Like Frankenstein’s monster, the Texas House finally sparked into action this week, hearing and passing its first bills to shouts of “It’s alive! It’s alive!” or “Whoa! The Glacier moveth” as the Dallas Morning News put it.
The pace of the legislature's 140-day session has raised a few eyebrows over the last couple of weeks, especially as this week signaled the half-way point. Last Wednesday (day 65/140), Paul Burka of Texas Monthly pointed out that by that time last session, the Senate had passed 70 bills compared to nine so far in 2009. Over at the House, only 56 bills were out of committee as of day 65: a fifth as many as in 2007. [link]
The slow going, along with the complications and arguments over the stimulus money, has led to much speculation that Texas might need a special session to pass the budget. Indeed Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday that he would keep legislators in Austin “all summer” if the budget got too porky. [link]
So when it was announced on Tuesday that bills would be heard on Wednesday, many people breathed a sigh of relief. The relief seemed short-lived though as the House got bogged down on the second bill of the day. The bill, regarding the use money from the Texas Enterprise Fund for small businesses, caught the D.C./AIG zeitgeist when some members tried to amend it so that funds could not be granted to companies that gave big executive bonuses. House Speaker Joe Straus ending up calling for lunch and NPT overheard a senior reporter roughly exclaiming, “Man, we’re gonna be here all summer, this bill does nothing!”
Straus skipped lunch and came out to speak with reporters.
“We’re knocking the rust off I guess,” said Straus, referring to the slow morning. But Straus cautioned that he was neither inviting nor predicting a special session.
“I don’t think we have to. I don’t think today on March 25th we can predict where we’re going to be in June,” said Straus, adding that ultimately, the only thing the legislature had to do was pass a budget.
But passing the budget doesn’t look like it will be an easy ride either.
On Tuesday, there was an interesting trade off between state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston and Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie. After asking a series of technical questions about where stimulus money and/or freed-up general revenue will appear in the state budget, Turner made it clear that he does not believe an appropriations bill is ready to come to the floor of the House. (Earlier that day Pitts had announced it would be ready to go to the printers by Sunday).
Turner, a veteran lawmaker who had been on Appropriations for many years until booted this session (he was one of the so-called Craddick Ds), said he would not vote on an appropriations bill if it were rushed through. His statement caused a significant amount of applause on the House floor.
“I think there are a number of individuals on the floor who share the same sentiments,” Turner told NPT. “I am not going to quantify that number, but I think there are a number of people who are not going to vote on a budget if they are uncomfortable with how the stimulus dollars are being used and where the general revenue is being spent that is freed up by the stimulus dollars.”
“Time is not on our side right now,” thinks Turner who believes maintaining transparency in the budget process is essential: “I for one will not be fearful of voting ‘no’ and facing a special session.
But Straus doesn’t think it will necessarily come to that.
“There are some issues related (to the budget process) like stimulus money and some of the rules that apply that are still being developed,” said Straus. “It’s everyone’s intention and hope that we can have a budget and adjourn without the need for a special session.”
Legislative sessions are a bit like discos. The amount of fruitful interaction between members picks up the nearer you get to closing time. No doubt, things will begin to move forward much more quickly from now on. Furthermore, Joe Pickett, a seven-term veteran of the Austin disco, told NPT that the process isn't moving as slowly as it may appear.
“People have been looking at how many bills have been passed now versus last session. The real deal is we have heard more bills (public hearings) and passed more bills out of committee than last session at this time, said Pickett. “The bottom line is where are you at the end of the 140s days, not gauging it by where you are 70 days this session vs 70 days last session. ‘Did you get the job done?’ is the ultimate question.”
Straus would agree. He was very keen to share with reporters the fact that so far 4,000 bills had been referred to committees, 836 bills have had public hearings, and 132 have been reported out of committee (meaning they were ready to hit the floor, once out of Calendars.)
“There's been some discussion about a ‘do-nothing’ House. But the committees have been extremely busy and continue to be,” said Straus. “We’re going to have more bills passed this session than some people would like, I’m sure.”
What a difference lunch makes. On Wednesday afternoon, the pace did indeed pick up, The T.E.F. bill passing as amended, with other bills on the agenda swiftly following suit. (One taking less than 30 seconds.)
“It’s a little different now because everything is being allowed to function better in committees than before,” said Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock. Jones said that it worked better when committees are, “making decisions there and sending them up here (House floor) instead of having decisions made up here and sending them to committees,” even if it took more time.
So, for better, the wheels aren’t as greased as they were in previous sessions?
“Well, I think its good that it's not greased to the extent that the members don’t get to participate. There getting a lot more participation now and I think that’s better,” responded Jones. But House Democratic leader Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, isn’t so sure that increased member participation is the reason for the slow going.
“I don’t think that’s why things are going slower,” Dunnam said, “because I’m not hearing that members are having any different input necessarily.”
The Waco Democrat admitted things were better than in 2007, “because by this time last session we had passed a lot of bad stuff. Not passing bad stuff is an improvement.” But when it came to member input, “it still remains to be seen. The verdict is still out. I don’t have any preconceptions one way or the other.”
Shapleigh and CSAT prey on one another
A lively spat broke out this week between state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso and the Consumer Service Association of Texas, who represent small loan businesses. Shapleigh, along with other a number of senators, had a press conference Monday about clamping down on what he calls “predatory lenders” who create “toxic assets.”
CSAT blasted that Shapleigh and state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth used “inflammatory, shameless and blatantly incorrect rhetoric” at the press conference. Shapleigh blasted back that, “CSAT is a predatory lender lobby group” whose only job is to ‘guarantee 1,100 percent interest rates and obscene profits.”
(Check the NPT blog here, here and here for more.)
Senate and the Top 10% rule for UT Schools
A bill passed the Senate on Tuesday that would give Texas’ 35 public universities more freedom in choosing who they admit as freshman. Currently, any student who graduates from the top 10% of her class is automatically entitled to enroll in the public state university of their choice. Senate bill 175 allows universities to cap admissions via the Top 10 percent rule to between 50 and 60 percent of an incoming freshman class.
“Top Ten Percent works well. At UT-Austin, 93 percent of all El Paso students who were admitted there in 2008 were admitted under Top Ten. Why change what works?” said Shapleigh, who voted against the bill.
The bill will now go to the House. Speaker Straus said that Texas should not change the Top 10 percent rule if it were not possible to do so in a way that did not adversely affect minorities.
“I think if we don’t feel that is possible then we shouldn’t move forward on these changes. I think we ought to be sensitive to minority enrollment,” said Straus, who views the changes favorably.
“I certainly favor taking action this session on that issue…Very soon I think there is going to be some forced changes. What do you do with that 100 percent plus one student, which is rapidly coming? We might as well deal with it now,” said Straus.
Before passing to engrossment in the Senate, an amendment was inserted into the bill so that if it became law would expire in 2015. Read the NPT blog post here for more details.
Tiguas options narrow but remain alive
New language has been agreed upon by the Ysleta del sur Pueblo (Tiguas) and the Alabama Coushatta that could be used in proposed constitutional amendments authorizing gambling in Texas.
The new language is part of a narrower strategy on the part of the Tiguas and state Rep. Norma Chavez that concentrates exclusively on changing Texas law through a constitutional amendment rather than through veto-vulnerable legislation.
If the language was included in a successful constitutional amendment proposition, Texans could be voting on the subject this November. Read NPT’s full report on the Tigua’s new strategy here.
Quote of the week: Joe Straus on being House Speaker: “People ask that question a lot: ‘Is it what you expected?’ I have to answer, ‘I didn’t expect it so I don’t have a good answer for you question.’
Scene of the week: Burleson state Rep. Chris Turner’s hazing. Pesky senior legislators gave the freshman a torrid time during the passage of his first bill. They even swindled the mic from him on a point of order. When it came to the vote, the bill passed unanimously, but not before the electronic board showing the votes lit up red, members quickly switching their vote and lighting the board up green.
Before the vote, the House exploded in laughter when namesake Sylvester Turner, D-Houston (an African American) told the told the caucasian freshman, how proud Mom and Dad were. With Dunnam bringing shot glasses to a committee on Tuesday and the House in good humor, maybe a special session would be good fun.
Weird moment of the week: The debate in the Senate over a bill that will allow people to take their guns to work as long as they leave them in their car. According to the Dallas Morning News, Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, was concerned:
"What happens if somebody brings in dynamite under the provision that allows a person to carry ammunition to work?" said Gallegos.
"Under this bill, you are not able to have dynamite in your car. Dynamite is not ammunition," countered bill author Sen. Hegar, R-Katy.
Feel free to join me in smacking your forehead and sarcastically exclaiming, “Oh good! Glad we got that figured out folks!”
Busy week for: Norma Chavez. After fending off a gender-based roadblock to Tigua gambling, joining Jim Pitts in getting mad with Perry over moving state money around and organizing a posse of tribal women to come down to Austin next week, you would think she had earned her weekend. Unfortunately she sits on the Appropriations committee, which is meeting this Saturday and Sunday.
Question of the week: Will El Paso get the money for a third building at Texas Tech Medical school? “It’s going to be tough,” said state Rep Joe Pickett earlier this week. [link]
