House Transcript, May 6, 2011

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Representative Gallego. As you know, I, with the help of some of my friends, have managed to lose about 60 pounds over the last two years and taken up running. And as I go to places, whether they are ball games or parks, you notice a really high number, a really high number of kids who are, really at a very young age, already somewhat obese. And you know obesity remains one of the single, biggest challenges in healthcare, and certainly that's a huge long-term issue for the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Absolutely. We need this information, Mr. Chairman, to make appropriate actions.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So if you can divert kids early, if you can help kids because they will appreciate it in the long run, I look at pictures of myself when I was 60 or something pounds heavier and don't really even recognize myself. And I wish that -- it is a hard life, but if we can have the tools to deal with it early on so that we can prevent obesity, preventing obesity, is that not better than dealing with it?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's so hard. The most critical health period in our lives is when we are children. We're not only developing habits but our body is also developing. We're not developing fitness and nutrition. Every major organization that I can think of, whether it's the NBA, NFL, whoever, they all encourage 60 minutes a day of exercise.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And not obesity, but is it diabetes, for example, which is also a huge problem -- isn't that made better through programs like with diet and exercise?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: As a parent, I would want an assessment of the physical capabilities of my child. And if we're talking about doing so in a private manner so that they're not embarrassed in a public setting, I would do that. But to start chipping away, like we've done ever since the day I've got here, at the health and fitness of our children in our public schools, I think it's disingenuous. I think it's very, very harmful.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And for awhile, we didn't even require them, you know, to have any physical fitness activities at all.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: At all. And there is a direct link between fitness and health and performance in school. No doubt about it. There is a direct link. Those who tend to achieve are those who are also physically fit and whose parents are worried and concerned about their healthcare.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Lucio.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheets.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: Will the gentleman yield?

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

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Absolutely.

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

REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: Sir, I just have one quick question: You said you absolutely want that assessment for your children, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: So what's wrong with the other side having the option that they don't want that assessment for their children? You want that choice so shouldn't the other side have that choice, as well?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Right. Until we give choices in terms of the broad spectrum of things that we test for and require in public schools, I don't know why we continue to chip away at health and fitness. Since I've been here, Representative, we took away --

REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: But we're not talking about a test. We're talking about an evaluation.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: An evaluation, an evaluation that the state uses to determine the health of our children.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: How much does this evaluation cost?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: I'm not advised at this time. How much does it cost for an end-of-course exam? How much does it cost for all the other requirements that we would --

REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: Do we grade our kids on this evaluation or is it an evaluation provided to the parents and to the students --

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: So are you not concerned about the future health and welfare of our children? We're going to have a whole bunch of very smart kids who have a shorter life expectancy who are less productive because they constantly find themselves at the hospital, and we're just chipping away at it every session. I was an overweight kid. I remember what it was like not being able to do some of the things that my schoolmates could do. And you know, I had horrible nutrition in our schools. They taught us very little about the difference between eating healthy and eating poorly.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Harper-Brown raises the point of origin at this time. The time of expires. The point of order is well taken. The Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield on House Bill 2704.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Members, do you think we really need to start grading physical assessments like we do math or science, and the bottom line is that we don't need to grade fitness on push-ups and stuff? But anyway, it is a Fairness Doctrine and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anybody in opposition to House Bill 2704? The question occurs on the final passage of House Bill 2704? This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Dutton voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Please remember that strict enforcement has been lifted and you still need to vote from your desk. Have all voted? There being 119 ayes. 18 nays. 11 not present. House Bill 2704 has presently passed. The Chair now lays out House Bill 1418 on third reading and final passage. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1418 by Hughes relating to inmates litigation --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Show Representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Mr. Speakers. Members. This is a bill attached on litigation. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1418? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1418. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. All voted. Have all voted? There being 130 ayes. Two present. House Bill 1418 has finally passed. The Chair lays out House Bill 1388 on final passage. The clerk will now read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1788 by Farias relating to reptiles and amphibians by non-lethal means --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, I move to postpone for ten minutes. Waiting on the Amendment. Move to postpone for ten minutes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion to postpone this bill until 1:16. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The bill is postponed until that time. The Chairs lays out on the third reading of House Bill 2029. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 2029 by Flynn relating to the sale of the cemetery plots providing penalties.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler to lay out the bill for Mr. Flynn.

REPRESENTATIVE ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, Members. This is the bill we passed yesterday that deals with the sale of cemetery plots requiring third-party sellers to register as brokers with the State of Texas, Department of Banking and established regulation regarding those sales. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2029? It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all Members voted? Show Representative Sheets voting aye. Show Representative Christian voting aye. All Members voted. There being 114 ayes. 15 nays. House Bill 2029 has finally passed. The Chair lays out HB 2029 for third reading.

THE CLERK: House Bill 2029 by Zedler relating to the confidentiality of certain information regarding chapping of person and the issuance of persons and the issuance of victims regarding chapping of persons with certain penalties.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler to explain his Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker. Members. This was a bill that was unanimously passed out to Committee and incorporates the recommendation from the Attorney General's report to allow for greater and legal protections for the victims of human trafficking. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2029? This is final passage? The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Christian voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 129 ayes. One nay. Two present not voting. 18 absent. House Bill 2029 has finally passed. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 3393. The clerk will now read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3339 by Hughes relating to the filing of a court reporter of an official transcript.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Mr. Speakers. Members. This is the actual bill we passed yesterday on cleaning up the law on court reporters' transcripts.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against House Bill 3393? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3393. This is a record vote. The clerk will now ring the bell. Show Representative Christian voting aye. Have all voted? All voted. There being 133 ayes. 0 nays. House Bill 3393 has finally passed. The Chair rules out on passage of House Bill 3483. The clerk will now read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3483 by Christian relating to seller's disclosure regarding the seller's disclosure of the presence of real property.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill relating to the seller's disclosure regarding presence of contaminants on regulation of residential contaminants.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3483?

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

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Is it your intent by this disclosure, there's no penalty associated or requirement if it is unknown to the property owner; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And the answer to that question would be proper to the intent of this legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: That's correct. It is just to notify if it is known that they be notified. I've had several instances where people would buy property and later found out that there was contaminants and wound up going into bankruptcy to take care of a problem that he gives you that they weren't even aware of that they started in a horrible situation. As people get this property that had old businesses that were there 30 years prior. And yet, as the current owner, are the ones liable for any repair. So it's been a horrible situation, destroyed a couple of young couples, but in our future, through areas that they didn't even know. But this just says that they must be notified in residential purchases.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask that the remarks between myself and Mr. Christian be placed in the journal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the remarks by Representative Phillips. Is there any objection to their comments being recorded in the journal? The Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, sir. You want to yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: What is the definition of contaminants? Because I was just reading, it talks about on top of the ground, below the ground. I mean, how is an owner --

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: The law is directed and written, targeting any kind of -- most of what we're talking about is chemical contaminants and this has been in East Texas on Creosote property, where there have been literally acres that did Creosote.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Did people find in your bill what contaminants are?

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Well, contaminants -- if you've got a tractor that's sitting out and has dropped a little bit of oil on the ground and if you don't disclose it, I mean, how is that going to work?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: The intention is not there in the legislation, and we had it written through the legislative counsel and it was passed by TCEQ and, in fact, we exempted, it is only there for residential property there purchased and for the contaminants. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3483? This is the final passage on House Bill 3483. Record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Larson voting aye. Show Representative Todd Smith voting aye. There being 29 ayes. Seven nays. 11 not voting. House Bill 3483 has finally passed. The clerk reading House Bill 2814. The clerk will now read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2814 by Hockberg, relating to voter registration.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hockberg.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is the bill we passed last night on transferring status for voter registration, and Mr. Zedler has an Amendment that makes it even better.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler. The Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker. Members. This is an Amendment that says that it will have a website, and it will be posted on the website that there's a penalty for voter fraud and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Zedler. I set up the Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Hockberg to close.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I appreciate having the support of the Texas Republican Sheriffs County Association on this Bill and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone else wishing to speak on House Bill 2814? This is the final passage on House Bill 2814. This is a record vote. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Hockberg voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Lucio, III, voting aye. Have all voted? All voted? There being 138 ayes, one nay, two present and not voting, House Bill 2814 has finally passed. The Chair recognizes Representative Anderson, from McClendon County for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will you help me welcome some guests from McClendon County to come down and visit with us today. In the West Gallery we have Anne Harris, Sue Homeberger and my better half, Sandy. Will you all please stand and welcome to your Capital. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Thank you, Representative Anderson welcome to the House. The Chair lays out as a matter of postpone business House Bill 1788. The clerk will please read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1788 by Farias relating to capturing of reptiles and amphibians by not only lethal needs providing a penalty.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Members, Mr. Speaker, the Bill introduced last night House Bill 1788, that does have to do with the capturing of amphibians and reptiles in certain locations. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Chair lays out an Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment simply would apply to motor vehicles that are driving along the highways in West Texas where they use spot lights, (inaudible) and it is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gallego offers up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the author some questions.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We have one more Amendment if you don't mind and then we'll bring him back up for you. The Chair lays out the Amendment. The clerk will please read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment would simply make sure that state employees who are acting in the course and scope of their employment or utility company employees are essentially exempted. It actually goes along and kind of clarifies an Amendment that Mr. Larson had yesterday and, again, this Amendment is also acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gallego offers up an Amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. The Chair recognizes Representative Farias to close.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I think you've got a good bill here. I just want to make sure. Two people asked me about it.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: And I had a little bit of involvement when this bill came through and I want to make sure that I understand. What we had up until some time I guess, September 1, 2007, was people that had the hobby of catching snakes, and this was primarily done in Southwest, West Texas and Southwest Texas, along Highway 90, for instance, places like that. We had folks, had the ability to catch a snake, some of them released some, some of them took them away and sold them, which was a Texas resource. And we outlawed that and a lot of people and a lot of communities have built some tourism, economy around that so there's been an effort to restore that ability. And you've done that in a way that allows them to pay for it just like they were doing a hunting license. Am I correct?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: And did you limit that? Because I happen to be in the community that night that that bill came out and was reminded of it. And I asked some of the supporters of the bill if they would consider supporting an Amendment to your bill to make sure during breeding season they weren't catching these snakes then. So, you know, not allowing the tickets or, I think -- explain that, how they're able to do this with what they're purchasing from wildlife.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: What we've done is we've worked with partial wildlife, Texas dot and all the state cores that are involved with these folks or they might present some hazards out. And so what we've done, we attached a $10 fee for state collectors, and then they do not kill those snakes. Let me just make sure. And it's not for commercial use. So they're not picking them up for commercial use. And so out of state, as folks from here go hunt deer somewhere else, they pay out of state fees. So the folks out of state pay a higher fee.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: I like that Amendment. My question though is: Can they do this year-round, 12 months a year or is it like that 11 months a year?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I believe they do it year round. The reason we're stuck with the year-round, we visited with Parks & Wildlife and asked them if there was a danger of them picking up two snakes, and their response was there's millions and millions of acres out there where these snakes breed. And that's not going to create a problem for the snake population.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Okay. Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Farias, it's important to know that right now you can't hunt these snakes at all.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: You can hunt them on private property.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Let's say you can collect them on private property.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right. But you're essentially giving an opportunity, allowing some people to do it in their limited circumstances, where right now there is no opportunity at all?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Yes. They look for them at night, along the highways, out of West Texas in your neighborhood; right.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And they go out there at night and they look for the snakes along the roads.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: And I want people to understand that there is no shortage of snakes in West Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I would not think so. And here's the other thing: We obstruct --

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: He is, we're talking about the rep tile kind by the way.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Yeah. What we've done is I went out with the snake collectors. I went out and visited with you at that time to see what the safety hazards existed and what we needed to do to strengthen this bill to protect the folks that are out there and the people that are driving down the highways. And so we put some legislation --

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: You're doing a huge service to the people out in my part of the world in particular.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Exactly. They took like a $2.2 million economic hit.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Absolutely. You're doing a huge service to the community.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I will yield to, Mr. Chairman.

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

SPEAKER: Representative, you said that we now have a new $10 fee. Is this something an increased fee or a new fee?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: It's a stamped fee on the license.

SPEAKER: Would you read that again? Someone was talking. I could not hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: It's a stamp that will go on the hunting license to collect reptiles. It's a $10 license or a stamp.

SPEAKER: So this is a new fee that we're going to have so we can capture snakes?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER: What is the $10 fee? Is it going to a designated fund or what is it used for?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: It goes right back to Texas Parks & Wildlife.

SPEAKER: Okay. And what are they supposed to do with it? Is it to increase their budget?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I'm sorry.

SPEAKER: I said is the $10 fee -- is it to increase their budget? To make up for budget cuts?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I'm not.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Farias, you hold the floor. Representative Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: It's just a collection of snakes.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: It's just to regulate the state collection, like they do to regulate the fishing and hunting license.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: My question is: Where does the $10 fee go in would it be swept into general revenue?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: No. The Texas Parks & Wildlife.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: And they're to do what with it?

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Pardon me? I want to yield the floor to Representative Hilderbran.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yields the floor to Representative Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Let me back up and say very clearly: Before 2007, I know this because I know when I passed the bill that outlawed snake collection, and before --

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: How did that affect rattle snake round up at Sweetwater?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: It didn't effect that. What this effects is doing it on the highways because snakes go to the heat on the highway. So snakes would go to Highway 90 in particular and other place. So yes, King snakes and rattle snakes, that snake collectors, some people would just take pictures of them and release them. Some took them home and kept them for awhile, which I had reservations about, and some sold them on the market, which I really am against. But I went too far in outlawing all collections. What this bill does is it restores the ability to do it, but first, where before they had no limitation to do whatever they wanted, get on the highway, cause safety problems, do it at night, cause all kind of difficulties. What he's doing is letting them do it again, but they have to get a permit from Parks & Wildlife, just like we do for game animals. So it's basically adding them the ability to do it, but basically requiring them to get a stamp or permit to be able to collect snakes. And this will go into the building the Parks & Wildlife, to regulate it and make sure that we don't harm the resource, and also --

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: I understand all that. My question is: What is the money going to be used for?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: For this program, for the people that voluntarily want to pay it, so they can collect snakes for Parks & Wildlife to run that program. So it's --

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: And what is the overall cost of the program?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: I don't know what it costs for Parks & Wildlife. It came down to ten bucks. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that that's -- I'm willing to pay more because it is, and we have a duty to protect our natural resource, and they should pay to protect these snakes.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mrs. King.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Yes, ma'am, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE KING: I have a question: How many reptiles are allowed to be captured per stamp?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: I believe there's a law in the statute that there's a limit. I don't know the limit, but they're regulated on the number that they could collect. I don't know the number of sheets.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentlemen, the time has expired. Point of order is sustained. Does anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1788? The question occurs on the passage of House Bill 1788. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Has everyone voted? Good. Show Representative Gooden voting aye. Showing Representative Farias voting aye. Show Alonzo voting aye. All voted. The snake's loose. Mr. Farias wins. Showing Representative Pickett for a motion. Members, give him time to get to the mic.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: Thank you, Madame Speaker -- Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE VERNON: The Parliamentary Inquiry is not directed at Mr. Pickett. The Parliamentary Inquiry is directed at editorializing on bills that have just been passed and the appropriateness of editorializing from this front Chair.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The bill passed.

REPRESENTATIVE VERNON: Yes. The question was: The appropriateness of editorializing on bills that have just passed or have been voted on from the Chair.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Say it again.

REPRESENTATIVE VERNON: The question, the public, Parliamentary Inquiry is regarding the appropriateness of commentary from the Chair on bills that have just been voted on.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, you may recall Fred Hill one time said the best time to kill the snake is when your hoe is in the hand. So thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE VERNON: Well, there you have it but you didn't kill the bill. You only made a comment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: No. The Bill passed.

REPRESENTATIVE VERNON: That's right.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Thank you, Mr. Vernon. We appreciate it. Representative Pickett for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. I request permission for the Committee on Defense and Veterans' Affairs to meet with the House in session at 2:00 p.m. May 6th at 3W15 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. Representative Vo calls for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE VO: Thank you. Mr. Speaker and Members. I request permission Committee on Public Health to meet while the House is in session at 2:30, Members, not 2:00 o'clock, so we can get through the third reading on today, May 6, 2011, the place is 1W.14 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. Permission to meet. The Chair announcing the following sighting in the presence of the Chair.

THE CLERK: HGR 148.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Public Health will meet at 2:30 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Defense and Veterans' Affairs will meet at 2:00 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Please state your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: It is 1:31. Is there any chance we are going to have a lunch break today?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: When will we be advised?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: The inquiry was made an hour and a half ago.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 1278. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1278 by Coleman relating to regulation and certain Property Owners' Association of certain religious displays.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. What this bill does is prevents a Property Owners' Association from prohibiting a religious display that is a small size. The Property Owners' Association generally does not prohibit anything of any size, but all this does to say is if you're going to prohibit something of all sizes, not prohibit the smaller types of religious displays, like small cross, something in the door jam of a House. And that's what it does. It's not to prohibit any other religious display.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORTT: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Prohibit any displays at all.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Kolkhortt.

REPRESENTATIVE KOHLKORTT: Would the gentleman will yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield at this time?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: I'd be happy to yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORTT: Thank you, Chairman Coleman. Just a couple of clarifications about your bill, and now I know, I saw some of the testimony and so forth in the Committee. The way I'm reading this, I want to clarify that you were saying the property owner cannot prohibit religious symbols and kind of in a way creating a floor. It doesn't mean that a Homeowners' Association or a Property Owners' Association can't make and allow bigger religious symbols.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Yeah. They can allow a religious symbol of any size. This does not prohibit at all the placement of religious symbols. What it does is it allows a prohibition -- it doesn't allow a prohibition of a very small religious symbol if someone were prohibit them.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORTT: So what we're trying to get at is keeping someone from -- you're allowing a religious -- you're saying you have to allow it at least at 25 square inches?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORTT: Instead of saying that's all you can do?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: That's correct. It takes the all or nothing away. It allows for someone to place a religious symbol, a small religious symbol, if the homeowners association is trying to ban the placement of all religious symbols.

REPRESENTATIVE KOHLKORTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the exchange between Representative Coleman and I reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. The Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Has the time expired? Can I ask a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: No. We have lots of time.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Okay. I'll try to be quick.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Yes. Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Representative Coleman, does this effect future contracts or existing contracts of homeowners associations?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: I guess it would probably be in the future. I don't think you can retroactively change. I think the idea is to allow this at this size if there is a prohibition of the display of religious symbols by a Homeowners' Association. I'm trying to make it clear, it's a double negative. Homeowners' Associations prohibit certain things. This is saying you cannot prohibit religious displays if they're this size. Most Homeowners' Associations don't even prohibit religious displays.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Right. I'm concerned about breaking or overriding existing contracts. I'm okay going forward, but when people enter into Homeowners' Associations, it's a voluntary agreement to abide by a contract. I believe your bill says that we will enforce it for existing contracts.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: I certainly don't mind changing that in the sentence. I mean, the reality is this is about denying people the opportunity to express, and in the contract, just like there was a time when certain people couldn't live someplace, it just nullified the law because it wasn't an appropriate law.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I support the goal of your legislation, the first Amendment rights. My concern is that people, when they enter into these Homeowners' Associations, are giving up certain rights to live in an agreement. So I'm concerned that if we don't take out the word enforced, we'll be overriding --

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: This is a free speech issue that the legislature is acting on.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: And as far as going forward, I'm fine.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Well, sir, do you mind if I fix it in the sentence so that we can move on with you today because I'll be happy to work with you to fix that?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Can you amend it now just to strike the word "enforce"?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Sir, can you just give me an opportunity to move forward and fix it in the sentence? This is --

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I will grant that.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hockberg.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Mr. Coleman, you and I, I'm sure, both understand that when you go to buy a house in a particular area, those deed restrictions are enforced and you can't buy that house unless you agree to abide by those restrictions because they move with the property, regardless -- it's not the same thing as an individual contract. So the effect of a restriction like this that you're trying to modify, is that people who have certain religious beliefs and particularly my faith, it is a testament to my faith that you are required to put a little religious symbol on your door post. We wouldn't be able to live in a subdivision with that restriction. Clearly that's contrary to public law and public purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: It is contrary to public law and public purpose. And the most important thing is that people do have an opportunity to express their faith in a way that is acceptable to their neighbors.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Whether that's a jewelry store post or a cross on a door.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Or a fish.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Or a fish.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Or whatever the case may be.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: And for those people for whom that's important, we don't want to have subdivisions saying we can't have that type of person in this subdivision. That would clearly be anti-American, wouldn't be it?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Well, that's right. And that's why there are many rules that are in subdivision law that have been removed because of because of that. But, again, what it does not stop is the ability for people to express themselves either in a small way or a large way if that Homeowners' Association, which almost all of them do, allow the expression of religious symbols have.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: And we've done that same thing for flags, haven't we?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCKBERG: Thank you, I think it's a good bill.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Also for political signs.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Speaker. Representative Coleman. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Does the gentleman yield?

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

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Representative Coleman, are you aware that this is not the first time that the legislature needed to intervene on behalf of individuals' freedom of speech with the Homeowners' Association?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: I am aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: And you're aware that six years ago, that I had to carry legislation to allow individuals who lived in areas with the Homeowners' Association, just the right in the last 30 to 60 days in the election, to be able to put up a 4x4 sign, indicating who they supported for State Representative or County Commissioner or President?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: I'm very aware of that and that, actually, and what your legislation did was allow a limitation of the size.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Limitation of the size and the time period.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: And the time period.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Because there were Homeowners' Associations that precluded it completely. And if the government and I worked together to draft language to ensure that freedom of speech would be entitled to individuals who purchased a home in an area with a Homeowners' Association that they had no control or ability to determine what were going to be in the rules?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: That is correct. And you hear this around election time all the time. What my Homeowners' Association doesn't allow a yard sign to be placed and your statute actually allows that to happen now. Now, if people choose not to because that are their Homeowners' Association says, well, we'd really prefer you not to, then that's fine. But that's between them and their neighbors.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: But the Homeowners' Association doesn't have the right to dictate it?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: That's correct. The Homeowners' Association does not have the right to dictate whether or not someone can put up a yard sign and it allows a sign up to the size of a 4x4.

REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: And it allows Homeowners' Association to put up a sign that's too large to enforce it and take it down?

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Right. It doesn't trample on free speech, political speech of people who want to support the party.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken at this time. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1278? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1278. This is a record vote, therefore, the clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Coleman voting aye. Have all voted? All voted. There being 129 ayes. Four nays. Two present not voting absent. House Bill 1278 has finally passed. The Chair lays out the third reading and final passage of House Bill 751. The clerk will please read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 751 by Lucio, which is relating to the attendance by a quorum of a legislative Committee at a caucus meeting.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. This bill recognizes that mere attendance alone by a quorum of a legislative standing Committee at a caucus meeting is not a meeting of the Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield? For a question?

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

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: I'll always honor questions from the Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Lucio, I noticed this recently that your legislation, I think, would cover or is intended to cover the Republican Caucus? The Democratic Caucus? The Mexican American Caucus? The Conservative Caucus Coalition? Any of those organizations? Is that right? And your theory is to paint with a broad brush and make sure that everybody's protected?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Yes, sir. That's correct. That's my intent.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Because one of the challenges -- and I note that if the Governor or another elected official is a member of this, it will show a Legislative Caucus. But one of the things that I would ask you to consider -- and I'm sorry that I didn't say this earlier -- but I realize that the bylaws of the Democratic Caucus, for example, and even the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, calls for one -- originally, caucuses were not really allowed in the Capital. Caucuses had to move outside of the Capital. And so in order to -- so the bylaws, for example, of the Democratic Caucus, allow the ex-former Chairman, to remain a member. And that would not be a statewide elected official. But that would still be a former member of the caucus. And I note that even under your legislation, then, the Democratic Caucus, for example, because of that bylaw, provision, would not be protected under your bill; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: You know, I think that's right. You want to postpone it and work on that?

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Can we do that? Just to add that?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the motion is to postpone House Bill 751 until a time certain being 2:05 p.m. today. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. Postponed till 2:05 p.m. Thank you. The Chair lays out Senate Bill 1107 on third reading and final passage. The clerk will please read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1107 by Davis relating to the vaccination against bacterial meningitis for first-time students of public or institutions of higher learning institutions.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Howard of Fort Bend.

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Members, this bill was passed yesterday to protect our college students. I was asked about whether there's a knock out for this vaccination. There, in fact, is and it's been statured already. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on third reading, final passage of Senate Bill 1107. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Howard voting aye. And Mr. Reynolds voting aye. Have all Members voted? There being 122 ayes, and 14 nays, two present not voting. SB 1107 is passed. Is finally passed. The Chair lays out on the third reading SB 132. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 132 by Wentworth relating to registration of the selective service system of certain applicants for driver's license or personal certifications or certificates.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker. Members. We're working with Representative Barnum to see if we can come to an agreement on an Amendment of his. So I move to postpone this bill 2:30 p.m. today.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Representative Simpson moves his remarks related to his motion to instruct conferees on HB1 as it related to the ETF, Emergency Technology Fund, be reduced to writing and placed in the journal. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland and Mr. Brown for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker and Members. Mr. Brown and I have a special introduction today. The fourth grade elementary school from Pebble Creek over in Bryan, College Station, is here today. And the reason that I'm introducing them is because Sam Fresno goes to that school. Now, he lived in Galveston during the storm, and they evacuated to Bryan/College Station and they just decided to stay. But Sam and my son are best friends, and only through XBox Live did they really get to communicate and stay friends. So please help me welcome Sam and the forth grade class from Pebble Creek Elementary. We have a flag that flew over the Capital to present to them to help them remember their day at the Capital.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair lays out Senate Bill 1168. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1168 by Cronin relating to the (inaudible) of certification for personal service owners have the regulation of personal serviced.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Ms. Harper-Brown to explain the bill. REPRESENTATIVE HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This allows the personnel services, and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 1168? This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. So have all Members voted? There being 135 ayes. Four nays, two present not voting. SB 1168 has finally passed much. The Chair lays out postponed business, House Bill 3473. The clerk will ring the Bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3473 by Gallego relating to the defense of prosecution of 14 years or to the offense of prostitution.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This is providing for a defense of prosecution, essentially for a child who is younger than 14. And there have been some cases where that has happened and this kind of makes sure that the law tracks the case. So I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, anyone wish to speak for or against? Members, this is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all Members voted? There being 133 ayes. 0 nays. Two present not voting, House Bill 3473 is passed. The clerk -- the Chair calls postponed business House Bill 4922. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 4922 by Gallego related to the penalty of theft of an automated teller machine.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move to owner this wonderful Bill until 3:00 p.m. today.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading and postponed business House Bill 2197. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 2197 by Rodriguez relating to the purchase of property as part of a Homestead Land Bank Program.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Rodriguez to read the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This bill makes a modification to legislature that I passed in 2005. It addresses the Land Bank opponent of that law. Land Bank allows the city to purchase vacant land that has been made available due to property taxes, due to a housing development. Under the current law eligibility property must have a market value less than the total penalties. This changes it so that the eligible property is worth more than the total amount of taxes, and with that I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on passage of House Bill 2197. All those in favor say aye? Opposed no. Ayes have it. House Bill 2197 has passed. The Chair lays out postponed business House Bill 3375. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3375 by Merck relating to certain evidence in the prosecution of fraud by Medicaid or Medicare benefits. The Chair recognizes Mr. Murphy to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This bill will be postponed to another day. We have the Senate Bill on 1680 which is over and eligible.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members. Wait a second. We're trying to find the Senate Bill. The Chair recognizes Mr. Murphy.

REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Members, I'd like to postpone consideration of House Bill 3275 for a minute while that slow printer does its things.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. It's postponed till 2:00 o'clock. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Anchia for a motion. The Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I move to temporarily suspend House Bill 1629 until 2:10 p.m.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair lays out and postpones House Bill 2963.

THE CLERK: House Bill 2963 by Crownover relating to permits review timelines of the surface lining and Railroad Review Commission of Texas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Crownover to explain her Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Postponing till Monday at 8:00 a.m. I move to postpone until 8:00 a.m. next Monday.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members you've heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Monday the 9th of May. The Chair lays out postponed business, House Bill 1629. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1629 by Anchia relating to energy efficiency goals and public information regarding energy efficiency programs.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia to explain his Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Okay. This is a postponement we just did five minutes ago. Members. Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend House Bill 1629 till 2:10 p.m.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion to postpone the bill until 2:10. Any objection? Hearing none. The Chair lays out postpone business, House Bill 2043. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 2043 by Menendez, relating to the taxation of certain and taxable property relating to the governmental authorities.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez to explain his Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This was a bill that is no longer necessary and, therefore, I move to postpone to a very special date, July 4th, 2011.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair lays out a postponed business, House Bill 3132. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3132 by Gerrin relating to the membership powers and duties of the State Preservation Board.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Chairman Gerrin to explain his Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE GERRIN: Members, I move to postpone until next Monday at 10:00 a.m. That would be the 9th. May the 9th.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members you've heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego for recognition.

MR. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it is publicly and completely my pleasure to recognize welcome to the House Chamber, Mickey Donnelley and Al Alonzo who are accompanying Alpine High School students, (inaudible) and Kathleen Carga, students from Alpine High who are here to compete in UAL Events. I'd like them to stand and welcome to the House Chamber. Thank you so much. It's a privilege to have you all the way here from home in Alpine. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Chair lays out a stand by. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members. I would move to reconsider the vote by which House Bill 3474 was passed to third reading. That was the bill that I just laid out a few minutes ago. Mr. Menendez has an Amendment that I'd like to accept. I'm sorry. That was 3473.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion to reconsider. The vote by which House Bill 3473 was adopted. Is there any objection? The Chair hearing none. So ordered. The Chair lays out House Bill 3473. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3473 by Gallego relating to a defense to prosecution for 13 years old in defense of prostitution.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez. The following Amendment, the clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, currently, penalties with a person charged for soliciting or performing sexual charges for a minor is a misdemeanor. This Amendment simply assisted the penalties to a State Jail level for the solicitor or John and the pimp and not the minor or solicitor or minor being exploited. This Amendment came out of Committee unanimously, but with all of the stuff going on the calendars, I'd like to give this a ride. This Amendment enhances it from a five state misdemeanor to solicitation of prostitution for minors and it is agreeable to the author. I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Mr. Menendez sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection to the adoption of the Amendment? The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker. Members. I move passage of the third reading.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion for passage of House Bill 3473. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. Ayes have it. House Bill 3473 is passed. The Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 3375, second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 3375 by Murphy relating to certain evidence in the prosecution of fraud or a theft regarding Medicaid or Medicare benefits.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Senate Companion to House Bill 3375 is over and eligible. Accordingly, the Senate lays out SB 1380. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 130 by Ellis relating to certain evidence in the prosecution of fraud or theft involving Medicaid or Medicare benefits.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Murphy to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Thank you, Members. This Bill, which I appreciate your patience waiting for, is going to help us prosecute cases of Medicare, Medicaid fraud by allowing the use of video taping for depositions. In these tapings, defense counsel is required to be there. The problem is, bringing these people to court when they're elderly, when they're poor, when sometimes there can be 1,000 people needed to testify. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on passage of SB 1680. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 1680 is passed. Representative Murphy moves to lay House Bill 3375 on the table. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none and it is so ordered. The Chair lays out on third reading SB 371. Is there an objection? Hearing none. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 751 by Lewis relating to the attendance of a Legislative Standing Committee at a Caucus Meeting.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Lucia to explain his Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Members, again, this is again about the attendance of a quorum at a Caucus Meeting. Chairman Gallego has an Amendment, which is going to be acceptable to me.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to explain his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This adds the substantive effect of this change is to add a former member of a legislature to it that a caucus is still a caucus and that it includes the Governor, the Governor or a former member of a legislate tour, and as Judge Lewis mentioned, it is acceptable to the author. I move adoption. Of the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Mr. Gallego sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection to the adoption of the Amendment? The Chair hearing none. The Amendment is adopted. Members, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 751. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Smith of Harris voting aye. Show Representative Marquez voting aye. Members, have all voted? Show Representative Isaacs voting aye. Representative Phillips voting aye. Have all voted? The Representative Van Taylor voting aye. Have all voted? There being 136 ayes, 0 nays, two person non-voting. House Bill 751 is now passed. The Chair lays out postponed business, House Bill 2332 on the second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 2332 by Smith of Harris relating to operation of power and duties of ship channel district.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Senate Companion to House Bill 2232 is over and eligible. The Senate lays out 1104. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1104 relating to the powers and duties relating to the ship and channel districts.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Harris to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS: Mr. Speaker. Members. This pertains to the Houston Ship Channel Security District. We formed this four years ago. This is a bill that actually, after four years of operations, they wanted to tweak some of the operating issues and this one does that and I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on move passage to engrossment of the question of SB 2232. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say -- backup, Members. The question occurs on passage to engrossment of SB 1104. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. SB 1104 is passed to engrossment. The Chair lays out postponed business. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 3308 by Rodriguez relating to the operating of plug in or electronic motor vehicles.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Rodriguez to explain his Bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Move to postpone this bill to a time uncertain tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Members, the Chair lays out a postponed business, House Bill 1250. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1250 by purely relating to the use of insured specific documents regarding certain municipalities.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Frullo to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE FRULLO: Members, I wish to postpone 1250 till Monday, May 9th at 9:00 a.m.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? The Chair hearing none. So ordered. The Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 1435 on second reading. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1435 by Elkins relating to the participation of a by a taxing unit and suit to compel the Appraisal Review Board to order a change in the appraisal rules.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Senate Companion 1435 is over and eligible. Accordingly, the Chair lays out Senate bill 1341. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 1341 by relating to the participation of a taxing unit in the suit to compel an Appraisal Review Board to order a change in the appraisal rules.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Elkins to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Senate Bill 1341 will bring conformity to the Tax Code by conforming Section II 125, which allows surf an appeal to the Tax Code to correct clerical errors in the appraisal process. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the question occurs on move passage engrossment of Senate Bill 1341. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1341 is passed engrossment. Representative Elkins moves to lay HB 1435 on the table subject to call. Is there any objection? The Chair hears non. So ordered. The Chair calls up on postponed business House Bill 1345. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1477 by Allen relating to awarding credit to certain inmates for time between release on revocation, mandatory supervision or conventional pardon.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, that was House Bill 1477 on second reading and the Chair now recognizes Ms. Allen.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN: Mr. Speaker and Members, I move to postpone House Bill 1477 until June 1st, 2011. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Representative Smith of Harris moves to lay out House Bill 2232 on the table, subject to call. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chairs lays out on second reading House Bill 12. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 12 by Solomon relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Solomon to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. What I plan on doing is laying out this bill for a bit and trying to go through it. And, obviously, there's a bunch of Amendments and I'll be happy to take questions and if question need to extend time at least once, I'll be happy to do that. But what I'd like to do is just put some answers to questions that had been percolating for awhile by various news media and others. And so I thought I would lay out the bill a little differently by sort of answering questions I've been asked by a variety of folks out beyond the walls of this body and this chamber. One of the questions is that why is this bill necessary? The bill relates to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities. It's common term is sanctuary and city type issues. But the answer to the question is why is this bill necessary? This bill will create, in fact, a uniform standard for how, in fact, law enforcement will work with the Federal Immigration Enforcement Department. Local lay enforcement has an obligation to assist local and Federal law enforcement in, and this bill will help make sure that the law enforcement agencies live up to that obligation and don't get to pick and choose which laws they will enforce. And by creating a uniform standard statewide for how such laws will be interpreted, we promulgates safer streets and neighborhoods. One of the other questions have come up, another question would have been would this undermined public safety? Would this bill undermine public safety? My response to that is on the contrary. This law will reinstate trust in our law enforcement entities. If cities, counties, et cetera, have a reputation for picking and choosing which laws they will enforce, how can we expect the public to trust them to do their jobs. And another response to that is also if there is a consistent standard across the state, the public can be sure that law enforcement is doing what they're supposed to do. Another question that had come up is will this bill -- REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER:

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'll yield after I lay out the bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Sorry, Representative Solomon. Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Will this bill draw resources away from protecting against serious crime? And my response to that is no. It simply prevents cities and officers from turning a blind aye from violators of Federal law. This law should it pass, would lead to the investigating officer, about immigration statute us after a lawful arrest or lawful detention, based operate a suspected or actual state or local law violation. The situation would not violate the rule, order, ordinance or policy portion of the bill as it is specific to one situation. Initially, it is not a consistent action of a policy prohibit because it is case specific. Another question has come up by folks that would be would this bill discourage immigrant victims and witnesses from helping the police. And my response is no. Again, this only applies to someone who's been detained or arrested for a violation of a local or state law. And not fall into that category. So they would not be asked about their immigration status. This bill does not place an unfunded mandate on cities. There is not one requirement in this bill placed on a governmental entity. As long as local governments do not make it a policy to forego state and federal laws, this bill will not effect them. I will tell you that there hasn't been one city, one county, one police department, one anybody coming and seeing me in my office and saying we're really a sanctuary entity and we really have a problem with the bill. All of us deny ever having any policy -- ever having anything to do with any sanctuary type policy. The legislation does create a uniformed standard across the state when it comes to inquiring about immigration status. Put it simply: Immigration cases within the state should have the ability to ask about immigration if they see it as necessary to investigating a crime. Peace officers at school are no exceptions. Additionally this bill allows enforcement of this bill through the AG's Office. And we have set up a process which we think is fair and reasonable and provides opportunities for discussion before even any court action and hopefully most of those will be resolved because, as I said, no one says they're doing anything wrong. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Point of order on question of House Bill 12 under 24.82.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Bring your point down front.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, we're going to begin again, and the Representative Martinez-Fischer Point of Order is respectfully overruled. We'll now allow, I'm sure Representative Martinez-Fischer, I'm sure, will want this to be read into the journal. We'll now have the clerk read this into the journal.

THE CLERK: Representative Martinez-Fischer raises the Point of Order under Rule 4 Section 20. Representative Martinez-Fischer provides one witness aforemation forms that has a form that's entirely blank under the line entry of a telephone number. Mr. Martinez Fischer states that the other forms may contain the same effect. A similar point was considered in House Bill 2292, 78th regular session. In that case, two witness aforemation forms were left entirely blank or had an entry non-available. The speaker in that case tells that if there was a specific form to allow an insufficient -- sufficient information to allow interested parties to contact the witness regarding testimony give not by a witness during a Committee Hearing. The purpose of the rule has been complied with. In this case, as in the ruling on House Bill 2292, the witness provided a complete mailing address was sufficient for the purpose of the rule to be satisfied. Accordingly, the Point of Order is respectfully overruled.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez Fischer for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Under the rules of the Chair, is it my understanding that the Chair is departing from the Denver precedent that was established in the 97th Session that said that an address and one phone number was sufficient under the purpose of the rule to be satisfied?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair is continuing to follow the precedent from the 78th Legislature. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Okay. And in so doing so, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the precedence of the 1997 Legislative Session is no longer applicable for that particular point? So, in other words, to spare the body of any future delay, unnecessarily, when contemplating witness aforemation forms for information such as an address and phone number, that they would be advised to depart from the 7th Legislature, and instead, just focus on the precedent of the 78th Legislature under the Craddick Precedent. Is that what the Chair's intent is?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair's advice would be to follow this precedent. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: This precedent that you just established today?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: That's correct. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And in so doing, inconsistent with the precedent of the 78th Session. So, in essence, the 75th Legislative Precedent is no longer applicable, as insofar as it's applicable to witness information forms, addresses and phone numbers?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair's advice would be to follow the most recent rule on that. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Parliamentary Inquiry?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Can the Chair articulate to me the order of priority in establishing procedural value? I'm advised that we have House precedents going back a very long time. So is the Chair now saying we are to follow the most recent precedent at the exclusion of the prior precedent?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair is saying it's applying rules of the House. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And I understand that.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's not practicing a practice. We're looking at the specific bill in front of us. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: : I understand. But to be clear: The inquiry I had was for the Chair to advise me as to how we should value House precedents? And my question is: Under this ruling and under your prior statement it leaves me with the impression that precedents of a more recent vintage seem to trump those of a prior Session provided that the Point of Order is raised on a specific issue, whether it's two different Resolutions or two different points of order.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, we take each point of order as they come. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And you certainly did. But in terms of making a ruling, I believe you said that you follow the most recent precedent. And I don't know if that's just for today. I don't know if that's just for this bill. I don't know if that's just for this rule. And so for the remaining days of the Session, when Parliamentary Inquiry, Parliamentary Points of Procedure are being raised, we could save a lot of time of the body if the Chair is telling us that prior precedents, are of little value and that we should only look to the most recent precedent on point. Because I raise that because there was a distinction made between the 97th precedent and the precedent established in the 78th Legislature. And so it seems to me that they're both alive and well. The difference being in the most recent Legislative session, the witness had mentioned that the phone number was non-applicable, thus signaling to the Chair that perhaps there wasn't a phone number. And under today's Point of Order, we've established that the witness aforemation form has now changed. And that the witness aforemation form now requires the information. With whereas there was no prior requirement. And so I guess what I'm saying is we're looking at a precedent to an '03 Session where that witness aforemation form is no longer in use. And we now have the same rule with a more complete and specific form in terms on what's required. And we're applying the old ruling to a new form. And I'm concerned about that.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, going back to the precedent cited in the 78th Legislature, there were two forms at issue. One was the form that you discussed, with the ambiguous entry that appears to be NA. The other form was left entirely blank on the line for the entry with the telephone number. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And under that --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It is accepted in this case. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And under that form, Mr. Speaker, the statement that that information be given to the Committee?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The witness aforemation form in both places told the witness to complete the forms. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Said to complete the forms from each bill or Resolution, correct?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: That's correct. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And in the witness form that we have today, it says print clearly, you are required to complete section of 1 through 6 in parenthesis, fill out one form per bill or issue. It appears to me that the 2011 form is much more specific in its requirements than the form of -- three. Unless I be directed to a location on the '03 form where this was a requirement.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martinez-Fischer. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, I was waiting for a response, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The forms are different. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And do you agree that the form that was in current used to places a higher standard on the assertation of information to the witness by imposing a requirement versus the option to fill it out for each bill or Resolution?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's a different form whether it's a higher standard or not. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this 2003 form place a requirement expressed requirement that the data be filled out in accordance with the form?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes. The rule will require them to complete the form. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Would the Chair indulge me and read that expressed requirement?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It says please complete a separate form for each bill Resolution or subject. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Does it penalize or attempt to advise a witness that they could be prosecuted for failing to correctly put that information on the form?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Both of the forms have statements that the witnesses have to certify to. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I'm sorry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Both of them have statements that the witness has to certify to. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: : That they're true and correct; correct?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'm sorry? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: That they have it to certify that the information is true and correct?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Now, the form that's in practice today -- do we place a higher standard on the information and the admonishments of the witnesses that are filling out those forms?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The form today reminds them of the oath of perjury. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Now, is it the Chair's position that those who misstated the information on the '03 forms would be subject to prosecution by perjury?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: But neither form reminds the witness of other criminal offenses. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I'm sorry?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: But neither form reminds the witnesses of other forms of criminal penalties.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Neither form does?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Of other criminal penalties. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, I'm speaking only to the penalties of perjury. The specific penalty of perjury.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Only one form does that. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And which one is that?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The current one. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And so we placed a higher standard on the information, I guess, for transparency, for Members to have a right to know who's testifying or Members of the press that want to seek to inquire. And I even understand the House research organization uses this information to contact witnesses when they're forming their bill analysis for the House Research Organization Core Report. And so if the Chair follows my logic and says we've now placed a higher standard under an admonishment to the witness that they are swearing an oath under the penalties of perjury in the 2011 form, and we know that that's not in the '03 form. And the Chair is willing to spot me that we've changed the standard there, I find it troubling that the Chair will not equal equally concede that what we tell a witness in a 2011 form of what's required to be completed versus just complete in '03, that that is not a higher sense of standard, particularly, because failure to do so is a swearing under oath under the penalties of perjury that the information entered here in the testimony given is true?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, the Chair has ruled on this Point of Order. I'd be happy to place your comments and your arguments in the journal. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, I think calling the Point of Order is only one part of this affair, Mr. Speaker. And the other part of this affair is to understand it, and understand how it works and understand how we use it going forth. As I'm certainly sure that the Chair will concede that this Point of Order will come up in a subsequent Point of Order, maybe today maybe next Session. Maybe two sessions from now. And so for the sake of the body and the institution that we both took an oath to preserve and protect, I think it's important that with we have this discussion. And I'm not asking you to re-rule. I'm just asking you to understand the rule, and I think that the submission given to the journal clerk or the reading clerk just didn't satisfy the level that I think we need to be advised on how we apply the rules. And so my question, again, Mr. Speaker is: If you're willing to concede that if 2011 form places a here standard of the inference of the information placed on the form to the extent that you could be penalized for perjury, then why is it okay to tell witnesses, you could be penalized for not placing accurate information on here? But then on the other hand, if you don't put information on here that you're required to place, that we're going to let that go? And we're not going to enforce that under the rules of the House? And so why won't the Chair concede that the information required in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which incidentally, there are only six sections on the form -- when the first line in clear, unambiguous, bold print language, to print clearly, and to require the completions of those sections are we now saying that that's exactly as it was in '03 when it certainly isn't?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, your Point of Order was respectfully overruled and the Chair will now recognize Representative Solomon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Inquiry. I find that response to be non-responsive and so I'd like a response to my inquiry. Unless the Chair is going to instruct me to sit down under the rules of the House. And if the Chair of this House of Legislation is so inclined to remove me from this back mic and place me in the Chair --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, you've asked questions about Parliamentary ruling and we've tried to answer.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Is there a time limit on my Parliamentary Inquiry?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: No, there's not. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: There's nothing in the rule that says that I'm bound by five minutes? Ten minutes or two hours of inquiry if I wanted to ask it, correct?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We've tried to answer your inquiries as best that we could. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And the ones that --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's the Chair's intention to move on with this bill and recognize Representative Solomon. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I raise another Point of Order on this Bill and I rule in section a Point of Order in 284.

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

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez-Fischer's raised a Point of Order under Rule 7(b)1 Section 20. . The Point of Order is respectfully overruled. The following motion. The Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, Members. I request permission Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in Session at 3:35 p.m., May 6th, today, place 3W9 to consider a calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Eiland. For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: We talked about this in the back hall awhile a ago traditionally.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Can you hold on a minute so we can read the announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Okay.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet at 3:35 p.m.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet at 3:35 p.m. on April 6, 2011, at 3W.9. On May 6, 2011, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.

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

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker, in the past rarely have committees other than the Appropriations Committee and the House Calendar Committee met while the House is in Session. There have been times where maybe common committees have met, and so I think it would be maybe best if next week we start trying to minimize the times that committees meet while the House is in Session in these closing days. And if committees need to meet to kick out bills that we have a set time, whether it's at lunch or 3:00 o'clock or 6:00 o'clock, that can be done, and that way the public knows, rather than a five-minute notice that there's going to be a formal meeting or a public meeting. That way we can have a little bit more time to prepare for it and the public can be notified. And so if we can kind of dial back and go back to our traditional way of doing it, that would be much more appreciated.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'd be happy to talk to the Chairman about that.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. Let's see, I almost more got where we left off, but really, this bill has gotten a lot of, in my opinion, erroneous press, but at the end, the bill bars and prohibits the enforcement of local governments and prohibiting the enforcement of state and federal immigration laws. It's meant to create a uniform standard across the state. And the idea that we're requiring employers to do anything is erroneous. The fact that we're requiring almost anything is not accurate as to this bill. What we're trying to do, as I've said, have a uniform standard of not prohibiting our commissioned employers from being able to investigate upon a detention or arrest. And that's basically what the bill is really trying to do.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Mr. Speaker?

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

SPEAKER: Will Chairman Solomon yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: If you really go through the bill, Solomon. A process so this entire subject matter can be finally resolved one way or the other. There's a whole lot of folks in the State of Texas that seem to think that a variety of governmental agencies have policies in place that do prohibit the enforcement of state and federal embrace laws, when in fact, with we really don't know that. There may be people in various parts of larger urban areas that people seem to think that. It may be perception. It may be reality. But you don't know that. But I do know that we need to have a uniform, consistent policy around the State of Texas about this. And I think the mechanisms that we set up in the bill allow for that. Now, there are going to be a number of Amendments, and I appreciate all of the Members who have an interest in it, following whatever Amendments they did, but at the end, I think we tried to, through the Committee, am passing this out, we tried to exclude certain very specific issues involving schools. There is an Amendment that's going to deal with healthcare. There is an Amendment that's going to take place that's going to be set -- well, the healthcare Amendment is going to be acceptable to me. Hopefully, to the body, as well. There's going to be an Amendment having to do with ensuring there are a number of laws on the books already about racial profiling. There's an Amendment by Mr. Gonzalez, and I don't know, umpteen number of Members who have signed onto that, including myself, to ensure in the statute itself that we deal with the issue of racial profiling. So at the end, one of the things that seem to come up, also, is somehow, that this is a situation that's going to just create all kind of problems, when in fact, everyone I talked to, they say they don't have these policies. That nothing should really think then. So anyway, with the bill itself, all it really does is create a uniform standard, and also prohibits our commissioned employers around the state from being told they have to pick and choose what laws to enforce. And specifically in this area, and I will be happy to yield to my good friend.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you. Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Chairman Solomon, and I appreciate your talk to us earlier before you laid out the bill. I find you to be a sincere man, but yet understand that this bill is very personal for many of us in this body. Personal because it affects us, but minimal that it affects family members, constituents, back home. And one of the many questions --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: In what way?

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Well, it's personal because if you want to talk about uniformity, how do we define what a sanctuary city is? It really dumbfounds many of us. How would you define a sanctity city?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, whether it's a sanctuary city or any governmental agency , it's generally understood to mean that it's a document entity. It's an established policy from prohibiting employers from enforcing immigration laws or and cooperating with federal immigration officials. That's a common understanding of what the word sanctuary and sanctuary document entities are.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Have we identified those sanctuary cities?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: There are a number of people who believe there are a number of cities in the State of Texas do that. I have no idea if they're actually doing that. Let me put it this way: I don't know that they actually have a policy that provides sanctuary in that regard as it being understood. I will tell you, not one city official, not one Police Chief, not one sheriff, not one anybody, has come in and said, hey, guess what? We're really a sanctuary -- we have sanctuary city or sanctuary policy, and quite frankly, this bill is going to be prohibit I have or really a problem for us. What they have said is quite frankly, it's going to create all kind of problems. And really, I've been keeping up with the papers about this and the reports, and, you know, it's clear to me that when you have the City of San Antonio Police Chief, William McManis, says that his Department of Works Of Life on slowing chases, but doesn't go any further. And if I called up because we're going down here on Laredo Street to the produce market, and we need some backup, not help, but backup, he says, we're not going to help. So how do -- at the end of the day, I don't know that they have any formal policies, but the idea, even -- even under federal laws, you're not supposed to interfere with the enforcement of the law.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Okay. So, could you walk me through an initial stop, how would we determine, how would a police officer determine if, on a legitimate stop -- how would we determine if somebody is here and documented, if that officer may or may not have training in federal immigration policies?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't know that you need federal training to ask somebody they deem it necessary because we don't tell the officers what to do anyway. We allow an officer on a traffic stop, and I'm a former magistrate and municipal judge. I'm pretty familiar with how city police officers do their job out on the street when they make a stop. And one of the things that they usually ask for, for example, is I'd like to see their license and let me see your insurance. You know, you understand, and I'm sure you do, that we have a law in this state that requires you to have insurance, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Now, at the end of the day there's nothing that says in the law that you have to have that person, that you have to show me your insurance. Wait a minute. Let me finish. They generally ask it, but they don't have to. They don't have to write you a ticket. We don't have policies in place about how they do their job. We give that discretion to the police officer out in the field when they're investigating someone who's A, either stopped or is a criminal offense. And quite frankly, we don't ask the employers generally by formal policies that, as far as I know in I way, that they have to ask for insurance and they don't have to ask for insurance. They generally do it as a matter of course, but they don't always do it. There's nothing in the bill, you know and I know. You're an intelligent guy. There's nothing in this bill that requires that police officer that a police officer ask one question. Not one thing.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: So then why do we actually need the bill then if they're not going to be able to be required to ask these types of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Let me ask this: Do you want employers to have to ask? Because this bill doesn't do it. Maybe you have to have the legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Okay. Where, particularly, does your bill specifically say that they're not required to ask immigration statute on somebody --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: This bill goes directly to the governmental entity itself and to the particular people who are a part of that process and the governmental entities not to have policies that prohibit the discretion of employers when discussing the laws on the books in discussing federal or state immigration laws. That's all it does.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: What would be the physical note, particularly, for cities, such as the City of Houston, that I might add, runs two federal programs. The Houston Police Department runs a Secure Community, which is a database check, when they're arrested and detained and sent to the booking center, they are required to check a database.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: What's your question?

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Through Secured Communities.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: There's no fiscal note on this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: So how is it that our cities are going to pay for this type of new mandate that they're about to be --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: There's no mandate. There is no requirement that they do anything other than I have in policy that, in effect, prevent our employers, commissioned employers, from doing their job. That's all this bill does. There's no mandate. There's no fiscal note. There's nothing involving that. It just says you shouldn't do it. And besides that, it seems to me that the policies in the bill, itself, allow for determination, whether or not, for example, Houston, or Dallas, or anybody else has one. If somebody perceives it, they produce to evidence the Attorney General's Office, they can try to work that out and see if there is a policy. If, in fact, we provide a judicial mechanism for to allow for that to be a judicial determination. If a judicial determination is necessary. If it's not a problem, then so be it. If there is a problem, then so be it there, too.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Do you think that our officers are going to have to get new training in reference to your bill?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Do I think they're going to?

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, you know, since I'm not a commissioned police officer, I don't know if my opinion means much, but I don't think it takes much training to ask somebody if they feel it's necessary in the investigation of a criminal offense to ask if you're here legally or not. .

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: So how do we determine --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Most of the police departments already have policy necessary place of what to do for that purpose of being here illegally. They already have policies in place have they don't need new policies have.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: So then what is the purpose of your bill then?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I think it's pretty obvious from what I've already said.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: I mean, what is the purpose of your bill then if we're not going to mandate?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: The purpose of my bill -- and I'll say it again: The purpose of the bill is to create a uniform standard of how local law enforcement will work with local law enforcement.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: In healthcare, we run a program called the 287 G Program.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: And healthcare, we probably deport more folks in the whole county than in any other county in the state, than in any other county in the country. And the notion that we need this bill because we're local law enforcements are not adhering to any kind of immigration programs is really false because HPD runs Secure Communities. Healthcare runs 287G. Are we now going to have to carry a passport or carry our birth certificates? How are we going to be able to --

SPEAKER: There's nothing in this bill that requires any of that. There's nothing in this bill that says anything that anybody has to do other than a governmental entity not have policies that are prohibitive.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Miller requires a Point of Order. Point well taken today.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: I would ask to extend the time for discussion.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: First extension of time.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm fine.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is there an objection?

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: No objection by me.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative Solomon. A few questions, if I could.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Solomon?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: If I could, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this matter with a number of us who have had concerns. One of the concerns that, and I think you addressed it earlier, that many in my community is with racial profiling. You mentioned that there are many laws that already make it illegal with regards to racial profiling. But it is in, in fact, true that you have worked with one of the Members of our group to discuss an Amendment to make sure that it is clear that racial profiling will not be tolerated?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I even signed the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: That's very good.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't know how many times Mr. Gonzalez only got, but I even signed it. Because there are already federal laws and state laws that you already know about racial profiling. I think there was some concern about the bill saying something to that effect and I am more than happy to accept that Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: And so the triggering mechanism is what, Chairman Solomon? I'm driving down the road? What's going to allow a police officer to pull me over in that circumstance?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: As like in any other traffic stop because I think that's been some of the concern, but, you know, with we have so much of the traffic code that's already a criminal offense. You know, it's not just administrative. It's a criminal offense. Officers stop people all the time for violation of the Texas Traffic Code, and quite frankly, if they think there's a violation. There's nothing in this bill, as you well know, that requires a police officer to ask any questions whatsoever about whether they're here legally or not in connection with that particular situation. But as you well know, too, the bill, as we discussed it, the bill only requires, I know you had concerns, but the bill only requires that the law enforcement doesn't have policies that prevents an officer from asking a question about legal residency if they deem it necessary. And part of their investigation from a stop, from any stop, for the investigation of any criminal offense.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Yes. Currently, under the law that Texas follows, we follow, as I understand it, the Secured Communities program; is that correct? Are you familiar with that program?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes. In fact, I think we have a bill that, I think, formalize he is that. Most of the cities and counties already uses that particular program.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Is that standard any different than the standard that you've seen working in this circumstance?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't see any of that changing. 287G Community Supervision. Whatever it is, nothing's changed.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: What's your understanding how it works under the Secured Communities Program?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: What?

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: What's your understanding of how the question is raised with regards to citizenship under the current Secured Communities Program? What's your understanding?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't have that bill in front of me, particularly, about the exact process. I don't know that I want to get into the exact process of that. But I do know that that they do, upon arrest, anyway, they do go through a process by which they try to verify or try to request, anyway, the fact that whether or not someone is actually here legally or not, through that program.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Okay. And that is a program that is currently in use in all the counties of this state; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I think it's used -- I think when I did my bill on that, I think someone told me, I think we have 253 out of 254 constituents have that program in place.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Okay. Including my county of Hidalgo?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: But the concern raised by many -- if I'm driving down West University -- which is a town I used to live outside of in Houston -- am I going to be stopped because I'm Hispanic driving through that in absent some sort of criminal activity or something he is like that?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: This bill doesn't require. This bill does not require an exact -- I don't think the bill did on its face. I think we already have profiling type legislation in the state and Federal law. But the idea of just stopping somebody because they look different or they're Hispanic or French or Swedish or whatever. Quite frankly, we just don't do that. This has to do with once you're detained for a criminal offense.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: One of the other concerns that was raised by some in our community that was people were going to be afraid to get help that they needed when they went to the hospital. Let's say, for example, a woman has been abused at home needs go to the hospital because she's been battered but she's concerned about her circumstances in going to the hospital and people are asking her about her citizenship the.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: There is an Amendment that has to do with -- to clarify, that issue for hospitals, in particular, because they have specific standards in healthcare, just like in schools for education enrollment, that sort of thing. So we try to ensure and we are going to ensure that that's not a problem. But unless there's a criminal offense involved, and a commissioned police officer is involved, there is nothing in this bill that has any effect on any of that.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: If someone needs healthcare, they need go get healthcare.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: I believe that's an Amendment that, Representative, I would say that has worked with you on.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: It's going to be acceptable and it's very specific in federal law and some state law about healthcare and we want to make sure that was not going to be a problem for access to healthcare and/or to the hospitals themselves.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: I'm sure you're familiar, having raised this bill and the other bill that you talked about with regards to Secured Communities, you're familiar with the Arizona standards that many -- that have been written about in the papers. How is this law different, if you know, from the Arizona standards?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, the Arizona Legislature, as I understand it, requires, and I under line the word requires, law enforcement to inquire about immigration status during a stop. Whereas this bill prohibits entities from having policies that interfere with an officers ability to in the investigation of an offense, to inquire about that if they deem it necessary. It's totally different in that regard have there's no requirement here that the police officers do anything. Arizona requires police officers to do certain things. We're not requiring them to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Okay. Now, with regard to the district attorneys -- does this law take away discretion from district attorneys in deciding which cases he or she would take?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Federal law revealed somewhat about that, but what it does do is it requires district attorneys and criminal, family attorneys, municipal attorneys, et cetera, to cooperate in the assistance with federal immigration, officials as reasonable and necessary including providing enforcement assistance. By the way, I think the Attorney General even mentioned that in an opinion that federal law prohibits restrictions on the sharing of information between local governments and federal government anyway.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Okay. One of the other concerns that some people had was the right of an individual to sue cities. Is that in your bill and how does that work?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: We have -- thank you for asking about that. We specifically set out a process by which a lot of this could be settled once and for all about whether or not governmental entities have sanctuary type policies. And we did it through the process of filing a complaint with the Attorney General's Office. You have to provide evidence. You have to provide something more than just saying I think they do this. You have to have some evidence to bring it to the attention of the Attorney General for them to even bother to investigate that process. So we're not making it where everyone can just run out and sue every document agency because they think there's a policy or they think something's happening. Quite frankly, that's a lawsuit, that's a tort reform nightmare ands a former city attorney, that was not my approach. My approach was to do a very comprehensive manner that basically -- comprehensive manner in a way that basically sets forth an entire process very completely to try to determine whether or not the Attorney General of this state, the state of Texas, thinks there's a problem or not a problem. Nothing in this had bill even requires the Attorney General to do anything, file suit. It just says that they may, if in fact, they think there's a problem. And, in fact, if they don't work it out -- the way I really envisioned this is basically, the Attorney General's Office and their investigative team who receives this complaint, may find that there's a complaint with some evidence. They may want to sit there and investigate that, call the city or call the county or call the law enforcement official and base can I try to see if there is a problem. If they do think there is a problem and something doesn't get worked out, which give the authority to the Attorney General to do something about it in a very legal manner.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Okay. So in that circumstance he acts like a District Attorney in that he has the discretion to do something or not do anything? Is that accurate?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: It just says the Attorney General may file. It doesn't say they shall file. It doesn't say they will file. Is it doesn't say they must file. It says they may file a Petition or for writ of mandamus or apply for other appropriate effortable relief of a District Court in Travis County or in a county in which the principal office of the NFC described by Subsection A is located. That ads opts such a rule or they think there's such a problem to not do that. And quite frankly, that's what the bill does. It's a process.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Let me move on to a different subject area. Many of us have been concerned about the Arizona model, and what is happening in Arizona. And since many of the laws that have been passed in Arizona, there has been and I'm asking you if you're aware of this, an actual retreat back from some of their more draconian measures on immigration. Are you aware that --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Arizona can do what Arizona wants. This is the State of Texas and we're going to do what we think we need to do in a responsible manner.

REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Have you heard about Sowell, let me just say this because I can see I'm running out of time. Chairman Solomon, there are a number of concerns that some of us have had. I want to thank you for working with us. I want to thank you for accepting the Amendments that we negotiated and after we listen to the remainder of the Amendments, hopefully, we can find or reach a conclusion that is satisfactory.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Thank you. I appreciate it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Alvarado. The time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: I'd like to request an extension of time.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the second extension of time. Ms. Alvarado, do you mind if we get onto the Amendment and continue the discussion then?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'll be happy to discuss with you during the Amendment process, and I think -- don't you have an Amendment anyway? So you know --

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Yes, I have some questions that aren't directly related to the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't care.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: I'm just asking if I may discuss.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'll be happy to.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Solomon has indicated that he's happy to extend the time.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'll be happy to extend the time, one more time, especially for my desk mate, and I know that we've had several discussions throughout the Session over this. So I'll be happy to do it.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Okay. Thank you desk mate. You and I have had a lot of lively --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Alvarado, before we do.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker. Members. I move to request permission for the Ways & Means Committee to meet while the House is in Session. We will meet at 4:00 p.m. today, May 6, 2011, in 3W.15 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. The Chair hearing none. So ordered. Do we have an announcement or not? The clerk. The Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Speaker and Members. I request permission for the Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety to meet while the House is in Session, 4:30 p.m. today, 3W15, to consider pending business.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety will meet at 4:30 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. Committee on Ways & Means will meet at 4:00 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez-Fischer requests to completion of HB 12 from lay out until its final disposition be record and placed in the journal. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you, Chairman Solomon. In your previous testimony there were discussions with Representative Walle, you mentioned that you're not mandating that employers do anything. But the way I read it, if we're telling them that they can't pass an ordinance, not allowing their officers to not inquire about immigration status, then we're basically saying that they can't. That they can inquire about --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm not saying they can't have. I'm saying that you give the discretion to a commissioned police officer upon any criminal investigation. Any criminal detention. Any criminal defense. If they think it's necessary for their investigation and that offense, why would you take away their discretion?

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: We passed laws every day here on the floor, telling cities how to operate. But this is different because we're directly telling a department head in this case, being a Police Chief, how he or she can supervise his or her employees. We're interfering with the daily operations of a police department.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't agree with that.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Okay. Right now, for example, in Houston we use Secure Community.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: This still doesn't say a word about --

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: But it will change what the City of Houston and all the 254 cities and constituents throughout the state do at this time. We inquire about immigration status once someone is booked in the facilities, and then their status is inquired upon. But your bill is saying that for an example if someone is driving and pulled over for a red light, I mean, it doesn't say that. But it says for a criminal offense, but it would mean pulled over for a red light or if somebody is jaywalking or if somebody passes a red light, then their immigration status can be inquired upon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Do you think that a person who's here illegally should have a place in this state that allows -- where they're never going to be asked about that, even by a commissioned police officer investigating a crime in do you think that that's the right policy?

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: I think the policies that are in place now are adequate for cities and for constituents when the immigration status is inquired upon, it is when somebody has been arrested and they are booked. What's wrong with that policy?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, I respect your opinion on that, but I will tell you the Houston Police Chief has never told me, for example, that they have a sanctuary policy. I don't know if Houston has a sanctuary policy.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: We don't have a sanctuary policy.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: And you may not but a lot of people seem to believe that there is one. But this bill will allow a process to determine that once and for all, based on what you have or make a judgment. This bill, and you know we've had this discussion: I really believe that this bill and the way it's drafted and with the two or three Amendments that are probably going on that I'm going to accept, I hope, that's going to be acceptable to the body, is going to really be something that prohibits and we have uniform law that prohibits the idea that you tell commissioned employers while you're investigating a criminal offense or someone's in detention is and what they can have and what they can't have.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: You almost have a uniformity across the state if most cities and constituents are already using secure communities, with your bill, employers will have to be trained. Because by telling them that they cannot, not inquire, you're saying that they can, and if they can, you have to train as if you want them to because you can't just hope that they know what they're doing. They will have to be trained on immigration law. Our police department has said that employers will have to understand about at least two weeks of training and 58 new personnel will have to be hired, 22 of those will be local officers designated to perform immigration functions, 33 for guards for additional prisoner beds and three identification officers. This all comes down to the tune of about $3.7 million, and that software and the equipment that would have to be purchased.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: So it is an unfunded mandate and I know you and I have had disagreements on that.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: We tend to disagree on that, and I think the Police Chief in Houston protests too much about this. Because they say they don't have a sanctuary-city type policy. They don't believe that their policy that they have in place is a sanctuary city and would be in violation of this law. They seem to protest an awful lot, though it seems to me, quite frankly, with all due respect to the people in Harris County and Houston who are anywhere in the State of Texas that if you have to have two weeks of training to tell an officer how you ask if someone is here illegally, while they're investigating, if it takes them two weeks to do it, this doesn't seem quite reasonable to me.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Certainly.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Chairman Solomon, piggybacking on that: I understand the Police Chief in Houston has some issues, but it wasn't just the Police Chief in Houston. There were many police chiefs, many sheriffs and in fact, many from the counties all together that came and protested this bill. Isn't that right?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Not to my office. None of them ever said they have a policy in place that they are worried about in connection with this.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: I'm not -- many came and --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: They are protesting a bill for whatever reason that says -- that doesn't require them to do anything. They can still do Secure Communities have they can still do 287G. They can still do whatever they do. The question is whether or not there should be policies in place that says you can't have someone who may be here you can't ask someone who may be here illegally, hey, are you really here illegally if they think it's necessary and they've been legally detained, they're not racially profiling. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me or a lot of people in the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: And I have some questions with regard to the inquiry that's going to be done. But first, let me read to you, and I'm sure since you were keeping up with the articles, you've read them yourself. But, for instance, you've got Dallas County Jail already holds 3,200 undocumented inmates that cost us $6 million per year. Sheriff Luther Valdez from Dallas that said, the legislation she estimated would cost an additional million dollars. Our priorities should be the safety of all our community Members regardless of their status. Austin Police Chief said the bill would encourage racial profiling and cause city leaders to control over priorities. We're going to have employers say they'd rather be at the Home depot checking on day laborers to see if they're illegal. I know my sheriff from Hidalgo County was opposed to it. I know my Police Chief, Victor Rodriguez, is protesting it. And there have been, and maybe you believe that it's not fair. I've got the mayor of Fort Worth who apparently was against it. Perhaps you don't believe that they're justified in their criticisms of it. But let me ask you this: We're not saying that they have to do anything but we're not prohibiting them from doing anything. So if somebody is detained, let's say for a public intoxication, okay, because it has to be a criminal investigation under your bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: So let's say that they're detained for a public intoxication.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises a postpone. Gentlemen, your time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker, I know it's been extended. I just have a few questions for Chairman Solomon and I ask that it be extended one more time.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, that was the second extension of time.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: This is the very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It's very important to me and to our community.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Gonzalez, the only motion you can make is to extend all the rules.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Excuse me, I didn't hear you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: After the extension of time, you have to make a motion to suspend.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: I make a motion to extend the time.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, it's a vote of the House. Require a two thirds present and voting. Record vote has been requested. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Vernon voting no. Show Representative Kolkhortt voting aye. Representative Frullo voting aye. Have all voted? Being 96 ayes and 24 nays. The motion prevails.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Members. Okay. Chairman Solomon, we were talking about the inquiry -- let's say somebody is stopped and they believe or somebody is publicly intoxicated and so is a police officer has detained them. At that point, let's say that the person is answering in Spanish, instead of English, they're speaking Spanish to the police officer at that point. Nothing in this bill prohibits them from asking the immigration or the status of the individual. So let me ask you: What does this inquiry consist of? If the person is speaking in Spanish, because we do have many that are legal that do speak Spanish as their primary language. So let's say that the officer them asks the person that makes the inquiry of the person, what is your immigration status? Are you an American citizen? What is that person going to do? Are they going to have to present some type of birth certificate? Are they going to have to present a passport? Are they going to present perhaps manage that shows that they're nationalized? What type of inquiry is going to be done? Is your bill even addressing that?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: My bill doesn't address what the police officer is going to do in investigating an offense. The bill only deals with the idea, as I've said, that a governmental entity, and someone referring a governmental entity in law enforcement not have specific policies in place that prevent officers from investigating a criminal offense from somebody who's been lawfully detained or arrested.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: I understand then.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: So I don't know. I think you can just say, if the officers the -- if they're here legally, to say yes, I'm here illegally. I'm not the commissioned police officer. I don't know what the officers ask in public intoxication. I know what they do to determine of those public intoxication, if somebody's going to be get arrested for public intoxication. I don't know if that would be relevant to a decision if someone's here legally or not to try to determine if there is public intoxication. They sort of have to make that determination on their own, and you know as well as I do that it's usually the odor of alcohol or, you know, bloodshot eyes, all the things that go into the Affidavit, when they basically say, this is why I arrested the person.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Well, and I'm not concerned about the --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: You're asking me to second guess what a commissioned police officer is going to say, and somehow this bill somehow says that they're going to need to ask them that. This bill has nothing to do with that.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: I understand that. What I'm asking, you show, though, is how far this inquiry is going to go. We're leaving that up to the employers all around the state as to how they want to do this inquiry. And my concern has been expressed by many Texans has been the fact that people that are American citizens could be harassed because English is not their first language. And they would be required at some point because now you've got an officer that has the ability to ask for their immigration status, not call the federal, not call the board per control or ice, but they can ask whether or not they're going to be harassed for hours upon hours, trying to prove that they're an American citizen. I don't carry my passport. I don't carry my birth certificate with me. And I'm not so sure. I understand what you're saying. But there is a possibility here for people to be -- to be held, detained, harassed, inquired of and that is a concern many have. Your bill is silent on that issue because we're giving the authority to the employers to basically act as federal agents without the training. Representative Alvarado mentioned a moment ago: Any police department is going to probably feel the need to train their officers or at least to have some type of an educational program so that people are not exceeding what would be within the bounds in asking for their immigration status.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes, ma'am. And I understand your concerns, and quite frankly, that's one reason resolved the Amendment that he went around to a variety of Members, both democrats and republicans, asking them to have an Amendment put into this bill to make sure that everyone knows what the deal is in connection with racial profiling, even though those passages were already on the book. In fact, we added the word language so there would not be a reasonable to necessarily ask anyone concerning racial profiling.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: And I gladly signed onto that, as well, and I know that your intent is not for people to be harassed. And I know that. And I know that is the intent of everyone who signed onto that Amendment. But the fact of the matter is how do we actually enforce that in how do we actually know that that's not going to occur? How do we monitor that to know whether or not racial profiling is going on? What we do know right now is that the reason that they can't -- that they can't racially profile and ask this information is because the Federal Government has that job. The Federal Government is the one, those who are trained and, in fact, under the 287G Agreement that are entered into, for them to have that authority, they have to be trained. Now we're going to have untrained officers going out there with the ability to ask questions and we both know that while we have faith in our employers, there will be some that will abuse it.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, my suggestion is to every police department and every police department official who is watching this debate or is going to take into consideration the situation should this bill even become law. All we're trying to do is see if it will even become law and passing it out to the Senate. But at the end of the day, if you've got rogue officers trying to profile people, I think the police department's have policies in place, already, to deal with officers who aren't doing their job correctly.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Well, and you know the other thing is, let's say that is happening and somebody comes and says, I was profiled against. I mean, and I feel that I'm going to take action against this department. Okay. Who's going to depend fend the department? Right now we know that if the Federal Government abuses their powers, the government is going to come in and defends the offices that did that. Who is going to defend those who abuse the power? What kind of money is it going to take in order for them to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: My experience has been with every city I've been associated with, and from what I gather from the standpoint of municipal law and policies of cities and constituents around the State of Texas and around the country, that they have mechanisms in place to deal with that. Whenever they discipline an officer, they already have those policies in place.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: But if somebody comes and brings -- I can tell you, there will be some people that are going to be mad as hell if they get stopped and they're told, I want to see your papers and they're harassed. And if they bring an action against the department, they bring an action against that city, I mean, we -- you talked about it --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: My bill doesn't change any of that. This already goes on. It's already in place.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: It gives an extra power, an extra basis for a suit. An extra basis for someone to bring a claim. We're giving them $0 to have to defends those types of actions. And so while I understand that your bill does not specifically say that it is costing money, the reality is the unintended consequences could be that we're going to be costing money to departments who are going to have to defend these types of claims that are being brought. And I also noted that in your bill on Page 3, Line 12, you basically have a citizen whistle-blower type of claim that if a citizen believes that is not acting or if a police officer, for instance, is not acting upon this law or this new law, if it passes, that any citizen can then file a complaint with the Attorney General complaining about the city. So we're telling everybody who's out there saying, you know, my city, these employers, they need to be asking these people whether or not they're citizens. They didn't do it, I believe they didn't, and now they're going to be bringing these complaints to the agencies. You know what? Any citizens in this state is already bringing a complaint, No. 1. No. 2 --

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Not against local officers.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: No. 2, any citizen under this bill, if you read on, if you read Section F, that sets out the mechanism in place. It says any citizen residing in the jurisdiction of an entity described in Subsection A may file a complaint with the Attorney General, may support an allegation that the entity to adopt a rule, order ordinance or policy under which the entity for which the enforcement of law of the state. It doesn't go to whether or not they were harassed. It goes to whether or not there was an adoption of the rule. Nothing about any citizen that files a complaint against any city with the Attorney General for anything that they think they've been wronged. This had bill doesn't address that and you're right. It addresses the mechanism by which a citizen can infer if they think that there's a sanctuary policy and there is a very prescribed process set out in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: But your bill also says it's not that a city has to just adopt a policy that then you could say, they adopted a policy that says they're allowing sanctuary city. Your bill says that if they believe that by consistent actions the city is somehow a sanctuary city, then they could bring a complaint. So what is consistent action? I mean, what constitutes that?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, let me just tell you, you and I know because you're an attorney that law enforcements departments, especially large law enforcements, maybe some mid size ones as well, maybe some small ones around the State of Texas, all have legal teams that basically advise the police department, No. 1. No. 2, every city in this state, I think, has at least by contracts within a city attorney of some sort to ask those kind of questions, if we adopt this policy or adheres our policy currently. What is your legal opinion about that? You know, I don't see how anything changes in connection with that.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Well, I'm saying this: The city doesn't have to adopt any policy at all. Let's say they don't adopt any policy at all. You've got a citizen there who says, I believe that by consistent actions, that I've seen my city is not asking people, my employers are not asking peas people whether they're here legally or not. And so by consistent action, I believe that they are allowing sanctuary cities to exist and they bring a complaint with the Attorney General. The Attorney General's Office now has to investigate that. Whether they believe it's frivolous or not, they have to conduct some minor investigation at a minimum and then dismiss the action of the ACL, it's not relevant or it doesn't have merit. We're talking about a lot of extra work done because of this bill, which you say does nothing.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises to postpone. Gentlemen, the time has expired. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gutierrez.

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

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Submit your message.

MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Door of the House to inform the following action.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. What my Amendment does is basically allows us to comply with 287G. 287G was created by the Department of Homeland Security under the bush administration to ensure that individuals are detained in a proper manner so that any criminal case, people can be handled accordingly and not compromise the prosecution. This is a Tough-on-Crime Amendment. 298G Amendment is one of our top Amendments allows the state and local law enforcement entities to enter into a partnership, but under a joint memorandum of agreement. The state receives delegated authority from immigration within their jurisdictions. This Amendment would require that the Federal Government compensate and provide employees of the entity with immigration, law training and supervision within the United States.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: May I ask the gentlemen a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gutierrez, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Mr. Gutierrez, do you know that the Secretary of Homeland Security has suspended the 2011 program completely? It's not happening anymore?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: There is no training going on now. Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: What this is about is about making sure that our cities don't get unfunded mandate. What this is about is making sure that the Federal Government pays cities for the unnecessary expense in having to employ people additional people to do this type of work that apparently some folks in this House seem to think is necessary. You understand and you probably know this from the City of San Antonio that police departments all over the State of Texas have a continuous education program, and this can be incorporated in their Continuous Education Program, at no expense because many employers from throughout the not tire state have already been trained, and since the training program doesn't exist anymore, that's why Arizona passed its bill, because 2011 training doesn't exist.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Mr. Burman, you understand that different levels of law enforcement have different levels of authority. Different levels of jurisdictional training to perform the function that they are there for, thus, ICE has its certain jurisdictional authority. The City of San Antonio Police Department has its jurisdictional authority by the City of San Antonio's charter. The FBI --

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Answer the request of: Does the FBI have jurisdictional authority to stop someone from running a red light in the City of Houston?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: You are asking, Mr. Burman, something that is totally -- you know, that as a law enforcement office officer can stop someone if they feel that they are performing an illegal act.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: That is right.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: What this legislation does, it allows overzealous people in law enforcement to do something extra to do something that they are not empowered to do. It is not in the jurisdictional authority of any particular police department to do what is being required or quote up quote not requiring to do anything here today.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I read the bill and I think the bill is excellent and I think Mr. Solomon worked hard on the bill and he did a great job on it. There is nowhere in the bill that a police officer has to ask a question concerning someone he stops about their immigration status. Now, there is a case. There is not a single, illegal immigrant in Texas that has a driver's license they're not supposed to. We didn't give them permission to drive, did we? They don't have liability insurance. Now some do because there are some Hispanic insurance companies that will sell liability insurance. Is there anything about driving in this bill? Is there anything about driving in this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: No.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Yes. It's the crime to run a red light. It's a crime to run a stop sign. It's a crime to speed. That's all in the bill. It says that if they commit an offense, they could be stopped. The fact is Representative Burman, this is an un-funded mandate on my bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: How is it an un-funded mandate?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: There is an additional cost to the people of San Antonio, the State of Texas refuses. I like the idea that we're going to try to put a uniform standard. So my next Amendment on Page 56 will be the DPS also doing this and make ing sure the DPS does this.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Do you know one of the first things that a San Antonio policeman has to do once he gets through with school, they'll do the same thing that we did here in this chamber on January 11th, will raise his right hand and as Mr. Martinez-Fischer mentioned two words before, he said preserve and protect. Let's finish that. Preserve and protect what in preserve, protect and defend the constitution and laws of the United States in the State of Texas. So that police officer is going to make some decision in his mind that he's no longer going to do that? Is that a decision that we can make?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Let's pay for it. Let's pay for it. That's what everybody behind you has been talking about.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Let's pay for what?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Let's pay for the extra-added expense that you and other proponents of this unnecessary legislation want to create. Let's pay for it.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Tell me what it's going to cost the City of San Antonio.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Mr. Burman, it will cost additional employers. Do you know how much it costs to hire a police officer in the City of San Antonio? $96,000 a year.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Why would it cost for additional employers?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Mr. Burman if you have all officers going outs and investigating immigration cases when they should be looking at murderers, the consequences of it. Mr. Burman, overzealous employers will do those things.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: That's not what the bill says.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: That is the consequence.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: That is the training. That's the consequence that this racial profiling bill will do.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I'm sorry, Mr. Burman. You are dead wrong.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'm sorry. You are dead wrong, sir, because that's what continuous education and police departments all over the state teach employers how to deal with different things --

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: The cost to the City of San Antonio. The cost to the City of Houston. We heard testimony earlier that it will cost the City of Houston $3.4 million.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: So are you saying, then, that if a police officer stops an individual in San Antonio for running the stop sign or for running the traffic light or for speeding?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Let me finish the question.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Or for speeding and they don't have a driver's license and they don't have liability insurance --

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: They get arrested.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: They should just say sayonara.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: They don't get arrested right now in San Antonio.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: They do get arrested?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: They do get arrested.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Do you think they should give up their immigration statuses or not.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Let me ask you a question.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Do you know that the City of San Antonio is not a sanctuary city? I don't know what is a sanctuary city. I have yet to have one city in -- that says we are a sanctuary city. So what are we trying to do here today?

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'm supposed to ask and you're supposed to answer.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: No. This is a discourse.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I hope it's a discourse but I'm asking and you're answering. I don't think it's going to cost the City of San Antonio an extra penny because you're going to still continue to stop people for committing traffic violations, and if they find one and they find that he is illegally in the City of San Antonio in the City of San Antonio, I don't think anything is going to be done about it anyway.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Mr. Burman, I'll tell what.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'll tell you; is that correct? Or not?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I'm willing to bet your retirement that the City of San Antonio will pay more money? Are you willing to take that bet?

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: My retirement?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Your retirement.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'm not willing to bet you anything. I'm voting against the gambling bill, as well. I'm asking you a question, and the City of San Antonio, if they find that somebody is illegally in the city, are we going to put them in jail for that reason?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: In the City of San Antonio, if someone doesn't have is a license, the current ordinance that's in place for not having a license and insurance, is that those folks go to jail. The rest of that work, if someone is in jail and they're asked what their county asks their status, ICE is then called and ICE sometimes that shows up, sometimes the person sits in jail for 60, 90, 120 days, that's the current state of affairs in bare county. And unfortunately, we don't often get reimbursed by the Federal Government.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Can you show me where that's actually happening in Bexar County.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I can show you count less examples of where that's happening in Bexar County. It's happening in Travis County. It's happening Dallas County. It's happening in Harris County. If you go to the Bexar County Jail, you are asked, and then ICE is called. ICE has a periods of time by which to get there.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Is San Antonio a sanctuary city?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Colleague, so that you and I could tone down or rhetoric just a bit, I think that my colleague would like to answer a question. But I'm fine continuing our exchange.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'm fine continuing with our exchange, also.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: If you'd like to hear from Representative Castro, also.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Is San Antonio a sanctuary city?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: No, it is not.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises the point of time has expired. The Point of Order is well taken. The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm going to move to table this Amendment. Apparently, this goes against the goal of the legislation itself, which is to apply a consistent standard of law enforcement. And Mr. Gutierrez' Amendment would say that you really -- the bill would not apply unless you have been obtained under a 287G Program. I think you've already heard the dialogue about 2011. I don't really believe that you have to be trained in -- by a 2011 in your investigation by a commissioned peace officer if they feel it's necessary after a lawful detention or arrest, to have someone here who's been here illegally what really happens, generally speaking is the officers get an idea of whether or not that is relevant, pretty quickly, I would assume. But maybe not so much in some cases, whether or not that would be relevant. But I think that Mr. Gutierrez' Amendment would sort of advise some sort of disincentive to participate in 2011 programs, actually. And the city is going to remain sanctuary -- I don't know he if sanctuary is a sanctuary city. There may be people out there who believe they are, but I don't know that. And this bill provides a mechanism for that final determination if there is, in fact, a city out there. But I will say that I was very disappointed in the Police Chief of San Antonio running around saying in the press that we're not going to back up federal enforcement officials because we're just not going to do that unless it's a smuggling case so I'm going to move to table this Amendment.

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

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, I've been trying to seek your attention and request that the gentleman yields.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: And then I would love to speak with my colleague from San Antonio.

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

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'll be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Thank you. You are trying to impose a one-size-fits all for purposes of this discussion; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm trying to provide uniform consistent policy.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: One-size-fits-all? Do you agree with me?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Those are your words.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: All right. Well, then let's use yours. Are the criminal problems in your area the same as the criminal problems in the Rio Grande Valley?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Some of them are the same, not all of them are the same.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: All right. And I think we could say that they're different in Houston versus Austin and many other areas, too, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: This isn't going to be a cross- examination, in that context. And you and I both know that there are similar problems involving crimes going on all over the State of Texas, very similar in nature.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: I do intend to cross-examine you.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: But not everybody has the same problem. I know that along the border there's some issues that may not be quite the same, but maybe similar to what's going on in Dallas/Fort Worth.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: But what your bill does, your bill says that police chiefs and sheriffs departments have to follow a uniform standard when the problems in their particular communities may be different all throughout the great State of Texas. That's what your bill says? In other words, your bill says that if my Police Chief or my sheriff wants to simply say, you know what? I'm worried about the drug cartel. I'm worried about spillover violence. I'm worried about burglaries. Well, we've had a serial rapist. I can't tell my deputies, I can't tell my employers that they -- that they can stop enforcing immigration law. That's what your bill says. If I'm the Police Chief and I pass, and I make a decision, look, we don't have time to be doing these immigration questioning, nor do we have time, and I'll take you to Page 2 of your bill, Section 3, to assist or cooperate with a Federal immigration officer as reasonable and necessary, including providing enforcement assistance. So if I am the Chief of the city of Brownsville and I don't want my guys doing this, I don't want the men and women that work for me out there doing this, we've got crime problems. I've got a community that's concerned about public safety. They can be doing -- they can't do that under your bill. That chief or that sheriff can't do that, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I think federal law already says if you need to cooperate with law enforcement officials in immigration matters.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: You know what? They do already. And you know that, Chairman Solomon. In fact, you have passed another bill out of State Affairs that we all supported, and I asked you about earlier today that said if someone is arrested and detained and they are brought in, their immigration status is to be checked and I voted for that bill. Why have we not seen that bill on the floor?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: No idea. Believe me, I have no idea.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Have you asked Calendar's Committee to vote for a bill that would accomplish the same thing you're trying to accomplish here?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: You know we all go through the same calendar process in getting our bills before. A lot of bills don't make it. Some bills do.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Do you know the average cost to house somebody in a city or county jail per day? Per night?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Do I personally know? No, sir, I don't.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Would you agree with me or would you agree for purposes of discussion that it could be as much as $70 a night?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: No idea. I know it used to be, when several sessions ago we did a bill and I was the Joint Author of it. In fact, I had a separate bill about criminal defendants spending time in county jails and it was about $40 at that time.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Well, that was a long time ago, and I can tell you with a great deal of assurance that it is more like 60 to $70, depending on the county and city where you're at. Now, if people have to be held, detained, including providing the exemption assistance, that's going to take up man-hours of law enforcement people and they're not going to be able to be dealing with other public crimes. Would you agree with that statement?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Chairman Oliveira, I know that you know that it's the duty of every law enforcement official to try to work together.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: And to try to assist.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: And they do now.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: They generally do, but they shouldn't have policy in place, by --

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: You know when they do --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: By order that prohibit the enforcement of our laws.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: You know when they do assist is when people are arrested and detained. And when they are arrested and detained and brought in, their status is checked and ICE agents are there either that night or the following morning in almost every community in Texas. You heard that testimony. You know that there was sworn testimony to that effect, do you not?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I guess so.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Okay. So if they're already being detained and picked up by ICE to decide whether or not they're deported, then the whole situation you're talking about is unnecessary because law enforcement is already cooperating. They already are talking to each other by their different computer systems. They're already deporting people that we don't want in our country; isn't that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, I know you're a law and order kind of guy and that you don't want people here violating the laws and I know that. You've said that on many occasions. I know that is your nature, to want to fight crime every way you can. But I also believe that you would not want people to be free to never, ever, be asked if they're here legally or not.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: I don't want racial profiling, though, either.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't either and you know that.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: In this state, we certainly have driving while black. In this state, if this bill passes, we will have driving while Mexican. That's what's going to happen. Mr. Solomon, let me take you to the school district component of your bill. In that component, what you have is that the employees of a school district, be they law enforcement officers, that if they are told by the school district as they are now. As you also know from our discussions before and the cessation appropriation of school district policy dictates as does the school district case of Tyler says, that a school district is not to inquire the immigration status, would you agree with me, then that, the employees of a district, be they law enforcement officers, if they make this inquiry will now be in violation of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the law.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Based on your concerns in Committee, Mr. Chairman, we worked with the school district attorney in connection with addressing the issue of schools, and we've put in the bill and it came out of Committee, that you asked me to try to get it right and I tried to get it right in connection with that.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: And you made a good-faith effort and I appreciate that.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: And I asked to have that in the bill, coming out of Committee where we addressed the school district's concern about the Supreme Court case in enrollment and that sort of thing. But this bill only goes to whether or not there's -- in fact, we put it in on Lines 19 through 22, but it does not exclude the applications for this section. A commissioned police officer to an open enrollment, charter school or to a junior college district, such that the phrase before says, this section does not apply to the school district or open enrollment, charter school or a junior college district.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: I accept.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: That was specifically put in because of your concerns that were raised.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: And I appreciate you going half of the way there.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: But it goes to a criminal offense where you bring in or a school district uses a commissioned police officer and it goes to a criminal offense where a student could be detained for whatever. But it goes to the --

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: And those are --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: But it goes to a criminal offense.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: And two school children fussing in the yard with each other. The school district police officer shows up and he sees a brown little girl and a black little girl that have been in a fight and he's talking to both of them. And if the school district says you are not to inquire of their immigration status, you are not to ask that little eight-year old, where does your mommy come from? Where does your daddy come from? Are you here illegally? Do you know if your mother has a Resident Alien Card? You're still putting people who are not trained to be immigration officers, you're still asking them to be ICE agents. Even if they're a rent-a-cop for a school district or a licensed peace office for a deputy or a Police Chief. There is specific training that goes into becoming an ICE agent. And I can assure you that our police officers, and clearly the security police at almost every school district in this state and every junior college, is not ready to take on this job. And that's what you're going to force them to do.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: This bill addresses the fact that you should not have policies in place that interfere with the investigation of -- by a commission the police officer in investigating a lawful offense, and that's all it does.

REPRESENTATIVE OLIVEIRA: Now, you've said that there hasn't been any Police Chief or sheriff come by.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Not to me personally. Not one of them have talked to me personally.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Point of Order. The time has expired. The Point of Order is well taken. Sustained. Please excuse Representative Pena because of a Homeland Security Meeting. The Chair brings to record order --

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon to close. Mr. Martinez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Point of Order for further consideration of Committee House Bill 12 in violation of 324.

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

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez raises the Point of Order under Rule 4 Section 32(c)4, and that the comparison original substitute section of the bill analysis failed to state substantial differences between a complete substitute and an original bill, especially as it relates to the denial of state grant funds. The Chair has reviewed the entire analysis, the Statement of Sustainability, the difference between the committees substituting the bill is not materially or substitutionally misleading. The Point of Order is respectfully overruled. The Chair recognizes Representative. Martinez. Martinez-Fischer, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I had offered a Point of Order at least an hour, if not longer, and I was advised by the Chair that they were working on the statement, explaining the rational for the overruled Point of Order. I'd like to know when that might be available to be read by this body so that we are --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Still working object on it. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I'm sorry?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Still working on it. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Does the Chair advise us on how much more time the Chair needs?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, we're working on one Point of Order at a time. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but mine's been skipped.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Pardon? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mine's been skipped.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Still working on it. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: You're not aware of the time?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Not advised. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: It's the practice of the House to dispose of a Point of Order, is it before the body until such time as the Chair gives the rational for his ruling or is the matter disposed of simply because the Chair makes a ruling?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We've already ruled on the Point of Order. We're just waiting to give you a written description of it but it's already been ruled upon and ordered. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Yes, sir, and I know that. But I'm saying that in terms of does the ruling alone satisfy the disposition so that we can move forward or is it the courtesy that we can move forward while waiting for an explanation?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe that's correct. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Which one?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The second one. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: The courtesy that we're waiting for an explanation.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're moving forward. We've already ruled on the point. He's writing a description for you but we are moving forward. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: But as a matter of Parliamentary procedure my inquiry is: Is the Chair in the position to move forward pending a written explanation on the ruling?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, we are. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Okay. And that's under what rule?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Under Rule 1 Section 9. It is considered and disposed of the Point of Order. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Thank you. The Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez to close on his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Excuse me, Members, the Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for an announcement:

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Actually, Members, I request permission for the Committee on Criminal Juris Prudence to meet while the House is in Session today at 5:30 in room 3W9 to consider pending business. That would be today, 53W9 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 following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Civil Juris Prudence will meet at 5:30 p.m., today, May 6, 2009, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hardcastle for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. The Aggie Livestock will meet in the Speakers Committee Room in the back at 5:30 or as soon as Mr. Miles comes through the door. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez to close on his Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. Basically, what this Amendment does, folks, is to ask for some training by the Federal Government. The police department -- they're not immigration. They're not ICE departments. Neither is my county sheriffs, neither is the county sheriffs in Dallas in Austin. They're not ICE officers. They're not immigration officers. They're not trained to do those things. And so this is absolutely an unfunded mandate. No. 2, I don't really know of any sanctuary cities in the State of Texas. I know my city is not one. I had a colleague tell me that they thought maybe Houston was. But Houston's not a sanctuary city. I checked it out with their delegation. So I don't know one municipality or town or county that said that they're a sanctuary city. And so what I'm asking for in this Amendment is some reason so that our towns don't have to incur more unfunded mandates.

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

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Gutierrez, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I will yield, sir.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Mr. Gutierrez, the reason you're proposing this Amendment is because supposedly this quorum and allows for cities, counties to work with the Federal Government relating to immigration; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Yes. That's correct, Representative.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Now, Mr. Gutierrez, are you familiar with the city of Irving, Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Not -- I'm not advised. Maybe you can enlighten us.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Okay. The reason I'm bringing that to the attention is because Irving, Texas, that's in North Texas, is one of the cities that has this type of program. Are you aware that even though, which is what you're trying to do with this legislation, is to get the people trained -- and I'm going to tell you why I'm bringing this forward. Is that there was a study done by, I think, it was Berkeley, that showed that even though there was a law already, which in 2011, Irving wasn't complying with all the requirements of the law. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: No. No. I'm not.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: And the reason I mentioned that is we have dealt with this issue, which you're probably aware in North Texas, as it relates to immigration, you're familiar with the situation in Farmer's Ranch, and that's that town has gotten a lot more attention, but this town, as it relates to 2011, has gotten a lot of attention. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: And the other part I bring up here is you're trying to give help, help to this legislation by creating an opportunity for training, and this legislation doesn't do that, right?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Well, I'll tell you that I, as you know, am not in agreement with the bill that's before us, which is House Bill 12, and that is very clear, and I don't think that there's any member of mouth or any person in the Democratic Caucus that might agree with this particular piece of legislation. But my Amendment says that if we're going to have this type of legislation, then we should get the Federal Government Federal Government to come down and help us do our work. Because as I was talking to Representative berm an exam we had our little private discussion earlier in Bexar County, when someone gets arrested and they don't have a license, they get arrested and get taken over to the jail and they are asked where they're from and so on. And if there's a suspicion or an understanding that they're from Mexico, ICE has 24 or 48 hours to come down and extra Kate that person from the counties jail and put an ICE hold, as you know. And so this does happen, and so I have a concern with legislation, such as this, that is going to allow overzealous law enforcement officers to go out and fill our jails with more people that the Federal Government is not paying for, perhaps not performing their duties as they should under ICE standards. And so our employers are not officers. They're employers. They're there to solve murders and drug problems and theft and things of that nature. So I think that my Amendment would help in some way, at least help our cities pay for this stuff.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: And Mr. Gutierrez in the presentation, if you remember, by Chairman, Solomon, he says that, you know, these folks, when they stop people, they're normally going to ask for their license and insurance.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: And I think that the deal is to come before these individuals. But do you know that there's no such law, there's no such law if no insurance? Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Well, in part, that's true. There's some ordinances in Bexar County, and unfortunately in the City of San Antonio, it's a Two-Strike Policy, if someone doesn't have a license and doesn't have insurance, you can be arrested.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: And the reason I bring this up, as far as for law, and just to follow up on the insurance: It's not against the law to have no insurance. It's against the law to have no proof of financial responsibility. And the reason I bring that up is people approach individuals. They might be breaking the law, even the police, and implementing the law but once they get arrested, then what? And I bring up that because the reason you're trying to relief with this legislation is to provide some training have because even those, the ones that are trained, aren't even following the law.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: And sometimes, you know, as there are sometimes bad lawyers, bad priests, bad employers, we have to deal with the 90 percent good in the world and the ten percent bad. And just because they've got a badge or just because they're legislatures or just because they're doctors or just because they're priests doesn't mean they're all good. We have to do everything that's incumbent upon us and everything that's in our powers, that we do the right things for people and make sure that they don't go out and do the right, the wrong things that they're not supposed to do. Not allow their overzealousness to take over. And so at very least, I think that ICE needs to come down and train my city. And also, really quit frankly, I'll have another Amendment later, provide some funds if we're going to go out and do this type of stuff.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: And the reason I bring this forward is because some people might think it's not that bad. But in our communities, this is the talk of the town. This is the big deal, the radio programs. The TV stations. The newspapers. Everybody in the state, especially through the Spanish Language Media, this is it. This is the biggest thing going on here in Austin, and they're very concerned and that's why we're bringing these Amendments and clarity and loudly speaking out against this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: You're right, colleague. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, I take offense to this. I'm a son of immigrants, as you are, as many of others are in this room. And so, to the extent that when we have this kind of legislation come forward, I'm sorry that we get a little upset. I'm sorry that we feel that this is targeting our backs or targeting people in our community. That's the process and ultimately it tears at our heart when our people are attacked. So, you know, I think that what you're going to see for the rest of the evening is a lot of that emotion play out. And so I apologize in advance for our fervor and our seal. But we've got to do everything we can to make sure that people in our Hispanic community. We've got to ensure that people in our state -- because our state is different in Arizona. Our state is built on multi culturalism and diversity. My parents were immigrants. Representative Gallego's father was an immigrant to this country. Anna Hernandez' parents were immigrants to this country. And the most important thing that I want to say to this legislature today is that because of this culture, and other Hispanics in this room that perhaps parents weren't immigrants, they were probably here longer than many of the other folks that are here in this room. So they take offense to having their folks targeted have.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

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

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Speaker, we all bring to the board -- different Hispanics. You served on the Hispanic City Council, and you served on the budget issues, police counsel and that sort of thing.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Absolutely. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And counsel who just left this desk, mic. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: He is from West Dallas County, and he may be more familiar on a personal level with a situation in Irving than a lot of people are. Are you familiar with the academic organization that Chief Justice Earl Warren's Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Well, colleague, I am on a very cursory level, but I know that you're going to let us know a little bit more about that. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, I thought you would be really interested to know that this Summary Report on Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program brings up in the first paragraph the problems with what was going on in Irving, Texas. In fact, the Institutes Analysis of Arrest Status pursuant to an ICE local partnership in Irving demonstrates that ICE is not following Congress' madates to focus deportation on the status of immigrants with serious criminal histories. Were you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: No, I wasn't, but I understand that profiling is a big problem in our state. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And you are aware that the second paragraph goes on to say that that study also shows that immediately after Irving Texas law enforcement had 24-hour access via telephone and video teleconference to ICE and the local jails, discretionary arrest of Hispanics for petty offenses, particularly minor traffic offenses dramatically? Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I'm not aware but I'm not surprised. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, it's not surprising based on a personal life history experiences. We've all heard the term driving black.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Well, it's funny you mention that, colleague, because I was talking to some of my colleagues yesterday about driving while black. Last Session there was a story on CNN and in the documentary, it was an hour-long documentary, in Grisham County. The D.A. had gotten into some deal where they were pulling people over for simple driving offenses and somehow they were using the statute of driving (inaudible). She never got indicted for this, and so the abuses that they put in the asset forfeiture -- Representative Gallego, I know will remember this story. It was a travesty what they were doing to mostly African Americans, pulling them over, taking them downtown, taking all their cash, taking jewelry. And so those are some of the things that happened. This is not some crazy, wild-eyed liberal view. This happens, unfortunately, to people of color in the State of Texas and throughout the country. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Have you heard the stories from our individual colleagues who are African American or Hispanic who have had their own experience along these lines when they are a state elected official?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: Well, and no, I haven't, but I know that, and I don't want to jump ahead of, but I know in closing, I know we're going to hear from Representative Menendez and he's going to tell us a very poignant, telling story about what happened in his district. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I've heard three or four of those stories. I just want to call to your attention one of the reasons, I think you have a good Amendment. I think we have a really legitimate concern that this bill panders the unintended consequences of adding to the probability of colleagues in this House Floor and certainly the majority of my constituents be conduct subjected to inappropriate and unnecessary racial profiling.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, thank you and I'm going to close now. Just in closing, let's just summarize what this is: This is an unfunded mandate. There are no sanctuary cities in the State of Texas. Congress has failed us. We have a Congress in the United States Congress that has look lacked the particular fortitude to do what's right and have good immigration policy. They need to have good immigration policy. This is not our job to be wasting have we need to be worrying about kids, schools, Higher Education. Hospitals, senior citizens. So I appreciate and I guess I can understand this particular piece of legislation. But let's not let Congress, you certain people in this House as, use certain people in this House as puppets to do their bidding.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield for a few questions?

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I will.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State Representative Gutierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Our colleague who just spoke before me brought up, you know, some just words regarding some of us who have gone through experiences. I'd like to --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative, Point of Order. The time has expired. The words were well taken today.

REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ: I'd ask that you vote for this Amendment and vote to not table because this is an unfunded mandate.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gutierrez moves up this Amendment. Representative Solomon moves to table. The motion is on the table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Gutierrez voting know no. Mr. Solomon voting aye. Show Mr. Anchia voting no. Have all voted? Show Mr. Torres voting aye. Show Mr. Isaacs voting aye. Have all voted? Being 92 ayes and 47 nays. Motion to table the motion prevails. The following Amendment, the clerk will read the Amendment. We're on Page 3.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. You've heard some of the back and forth the tension that exists. There's the concern about the ability of chief law enforcement officers of a particular subdivision being able to prioritize the activity that they want to introduce the criminal activity that they want to interject. A governmental body for a political subdivision determine that adoption of this law in a particular municipality inhibits their ability to have rapid 911 or emergency response times or inhibits their ability to deal with violent or drug related crimes or their ability to deal with things like human trafficking under Title 5 of the Penal Code or sexual assault under Title 5 of the Penal Code or the introduction of controlled substance of chapter 41 of the Health & Safety Code that they don't have to enforce this law. That they don't have to adopt this policy. And I'll tell you why, Members, what people care about in the district that I represent is that if they call 911, that cops are going to show up and show up fast because they're worried about getting a house broken into or being assaulted. Or if there's a domestic violence problem, that's what the people in my district care about. And if this law has the effect of diminishing response times of police departments, then it's a bad law. And I believe, and I trust the chief law enforcement officers of the City of Dallas or the sheriff of Dallas County to know what priorities to place. And I'll give you concrete examples. We work very closely with the Sheriffs Office in DPE in Northwest Dallas. And priorities there are the massage parlors and the prostitutions and the drug crime and sexual assaults. And if the chief law enforcement officers says guys in the 44th and 45th, which is what we call that beat, I don't want you to dealing with pulling over undocumented immigrants. I don't want you to focus on taking them to jail. I want you to focus on the gang bangers and the drug dealers and the murderers. Those are the priorities I want you to be focussing on. This bill says, no, you can't place those priorities because it would be the effects of a policy that you can't prioritize those most serious violent crimes and, in fact, there are penalties. And the bill it says, if you -- if you go ahead and there's a pattern of behavior that you're not enforcing this law, then you lose state funds. And I'll look specifically at the language. I don't have it in front of me now. But there are consequences to not doing that. So I think this ties the hands of police chiefs, of sheriffs around the state, and I don't think that's our place. I'm not a Police Chief, and I'm not a Police Chief in your community and you're not a Police Chief in mine. So you have no idea what goes on in the 44th and 45th District. And it is for that reason, Members, that we shouldn't be tying the law, the hands of law enforcement in our local communities by saying that they cannot prioritize and tell their officers, don't worry about undocumented immigration at this point because we have more pressing concerns right now like murderers, like serial rapists, like drug dealers, like gang bangers have they can't do that under this bill and I think that's a problem. So my Amendment fixes that and I'd ask you Members to vote in favor of this Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Would the speaker yield? Would the speaker yield for questions?

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Representative Anchia, I don't believe your Amendment in any way works against the intent of Chairman Solomon's bill. It actually doesn't say that they shall not enforce immigration policy. All it says is that they're going to pass a bill, which I think eventually the intent is going to be questioned and it could be read that we're making them enforce the immigration policy but that's not neither here nor there. Your bill does not say that they're going to adopt policy against immigration enforcement. All it says is if this were to exist, we want to make sure we give them the flexibility to say that 911 emergencies and investigation of serious crimes will take a forefront and a priority in their agency. Is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Look, I'm not the Police Chief in San Antonio or Brownsville or Cameron County or Bexar County. You know what? I trust those police officers to do their job. And frankly, if my wife tonight is at home and someone's trying to break down the door and she's calling 911 for the beat cops in our community and they're busy taking a grandma who didn't have insurance downtown because she was undocumented and they're not responding to my wife -- that is a problem. I don't want those priorities. I want the priorities that they're going to come to my house fast.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Super fast.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Okay. And I know that's what everyone in this room wants. So that's why this Amendments so important. It doesn't tie the hand of chief law enforcement officers, those guys. You know the community in Bexar County or Cameron County better than I do here on this House Floor, and you know what the priorities of your law enforcement department is. Go ahead and execute and don't worry about state intervention or meddling or the tying of your hands.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: And you know, Representative, I think there are probably several Members on this floor that don't feel it necessary because they think of this as a simple bill. To be very specific about how we're going to enforce this because that's what we have to be. As you know in your Fourth session, now this is your Fourth session, we repeatedly come back to work on the same policy matters because with we have to clarify things because once this legislation gets out in the real world and it's enforced, it's very different than the author's intents. So we're just trying to make this a better bill with this Amendment, aren't we? And all we're saying is you can't enforce immigration policy, and I know you're going to vote against the bill, as am I. But we are saying if this bill passes, we are going to leave local control with those very knowledgeable about the crime element in their community to make certain priorities like serious crime and 911 emergencies.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Look, this is about 911. This is about the gang bangers that we want out of our community. This is about the murderers, the rapist. Drug cartels. This is about letting local law enforcement deploy their resources and prioritize their resources in a way that makes our communities safer. And if we don't do this, we risk that 911 response time that is so precious to the people that live in the community that I represent being prolonged and being sacrificed. And I can't live with myself if something bad happens in the district I represent because we didn't let local law enforcement do their jobs.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: I'll just make one more comment because my colleague behind me has a few questions. My next door neighbor, who happens to be my brother-in-law, is a police officer. And I was asking him about this bill. It's just about law enforcement, in general. And the first thing he said is I can't imagine having another thing to look after when we are so undermanned fighting violence alone.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Look. The bottom line is: We all know, Representative Menendez, as a former City Councilperson, we know what's happening in the trenches, in the police counsels, around this state. Cuts are happening. Whether it's V-tops or Amendment personnel. Cuts are happening in our communities. We're now telling these law enforcement officers of these communities they can't prioritize with limited resources and that's just wrong.

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

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Your legislation goes to the crux of what we had in Committee. At what point Representative Trimmer stated in a question to Representative Hahn, does this mean that our Police Chief will no longer be able to run their department? And the response was, well, as long as they don't ask them to interfere with their right to ask immagratory status. So then I followed up, and would it surprise you to know that the question I posed was if a police officer chose to detain someone for a traffic violation, could they detain them and hold them as long as they wanted to, even if the chief would like them to go somewhere else? And the answer is still yes because the chief can't institute a policy that would interfere with their right to investigate their immagratory status.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Look, I agree with you. The chief has enough of a difficult time already. And the chief in the 44 and 45, which is Northwest Dallas, tells the cops, guys, I want you to shut down the massage parlors because they're trafficking young women from Latin America and Asia, using them as sex slaves. Don't worry about anything else. That is the only thing I want you to worry about. That could be construed as setting a policy that ignores immigration law, and that's just wrong. And then it gives the act to file a complaint against my Chief of Police for trying to help the people of Northwest Dallas to prioritize. He's telling the guys, don't worry about enforcing immigration law. That's the Federal Government s job. You guys need to deal with the human trafficking that happens every day and the sex labor that happens every day in Northwest Dallas.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: So if we vote against your Amendment, the message we're sending to our Police Chief is we know more about how to run your department than you do? Let us decide because it's more important for you to ask someone in your department ask about someone's legal and immagratory status than it is for you to run your department?

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I don't live in Bexar County. I don't live in Abilene. I don't live in Euless in El Paso. Nor am I a law enforcement officer. It is my job to trust the prioritization of police chiefs and sheriffs around this state to deploy resources in a way that they think that is most effective to make our communities safe. This bill handcuffs them by adopting this Amendment we can fix that problem and that's why I would urge you to adopt this Amendment. Thank you Members.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I appreciate the comments made by Representative Anchia, and I'm sure he's watching back there to grill me on this Amendment. But let me just tell you what I do think it does. The bill itself doesn't change how a police officer will do his or her job on the street. It just prohibits city or sanctuary CITIES, COUNTIES, sheriffs, Chief of Police, anybody from prohibiting them from having a policy that says you don't enforce the law. And this Amendment let's the chief, basically, decide on what laws they're going to go ahead and enforce, and quite frankly, I think, although Mr. Anchia is very.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Smart.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I don't want to say smart. He is making an argument -- he's well dressed, for sure. But making an argument that is going to gut this bill. This Amendment guts the bill. This allows any chief, one person, to basically say we really don't have to abide by state law because I can find all kind of loop holes where we can just continue business as usual. So with that, I want to say that I think all of the laws that we have on the books ought to be enforced. But it doesn't necessarily require the chief or anybody else to prioritize or do anything differently than what they're doing today. All it does is prohibit them from having a standing order of some sort that says you're going to get -- I'm going to tell you what laws you basically enforce and what laws you don't. And as far as it comes to immigration policy, I don't want you to enforce it because I can come up with all kind of reasons not to enforce and help us enforce our immigration laws in the country and in the state. So I believe the Amendment guts the bill and I'm going to move to table. I'll go ahead and yield for the gentleman.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Of course.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thanks for saying all those nice things about me. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. How do you define policy.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: How do I define a policy?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: What does policy means?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: A policy is a policy have basically, they are orders, generally, your case in this Amendment, a chief will have an order of some sort of Amendment, he or this is what I want to you do, Amendment, this order, whatever, policy number, whatever it is. Here's what I want you to do or not do.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Could it be orders? Just verbal orders to --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: It could be verbal orders. It could be written orders. Most of the time police departments like to, especially use a lot of paper now. You know, they like to document everything. So I assume for the most part, it's going to be written orders.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: You said all the laws should be enforced, and I tend to agree with you there, but chief law enforcement officers be required to distribute resources equally to enforce all the laws or do you think chief law enforcement officers should be able to prioritize resources because of the limited resources that they have?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I think that they generally tend to look at what crimes are going on in their communities. For example, burglaries. They will spend a lot of time and as officers to patrol certain areas, go through that process because they know certain things are happening in their communities.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: So you would agree with me then that they can prioritize serial rapists, would you prioritize resources there. There's a serial murderer, prioritize resources there. You have cartels that's operating and distributing drugs in your community, you would prioritize resources there, correct? You're a chief law enforcement officer?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: You want to say prioritize, I want to say what basically, chiefs of police generally do and communities generally do ask when they know they have a particular problem somewhere, they actually pay attention to that area and actually ensure that they are trying to bring it back under control.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Right. So that people are safe? You want to make people safe.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: The goal of following the law in any police department is to keep people safe. That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Okay. We are in agreement there.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: So limited resources, when chief law enforcement officers try to keep people safe, they have to prioritize those limited resources, don't they?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm sorry. What?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: If you have limited resources you try to limit those resources, right?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Just like we're trying to do in the budget, you try and decide where to spend your money. That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: So we're in agreement. This bill does nothing of that sort.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: What you're trying to do --

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: What you're trying to did with your Amendment and cleverly -- that's the wordy was looking for cleverly, try to ensure that somehow the police departments of this state can ignore whatever bill we pass.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: No. I think I stated clearly in my layout that this is about priorities. You agree with me that we both want public safety in our communities. You also agree with me that limited funding, Police Chief law enforcement officers have to direct and prioritize resources to intradict crime on an unequal level, right? That happens? Now, what your bill does, says, if a Police Chief provides an order, which you agree with me is a policy that says we are not going to worry about detaining undocumented grandmother's who don't have licenses that instead are going to deal with serial rapists or murderers or drug dealers. That creates a policy, and if they do it on a regular basis, a pattern of adopting a policy that would cause them to fall underneath this bill, would it not?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I think if a police chief were to say and issue an order that says we're not going to go ahead and deal with immigration of any sort, don't arrest anybody, if they're here legally or not, because until they're over there, I think that would be a violation of this bill what you're trying to do is not have policies in place that basically interfere with the enforcement of the commissioned employer's discretion. You know as well as I do that what happens on the street is there employers are making determinations based on when they're investigating any kind of criminal offense. What you're trying to do cleverly with your Amendment is say somehow, that by prioritizing, it will not be a violation. And the question is: Really what kind of prioritization are you talking about? Are you telling them not to enforce the laws and just pick and choose which ones you want to go after? Do you want police chiefs to be able to say, we're not going to worry about all the other safety and criminal laws in the community including illegal immigration? We're just going concentrate on burglaries this week?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: That's exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: And what you're going to try to do is gut the bill.

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

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the exchange with Representative Solomon, I think I got a great witness there because what he says is we'd rather have people dealing with the undocumented grandmother that doesn't have a license. We want to spend resources there instead of dealing with burglary. Well, I tell you if my house is broken into tonight, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, with my wife and kids home, and they call the cops and for some reason, the local beat cops are out trying to deal with somebody who didn't have a license or didn't have insurance and they arrive at my house when it's too late -- that's a problem. That's a huge problem. And Burt just said it, that's right. He would rather have our local law enforcement officer deal with the immigrant grandmother who doesn't have a license than with burglaries in my neighborhood. I think that's wrong. I think my county, republican or democrat, would think that's wrong. Because when somebody's trying to break down your back door, you want the cops to come and you want them to come ASAP. You want them to call 911 and you want response. Instead, Burt said, it a policy, whether it's an oral policy or a written policy have he calls it a policy when a chief directs his law enforcement officers to deal with priorities, rape, burglaries, violent crime, drug crime. Human trafficking -- the stuff that we all pass bills on here and abhor. We hate it. We want to stop it. But at the same time by adopting this bill we're going to tie the hands of our police chiefs. Burt said it very clearly up here. Yes, that is a policy. Yes, I don't want them dealing with burglary and instead, I want them to deal with the undocumented grandma. He said it right here and now and I think that's wrong. I think this is bad policy. I think we need to adopt this Amendment and we need to get on with the business of this state. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Anchia sends up an Amendment. Representative Solomon moves to table. The motion is on the table. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Mr. Phillips voting aye. Have all voted? There being 95 ayes and 46 nays. The motion to table prevails. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez-Fischer.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Door keeper?

DOOR KEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Door of the House.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes messenger.

DOOR KEEPER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed to inform the House that the Senate should take the following action.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This is an Affordable Housing Amendment that's an expansion of Representative Anchia. I can understand Chairman Solomon's point about having chief law enforcement officers making arbitrary calls on the statewide law and all the effects of that objection -- I understand maybe his philosophy has to do with perhaps they're law enforcement officers, they follow orders. They don't set policy. Policy makers set the policy. Law enforcement carry out that policy and I'm not going to speak for them, but maybe that's what he's thinking. But I do know, regardless of his position on that, I know how he feels about unfunded mandates. I know how this body feels about unfunded mandates and just a quick review of the T list, I think we have enough support on unfunded mandates to override the Governor if we wanted to. That's how many people believe that we should not be passing policies. And, in fact, it's not just policies. My friend says that any law enacted by the legislature on or after January 1st, 2012, that requires a local government to establish, expand or modify a duty or activity that requires the expenditure of revenue by local government is not effective unless the legislature appropriates it or otherwise provides. And I believe that that is done with the intent to make sure that our local governments are not handcuffed and not handcuffed with the fiscal restraint that we put on them sometimes, especially during times when we're making cuts and passing obligations and responsibilities down to the local government level and so if we're not going. And so if we're not going to let the chiefs of police, we're not going to let the constables, the sheriffs, the local law enforcement, chief law enforcement officers, if we're not going to let them set policy, I agree with that. But we should let our local governmental entities set policy because they do that. That's why they get elected to City Council. This Chairman is fortunate enough to be blessed with a number of Members that served in the City Council and know how hard people work to make these policy decisions, know how close they are to the counties on the ground that they represent and understand their needs and desires and they want and understand their priorities. And what we should be doing with these priorities limited dollars and expanding responsibilities. I also know we're very fortunate to have court commissioners serving this body, including a good friend of mine from Bexar County that spend all of his years maturing on that counsel. And I always come to the legislature to tell courts what to do. And I believe when he was sitting on that commissioners dias. He would be disturbed to know that once again in Austin, Texas, we're telling people what to do locally have we're not telling them how to pay for it and we're not telling them that we have a pathway to help them out of a jam. And I recall in Commissioner Larson, Representative Larson, we used to write each other, back and forth. I never met him, but we he would send letters back and forth about transportation, toll roads and the state needs to belly up and pay for these roads and not put the obligation on local citizens. And so I know where he is on this issue. I know how he feels. This is very sensible. This Amendment says that if a super-majority of a local governmental body, whether it be a County or Commissioner's Court -- if they decide that they want to opt out of the application of this section, they can justify it however we want, however they want, and we will have to take their word of this elective and perhaps it has to do with the language in HJR 56. Maybe it's these words that spark that action. But if 3/4ths, a very high bar, you know how hard it is to get 3/4ths vote in this chamber. We have 3/4ths vote and the number of response is greater than 56. And so we have to really believe what we say. We have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. And this says that if 3/4ths of the member of the governing body, my Resolution says --

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Would the gentleman yield? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Yes, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you. Representative Martinez-Fischer, why do you think it's important that the local governing body should have the right to vote on this? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, A, I think it's local control. B, I think local governments set policy. And C, I think that we have a conflict and a challenge sometimes of letting our local governments do what's best for the local communities.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: I couldn't agree with you more because this is going to impact their budget. In my previous questions and statements, I was talking about, for example, the City of Houston. I asked their police department because they are the ones that would have to implement this. How many new people would they have to hire? 58 new personnel. I didn't make this up. This came from the Houston Police Department, and they broke it down. 22 local officers, designated for immigration. 33 for guards and additional prisoner beds. There is a lot more at stake than just what some people have said this is a simple bill. It is not because it impacts their budget. We are taken away their authority completely stripping it away. And also, the training that has to be in place two weeks. My desk mate said that he didn't believe how a police department would take two weeks to train officers. And that's because immigration law is very complicated. Our police department says that they would need two weeks to do this. They would have to pull employers off the street, teach them the complex immigration laws, civil violations, criminal violations. You know coming from a city the size of San Antonio, what? Now, 7th, 6th largest in the state. Your department is already understaffed; is that correct? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: That's correct. And let me just tell you the irony and diary speak for Chairman Gallego, but I submit, he probably has the busiest Committee in the House. It's the largest number of bills filed and refer to that Committee. And everybody in this Chairman talks the big talk about being tough on crime. And for some reason when we passed crime bills in our community, we trust law enforcement to go out and catch the bad person. We let them do their job. We don't tell them how to do it, we tell them it's a crime to do it and we trust when they do it. And all of the sudden when it comes to this, when they have to do. I think that that is hypocritical, I think it's disrespectful, and I think it's really a sad commentary on how we feel about our local governmental counterparts. And I think it's something that we really need to reckon with because if it's good enough for all of us to file crime bills that haven't been forced locally, that we should give that discretion, that respect and rely on that experience, deferring to our law enforcement officers and our local policy makers to set those enforcement priorities. Because I'll tell you what: Crime problems in healthcare may not be the same in Bexar County and so on and so forth. Big city crime is not like little city crime. And were are we now going to make this a No. 1 priority and it will be a No. One Priority because we're taking your money. And when we're going to be boosting you, when we're shoplifting that money out of your pocket, you will make this a priority and forget about your local protocol. Forget about what matters to rural Texas. This may not be a problem in rural Texas. I'll tell you what, it will become a problem. You'll be fearful. Your county judge is going to be worried about losing money. Your mayor is going to be worried about losing money. Your school district is going to be worried about losing money. And so they're all of a sudden your issues aren't as important because we have to do this. But yet we know how we feel.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Burman for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Would the gentleman yield? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I do yield.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Thank you. Representative Martinez-Fischer. We've been talking about unfunded mandates. Are you aware that both my county and my city gave most specific direction that their but to avoid unfunded mandates? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I did not know that but I'm not surprised. I know why.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Did you hear Representative Gonzalez when she reported that our mere, the City of Fort Worth, wrote a letter specifically in opposition to this bill because of the unfunded mandate aspect of that. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I didn't know that but I know this: The biggest compliment and the biggest seal of approval any member can get from this body is to pass a law and know that it's going to be carried out and know that it's going to be so good that there's no reason not to apply it in your community. And if Chair Solomon's is so good and so fair and so reasonable and it confirms to everybody's unique characteristics of your district, your county, your city, nobody's going to opt out. Don't worry. Nobody will opt out. But we're going to be gone for 18 months after we get out of Session and we ought to provide some relief just in the event that this law seems to run into the head water or the head winds of a local governmental desire and it defeats the priority. Because your small town may not have the law enforcement resources that my small town has. And so what happens then? What happens to your --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentlemen, your time has expired. Point of Order is well taken. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Let me just remind you what the bill does, and it just creates a uniform standard on our local law enforcement will work with federal immigration departments. We pass bills. We pass laws here regularly. Criminal laws. Other laws that are state-wide in body. State-wide effect. And this Amendment is unacceptable.

SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: No, I will not yield at this moment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: No, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: It would really allow the local governments to opt out of what we're trying to accomplish with the bill is to have some uniform consistent standard in how we deal with this issue. And allow that process to work itself out for the city, counties, other governmental entities to resolve these issues once and for. So I'm going to move -- we might as well not pass -- well, maybe we shouldn't pass a lot of state laws, but at the end of the day, whenever we pass laws, are we going to allow local government to not use whenever they say we don't like this law, we don't like that law, whatever they don't like. Let's just have an election and decide if we don't want to follow the laws. That's not what we do here. That's not what the people of Texas asks us to come here to do. And I think the people of Texas basically asks us to come here and put this issue to bed for once and for all and try to come up with a process, and I would move to table this Amendment.

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

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

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm sorry, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I know you didn't intend to do that. I just wanted to follow up on my questioning with Representative Martinez-Fischer, that information I received -- are you aware that the police department has already encapsulated the.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: You may have to speak up for me.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Are you aware that the City of Fort Worth Police Department has already calculated anticipated expenses to address this bill in the event that it's been implemented? And they say that it will cost them $300,000 a year to hire seven more people in communications to handle the verification status and inquiries that they anticipate and that's the reason that the mayor has sent a letter in opposition to the bill and is in complete conflict with the City's first priorities of the Session?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I'm not aware on what basis, but I will say that I think that that may be an overreaction. And I am very respectful of your mayor.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer to close. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mr. Speaker and Members. I have three words, come on Bert. Come on Bert. Those are my three words. Come on Bert. Are you kidding me that? That's the reason why we're not going to take this Amendment because we're going to be uniform around here and we might as and that's the reason why we're not going to pass laws because people get to pick and choose? People get got to pick and choose you and some opted out And that's just how it works. But I tell you what, Members: We're going to take this vote, but I will also tell you that I was working on an Amendment to the Amendment, the Chairman didn't want to give me the opportunity to present, but I'll lay it out anyway because I get to close. The Amendment to the Amendment says, guess what local governments? Better is right. You don't have to opt out. In fact, if your reason for opting out is financial, then you don't have to opt out as long as the state will pick up the tabs and give you a pass. I think that's a great policy. Maybe you do, too, if you believe the words behind the author of HGR 56, phenomenal five public policy. The only way you may be able to pass HGR 56. It been on calendar how long? A long time. So, in essence, if you want to duck out on HGR 56, then we'll just have to take this vote on motion to table. But I think the argument is very serious and the policy is sound. Why should we put the law enforcement priorities of Texas to be uniform with the largest city in America like Houston? Does it make any sense? Do they even have the personnel? Do they even have the resources? Do they even have the 911 capabilities that Texas and the House have? That's the reality. And so --

REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: Mr. Speaker. Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Martinez-Fischer, will you yield? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Yes, sir, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: Martinez-Fischer, what is HJR 56 that you're referring to? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: It's a House Joint Resolution. A constitutional Amendment that was authored by Chairman Bert Solomon, Chairman Callegari, Representative King of Taylor, and probably about 100 plus other Members. Probably myself. I'm sure I signed onto it that says we're going to tell the people of the state of Texas, you get an opt out. You can vote.

REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: What it says is that there will be no unfunded mandates in the State of Texas and that the Amendment that you're proposing or that he was proposing has been sitting in calendar and hasn't come out? Is that what you're telling us? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: That's what I'm telling you, yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: And so now, the bill that we're looking at, based on information we're getting from police chiefs, cities, sheriffs, counties, cities, MUDs, whatever, hospital districts, because they're all governmental entities under this bill and they're all going to be able to enforce immigration law. But now in this bill, we're going to have the biggest unfunded mandate of the Session; isn't that right? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Biggest unfunded mandate. The largest increase in Spanish classes across the state.

REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: And when you're talking about telling local police and local sheriffs how to do their business, regardless of what crisis may exist, regardless of what situation, we are now deciding from the mountain top of Olympus that this is the most important thing to be doing? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And I sympathize with that. I don't understand the rationale on that.

REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: I also agree with your Amendment and I don't understand why we can't let the one, I thought fundamental principal of most of us on this floor, there would be no unfunded mandate and that we believe in local control, why we won't let that happen. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you Chairman, and with that, again, it's a simple motion. If the bill is as good as it's been told up here, it will never come into play. It's just poetry. It's just a few extra lines in the Vernon's code and it's better to be safe than sorry. I ask you: Let's keep in discussion alive. Let's take a stand for unfunded mandates. Let's take a stand for respect in deference to our local governments and our local elected official counterparts. And let's take a stand for the citizens that we represent and understand that sometimes we don't have all the answers and sometimes it's better to get those answers addressed at the local level so that we can custom tailor these issues to fit the needs and desires and the priorities of our respective local governments. And with that I ask you to please vote no on the motion table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez-Fischer sends up an Amendment. Representative Solomon moves to table on the motion table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Martinez-Fischer voting no. Show Representative Solomon voting aye. Have all voted? There being 93 ayes, 47 nays. The motion table prevails. The Chair recognizes Representative Guillen for motion.

REPRESENTATIVE GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request permission on the Committee on Recreation & Tourism to meet while the House is in Session at 3:15 p.m. today, May 6, 2011, at 3W.15 to consider pending business.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Recreation & Tourism will meet at 3615 p.m., May 6th, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to lower the rhetoric a little bit with respect to this Amendment. Those of you who know me have been in criminal juris prudence know that I really try to defer very much, whether I agree with you or whether I disagree with you, I try to work with you to make sure that in the end, we try to go, Mr. Fletcher or Ms. Riddle or anyone who worked with me. It's really a question of professional courtesy and respect. And deferring to the people who elected us because each of us who comes to this chamber, comes with the blessing of the 160,000 or so people that we represent. What this Amendment seeks to do is to give that same kind of professional courtesy or that same kind of deference to the local sheriffs. Because I've heard from a significant number of the sheriffs, not only in the desks that I represent, but frankly because I've had the opportunity to share juris prudence, but I've had the opportunity to know sheriffs during this process. Many of them have called me about this particular legislation. And so what the Amendment seeks to do is essentially give those sheriffs a little bit of discretion because they, too, are elected and they, too, know how to handle their own office. If you look at Brewster County, for example, in far west, Texas, which is the single biggest county in the state. It's also one of the poorest. And so you have at any given time, maybe two deputies covering a county, that is larger than many states. And so at a time when budget constraints are concerning everyone across the board, not only here in Austin, but at home, as well, I want you to know that those sheriffs are having to make tough decisions. And so when you fill county jails with people who are really non-offending in terms of the Texas Penal Code, anyway, they're non-offending individuals, then you create significant problems at home. So this Amendment would strike the word County in several instances, and it would strike the reference to the sheriffs in another instance, and the county attorney so that those county officials would have the professional courtesy, the deference. Because they're elected, they would have the ability to deal with things in their own way and in their own manner. One of the challenges of legislation is many times it doesn't take into account the importance of the judgment of the folks up in front. We often complain about DC and how far away DC is and how they don't relate to what we're doing. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will tell you that in this legislation it looks like we don't relate well. We don't understand well what the local law enforcement is doing. So here's my attempt to help the sheriffs. Here's my attempt to help the constituents and to have some professional courtesy. To have some mutual respect. To have some understanding for and some deference to folks who are locally elected and to allow them to set their own priorities and determine who's going to be in their own county jails. And make sure that as the chief law enforcement officer of that county, that sheriff has the discretion. Remember that word, discretion because we always argue that we want to give judges discretion and we always want to save discretion to the legislation. The prerogative of the legislation. Let's have that same courtesy and respect for the local sheriff who also knows he has that discretion. Who also needs that latitude to make decisions on a local level. Since no one is listening, I think it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Solomon.

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Members. I appreciate the Chairman's remarks, however, I think the Amendment does remove the application of the sheriffs, the constituents. The municipal police department. The municipal constituents attorneys. The bill is against and what we're trying to establish here is that the bill is intended to have a statewide policy standard on law enforcement enforcing all the laws of this country and the state. And I would move to table.

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

REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker. I will tell you, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to make a rule for Fort Worth with a population of, I don't know, really a lot of people, and apply it in forth Davis with a population of 2.000 people. It doesn't make a lot of sense because Texas is such a huge state and such a diverse state. And so in this instance what we're doing doesn't make a lot of sense. And it overrides, again, that discretion that we so often protect for local officials at home. And frankly, the other issue -- I don't know how many times I've sat in this chamber and listened to remarks about the importance of local chamber. Can you all relate to that? Have you all heard Members come here and talk about local control? Well, the truth is that that sheriff out there deserves a little local control. That county out there deserves a little local control have a little deference for their professional judgment. A little respect for the work and the effort that they do and certainly a little bit of understanding for the financial strains that they find themselves in just the way that we find ourselves in. When the county is financially on the edge we don't kick them over, tip them over. The counties are huge, and to try to push county government over the edge of that canyon, into the river, is really bad public policy. And that's essentially what we're doing to sheriffs, not only in Brewster County, but in 253 other constituents across the state. The Amendment changes really, just a question, a couple of words, but it shows respect. It shows mutual respect and cooperation for working with your local county and your local law enforcement authority. Again, the sheriff is supposed to be the chief law enforcement official of a county, and now you're telling him that he or she works for someone else. They don't work for the people of that county anymore. In essence, they find themselves working for their U.S. Government. Do we really want to do that? Do we really want to make our sheriffs, rather than work with their local towns club on their local priorities, on their local issues? Do we want in a very real way to essentially circumvent the desires of the local population and the needs of local law enforcement in order to subjectively insert our own sense of priority? And I would think if you look at it from a public policy perspective, limited government, local control -- this Amendment makes perfect sense. If you look at it from some of those core values that so many of us often talk about and so many of us really want to see implemented in law, this Amendment makes perfect sense. And even if you look at it from a law enforcement perspective, this Amendment makes perfect sense. I appreciate Mr. Solomon in his argument that we should make one rule across the board for everybody and we should have a consistent agreement and that's great where it makes sense. But it doesn't make sense here. You can't put a square peg into a round hole as Mr. Solomon seeks to do. So I would ask you, respectfully, to vote no on the motion table and to make sure that your chief law enforcement officials in your county has the tools, has the cooperation and has the respect of the Texas House of Representatives, and I'd ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Gallego sends up an Amendment. Representative Solomon moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk, ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 94 ayes and 46 nays, the motion table prevails. The following Amendment. Clerk read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez-Fischer.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Checking on the status of my Point of Order that was ruled about two hours ago. Is there an explanation available?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Hang on a second. It's still being worked on. Would you like to hear what we have so far? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: No, sir. But I wouldn't mind a brief summary from where we've gone this far with respect to Rule 4. Just to make sure that I'm thinking clearly, is it the Chair's ruling in the first Rule 4 Witness Aforemation Form that a witness is not required under the rules in following the Craddick Precedence of '03 to give their telephone number? The Chair overruled the Points of Order that a witness no longer has to, even though the Witness Aforemation Form requires them to.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, I think that was very well explained to you earlier, but if you'd like to come up, I can share with you what we have right now. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, the rules apply to the body and not just me, and so I'd be more than delighted to go up there and talk to the Parliamentary and I think the body should be aware of the rules.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: And when it's completed, we will share it with the body. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. Parliamentary Inquiry: If that ruling was already written by the Chair, it had already been disposed of and I was just trying to refamiliarize myself with the Chair's ruling.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Copies of that is available from the Journal Clerk, Mr. Martinez-Fischer, but if you'd like, we'll read it again. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Well, that's the option of the Chair. Just a simple aforemation or to say that that's not the ruling is enough for me.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair's ruling was that the Witness Aforemation Form applies to the rules, complies with the rules. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Pursuant to the Craddick Precedence of 2003 with respect to phone numbers?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: That's correct. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you. And so far we know, although it's not been fully disclosed of, we know that the second Point of Order dealing with a witness' obligation to identify their employment or profession as required by the form and as stated in the rule -- we know that under some level of reasoning, these witnesses don't have to do that either, in a manner to be determined once we get the official ruling? It's safe to say at this point --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The second Point of Order, the Witness Aforemation Form complied with the rule and that was the basis for overruling the form. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And so doing, it came to be inconsequential for sustaining a Point of Order as to whether or not employment or employment information is required for a witness who chooses to testify in their individual capacity? Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair rules. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you, sir. And, Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I'm looking through the rule book, and I'm trying to look for rules that allow Members of the Committee to fill in Witness Aforemation Forms. And if the Chair can enlighten me as to what section of the rule that is because I can't seem to find a whole lot.

(Brief recess taken.)

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Announcement.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I request permission for the Committee on Pensions, Investments and Financial Services to meet while the House is in Session at 6:45 p.m. in six minutes, today, May 6, 2011, in 3W9 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer temporarily withdraws the Point of Order. The Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I request permission for the Committee on Pensions Investments and Financial Services to meet while the House is in Session at 6:45 p.m. today, May 6, 2011, in 3W9 to consider pending business.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Pensions Investments and Financial Services will meet at 6:45 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at room 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The clerk will read the bill. The Chair lays out House Bill 400. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 400 by Eissler.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This is a bill that most of us know about and, Members, this evening, I present to you House Bill 400, a bill that will allow our schools to operate more efficiently. Educating our students is our most important responsibility and our schools are facing complex challenges. I strongly believe decisions are best made locally, not micromanaged from Austin. The state rolls set standards, holds schools accountable and then get out of the way. Especially in this challenging, budgetary times, we need to limit budgetary times, we need to limit burdensome mandates and to focus on our core mission. This bill is about maximum flexibility for our local districts, to save teachers' jobs while prioritizing what's best for students.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker. Will the gentleman yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose Mr. Turner?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: For a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Chairman Eissler, I was waiting for you to finish, but I think we've heard it and I think people are familiar with it but let me just go on and start asking you a few questions about it.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Because you will agree that this is a significant departure in terms of how we are dealing with our educational system in the State of Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I don't know if it's a significant departure. It's one that surpasses where we need to take, especially with diminished resources. And so many diverse school districts who are in different situations.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Right. And that's one of the reasons why I wanted to ask you some questions about it. Because the major reason why HB 400 is before us, the reason that we are talking about increasing the class size, effecting teacher contracts, financial exigency, all of those elements, the primary reason is because we are cutting back on what we are giving to our local school districts in terms of the dollars that they are needing? That's the major reason why we are dealing with HB 400?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, it is.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And the reason why I say that is because: Will you agree with me that the quality of education should be the paramount driver in what we give? The educational tools that we give to the local school districts and ultimately to our children?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes. To that you make excellent point, and I think the quality of the education delivered is our utmost is our No. One Priority. And that's why House Bill 400, actually was established, has been offered. So that we don't have to affect the quality of education. So can protect the classroom. Protect the kids. And most of all, protect that interface between us and parents and kids, and that's the teacher.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But let me challenge you on that.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: All right.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Because out of all that I have read, out of the materials that have been put out on House Bill 400, I have not seen anything that suggests that the quality of education in the State of Texas is going to be either maintained as to where it is today or it will improve as a result of House Bill 400. I have yet to see any sort of empirical study.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: You're not going to see a study. Only speculation of those that House Bill 400 hurts our schools. And I have to disagree with that premise in that I think it helps our schools. That's why I have it. That's why I'm sponsoring this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, are you sponsoring the bill --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Offering the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, are you offering the bill because of the budgetary crisis that the State of Texas is experiencing right now? The fact as a legislative body we are choosing to reduce the amount of funding to our local school districts, and because we are choosing to reduce the amount of money we're giving to our local school districts. We are also having, therefore, to give the local school districts the options to reduce what they do or to give them the discretion to cut back on teacher contracts, to lower the minimum that we pay them to increase class size? To have the financial exigency? You know, those are with two different things.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, that's part of it. But there are also some good management decisions that maybe update how we practice and in management of our schools.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, but those require -- I agree that there are some changes that certainly would be appropriate. But I point -- the questions that I have deal with the quality of education. I am first and foremost about exigency in education.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I agree.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. And I believe our No. 1 criteria, when it comes to education, is to put forth a system that provides exigency in education. Will you agree with me?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I agree with you.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Will you agree with me?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Will you agree with me?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I agree with you that exigency in education exists, yes I do.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Will you agree with me that if you vote for HB 400, if you vote for HB 400, you are not voting for exigency in education, but --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I do not agree with that.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But you are voting for a downsize in the amount of money to be spent on -- to be given to our local school districts --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That ultimately will have an adverse effect --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: On the quality in the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I don't agree with that, Sylvester, because what House Bill 400 is good management practices, local control. The ability to keep your best teachers, which is the most important thing here in a reduced funding environment.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. But a Session or two ago, Chairman Eissler, you carried HB3.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And in HB3 we talked about college readiness.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: We talked about the emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: We talked about providing Medicaid for quality teachers.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: All of those career technology.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And I supported those principals in HB3. I did not see in a Session ago in HB3 anything that mirrors what we are talking about in HB 400. Will you agree with me that HB 400 is a departure from what you carried and what the legislature approved and the Governor assigned in HB3?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. I can't agree with that. I think it's complimentary and it's complimentary so that we can continue to seek those goals and seek that exigency and not give up on career and technical education and keep the accountability of our schools up --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Let me ask you this question, Chairman Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: If we were not facing, if, for example, we were not facing this budgetary downsizing as relates to public education, would you be sponsoring and asking the Members of this legislature to vote for HB 400?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: You know, there's some things here that probably shouldn't be done anyway as a compliment, and that's an E, not an I, to the current situation. You know --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But in the absence of this budgetary downsizing, would you, as a Chairman of the Public Education Committee for the State of Texas, would you be advocating that we vote for HB 400?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: If I had 400, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Say it again.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I mean, I'm here. It's 400. I'm here.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Yes, but if the legislature was not contemplating chopping or reduced, taking out of public education in the State of Texas out of the formulas, let's say anywhere between, let's say 4 billion in the Senate and -- yeah, 4 billion in the Senate and approximately 8 to 9 billion in the House, if we were --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. More like six.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, no, it's higher than that in the House. But if we were not talking about reducing the amount of money that we are giving to public education, will you be asking us to vote for HB 400?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, it would be in a different Form A. You know, House Bill 400 is an accommodation. It's complimentary to what we're trying to do.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But you say that --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. Let's bring up House Bill 3 just for a second. House Bill 3 is one of the best accountability systems in the country.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I agree with you. I'm not here to argue about HB3.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And with that comes probably more local control. The safeguard of House Bill 3 is a good accountability system, therefore, we should be giving more local control to our school districts because we are holding them accountable. We just did House Bill 500 and we passed it out of this body and parts of that bill, even though I was lambasted by one or two Members about how much the state was going to count it against graduation in the course exam. We left it up to the local districts in that bill and this body agreed to let local school districts to let them know how much that counted towards the final grade so that they had the choice and we had the ability.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what you did in HB3. I applaud you for the leadership that you took on HB3. I will tell you, though, I am disappointed in HB 400 and let me specifically tell you why before my time runs out.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: We are talking about increasing class size from 22 to one to as much as 25, district wide, district wide, 25, and I can tell you --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Do you know what the cap is right now?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: What is the cap?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: There is none.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Because of the waivers.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, there's no cap. I mean, this is the first time we had a cap. You can get a waiver, you can get a waiver for 30, 40.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And if you get the waivers, which many local school districts are applying for and TEA is regularly granting.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And what this bill will do in the Amendment that I will offer shortly, is we will keep it on the waiver. We're going to keep it 22 to one, and the commissioner will grant waivers so that it does not exceed 22 to one district average for a cap of 25, which is a first time cap or it doesn't have to approve the waiver if he sees a detriment to the --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That is an Amendment that you're going to be carrying operate this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: With respect to the financial exigency.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Now, a school district can indicate that they are facing a financial -- let's say they are in financial distress.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And as a result of that, they can undue what some of the contracts for teachers?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: When I say undue.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: There's a modification. And that's a good question. What this does is House Bill 400 in calculation of a financial exigency, which is a reduction in force, a risk, under continuing contracts, it can treat the contracts situation as a term non-renewal. And let me tell you the difference and you're an attorney. The contracts non-renewal is noted and then is appealed to the board.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But seniority, if I'm a teacher and I've ban round for 20 years, seniority is out the window.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. Right now, under Term Contracts non-renewal, there are four items. Okay? I mean, under Term Contracts for a risk. Four items, No. 1 is certification. Two is performance. Three is seniority, and four is what other factors that can be looked at. Now in a risk in a risk -- and by the way, there's due process with that. Okay. There's a hearing officer. But in a continuing contract, the only seniority is concerned and that's a full, legal operation where there are depositions and witnesses.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I got you.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And anywhere from 20 to $50,000 in costs to the district.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I understand all that.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And what this bill does is let school districts go use the non-renewal part for a risk. So why should we have School Boards paying $50,000 per case to an attorney when a non-renewal would cost about $7,000? I'd rather school districts use those limited resources to pay its teachers and employees and not attorneys.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And is this section on financial exigency in HB 400?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Because we are not providing the dollars to our local school districts and therefore, we are needing to give them an out in dealing with their local employees?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, that is certainly -- that is certainly an aspect of it.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Then let me ask you this: Is there a Sunset Provision? Is there a Sunset Provision in HB 400 that says that --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That says that for the next body in 2012, 2013 that HB 300 whether sunsets or HB 400 will sunset at the end of 2013?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. Every legislature has that opportunity. Now, according to the Comptroller and you're going to be on the Committee to --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: The Conference Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yeah. The Conference Committee to write the budget.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I've been instructed quite a bit for today.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And you know how much that counts. But what we've been told is to count on, through the Comptroller, at least a four-year situation where we are going to be in a limited revenue situation.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: So for me, for House Bill 400, to say okay in three years, two years, we're going to sunset. Are we going to go through this again? Plus the legislature, they can easily undue what the previous legislature has done. And the third reason, Sylvester, is: Can you imagine what the unfunded mandate will be if some of these mandates start --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Chairman, I understand the logic on funded mandates. Let me ask you: Why would any young person who is in college, why would any young person want to be a teacher in the State of Texas when it appears that we are doing everything that we can to attack public education --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: To save their job.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: So we're going to save their jobs by lowering their pay? Is that what we're doing?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Right now, that's another excellent question.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That's why I asked.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: My experience has been most of our teachers aren't in it in the money and I'm not saying we're taking advantage of that.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: So because they're not in it for the money, we're not going to give them any money.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I didn't say that. What I'm saying is they're doing it because they love kids, they love the future and they care and want to make a difference.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Do you think they're making too much? Chairman Eissler, do you think the teachers in the State of Texas are making too much right now?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. We can always pay teachers more.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But, I mean, do you think they are making more than what they should be making right now to teach our kids?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Do I think they're making too much, no.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Do you believe that the school teachers, in other words the State of Texas, are making too much money?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Do you believe that their pay should be lowered because of the budgetary crisis that we are facing in the State of Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, right now, it's against the law to lower pay and the only recourse, the only recourse that school districts are right now with less funding is to lay teachers off. And if House Bill 400 were enforced today, more teachers would be working. If House Bill 400 were in force today, more teachers would be currently working and the future employment would look better.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And you are taking that position that by allowing the local school districts to lower their pay, they don't have to lay them off?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, that's one of the --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Speaker --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: That's one of the tools we provide. The other tools.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Crownover --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to move to extend.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: First extension of time. Is there an objection? The question is on the extension of time. Clerk ring the bell.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: It was my first time.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Have all voted? 17 ayes. Six nays. Motion to extend.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: It was the first extension, though, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You're granted the first extension.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, Chairman Eissler, let me just ask you this: If we pass HB 400, does any one of us have the right to leave here and campaign that education is important? If we vote for HB 400, and let me just say this.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: If you don't vote for HB 400 --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Change but, Chairman Eissler, let me say this, but most of us if not all of us when we leave here, whether we're from West Texas, whether we're from East Texas, whether we are republicans or democrats will run campaign adds talking about how much we value education. My question to you is that if we vote for this bill, HB 400, are we lowering teachers, are we giving school districts the right to lower teachers pay?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: That's one of the tools you're giving us.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Do you believe that teachers in the State of Texas are being paid too much right now?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Then why would we vote to lower their pay from what it is today?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Because right now the only thing you can do with less money -- you can't furlough them, you can't lower their pay. You have to lay them off.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Do you believe that teachers --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I don't want to lay off any. In fact, with House Bill 400, with House Bill 400, it will save 150 jobs.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Do you believe that the State of Texas are to put in place a law that allows teachers to be furloughed in this state?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes. That's what 400 is.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I understand that. I just want it on the record.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And in front of you, your questions read into some good answers, Sylvester, and that is, yes, East Texas, West Texas, South Texas and suburban, urban, diminishing growths, every one of those areas has different kind of school districts. And right now, we have a one-size-fits-all. What House Bill 400 does is gives school districts the tools that they think they need and that we can let them have so that they can deal with these lower funded Amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And that's why House Bill 400 is so important because it gives school districts all of those tools. Right now they do not exist.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Tell me how the passage of HB 400 will add more science and math teachers to our classrooms?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And that's an excellent question. Right now, we have some -- we have -- we have a salary schedule that's antiquated, for example. Okay. What this bill requires is each district has to put together a compensation plan, a strategic compensation plan to recruit, retain and treat teachers to more than just longevity.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Is there a shortage of math and science teachers today, Chairman Eissler?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes. Yes. And this will allow school districts to pay them more. And also, pay them more than just money.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: How is HB 400 going to allow school districts to pay them more when we are talking about giving school districts the right to lower teachers' pay. And we are cutting out, if you deal with the House budget, 6 to $8 billion, and if you deal with the Senate budget, about 4 billion out of public education. How do you get there from here?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: How do you get there? With a strategic pay. You can pay them for demonstrating classroom performance have you can pay them service as a mentor in a hard to staff position in a hard to staff campus, for other things they do, and also, if they happen to have more kids in their class than other classes. It will be overall. Do you know what the overall student teacher ratio in Texas is? Two years ago it was 14.5 to one. Last year it was 14.4 to one.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Isn't it a reality, Chairman Eissler, that the reason why we are dealing with HB 400 is because we are having to downsize the educational system in the State of Texas because we are electing not to pay the tab? In 2006, when we lowered the property taxes by 1/3rd, we promised the local school districts that we will provide adequate funding through the revised franchise tax. Did we not?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, we did.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And have we not reneged on our promise, Chairman Eissler? Have we not reneged on our promise to the local school districts?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: As of this moment we have not but when we have a new finance program --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: When you say we have not reneged, we have not provided them with the funding that was promised in 2006, Chairman Eissler. You know we have not.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, we have. We have drew -- now, this next biennium, the current biennium, we've taken Rainy Day's money, and I think --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: In 2012 and 2013 and the budget, proposed budget that you have seen, is it not true that we are reneging on our promise to the local school districts? And as a result, you're asking us to vote on 400 because we have reneged on our promise to the local school districts?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: This is not the Fiance Bill. This is taking care of reduced funding.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: But you will agree with me that the only reason, the primary reason why we are facing 400 is because this is some people's way of downsizing education in order to put it in the box, based on the amount of money that we are willing to give to public education? That is the only reason why we are dealing with 400. It has nothing to do about quality of education. It has nothing to do about exigency T has everything to do about us not wanting to spend one additional dollar from the Rainy Day Fund --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: You bring up another good point. Without House Bill 400, that excellent, young brand new teacher, second or third year, without 400, will lose his or her job.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, you've given him a good option, either lose your job or take a significant pay cut. That's the option that you've given to teachers.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. Right now, you only have one and that is lose your job. I have great experience to the school district for people who aren't on probation. Look what happened already in anticipation.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I don't quarrel with you. In HB 400, the option that we are giving to school teachers. What we are saying to school teachers, if you want to keep your job, we either vote for 400, you either get laid off or we allow school districts to cut their pay. That's the option, that's what we're saying to school teachers in HB 400. That's what we have. And we should be under no administration(inaudible). I'm not arguing with you about HB 400. I just want it to be clear that we are dealing with 400 because we are unwilling to pay the tab for public education in order for our kids to receive a quality education. That is the reality.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: You're on the Conference Committee, Sylvester.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I can only deal with what you instruct me to give, and if you don't give me anything for the rainy day and if you don't want to revise (inaudible), you can't give the man up from heaven -- (inaudible) and as a result, HB 400 is before us today.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And it's one that we need to pass.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: And I will say to you that we cannot leave here saying we have enhanced the quality of education or we are standing by our teachers. HB 400 is a conciliation bill that says we are prepared to downsize and gun down the educational system in the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I don't agree with that Sylvester.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: The proof is in the pudding and the realities are what they are.

REPRESENTATIVE CORNOVER: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE CORNOVER: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Solomon, will you yield for Ms. Crownover?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Yes, sir, I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CORNOVER: I have to come up here.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Crownover, Representative Eisler's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE CORNOVER: Oh, okay. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. I request permission for the Committee on State Affairs to meet at 11:00 at 3W15, to consider HB 12. Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Speaker, the statement was made that we discontinue having these emergency last-minute Committee meetings. Is that request going to be honored starting this evening or until it doesn't make any difference?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe the request was that I meet with Committee Chair's next week.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Not to begin until next Monday. So you explain to me, Parliamentary Inquiry, exactly for what purpose does the State Affairs Committee need to meet at 9:00 o'clock on a Friday night.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Cook, you can read the motion again.

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: As you know, the issue's been taken up and voting out House Bill 12 again.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that explanation.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on State Affairs will meet at 9:00 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB 12.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Eissler.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. In the layout, although I didn't get a chance to do it this time, last time I did, this is a Floor Amendment that the Committee, basically, put together. And it provides fair notice to teachers while protecting students. It moves the Notice for Non-Renewal from the last day of instruction to 15 (inaudible) for probationary and term contracts. It also requires Notice of Non-Renewal to be delivered personally to the teacher or by prepaid Certified Mail to the teacher's address of record with the district. Also, establishes a minimum teachers' salary (inaudible) which is the same as the year one minimum salary at the state minimum salary for full-time teachers, nurses, librarians and counselors. It clarifies the districts that have already adopted a strategic compensation plan to recruit, reward and retain effective teachers, librarians, counselors and nurses have met the requirements of this legislation. Now, it maintains the 22 to 1 per for grades K-4, and it keeps that class size limits. It directs the commission to grant exceptions from the limit unless the exemption exceeds a district-wide average of 22 to 1, enrolls more than 25 students in one class or would negatively effect the education of students. It allows school boards to delegate Exemption Requests to the superintendent and allows districts to post notice of class size on their website. And it's acceptable to the author and I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: I have a question for the gentleman.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: Chairman Eissler, I want to thank you for your bill. It's very thoughtful and I would say that some of these things that are listed in your bill should have been done a long time ago. But of course, they're being colored in the situation that we are in now. But based on your deal, those components need to be in that deal but are there any components, the teacher ratio, are there any components that deal with administrative salary?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: There are further Amendments to that effect.

REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: Okay. Well, because you know this is called the School Efficiency Bill or the School Efficiency Act, and when I go home and I talk to people in the coffee shop or at the tea party. The bills talk about how low or how high the teachers are getting paid. They talk about administration, and hopefully some of these components will also be in this bill here, called the School Efficiency Bill. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Turner, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: For a question on the bill.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I'm going to go back to this class size. Chairman Eissler, in this Amendment it says that the commission -- it allows the commission to grant, I guess a waiver for students -- for classroom or a district to enroll more than 25 students in a class at a grade level subject to the limits. Is that -- can that be a class with more than 25 students?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: There can be.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: There can be classes with as much as 25?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes. As long as the district average is --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: 22.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Not greater than 22, correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. And the reason why I'm asking because the studies that I have seen, Chairman Eissler, the studies that I have seen, especially for -- and let me just speak: For African American students or low income kids, the studies that I have seen have clearly indicated that in terms of school's performance in terms of the numbers that are taking SAT and ACT exams in terms of those who go on to college, there's a smaller class size, that the smaller class sizes are much, much better for those demographics of kids. Now, those are the studies --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: You're talking about the April 2011 report by the Center for American Progress --

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That's one of the ones that I have read. But there have been about three or four studies that have been done, if not more, that indicate for low income students, for African Americans, that the smaller class sizes are -- is the best arena and is an excellent judge for better school performance, taking the SAT and ACT, for excelling the smaller class size works better. Am I right or wrong or would you take issue with that?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. Well, if we look at studies, you know, the star study, the one in Tennessee, it's probably the one you're referring to, there's been attempts to put that at a greater scale and some of the progress or some of the results have been mixed. And I think most people think that as the classes get smaller, there tends to be an increase.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, but -- I want to speak -- everybody else think they can vote based on their district. But let me represent my district, Chairman Eissler. Let me represent my district. And as it relates to my district, the smaller class size from an academic point of view, in terms of quality and exigency, works much better for the kids in my district in terms of the ability to take the AC T, the SAT, their grade performance and in terms of the ability of moving on to some college or university. Based on the studies that you have seen and I have seen, isn't that an accurate statement?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, but you know what? You also don't take into consideration, and I'm not trying to reverse your thought process, but a study by the McKenzie company that looked at the highest performing school systems in the world found that lowering student -- (inaudible) But an effective teacher is worth 15 points.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Well, an effective teacher -- I will agree. But in your bill -- you're allowing the school system --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. No. No.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Let me finish. You're allowing school districts to reduce their pay or to purchase them. That's what you're doing. You're not only increasing the class size, you're impacting whether or not the kids in a larger classroom will have an executive teacher.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And right now, the only (inaudible) is to lay a teacher off.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: No. They have -- and the only reason they are faced with that option is because we have decided not to fund local school districts. That's the only reason why we are dealing with this issue.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well,

(inaudible) as those kind of remedies and school districts do not.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Let me show you the Amendment because you indicated earlier that HB 400 is in large part due because of the financial (inaudible) that suggests that the reason why we are talking about increasing the class size has anything to do with financial exigency. Is that true or not true?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, the first thought on that is, you know, is class size reduction worth the risk -- (inaudible) if money is a factor. But, again, you can pay those effected it teachers and in this bill is the compensation plan that can (inaudible) that can handle more kids in the class. In fact, we had the superintendent from Dallas.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative, the gentleman's time has expired. The point is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Parliamentary Inquiry.

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

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you. I request permission for the Committee on License and Administrative Procedures to meet in the House of Succession at 8:30 p.m. today, May 7th of 2011 in 3W9 to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Parliamentary Inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Could you please check the clock up there. It seems as though the minute hand is moving real quick.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The clock's working fine. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: It's not like the voting machine, is it? Sometimes it malfunctions.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: No. Representative Eiland, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: So now we have the Licensing Administration Committee meeting in two minutes, while the House is

(inaudible). This is one of the biggest education bills of the Session at what 9:00 o'clock. We're having State Affairs meet to vote back House Bill 12. Who else is out right now? Is that it? Are there any other committees out right now?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You're free to check with the Journal Clerk.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Do we know of any other committees that are meeting right now or that have been excused to go meet?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You're free check with the Journal Clerk.

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Why do I have to check? (Inaudible)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We don't know. We'll have to check with the Journal Clerk. The answer is "No".

REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Nobody else?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: No one else. According to the Journal Clerk that we just checked with, no one else is meeting. The Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON: I request permission that Session at 8:30 today, May 6, 2011, at 3W9 (inaudible)

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures will meet at 8:30 p.m., today, May 6, 2011, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

(Brief recess taken.)

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

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Phillips.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Mr. Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This Amendment is one that's been talked about a little bit, and what it does is it amends certain portions of the Amendment, and also the overall bill. And I think what it does is it allows HB 400 to do truly what we want it to, which is to give flexibility to the school district but not do it to the expense of only teachers. This is an opportunity for us to say we're going to support our teachers. We also know that because of the financial crisis we had and we all know that we are going to have sub-budgets, it gives them flexibility over the next few years for us to deal with the struggles. Now, someone says, well, you know, if we had HB 400, we could have them cut the teachers' pay. That's what we heard awhile ago. Well, it was because this House passed last Session, we passed a bill and all of you all probably voted for it.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I will not yield at this time. I'm going to go ahead and lay it out. We passed legislation saying that you couldn't do that. I'm going to go over it and tell you what our Amendment does. But first thing, let's talk about 22 to 1. I don't think that 22 to 1 argument is something we should have in a financial crisis. But what we do is we say and we add and we tell the Commissioner of Education, we tell the Commissioner of Education that 22 to 1, over the next two years, that you need to allow relief for financial exigency. We actually set that out. And we actually say that if you're having financial problems, if you're receiving less money than you did this time over the next two school years, you can apply for a deferral. Ladies and gentlemen, do you know how many calendars have been denied in the last two years? Five. Only five. This Commissioner is not going to do that. So we're instructing them. But we're keeping 22 to 1 there. Now, some people say that's just the teacher groups want 22 to 1. Well, do you know who brought 22 to 1. There's that great liberal, so to speak, and I don't think so, Ross Perrault. His commission went around when I was graduating from High School. They traveled across this state and they heard from teachers and they heard from parents and they heard from administrators. They said our classroom in lower grades are too large and that's where they came from 22 to 1. Well, someone said they just pulled 22 to 1 out of the air. No. That was negotiations just like we do. There was those that wanted it lower. There were those that wanted it higher, and this is what happens in negotiations.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I'm going to lay out my bill and I'll be glad to take questions, lay out the Amendment. 22 to 1 is something that we don't need to take this time and say we're going to do away with it. We know that when you have smaller class sizes, in those earlier years, that that means we can have larger class size in later years. I don't anticipate 22 to 1, but I don't think that this is the time that we need to do away with 22 to 1 at this time for this reason. And there are studies out there that support that. That's the hard part of the Amendment. Okay. Let's go to the next part of the Amendment. Now, I don't think it's fair as this House Bill 400 came to the floor, it said, you know what? We know you're not going to have as much money. We know you're going to have financial struggles this next two years. So you know what we're going to do? We're going to let you furlough. We're going to let you reduce pay and we're going to let you fire teachers to solve your problems. I didn't hear anything in that bill that says we're going to let you furlough, we're going to let you reduce pay and we're going to let you fire administrators. And those of us that are conservators that go around and when we're told we don't need more money in education have we need education to go in this classroom. The dollars to go directly to the classroom. We don't want to grow central administration larger. But what do we do? We put a bill out here that says, you know, you can just do it on the backs of the teachers. That's not right and we shouldn't do that. So what is the other portion of this Amendment that does? This Amendment that will give flexibility. It says school districts over the next two years, you can furlough up to six paid days, but if you do it for the teachers, you've got to do it for the schools. I mean, you've got it do it for the administrators. I think that's fair. It also says that we need to step up and reduce pay. Because with remember, we passed a law two years ago that says we couldn't lower salaries have that was us that did that. That wasn't some long term saying that somebody created. That's what we voted for two years ago. So it allows them to furlough up to six days. It allows them to reduce pay. But what it also does, it says if you're going to do that for the teachers, you've got to do it for the administrators. Everybody. I think that's fair and that's the only way we can do it. Otherwise, we're going to have administration continue to grow or stay the same. Now, there's an argument here. You can say, some of you don't think we have enough money in education. Some of you think we have too much education. I don't think any of us disagree that we don't need to support and put the money into the classroom. We also have a few other changes want to get back with you. Let me get back to the class size that we just had. The Amendment that's before you that I'm trying to amend, it does the class size average up to 25. You know what else it does? It also says that the superintendent can make the decision. I don't think that's fair. I think it should be the school board that makes that decision. And so that's what we do in that Amendment regarding the 22 to 1 also. Let me finish. I'm almost done.

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

REPRESENTATIVE GREGG: Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE GREGG: Does the ten minutes start when I start talking or does it start when he starts talking?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It starts when he started talking.

REPRESENTATIVE GREGG: I told you, I'd be glad to talk all night with you. I've had an opportunity. The Amendment's been out there for a long time. I'd love to talk with all of you. The other thing that we have here as it relates to this --

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

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Will the gentleman yield at this time?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: No, I will not. Just a minute.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman does not yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you. So, basically, as you can see what this Amendment does, it shares the sacrifice that these educators are going to have to make to not just be the teachers. It's going to also go into the classroom. Now, there's an agreement. When this bill came to the floor, we had some notification issues currently they could notify the teachers, 45 days out, they have to that they're not going to renew them at the next school year. That's what the bill says. It says you can notify them at the last date. Members, these school districts make decisions in that last part of spring about whether they're going to renew or not renew and that's when TEVs get their job or not get their job. They pretty much know by the end of the time. And what this Amendment does it takes it from 45 down to 30 days, to get it through that testing period, 30 to 1. I mean, the 30 days on that. And the last thing I just want to make sure -- let me just go ahead -- I'll go ahead and take questions now.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I'll be glad to yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Thank you, accomplish Mr. Speaker. Representative Phillips, you and I have had some discussions, so I think we know kind of where this is going to go. Let me be very specific about where we're talking about, I have the normal training of your Amendment before me. On Page 1, Line 11, where it talks about the 30-day Notification, would you not agree that it's probably better to have a period shorter than that 30 days?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, you know, I just thought it was not practical. I don't think it's appropriate, and I know that there's an Amendment to do it the 15th. I certainly don't have a problem myself working on that issue.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I mean, I think that's why the Committee came out and we have one that's 15. The law says 45 today. This goes to 30 days. And let me say something else about the termination aspect of this: There's nothing in this Amendment that would prevent a school district next spring, next spring, from not renewing contracts for Term Contracts. There's nothing there about that. Most people know that or for program changes.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: I'll try to be very specific with my questions.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Moving down farther on Page 1, Line 28, where it talks about continuing contracts.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Can you tell me the three types of contracts that we have procedures in the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Yes, you have continuing contracts, which those were basically -- in 1995, we changed the law to allow --

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Those are basically procedures, aren't they?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: To allow for Term Contracts and most school districts have Term Contracts today.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: 80 percent of the teachers. Is that a fair understanding have continuing contracts?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I don't believe it's that high. And the continuing contracts are something that school districts don't have to offer anymore. Most of them don't.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Basically, your Amendment does away with, I believe.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Craddick overlays the Point of Order. The gentleman's point is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: In light of the time taken, I ask for an extension.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, this is the first request. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. Members, there is an objection. This is the first extension. The clerk will ring the bell.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Hancock votes aye. Phillips votes aye. All Members voted? There being 126 ayes, five nays and two present not voting. The gentleman's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Is extended.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: I hope it's not expired yet. So, basically, when you're talking about continuing contract teachers in your Amendment, teachers who are probationary, out first, term teachers get out next, continuing teachers are basically exempt from any

(inaudible); is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: No. That's not correct. Continuing contracts. Like I said, I think that's a red herring about the continuing contracts. As I said --

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: If it's not your probationary teacher, you're the one getting axed.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: That's right. Continuing contracts, if you have that, and I believe you're going to have lawsuits, because that's a contract the districts already fine. School districts do not have to do continuing contracts. They don't do that anymore. And for you to sit here and for us to say, okay, go ahead and we're going to do away with those, you're going to have lawsuits throughout the district. And I don't think the school district is encouraged to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Your participation is that your position is that last in, first out is the policy?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: No, I don't say that. That's why we don't have that anymore, Mr. Aycock. That's why we're not -- if the school district chooses to have them, they can.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: There are quite a few large districts that have that. There are a quite few large districts, I believe, that have continuing contracts, and they basically throw the probationary teachers and the term teachers --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Mr. Aycock, the purpose of this bill is so that we don't have to do that. We're saying we're going to have furloughs and we're going to have the opportunity to have salary negotiations so you don't have people lose their job.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Well, let's talk about the process for getting to that furlough and your Amendment states it.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: When you talk about adding Section IV 2.009, I believe, it's a new section, and that new section is defined over on Page 7, and over on Page 7, it sets up a requirement for the Commissioner to determine the amount of money the districts are going to get, basically.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: And that's a dollars per watt, as we call it, and it says that he has to determine that by June 1st. Is that correct? Am I reading that correctly?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, it is on Page 8 of 9.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: It says he has to determine by June 1st.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Of 2011 and 2012.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Okay. Do you anticipate that we will be able to determine by June the 1st the amount of money that the Commissioner must certify for the coming here?

REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Mr. Aycock, you know, that's something our school districts are wrestling with now, and --

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: I've been wrestling with that, and if that's an issue for you, that you want to put it on June 15th or July 1st. But our school districts need to know. Okay. But you have a process there on Page 6, starting at Line 4, the date says June 1st he has to determine. Then the schools have to set up a Site Based Committee, what we call a site based oversite.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: They have them all the time. Nothing new. We aren't creating anything new.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Then they have to do public meeting.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: They have to have School Board Hearings.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: And that public meeting has to be with the administrators and the School Board present.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Yes. Yes. Mr. Aycock, if they're going to be furloughing, cutting pay, don't you think they ought to do it at School Board hearings? I mean, I don't have a problem with that.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Page 87, Line 4, now it says that there will be an opportunity procedures to make personal comments before that meeting. How long do you expect that School Board meeting to sit there?

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: If there's 500 teachers being involved in a furlough, and the board must be present and the administrators must be present and they're each given the opportunity to appear, how long will that take?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Aycock, I think most teachers and most administrators and school boards can work a lot of this things out.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: If you consider that that's an awfully involved process for the School Board?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: You mean to have a School Board Hearing? To furlough teachers that we're not going to pay you? We're going to furlough you? We're going to reduce your pay? For them to have a School Board Meeting, to give parents the opportunity to show up --

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Well, that gives them more flexibility, listening to hundred --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, you know, I disagree with you on that respectfully. As you know, I opp --

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: As you know, I oppose your Amendment and we do so respectfully and I appreciate your work on this.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you. I know all of you have worked hard on the Education Committee on this.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Ms. Patrick?

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I certainly will. I apologize.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Thank you, Representative Phillips, for your work, and I know that you and I share, along with many Members of this House of Representatives, our love for the public schools and believe very strongly in it and I appreciate the time that you've put into this Amendment. I wanted to ask you some questions that I had that concerned the 22 to 1 future teacher ratio in particular.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: In your Amendment do you address that or do you read the law, as is?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, no, what I do is, for the next school years, I require that the Commissioner of Education grant waivers, just like you can ask for a waiver today, but for financial exigency because of reduced funding from this current year.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: All right.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So I leave that in place. But I allow and direct further, because of the financial struggles over the next budget, to allow them to have a waiver on that basis, which they currently really can't have.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Under current law, are you aware that when the 23rd student arrives in the second classroom, that the district is required to have another classroom and add another teacher and that means splitting up the classroom, which is sometimes disruptive to their education?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And that's why we have waivers, and that's why for the last, you know, I said the last ten years only five waivers have ever been denied.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Well, I know undercurrent rule there's no restrictions to even being able to apply for a waiver. But the concern that I have under current law is there is no limit. What would you say that, for example, if the school district continued to ask for a waiver under that number to 28 or 29?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, I think the waiver should be denied. But it depends on the circumstance and that's the thing, again: We can't pre-judge that when a school district will get that point. We're talking over the next two years.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: All right. So you're okay with no limit on that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Depends. If we have some bad weather and you had a school demolished and you know, stuff like that, then I think -- that's why I'm saying, that's why we have the waiver in place.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Right. But under House Bill 400, there is a limit of 25.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Do you think that seems like a good number?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, you know, I think it does. I don't mind a limit and it's not even at 25. You can have 29 students in a classroom in certain classrooms and have numbers. And so that 25 is not a hard number. That 25 is an average.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: No. Actually, the average --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I think --

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: The average is 22 and the 25 is the maximum.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: That's not how you explained it. Maybe. I think it's a much better than the way you brought it out.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: I agree.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: That part of it is much better.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Well, and I have an Amendment that I'm going to offer to be sure that that general education class is in none of the low enrollment classes would be considered in that average. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Representative Howard?

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield? Phillips you have 13 seconds.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I'd be glad to. Yes, Ms. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Well, if it's only 13 seconds, I was going to ask you about the current process of the waivers, which does give a lot of --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Weber raises a Point of Order. The gentleman's time has expired. The Point of Order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Phillips' Amendment? The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment, basically, deletes half of House Bill 400. This Amendment limits flexibility by requiring full furlough before any salary reduction and full salary reduction before any layoffs for financial exigency. It changes the 45 notice to 30 days, which would still leave teachers in classrooms at least two months before they know they don't have jobs. And a reinstate requirement for seniority in continuing contract reductions. House Bill 400 is designed to increase flexibility for local School Boards. This Amendment actually takes away flexibility that local School Boards currently have. It takes away what they currently have. Under this Amendment districts have to furlough all employees for the six days and reduce pay the maximum before a single person can be laid off. That means in Sherman ISD, they couldn't furlough for two days and layoff two employees. Members, if you support this Amendment, you are voting to decrease the salary of every teacher in your district. This is a guarantee salary reduction.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And what this also does, it allows -- because it deletes part.

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

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I've just got to say this: It allows teachers who lose their certification to stay in the classroom. It allows teachers without certification to stay in the classroom.

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

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And it also reinstates the seniority layoff only in a financial exigency in continuing contracts. And continuing contracts are in our larger school districts, Dallas, Houston, Corpus, San Antonio, and I believe Austin is on continuing contracts. So don't think that just the small districts or just a couple of districts are under continuing contracts. This is a $50,000 hit to a school district that has to reduce, and force a teacher for financial exigency. And the set up for -- if there's a problem with performance and everybody knows, the reason they're having the reduction in force is money. And they still have to go through the 30 to $50,000 costs to the school district for each and every layoff that's seniority ordered. And to me, that's going backwards. So for that, I want to table this Amendment.

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

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Chairman Eissler, one of the concerns I have with your bill, and as I hear you discussed Representative Phillips' Amendment, is the lack of or, I guess, with Representative Phillips' Amendment, you're concerned about it creating furloughs. And I've had several of my school districts say that they would like to have the ability to have across the board cuts versus having teachers, just certain folks --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: They can do that. In fact, House Bill 400 doesn't require a school district to do anything but it allows school districts --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But it does by virtue of the it fact that we're not funding education. It does suggest things that have to be done because we're not funding public education. So it's disingenuous to say that this bill doesn't do that because, in fact, we're forcing if the school district to make these hard choices, wouldn't you say?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: These are changes that should be made anyway. That should have been made a long time ago.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But they didn't come until we forced the school districts to not be able to funds what they perceived to be adequate education and the resources in the --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes. Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so from the standpoint of HB 400, it is not designed because with we needed to do it anyway. It's designed because we're not funding public education; isn't that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: That's only part of the reason.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. Let me ask --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: This is to save teachers' jobs. And don't forget that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Are you aware in some of the districts people are being walked off jobs without being given any notice? They're getting walked out of school districts? Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. That's happening in Dallas right now. People are being told or were told on last week your job's over, get packed and escorted out of school buildings. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: No. And that's because House Bill 400 is not in force.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: No. That's because we're not funding public education and we're --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And the only recourse a school district has is to lay somebody off, and you just described that.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Well, no. They're firing them because they don't have the money.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: That's the only choice.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: No. It's not their choice. It's the choice of us here in the legislature who will not step up and do what we're supposed to did, which is fund public education.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: That's not part of this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: It is part of this bill inasmuch as we're talking about resources available to fund education adequately. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about how do we cut expenses? We would be talking about adding more students in the classroom. We wouldn't be doing that.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Just looking at a relief for financial exigency, they are giving $50,000 to a lawyer. You could have kept the teachers fed, but instead you give a lawyer $50,000. You could have kept the teacher.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And if we funded education, we could keep all the teachers. Would you agree to that?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I mean, it's a lower -- you're right. It's a lower funding environment. And we don't know how long that can be. That's another thing. This Amendment says it's only two years. Well, guess what? We're supposed to be in this at least four.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you so much, Chairman Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: This bill has nothing do with controlling the economy. We can't do anything about the economy.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And Chairman Eissler?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: The representation of funds available to a funding education were made and we committed to the school districts. When is the state going to step up and provide adequate funding as we committed to the funding?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Let me use the words of Paul Sadler, past Chairman of Education, and I think he's a democrat. He says I don't know anyone who seeks public office that cuts education, funding or fire teachers. So the tendency for legislatures is to dictate exactly which measures a School Board may take and when the board may take them to protect teachers. I'm going to suggest to you that the opposite is true. The more restrictive the state becomes on this issue, the less flexible and you said so in Dallas, the local school district can be. The less creative in holding jobs and salary your district can be and the less compassionate your local school board is able to be in dealing with the significant individual and the child life and schools.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Tell me who you think has -- who has we have the greater responsibility to.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And the superintendent of Dallas ISD was here supporting this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I understand that but the teachers were not. The students were not. The parents were not.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: The superintendent of the year in Dallas ISD was here to support this bill because she said, she knows this will save jobs.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Who are you more responsible to? The superintendent in the district or the folks who have to utilize the district, which in that case are the kids and their parents. --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I'm responsible for the school system of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And this saves the teachers' jobs.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, please suspend. Thank you Members.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I move to table this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I will yield.

SPEAKER: Rob, I want to put a personal face on what you're doing. I had a lady that worked as an intern in my office last year. You all may know her mother because she works for me right now. And she went to work for the Austin ISD as a teacher last year, a new teacher. Proudest of all that she was doing, really excited about her job. You know what? About a month ago they notified her that because she was aid brand new teacher, that they were having to cut back and they were going to lay her off. And that was the performance that they were doing. It was not because of her job performance. Had nothing else to do with anything. They had no choice at all in the matter but to lay her off. Mr. Phillips' Amendment would keep her fired. Your motion, as you have it right now, gives them the it opportunity, does it not, to retire someone like that who gives their best to the public education system and is trying to extremely hard, trying to extremely hard to become an outstanding teacher that we really need in our system?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: That's right. You know, the seniority doesn't always correspond to the performance of the teacher.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And I move to table this Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises the Point of Order. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman's Point of Order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Phillips to close.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you. I respectfully ask you to vote no on the motion to table. You know, I disagree with Representative Madden's bill, statement. Mine will allow that that teacher stays working because it allows for furloughs. It would allow for a reduction in pay. All probationary teachers are going to be the first ones to go across the state. We know that. That's how they do that. And I apologize, it's an unfortunate situation. Austin chose to start making cuts before they even knew what the budget was. That's what they chose to do. There's nothing in this Amendment that will allow a teacher that's not certified to continue teaching. If there is, somebody should have brought that to me and we would have taken that out. And I will send an Amendment. We send Amendments tomorrow. I do not see anything in here that will allow that to happen. I think that is completely incorrect. If there is somebody that thinks it does, we need to do that. That is no intent here. Again, Members, the focus is to say: Are we going to say teachers, you're the one that has to bear the responsibility of the changes? I know that there are good people in here that are conservatives that think there's plenty of money in education and we don't need to spend more. Well, this is good for you because you know where those cuts need to come from. They don't need to come from teachers. There are those of you that think we need to spend more. Well, we know that what you don't want either is it come on the backs of the teachers. This will spread it out and require administrators to have a responsibility in sharing this, as well. I would ask you to please vote no on the notion to table.

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

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Will the gentleman yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I certainly will.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Thank you, Chairman Phillips. Mr. Chairman, you and I have spoken about this Amendment and I appreciate you coming over and talking to me when you filed it, and obviously my reaction wasn't very favorable when you did.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: The public Education Committee has worked hard and they've worked hard and I respect the work that they've done.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Well, let me get to my point, I guess, and here's the bottom line: I think you know my background I served on the School Board. I came off the School Board. I was President of the School Board. And I've served in a capacity where, we, as a district, it has been a fast road district. We've had funding issues prior to the issue that we've had before and we've made due. But we always sat and scratched our head and said, you know, we need more control and flexibility within our school district. And when Chairman Eissler was willing to work with us to create this Amendment, it was a combination of people that sat down and tried to put our heads together. And I can assure you, this Amendment is not about the teachers, but it's about -- it's about trying to protect things that really have, at a point, don't need or -- I wouldn't say don't need. But at a point where we need to give some flexibility back into the school district. And so, you know in reading the furlough section of your documentation, you know, you require specific things to happen by a school district and a School Board to be able to do that. You're making them reach out to be able to -- to -- thank you -- micromange the process. I'm searching for words.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I would disagree with micromanaging. But what we're saying is if we're going to do these things you need to have a School Board Meeting. I just don't see that as micromanaging.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: There's certain points in times where you have to make decisions as leaders. I've sat and listened for the last three months about people coming up to this microphone and talking about how important it is that we go back to our communities and do the things that we're supposed to be doing up here for our constituents. And the fact of the matter is what Chairman Eisler's Amendment allows us to do is give us flexibility. What your Amendment is doing this particular piece of legislation is really harmful and it's harmful to the district. My superintendents want the flexibility. They believe that this is important and believe me, we tried. We listened to the testimony. We tried to work with the teacher groups on this particular issue. There was no flexibility in working through those programs and coming to a compromise. I spent hours and hours trying to do it.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Let me answer your question.

REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Hold on, Chairman Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Let me answer your question because this is my close and we'll run out of time. I will answer your question and I don't mean to cut you off. I believe that this provides the flexibility they need. House Bill 400 is a permanent fix to a temporary problem. What this Amendment does is allow us to have a temporary fix to a temporary program so we don't go back and tell those studies that have been done in the past with Ross Perrault and others to come up with where we are today. Let's bring single bills out to do that. Let's don't put this all in here today. I'll respectfully ask you to vote no on this motion to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Mr. Phillips sends up an Amendment and Representative Eissler moves to table. Vote aye. Vote nay. This is a record vote. Strict enforcement. Members, we're going to allow you a little time. Strict enforcement. Will the clerk ring the bell. All Members voted? Members, you've got plenty of time. All Members voted? There being 74 ayes, 51 nays, three present not voting. The motion to table. The Chair will show that Representative Gerrin is excused on State Affairs on the motion of Representative Thompson. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Patrick.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Ms. Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, Members. This Amendment adds the term general to the education classes to avoid skewing the averages with low enrollment special classes. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Ms. Patrick sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. Any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Patrick.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, Members. The purpose of this Amendment is to spread out any productions under the section that has created some furloughs, so that they will be distributed over the course of the employees current contract with the district. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I'm sorry. Will the lady yield?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'm sorry. Will the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Yes, I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The lady yields.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I'm sorry. Representative Patrick, explain to me the effect of your Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Well, the effect is actually the Amendment to the Amendment that Dr. Shelton is filing, and I've just been informed I need to withdraw this and wait till his Amendment is filed first.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. Fine.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Ms. Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: I move to withdraw Floor Amendment No. 4.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Strama.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Shelton. The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Shelton.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.

REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, this Amendment deals with reduction to salaries applied to the teachers, and it says that if any teachers' salaries are reduced, then that will be proportionately reproduced to the administrative personnel and it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Will Dr. Shelton please answer my question on the Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Not yet.

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Is the Chair advised as to whether or not the Chief Clerk's Office will be open on Mother's Day?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Open on what day? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: On Mother's Day? On Sunday?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, from 8:00 to 10:00 for pre-filing Amendments on Sunset. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: On sunset? Is there a Sunset Bill?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: 6:30 to 10:00 in the evening. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Okay. So for 8:00 to 10:00 in the morning?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Correct. Sunday morning. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: 6:00 to 10:00.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: In the evening, 6:30. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Now, could the pre-filing -- there is a pre-filing that cuts off at 10:00 in the morning?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: There's a Sunset Bill set for Monday. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: At 10:00 a.m.?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: 10:00 a.m. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: And so would it be in order or would the Chair recognize me for a suspension of that rule to accommodate the many Members that will be taking their mother's and/or their spouses to Sunday church services?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Bring your motion down. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Shelton Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Patrick.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker. Members. This Amendment deals with the Teacher Resignation Notification Deadline. Currently it is 45 days, and this will allow the teachers extra time by reducing that to 30 days. And under the legislation being proposed, the date of notification has been reduced from 45 to 15. And this will give the teachers on the other end, when they have to submit their resignation, 15 additional days. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, Ms. Patrick sends up an Amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. Following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the Amendment by Strama.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Strama.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there's lots in this bill there's a lot that's going to be said about this bill. It does a lot of things. It does a lot that has to do with the Human Resources management at school districts, and that's important, but it's not directly impacting the quality of education in the classroom. The one thing it does that have a direct effect on the quality of education in the classroom is expands the ability of the Commissioner of Education to grant waivers to the 22 to 1 Law. Now, there is some disagreement, but I think not a whole lot, about educational impact of that this 22 to 1 Law. Even Chairman Eissler stipulated in his discussion with Representative Turner that the McKenzie Study says that the effect of class size can have an eight percent effect on student outcome.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Mr. Eissler, if you'll let me lay out this Amendment and I will yield. I want to us to be able to engage on this, but I want to lay it out. At the end of the day a lot of the discussion on this floor is about adult versus adult. The one provision in this bill that directly effects kids is 22 to 1. I will tell you Representative Eissler: Has worked hard to try to craft a solution to the 22 to 1 problem. The 22 to 1 problem, as Representative Davis mentioned earlier, is directly a function of House Bill 1 cutting $7 billion from education. But House Bill 1 isn't before us. House Bill 1 in fact, looks like it's on a fast track to the Governor. And if we're going to cut $7 billion from education or anything close to it, I can see Chairman Eisler's point. That we probably can't insist on the current law with respect to 22 to 1. Even though I think weakening that law takes us backwards in terms of education. But the claim blame for that is for the under funding of education in House Bill 1, not frankly in huh Chairman Eissler is trying to do here. So what my Amendment does is it says that the changes Chairman Eissler want to make to 22 to 1 in his Floor Amendment are at sunset by September 4th, 2013. That gives us three years to get back to an adequate funding level --

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

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Ask Mr. Strama a question or two.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Let me say one more thing.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The yields.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: If the floor will indulge us.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: The one other thing my Amendment does is changes in provision in House Bill 400 that eliminates the requirement that parents be notified by mail if their class size exceeds 22 to 1. All the other reasons for the things Chairman Eissler is doing in House Bill 400 have a pretty compelling argument, that one to my mind does not. It is one thing for us to say we cannot fund education sufficiently to provide a 22 to 1 cap on class sizes. It is another thing to, at the same time, say we are not going to require parents be notified that we've under funded education.

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

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: I will yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chairman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: And I understand, and I.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: And I understand, and I know you with young kids on the way up. The idea this is mandate release. And unfunded mandates are a sore spot for this. And can you guarantee us that we will be in a much better position financially when this expires?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: I can guarantee you we will back in succession before this expires. And if we haven't funded education adequately, then we can extend at sunset.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: But then again, you are creating a mandate.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: No. I am reverting up to current law.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, current law is what the Amendment is in this bill other than the Commissioner with more freely on waivers. And where I have an argument on notification, that whole idea is to cut back on requirements of school districts where they can put it on the web and not an individual letter.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Right. But I don't see how we can under fund education by billions of dollars and then eliminate the requirement in state law that parents be notified that it was that we've under funded their education.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, you can do it on the website.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Well, you know that a lot of parents don't have access to that and not every parents is checking their school website at the end of day.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Well, they're all checking their kids' classes so they know how many Valentines to buy. And what you're setting is up is in the middle of a biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: What I'm saying is that parents deserve to know what we're doing to their children's classes.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: They will know. They will know when they show up at the Class Night. They'll know by their kids.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Chairman Eissler, the cost of this notification is really not consequential to the public education system. The only reason not to send that piece of mail is because we don't want them to know.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Mark, why is your Amendment not notification then? You want to did the whole mandate, school districts are going to lose their waivers and they're going to have to start spending a lot more money that they may not have.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: On the notification or on the 22 to 1?

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: On the 22 to 1.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Let's just mention that for a second. Are you aware of the big drop-off in student performance in 5th grade? No, you're not because there isn't one. Okay. What's the class size in 5th grade?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: It's not bound by 22 to 1.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: But let me tell you why this issue is important to me. Representative Coleman, who was an expert on public education in this chamber for a long time, walked me through the process of how 22 to 1 became law. He was part of that commission that was alluded to e-mail earlier that Tom lose and Ross Perrault led, and he said that they initially wanted 18 to one, but they knew they couldn't pay for it. So they put 22 to 1 as a cap, knowing that it would drive an average, somewhere closer to 18, 19 or 22 to 1 or 20 to 1. They didn't expect that waivers would be granted as often as they are which has caused the average to drop closer to 22 to 1, and they hoped that districts will use comp. He had allotments and English language learner allotments to actually reduce class size even more in those classrooms with the especially challenging students. And unfortunately the drift in public policy is to raise those class sizes when we know the research says, the lower they get, the better the educational product. This is the one part of this bill that is directly about kids. And as much as I hate weakening our 22 to 1 Law at all, I recognize that Chairman Eissler has done so in a way that mitigates as he can. As he thinks he can the impact of it on student learning. All I'm saying is that if we -- is that we have to sunset it so that when we're back to current funding levels in education, we will revert to current raw law.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield has raised the time has expired. Gentlemen, your point is well taken and sustained. The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler to speak against.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This bill is about mandate relief and tools to accommodate school districts. If you take away that flexibility, especially in the next biennium, when we're not even expected to be out of this, then what you're doing is you're creating havoc in school districts. And, in fact, talking to the superintendent at Cy-Fair, where he will manage his classrooms by his teachers ability. This way he can put extra kids in some of his more effective teachers room and cuts back on the ones that can't handle as well. And I want to maintain that flexibility because we need it. Unless we're proven otherwise in performance. And the 22 to 1 has never been a magic number. And I was on the School Board when 22 to 1 came out, and I was told that that's all we can afford at the time. And that's what it is. So this is an unfunded mandate, and the next Session can change it. They're welcome to change it when conditions change. But in the meantime, school districts need that flexibility without the mandate and I move to table.

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

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Members, I can't take credit for this, Representative Menendez just reminded me. We voted earlier on Representative Sheffield's bill. They gave parents control over whether their kids have to take that fitness test. If you believe parents ought to be empowered over their children's education, then they also ought to be notified of what we're doing in their classrooms. This is the one part of the bill that is most consequential for students. And to say we're not only going to relax our class size limitations, but we're not going to tell parents about it by sending the letter that we've always sent when we've granted these waivers, I think puts us in a difficult position. I think that's a hard one to explain to parents. Now, on this issue of the waiver, I don't think Chairman Eisler's bill changes dramatically current law, with respect to waivers. Because as you've heard from Representative Phillips, most of these waivers get granted under current law. But we do notify parents when we do it. And under House Bill 400, without my Amendment, we'll stop notifying parents have that's not fair to parent have we'll stop sending them notification on this.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Chairman Eisler's argument is we'll put it on the schools website. You know that that is not the same as sending a letter to their home.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: The cost of that letter is trivial.

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

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: I will yield to my friend Representative Menendez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Representative Strama, would you agree that when you go to a Town Hall Meeting or when you speak to constituents when you're block walking, do you not find that one of the points that irks them the most about what politicians do in general, is when they do things, that they try to sneak things by them? When they're not completely up front and honest with them? Would you agree with that statement?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: I would.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: I don't know about you, but in my district, I'm tired of answering the question about, you know, I thought all the lot i money was going to public education. Why do they think that? Because initially, when we did it, people weren't honest with them, were we?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: That's -- well, you're probably right. I wasn't here but yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: So all you're saying with your Amendment is that we want to make sure -- you're not stopping them from doing it. You're just saying parents have the right to know what's happening in their children's classrooms, right?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: That's right. And I'm preserving Chairman Eisler's tweak to the waivers or the exemptions. I'm just saying in three years we should revert to current law. We shouldn't allow a financial crisis to permanently diminish our commitment to small class sizes for K through fourth grade.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Well, that makes sense. I keep reading over and over that Rainy Day Fund is going to have $12 billion two years from now. Is that true?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: You know, I am agnostic of where we're going to be in the initial and process in two years. If we're not in a better place, we can extend this sunset.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Exactly.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: But we cannot permanently weaken our class sizes.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: We all run on education as a priority, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Thanks for your questions, Representative Menendez. The author of the bill has just decided that the Amendment is acceptable, which I really appreciate.

REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Thanks.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Strama sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment. The Amendment is adopted. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler. Members, it's temporarily withdrawn. Please excuse Representative Coleman because of important business in the district on the motion of Representative Walle. That's all the Amendments to Mr. Eissler's first Amendment. The Amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Eissler.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: This Amendment restores requirements for a teachers' service records for placement on the schedule for TRS purposes only. And it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. It's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by White.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative White.

REPRESENTATIVE WHITE: Okay. Members. Good evening. I have a simple Amendment here. Again, as I said earlier, I believe Chairman Eissler has a very thoughtful, good points in the bill. Something should have been done years ago. But I think if you're an administrator in a school district, superintendent especially, person on the campus level, you should be leading from the front, not from the rear. So this simple Amendment just says, just sum it up here, district-wide, the superintendent, he or she, cannot get their contracts renewed until all the teachers in the school district know their contractual future, waters they're leaving or they're going to get their contracts renewed or not. And then that punch bowl and those other administrators on that campus, they can't get their contracts renewed until the teachers on that campus have some cert feud in their contractual arrangement. So it won't be any situation where superintendents and principals are getting their contracts renewed early in the second semesters and teachers are waiting until 15 days and 30 days out. No, it doesn't. Not yet. You're not taking. All right. Chairman Eissler, I believe you backed up with the 15 or 30 days from the end of school for the teacher contract? Okay. That's fine. That's when the teacher will find out their contracts certified? Yes or no? Okay.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. This is a bill of a lot of words. It doesn't do a whole lot of things. I'll tell you quickly what it does. It clarifies that it controls the real process for all classes of teachers, both probationary, term and continuing contracts. It establishes a process for the board to designate a disinterested attorney to hold hearings when there are grievances on these issues. And it defines that there's a need for that.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I just want to get to --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: -- as it relates to -- I want to make sure you're required then to hire an attorney instead of having the board serving that role.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: The board is used to serving that role, and I would present that with a very reasonable manageable number that the board should use that option. There have been hundreds of these as there have been --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Couldn't the board designate a subcommittee of the board to do these?

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Designate a what?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: The whole board doesn't have to meet. There could be a subcommittee of the board that could meet.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: If you're going to rift several hundred people --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: So is it my understanding that the purpose of this bill is to facilitate the rifting of hundreds of school teachers in this district.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: It is to give them due process. The attorney would have to be responsible for hearing them. It would have to be a disinterested attorney and it would center to report back to the board the findings of those individual cases.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And to they're going to hire an attorney to sit here and hear the rift that this bill was trying to avoid?

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Looking for the process to do it with. Move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. It's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? Chair hears none. So adopted. Quick recognition for Representative Quintanilla.

REPRESENTATIVE QUINTANILLA: Representatives, I've got to let you know I've got my grandson come all the way from El Paso. Big boy. Get up, man, say hi to everybody. Welcome to the House. All the way from El Paso. Thank you.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Patrick.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker. Members. This Amendment strikes Section 10 of the bill and renumbers the subsequent sections of the bill. The effect of this is that the mid-year terminations would in fact, be returned to current law and they would be eligible to request a hearing before an independent hearing officer, instead of the School Board.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Patrick sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. The Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey. Members, if you have Amendments, be ready.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: This is a really good Amendment. I think that we always strive for openness and transparency, particularly as it pertains to our schools, and this Amendment says that if this plan is adopted, that the compensation of the superintendents, including any allotments or transportation, housing, travel and retirement, must be made public. It's a great Amendment.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Veasey sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendments. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Weber.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What my Amendment does on House Bill 400 is it amends Section II 2.05121 of the Education Code to clarify that this disciplinary proceedings, regarding excessive use of force will be judged by an object he have ly, reasonable standard rather than by simply looking at the educators subjective point of view. And I move passage.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. This Amendment provides that the average class size described in the bill should be campus wide rather than district wide average. Giving districts flexibility as a worthy goal but districts should also have a goal as using resources among individual campuses. There's no reason why Elementary School A should have 19 students in a class while elementary school B should have some in a lower class neighbor have to work with 25 students in every class. This Amendment preserves flexibility while also maintaining equity among campuses. I move passage.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Eissler to speak again.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: I appreciate it, Armando, but that will not represent all school districts. That will be very tight on fast growing school districts, and it needs to stay in the district level as not a mandate. So I move to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Walle to close.

REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, again. If this bill is about flexibility, giving school districts flexibility, given a little limitation, this is completely important, particularly when you're talking about schools in low income neighborhoods, that with this bill could see their classrooms rise with an enormous amount of kids in their classroom. And if we talking about district wide, 25 to 1 or 22 to 1, as I was corrected but we could, in essence, see 25 to 30 kids. And I move against the motion to table this adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Walle sends up an Amendment. Mr. Eissler moves to table. The question's on the motion to table. Members vote aye. Vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Walle voting no. Representative Veasey no. Representative King of Abilene County, yes. Eissler yes. All Members voted? There being 92 ayes, 49 ayes, two present not voting. The motion has been tabled. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The motion's withdrawn or the Amendment is withdrawn. Members, when you have Amendments to this bill, it might be a good time to have them scanned, come down get ready. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This Amendment just restores the ratio of 22 students per teacher. School districts have a required flexibility in determining class size already have an ability to take away waivers and pay. So taking away the ability of 22 to 1 would be the worst educational outcome. And cities have shown a direct correlation between class size and academic performance. So all we're asking is that we would like for this to restore the 22 to 1 students per teacher ratio, and I move adopt.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and Members, I have had the honor of teaching schools and I am the biggest fan of teaching ever. All my kids went to public schools and we know that there's nothing magic about 22 to 1. In fact, I found my first grade picture and I was there with 40 students and one teacher.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: For a couple questions about our teaching experience.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Would you repeat that.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I would like to ask her a couple questions about her teaching experience relative to class size.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will you yield Representative Crownover?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, I do.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Well, thank you so much, Ms. Crownover. How many years did you teach?

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Four.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: You taught four years have one mother taught for 25 years, and the thing that she said for 25 years. Can you believe the worse thing about the classroom is the number of kids and the inability to teachers one-on-one? And would you believe, Ms. Crownover, that every national study done on classroom size suggests that the smaller the classroom for every single national study. So you're talking about your four years of experience versus virtually every national study? It just doesn't ring true.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have --

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: You know that doesn't work that way. You're on the front mic. I asked you a question. Talk to me about your four years' of experience versus my mother's 25 years of experience. Talk to me about the national study that your Chairman's going to come with virtually every other study.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: We know that 22 was picked out of the air. There is no solid science for that.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: This problem is actually untrue and you know it. 22 was not picked out of the air. 22 is a compromise. 12 would be better than 22 but we have to settle for 22. Now we're talking about raising the wrong standards? Are we not? We're talking about raising the standards of subjecting these kids to way too many kids in the classroom.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: We're actually talking about a mandate that we're putting on the schools, and I think I would actually trust my schools to know where they wanted to put their money.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Ms. Crownover, I'm so sorry. It was the suggestion that I should smile when I ask this question. The question is: Isn't it true that 90 percent of the national studies indicate that all elementary school age children are better off in a smaller science classroom?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, then why not 17? Why not 11?

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Well, because we are not willing to invest that kind of money. Because isn't it true since World War II, Texas has consistently been in the bottom ten states of funding per capita per pupil of all the states. And obviously we can't do better than 22 if we're not willing to pay for it? You get what you pay for; isn't that true?

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: No. I think our schools need to have the flexibility to decide where they put their money. And I think this is a mandate that we do not need and I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Well, you know that's what the legislature does. We inadequately fund education and we provide the opportunity to have specific minimum standards, and this is a great one that we shouldn't abandon.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I move to table, Members.

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

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Martinez, Mr. Speaker, Members. It is obvious that we do need to have more flexibility in the classroom. 22 students per teacher is all we're asking. Let's restore this ratio to 22 students per teacher. Let's have more effectiveness in the classroom and I move for you not to table this motion.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez sends up an Amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. Vote aye. Vote nay. This is a record vote, Members. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Eissler voting yes. Representative Murphy, yes. All voted? Members? All voted? There being 86 ayes, 51 nays, two present not voting. The motion table is sustained. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Mr. Dutton always says, if you didn't like the last one, maybe you'll like this one. This just moves it from 22 to 23 in the ratio of students, and I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Same story, move to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Well, I really thought they'd like this last one. It went from 22 to 23, but obviously they're trying to table. But let's not table this, Members. This is very serious. Let's continue to have effectiveness in the classroom, and I ask nor for you not to table this motion.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Can I ask this member a question, please?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Can you explain the purpose of this Amendment and the previous Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Absolutely. All this does, this Amendment restores or actually changes the ratio to 23 students to one teacher, being that we need to have the flexibility in the classroom. Classroom size have the ability to apply for waivers at the state. And it's taken away the presumption of a student classroom, which is the worse educational outcome. So all we're asking, right here, is, Mr. Burman, is just so that way we can increase the class size to 23 since they didn't want to increase it to 22 or leave the ratio at 22. They just want it increase it to 23.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: And would changing this ratio of 22 to 1 versus 23 to 1 be simply an arbitrary and capricious number based on the reality of the -- the State of Texas is too damn cheap to fund public education the way it should be?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Well, all we want to do, we just want to make sure our students have the best education in the State of Texas. And if that means we need to lower the class size, that's all we need to do, Mr. Burman.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Thank you for offering this very compromised Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez sends up an Amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. This is a record vote. Vote aye. Vote nay. May the clerk ring the bell. All Members voted? Show Mr. Fletcher voting aye. There being 90 ayes, 48 nays. Two present not voting. Motion to table is sustained. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, Members. Mr. Speaker. Since you didn't like 22, you didn't like 23, now we're asking you for 24. So all this does is it increases our ratio to 24 students per teacher in the class size.

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

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

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'd like to ask him some qualitative questions about the quality of the difference in the 22 and 23 and 24.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: I do yield. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the question, first.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Representative Martinez, I'm trying to discern the difference in the qualitative nature of the educational opportunity in 22 to 1 versus 23 to 1 versus 24 to 1, and every study that I've ever read suggests that 22 would be better than 24. But certainly 22 is better than no cap at all. What are you trying to achieve here?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Well, this is what we're trying to do, Mr. Burman. We don't want to get to 25. We want to make sure that the ratio of students is below the 25 student. We tried to restore that number to 22 and it wasn't accepted. We tried to make it 23, and it wasn't accepted. So now we're saying at least let's get it to 24 and see if we can accept something like that.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: 23 was not acceptable?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: It was not acceptable to our Chairman, Mr. Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Isn't every professional teacher organization in the state advocating that we have a lower teacher ratio?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Well, especially where I come from, all the districts. My wife is an educator, and she is saying that we do need to have lower student teacher ratios and that's what we're advocating.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Haven't there been a number of studies directly correlating the ratio between the High School drop out between the 9th and 12th grade and the amount of attention that the students are able to get in the elementary school level based on student teacher ratios?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: I'm not aware of that one. I know Mr. Eissler is showing me a different study that's been done.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Did you say a two-bit study that's been done?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Excuse me.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I didn't hear your description of the study.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: I don't know if I know exactly which study that you're talking about. Mr. Eissler is trying to show me a study up here in the front dais.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Are you going to offer another Amendment that changes the student, teacher ratio from 1 to 25 because just because you can't get what question need, which is 1 to 20?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Well, I guess, right now, the ratio is at 25 students per one with this bill, if I'm correct.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Oh, I'm correct? Offering that Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Why didn't you offer 20 to 1?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Well, I tried to make it as 22 to 1, and that's mainly what people are advocating.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Oh, you were trying to maintain the status quo, rather than another form of retrogration, which is we're discriminating against the minority student populations in our school. Thank you for that clarification.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Burman.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker and Members. This is still a mandate. Here's the Center for American Progress. They have a paper about the false promise of class size. And for my choice, I'd rather have a great teacher with a larger class than a mediocre teacher with a small class. So I think there are many variables here and we need to let the schools make the decision. I move to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: Members, I just ask you to vote no on this motion to table.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Martinez sends up an Amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. Vote aye. Vote nay. Members, this is a record vote. Ring the bell. Have all Members voted? There being 94 ayes, 44 nays, two present not voting. The motion to table is sustained. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Amendment emanates the requirements for school districts to perform the Fitness Gram Assessment. The Fitness Gram Assessment requires discretion to the classroom. It also basically a mandate on the districts. I believe it is acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Bonnen sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Can he come back again, please? Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Absolutely. Yes, I'm happy to yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Could you explain it again, Dennis, I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: What this plain and simply, it eliminates the requirements on the Fitness Gram, which is the Fitness assessment Requirements that the class, the parents, they're required to do in the school. It just eliminates the Fitness Gram.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Okay. That's all?

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Yes, sir. That is all it does. Thank you.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Bonnen sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the Amendment? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendments. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, Members. What this Amendment simply asks the School District to notify the Commissioner and the public of the agencies. There are no detailed reporting requirements. If this Amendment is adopted, the state will take the School Board at its word that a short full exists. House Bill 400, as drafted, does not even ask the board to make this representation. The declaration of HB 400 will allow a district to lay off employees and other actions that's acceptable to the public. A weight I decision like this requires submission of accountability: I move adoption, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Farias sends up an Amendment that's acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following Amendments. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey. Representative Veasey on the floor. There he is.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Members, this Amendment, I think is one of the most meaningful and best Amendments of the entire bill. You may remember last week the Representative Alvarado had her Amendment that took certain artificial sweeteners out of drinks so our kids would be healthier. Of course, we want the experience that our kids have in our schools to be a well rounded, and meaningful experience. And I have a kid that's getting ready to go into kindergarten. And when we were visiting schools, my wife and I, the one thing that I noticed, we went to one private school, he's going to ends up going to public schools in Fort Worth ISD. But the one thing I noticed that private schools had that the public schools did not was that well rounded, meaningful experience. They seem to take everything there seriously, whether it was art and ceramics to languages, math, science, and physical education. As a matter of fact, they even have a requirement that the kids participate in extracurricular activity. It was something that they had to do. And with Medicaid costs going up, we all have heard those numbers, and we know a big part of those costs are diabetes, and other diseases related to not enough good physical activities re--

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Phillips, for what purposes?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure that you're saying that school districts shall do that.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: We want the School Boards --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I want to make sure that --

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: It could not be -- it can't be a -- you know, well, maybe if we get to it, it can't be that anymore. We have got --

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I just want to know that this is mandating this.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely. This is something that we have to take seriously. You know, we mandate tests, let's mandate physical activity. It has to be taken seriously. We have to start making sure that parents and teachers and the school children know it's important. It's been moved to the side. A lot of the talk, and some schools right now in order to get kids up-to-date on the tax, math scores and things like that, they end up jettisons the extracurricular activities and the P E. And as a result of that, you've seen the diabetes and the weight gains and other things like that, go up. And, of course, we end up dealing with that in another part of our state budget and that is our healthcare costs that we deal with at the state. And ultimately as a nation.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This is a mandate, the changes are made and it also removes a duly elected board from oversite of the health curriculum. So I move to table.

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

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Members, I urge you to vote no on the notion to table. We have got to take physical education seriously in our schools today, particularly when you look at the number of the kids that are growing in our state. We have African-American children, Hispanic children, and you see the rate of diabetes going up in these particular communities that effect these kids. And people aren't taking it seriously. It's really sad that we're not taking physical activity, extracurricular activity more seriously. Quite frankly, like some of the private schools do. If there was one thing that I walked away that I was really impressed with the private schools, when we were taking our school visit, was that they made sure that the kids had a well rounded educational experience, whether it was math, foreign languages, English history, science, and they made sure that they also participated in extracurricular activity. That included physical excursion. It has to happen. If we're really going to do something about diabetes, if we're really going to do something about heart disease, we have got to make sure that our kids have a good and meaningful experience when it comes to physical education. And the Department of Safe Health and Services, if they would just designate a Natalie recognized health and physical education program, I truly believe that we can get there. And I know if the body is not ready to get there today, I can guarantee you that one day, Representative Eissler, I know that you take these educational issues very seriously. I can guarantee you that when it comes to eating and nutrition and when it comes to the things that we put in our body, like corn syrup, I can promise you that physical education will be something eventually that we will have to deal with because it is a serious part of our children's lives to become less of a serious part as children are moved inside from watching more Nintendo and play with the Wii. And we have got to start taking it more seriously. If we don't, we are going to see a continued increase in diabetes. We are going to see a continued increase in various heart-related illnesses.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: A question for Mr. Veasey.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield, Mr. Veasey?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Mr. Veasey, you probably heard several complaints from folks in your district regarding testing, haven't you?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Yes, I have.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: You've probably heard complaints regarding a number of things regarding the public education in your district?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: As I have. Complaints about administrators making too much money. Complaints about maybe the rigor of certain course. The demands of curriculum. Whatever it may be.

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: Have you ever heard of a complaint regarding we exercise our kids too much?

REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Never.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: They get too much PE? They're too healthy? They have too much nutricius foods in school? And if we're here and we're talking about truly looking out for the overall welfare of our children. And not only the quality of education they're going to live, but the health that they're going to experience in their lives, I don't see how, when I'm told earlier today that we can't give parents input or that we should give parents, hopefully control on what their kids experience --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Sheffield raises a Point of Order. The gentleman's time has expired. The Point of Order is well taken and sustained. Representative Veasey sends up an Amendment. Representative Eissler moves to table. The vote is on the motion table. Vote aye. Vote nay. This is a record vote. Let the bell ring. All voted? There being 99 ayes. 41 nays. Two present not voting have the motion table is sustained. The following Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Isaacs.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Isaacs.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. This is just removing a mandate from House Bill 400. I believe it's acceptable to the author. Move the mandate the School District shall recycle.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: I'd like to ask the gentleman for exactly what purpose --

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: I yield.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: So yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: This mandate removes the requirement to recycle.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Do you not realize that one of the things we're trying to achieve in the public school process is to teachers our children good lifetime habits?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: I realize that.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: And that one of the reasons we should have adopted the last Amendment is to put into the structure of our educational system encouraging good lifetime exercise principals?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: And one of the reasons, I think, maybe we should have adopted the last Amendment is because it was encouraging a good lifetime habit, like right eating and right exercise for the body, mind and soul. Can you explain to me what you haven't learned in the last four years that hasn't taught you why recycling is so incredibly important and it's so important to have it in as a part of our public education process?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Actually, I am a big proponent of recycling. I walk the floor often collecting paper to make sure that paper gets recycled. So I am a huge proponent of it. So I lead by example. This is going to place an undue burden on schools that don't have the facilities within their communities to recycle. We don't want to pass those undue procedures, those unfunded mandates down to those school districts.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Well, I definitely appreciate the one-on-one recycling programs that you've been participating in. But do you not appreciate the importance of systemic recycling where we encourage it in all of our public venues, public schools, municipalities, state governments. I've never really gotten to the point where I trust what's going on here.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Yes, Representative, the language says encourage, but it says shall recycle and it's an unfunded mandate and I just don't think that we can afford that.

REPRESENTATIVE BURMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to have this conversation with you.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK: Thank you very much. I appreciate your question.

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

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: To ask this gentleman a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Yes.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Representative Isaacs, I've seen you picking up papers around here and I thought that was pretty cool.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: I thought that was a mandate. That's pretty cool.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: Representative Murphy seems to think that you're selling that stuff.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: It is a fundraiser for my kids' schools.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: My question about this, first Amendment, I serve on the Committee. I don't remember seeing a bill to do this. Does this save money? Because generally speaking, recycling is not much of a cost burden and often is a savings. Are you responding to something? Do you have a school that said, we don't want this mandate on us or is there some cost savings associated with this Amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: And NOAA, you and I are established in the area that we live in, there is a need and a demand for papers. The schools will actually use this as a fund-raising method. But when you get out in rural areas, there isn't a lot of demand. It's cost prohibitive to actually recycle in these areas that are away from these Metropolitan areas. So it is an unfunded mandate. It would cost the schools money if you require them to recycle. I am all for recycling. I strongly encourage it.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: I guess, can I ask again: Where did this come from? Did schools contact you with this and say this is a mandate we can't afford? This bill went through Committee. We took a lot of testimony. I just never heard any testimony to the effect of what you're describing. I'm wondering what the basis of that claim is.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Yeah, I actually did hear from an educator in my district, someone that strongly supports recycling, but she does not support unfunded mandates on school districts.

REPRESENTATIVE STRAMA: All right. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAACS: Thank you. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Is there any way we can get the author of the bill on the mic?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're discussing the Isaacs Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LUCIO: So we can't get him on the mic?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Isaacs Amendment? Representative Isaacs sends up an Amendment. The Amendment is acceptable to the author. The Chair hears none. The Amendment is adopted. The following Amendments. The clerk will read the Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Mr. Speaker.

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

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Inquiry. Parliamentary Inquiry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: I've done it two ways; is that correct? The purpose of notices, written posts?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's been done both ways.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Can I get a confirmation on that?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We post for meetings in two ways.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, you can post in a number of ways.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: We post in written and we post electronically; is that correct? According to the rules, it says we post and retransmit. Would that be correct, sir?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Miles, if you have a Point of Order, you can bring it down front and we can discuss it.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: I do have a Point of Order, I'm just trying to get clarification before I waste your time and mind. I just want to know: We post in two ways, written and transmittal; is that correct?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Notices are posted in a variety of ways.

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: I can't hear you. I'm sorry.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: They can be electronic, they can be posted manually and on --

REPRESENTATIVE MILES: Manually and electronic. Okay. With that being said, Mr. Speaker, I raise the Point of Order under House Bill 400 under Rule 4, Section I 1, 12, and 18, that it violated the Public Records Act and I'll bring it down.

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

(Brief recess taken.)

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Bonnen. Is Mr. Bonnen on the floor of the House? The Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, Members. What this Amendment does is it under current law, school districts are required to purchase or develop a coordinated health plan, approved by the Texas Education Agency For Elementary, Middle and Junior High Schools. This Amendment repeals that coordinated health plan. The coordinated health plan is expensive for school districts, and the goals can be achieved on a local level without having to purchase the plan or pay for the staff to develop it. School Boards must develop a plan that meets the TEA criteria. If they don't have the resources to do so, they must buy it and then have it approved by TEA. One of the smaller school districts, a two A School District in my district, paid $4,200 the first year for the curriculum and supplies for 500 students. Bigger districts pay much more, it's about $6 per student, not counting the teaching materials. The Danberry District also paid for staff, Committee people to attend four different sessions at Region 4 Service Center in Houston. Each year they have to spend about $4,000 to renew the supplies and materials. If this was taken away, they would still include health, nutrition and, et cetera, in the curriculum. However, they would not do it without having to pay all this money; just simply buy a plan. This was brought to me by my local superintendents. They made it clear that they plan to continue to teachers students about health and nutrition, but there's a more cost effective and reasoned way without a mandate from the great State of Texas on how to have this approved and bought through TEA. I move adoption.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Members. I rise in opposition and will move to table this particular Amendment from my colleague, Representative Bonnen. He makes a good point, and I think he's trying to recognize those things that are truly unfunded mandates out there. But as I have found, as I'm sure many of you found, when you go around the districts, one of the No. One things they complain about is even up to one hour in a -- one hour of one day of the whole school year, they complain about the need to do an assessment of the fitness of their students. Now, we just accepted an Amendment not too long ago where we eliminated the Fitness Gram. Okay. So be it. But that doesn't eliminate the need of the School District what we call in this Amendment that's being proposed to be eliminated, a coordinated health plan at the campus base. Now, that does not mean that you have to go out there and purchase one. It's entirely locally controlled. You have certain elements of this that have to be met in order to comply with the things that the TEA has recognized. But it delegates all of that to the local authority. And like some things, if you choose not to do it on your own, then, yeah, maybe you have to go out there and purchase some kind of program in order for you to do that. But basically, it includes things like student Fitness Assessment Data. It could include anything from research data assessment. It looks at student academic performance rates. Education of students who are disadvantaged. And it also has an employee wellness component to it, which I think most of us have recognized in your businesses outside of an educational environment that, you know, wellness of your employees always leads to better productivity on behalf of your employees. And so I would rise to move to table this particular motion or Amendment because I think, in fact, this is something that is good for us to continue to incorporate into our schools. Most of our businesses have incorporated various wellness aspect into their businesses and really looked out for their employees and looked out for the ultimate product that they're producing, which is a well educated student. I think we could say that these type of programs do work. And, Mr. Speaker, I would move to table this.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Dr. Shelton?

REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: Yes. Would the gentleman yield for a question.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Doctor Zerwas, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: Thank you, John. Now, this plan indicates physical education into the curriculum. It does not leave it as an isolated event or a sporadic event; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: What is really is intended to do is create a coordinated health program. So it is intended to look at the fitness of their students and to look at a whole number of different aspect that related to health fitness. And it actually goes beyond that to look at the wellness of their employees and the environment.

REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: So we're trying to create a sound body and a sound mind.

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Exactly. I think most of us recognize where. That we came from an error era where physical fitness was a big part of what we did. Now, we did not have nearly as much sedentary environment that we have now. So not only do we create a very sedentary environment within our school, outside of the school environment. Likewise, we've created that sedentary environment with the use of exhibitors and a whole number of things like that that don't necessarily require a whole lot of physical activity and things like that. We have a problem with childhood obesity in our schools. Recommending that in our schools is not going to do. But for 8 to 10 hours a day we have these children in our public schools and they are ours during that time. We passed a bill, Representative Alvarado looked behind you and looked at some of the drinks that we had in our school environments and that passed. And it was looking at some of those concerns in those situation were. Another element to that is physical fitness, and we have just over a period of time, gone to putting less and less emphasis on that. And you know, our schools will say that that's a further imposition to them, but I will say that this is something that we need to continue to make sure that we keep immigrated into our school or we certainly are going to continue to lose the battle with the overall fitness of your students.

REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: Thank you Dr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for some questions?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentleman, do you yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Representative Zerwas, in your practice, do you see how many cases of obese children enter into the medical system and how that continues to incline over the years?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Right. And in the kind of practice, I see people when they come to the operating room need a variety of things done, you know, and stuff like that. And I can tell you for a fact, you know, that in the pediatric case, if you consider, the incidence of obesity, if not morbid obesity among some of the children out there is frightening.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: And I'm sure you recognize obese children are 2.9 times more likely to be hospitalized than a child that's not obese, and we keep continuing to see cases with children with adult type diseases, such as gallbladder disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. Can you tell me what it costs to treat a child with diabetes?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: I don't know the exact cost. You may have some figures in front of you. But, you know, the reason that we focus so many of our efforts on diabetes around the country, because it is, in fact, one of the primary cross drivers of the healthcare dollar. So if we choose not to treat the underlying cause, and this is a very interesting thing now, Representative Alvarado, that when we see some significant wave reduction, the incidence of high blood pressure, the incidence of diabetes goes down remarkably. And if you can bring that down, if you can bring those blood sugars down into a reasonably controlled stage, you're not going to see those problems with your kids, the high blood pressure, the problems that you see in your aye and the cardiac conditions that result from that.

REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: And Texas has a higher rate of obese kids than the national average. I believe our rate is a little over 20 percent, and the national average is a little lower than that, maybe 16 percent? Would you say that's correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Yeah. I think you're probably right. And some of that is related to the ethnic diversity that we have in the state, certainly. But the bottom line -- on all of this, really is regardless of really your ethnicity or anything else, this is something that can be managed, and part of that management is incorporating some type of fitness or healthy activity in your daily routine and that has to become something that's just part of what you do. REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, for what purpose? REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ-FISCHER: I'd just like a substitution of House Bill 400 under Rule 4, Section 40, Rule 12, Section I A1 A and Rule 4 Section 18 A.

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

(Brief recess taken.)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, the Chair tends to take this Point of Order under advisement tonight. Are there any announcements? Any announcements?

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker. Members. I move to spend the five-day Posting Rule so that the Ways & Means can take up and consider SB 540 at our 2:00 p.m. or on adjournment, final adjournment/recess on May 9, 2011, meeting. It will be held at E2.014. This is a meeting we already posted for and we've had a request to add this bill. And we'd like to add this bill for our colleague. So I make that motion.

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

REPRESENTATIVE RIDDLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members. Before we exit here tonight, I would like to introduce an intern in my office, Charles Bogue and his girlfriends that Tasha. Charles stand up and welcome to your House. Thank you, Members. Welcome him. He's great and he's been working so hard in our office. A valuable member of our team. Thank you, Charles.

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

REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move to suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule to allow the Committee on State Affairs to consider SB 15 to final adjournment, recess, May the 9, 2011, at JHR, Room 140.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Ways & Means will meet at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment recess on May 9, 2011, in room E2.014. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 540 and posted agenda. The Committee on State Affairs will meet upon final adjournment or recess on May 9, 2011, at JHR one is 40. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 15.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, are there any other announcements? The Chair recognizes Representative Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Democratic Caucus Members, we're going to have a meeting upstairs in the Court of Appeals room, I believe. If you guys could come upstairs for just a minute. Eissler. We're going to have a Caucus Meeting on the third floor in the Supreme Court room. Thank you.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Juris Prudence will meet at 8:30 a.m. on May 7, 2011, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, are there any other announcements? Representative Anchia moves the House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. 2011 in memory of former Representative Joe Moreno of Houston on the Anniversary of his death. The House stands adjourned.