House Transcript, June 28, 2011

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered?

THE CHAIR:

THE CHAIR: The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop for the invocation.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Mr. Speaker, members and guests, will you please bow with me as we go to our Lord in prayer? Our Father in Heaven, what a pleasure and a privilege it is to stand before a holy and eternal God. A God who causes all things to work together for the good, to those whose heart belongs to you. Father, we pray as a body, as a state, that this may be the last day of this 82nd Session. Father, I pray that this day you will give us the strength and the discernment to make the decisions as we deliberate the items before us that will impact the entire State of Texas. Father, we pray that we make wise decisions, that we make decisions based on the precepts that you've set before us in your word. Father, we pray this for the State of Texas, and in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

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

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, members. Please join me in pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States. [PLEDGE]

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 232 suspending the limitations of conferees for SB 1. Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9F, the Chair announces the introduction of HR 218 suspending the limitations of conferees on HB 3. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House: HCR 18, HCR 19, HCR 22, HCR 25, SB 2, SB 6, SB 8, SB 7. Excuse Representative Hamilton because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Zerwas. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is Mr. Simpson on the floor of the House?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown for a motion. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up HCR No. 5.

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

THE CLERK: HCR 5 by Harper-Brown. Urging Congress to take appropriate action to ensure acceptable treatment of the public by personnel of the Transportation Security Administration.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is HCR 5 that addresses the concerns that Representative Simpson has about the TSA. And I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, this requires a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay. HCR 5. Show Representative Simpson voting aye. Have all voted? There being 131 ayes and 11 nays, the resolution is adopted. Excuse Representative Van Taylor because of important business in the district, on the motion of Tryon Lewis. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative (inaudible) on the motion of Representative Lozano. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, I move we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 125, honoring the Center for Public Policy Priorities on its 25th anniversary.

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

THE CLERK: HR 125 by Naishtat. Honoring the Center for Public Policy Priorities on its 25th anniversary. HR 259 by Naishtat. Recognizing July 2011 as DoubleTree by Hilton Chocolate Chip Cookie Month in Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Move passage.

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

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR 21.

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

THE CLERK: HCR 21 by Branch. Congratulating the Dallas Mavericks on winning the 2011 NBA championship.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the resolution honoring the 2011 NBA champion Dallas Mavericks, and I'm happy to have my joint authors from Dallas. I know Representative Driver and Representative Giddings, Representative Davis and I know -- I think -- who else signed on? I'm forgetting. But we're very excited to have a national champion, NBA champion in Texas, not from Houston and not from San Antonio this time, but for the first time from the city of Dallas. And on June 12th the Dallas Mavericks defeated the Miami Heat in game 6, 105 to 95. This is Dallas' first NBA championship and hopefully the first of many more to come in the future. I'd like to congratulate the entire Mavericks organization, including the owner, Mark Cuban, the president -- excuse me, and the -- and also all of the 2011 NBA finals world champions, as I was corrected by Representative Raymond, along with the MVP of the NBA this year, the finals MVP, Dirk (inaudible) and the entire city of Dallas and all the Dallas Mavericks fans. I'm proud to represent downtown Dallas and the home of the Dallas Mavericks, the American Airlines Center. And this championship was well deserved, after coming so close in 2006. And Representative Giddings, would you like to say anything about the MAVs?

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Representative Branch and members of the Texas House. The MAVs did it. Houston had done it, San Antonio had done it, but now it's really been done extremely well, Representative Turner, by the Dallas Mavericks. So let's all give the Dallas Mavericks a big round of applause for what they've done for our state.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Burkett moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we're quite lucky today to have watching while we're sitting here doing nothing, we're joined by a delegation of Italian nursery and landscapers. They are in Texas looking into exporting some of our Texas grown products. Mr. Miller, who was up here a minute ago. They are on a buying trip and they are looking around. We'd like to welcome you to the Texas House.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, is there objection to going outside the bounds on House Bill 3? Chair lays out House Resolution 218.

THE CLERK: HR 218 by Smithee. Suspending the limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, House Bill No. 3.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, this is a resolution to go outside the bounds on the TWIA bill, House Bill 3. There are a couple of areas where we're having to go outside the bounds, or we did go outside the bounds just a little. All of the areas that are involved were at the request of various coastal members for particular circumstances they wanted to address. And then Senator Fraser wanted to add his bill that he had wanted to file as a study for -- to the study during the interim, which is fine. And then TDI had had some technical comments that we needed to correct, which required us to go outside the bounds. So I don't know of any real opposition to the matters that were placed in the bill outside the bounds that were just some things that had not been put in the bill earlier. So I would move for adoption of the resolution.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question is on the adoption of the resolution. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Paxton voting aye. Show Representative Gallego voting no. Have all voted? There being 127 ayes, 15 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out House Bill -- Senate -- conference committee report on House Bill 3. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: Conference committee report House Bill 3.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, this is the conference committee report on the TWIA bill, House Bill 3. We were able to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate, I think in a good way, a fair way; certainly not a perfect way, but I do think that this bill will greatly improve the situation that we have today, not only for our coastal members but also for the inland members. I am hopeful that we can get immediate effect. There are some things that are extremely important. One is being able to grandfather some structures that would lose their insurance during the middle of hurricane season if we have an effective date before August 31. That's a big deal to a lot of people. The second reason is that we are not financially prepared to deal with this hurricane season. If we have a storm in August or September, this bill will certainly help in that regard. And so an immediate effect is very important. This will be very similar to the bill that we've considered already twice in this House. I won't go through all the details, except to say that it tries clean up the operation in TWIA, it tries to clean up how claims are handled there, to make sure they're resolved quicker, fairly and more inexpensively. We attempted to provide for a fair system of resolution where we don't have to have lawyers involved, but when lawyers have to be involved we -- we allow lawyers to be involved and we have trial. So I'll be glad to address any questions that anyone has.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you Mr. Smithee. Can you explain to me one of the provisions in the conference committee report has to do with the retro-activity application of this -- of this bill now. And I'm just curious as to whether that's the case, first of all. Is there something about this bill now that's applied retroactively?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, could we have order, please?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: The question is whether there is something in the provision that applies retroactively, and I would say that parts of -- there are different effective dates for different parts of the bill. We are not applying anything retroactively to claims that have already been made, okay? If a claim's been made, if it's accrued, we go by the old law. For claims that accrue after the effective date of the act yes, there will be changes for those on a stair-step basis. That is necessitated by the fact that we don't have any money right now, we're broke; and we are going to have to scramble to find every dollar we can, just to be able to put roofs back on houses. And, frankly, we're having to hope for a lot of things to fall in place just to be able to do that. I wish I could tell you we're fixing something for this year but we're not, it's too late to do that. But we're going to help with this bill as much as possible, to make sure that we get this damage repaired without us having to come back in special session.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: As I understand, though, Mr. Chairman, the current contract that exists regarding TWIA permits, for example, a policy holder to elect -- to have a jury decide several of the issues?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And is that cut off --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No, not at all.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- in this bill now?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Not at all.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Not at all? So you didn't -- You don't do anything that basically takes away --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- the rights --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: And every TWIA policy holder, you know, that has a dispute with a coverage will still have a right to go to jury. The only exception is the provision that the Senate put in, which we retained in the conference committee report that when a person buys the policy they cannot, for a mandatory arbitration provision, it's entirely their choice. If they do, they may save a little money on their premium, but nobody's going make them do that. Now, if they elect to do that then they will go to arbitration instead of a jury trial. It will be the policy holder's decision.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So as I understand it, the way that would work, though, is the commissioner's going to decide that a policy holder could get up to a ten percent discount if they choose that. Is that --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yeah, it would have been actuarially indicated, as well.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: So it could go up to ten percent, but no more.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So a policy holder would have the option to decline the ten percent reduction, or up to the ten percent reduction? Because it's not clear to me that it is indeed a ten percent reduction. I think it says up to ten percent; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yeah. I mean -- And it's not binding that the commissioner even do that. The commissioner, by rule, can approve an endorsement that allows the consumer to say I'm not going to go to a jury trial, I want to go to arbitration. And then the commissioner will figure in actuarially how much of a cost savings, if any, that justifies. He can't go above ten percent, but he can offer a discount to people. Basically, if they're taking a policy that will produce less in costs they should get the benefit for that.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But the policy holders now, they won't have any of their contract obligations or remedies under their contracts changed by virtue of the passage of this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, we can't change vested rights in a contract, that's a constitutional issue.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Texas and federal constitution. So the bill is designed not to impact vested constitutional rights. We can impact procedural or remedial rights that are not vested rights. And there are, for instance, we remove the application of the additional damage penalties, we remove the application -- we insert some other conditions as a precedent to making claims, but they're done not to harass these policy holders, but in a way to try to facilitate the quick resolution of claims and to make sure we have enough money to go around for everybody.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Now, and let me -- I should have started with this, but the problem we had with TWIA related to agents who were doing things that I guess amounted to illegally.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: I don't think it was agents, I think a lot of the problem was adjustors.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'm sorry, the adjustors. I don't mean -- I said agents, I meant the adjustors. How do we fix that problem in HB 3?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, one of the things that I think will work the best is we are going to do realtime -- once we have a storm, we're not going to do this unless we have a major event. But if we have a major event we're going to do realtime audits of these claim files. Every claim file is going to have to be properly documented, we're going to know exactly what is going on with that file, whether the adjustor used acceptable protocol in dealing with the claim, and whether TWIA used acceptable protocol in how they handled the claim. TWIA is also going to have very strict time limits where they are going to have to respond. If TWIA unfairly denies claims or denies coverage, there are going to be severe remedies available against TWIA and for the policy holder, even under this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: But don't you have to prove intentional conduct by TWIA, in order to perfect those added remedies?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: So you'd have to -- And then you also have to prove that by clear and convincing evidence --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: And so that's the only time a claimant would be able to access those increased penalties for any violation. Is one, they have to show intentional conduct by TWIA and two, they had to also get -- Let me ask this, though: In terms of the recovery, for example, consequential damages that would apply only in regard to intentional conduct by --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No, no. All we say in the bill is that we're not taking away any common law right to consequential damages. We're not dealing with consequential damages.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. So you don't change that in the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: All right. And the only other question I had was regarding, again, back to the issue of a jury trial; and you are saying that the bill, as it stands now, doesn't make any changes regarding a claimant's right to a jury trial?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: The only thing that I might say is this: That on a jury trial, if you dispute -- if TWIA accepts coverage and there is a dispute as to the amount of materials, or whatever; under this bill, the parties would go to an appraisal process, which is in everybody's homeowner's policy. But that's a prerequisite to going to trial. You go through appraisal, under the policies that currently exist, that have not expired, that appraisal would not be binding on either party; but it would be a prerequisite. Now once the new policies are issued, after the effective date of the bill, then the appraisal process is binding on both parties, just as it is with everybody that lives off the coast.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: You had -- That's the only -- So this is the only time that we impose binding arbitration in these kinds of policies?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No real arbitration in there, it's just that appraisal process, which is a little bit different than -- I mean, it's a standard procedure that's in everybody's policy.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smithee.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: I yield, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Chairman Smithee, you mentioned earlier about -- in your opening statement about TWIA being broken. Am I quoting you right on that?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: How does this bill fix the actual financing of TWIA? Does it actually, in reference to the reinsurance and bonding and how does that -- how does your bill fix that piece? And that's, you know, what -- what we're trying to go at; is that correct, you know, fix that?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: TWIA's broke if this bill doesn't pass. If the bill does pass, TWIA's still broke. It doesn't change anything. The only way you could change that is if you put in the bill a rate increase. The coastal members in the House kind of put that off in the -- out of the parameter of what they are willing to do this time. They were not willing to raise these rates. So I honored that parameter, but it limited our options in other areas. Now, on the funding piece let me just say this, and this is extremely important, when we passed 4409 two years ago we had a very heavily negotiated system on how we were going to pay these claims, and the first billion dollars was going to be borne by TWIA policy holders, and through bonds. The second billion would be split between coastal non TWIA policy holders and statewide residents. The third half billion would be dealt with with insurance carriers, who would then recharge their customer base. The problem is that the TWIA bonds cannot be sold, more than likely; at least most can't be sold. We have lost the first billion dollar layer, and it's a direct result of all this litigation mess --

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: So are we treating coastal residents different, then, by limiting their consumer rights? Are we limiting those coastal residents along the tier one coast, are we treating them differently from the rest of the state?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yeah, we're treating them differently. We're getting them insurance when they can't get it from the private market. We don't do that for anybody else in this state, except through the (inaudible) plan.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: But what I'm saying is if they're being harmed like they were during Ike, why would we treat those folks -- they are Texans, just as well as anybody else in the panhandle and east Texas, west Texas, why would we try to treat those folks differently in reference to access to their consumer rights and access to the courts? Why would we treat them any differently from the rest of the state?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, I mean I can be as detailed as you want me to be --

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: I guess what I'm saying is why don't we do that for the -- why don't we apply your bill to the rest of the state then?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, there's a material difference. My insurance and virtually every coastal and many non coastal (inaudible) have insurance with private carriers. We pay actuarially justified rates. The company that we have our insurance with makes a profit. TWIA policy holders do not pay actuarially justified rates, they pay subsidized rates. They would not have any insurance at all if the rate payers in the rest of the state didn't offer in to chip in and help them, and TWIA doesn't make any profits.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: So there's no hail storms, no other kind of -- tornadoes in other parts of the state?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yeah, there's hail storms all over the state. But, you know, what I pay an actuarial rate on my insurance. There's no TWIA policy holder can ever pay a penny for my storms. TWIA is a one way door. Money can go in from the rest of the state, but it will never go out from the rest of the state. This is a losing argument, okay? We can have it, but you're going to lose it.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Well, I beg to differ on that piece. I believe that we're treating some of these coastal residents much differently and much harsher as it relates to their consumer rights, than I think the rest of it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: We can fix that right now. We can eliminate TWIA, if that's what you really want to do.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Well, I mean that bill's not on the floor. So I mean you want to eliminate TWIA we can have that debate.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Walle --

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: I'm sure we would have a -- we would have a lively debate on that. So if you want to eliminate TWIA then let's talk about that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: I don't want to eliminate it. The thing I am telling you is we've got limited resources and I'm trying as hard as I can to do the best with what we've got.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Will the gentleman yield? John, just for clarification, first of all, in the coast region there are TWIA policies, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Then there is private insurer policies?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: This bill is directed toward the TWIA policies?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: TWIA only, correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Now, let me get -- I want to talk to you about rates in a minute, just so we're clear on the record but I need to ask you some questions. So we're clear in the bill. In the bill -- the conference report, you go to appraisal just like on a regular policy or homeowner's policy?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: And each side goes and they do an assessment?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: You get your appraiser and I get my appraiser.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: It use s the words equal costs. The intent is that you pay for your share, I pay for mine. If I'm the home owner I'm not paying yours or a percentage of yours, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Right. The language might be a little clearer, but what is clearly envisioned is that the home owner engages his appraiser, the insurer engages his appraiser. If there is any expense, in addition to that, either with that or with an umpire that might be selected under the policy, then that would be borne equally between the policy holder and the insurance company. But both sides are in charge of getting and paying for their own appraiser.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: That's the key, I pay for mine you pay for yours?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: All right. Finally, let's make sure you and I throughout the whole process and I believe Senator Carona too, we talked about rates we talked about surcharges and we have talked about fees which are not in this bill, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: And you and I and the Senator and some of the other members two years ago worked on 4409, which is the financing. And I think that we said that would be up for review in '13, not right now; is that correct? And so I'm just want to assure everybody, you're basically using 4409 language, status quo language, and we're not impinging on anything that's different?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: The only difference, Todd, and this is something that I really need to point out, is that because of the commissioner's finding that TWIA probably won't be able to sell bonds, it would have created a very unfair situation where if those bonds couldn't have been sold then TWIA policy holders would have had absolutely no responsibility. But your other coastal policy holders that you represent that are non TWIA, would have just been hurt really badly by this. And that was an unfair and really an unforeseen situation. So we did put a provision in here to be able to fairly allocate those damages -- the responsibility for repayment. It doesn't increase anybody's responsibility, it just fairly allocates it. Now, it will reduce to some extent the money we have available, but if we can't sell those class one bonds, we have to go to class two, we're going to make sure that class one policy holders pay a portion up to what they would have liable before, maybe a lot less. But it depends on the sliding scale of how that works. I think that's equitable for everybody, I don't think it hurts anybody but it's certainly -- I think it preserves the intent of 4409 and what we all very carefully on or about and I know you've got policy holders on both sides of that and most coastal members do.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: And basically that's a distribution issue, it's not a rate or a surcharge issue.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Exactly.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Finally, one of the questions is when they talk about the judges under the policy, when you're dealing with the TWIA policy, it says that the commissioner is involved in determining the use of certain judges. In general cases the administrative judge for that area is involved. Can you explain the reasoning why the TDI commissioner's involved?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: I'm sorry, the MDL?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yeah, if there's a decision that a judge must be replaced or must be changed or not allowed, it talks about the TDI commissioner in there. Can you explain why the TDI commissioner's involved?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, one of the problems is that if you have a major storm, that you certainly have the potential for massive litigation in a county, and it may be centralized in one county. It could be in a county where you only have one or two judges. And so what we are we're trying -- And one of the things that coastal members wanted, they wanted a coastal judge deciding these cases. And so we agreed to that. Now, it is permissive now to bring in a judge from the adjoining county. But what I would envision is most of the time you'll be dealing with a judge in your own county. If there's a massive storm, or other considerations at work, you may have a judge from an adjoining county. But that's all we're trying to do. Mr. Speaker, if there's no other questions I would move for adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Representative Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Just one quick question, please.

THE CHAIR: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Representative Smithee. As somebody's who's from here in central Texas and whose constituents have not sent word one to me about this issue, how would you say that what you're doing here is going to affect my constituents here in central Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Well, Ms. Howard, your constituents are on the hook at the end of this. You see when they pay their home owner policy, if there's a major storm they're going to get hit with a surcharge, like everyone else in this room. Coastal and off coast. We're trying to hold down the cost of the resolution system to make sure everybody gets their fair share, but as in-expensively, as quickly and as efficiently as possible. And hopefully that will reduce the need for assessments or surcharges to the rest of the state. But one of the things we do in this bill, and if this bill doesn't pass then it's going to be the way it is, that is because of a glitch, because of the inability to sell those class one bonds, TWIA policy holders will be completely off the hook, but your constituents would be on the hook, my constituents would be on the hook to pay back those bonds. You see, TWIA has no money. They have to go borrow money to be able to get money, and the way it works now is the TWIA policy holders will not pay any of money back but your constituents will have to. We're going to fix a big part of that in this bill and I think it's very important to all of us that we're going to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: So you're saying that with or without this bill TWIA's going to be broke, and what we're doing is not going to address that aspect of it, and we still need to address the underlining foundation of how we're going to support TWIA; but we're not going to be doing that with this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: We're not doing that this session. And we can only do so much. And we focused on trying to cut costs. But ultimately, if TWIA stays alive, we're going to have to have some way of funding it. We're not realistic right now, and I don't want to kid anybody into thinking we are. But we could raise rates by five hundred percent this year and it really wouldn't help us materially with this storm system. But, over time, we're going to have to first of all, charge actuarially sound rates, and we're going to have to come up with some other ideas, some other facility to be able to handle these large storms; and we're going to have to use everything we've got, reinsurance, bonding, every tool imaginable. But it's going to require a lot of consensus in this House to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And that's not what we're going to be able to do today?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: No, can't do that today. I wish we could. I'd do it right now if I could. But the parameters that I've been given, this is really as far as I can go.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I'll try to keep this brief. But this bill is bad for coastal residents and coastal insurance and on policy holders, and I want to make sure that coastal people know that. And you should be very concerned about some of the insurance policies changes that are in this bill, because if it can happen to us it can happen to you. First Judge Lewis, I think, should be concerned about this bill, because for the first time we had the executive branch deciding if a judicial officer is competent to hear a case. We have the insurance commission determining whether or not a judge in a coastal county did hear a case. That's a violation of separation of powers, and I think that's a bad precedent to start setting. We have, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, a process that if a judge is not competent or judge has a conflict, we let the judiciary determine that by having the administrative judge preside over and make that determination. And now we got the insurance commissioner, a governmental appointee by the governor deciding whether or not a judge is competent to hear a case. That's wrong. Second, and I want to make sure everybody knows, for example, if you're in the Nueces county you could have a judge from Wells County be sent to you by the multi district litigation panel to hear a Corpus Christi case. Because this bill allows an MDL panel to send somebody from outside your county to hear a case, even if you don't ask for it. And then they're going to send the bill to your commissioner's court. So it's a violation of the separation of powers first, and then it's an unfunded mandate, because there is no money to pay for these outside county judges coming in to hear. Also, we restrict and we do not allow our county court judges to hear the cases. The bill strictly says you must value your cases in district court, so you got a 20,000-dollar case a 10,000-dollar roof claim, and if you can get to court, you can't file in county court, you have to file in district court; absolutely no justification for that, for those restrictions. There's provision here that has the state auditor come in and do some auditing of TWIA, and that is something that the insurance commissioner and TDI should do. They audit and do reviews of insurance companies, that's part of what they do. The state auditor doesn't audit insurance companies, and we should have them auditing TWIA. Then there's this provision that's been touched on where if you want they can -- TWIA can offer an incentive for you to waive your rights to go to trial by jury. The problem with it is it happens at the time you purchase your policy. Everybody's talking about TWIA's underfunded, and then they stick a provision in here that could cut TWIA's funding by ten percent. Because they say if you'll take arbitration and waive your constitutional right for trial by jury we'll reduce your premium by ten percent. And that's in years when there is no storm. So we reduced the amount of money that TWIA going get to put into their trust fund by ten percent for everybody that accepts that arbitration deal. But even more troubling is this provision that if we sell bonds to pay for any storm damage, then over a period of time, up to 14 years, will be a surcharge on every policy on the coast --

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Ritter, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Will the gentleman yield for a question, Craig?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Just let me finish this thought. There's going to be a cost, a surcharge on each policy on the coast to (inaudible) those bonds. That will be a set price. Let's say there's it's a ten billion dollar bond, I say it's 50 million a year. It's going to be (inaudible) on all coastal policies. But if you take the arbitration ten percent discount then your surcharge will be reduced by ten percent, so what's that going to do? It means if you don't choose arbitration then your surcharge is going to have to go up, because the amount to defeat the bond is static. So that is a problem, another one. And then I'll yield another one is this provision about appraisal be one of the things we heard insurance

(inaudible) is from coastal people and I thought we were not going to do this, it is basically mandated arbitration, by appraisal. If there is a portion of claim that can be appraised. Eighty to eighty-five percent -- Every policy in this state has the appraisal option in it. Eighty to eighty-five percent of the time, neither the insurance company nor the insured in both appraisal. But guess what we do in this bill to coastal people? We mandate that they go to appraisal. Even though eighty to eighty-five percent the rest of the time the entire state decides not to go to appraisal, in this bill we mandate that you must go to appraisal. And Mr. Smithee and Mr. Hunter can talk about the language all they want to, but the bill says that it will be equal shares. What does that mean when you have to pay for the appraisal? That means I pay for half of TWIA, TWIA pays half for mine. So I don't care, if I can go find an adjustor that doesn't charge me a whole lot, TWIA can go and find the most expensive consulting firm around and drive up the price of appraisal, if they so choose, because they're documenting their file. And I could have to pay half of that. One of my concerns is do I have to pay up front or at the end to go to appraisal, to contest. But think about how backwards that is, I have to pay half of a TWIA's cost to contest the guy that got it wrong. And I have to pay half of that. So I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Craig. Mr. Eiland, I've heard several times during this debate about the extreme exposure to Texans across Texas, not in the coastal region, as to the losses and the increases they will incur on their insurance policies. Correct me, I thought in 2009 or 2008 we changed that, where the state actually was extremely limited in exposure. And I'm really not aware of my -- my policies being increased anywhere outside of -- on other property that I have outside of the coastal areas. Can you clarify to me and to us in this room, what really is going on, what we --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Everybody, many people in this debate have talked about TWIA doesn't have enough money, okay. The financial situation and the financial structure have problems. There is nothing in this bill that addresses the financial structure or problems of TWIA, except limiting the rights of the policy holders. And I'm resigned to that. We're going to have limited recoveries, fine. I'm not arguing with that part of the bill. What I'm talking about, I'm arguing about is the process that you have to go through to get what you're supposed to have gotten the first time.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: But are you aware of anyone in Austin, Texas or Hickville, Texas or anywhere else where their rates have been raised because of our 2 billion-dollar damage from Hurricane Ike?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: There has been --

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Or whatever it was from Hurricane Rita?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I am not either. So we changed the structure of the funding last session. And that was what they're --

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: So there still are concerns about the financial stability of the TWIA and the coastal region?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: But that's not addressed in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Eiland, I'm a little bit confused. I was watching the Senate debate and, if I'm not mistaken, Senator Carona indicates that this bill applies retroactively to current policy holders.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: It does. This bill -- If I bought my TWIA policy in January and we passed this bill in July, in August my rights and remedies are going to change, even though I bought an insurance policy in January.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, maybe I misunderstood Mr. Smithee, because he said it did not apply retroactively to --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: It does.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- the policy holders.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: It does.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, that's why I was confused. And do you recall where we have ever done this before in terms of --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: No.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- passing a bill?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: We passed tort reform back in 2003. One of the big issues that both sides, as this came together on, we wouldn't have retro-active bills or retroactive application. And it would be because of action that accrued after passage of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That's one thing when you're talking about a car wreck. The problem is I bought an insurance policy before the law has changed, I'm having a contract dispute on that policy and this bill makes it retroactive as to what my remedies are; and that's wrong.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, that's why I'm asking, because it seems to me that -- and one of the things I think Senator Carona argued was that there is a severability clause in this bill, so that if that provision is deemed illegal, then it would just come out and separate from the bill. But my question was why are we setting a precedence where we are going to allow the court to decide an issue which we can decide right here, because we know for a fact that the retroactive application of --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: It's not a good thing to start.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: -- would be unconstitutional.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yeah, that's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well --

THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman's point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Smithee to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SMITHEE: You know, I understand Mr. Eiland's concerns. And, believe me, we've talked about this a lot, and we've addressed problems concerns over the last four or five months. So a lot of this bill was influenced by what Mr. Eiland's concerns, legitimate concerns that he had. And we made a lot of changes based on those. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hunter and Mr. Torres, who were -- have -- have worked on this issue a lot, Mr. Bonnen and others have worked hard on this issue, and this is a very coastal friendly bill, because ultimately the coast pays the biggest share of cost for this; and we're trying to cut that cost down so that we can make insurance affordable and available on the coastal areas. And so, with that, Mr. Speaker, I would move for adoption of the conference committee report.

THE CHAIR: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report for HB 3. It's a record vote, members. Ring the bell. All voted? Have all voted? There being 98 ayes, 14 nays, 3 present not voting; HB 3 finally passes. Mr. Coleman? With HCR 15?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to lay out HCR No. 15.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR 18. This is a memorial resolution, members.

THE CLERK: HCR 15 by Coleman. In memory of Pete A. Gallego, Jr. of Alpine.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gallego, this is HCR No. 15 in honor of the life of Pete A. Gallego, Jr. of Alpine. You know, there are a lot of people here that you get to know in the time that you spend here, and the fortunate part is you get to know their families; not just their children, but their parents. And it tells a lot about where people come from and why they do the things that they do. And in this resolution, that is joint authored by Representative Hochberg, Representative Castro, Armando Martinez, Representative Walle; it lays out exactly what kind of man Pete Gallego, Jr. was. I had the opportunity to go to his funeral, and this is a man who integrated the public schools in Alpine, Texas when Latinos could only go to schools on one side of the tracks and everybody else went to the other schools on the other side of the tracks. Now, most of us think of segregation as being an east Texas thing, but it was a west Texas thing. Mr. Gallego was also the first Latino elected to the school board in Alpine, Texas and worked to make sure that on one side of town that the education was the same as it was on the other side of town. Mr. Gallego owned a restaurant and took care of himself and his family, but he raised an absolutely great family. And this memorial resolution is in honor of that family and the work that Mr. Gallego did. And -- and that honor goes to Elena Pena Gallego that's -- and to his daughters, that Mrs. Gallego, and to his daughters, Imelda Gallego Garcia and her husband Jose Garcia. Rebekah P. Gallego, M.D. To his son, the Honorable P. Gallego and his wife, Maria Elena Ramon, to his grandchildren Maria Imelda, Maria Elena and Briana Garcia, Christina P. Gallego, Nicholas Miguel Ramon Gallego and to his other relatives and his many friends. And be it further resolved that this official copy is given to all of them. Now we may not be able to get it done on the other side. One last piece. You know, I had an opportunity to spend probably three days in Alpine, and talked to Pete's father and mother. You know how sometimes around here you don't know your direction, but they were very good at giving advice and understanding how the world works. And Mr. Gallego made change in that world, in the world that we live in, and his son has picked up the mantle. His children have made change where they are. I also had the opportunity to go to Dr. Ford's memorial service, his dentist, in Houston. In his 80s, you know, same generation of people who got the parks in the State of Texas integrated by fighting to get the beach park in Galveston. And this was a time, and I hope we're still in that time, when people understood that the world doesn't change unless individuals do something, and that individuals do make a difference if they decide that it's important for their children and the rest of us. I'm fortunate enough to come from a family that believes that. But, most importantly to all of us, Mr. Gallego was a great man, and most people won't know how great he was; but I wanted to make sure -- I wanted to make sure that the people in this House understood how great a man Pete A. Gallego, Jr. was, and how great and good he was to the State of Texas.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hilderbran, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Gentlem an yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I just want to --

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Col eman, thank you so much for bringing this resolution and honoring Pete's dad and the rest of his family. If there's any indication as to just what a great man he is, it's the son that he has, our colleague, Pete Gallego. But also I wanted to make sure, you may have said it a little earlier, his dad was a World War II veteran, served in the Pacific. And had his own issues with -- like all us, the demons we have with our enemies and not always being color blind. And he rose, after that experience, above that, and did all the things that he did. A great Texan. And I join you, along with all of our other colleagues in this resolution. I would like to ask that all members' names be added at the appropriate time.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Members, this is memorial resolution, all those in favor please rise. Representative Hilderbran moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, members.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Members, I -- I can't fire Garnet's staff, but I can fire mine for not telling me that this was happening. It's an incredible surprise and I'm very flattered. My father was a fascinating person and he taught me a lot. And, in fact, when I was deciding to run I talked about for it a long time and it was really my father's advice that made me -- that made me get into the race all those many years ago. My father saw problems and tried to fix them, and I hope that's what I have picked up from him. And, you know, in Alpine those were different days and different times, and when the bank wouldn't loan money to Latinos the credit union got started, and it got started on my father's dining room table. And folks would come into the dining room and borrow money and pull money. And all of the sudden now, in Alpine, Texas, I don't know, the credit union there has several million dollars of assets that started on my father's dining room table. And I was taught that everything was possible, which is why a young guy that was washing dishes in a restaurant in Alpine, Texas made it to the Texas House of Representatives. I want to thank each of you for the resolution, and Garnet, who has been a brother to me for twenty years, and the coauthors and joint authors, and I want to urge each of you in every way that you can to emulate the example of a good parent or a good grandparent. I read some time ago an interview that Jackie Onassis gave before she died. And they asked her of all of the things that are most important to you, of all of these things that you've done, you've been a first lady, you saved all these -- funded these museums, you saved all these buildings, you founded the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the National Center for the Performing Arts, you've done all of these incredible things. Of all the things that you've done, what's the most important? And her response was, I raised normal children, because if you don't nothing else matters. So while we get so carried away in so many things here, I hope that certainly I try to emulate that example. And I would urge you that just by your differences of opinion or philosophy or whatever you want to call it, that we all strive to be great people, that we all strive to be great parents and that we all strive to be great grandparents. And if we don't have kids or grandkids, that we strive to be great uncles or aunts or great friends, because at the end of the day that's really what it's all about.

(Speaking in Spanish.) From my heart, thank you very much for allowing me to serve with you.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Yes, Representative Keffer?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: I just would like to say that Pete is a true friend and colleague of all of us here on the House floor, we are proud to serve with him. And I want you know that's the clearest we heard him speak all session for us back here.

THE CHAIR: So ordered. Representative Miles? Representative Miles?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to bring up and consider House Resolution 233.

THE CHAIR: Representative Miles sends up House Resolution 233. Is there objection? Hearing none.

THE CLERK: HR 233 by Miles. In memory of Yolanda Evette Williams.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Members, Speaker, some of you may know from the Harris County delegation, Dr. Lois Moore who was over the Harris County -- Harris County Hospital District. Unfortunately, on Saturday we had -- to -- untimely death of her daughter, age 44, from breast cancer. I would ask that you keep Dr. Moore and her family in prayers. She also had to bury her husband just five years ago, and that was her only child. So, Dr. Moore is left just by herself. I would ask that we move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, Representative Miles sends up an resolution. This is a memorial resolution. Please rise. Resolution adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Thank you, members.

THE CHAIR: Representative Naishtat?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Members, I move we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 258 recognizing the month of April as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month.

THE CHAIR: Representative Naishtat sends up HR 258. Is there any objection? The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 258 by Naishtat. Recognizing the month of April, 2011 as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month.

THE CHAIR: Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Representative Naishtat sends up an a resolution. Any objection? Hearing none. Resolution adopted. Mr. Doorkeeper? The doorkeeper changed. Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, my man is here for the last time.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Doorkeeper?

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

THE CHAIR: Representative Gallego? Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if I can have the legislative black caucus members just to meet me in the members' lounge. Very quickly, members, if the legislative black caucus, if you can meet me right now so we can talk about this next special session. If you can meet me, members of black caucus. No, seriously, if the members of black caucus can meet me very quickly in the members' lounge?

THE CHAIR: Following bills on first reading and referral:

THE CLERK: SB 29 by Patrick. Relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation; providing penalties. Referred to the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Keffer?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Parliamentar y inquiry, please.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: What are we doing? I know we just had the clerk come up and read that we're wanting to introduce the Patrick bill, the Senate Bill from -- that was passed last night for some reason.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Gallego is about to explain it. Mr. Gallego from Alpine.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Chairman Keffer, here is what I understand the House Bill 41 that was considered yesterday would be on third reading. And the Senate has now essentially sine died. However, the Senate did pass the companion bill, Senate Bill 29, which is over now, and has now been referred to Criminal Jurisprudence.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: All right. Now this bill is different from the Simpson bill that we passed out of here yesterday; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: As I understand -- I have the bill in front of me. Let me -- let me first -- let me talk -- before I talk about the substance of the bill, let me talk about the procedure so that everybody will understand what's about to happen. I'm going to ask for permission of the House to meet -- for the committee on criminal jurisprudence to meet while the committee, while the House is in session. At that point the committee will review the bill, and the bill will come out of committee. I assume it will come out of committee if the votes are there. Mr. Simpson is going to have to make a motion to go back on his bill, on 41, to go back to second reading. Because at that point, if his bill is in second reading, and if the Senate's bill has come out of committee, then at that point it comes a bill that's over and eligible, and they're both in the same legislative stage, and so then you can substitute the Senate Bill for the House Bill. So procedurally -- and that way we can pass the Senate Bill and it goes directly to the governor. That's the procedural impact or the procedural plan of what's about to happen. In terms of the substance of bill --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: And we will not have the one hour notice of your committee meeting also?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: We will suspend that?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: As when I suspend -- When I asked for the suspension, which I intend to do here shortly, when I ask for the suspension I would ask for a suspension to suspend all necessary rules to allow the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to meet while the House is in session.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Right. Right. Right.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So let me -- Let me talk about the substance of the bill that I have before me, which I read for the first time a little while ago. But, first of all, it makes one important distinction. Previously, the bill that had passed out of the House that Mr. Simpson had yesterday, essentially had both federal and state law enforcement in it. So what this does is it specifically limits the definition of public servants to an officer, employee or agent of the United States, or a branch department agency of the United States, or any other person acting under contract with the branch department or an agency of the United States for the purpose of providing security or law enforcement service, and any other person acting under color of federal law. So that for those of you who have heard, for example, from many local law enforcement, I know Mr. Fletcher, for example, had an amendment and had some concerns about the impact on local and state law enforcement; those concerns are allayed. Because as the bill comes out of the Senate, it's been narrowly tailored to apply solely to actions of the federal government, or agents of the federal government; whether they're actual employees or contractual employees.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: And also, besides Mr. Fletcher, I know that you had amendment, I know that Mr. Branch had an amendment in working with the AGs office, with the District Attorneys' Association, to make sure there was clarification and that as this bill goes forward that these interests and these issues are taken care of by the amendments that were put on Mr. Simpson's bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It is my understanding from Mr. Simpson, Chairman Keffer, it is my understanding that the District and County's Association have worked on the Senate version as well, and are comfortable with it, which they should be because it no longer applies, frankly, to any state law enforcement activity.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: How about the AG's ability to enforce this?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And there is a provision, which was, as I recall, in the -- a section two of the bill, which provides for challenging the validity of the statute, which is language that the Attorney General had initially worked out with Mr. Simpson during the regular session of the Legislature. So I don't know. I can compare them --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: So the reason the AG had a problem with Mr. Simpson's bill yesterday is that language was not included in Mr. Simpson's original bill?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The language was different. I think this is a -- that is an attempt to go back to a simpler, more plain version, that is not as grand in scope; but is more targeted or more limited in the scope of its application.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Okay. So you're telling the body here that the bill you have before you from the Senate is -- all these different entities that had problems yesterday, and that we are -- everybody's working so feverishly to -- to amend and to fix those problems, in the Senate Bill we have before us today those concerns have been alleviated and that we can go forward with this bill and not have the problems that were, I guess, present in Mr. Simpson's bill yesterday before it was amended?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Keffer, I -- I cannot make representations on a bill that I am not the author of. I will tell you that those questions will be asked in committee, when we have our hearing. And then Mr. Simpson will have to take my place at this microphone and defend the legislation, assuming that it has the votes in committee to get out. And Mr. Simpson will have to answer those questions. What I can tell you is I do intend, prior to the hearing of the criminal jurisprudence committee, is to call the leadership of the District and County Attorney's Association.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Good.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I intend to call the legislative contacts at the Attorney General's Office, and I intend to make an independent verification and an independent determination as to whether or not this bill would pass muster. All that I can tell you now, having read the bill, is that it is more limited in scope than the bill that we considered previously. And so many of those concerns by local law enforcement, for example, whether they be a sheriff's or police or even state law enforcement, those concerns should be allayed. Because by its terms now, the bill applies as it was voted out of the Senate, the bill applies solely to again, agents whether they be actual or contractual employees of the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: All right. So the way I'm understanding this, you're going to ask for a suspension to be able to convene your committee to take up this bill, so that would be this afternoon or early evening, when y'all can do that; and then we will see this bill tomorrow?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It is -- It is my understanding that -- The answer is I hope not, because I would like to go to Uvaldi this afternoon. So the -- The -- Procedurally, what would happen is, assuming -- we have to assume several things. First, we have to assume that the House gives the Committee on Criminal on Jurisprudence permission to meet while the House is in session. Assuming that happens, and the bill is voted out of committee, then the House has to give Mr. Simpson permission to reconsider the vote by which House Bill 41 passed yesterday, so that House Bill 41 comes back to the House on second reading. At that point, there is no need for a calendars committee meeting, there's no need for any other action; because you can substitute at that point. You can substitute the Senate Bill for the House Bill, as we normally do, when a Senate Bill is over and eligible.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Okay. All right, sir. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield. And, Chairman Coleman, before you start, thank you so much your kindness earlier today.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, you know, how I feel. Do you think that we should end this legislative session with a political piece of legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'm asking a serious question. Do you think we should end our special session (inaudible) with a piece of --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Coleman, I must tell you that from my perspective much of what we have done during this special session is not so much about -- about substance as it has been. And so I'm uncomfortable with a lot of the rhetoric. But I do believe that -- that Mr. Simpson has made a real effort on something that he believes in, and so I have made an effort to accommodate him.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you. Well, you know, and I think that's right. And when I talked to Mr. Simpson earlier in the session, I asked him, you know, I understand your bill and I understand if this is something that is about privacy, and the things that people don't want to have happen. But last night, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst said with the passage of SB 29 the Texas Legislature is not only telling the TSA to change their policies, we're telling the Obama administration we'll not be intimidated, we will vigorously defend our constitutional rights. Now when I asked Mr. Simpson, I said I'm not going to participate in a bill that is used to slam the administration. And it seems as if, Mr. Gallego, that is the Lieutenant Governor's intent, and Mr. Patrick's intent, so as to use this bill for political purposes. And I'm asking, do you think it's the right thing for us to pass a bill that is being -- at the end of our special session, that is going to be used or is being used to denigrate our president, who is trying to keep us safe; just like the previous president tried keep us safe.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I would say, Mr. Coleman, that I would think that Governor Dewhurst's and Senator Patrick's comments are unfortunate, because the issue is not something that can be defined along political lines. The Transportation Security Administration is something that was started as, you know, I mean the original leadership of that was in a republican administration, and the policies that have been formulated that the current administration are following are policies --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I understand. But -- but, you know, I'm really pointing out and I'm trying to point out, and Mr. Simpson, you know, I've been trying to be helpful. But the problem is this is the worst kind of rhetoric, to say that one president is not trying to keep people in America safe, and then have our Lieutenant Governor and Mr. Patrick come and say this is about President Obama and groping individuals, and it's his TSA that has tried to keep Americans safe. And I have, as a policy --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I agree with that.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: There is a policy issue here, Mr. Gallego, because I have a problem with that. And I have a problem with us doing a bill that probably has no force of law, just to poke the president in the eye when, at the end of the session, we've been trying to deal with our business.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Coleman, I would agree with you, that it is an unfortunate set of circumstances in terms of the characterizations that the Lieutenant Governor and the Senator have made, because I will tell you --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: What has to happen --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I will tell you that President Obama, in my view, takes responsibility to protect the country every bit as seriously -- every bit as seriously as President Bush did. And I as I am sure every president has and every future president will. I believe that whether they are democrats or republicans they take the responsibility very seriously.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I do, too. And I believe that for some reason there's been a different approach to the people that keep us safe in the airports in our country and train stations and bus stations, in using that as a political issue instead of understanding that we all ask to be kept safe. And like I told Mr. Simpson, and I say to you, is that the Senate Bill itself has been termed to be a bill to get at the current administration. And when you go to committee, to substitute, to vote that bill out, that's what carries with it when it is substituted for the House Bill. It is the bill that the Lieutenant Governor, it is the bill that Dan Patrick's going to run around and say look how the State of Texas gigged it to the president of the United States, and that will become what Senate Bill whatever it is all about, Mr. Chairman. So I just want to bring that forward to make sure that we all understood that this is not the same bill as House Bill 41, this is Senate Bill whatever it is, and what attaches to it is what Senator -- I mean Governor Dewhurst and Dan Patrick ascribed to it, not what we do.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Chairman Coleman, I --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And I'm going to object to your motion to suspend.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I appreciate that. But I will tell you that for those folks who have had a bill in criminal jurisprudence, the reason that I make this motion is because I make every effort, as folks who have been on the committee will tell you, I make every effort to hear every bill that comes to me. Much to the chagrin of many of the members. I go out of the way. And I can't guarantee you that any bill comes out, but I can guarantee you that I will make every effort to hear it. So my commitment to Mr. Simpson, again, and the reason that I bring this motion is because it's really my routine practice to make every effort to hear a member's bill if it's been referred to the committee that I chair.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Parliamenta ry inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Geren, parliamentary inquiry?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Yes. If we -- Chairman Gallego's committee is to kick this bill out, were to kick this bill out tonight, would this bill be able to come to the floor tonight rather than waiting until tomorrow afternoon?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: So we could debate and either vote Senate Bill 1 up or down, and then if -- if everything were ready we could immediately take this up? If it were not ready, we could stand at ease for a number of hours and then come back and then take this bill up on this legislative day; is that correct?

THE CHAIR: The parliamentarian says it could take from five to six hours.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. -- Oh, Mr. Speaker, oh, one more thing. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Did the Senate adjourn without hearing the Harper-Brown HCR?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: So they really don't care that we sent them the HCR, they just said well, take this and this is your only shot at it, House members; is that what they did?

THE CHAIR: It appears so.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: So it's just, yeah, so in other words, they did an intrusive pat down, a grope on us; is that what you are saying, sir?

THE CHAIR: I'll leave that to the will of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. You're going to make your motion.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry?

THE CHAIR: Representative King, let him make his motion first.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, will the parliamentary inquiry be allowed before there's a vote on this motion?

THE CHAIR: Could you state that again?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the parliamentary inquiry be allowed before there is a vote on his motion?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If his motion is made, will that block any other action until that motion is voted on? In other words, we can't do anything once that motion is made, until the motion is voted on; is that correct? We couldn't entertain another motion?

THE CHAIR: I believe you are correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Could I please make this parliamentary inquiry before he makes his motion?

THE CHAIR: Yeah. Well, he's getting ready to make his motion.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And I'm just asking if I could make that before he makes his motion.

THE CHAIR: Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Go ahead. State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I know we don't have this as a preferred process, but I understand -- am I correct in understanding that with a two-thirds vote we can generally suspend all rules?

THE CHAIR: Generally correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Is it not possible then for us to simply have a motion to go ahead and bring the bill directly to the floor, since we have no time to amend it, we can't -- because it can't be amended because it can't go to a conference committee, all we can do is get to vote up or down on it one way or another. Is it not possible for a us simply to have a motion at this time to suspend all necessary rules and call the Senate Bill directly to the House floor for consideration? I'm not asking that that be recognized at this point, I'm just asking if that is a possible parliamentary -- or an appropriate parliamentary procedure.

THE CHAIR: First, Representative King, you have to be recognized. Second, the parliamentarian indicates that he's reviewed the rules and he has not found an incident where that has occurred.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: Thirdly, we have plenty of time to amend the bill, because sine die has not occurred in the House, and the last day of session is tomorrow.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Parliamentary inquiry. But is it not -- but no amendment would ever be effect because it could never go to the Senate

(inaudible) it concurs with that amendment, the Senate has sine died.

THE CHAIR: The parliamentarian cannot say what, what not, what they think or what the Senate can do.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, parliamentary inquiry. If the House amends the Senate Bill, for it to ever go to the governor, would those amendments not have to be concurred by the Senate?

THE CHAIR: The message is we direct you to the Senate parliamentarian for the what the Senate can do.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I think these are constitutional questions, because the Senate has adjourned sine die. Therefore, if we amend the bill in any way on the committee or the floor, it is a dead bill; would that not be correct?

THE CHAIR: We do not know why the Senate chose to sine die, but they did.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. And I'm not defending the Senate, nor do I ever intend to. But I'm just stating the fact that if the bill is amended at any point in committee, or on the floor, it will never reach the governor's desk; is that not correct?

THE CHAIR: Senator King, we refers you to the Senate parliamentarian for the what the Senate can do.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One last parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State the inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Let me just restate to make sure I understand. A motion would have to be recognized to allow the bill to be brought directly to the floor. However, there is nothing in our rules, assuming all rules are suspended, there is nothing that prohibit us from my motion, a recognized motion, pulling that bill directly to the floor, bypassing the committee, and simply voting it up or down?

THE CHAIR: You'd have to be recognized. The motion would have to be recognized.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would the Chair recognize such a motion?

THE CHAIR: Not at this time. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, may I just raise -- May I continue on Mr. King's line of questioning just briefly, so that we understand what we're voting for and what other votes will have to take place. Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: What is the inquiry?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay, first of all, once this -- this motion is to suspend all necessary rules to send -- to allow Mr. Gallego's committee to meet and hear the bill?

THE CHAIR: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Assuming that Mr. Gallego's committee meets, hears the bill, reports the bill out favorably back to the full House; then will there need to be a motion to suspend the printing rule or the layout rule, or does that somehow change in the last 24 hours of a special session or something like that?

THE CHAIR: Once the committee report is printed and distributed, the Senate Bill would be over and eligible. And if the House and the Senate Bill were in the same parliamentarily stage, the Senate Bill could be substituted.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. So once this comes out of committee it does not have to lay out for the traditional -- for the usual 24 hours that it would have had to if it was the original House Bill?

THE CHAIR: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It can catch up -- it can catch it up immediately, or it has to be printed or it has been posted or --

THE CHAIR: Printed and distributed.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: It has to be printed and distributed, but that can then happen immediately; once it's printed and distributed it can come to the floor?

THE CHAIR: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. And the reason that -- And back on Mr. King's discussion of whether we could bring it to the floor without going to committee, is it true that the requirement that a bill be -- not be heard on the floor without being assigned to committee, is that's the constitutional provision; is it not?

THE CHAIR: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And so to suspend that constitutional provision, what would that take?

THE CHAIR: Generally four fifths.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. So that would be a much higher threshold to bypass the committee process?

THE CHAIR: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. In order to avoid asking more questions than it would take Mr. Gallego to hear the bill, I appreciate your answers.

THE CHAIR: At this time the Chair is calling on Representative Gallego to make his motion.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you members for the time on this issue. I hereby request permission of the House for the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to meet while the House is in session at 5:00 p.m. today, June 28, 2011, in room 3W15, to consider Senate Bill 29.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. King, for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the hearing be taking testimony, or will it just be

(inaudible) the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It would be a -- The intent is to do a formal meeting, Mr. King, because it's subject matter that we have heard before. What I intend to do prior to the meeting, as I indicated, is talk to several folks with expertise in the area, and to have the opportunity to compare the two bills. I will tell you that if I am uncomfortable with any provision of this bill, I will make it so that I am more comfortable with it. I am not -- For example, if there's an issue with a language I will feel free to exercise my prerogative as chair to change that language. And in the event that that kills the bill because the Senate is no longer there, it will be my obligation at that point to -- to apologize to Mr. Simpson. But to do what I feel is my obligation and responsibility as a chair, which I take very seriously, to make sure that the legislation that is voted out does serve the best interest not only of the folks in the State of Texas but also the 150 members of this House.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. And I appreciate your commitment and concern over that, and that certainly is your responsibility as a chair. And but just to make sure we understand, I know that -- am I correct that -- that you agree that any amendment to the bill would have the effect of -- of --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here is --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- killing the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Here's my unease, Mr. King. And, frankly, my resentment, to be honest, is that the Senate has put us that situation. We take it or leave it, we either eat their version --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm disappointed in that as well.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: We take their version, or you have nothing. And they have put those you have us in this chamber in that position. And I don't play that way, in the sense that I don't appreciate being put in that position. So I'm not going to eat it if I don't like it.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I regret that we're in that position, too.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: If it passes, it's passed because I'm comfortable with it, and because I like it. And if it doesn't pass it -- I -- I will not allow the House to be put in a take it or leave it situation, and to put the members in that position.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If -- Thank you, Mr. Gallego. And hopefully, I would appreciate the fact that I know you'll be discouraging any unnecessary amendments because of the impact that they would have on defeating the legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely.

THE CHAIR: All right. Members, you heard the request by Representative Gallego. Is there objection? All right. There is objection. It would be a record vote. Before we go to the record vote -- before the record vote is there anyone wishing to speak for or against? Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, and again, I've as I said before, I've spoken with Mr. Simpson earlier in the session about this, and each time I signed on to the bill he understood that it doesn't matter, everybody signed, everybody has a vote, that this is a policy issue that is being moved forward; because there are people who disagree with how the federal employees are doing their job. And it wasn't until last night when this quorum report was sent out on Senate Bill 29, you know, saying that this is -- this is disturbing, we're telling the Obama administration we will not be intimidated. We will not be intimidated, and we will vigorously defend our constitutional rights. What does that have to do with getting screened to get on an airplane? Your constitutional rights to be protected have a lot to do --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'll be happy to yield in a moment. I am speaking against this --

THE CHAIR: Gentleman does not yield at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: -- right now. Your constitutional rights are to be safe. And I think that when someone brings forward a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with being safe, but has to do with moving a political agenda, and I mean a partisan political agenda; and this is how we want to end our special session, after school children have lost resources to their schools, $4.8 billion not there to take care of seniors and nursing homes and we're fighting over this?

THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. These are three minutes. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I move strict enforcement and ask you to vote no.

THE CHAIR: No. Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you for allowing me to speak for this motion. We need to see this bill moved through, and I'll just kind of make it a personal level, and it doesn't have anything to do with the president or anything else. I'll just give you an example of my wife. My wife has flown five times -- six times since we started session. Five of those times she was pulled aside, and in a very intrusive manner frisked. And I'll tell you my wife is a grandmother, although she's probably watching so I'll say an exceptionally lovely and attractive grandmother; but one time she was pulled aside while she was going through with three grandbabies, all under five years old, in a double carriage stroller, and a pregnant daughter; and trying to help all them through. And she's pulled aside and frisked. The next time she's going through with her blind 84 year-old mother, and they pull her and her mother aside and give her the full frisk. And I'm telling you, I was a cop for 15 years, and there is not a profile risk profile imaginable to man that suggests that my wife and those three grandbabies needed a full, very frisky pat-down. Nor is there any suggestion that she and her blind 84 year-old mother needed to be touched. When she went through last week, when she was flying to see our new grandbaby they pulled her aside again. And at that time she said three times this lady stuck her hands down in my belt and went around. She said I finally just told her ma'am, there is not even lint in my pockets. There is nothing there. I spent time with a friend last week who had his two year-old baby -- Thank you, I would move to support the motion.

THE CHAIR: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman's point of order is well taken and sustained. Members, this is a record vote. Strict enforcement has been called. Please note strict enforcement. Vote aye and vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. All members voted? All voted? Strict enforcement. Being 97 ayes, 32 nays, 3 present not voting; motion passes. The following announcement, clerk read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet at 5:00 p.m. on June the 28th, 2011, in room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 29.

THE CHAIR: Is Mr. Pitts on the floor of the House?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Pitts?

THE CHAIR: Representative Keffer? For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Just one more issue on Mr. Gallego, when he is holding this committee he said he was going to make the proper phonecalls to the AG's Office, or have them testify at your committee hearing to make sure that those questions are completely answered. So that when this bill comes back tonight on the floor of the House, that the pertinent questions, the pertinent issues of where the Senate is, from where we thought we were yesterday on this bill, have been correctly clarified.

THE CHAIR: It is a formal meeting. He can't take testimony but he has indicated he is going to make the inquiry as you have suggested.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Pitts?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker? I'm sorry, one more parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: For parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: If a bill is -- if a -- if a bill that is on the calendar for third reading is instead reconsidered in the second reading, vote goes through second reading and passes; what is its position with regard to whether it needs to be read on the following day for third reading, or needs a suspension of the rules in order to be read on the same day?

THE CHAIR: The reading on same day would require a suspension of rules for the third day, and the amount is what? Four fifths.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Pitts?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, it is the Chair's intention to take up House Resolution 232, to go outside the bounds of Senate Bill 1. Is there objection?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker? Yes, would you explain what's this resolution is and outside what bounds it's about?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We'll lay that out in just a moment. Is there objection to bringing it up at this time? Chair hears none. The following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 232 by Pitts. Suspending the limitations of conference committee jurisdiction, Senate Bill No. 1.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, HR 32 is out of bounds resolution for Senate Bill 1, which is the fiscal matters bill, and the way we're going to fund our education. Many of the items covered by the resolution are provisions that we were able to remove from Senate Bill 1, because other legislation was signed by the governor, or otherwise allowed to become law. These provisions include the authority for fees at the Attorney General's Office, authority for the facilities' commission to establish a parking lease program, and changes to the grant matching requirements for the Texas Parks and Land Management Conservation program. There were also items in Senate Bill 1 that the conference committee decided we needed to add language to, or otherwise changes in order to retake, compromise or correct the provisions. These include provisions relating to the Back To Work Program, the Homeless Housing and Services Program, program level details for the appropriations bill, and the Public Assistance Reporting Information System at the Veteran's Commission. We also add provisions to the conference committee report that had not been included in either the House or the Senate version of the bill that include the following: Provisions that are a result of a compromised language regarding Representative Madden's floor amendments to the virtual school network. The safety net language for DIR, which provides for another full sunset review in two-yeas for the department of information resources, plus other provisions from their Senate sunset bill. It also provides a safety net language for the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which keeps the agency going for two more years, plus other provisions from the sunset bill of that agency. It also provides provisions dealing with the confidentiality of protected detail travel vouchers, which represent a good compromise between ensuring the operation of security of DPS officers and public access to information on state expenditures. These changes covered by this resolution represent many, many hours of working with the Senate conferees and the House conferees to reach a compromise of Senate Bill 1. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of HR 232.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pickett, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Jim, I discussed a little bit earlier on this trying to give you a heads up on a couple of questions. On page 20 of your privileged resolution, you talk about this Paris public assistance reporting information system. There was a Senate Bill -- Senate Bill 1739, and I was asked to carry it on the House side. That was to make sure that the money going into the Veteran's Assistance Fund goes only for veteran's assistance programs. In your resolution you're adding language that now takes money out of that to analyze and investigate this Paris program. Why are you doing this? Did someone at Health and Human Services --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, this is -- This is language that was worked by Senator -- on behalf of a Senate Laetitia Van de Putte. And -- let me -- let me talk to you about the Paris program. The Paris program is a federal program that when a veteran comes into the Veteran's Office they get put online, on the Paris program to say what other benefits are available for this veteran. And it costs some money to do that. So we are saying in House Bill 1 that we've already passed, we are saying that the Veteran's Administration Commission will be able to get 10 percent of the savings that this program will bring. So, in actuality it's -- Representative Pickett, it's going to give more additional money to the Veteran's Commission and to it take it way now, it does say that the Veterans Commission has to pay for it. So that it is anticipated that it's going to cost five hundred thousand dollars to get on the veteran's program for the Paris program. The Veteran's Commission will pay for that, but they will be reimbursed by the savings first, and then will be able to obtain a ten percent increase in their assistance program, because of the savings to Paris. And that's -- you have to take Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 1 together.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: And again, I went to you before you got up here, so you would go and investigate this.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And I did. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: I'm going to ask that this be reduced to writing and placed in the journal in a moment. But at the same time it doesn't say that here, it doesn't say that in this resolution. And what Senate Bill 1739 was doing is exactly to stop this very thing. The Veteran's Assistance Program takes in monies, and one of the things that they do is relatively new, last session they have their own lottery ticket. And the legislative budget board and appropriations, because new monies are coming in because this lottery ticket, there was suggestions to take that money away from the Veterans Assistance Fund because a new source of revenue, instead of the money that we appropriate. What you're doing here, in my opinion, Jim, should be done with the dollars that are already appropriated, either to Health and Human Services, or to the Veterans Administration. But to take this money out of the Veterans Fund and then say they're going to get the money back, but I don't see that anywhere --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You have to do it in conjunction with House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: So you're telling me that and this body that whatever the cost that you're adding to this privileged resolution will be replaced to the Veterans Assistance Program from the savings, you're going to make that commitment to me?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I am making that commitment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Mr. Pitts, one other thing I'd like to ask about. Senate Bill 731 had to dop with the fees at the Attorney General's Office, that bill passed and was signed by the governor and went effective. It was effective immediately June 17th. Why are you duplicating that language again

(inaudible) on page 15?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: The only duplication of the language -- We took out the fees. Of all the fees that for the Attorney General, except one, which is the electronic filing, is left in this bill. Senate Bill 367 and Senate Bill 731 passed, and took all the other fees from the Attorney General and were able to charge. And it's in those bills.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: So you're putting it in or you are putting it out?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I went outside the bounds, because we took the language of our fees out of Senate Bill 1. The only fee that we left in for Senate Bill 1 is for electronic filing only.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: So, again, I'm not sure you answered the question. We passed Senate Bill 731 that has this identical language. You're putting this identical language in. So you're telling me you are allowing the Attorney General to charge fees on reviewing comprehensive development agreements.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is in Senate Bill 731 and Senate Bill 367.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: So that's in those bills.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's in those bills, and we are not trying to supercede anything.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: So you are reaffirming that, you're telling us you're no longer going to collect those Attorney General fees?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, no. What I'm saying is that we took out language that was -- has already been passed by this body, that we don't need that language in Senate Bill 1. So you know, there was a lot of language in Senate Bill 1 that's contingent on such and such passing. Well, they've passed. So we took all that out.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: And my last question was where this begins. What is the purpose of the utility deposits being refunded to whom? In the beginning of your privileged resolution we talk about utility deposits in the property code.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's not the question. You didn't give me that question, Joe. I don't know I don't know the answer to that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Does this have anything to do with the State of Texas holding the deposits, because the property code, the way this thing looks like is this is something for owners of property that they're leasing to individuals --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Could we extend the gentleman's time?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Not in the last days of the special session.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of HR 232. Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Chair recognizes Representative Burnam in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, I probably would not have bothered to speak against this, except for the fact that we have cut off the questions and I think the questions need to be asked and answered. So I'll ask them and I'll answer them. You know, it's over a 250 page document that's really important. Has a lot of fiscal matters in it. Within a time of urgent fiscal crisis that we're in, maybe we should be looking at more transparency in government. And Article 79A, regarding the confidentiality of certain peace officer vouchers is clearly the opposite of what we should be doing. It's a last minute provision tacked on the last minute. Like so many other bills that we've had in this special session, it seems to be driven more by interest in the presidential election, than the public interest. So I want to call your attention to page 205 in the document that talks about this, where it says in the Senate version there's no equivalent provision. And in the House version there is no equivalent provision. In fact, the bill was killed because it's a bad idea. What is the idea? The idea is to close the public record for 18 months, access to information about how much the public, that Texas is paying to help our governor travel around the country. And most of us have reason to believe that the governor is going to be traveling around the country a little more than most governors need to travel around the country to do state business. So my question is why would we at this time accept the notion that it's appropriate to cover up this information, when the public has a right to know how much we're spending for DPS personnel traveling around the country on behalf of the governor? They shouldn't be traveling at state expense. But we know already that they are going to be traveling at state expense. If for no other reason, I'm going to vote against this resolution. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of HR 232. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 92 ayes and 49 nays, the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out the conference committee report Senate Bill 1. The clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: Conference committee report Senate Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, Senate Bill 1 is a fiscal matters bill, and it's also the bill that is has our school reform the -- let me -- the bill still includes --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts -- Mr. Pickett, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Pitts, Pickett. Same difference. I apologize to interrupt. Could you recognize me for a motion to put the discussion between Mr. Pitts and I on the first privileged resolution -- I didn't mean to interrupt Mr. Pitts, I wanted to make sure to follow up and make sure I asked to move to put the discussion between Mr. Pitts and I on the privileged resolution in the journal.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And members I'm going to let me finish so that I have an opportunity before the time runs. This bill still includes FSC referrals the provisions for the sales tax, the alcoholic beverage tax and the motor sales tax. The delay of the motor fuels transfer to Fund 6. The small business tax exemptions sale for resale changes, and various provisions from our article specific fiscal matters bill that was both in the -- both in 18 -- Senate Bill 1811 in regular session, and also Senate Bill 1 that we've previously voted on I. I have addressed the items we have added to this bill. Another major difference between this legislation and the conference committee report to Senate Bill 1811 that we adopted in May, is that we remove provisions that have been enacted from separate legislations. It also differences from Senate Bill 1811 because we have a preserved a number of provisions that were added by the House floor as amendments. These include provisions that returned the mixed beverage tax reimbursement to our locals, to previous levels, that provided a trial independence period for children aging out of the foster care system, and applied to 911 equalization surcharge across the broad of telecommunication services. Regarding the school finance provisions of the bill, we have reached a good compromise on Dianne Patrick's amendment. We kept the regular program. 9 percent at the floor for schools with a full sunset in four-years. We also gave the TEA commission authority to implement rules on payment moving provisions, as was provided for in the Patrick amendment. This represents a good compromise that keeps the spirit of Ms. Patrick's amendment, but does not leave us with a billion dollar cost going into next session. We also kept Mr. Aycock's amendment dealing with the copper pennies and the guaranteed yield. The use of comp ed funds for JDEP programs, and adjusting indirect cost allotments. In addition, we kept Ms. Truitt's amendment dealing with transportation issues. And I yield to Mr. Eissler to go into more detail on the school finance.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I wanted to ask Chairman Pitts some questions, but I guess I'll wait --

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: He'll be back.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, quickly. Senate Bill 1 still contains the school finance compromise reached at the end of the regular session, and these provisions are current, current law entitlements reduced 2 billion across the board in 2012. And it was also an additional 2 billion in 2013, per Senate plan of one quarter of that was across the board and three quarters from reduction of target revenue. It requires a joint legislative committee to review public school finance and includes an intent language that the future legislature can to reduce hold harmless levels in the (inaudible) basic allotment. And school finance (inaudible) remains a target revenue which was repealed in 2018. Based upon several key, excuse me, House floor amendments the conference committee modified school finance as follows: Regular program adjustment factors repealed in fiscal year '16 and '14 and '15, the regular program adjustment factor set at 0.98 or greater amount by appropriation with a ceiling of 1.0. We restore entitlement for prorated funds for school districts, and authorize commissioners of schools funding reductions over the biennium. I think this was mentioned before, that the districts must demonstrate the unequal reductions of the regular program would result in a hardship. The increase is a guaranteed yield and equalizes wealth levels for districts at the maximum tax rate. This is the Aycock amendment. And fiscal year '12 to compensate for the impact on WATT accounts for the regular program adjustment in that year. And directs just (inaudible) indirect cost a lot. And that's another Aycock amendment for fiscal year '12, to apply equivalent reductions from the regular program adjustment to special programmatic funding, such as comp ed career and tech. In addition to these changes in the school finance provision the following changes were made: Incorporated language extending the permanent school fund guaranteed to charters and language regarding the virtual school network, and ensured students attending schools up to the age of 26, Scott Hochberg's bill from last session, to access virtual school network. Also allows districts to assess a transportation fee, I believe this was a Vicky Truitt amendment, if they don't receive a transportation allotment. And the Guillen amendment, requiring adult basic education service providers to be chosen through a competitive bid process. I'll yield for questions from Ms. Patrick on the Patrick amendment compromise.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Patrick, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Would the gentleman yield for some questions on the school finance provisions on Senate Bill 1?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: First of all, I sincerely want to thank the conference committee for working to maintain the proration language that will require the state to pay back the school districts in the case of prorations beyond reductions (inaudible) of 4 billion. Also I would like to thank you for creating the smoothing and evening payments for eligible districts, and giving the commissioner the authority to do so. But the third and most important piece of my amendment was modified and, therefore, I have some questions.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: In the next session, if the regular program adjustment factors for at RPASS were equal to one, would this represent full funding for the regular program funders under current law?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: At one point, earlier, at one point. Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: And the modification to my amendment sets a floor of 0.98 for the RPAS. What reduction in funding for the regular program formula does the RPAS equal to 0.98 represent?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: That would result in a billion dollar hole in the next biennium, five hundred million per 0.01.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: So if it were at one, that would be an additional -- One billion over two years.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: So if the base bill as filed 2013, has an RPAS equal to less than one, then it would be accurate say that the state will be reducing funding to the regular program formulas for public schools for the next biennium, 13-14?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Given this information, is it correct to say that the budget committee will have the authority to make the RPAS equal to one, in order to support full funding for the regular program formulas?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes. They will. And yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Is it also correct to say that the 83rd Legislature could pass a bill that would sunset the RPAS in September 2013, which was the intent of my amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you for you work on this, and I look forward to the session over the interim with the school finance committee that's required by the bill. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Diane.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'd like to ask Chairman Pitts some questions, please.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much. Now, you gathered all this stuff together in Senate Bill 1 to make adjustments to the budget, based on having to pass things that reduced dollars; is that correct? Or defer payment?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's correct. To try to raise money.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Really what you have is Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, House Bill 1, House Bill 11, whatever it was.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: House Bill 275.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right. 275. And in that the total cuts that are about 15.5 billion at least in general revenue; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: All funds.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: All funds, or general revenue?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think it's all funds.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I think it's general revenue.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It is all funds.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: How could it be, if you have 4.8 and 4, that's 8 right there in general revenue on medicaid and schools, Jim, it has to not be.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Some of the money that we're talking about is for federal funds, also.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I don't think so.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Because the reduction from current services in 99 -- remember, if you go 99 billion in general revenue to 81 billion in general revenue, which would be current services, to 81 billion in this; that's 17 billion, Jim, in general revenue. So what I'm saying here is in here you have continued in the overall budget scheme, you agree that you've continued the 3 percent cuts from 2010-2011 into 2012 and 2013 to our nursing homes; is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We brought the nursing homes back --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: From 20 -- From the last budget to this budget, the cuts are how much?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I don't know. They're less than 5 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And that accounts to be about a total of 60 million will come from these services, and then, if you add it all up, that's how you get to the part of the $4.9 billion cuts to our seniors in terms of having less care, and to our disabled in terms of having less care, and in terms of the amount of money necessary to run this program.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I do want to correct you, Garnett. And Representative Otto just gave me the LBB numbers. And the 15 billion is all funds and the --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: How much of it is general revenue, then?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: One billion -- 1,612,000,000 and a half.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: You're saying that the general revenue cuts from 2010, 2011 budget that was filed, that you that was passed last session into this budget, there's a $1.1 billion general revenue cut? Is that what your telling us?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I am looking at a breakdown from LBB.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: But that's not possible.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm looking at a breakdown from LBB, that the estimated budget for 2010-2011 general revenue was 82,078,000,000. Recommended --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Current services. Because you admit that there are no -- there's no enrollment growth --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not talking about enrollment growth. I'm talking about the actual budget that was passed --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: So you're saying to me that school children that we need to pay for don't have to -- we just don't have any money for that, and we're going to deal with it --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm just bringing back to you what the actual numbers.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: But 99 billion in the current services, which will be needed, and 81 billion is a 17 billion-dollar short for current services; is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I will tell you --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I don't need your chart. I mean it's just math, man. You must be comparing that to something that I haven't seen.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'll give you a copy. But our federal funds of -- our change is $18 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, let me tell you this, I've served ten years on appropriations, and you are not comparing that -- How can you not fund enrollment growth and say you didn't make a cut?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1? Excuse Representative Castro because of important business, on the motion of Representative Vo. Excuse Representative Anchia because of important business, on the motion of Representative Strama. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Ms. Patrick, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: I would like to ask that the comments and exchange between Chairman Eissler and myself be reduced to writing and entered into the journal.

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

REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson to speak against the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, appreciate the opportunity. Let me say it's -- I appreciate the work that the committee has done throughout this process as far as the conference committee. And it's very important legislation. However, I rise to speak against this bill because of an amendment that we had on there, and I'm not the first one by any means to have an amendment that doesn't get included on a bill. So, however, this is a very important to save the taxpayer dollars, particularly in schools and particularly in this economy where we are with difficulty with raising money for schools. This House floor amendment 93, and I won't go into all the details, but basically that was to help protect the schools, and help to protect our economy by simply stating that -- which is the case in all other aspects of our government, that if a company writes the bids on a particular roofing job, they can't if they write the specs they can't bid on the job. And it's that simple, if a company writes the specs, they cannot bid on a job. And this is designed to try to keep the costs down, and if that's the main that it was it would save schools about 20, 25 percent per roof. And the co-ops that were established by this body to help schools, counties and cities, I think are very good idea in general. And it helps engage the economy in scale. However, the one exception becomes grouping projects with cities, counties and schools because of the cost factor there. This was a very important issue. Unfortunately it was taken from the bill. Let me say also, that I was very discouraged that after working with folks on the committee and engaging every member on the committee, and found out that the amendment was stripped, and asked Chairman Pitts what was the vote, and he said there wasn't a vote. And now they're saying well, here we go. They were so concerned about transparency and making sure that everybody's on the same page, and yet when it came down to something as important as this, at this stage of the process in this special session, everybody has worked their issues and their amendments throughout the process, that was -- I found that to be very discouraging. Particularly, when it comes to schools and trying to save money for the tax payers. Simply a matter about transparency, about competitiveness, about trying to keep this process open and competitive, and about being good stewards of taxpayer's dollars. And consequently, to be brief, I appreciate y'all's time and I just have to say that I vote no on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cook to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm going to tell you what's wrong with this bill. This is called Senate Bill 1, ladies and gentlemen, Senate Bill 1. And I was just talking to Chairman Pitts, and I thank you, Chairman, for all your hard work on the bill. But even today he found out about language that was added that affects every member in here that has counties of less than 50,000. It's going to be an unfunded mandate with respect to court costs, that on the bill that we passed here, that was voluntary; now it's going to mandatory, with respect to moving court costs from collection of -- collection of court costs from the comptroller's office over to the office of court administration. And I hope, Chairman Pitts, that we're able address that, because I don't want to go back to my counties with an unfunded mandate. And I think some of you are in the same situation. I want to speak you briefly about DIR. DIR, and those of us who set on sunset, that's the worst agency that I've ever reviewed, ever. And the governor, rightly so, vetoed that bill. And here it is in this bill. And even worse, from my standpoint, we gave the Senate a list of things that really needed to be done to make that a -- something that's tolerable. But it is something, when the Senate addressed it, it's all dressed be mays and not shalls, and I think most of us know what happens when it a may bill and not a shall bill. So I'm -- I'm really concerned about -- I'm really concerned about that. With respect to some of the other issues, and I want to specifically address the issue of Sanctuary City. And, by the way, Chairman Solomons worked tirelessly on trying to come up with a piece of legislation that was thoughtful and advanced this issue that -- in a sensitive way. And we had a commitment from the governor, lieutenant governor, the speaker on how we're going to do that. And in the 11th hour the Senate reneged on that. But notwithstanding, that, Rene, we have some legislation here with some of the -- probably some of the most dangerous language I have ever seen with respect to driver's license. And the net affect of that is we're going to find many, many people across this state that are no longer going to be able to renew their driver's license. So it's hard for me to understand how we can't pass thoughtful Sanctuary City legislation, but yet we can put something in here that's going to put a lot of good citizens at risk, a lot of good citizens at risk. So, you know, as much as I want to get out of here, and believe me I do, I'm ready to go home to my wife and my daughters -- but I think -- I think our good efforts over here have fallen on deaf ears over on the other side, and so I would urge you -- I would urge you to vote against this bill where we can do right by the State of Texas, because we're not able to do right with this piece of legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hopson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Cook, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Representati ve, are you aware that in counties under 50,000 population that their collection's improvement program will cost them $3 or $4 million a year?

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we are waiting for the members of Criminal Jurisprudence to come back to the floor. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up some things that were said as far as the audit. The main purpose of that was to transfer it from the comptroller's office to the office of court administration. And it leads to voluntary for counties of 50,000 and under. It's not a mandate to counties of 50,000 and under. It exempts them. As far as the DIR language, we asked Byron Cook to give us some language to put in our bill, we took his language. This is only a full -- it's a full two-year sunset provision and this language and this agency will be sunsetted during the next two years. And members, this is to fund our budget, and I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee report on SB 1. The clerk will ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 61 ayes and 79 nays, SB 1 fails to pass.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Parlia mentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, will it be improper for me to compliment the members of this committee, the Appropriations Committee, particularly Chairman Pitts, for the long and arduous work that they did on this piece of legislation? I know it didn't pass, but they did put in a lot of effort and work, and they didn't let the Senate run over them.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will stand at ease for ten minutes. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make an announcement. Members, the republican caucus will be meeting immediately in the Ag Museum. I'd like to have the following people report to my office: No, we have a republican caucus meeting in the Ag Museum right now.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Would the gentleman yield for a question? I just wanted to know if the members who voted are invited.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I'm checking my list here, Mr. Dutton, seeing if you're allowed to come to our meeting or not.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Well, I voted, like most of the members of the caucus.

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

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Do you have any suggestions for what the democratic caucus might do if y'all try to figure out the situation?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Do y'all mind dusting some areas while we (inaudible)?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: We have been dusting for the last month. What we're really wondering is why don't we just adjourn for the evening? You think the speaker would entertain a motion to adjourn for the evening?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, if we adjourn I think we get to come back in special session to your call.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, no. That would be sine die, which I am not against doing. But I'm just suggesting we adjourn for the evening.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, I think I think it will take us a few moments for us to have an opportunity to caucus and we'll be right back.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: House will stand at ease until 5:50.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: 5:50, thank you. That will be enough time for refreshments in the office.

(The House stands at ease.)

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, representative Phil King intends to make a motion to reconsider the vote by which the conference committee to SB 1 was defeated.

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer?

REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: I'm advised that the Ag Museum is open and available, and I was wondering if the democratic caucus can meet for about ten minutes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: You're more than welcome to it. Chair recognizes Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members, I would move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and reconsider the vote by which the conference committee to SB 1 was defeated, and to take it up at this time rather than waiting for the one hour delay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? There is objection? There will be a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Keffer voting aye. Show representative Parker voting aye. There being 96 ayes and 44 nays, motion is adopted. Chair lays out the conference committee report to Senate Bill 1.

THE CLERK: Conference committee report, Senate Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King to speak for the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members, I wanted to explain why I made this motion. Cause I'm not usually one to change my vote --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman please yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Let me -- If I could explain my reasoning first, and then I will be happy to do whatever. As we went to discuss this, I don't think there's ever been an appropriations measure that's passed that had anything in it that anyone agreed with, and usually had some things that we disagreed with. I was vacillating on this one for a number of reasons, as I know many of you worked it. It was a very hard vote. There's some good things in the bill and there's some things that very much concerned me. There were two -- there was two things that came up today that finally pushed me to a no. The first one was by some concerns by some friends, that a group called Eagle Forum that many of you are familiar with, and I have been assured that the general investigation committee, during the interim, will be reviewing some of those concerns and seeing if there is any substance to it, and, if so, acting appropriately for the legislature in that regard. The second thing was if there was a statement made during the laying out of the bill that there was an unfunded mandate that was new to the bill that would cost our small counties of 50,000 or under in some cases upward of $4 million during the budget cycle. We have -- that has been checked back into, and we have determined that that was a mistake. An understandable mistake, the bill's very complex. But it will not create that unfunded mandate for our small counties. And so, with that, I'm asking to reconsider the vote and will be changing my vote at this time to a yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. King , when you are talking about it will not create an unfunded mandate, explain why it will not.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, as we went back and read the bill, the bill specifically has an exception for counties of 50,000 or under, so it's not that it applies to counties of 50,000 or under it specifically accepts counties of 50,000 or under, so that that section of the bill is not applicable to our counties.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's your understanding of the --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes, that is my understanding of that section. And that's what I've read and that's what I've had Mr. Pitts repeatedly, in the last hour, assure me is the case.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's the assurance that you have gotten?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Assurance. But I also read the bill and read that section, and that's the way it reads to me.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Because Senate Bill 1 remains the same bill that was voted down a few minutes ago, right?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It has not changed since we voted it down.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It's the same text?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But, as you recall, we had two chairmen, two who came and related understandably their thoughts that this was an unfunded mandate to the counties, and we have since determined that that was in error.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sorry. But it's the same text that we voted on, nothing has changed.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Nothing has changed.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No amendments have been added to it, everything remains the same as it was, but (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It is correct, it is a tough vote.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. But I just want to make sure everything is the same as it was before, nothing has changed.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, our understanding of the bill has changed. My understanding of the bill has changed.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is there something -- Is there something in the Ag Room that brings about a change --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: There was a lot of wisdom and a lot of understanding.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is there a light that comes on in the Ag Room?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: We invited you.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I came in there.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Turner, again, for me simply was just this (inaudible)

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I just want to make sure.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: (Inaudible) I have had an assurance that that is by Eagle Forum's concerns, because I think there's some legitimate concerns.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Whose concerns?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: There were some concerns raised with regard to some of the charter school provisions, and some of the vending processes and other things that have taken place with regard to some of the harmony schools. It's been in the papers of late, and it's my understanding that we have a commitment now that there will be an interim study, or an interim investigation by the general investigation committee, and that they will look into those allegations. So that took another concern that I personally had off the table.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I just want to establish the fact that the text remains the same, nothing has changed. The same impact on our school districts remain the same, okay? The wording? Senate Bill 1 remains the same, okay?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now there may have been some explanations given in the Ag Building --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Clarifications.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: -- some clarifications? You're a lawyer, right?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You are a lawyer right, an attorney? And I'm an attorney. The writing of Senate Bill 1 has not been deviated at all. So regardless of what anybody else's interpretation may be at this point, the wording, the wording of Senate Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It's still the same bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And would you agree with me, for legislative intent, the wording of Senate Bill 1, for those who will be interpreting Senate Bill 1, the wording of Senate Bill one will speak for itself?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I can't speak to the legislative intent of the (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Whatever was discussed in the Ag Room, whatever was discussed in the Ag Room will not add to the meaning of Senate Bill 1 as it is written. So whatever your concern, whatever discussions took place in the Ag Room will not change the written words of Senate Bill 1 and the law that will be in place to the extent Senate Bill 1 passes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The point of the measure, the motion from my perspective is very simple.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: There are two changes -- two clarifications that were made. One, an assurance of an investigation, one correction that there is no unfunded mandate which allows me to change my vote from a no to a yes. And that is why I am making this motion to reconsider.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, you know, I have the utmost respect for you.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, it's mutual.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Can you wave your left arm? Does it move? Does the right arm move?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Again, we invited you to the meeting.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I know. But I am looking forward to driving home tonight, I wanted to use the left and I wanted to use the right arm.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The right will always get you there faster.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I like that. I like that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Castro because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hernandez Luna. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative Strama on the motion of Representative Hochberg, family business. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Lozano, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Mr. Speaker, in the meeting that just occurred in the Agricultural Museum, were any agricultural tools used?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: They weren't necessary.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE LOZANO: We passed this session some anti-bullying legislation. Did any of it apply to what occurred in the Ag Museum?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you Mr. Lozano. It's 6:35. Question occurs on the adoption of conference committee for Senate Bill 1. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Keffer voting aye. Have all voted? Being 80 ayes and 57 nays, Senate Bill 1 is finally passed. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House:

THE CLERK: HB 3.

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

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Members , I move adoption of following congratulatory resolutions: I also move that the reading clerk will be instructed only to read the numbers of the congratulatory resolutions, and that the journal printing of the resolution captions be considered the reading of the caption.

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

THE CLERK: HR 11 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Julian Rodriguez on being named the 2011 valedictorian of Adamson High School in Dallas. HR 12 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Adan Gonzalez on being named the 2011 salutatorian of Adamson High School in Dallas. HR 13 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Kevin Prado on being named the 2011 valedictorian of Molina High School in Dallas. HR 14 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Leticia Gallegos on being named the 2011 salutatorian of Molina High School in Dallas. HR 15 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Gustavo Castillo on being named the 2011 valedictorian of Trini Garza Early College High School in Dallas. HR 16 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Jocelyn Velasquez on being named the 2011 salutatorian of Trini Garza Early College High School in Dallas. HR 17 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Xochitl Escobar on being named valedictorian of Sunset High School in Dallas. HR 18 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Veronica Flores on being named salutatorian of Sunset High School in Dallas. HR 19 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Kathy T. Do on being named the 2011 valedictorian of Grand Prairie High School. HR 20 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Juan C. Cerda on being named the 2011 salutatorian of Grand Prairie High School. HR 21 (by Alonzo), Congratulating Rosa Walker on her induction into the Texas AFL-CIO Hall of Fame. HR 22 (by Sheffield), Congratulating Ervin and Janice Schwindt of Belton on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 23 (by Sheffield), Congratulating Dr. Vernon D. Holleman and Shirley Holleman of Temple on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 24 (by Sheffield), Honoring Roy and Eloisa Donoso of Temple on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 25 (by Sheffield), Honoring Carl and Patsy Feller of Salado on their 60th wedding anniversary. HR 26 (by Huberty), Congratulating Matthew Simpson of Huffman on being named valedictorian of the Class of 2011 at Hargrave High School. HR 27 (by Huberty), Congratulating Paige Alan Sullivan on her graduation from Kingwood High School. HR 28 (by Workman), Congratulating Lake Travis High School basketball coach Jan Jernberg on his retirement. HR 31 (by Paxton), Congratulating Burks Elementary School in McKinney on earning recognition as a Healthy Zone School. HR 32 (by L. Gonzales), Congratulating Patti Jurena Wiggs of Round Rock on her retirement as a teacher at Park Crest Middle School in Pflugerville. HR 33 (by Torres), Congratulating R. E. "Bob" Parker on his induction into the Corpus Christi Business Hall of Fame. HR 34 (by Torres), Congratulating the marketing and community relations department of Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi on winning three 2011 Aster Awards. HR 35 (by Torres), Congratulating the Destination ImagiNation teams from Baker Middle School in Corpus Christi for advancing to the 2011 Destination ImagiNation Global Finals. HR 36 (by Torres), Congratulating David Richter on his induction into the Corpus Christi Business Hall of Fame. HR 37 (by Torres), Congratulating Dr. Robert R. Furgason on his induction into the Corpus Christi Business Hall of Fame. HR 38 (by Torres), Congratulating Elizabeth Chu Richter on her induction into the Corpus Christi Business Hall of Fame. HR 39 (by Dutton), Congratulating Gertrude Jack Lewis of Houston on the occasion of her 100th birthday. HR 40 (by Cain), Congratulating Second Lieutenant Jermaine Dewayne Wright of Sulphur Springs on his graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point. HR 43 (by Guillen), Congratulating Homero Juan Salmon on his retirement as constable of Starr County Precinct 4. HR 44 (by Dutton), Commemorating EXPO 2011, hosted by the Houston Minority Supplier Development Council. HR 45 (by Guillen), Commending the Honorable John A. Pope III of McAllen for his distinguished work in the legal profession. HR 46 (by Guillen), Honoring Lino Canales, Jr., for his contributions to the community as founder of the Starr County Town Crier. HR 48 (by Guillen), Honoring Immaculate Conception Church in Rio Grande City for its service to the community. HR 50 (by Schwertner), Congratulating Clarence and Ann Crow of Georgetown on their 60th wedding anniversary. HR 53 (by V. Gonzales), Honoring Lauro Solis on his installation as governor of Rotary International District 5930. HR 54 (by V. Gonzales), Congratulating Rachelle Grace of McAllen Memorial High School on her receipt of the 2011 H-E-B Excellence in Education Leadership Award in the secondary school category. HR 55 (by V. Gonzales), Honoring Ernie Madsen for his nearly eight decades of service to Rotary International. HR 56 (by V. Gonzales), Congratulating Taryn B. Millar on earning her doctorate in psychology from George Washington University. HR 57 (by V. Gonzales), Commending Judge Rudy Delgado on his selection as the April 2011 Cancer Fighter of the Month by the American Cancer Society of the Rio Grande Valley. HR 59 (by V. Gonzales), Congratulating Jan Seale on being named Texas Poet Laureate for 2012. HR 60 (by V. Gonzales), Congratulating Las Palmas Healthcare Center in McAllen on earning the Public Information and Education Award from the Texas Health Care Association. HR 61 (by V. Gonzales), Congratulating Mariella Gorena on her retirement as principal of Wilson Elementary School in McAllen. HR 62 (by Guillen), Honoring Lauro L. Lopez of Rio Grande City for his contributions as a business and civic leader and as a member of the armed forces. HR 63 (by Guillen), Honoring Clemente Garza, Jr., and the staff of the Texas Cafe in Rio Grande City for their hard work and entrepreneurial achievements. HR 64 (by Guillen), Congratulating Elvia Escobedo, founder of Elvia's Beauty Shop in Rio Grande City. HR 65 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating former NFL star Tim Brown of DeSoto on being named a North Texas Father of the Year by the Sylvan Landau Foundation. HR 67 (by Giddings), Commending Katherine Hinton-Rosenberg for her service as a legislative intern in the office of State Representative Helen Giddings. HR 68 (by Giddings), Commending Clayton Tucker for his service as a legislative intern in the office of State Representative Helen Giddings. HR 69 (by Workman), Congratulating Will Hoenig of Lake Travis High School on earning first place in extemporaneous persuasive speaking at the 2011 UIL Conference 4A State Academics Spring Meet. HR 70 (by Workman), Congratulating Lake Travis High School on its receipt of the sweepstakes award in speech at the 2011 UIL Conference 4A State Academics Spring Meet. HR 71 (by Gooden), Congratulating the Forney High School softball team on its outstanding 2011 season and its appearance in the UIL 4A title game. HR 73 (by Guillen), Honoring Dr. Mario E. Ramirez on his contributions to health care in South Texas. HR 75 (by Burkett), Congratulating the first graduating class of Sunnyvale High School. HR 77 (by Craddick), Congratulating Billie Ann and Kenneth Baker of Midland on their 65th wedding anniversary. HR 78 (by Workman), Congratulating Neal White on earning first place in extemporaneous informative speaking at the 2011 UIL Conference 4A State Academics Spring Meet. HR 79 (by Workman), Congratulating James Bounds on earning the top score on the physics portion of the science contest at the 2011 UIL Conference 4A State Academics Spring Meet. HR 82 (by Guillen), Congratulating Cruz Garza, Jr., on his retirement from Rio Grande City High School. HR 83 (by Guillen), Honoring Gilberto Amado Hinojosa, Sr., of Benavides, for his service to Duval County. HR 85 (by Craddick), Congratulating Jack and Barbara Pallick of Midland on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 86 (by Craddick), Congratulating L. G. and Willie Atchley on their 70th wedding anniversary. HR 87 (by Burkett), Congratulating Scott Coulson on his retirement as band director of Poteet High School in Mesquite. HR 88 (by Rodriguez), Commending Alda Santana for her service as senior legislative assistant in the office of State Representative Eddie Rodriguez. HR 89 (by Guillen), Honoring Jovita Rebecca Guevara of Jovita's Beauty Salon in Benavides. HR 90 (by Gooden), Congratulating Hunter Pritchett of Quinlan on attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. HR 91 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating Patricia Barton of Dallas and LaJuana Barton of DeSoto on the publication of Faithful Remembrances Volume I. HR 94 (by Craddick), Congratulating Floretta and Wilbern Peden of Midland on their 60th wedding anniversary. HR 95 (by Craddick), Congratulating Jim and Marilyn Clanahan of Midland on their 60th wedding anniversary. HR 96 (by Truitt), Congratulating Chief Robert Finn on his retirement from the police services division of the Southlake Department of Public Safety. HR 100 (by Guillen), Commending the Honorable Jose Benito Canales for more than 30 years of service as justice of the peace of Precinct 4 of Duval County. HR 101 (by Alonzo), Paying tribute to Rodolfo, Marcos, Alejandro, Vicente, Jose, and Arturo Torres for their service in the armed forces of the United States of America. HR 103 (by Aliseda), Congratulating Tina Marie Garza on her graduation from The University of Texas at Austin. HR 108 (by Madden), Commending Harry LaRosiliere for his service as a member of the Plano City Council. HR 109 (by Madden), Commending Jean Callison for her service on the Plano City Council. HR 110 (by Button), Congratulating the Methodist Richardson Foundation on the success of its 2011 WildRide! WildRun! Against Cancer. HR 111 (by Button), Honoring Richland College on its designation as a two-year National Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education. HR 112 (by Guillen), Honoring Elida "Lela" Gutierrez Garcia of Benavides for her longtime service to area residents as the owner of Lela's Beauty Shop. HR 114 (by Guillen), Recognizing Dr. Roberto S. Margo of Rio Grande City for his service as a veterinarian. HR 119 (by Guillen), Commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Liberty Cafe in Freer. HR 120 (by Guillen), Commending Edna and Arnoldo Cantu of Freer for their contributions to their community. HR 121 (by Guillen), Honoring Francisco Guerra, Jr., of Starr County for his achievements in business. HR 122 (by Margo), Honoring Sun Metro on its receipt of a 2011 Outstanding Public Transportation System award by the American Public Transportation Association. HR 123 (by Margo), Congratulating retired Brigadier General Richard A. Behrenhausen and Elizabeth Behrenhausen of El Paso on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 124 (by Burkett), Congratulating the baseball team of Eastfield College in Mesquite on winning the NJCAA Division III World Series. HR 126 (by Gooden), Congratulating William Noah Bankston on attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. HR 127 (by Craddick), Honoring Dr. John Mendelsohn for his 15-year tenure as president of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. HR 128 (by Lewis), Congratulating Glen Larum on his retirement from the Texas Department of Transportation. HR 130 (by Guillen), Congratulating Sijifredo "Chacho" and Diana Flores of Benavides on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 131 (by Guillen), Honoring Judge Benito V. Garza for his 34 years of service as justice of the peace for Precinct 3 in Duval County. HR 132 (by Guillen), Honoring Julian F. Stockwell for his years of service to Duval County. HR 133 (by PeÒa), Honoring U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Jacob De la Garza for his service to this nation. HR 134 (by PeÒa), Honoring Alma Garza for her service on the Edinburg City Council. HR 136 (by Schwertner), Congratulating Charlotte Ramsey of Cedar Park on her retirement from Pleasant Hill Elementary School in Leander. HR 137 (by Schwertner), Congratulating the baseball team of Yoe High School in Cameron on winning the UIL 2A state championship. HR 140 (by Hughes), Congratulating Don and Linda Rhodes of Mineola on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 142 (by Guillen), Honoring Rodolfo Carlos Salinas, Jr., of Rio Grande City for his contributions to his community. HR 143 (by Guillen), Congratulating Pedro and Estefana Villareal on their 67th wedding anniversary. HR 144 (by Raymond), Congratulating Juan Francisco "Pancho" Ochoa on being named the 2011 BusinessPerson of the Year by the Laredo Chamber of Commerce. HR 145 (by Hughes), Congratulating Juan D. and Jerry Nichols of Quitman on their 60th wedding anniversary. HR 147 (by Lucio, et al.), Commemorating the 2011 CowParade in Austin benefiting the Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas. HR 148 (by V. Gonzales), Congratulating Ruben Longoria Saenz and Matilda Delgado Saenz of Robstown on their 40th wedding anniversary. HR 151 (by Gooden), Congratulating Captain Kay Langford on her retirement from the Henderson County Sheriff's Office. HR 152 (by Johnson), Congratulating Lula Beatrice McGough Jordan of Dallas on the occasion of her 100th birthday. HR 153 (by Guillen), Honoring Martin A. Canales, Jr., of Roma for his contributions to his community. HR 155 (by Gooden), Commemorating the 30th anniversary of the founding of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Terrell. HR 156 (by Guillen), Honoring Rudy and Ann Casas for their success as the owners of Freer Iron Works in Duval County. HR 157 (by Gallego), Congratulating Fred Brockwell of Del Rio on earning a 2010 Spotlight Award from the American Association of Community Theatre. HR 159 (by Madden), Congratulating James "Bubba" Martin, Jr., on his retirement as chief juvenile probation officer for Jefferson County. HR 160 (by Johnson), Congratulating Lovie Mae Walker Kazee of Dallas on the occasion of her 95th birthday. HR 161 (by Huberty), Congratulating Ashley Alspaugh of Atascocita on her graduation from St. Pius X High School. HR 162 (by Huberty), Honoring William Patrick Barnett, Sr., on his 75th birthday. HR 164 (by D. Howard), Congratulating Benjamin Mauro of Austin on attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. HR 165 (by D. Howard), Congratulating Tanner Mauro of Austin on attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. HR 168 (by McClendon), Congratulating Carlton and Margaret Robinson of San Antonio on their 65th wedding anniversary. HR 169 (by Guillen), Honoring Rene G. Smith, Jr., of Starr County for his contributions to his community. HR 170 (by Harper-Brown), Commemorating the Eighth Annual Awareness Banquet hosted by the Dallas/Fort Worth chapter of the Korean American Coalition and extending best wishes to newly elected chapter president Soo Yeon Nam. HR 172 (by Gallego), Honoring Edelmira Sotelo for her 21 years of service as district director for the Del Rio office of State Representative Pete Gallego. HR 106 (by V. Taylor), Congratulating Daniel Robnett of Plano on his promotion to the rank of captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and on his receipt of the Navy Marine Corps Commendation Medal. HR 184 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating the Dallas Baptist University baseball team on its outstanding 2011 season. HR 185 (by Guillen), Honoring El Valle Bakery in Rio Grande City and its founders, Adolfo Berlanga and Maria del Carmen Berlanga. HR 188 (by Huberty), Congratulating Kelly Anne Sullivan on her graduation from Kingwood Park High School in 2010. HR 189 (by Cook), Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the dedication of the First United Methodist Church building in Palestine and 175 years of Methodism in the Palestine area. HR 190 (by Marquez), Commending Deputy Sergeant Natividad Guerrero of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office for his 25 years of service. HR 191 (by Marquez), Commending El Paso County Deputy Sheriff Patrick Gailey for helping an elderly woman escape a brush fire. HR 192 (by Marquez), Honoring Charlie Gomez for his contributions to the El Paso community. HR 193 (by Marquez), Congratulating the El Paso County Historical Commission on receiving a 2010 Distinguished Service Award from the Texas Historical Commission. HR 194 (by Marquez), Commemorating the opening of the new indoor farmers' market at Mercado Mayapan in El Paso. HR 195 (by Marquez), Congratulating the Volar Center for Independent Living on being named the 2011 Center for Independent Living of the Year by the State of Texas. HR 203 (by Gallego), Congratulating Kiki Luna on her receipt of the J. C. Montgomery, Jr., Child Safety Award from the Texas Office for Prevention of Developmental Disabilities. HR 204 (by Gallego), Congratulating Alfredo Delgado on his retirement from the Housing Authority of Del Rio. HR 205 (by Gallego), Honoring U.S. Air Force Colonel Michael R. Frankel, commander of the 47th Flying Training Wing at Laughlin Air Force Base, for his service to this country. HR 206 (by Gallego), Congratulating Ely Gallego of Alpine High School on being named to the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association 2A All-State team. HR 214 (by Y. Davis, et al.), Congratulating Mike Rawlings on his election as mayor of the City of Dallas. HR 215 (by MuÒoz), Commemorating the dedication of the Cali Carranza community gymnasium in Pharr and honoring Mr. Carranza for his achievements and service. HR 216 (by Gooden), Congratulating Dr. Coy Holcombe, Eustace ISD superintendent, on his designation as 2011 Region 7 Superintendent of the Year. HR 217 (by Gooden), Congratulating Coy Ellis and the Ellis Motor Company in Chandler on the 40th anniversary of the business. HR 219 (by Dutton, et al.), Commemorating the 50th anniversary of San Jacinto College and recognizing September 19, 2011, as San Jacinto College Day. HR 220 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating Michael Quildon on his reelection to the Cedar Hill Independent School District Board of Trustees. HR 221 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating Dan Hernandez on his reelection to the Cedar Hill Independent School District Board of Trustees. HR 222 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating Wendy Hodges-Kent on her election to the Cedar Hill Independent School District Board of Trustees. HR 225 (by Harper-Brown), Congratulating Sergeant Louis C. Felini of the Dallas Police Department on receiving a Professional Achievement Award from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. HR 229 (by Schwertner), Congratulating Alfred and Bernice Vrazel of Buckholts on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 230 (by Zerwas), Honoring the Texas Stars Service Unit on the occasion of the centennial of Girl Scouts of the USA. HR 231 (by Perry), Congratulating the baseball team of Coronado High School in Lubbock on its outstanding 2011 season and its appearance in the UIL 5A state title game. HR 234 (by Cook), Congratulating the Navarro College baseball team on winning the 2011 NJCAA Division I national championship. HR 235 (by Schwertner), Commending Patrick M. Reilly and the other members of Chapter 1919 of the Military Order of the Purple Heart for their efforts to bring the Texas Capitol Vietnam War Monument to fruition. HR 236 (by Carter), Congratulating Sean and Emily Carter of Wylie on their 10th wedding anniversary. HR 241 (by Harper-Brown), Recognizing Multilayer Technology for receiving its third consecutive Best of Irving Award in the Printed Circuit Board category from the United States Commerce Association. HR 242 (by Branch), Commemorating the 2011 Fourth of July celebration in the Greenway Parks neighborhood of Dallas and recognizing the rich history of this important community. HR 243 (by Branch), Congratulating David Chapasko of Preston Hollow Elementary School on being named the Dallas Independent School District 2011 Principal of the Year. HR 244 (by Guillen), Commending Celia Reilly Saenz for her service to her community. HR 246 (by Gooden), Congratulating Pauline Bond Baxter on being named grand marshal of the 2011 Fourth of July parade in Kaufman. HR 248 (by McClendon), Congratulating Emma Jewel Johnson on her retirement from the San Antonio Independent School District. HR 249 (by Branch), Commemorating the grand opening of the Katy Trail Ice House in Dallas. HR 250 (by Branch), Congratulating Dr. Ben Coker on his retirement as assistant superintendent of business services for Highland Park Independent School District. HR 251 (by Branch), Commemorating the groundbreaking for the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. HR 252 (by Marquez), Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Eighth Court of Appeals. HR 255 (by Margo), Congratulating Dr. Herbert H. Ortega on his receipt of the 2011 Distinguished Service Award from the Rotary Club of El Paso. HR 257 (by PeÒa), Congratulating Sally Jaime on being named the 2011 Firefighter of the Year by the Edinburg Volunteer Fire Department. HR 260 (by Hughes), Congratulating Wendell and Myra Shirley Crist of Yantis on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 261 (by S. Davis), Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Bellaire MENS Club. HR 262 (by S. Davis), Congratulating Delvin Dennis, district engineer of the Houston District, Texas Department of Transportation, on the occasion of his retirement. HR 264 (by Thompson), Congratulating Texas Junior State of America on its 20th anniversary. HR 265 (by Raymond), Honoring Terry Ruskowski for his achievements as coach, general manager, and president of the Laredo Bucks hockey team. HR 266 (by Hilderbran), Commending the Former Texas Rangers Foundation on its outstanding work. HR 269 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating the Dallas Baptist University basketball team on winning the 2010-2011 National Christian College Athletic Association Division I national championship. HR 272 (by Veasey), Commemorating the opening of the Wilbert M. Curtis Texas Prince Hall Library Museum in Fort Worth, which is dedicated to the history of African American Freemasonry in Texas. HR 273 (by Bonnen), Congratulating the Brazoswood High School Trap and Clay Shooters on their championship performance at the state Clay Trap/Sporting Clays Tournament in San Antonio. HR 274 (by Bonnen), Congratulating Jenna Pisarski of Brazoswood High School in Clute on becoming the 2010-2011 wrestling state champion in the 110-pound weight class. HR 275 (by Y. Davis), Congratulating Janet Harris on her election to the Duncanville City Council. HR 277 (by Gallego), Congratulating Dr. Robert M. Gates on his retirement as the United States secretary of defense. HR 278 (by Gallego), Honoring Dr. Ismael Sosa, Jr., for his service as president of Southwest Texas Junior College and his contributions to the Uvalde community. HR 283 (by PeÒa), Recognizing the Just Kauz It's Right nonprofit initiative and its founder, Maricela De Leon, for assisting schoolchildren in the Rio Grande Valley. HR 284 (by Y. Davis and Reynolds), Congratulating Machree Garrett Gibson on her election as president of the Texas Exes. HR 285 (by Craddick), Commemorating the 40th anniversary of Southwest Airlines. HR 286 (by Legler), Honoring the Pasadena Bay-Area Junior Forum on the 50th anniversary of its founding. HR 289 (by Riddle), Commemorating the dedication of the Spring Fire Department's new fire station and administration building. HCR 12 (by Dutton), Congratulating country-pop superstar Kenny Rogers on his achievements. HCR 27 (by Weber, W. Smith, Zerwas, Lavender, Morrison, et al.), Congratulating the nine Texas community colleges named among the nation's top 120 by the Aspen Institute.

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

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Members, I move to adopt the following memorial resolutions: I also move that the reading clerk to only read the numbers of the memorial resolutions, and that the general printing of the resolutions be considered.

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

THE CLERK: HR 29 (by Patrick), In memory of Ronald Gene Howell of Arlington. HR 42 (by Guillen), In memory of Eladio Carrera of Rio Grande City. HR 47 (by Guillen), In memory of Nidia Ann Leal. HR 51 (by Hilderbran), In memory of Thomas G. Ratcliffe of Kerrville. HR 52 (by Hilderbran), In memory of Elizabeth Ann Liggett of Kerrville. HR 58 (by V. Gonzales), In memory of Oscar Raul Cardenas of McAllen. HR 72 (by Guillen), In memory of Juan Caro of Rio Grande City. HR 76 (by Quintanilla), In memory of U.S. Army Corporal Eduardo Pedregon of El Paso, who gave his life while fighting in the Korean War. HR 80 (by Larson), In memory of Steven F. Gehrlein of San Antonio. HR 81 (by Guillen), Honoring the life and work of Dr. Mamiliano Juan Rodriguez. HR 84 (by Guillen), In memory of Lino Perez, Jr., of Rio Grande City. HR 92 (by Hughes), In memory of the Honorable Ed Hunt of Mineola. HR 93 (by Hughes), In memory of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Bradley Justin Gaudet of Gladewater. HR 97 (by Larson), In memory of George Vernon Wright, Jr., of San Antonio. HR 98 (by Guillen), Paying tribute to the lives of Ramiro and Hortencia "Nena" Hinojosa of Starr County. HR 99 (by Guillen), Honoring the life and legacy of former Starr County sheriff Reymundo Alvarez. HR 107 (by McClendon), In memory of the Reverend R. A. Callies of San Antonio. HR 113 (by Guillen), In memory of Manuel P. Guillen of Rio Grande City. HR 116 (by Guillen), In memory of Javier "J. V." Villanueva of Duval County. HR 117 (by Guillen), In memory of former Starr County judge Blas Chapa of Mission. HR 118 (by Guillen), Paying tribute to the life and legacy of Dr. Ramiro Narro of Weslaco. HR 129 (by Lyne), In memory of the Honorable Graham Boynton Purcell, Jr., of Wichita Falls. HR 135 (by Guillen), In memory of Rio Grande City police officer Robert A. Ramirez. HR 139 (by Y. Davis), In memory of Dr. Charles A. Hunter of Dallas. HR 146 (by Hughes), In memory of James E. Taylor of Marshall. HR 149 (by Madden, et al.), In memory of Dorothy Edna Schulte "Dot" McCalpin of Richardson. HR 150 (by Gooden), In memory of Valerie Evelyn Tumlinson of Athens. HR 154 (by Callegari), In memory of the Reverend John Brannon Haskins, Sr., of Houston. HR 158 (by Gallego), In memory of Eugene Russell Watson of Marathon. HR 163 (by Button), In memory of Antonio Palaganas. HR 173 (by Gallego), In memory of Moises L. Prieto of Del Rio. HR 174 (by Guillen), In memory of Jesus Alberto Solis of Starr County. HR 175 (by Hamilton), In memory of State District Judge Britton E. Plunk of Silsbee. HR 176 (by Hamilton), In memory of A. J. Leger of Beaumont. HR 178 (by Madden), In memory of Sharon Elaine Wright of Plano. HR 183 (by W. Smith), In memory of Lois Elaine Black Couch of Baytown. HR 186 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Robert Ochoa Moon of Irving. HR 187 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Evelyn T. Clifton of Irving. HR 210 (by Smithee), In memory of noted Western craftsman Jerry Cates of Amarillo. HR 211 (by Kolkhorst), In memory of Richard Bruce Duncan, the justice of the peace for Precinct 2 of Walker County. HR 223 (by McClendon), In memory of civil rights pioneer and political leader Percy Ellis Sutton. HR 224 (by Margo), In memory of U.S. Army Colonel (Ret.) James Lloyd Hayden of El Paso. HR 226 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Lenora Josephine Cavazos of Irving. HR 227 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Harold Wayne Cline, Sr., of Irving. HR 228 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Jo Ann Okle of Irving. HR 237 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Charles Ray Williams of Irving. HR 238 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Steve K. Askins of Irving. HR 239 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Lola Lenore Ernsting of Irving. HR 240 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Shirley Jane Bearden Sweet of Irving. HR 247 (by McClendon), In memory of Angnet Marie Rice Norman of San Antonio. HR 253 (by Marquez), In memory of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Nicholas Price Bellard of El Paso. HR 254 (by V. Gonzales, et al.), In memory of Rio Grande Valley physician, educator, and civil HR 256 (by Workman), In memory of Johnna Puckett Reynolds of Driftwood. HR 263 (by Woolley), In memory of Ramsay Gillman of Houston. HR 267 (by Gallego), In memory of Thomas "Jack" Plyler of Del Rio. HR 268 (by Gallego), In memory of Margaret Pauline Seward Newbill. HR 270 (by Cain), In memory of Susan Ann Cassidy of Amarillo. HR 271 (by Cain), In memory of Joseph Patrick Cassidy of Panhandle. HR 276 (by Oliveira), In memory of Ricardo A. Arzamendi of Brownsville. HR 279 (by Carter), In memory of U.S. Army Private Andrew Mark Krippner of Garland. HR 282 (by Harper-Brown), In memory of Dorothy "Dot" Tapley of Emory. HCR 23 (by Cain, et al.), In memory of Susan Ann Cassidy of Amarillo. HCR 24 (by Cain, et al.), In memory of Joseph Patrick Cassidy of Panhandle.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion for the adoption of the resolutions. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Resolutions are adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts on a privileged resolution.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to do a corrective resolution on Senate Bill 1. Let me explain it to you, so that there won't be any misunderstanding. There is a code reference that was -- it referred to the government code 552.151 and it should have been Section 552.152.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Following resolution, clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: SCR 5 by Duncan. Instructing the enrolling clerk to make corrections in SB No. 1.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is what I said when I was explaining the correcting resolution. It is just changing a code, section of government code to refer to the correct section. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Hunter voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Torres voting aye. Show Representative Gallego voting aye. 116 ayes and 19 nays, resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Morrison for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Bill 166.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, this is a memorial resolution, please take your seats. Please take your seats, members, for a memorial resolution. The following resolution, clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 166 by Morrison. In memory of the Honorable Frank Harrington Crain of Victoria.

THE CHAIR: Members, this is a resolution for a former member of the body. Please take your seats for this resolution. For those of you on the dais, please let me through, please step aside. We have a memorial resolution for a former member of the House. Please take your conversations outside the rail, please.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I just wanted to take a few moments to remember Judge Frank Harrington Crain from Victoria. He passed away June 9th of this year. Judge Crain served in the Texas Legislature from 1953 to 1955. And he was a wonderful gentleman that did a lot in our community, but he said one session in this body was enough for him. So he went on. He did not run for reelection. But he was elected as Victoria County Judge in 1955, and he served that for a term. And then he was appointed by Governor Price

(inaudible) Frank Marten and he served as judge in the 135th District Court from July 1959 until his resignation in August 1988. He was a founding member of St. Francis Episcopal Church, and he was very active in the Episcopal diocese. And his wife and his daughter is very active in the community in Victoria. And we will remember Judge Frank Crain for many years, for all that he did in our community. And I just wanted you to know that Judge Frank Crain did serve in this body, and was an outstanding individual. He passed away at the age of 90. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a memorial resolution. All members in favor please rise. The vote is unanimous, the measure is approved. Representative Branch moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Hearing none.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Doorkeeper ?

DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, should we admit the messenger? Admit the messenger.

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

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hughes moves to add all members's names to HR 270 and HR 271. Is there any objection? Hearing none. Adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Jackson for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend all necessary rules to bring up and consider HR 202.

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

THE CLERK: HR 202 by Jackson. In memory of Jesse Robert Woody of Carrollton.

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

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, members, Jesse Woody was a dedicated community and public servant in Carrollton. He served on the city council as a Mayor Pro Tem and was a member of numerous boards for many years. He just recently went on to be with the Lord, and this is a resolution commemorating him and honoring him. And it also moves that when the House adjourns today, in addition to other people, that it adjourn in his memory. And I'm so moved.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Chisum moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Chisum for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to hear House Resolution 245, about a gentleman in my Sunday school class that passed away.

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

THE CLERK: HR 245 by Chisum. In memory of E.E. "Shelly" Shelhamer of Pampa.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Members, Mr. Shelhamer lived to be 98 years old and passed way one Sunday morning. So he's gone to be with the Lord, and he was an insurance salesman, as far as I know, for 60 years. He actually had just gotten an award for 60 years perfect attendance at a Rotary Club. Sixty years perfect attendance at a Rotary Club. I never belonged to a club that I got a perfect attendance ever, and I've never heard of anybody getting 60 years. And I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, it's a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Simpson moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes representative Gallego for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I would move to add all members' names to the following resolutions: 157, 158, 172, 173, 203, 205, 206, 207, 267, 268, 277 and 278.

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

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would request permission for the House -- for the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to meet while the House is in session, at 7:12 p.m. today, June 28th, in room 3W15, to consider Senate Bill 29.

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

THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet at 7:12 p.m. today, June 28th, 2011, in room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 29.

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

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time House Resolution 290, honoring the Shiloh Baptist Church of Quitman on 150th anniversary.

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

THE CLERK: HR 290 by Hughes. Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Mt. Shiloh Baptist Church in Quitman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any announcements? If not, Representative Miles moves that the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, in memory of Yolanda Williams of Houston. House stands adjourned.

(The House stands adjourned.)