Matters Bill. I filed it just before 2:00 o'clock. It will be available to you. I was just upstairs looking at a final version of the print runs for those changes.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Will we see that before tomorrow?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: And we will see that have we've made arrangements with House administration to deliver to everybody e-mail, just as soon as we can get them off the printer and scan them in. But we wanted to really try to make sure they were right first, which I don't always do, but this time I thought it was important. And so we'll have those to you shortly.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Now, I will tell you that if the amount of money changes, and there have been all sorts of discussions about additional money, different amounts of money -- I can guess what that would do, but I probably can't generate a run that would tell you what that would do, although we're looking at some other options. And if we're able to do that, of course, I'll share that with the membership. But I want to make sure it's right before I do that.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: And, Scott, are these runs based on the assumptions that are in that -- in the bill right now? I mean, if the world is round and we pass it out, then what these runs portray is what is passed. But if amended out or whatever, you never know, of course in going through this process. But this is assumed -- the runs are assumed on the passing of the bill as is; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Runs are assumed on the passage of the bill with the modifications -- on the passage of the Amendment which I filed, which was the bill plus the modifications that I described to you, the ten percent and then stirs up five percent tap on loss and the change in career and technology.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: To help some of your Districts and hurts others, but it seemed to be of considerable interest so we went ahead and put it in there.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: So that that wouldn't necessarily need to be a give and take floor discussion.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: What you're saying, we will have those runs tonight or before we start to debate on the floor tomorrow?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Absolutely. And I came running down here when I heard Mr. Pitts on the microphone because I knew it was a good opportunity to visit with you about that. But I was waiting for the machine to generate the last pages of the runs to put a final eyeball on them, to make sure they looked look they're right to the best of our ability and put them out to you. And, of course, I'll be -- I'm pretty easy to find in terms of discussing those with you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: And it will show you -- it will show you the percent losses and the dollars per weighted student losses in each of the next three years under this Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE KEFFER: Okay. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Do you want to speak to me or Mr. Pitts?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Let me start off with you, Representative Hockberg.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: I was hoping that the answer was Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I will soon come to Chairman Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But with respect to the Foundation School Program and the bill that was initially filed, House Bill one, I believe the reduction, the reduction to the Foundation School Program was roughly about $9.8 billion; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: That's connect correct, as I remember it, yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. And the Foundation School Program, as I understand it, as long as the law remains as it is today, that is something that we must fund, is that true? How do you read that?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Well, there is a provision in the Foundation School Program language, that as its currently written, provides for a shortfall in the program and what to do about it.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Right. Assuming --

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: You don't fully fund the formulas if a current law says that it provides a mechanism for reducing the money to each School District and it also says that that money that you reduce is then owed to the school district's in the following biennium. So it was designed to kick the can down the road. It really, in this case, would be kicking an oil tanker down the road if we did it that way.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Right. So under the current law, the money is owed to the school districts?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And if we didn't fully fund it, I think the current law, essentially says that the Commissioner may -- may have the authority to decompress, is that true?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: There's two different pieces in the law, as I read it. One piece was written before 2006 and it was really designed for, if your estimates are off and you get to the end, if you don't have enough money, what do you do. And that provided a specific procedure that was intended to reduce each District's revenue so that it would take the same amount of tax increase by each District to bring it back to fill up what they had loss loss.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: So if we did not change the current law, the Commissioner could take whatever steps he deems appropriate -- well, not deem appropriate but would decompress --

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Well, there's two different pieces and this is where it's confusing. In the first case, the Commissioner has the ability to follow the mechanism in the law to reduce payments to all school districts by an amount that would vary, depending on what their local capacity was to praise money to replace what was lost.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: In the second case, you're talking about language that was put in when we reduced property tax rates, and that language says that to the extent we don't produce -- we don't provide enough money for property tax relief, the Commissioner -- that the Commissioner sets the percentage of property tax relief based on the amount of money we provide for property tax relief. Now, what I think is vague is that if we appropriate rate a certain amount of money to the Foundation School Program, it sort of -- since all the money for the program and for tax relief goes to the school, it's kind of up to how you write the budget bill as to whether you short fund property tax relief or you short fund the school. Does that make sense to you?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That makes sense. With respect to what we did in HCR 1, right now as we move forward, we put $2 billion back into the Foundation School Program?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Yes, sir. And the Amendment that I filed uses the 7.8 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: So for the current biennium you end up six down, but in the future bienniums, as the bell is designed, you can't do that again, so it's designed for 7.8 down.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And the reason for your mechanism of what you are doing is to factor in the reduction in what we may be giving to the local School Boards in order to fit within a new formula?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: That's right. And very, very specifically, to try to make sure that those Districts who have been on the bottom of the target revenue heap are the ones who suffer the least of these additional cuts.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But what I want to make sure that I understand, what I want to make sure that I understand, is that the only reason why we are considering this mechanism, what you are putting forth, this new formula, is to factor in the reduction that we are giving to our local school districts. And in your mechanism, assuming that mechanism is adopted, we are saying to the local school districts that you will get a ten percent reduction in the first year, and a rolling five percent reduction in the second?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Worst case.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: There are some districts Districts that lose far less than that. There are some Districts that will take awhile to use up the rest of those rolling five percent.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And the only reason why we are considering this is because of air reduction in funding?

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Yes, sir. That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Thank you very much. Now Chairman Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: I yield to Chairman Pitts.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Chairman Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Yes, Sylvester.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. With respect to where we are, the House is $7.8 billion below?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: For the Foundation School Program. The Senate proposal is about 4 billion below?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: So whether it is the House version or the Senate version or anywhere in between, neither proposal fully funds the Foundation School Program for our local school districts?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And so what we are being asked to consider, for example, tomorrow where 1811 or any other bill, is a mechanism in order to provide funding to our local school districts below what they are in -- I don't necessarily want to say entitled to receive, but what they would receive under the existing Foundation School Program allotment?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Let me make clear. In 1811 there is some items in that bill that will be able to reduce the cut in our public schools. In the other fiscal matters, still, I think Scott said was where his bill, his Amendment is going. And it is if we do not fully fund current law on our schools, that his Amendment is where we would get under current law.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: So realistically speaking, from where the Foundation School Program is today, from where it is today to where likely it may end up being, what do you foresee to be the reduction to be?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know, we are somewhere -- if we pass SB 1811, we will be somewhere between 4 and $6 billion reduction to our public schools.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. For, 4 to $6 billion short funding the Foundation School Program as it presently exists?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: As it currently is.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: And so essentially what Representative Hockberg then is looking at or proposing or suggesting is a mechanism to fund that reduction to the Foundation School Program of approximately 4 to $6 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And so that all of the Members fully understand, and I recognize that we are doing this because we made a decision that we're not going to do anymore taxes. I accept that. I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to vote for taxes, either. But we've also made a decision that we're not going to use even the Rainy Day Fund to provide funding to our local school districts based on the Foundation School Program. And it is my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that based on the estimates, that at least we have looked at for the Rainy Day Fund, by the end of the next biennium, 2013, the Rainy Day Account, economic stabilization fund, could conservatively be anywhere between 9 and $11 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know, I want to be perfectly clear when we're talking about our funding of public schools. If we have a $6 billion cut, we still have to pass 1811 tomorrow.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And I full you I understand that and I appreciate the fact that you are taking out -- we're not dealing with the speed ups have we made that clear. We're not dealing with the Sales Tax Holiday have we're not going to take that away from individuals. I understand that. And in 1811, we need that because that is a payment to the schools of roughly about $1.8 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I got that. I got that. I know we need that. I recognize that. But the point that I want to be very clear is that regardless of we're dealing with 1811, whether we're dealing with any other bill, we are looking at a reduction to our local school districts. Whether you're in rural Texas, whether you're in suburban, whether you're in HISD or any of the other school districts that I represent, a reduction to the local school districts in terms of the Foundation School Program, anywhere between 4 to $6 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: If we pass 1811, it would be somewhere between 4 and $6 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: All right. And I don't want to take up a lot of time, and I'm going to go to my seat. I appreciate what we collectively have done in terms of addressing the provider rates in terms of addressing nursing homes, but what people also need to fully understand, because we are not raising taxes, because we are not using the Rainy Day Fund. We are underfunding, we are underfunding Article 2, Health & Human Services, Medicaid, which we will have to pay. We are under funding that, at a minimum, by $4.8 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know, I started this out, this conversation out today on making it clear that the conferees have not made decisions on Article three. So it would be hard for me to tell you what the final cuts are going to be until the conferees do their work.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: All right. But I'm simply saying: Based on the decisions that we have already made, based on the decision that we made, the decision that we made last night, we have lowered the provider rates, reductions, we've met those needs. We have met the needs, for example, of the nursing homes. But we have done it, we have done it by under funding Article two on Medicaid, we have under funded that by $4.8 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You mean for Article 2?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: For Article 2 alone. I'm not counting the 4 to $6 billion where we are going to underfund the Foundation School Program.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And I just want to be factually correct. I don't want to be -- I'm not trying to be pro, con, up or down. But from a factual point of view, the underfunding of Medicaid is $4.9 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Sylvester, we are working on an Article nine that I told you last night that we are working on an Article nine Amendment to give more money for Medicaid. And how much that's going to be will also depend on what happens tomorrow. That is still up in the air. You know what? One of the things that I think you remember from last biennium. When we left here in June or May we thought we were under funding Medicaid by $1.8 billion. We thought when we came back into Session this year that we would have a supplemental bill of nearly $2 million just on Medicaid. You helped pass House Bill 4 on this floor that did not include any amount for Medicaid because there were certain savings that were made in Medicaid during the biennium. And we have put items in our budget that we feel like we can save money on Medicaid.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: All right. And I am prepared to do whatever I can to make sure that this budget is balanced. But I'm simply indicating, Mr. Chairman, since we are giving a report to the Members, that LBD indicated to us on last night, that we are under funding Article two by $4.9 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: And that's what LBD told us on Article 2, and since I visited with you last night, we are anticipating an Article 9 Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And that is an amount, assuming it remains the same or any portion thereof that is an amount that must be eventually paid?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: With your permission, I know that Representative Pitts would be happy to stay and visit more about the budget to any member that wants to talk to him. There is a stack of Committee Requests to meet here. So if we could ask that we finish our questions with Representative Pitts here on the floor, then maybe move off to the side so that the Committees could go do their work. I'm not trying to cut you off.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I'd certainly appreciate it if you'd applied the rules at the very beginning, Mr. Chairman. I always try to comply with the rules, whatever the rules are. But I certainly will take my seat.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'm sure Representative Pitts will be happy to stay here to answer more questions.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield? I only have one question.

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: I will.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Pitts, a board is reporting that some form of vouchers will present itself in what I believe they call Taxpayer Saver Grants. Do you plan on presenting those Amendments or any other type Amendments that provide a tax break --

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: You know I just read what you've read. You know, it's my policy on the House Bill, and the it going to be my policy for tomorrow, is that any, Amendments that were attempted, that are in the Clerk's Office today, that passed a Committee and was in calendar and died, I would leave it to the will of the House. If it was not considered in a Committee, or it failed to pass out of a Committee, I would move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: So if it was considered in the Committee and not passed out, you would move to table?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker, one last question. At most Senate Bill 1811 would praise $2.5 billion? That's estimate? Ballpark?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: That's right. We'll have that all on a chart tomorrow.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, around 2 billion in SB 1811 is represented by a delay in payments to school districts?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: It's a deferral. Yes. That we have done in 2003 and we paid it back the next biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: And so it's not new revenue? It's a reduction in costs by shifting it into the next budget --

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: Instead of paying the August payment one month, you pay that payment in September.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Thereby, increasing or taking more difficult, balance or books in the next budget cycle? Balancing our books in the next budget cycle?

REPRESENTATIVE PITTS: No. That's not correct, Mike. You can continue that deferral until some day you want to pay it off.

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: Okay. Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Villareal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VILLAREAL: May I ask that the exchange between Chairman Pitts and the Members be recorded and placed in the journal?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Cook, Mr. Villareal, Mr. Raymond, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Smithee and Mr. Eiland. The Chair recognizes Representative Ridder.

REPRESENTATIVE RIDDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I request permission for the Committee on Natural Resources to meet while the House is -- actually, during reading and referral of bills today, May 17, 2011, 1W14 to consider SB 069, SB 765, SB 907, SB 987, SB 1058, SB 1053, SB 1275, SB 1875, SB 1877, SB 1880, SB 1881 and SB 1899 and any other pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, Members, I have two things. First, I would ask permission for the House Committee on Insurance to meet during the reading and referral of bills today, May 17, 2011, in room E2.026 to consider SB 1186, SB 944, SB 1300 and the rest of the bills that were posted on the meeting notice.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, Members. Along with that I need to ask permission to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule so Committee on Insurance consider SBs 1186, 944 and 1300 during Reading & Referral of Bills today, May 17, 2011, in Room E 2026.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. I need to request for permission for the Committee on Human Services to meet while the House is in Session during Reading & Referral of Bills today May 17th, 2011 in 3W.9 to consider pending business and, Members, we will not be raising taxes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motions by Representative Smithee and Representative Raymond. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Jackson, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. I move to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule to allow the Committee on Judiciary & Civil Juris Prudence to consider SB 751 and pending business at 9:00 a.m., May 18, 2011, in E2036.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request permission for the Committee on State Affairs to meet while the House is in Session during Reading & Referral of Bills, today, May 17, 2011, JHR 140 to consider HCR 158, SB 899, SB 1639 and pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule to allow the Committee on Public Health to consider SB 144 and the previously, posted pending business tomorrow 8:00 a.m., May 18, 2011, in E2.012.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motion. Is there an objection. The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would move to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule and all necessary rules to allow the Committee on Criminal Juris Prudence to consider pending business at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow in room 3W15. Committee on Criminal Juris Prudence, tomorrow, 8:00 a.m., 3W15 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. The Transportation Committee -- I want to make sure you know, we're going to meet tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. the schedule is posted. The Transportation Committee tomorrow at 8:00. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. I'd. Like to suspend the following rule, the Five-Day Posting Rule to allow the Committee on Public Education to consider SB 1114, SB 66, SB 1511, SB 12414, SB 1328, HCR 152, and SB 290 at 8:00 o'clock Thursday, May 19, 2011, E2036, which is the usual Public Ed Hearing Room. Again, that's for 8:00 a.m. Thursday, May 19th, E2036.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, Members, the Republican Caucus will be meeting tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. We previously sent out 8:00 a.m. It will be at 9:00 a.m. in the Reagan Building, Room 120. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Morrison for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. The Conservative Coalition is going to have a Members' Dinner tonight at 7:00 o'clock at Corazon. If you will just contact us and let us know if you're coming. We already have quite a few reservations.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair announces the signing of the following in the present of the House.

(Signed in the Presence of the House.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Members, I also need to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule so Committee on Insurance can take up SB 1686 during Reading & Referral of Bills in Room E2026 today, May 17, 2011.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Madame Doorkeeper.

DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, the messenger from the Senate of the Door of the House has a message.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following action: The Senate has passed the following measure, SB 31, Zulliger, related to the composition of the Districts of the election of Members of the state --

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request permission for the Committee on Redistricting to meet while the House is in Session at 11:00 a.m. on May 18, 2011. The place would be 1W.14, which is the Ag Museum to consider SB 31.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Redistricting will meet at 11:00 a.m. on May 18, 2011, in the Ag Museum. This is be a formal meeting to discuss formal business. The Committee on Criminal Juris Prudence will meet at 8:00 a.m. on he ay 18, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on State Affairs will meet during the Reading & Referral of Bills on May 17, 2011, at JHR 140. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB R 158, SB 899, SB 638 and pending business. The Committee on Judiciary & Civil Juris Prudence prudence will meet at 9:00 a.m. on May 18, 2011, at U2.036. This will be a public hearing to consider seen 1761 and pending business. The Committee on Health Services will meet during the Reading & Referral of Bills today, May 17, 2011, at 3W.19. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. Committee on Insurance will meet during the Reading & Referral of Bills on May 17, 2011, at E2.026. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 1686, SB 944, SB 1300 and previously posted agendas. The Committee on Natural Resources will meet during the Reading & Referrals of Bills today, May 17, 2011, at 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 609, SB 635, SB 765, SB 907, SB 987, SB 1058, SB 1073, SB 1225, SB 175, SB 1877, SB 1880, SB 1881, SB 1899 and pending business. The Committee on Public Education will meet at 8:00 a.m. on May 19, 2011, at E2.036. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 1114, SB 66, SB 1511, SB 1214, SB 1388 and SB 152.

(House Stands at Ease. )

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Munoz moves that the House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

(House stands adjourned).