TENTH DAY (CONTINUED) — TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2025

HB 18, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to the making to or acceptance of political contributions by, and the making of political expenditures by, a member of the legislature during certain absences from the state; authorizing a civil penalty.

REPRESENTATIVE SHAHEEN: I have a floor substitute to offer.

[Amendment No. 1 by Shaheen was laid before the house.]

SHAHEEN: Members, HB 18 establishes penalties for lawmakers who intentionally break quorum for the purpose of bringing the Texas Legislature to a halt. The bill does this by prohibiting legislators from fundraising or making certain expenditures while absent for the purpose of breaking quorum. In the past, legislators have used quorum breaks to raise political funds, creating concerns that members were benefitting financially while preventing the Texas Legislature from conducting its work. Current law does not limit fundraising or expenditures during these unexcused absences, only during the moratorium period during years where we're in session. This current arrangement creates a financial incentive to break quorum.

HB 18 establishes clear restrictions to ensure that there is no financial benefit while breaking quorum. It prohibits members absent without an excused absence for quorum-breaking purposes from accepting contributions larger than their daily legislative per diem or from paying for travel-related expenses with campaign funds. The bill authorizes civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, with enforcement through the district court proceedings and exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. This proposed legislation will help discourage financial gain from unexcused absences. HB 18 strikes a careful balance between the right of the legislative minority to resist legislation and the prerogative of the majority to conduct business. By passing HB 18, the legislature ensures that members cannot financially benefit from quorum-breaking absences and helps to protect the integrity of our legislative process.

The key differences between the introduced bill and the floor substitute, there are clear definitions that have been added. The introduced bill used more general language about being absent without leave for quorum-breaking purposes. The substitute creates a term, "impeding absence," with the specific criteria that the chamber must have ordered the return of members, issued civil warrants, and the member must be absent without leave. This gives us clarity and prevents disputes over when the law applies. The organizational structure has also changed. The introduced bill placed everything in a single section of statute, whereas the substitute creates an entire Subchapter G with multiple sections, covering items such as definitions, prohibited conduct, et cetera. The substitute removes the contribution offense and penalty for an individual who contributes to a member who has broken quorum. And the effective date has also been changed. The introduced version did not specify an effective date, and the substitute clarifies that the law applies only to contribution expenditures made after the Act takes effect and sets the effective date as the 91st day after this session adjourns. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to yielding for questions.

REPRESENTATIVE BUCY: Representative Shaheen, in committee when you laid this bill out, you agreed that, as far as the courts are concerned, money is political speech, in our back-and-forth. So if the courts agree that money is political speech, why are you bringing a bill that would stop a subset of the body here, treat them as a separate category, and restrict their political speech?

SHAHEEN: Members are allowed to receive contributions, except for the moratorium in this case, when they're breaking quorum. But otherwise, members do have that right to raise the capital funds they need for an election.

BUCY: Yeah, but so you're going to create two different classes of the Texas Legislature, right? There's going to be the class that is here and the class that is using their political right to break quorum, and then treat them separately by saying they can fundraise this and they can fundraise this. Is that not correct?

SHAHEEN: No, Article III of the Constitution, Sections 10 and 11, dictate that the legislative bodies have the right to do what they can to establish a quorum.

BUCY: To compel quorum, correct?

SHAHEEN: That's exactly right.

BUCY: Yeah, I've read it. So my question is, as you agreed in committee, the courts have already ruled that money is political speech. Does your bill not create two groups here?

SHAHEEN: No.

BUCY: It doesn't?

SHAHEEN: No.

BUCY: So everyone under your bill will be treated the same?

SHAHEEN: Any individual that breaks quorum is subject to this bill.

BUCY: And subject to this bill, they will be restricted on how much they can fundraise, correct?

SHAHEEN: If a member breaks quorum and is absent for the purpose of breaking quorum, this legislation would apply.

BUCY: So to understand what this legislation does, even though we agreed together that the courts have ruled that money is political speech, this will limit that political speech of a subgroup of the Texas Legislature. Is that correct?

SHAHEEN: Sections 10 and 11 of the Constitution for Article III establishes that the legislative bodies can do what they feel necessary to compel members to meet quorum. That's what this is falling underneath. It does not create two separate classes.

BUCY: Does it say that some groups of the Texas Legislature, let's say the people that were on the house floor during the most recent quorum break––I know this is forward thinking, but let's just use it as an example because maybe we're confused here––the people that were here and present, that did not have a call on the house against them, what would they be allowed to fundraise?

SHAHEEN: Members that are not absent for quorum-breaking purposes can still raise money under this statute.

BUCY: And the group that was absent for quorum-breaking purposes, under this statute moving forward, what would they be allowed to fundraise?

SHAHEEN: They would be punished, so they would not be allowed, while they are absent breaking quorum, from raising funds over the per diem amount.

BUCY: What's the per diem amount?

SHAHEEN: Two something.

BUCY: I'll cheat; it's $221.

SHAHEEN: Not enough, I can tell you that.

BUCY: We agree on that too, I think. So you've got members here that can raise more than $221. Is that correct?

SHAHEEN: Members that are not breaking quorum?

BUCY: Correct.

SHAHEEN: Yeah, there's no limit for them.

BUCY: So they can raise millions if they're good at this?

SHAHEEN: If they're good. I could never do that.

BUCY: And people breaking quorum can do what?

SHAHEEN: People that are absent and breaking quorum––what this statute does is it places a limit on the campaign contribution that they can receive, and it also prevents them from political expenditures for travel and the like.

BUCY: So we're talking about two separate groups now?

SHAHEEN: No, they're not two separate groups.

BUCY: We've got some members of the legislature that can raise whatever they want.

SHAHEEN: Just because you're punishing certain individuals of the legislative body––

BUCY: You're pre-punishing them?

SHAHEEN: No. But just because you're punishing members for violating the rules doesn't mean that you're treating them––they're not a separate class, if you will.

BUCY: Well, they haven't had a due process hearing or anything like that after the fact to justify why they were where they were doing.

SHAHEEN: The bill establishes a due process procedure where somebody could go to the––

BUCY: I agree it does. I've even read your committee sub, your floor layout here. What I'm saying is that you are pre-saying these people, before their due process hearing, we're going to limit them and treat them as one class, while this group gets to be treated as another class.

SHAHEEN: No, that's inaccurate. There's nothing to prevent us. In fact, the Constitution says that we can establish rules and punishment as a legislative body, and that's what HB 18 does.

BUCY: To compel quorum.

SHAHEEN: Well, Section 11 actually just says that we can establish rules and penalties.

BUCY: Understood.

SHAHEEN: Section 10 of Article III talks about establishing quorum.

BUCY: Understood, but we both agree that the courts have ruled that money is political speech, and now you are saying we're going to have this class of people that can raise as much political freedom and speech as they want, and this class, we're going to limit their political speech.

SHAHEEN: There's a concern expressed that individuals that are raising money off of stopping the legislative process is concerning and so that's the reason for the bill.

BUCY: Sure. There's a lot of things that are concerning. It doesn't mean it's in compliance with the court rulings, right? We can be upset with a lot of things.

SHAHEEN: This bill does comply with court rulings.

BUCY: No, I understand. I'm just trying to get to the point before we move on to the rights of quorum break here, that this bill is establishing two classes of the Texas Legislature in violation of the court's ruling, that you agree with, that money is political speech.

SHAHEEN: That's inaccurate.

BUCY: Which part?

SHAHEEN: It does not create two classes of legislators.

BUCY: But you agree with the other part?

SHAHEEN: No, what I specifically said was Sections 10 and 11 of Article III––

BUCY: No, I'm talking about the political speech part.

SHAHEEN: Of the Constitution allows this legislative body to do what it takes to meet quorum, and it also can establish rules with penalties. And that's what HB 18 does.

BUCY: Yeah, but you're pre-limiting a group of people from what they can raise before their due process hearing.

SHAHEEN: It's not a group of people. It's individuals that are absent from the chamber––

BUCY: Well, to break quorum, it requires a minimum of 51.

SHAHEEN: And then they break quorum.

BUCY: It requires over a third, right? So it is a group that are acting as a unit, as a group.

SHAHEEN: No, they're individual members that are making decisions on their own whether they're going to be absent and break quorum.

BUCY: So your bill, if there's just one person absent out of state because they want to send a protest, a quorum break, you could go get them even though we have a quorum established?

SHAHEEN: I don't think that breaks quorum.

BUCY: Correct.

SHAHEEN: The bill says for the purposes of breaking quorum.

BUCY: Agreed, meaning there's a group of people acting as a unit that go and do this––a class of this body.

SHAHEEN: I disagree with the way you're describing the bill.

BUCY: In committee, you also agreed that we have a constitutional right to quorum break. Did you not?

SHAHEEN: Sections 10 and 11 imply that there's a right for the minority to break quorum and that there's actions that can be taken by the legislative bodies.

BUCY: Understood. And we have some of those, right? I mean, we can do the call on the house, we can waste taxpayer dollars sending police to people's houses that we know are in another state. So we have mechanisms, right, that we do. Let me ask you this, if you agree––we've already talked about the two classes. Now we're talking about the right to quorum, which you agree there is a right to do so. Is it fair to say that this bill is more about stopping dissent and intimidation than an actual penalty?

SHAHEEN: The purpose for this is a penalty.

BUCY: It's not about dissenting political opposition?

SHAHEEN: It's about punishment, and it's about making sure that there's not a financial gain by members who break quorum and their campaign accounts get hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of donations because they're breaking quorum.

BUCY: I'm wondering, if you agree that we have a constitutional right to quorum break, why would you bring legislation that seems clearly to be an attempt to intimidate political opposition that are utilizing their constitutional right?

SHAHEEN: I don't believe in political intimidation, and that's not what this bill does.

BUCY: So what does this bill do?

SHAHEEN: This bill punishes individuals that are absent from the Capitol for the purposes of stopping the legislative process in the Texas Legislature.

BUCY: But this bill takes a group of people of this body and says, we are going to limit your political speech through fundraising before you've even had a due process hearing before this body to handle internally because of what?

SHAHEEN: Again, if there's a statement of fact, somebody does get due process. They can go to the president of the senate, they can go to the speaker of the house, and issue a statement of fact, and then that––

BUCY: But was their right to political speech not already infringed at that point?

SHAHEEN: No.

BUCY: Why not?

SHAHEEN: Because they're still able––

BUCY: They haven't even had the due process here.

SHAHEEN: They're still able to make commentary, post on social media. They have all the free speech rights that they want.

BUCY: You are punishing, with this bill––pre-punishing––a member against taking a constitutional action that they have a right to do.

SHAHEEN: I'm establishing a rule, not pre-punishing anybody.

BUCY: You are saying these members do not have––

SHAHEEN: This doesn't go into effect until 91 days after session ends, so I'm not pre-punishing anybody.

BUCY: Well, you're pre-punishing the next group of people that choose to unite to break quorum under their constitutional right.

SHAHEEN: I'm establishing a statute that will enable the body to punish individuals that are absent for the purposes of breaking quorum and halting the legislative process in the State of Texas.

BUCY: Yes, you're going to put on punishments against an elected lawmaker, elected by their constituents, to say that they will not have the same rights as a different lawmaker even though they are using a constitutionally guaranteed right.

SHAHEEN: They have the same rights. Again, this is just punishment. The Constitution says we have the right to compel individuals to come back and meet quorum. Section 11 says that we can establish rules and have punishments. I mean, this bill is very much in line with Article III of the Constitution.

BUCY: But if their freedom of speech through fundraising––

SHAHEEN: They're free to say anything they want.

BUCY: But the courts have ruled that money is speech, and you agree with that.

SHAHEEN: That's right.

BUCY: And you're limiting money as speech––

SHAHEEN: No.

BUCY: To a group of people ahead of the fact.

SHAHEEN: They can receive the amount of the per diem every day.

BUCY: This is an Act that is saying this group of people, using a constitutional right that you fundamentally agree with, under a court ruling that you fundamentally agree with, are going to be treated differently, and we're going to limit that. You can't go back and make that up. If they're found in their own due process hearing, they can't go back in time and re-get those contributions. We have limited their right to speech through that process.

SHAHEEN: It's inaccurate to say that this piece of legislation treats one group differently than the other. The Constitution is very clear. We can compel quorum, each body can establish the rules, and they can enforce their rules, including punishment. That's what HB 18 does.

BUCY: Representative, how did you come to the money amount?

SHAHEEN: It's the per diem amount.

BUCY: Why that number?

SHAHEEN: Because it's the per diem amount. I based it on the per diem.

BUCY: I'm just asking why. Why did you pick that?

SHAHEEN: To ensure that the bill aligned with previous court cases.

BUCY: Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

SHAHEEN: Sure. There's a case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. It had to do with Vermont's strict campaign finance laws that were found unconstitutional. So I read that opinion and wrote the bill in such a way where it would survive a similar challenge.

BUCY: Just to be clear, you wrote this bill?

SHAHEEN: You always ask me when I come to the floor with a bill. Yes, I wrote it.

BUCY: Well, it's not always the case.

SHAHEEN: Lege Council wrote it. How's that?

BUCY: So I just think it's important our colleagues know through this exchange, just so I understand your bill, the group of people that are here can fundraise, under the courts because it's speech, an unlimited amount of money, correct?

SHAHEEN: That are here? You mean, like, at the Capitol during their job and not abandoning their constituents?

BUCY: No, I mean people that are here at the Capitol.

SHAHEEN: That are doing their job?

BUCY: Sure, that's one way to do your job. Sure.

SHAHEEN: Well, when you're saying here, you could be in the Capitol––

BUCY: Here in the State of Texas, by your definition.

SHAHEEN: On the floor?

BUCY: Sure. Yes. Is that a yes?

SHAHEEN: They can raise money after the moratorium.

BUCY: They are allowed to fundraise?

SHAHEEN: After the moratorium.

BUCY: An unlimited amount?

SHAHEEN: After the moratorium.

BUCY: Yes? I just want to make sure everyone understands what we're voting on here.

SHAHEEN: You asked me a question, and I gave you the answer.

BUCY: And so after the moratorium, they are allowed to fundraise an unlimited amount if they are here on the house floor? Is that correct?

SHAHEEN: After the moratorium.

BUCY: That was in my question.

SHAHEEN: And I answered your question.

BUCY: So the answer's yes.

SHAHEEN: You get to ask the questions. I get to answer the questions however I please. I've answered your question three times.

BUCY: So the group of people that are out of the state, using their constitutional right, that you agree are breaking quorum––last time I'll belabor the point so everyone understands it––they will be limited to how much money a day?

SHAHEEN: If you have an individual that's absent for the purposes of breaking quorum, they will be punished by having a limited amount of the contributions that they could receive to the amount of the per diem.

BUCY: I agree that's what your bill does. And in doing those two things, this bill is creating two classes of the Texas Legislature, and this bill is trying to intimidate political opposition.

SHAHEEN: Not two classes. This is based on individuals' conduct.

REPRESENTATIVE OLCOTT: Representative Shaheen, the last representative was claiming that your bill infringed on First Amendment rights of free speech. Is it true that this legislative body is restricted from receiving campaign funds while we're in regular session?

SHAHEEN: Yes, sir. That's accurate.

OLCOTT: Have you ever heard of anyone claiming that was an infringement on a First Amendment right?

SHAHEEN: No, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS DAVILA: Would you just clarify for us that this bill is to address the members that walked off the job and walked out of their responsibilities and held up this entire legislative process, some of whom came back and even tried to fundraise off of the floor of the Texas House and off the floor of the Texas Senate? Would you clarify that that's what we're talking about today?

SHAHEEN: That's exactly right. It was very clear that there were members who were attempting to benefit financially from the quorum break, and HB 18 addresses that. Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS DAVILA: And this is just one step towards making sure that our legislative process is not put on hold while members are not doing their job; they're out of state, doing press conferences, on vacation, wherever they may be. This is just one step towards making sure that our legislative process is not held up again?

SHAHEEN: That's right. That's correct.

HARRIS DAVILA: Thank you for this bill. I really appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE HAYES: Representative Shaheen, does this bill provide any tax relief?

SHAHEEN: I don't think so.

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIER: Representative Shaheen, I just want to get some clarity because I just want to understand what you're trying to do here. The difference on page 1, starting at 11––line 11 through 23. So if a member is out of state and is allegedly impeding proceedings in the legislative body, then they would be subjected to this if the speaker or whoever issues a civil arrest warrant and you had the member's house has ordered the house sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent members? What is the difference between Subsections (ii) and (iii)?

SHAHEEN: Are you talking about (A)(ii) and (A)(iii)?

COLLIER: Yes.

SHAHEEN: He's ordered the sergeant-at-arms to arrest the absent members, and (iii) is the actual issuing of an arrest warrant.

COLLIER: So is this number (ii) a civil arrest, or is that a criminal arrest?

SHAHEEN: They're both civil.

COLLIER: Okay, because in one of them you said issued civil warrants of arrest.

SHAHEEN: Right. So (ii) is you've ordered the sergeant-at-arms, and then Romanette (iii) is you're issuing civil warrants for an arrest. So you see the difference?

COLLIER: Well, which one comes first?

SHAHEEN: Well, I mean, number (ii) is order the house sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent members, and (iii) is issue civil warrants for arrest.

COLLIER: I just want to make sure that I understand. I thought that the speaker has to issue a civil arrest––do a call of the house and issue the civil warrant.

SHAHEEN: That section has three components that a member's house does in order for the penalty to apply.

COLLIER: Okay, so then the speaker first has to do the civil warrant of arrest before the sergeant can actually do the arrest?

SHAHEEN: So three things need to happen. Romanette (i) says compel the attendance of the absent members per Section 10 of Article III of the Texas Constitution. So that's the part of the Constitution that talks about quorum and compelling attendance. Romanette (ii) is order the house sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent members. And Romanette (iii) is issue civil warrants of arrest for the absent members. Does that answer your question?

COLLIER: Well, it just seems like it's out of order because I don't think the house sergeants can just unilaterally arrest any member without the warrant being issued.

SHAHEEN: No, it's an order that's issued by the speaker.

COLLIER: Okay. You just put them in a different––

SHAHEEN: There's no implied order here. Those are the three items that need to be met in order for there to be a violation.

COLLIER: Okay. All right. So you're not giving the house sergeants a new authority to do a civil arrest without a warrant?

SHAHEEN: They can be ordered to arrest absent members to compel them to make quorum. That's already established.

COLLIER: Under the civil warrant?

SHAHEEN: Civil warrant is separate.

COLLIER: Okay. That's what I'm just trying to figure out.

SHAHEEN: That can be a different law enforcement entity.

COLLIER: But the house sergeants can also deputize officers to help them with their work. Is that right?

SHAHEEN: I'm not aware of that.

COLLIER: Okay. And then in terms of, you said, order the house sergeant-at-arms. Is there a reason you didn't put civil arrest in front of that instead? You just put to arrest, but the next line under, line 16, you actually have civil warrants.

SHAHEEN: So those are two different arms. You're compelling the sergeant-at-arms to arrest members to compel them back. Item (iii) is if there's an arrest warrant, all law enforcement–-so you can be pulled over by a local municipality law enforcement, and they can see that there's a warrant out there for your arrest, and they can take you into custody. Whereas item number (ii) is just the sergeant-at-arms.

COLLIER: Is that a civil arrest for the sergeant-at-arms?

SHAHEEN: Both of these are civil. None of these are criminal.

COLLIER: Well, that's why I was wondering why you wouldn't put civil. If you put civil under Subsection (iii), but not (ii).

SHAHEEN: I'm sorry, ma'am. I don't understand the point you're making.

COLLIER: Well, I'm just trying to figure out if you're clarifying that number (iii) is a civil arrest, but on line 15 it doesn't say whether it's criminal or civil. But you're telling me it's civil. For the house sergeants, it's civil. It's not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter.

SHAHEEN: Right, it's not criminal. It's civil.

COLLIER: Okay. Would you be open to amending and putting civil arrest there as well?

SHAHEEN: No, it's implied. It's the sergeant-at-arms. The sergeant-at-arms doesn't pull people over for speeding or for any type of criminal conduct. This is an order from the speaker to the sergeant-at-arms to bring the members back. The word arrest is in there is they can do it by force.

COLLIER: They can do the arrest by force?

SHAHEEN: Yes.

COLLIER: What else? What does that look like?

SHAHEEN: I don't know. I've never broken quorum.

COLLIER: Well, I mean, you're writing the bill, and so you're saying arrest implies force. So what type of force would the sergeant-at-arms be allowed to use to detain a member?

SHAHEEN: Knock on their door and tell them that they needed to come to the floor of the house, and if not, they can guide that member here, get back up if needed.

COLLIER: But what's the force?

SHAHEEN: I just described it to you. They can go to the member's home, compel them to come. If they don't, they can guide the member back to the floor.

COLLIER: So when you say compel that member to come, is that where the force is? Does it say, member, will you please come with us? Or is it, you know, grabbing the member by the arm and pulling them to their car? What is the force?

SHAHEEN: You might have to grab a member by their arm and bring them into the vehicle and transport them here.

COLLIER: For the civil arrest?

SHAHEEN: Yes.

COLLIER: And so you're authorizing use of force?

SHAHEEN: It's already in there.

COLLIER: Where?

SHAHEEN: It's order the house sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent members. You can already do that. What this is saying is here are the three items that need to occur in order for the punishment to be active, but house sergeants can already arrest members. That exists today. So nothing around that process is new. What this bill is saying is you have to meet those three items in order to establish the punishment.

COLLIER: Can the speaker order the house sergeants to arrest absent members without a call of the house?

SHAHEEN: I believe there has to be a call of the house, but I'm not 100 percent sure.

COLLIER: That's what my understanding is too, and that's why I was wondering why these were separated. Because it has to be the call of the house first, and then the sergeants would do the civil arrest, but you're saying that they all happen at the same time.

SHAHEEN: The sergeant-at-arms is a civil arrest. It's not criminal.

COLLIER: I understand, but they can't do that unilaterally. They can't be just one without the other right now?

SHAHEEN: The sergeant-at-arms can't just one day wake up and start showing up at members' houses, if that's what you're implying.

COLLIER: And what if a member is denied an excused absence?

SHAHEEN: Then it's not an excused absence.

COLLIER: If the member's impeding a quorum in this state, does this bill apply to them? This bill?

SHAHEEN: When you say they're denied, did they ask for an absence and it was denied?

COLLIER: Well, I asked a new question.

SHAHEEN: I don't understand your question.

COLLIER: You answered my first question. My second question is if a member is impeding a quorum in this state, this bill doesn't apply to them, right?

SHAHEEN: They would have to be out of state.

COLLIER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE GERVIN-HAWKINS: Representative Shaheen, you use the word "punish" in here. Could you define punish? Because I'm a little bit too old for someone to be punishing me. So define punish.

SHAHEEN: There's a $5,000 fine for members that are absent and break quorum. That's the punishment. And you're limited to the amount of money that you can fundraise so that there's no financial benefit from breaking quorum, and then you're restricted from using campaign funds to pay for travel expenditures. So that's the punishment.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So you're applying sanctions? Because punish kind of concerns me. That's kind of a childish action and/or something you do with somebody––

SHAHEEN: No, that's not childish at all.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Can I ask the questions, sir?

SHAHEEN: Well, you made a statement that's inaccurate. The term "punishment" isn't just used for acts by a child. I would disagree with that.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: My other question before we run out of time is this. You use the word president, page 3, item (f), you're talking about the president or the speaker. What president are you talking about?

[Amendment No. 2 by Rose was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE ROSE: This amendment would remove the part of the bill that prohibits members who are breaking quorum from making political expenditures for travel, food, or lodging if those expenditures are connected to the member's absence from the state. As we all are aware, breaking quorum is a constitutional right. Breaking quorum is a constitutional right. It is also the right of the members of this Texas House to use their money that they have raised for political purposes to support our political mission and allow constituents' voices to be supported.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMMONS: Thank you so much for filing this amendment. Unless I'm forgetting something, breaking quorum is a constitutional right, I think you mentioned that, that we guarantee members of the Texas Legislature. We are also allowed to make political expenditures to support political projects. Can you remind us how your amendment supports both of these rights?

ROSE: Well, this amendment, again, it would allow members to be able to use their political donations for lodging, housing, and transportation while they're breaking quorum.

SIMMONS: Thank you so much for that. That's really good to hear. It seems to me that this bill is trying to discourage members from breaking quorum, which I previously stated and you did too, is a constitutional right, and we like the Constitution in this body. Is that also how you read the bill, and how does your amendment help to combat that?

ROSE: This amendment combats that by allowing us to use our political expenditures for what they were designed for, anything that's pertaining to our office. Let me just say this. To me, this bill is really more just about being vindictive. It's not about policy; it's about punishing and being vindictive over something that is a constitutional right.

SIMMONS: That's exactly how I read the bill. It seems that some representatives are afraid of us exercising our constitutional rights. While this bill attempts to make it much harder for representatives to break quorum, your amendment undoes some of that harm by allowing us to use political funds and inherently a political act of breaking quorum. But can you think of any real, legal, or more reasons why the majority party wouldn't want the minority party to be able to spend the money they were legally given by their donors?

ROSE: None. To me, this bill is just trying to silence the voices of the minority party, and that's why I have this amendment to address the constitutional rights that we have as a minority party in this chamber.

SIMMONS: Thank you so much. I love this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WARD JOHNSON: Were you elected by your constituents or by the members in this room right now?

ROSE: I was elected by the constituents of Texas House District 110.

WARD JOHNSON: Thank you. And while you were on quorum break, was your office still responding to your constituents?

ROSE: Absolutely. On a daily basis they were responding to all of the constituents' needs, all those who called, as well as myself. I was working assisting constituents as well.

WARD JOHNSON: So you would still say that you were still doing the duties that you were elected for?

ROSE: Absolutely.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Representative Rose, wouldn't you agree that, breaking quorum being constitutional, we're also representing our districts?

ROSE: Absolutely.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: And so what this bill is trying to do is stop us from representing our districts?

ROSE: Absolutely. It's trying to stop us from our constitutional right.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So when they speak about how we ran away and were not working, they're setting it up so that we can't work and work our constituent cases, correct?

ROSE: That's correct.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So when we think about this bill, this retribution, retaliation of a constitutional right, would you say that our colleagues are really disingenuous in terms of what they're attempting to do?

ROSE: Absolutely.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So in being disingenuous trying to put forth sanctions, punishment, they're trying to treat us like children rather than colleagues and equals. Would you agree with that?

ROSE: I absolutely agree with that.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Thank you for your amendment. I hope the bill author accepts the amendment and realizes we continued to work throughout and that's what they want us to do and enjoy our constitutional right also.

SHAHEEN: Members, I think what this is doing is it would allow the political campaign funds to be used for political expenditures, which goes against the purpose of the bill. With that, I ask you to vote against the amendment.

ROSE: Members, we cannot pick and choose constitutional rights to support based on political convenience. If breaking quorum is constitutional, then the political funds should support that constitutional act. It must be protected. So this amendment simply allows expenditures to be used for the intended purposes. I move that you support this amendment. Vote aye.

[Amendment No. 2 failed of adoption by Record No. 142.]

[Amendment No. 3 by Martinez Fischer was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: There's provisions in here that deal with how we spend money and when we spend money. All this amendment does is it says that once you file for office, this part of the chapter is suspended so nobody's getting tagged with ethics complaints for spending money while they're spending for a campaign, regardless of where they are and what they're doing. It just doesn't apply when a member files for office and is running on the ballot. And I hope it's acceptable to the author.

SHAHEEN: Members, this also goes against the spirit of the house bill and would provide some relief from the punishments, so I would ask you to vote against this amendment.

MARTINEZ FISCHER: Really not hard. We raise money for campaigns, we spend money, we're all under scrutiny. All this says is when you file for office and you're spending your money, regardless of what you're doing, you're not going to be held to account for that. I think there's some serious constitutional implications with regard to that, so I think we will win either way no matter how you vote, but I think the right thing to do is to vote for this amendment.

[Amendment No. 3 failed of adoption by Record No. 143.]

[Amendment No. 4 by Little was laid before the house.]

[Representative Martinez Fischer raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 4 under Rule 11, Section 2, of the House Rules on the grounds that the amendment is not germane. The point order was sustained.]

[Amendment No. 5 by Little was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE LITTLE: This amendment should be on the screen in front of you. You may be aware, and I'm going to share with you if you're not, this is reporting by the Texas Tribune; the author is Colleen DeGuzman. She said at the outset of this article, "Former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke announced on Saturday that his political group, Powered by People, donated more than $1 million to Texas democrats during a special session in which they walked out to deny republicans the quorum they needed to pass new congressional maps. In the announcement, O'Rourke said that 'more than 55,000 donations' poured in from people across the country since the start of the first special session called by Governor Greg Abbott. The money from his political group benefited the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, the Texas House Democratic Caucus, and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus."

The purpose of this amendment is to bring caucus donations within the ambit of the bill to prevent quorum-breaking members of this body from, essentially, laundering donations to support a quorum break through the various caucuses that exist in the house. As the bill currently stands, and as amended on the floor by Chairman Shaheen, the bill prohibits individual members or specific-purpose committees, SPACs, from receiving donations to support a quorum break. However, I believe there is a gigantic loophole in this bill, and one that is well documented by the Texas Tribune and others, that the fundraising that has occurred on a national level to support the democrats' quorum break has actually been prosecuted through the various caucuses of which the individual members participate. So without this amendment, members in this body, democrat or otherwise, would be able to say, "Well, I didn't get the money to break quorum. I didn't receive it into my personal campaign account. The caucus got that money," and then would subsequently be able to be reimbursed or funded by the caucus itself. I believe this amendment closes an important loophole, and I think you should support it if you want to end quorum breaking.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Is there any substantive difference between this amendment and the last amendment you had?

LITTLE: Yes, the substance is to change the definition. If you take a look at lines 3 through 6 of this amendment, it's pulling the definition of legislative caucus in Chapter 253 of the Election Code into this bill and essentially targeting the problem that was caused here, treating a legislative caucus as if it were a special purpose committee for the purpose of supporting individual candidates. So it falls within the class that's identified by the bill.

DUTTON: And you believe that's a substantive difference?

LITTLE: Yes, I do.

DUTTON: Well, I guess the way I read it is it's kind of a distinction without a difference because, essentially, what your prior amendment did is exactly what this is doing.

LITTLE: This is different.

DUTTON: I'm not quite sure, legally, there's a difference. I'm still not understanding that. You seem to think that because you reworded it, that created an opportunity for you to make it different.

LITTLE: I don't think so, Chairman Dutton. The way that I would respond to your question is to say that the conduct that we're trying to target here is to prevent legislative caucuses, which are supposed to be vehicles of policy discussion and policy creation, from being used like specific-purpose committees that are designed to support candidates. I don't think when we created caucuses in the Texas House that we intended those to be used as financial vehicles to support quorum breaking. My understanding is they were being used to discuss and advance policy as a legislative body.

DUTTON: Well, that's your determination of what the caucus is. I would disagree with you that it's designed for the caucus; it's not designed for a member. I would support that. But it seems that what you're doing is fixing it so that it's not addressed as a caucus, but it would be addressed as a single member.

LITTLE: No. What I'm trying to do is prevent what happened here, which was the co-opting of those bodies, those caucus bodies, to support something that we do not want to happen in the future, which is quorum breaking. There is no reason that I can think of, Chairman Dutton, and perhaps I'm not creative enough; there's no reason I can think of that former Congressman O'Rourke would send $1 million to various caucuses in this body other than to encourage and financially support quorum breaking.

DUTTON: Well, it might have been just to support Beto O'Rourke.

LITTLE: I don't know how that would make sense.

DUTTON: Well, he's giving the donation, he's giving the money, but he might have been giving it so that the caucus could support him. He wouldn't be giving the money for absolutely no reason related to him, would he?

LITTLE: I'm confused by the idea. The implication of the article, and I believe this to be the case––maybe you have other facts that I'm not privy to, but what I believe to be the case is that the money was transferred to these various caucuses within the Texas House to financially support the act of breaking quorum.

DUTTON: Well, I'm not aware of that either, and I'm a member of the caucus, but nobody's told me that. Perhaps you have more information than I do.

LITTLE: Only what I read in the news. My understanding is that this money that was raised by Powered by People, which was Beto O'Rourke's PAC, was for the purpose of financially supporting those members who broke quorum. Maybe you disagree.

DUTTON: Well, I don't think that's the argument I have. I just don't agree that this amendment is much different than the amendment you had before.

LITTLE: I'm sorry you feel that way.

REPRESENTATIVE ROMERO: Representative Little, I think that you've made an assumption in believing that any donor that would give to a caucus, it's for a cause. I know the situation is in regard to quorum breaking, but where does it stop then? If you haven't acted and someone says, "I gave this money to Representative Little," is that for something in return?

LITTLE: I don't understand the distinction you're making, but I'm going to try to address the underlying question. I think your underlying question is how are we to determine the motivations of a donor who gives to a caucus, and as it relates to this specific situation, Representative Romero, I will just take Beto O'Rourke at his word when he says he gave these caucuses $1 million to support a quorum break. I don't have to inquire any further beyond that.

ROMERO: But if that person gave, or any individual regardless of whether it's any particular candidate, if any other organization, republican donors of conservative women or whatever it may be, give to your campaign and said it's because he's going to vote for this issue for me. And they did that post, this contribution; does that not lead you to believe that then you've done something improper?

LITTLE: That's a fair question. In my mind, the reason Beto O'Rourke gave the $1 million to these various caucuses is I feel like there is a very legitimate legislative bribery concern. That if Beto O'Rourke had given this money through his PAC to individual members who broke quorum, there would be very legitimate criminal questions about legislative bribery.

ROMERO: What would those criminal questions be? In order for you to prove that there had been some discussion, in order to have that, you know, you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours because that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that the caucus that I lead and that Barbara Gervin-Hawkins leads and that Gene Wu is leading somehow had conversations and said we'll do this for that, which is absolutely a lie. And I think that what you're doing here is you're not just changing law––after you weren't satisfied by way of your point of order. But what you've done is you've implied impropriety from members and their leaders of these caucuses. So I'd ask you how would you prove that? Since you said there are questions, what would those questions be?

LITTLE: Representative Romero, I don't want you to perceive that I'm impugning your motives or Representative Gervin-Hawkins. I don't know what your motives were. Frankly, I don't know whether you had any or whether you just got a wire transfer to the caucus. It doesn't matter to me. I know the motives of the donor. The donor told the entire world he was donating the money for the purpose of financially supporting quorum breaking, which, as a matter of public policy, we should discourage.

ROMERO: But, yeah, but you understand. So what's the next steps then for the caucus? Does that mean that a caucus––

LITTLE: To return the money.

ROMERO: So return the money. So if someone gives you––a donor gives you money, and they later in a social media post state that they did that for the sake of some expectation, so then does that mean that every member in this body then begins to give those dollars back because someone rose to make a comment? Do you understand where I'm coming from?

LITTLE: I do understand where you're coming from, but I don't think your hypothetical is applicable here. Here, we know the motives of Powered by People when it made these donations, and that was to financially support the quorum break.

ROMERO: And that was done at what point, Representative Little? That's my point to you. Is that just because someone makes that comment, as Chairman Dutton just said, it could have been for their own political gain? They did that; they raised their profile. And then, regardless of where they raised the money, they gave it to a caucus that's doing good work.

LITTLE: I'm puzzled by the notion that Beto O'Rourke needed to give your caucuses $1 million to raise his own profile. Perhaps you can share with me what explains that.

ROMERO: No, my point to you, Representative Little, is that you're implying impropriety from a caucus. You're talking about myself, you're talking about Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, you're talking about Gene Wu, as though that we somehow had conversations with––and that's my point. What are those questions that you would need to have answered that implied that somehow we did that for those contributions?

LITTLE: I disagree with the underlying assumption that I'm impugning your motives and I'll state it again. I have no idea what your motives were or if you even had any. And I will say the question of what your motives were and whether you had any is irrelevant to me. I have a donor stating on the record––

ROMERO: So you help me understand the purpose of your amendment then so that––maybe I'm the one that's confused here. Are you not describing here the caucuses? Are you going after the donor? Are you saying then that no donor can ever give credit to someone that breaks quorum? Tell me what your amendment does in your words, sir.

LITTLE: Yep, I'll do exactly that. The purpose of the underlying bill is to prevent members and specific-purpose committees and, with my amendment, prevent legislative caucuses that are acting like specific-purpose committees from receiving money to support or assist a quorum break. And I will say that it is irrelevant to me, and I hope to every member in here, what your motives or the motives of the caucus were in receiving the money. It is a stated purpose at a national level by this PAC that the purpose was to financially support a quorum break. I don't think that that's a good thing. Now, we could have a broader discussion about whether there should be any fundraising during a special session. I believe Representative Bucy is carrying that amendment, which I am happy to support. I think, as a matter of law, no member or any entity assisting a member should be financially supporting a quorum break, period.

ROMERO: Okay, so now to your point. No member or no entity supporting a member, so then now you said those questions that are going to have to be answered. How do you prove that that entity supported the member throughout a quorum break? Which, in this case, they're false, and I can tell you that for a fact. There was no supporting of a caucus, those that you named here today, in stating that there was some benefit. So your intent isn't hitting its mark, Representative Little. And that's my point to you, is that I understand where you're going because you read a social media post, but that is not a fact. So my question is, in your questions that you would present, what are your questions that you would present to say here is the proof that these folks conspired? Because that's what you're stating here. Absolutely, you are.

LITTLE: I think you're misunderstanding my motive with the amendment. First of all, I'm not stating that you're conspiring. This is reporting from the Texas Tribune; it's not a social media post. These are Beto O'Rourke's own words about the purposes of his donation. I don't know what you and MALC are doing with the money. I don't even know who decides what to do with the money. I don't know if you'll give it to a member down the road or if you already have, and I will simply say for this body, I don't care. The underlying idea is no one should be financially giving to any committee or member or caucus to financially support a quorum break at all.

ROMERO: There's the point. You're stating that it's to support a quorum break––

LITTLE: Beto O'Rourke said so himself.

ROMERO: Beto O'Rourke made that comment after, right? This was after the quorum break was over.

LITTLE: No, this was during the quorum break.

ROMERO: So any person can make a comment, and you trust that as fact? Would you not have to have a witness on a stand and have both parties at that point?

LITTLE: The wonderful thing about this particular example is we've got fact findings and a temporary restraining order in Tarrant County district court––

ROMERO: So what would those questions be?

LITTLE: Hold on.

ROMERO: That's my point.

LITTLE: Just a second. I'm not quite done yet. So the attorney general filed a lawsuit to enjoin just this type of conduct, and Beto O'Rourke, rather than saying you know what, maybe I need to chill out and not give money to people who are breaking quorum, he said that I'm not only going to do it, I'm going to keep doing it, I'm going to do it even harder. So we have clear statements from the donor that the purpose was to financially support a quorum break.

ROMERO: So whatever his purpose was––

LITTLE: We know his purpose.

ROMERO: Okay, that's my point. But the piece that you're missing here is, and I take this personal because you're implying that the Mexican American Legislative Caucus did that for Beto.

LITTLE: You keep saying that, but that's not true. I have no idea what your motives were.

ROMERO: Okay, so then moving forward, Representative. Are you saying that––there is an additional quorum break, what happens then? So does the caucus not raise money? Do you wait until this amendment is through? And even further––

LITTLE: Bingo.

ROMERO: So even further, you said that this is in the courts. The courts, have they made a final decision yet on whether or not a caucus or anyone can raise money based off of quorum breaking?

LITTLE: Bingo.

ROMERO: No, they haven't made a decision. There's no final decision yet. So you're creating a law; you're changing statute; now you're changing the rules prior to the ruling.

LITTLE: That's what we do here.

DUTTON: So let me be sure I understand. You're basing this off a report that you read in the newspaper regarding what Beto O'Rourke said?

LITTLE: Is that a question?

DUTTON: That's what a question is, what I just said.

LITTLE: No. I'm basing it off of what was reported in the Texas Tribune, what was reported in the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post; Beto O'Rourke himself live on video; and what occurred in Tarrant County district court.

DUTTON: Well, that was my question. You're relying on what somebody said Beto O'Rourke said. Did you hear him say that?

LITTLE: Did I hear it personally?

DUTTON: Did you hear Beto O'Rourke say that?

LITTLE: On video, yeah.

DUTTON: Okay. So if Beto O'Rourke had said this was to get your shoes shined, would that have made a difference?

LITTLE: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

DUTTON: Well, my question is this. You're saying what Beto O'Rourke said causes this amendment to be needed.

LITTLE: This is very simple. I'm taking him at his word. He had no reason to lie. I think he was telling the truth.

DUTTON: I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm asking a question. If Beto O'Rourke had said he had done this for some other purpose other than the one which you heard, would that fit under your amendment?

LITTLE: I don't think it would be conclusive. For example, if Beto O'Rourke had donated $1 million to all these various caucuses and said, "I'm not doing this to help them break quorum; I'm doing this because I'm really interested in supporting their policy initiatives." I think I might be a little bit wary of that.

DUTTON: Well, you're adding the caveat that he said to break quorum. Suppose he just said, "I'm submitting this to the Texas Legislative Black Caucus because I think they're a fine organization," period?

LITTLE: I would perhaps have some big questions about the timing, and I'm sure you would too.

DUTTON: Why? You don't think it's a fine organization or something?

LITTLE: I think you've got a fantastic organization.

DUTTON: Okay, but what would be the challenge to him saying that?

LITTLE: Reality.

DUTTON: Since you're relying on what he said this time?

LITTLE: Reality.

DUTTON: Yes.

LITTLE: That would be the challenge.

DUTTON: That would be what?

LITTLE: The timing of reality of what's going on around us. I think we' have some pretty big questions about that. So I can resolve any type of complexity or confusion that we have around this amendment. The purpose is to prevent caucuses who support members breaking quorum from raising money during a special session or any other kind of session for that matter. Don't financially support breaking quorum, period.

DUTTON: Well, the problem with that is this: A quorum is a requirement in the Constitution. Do you understand that?

LITTLE: There is a metric for it in the Constitution in Article III.

DUTTON: Right, yes. And so that's specified in Article III, correct?

LITTLE: Yes, sir.

DUTTON: So it's a legally engaged-in rule that says you've got to have a quorum. Let me ask you, as a lawyer, your opinion. Why do you think that's in there?

LITTLE: So we know how many people we need to transact business.

DUTTON: So you know how many what?

LITTLE: So we know how many people we need to transact business.

DUTTON: And why is that in there in the first place, though? Why couldn't you just say we don't need a quorum?

LITTLE: Because the drafters needed to pick a number. They happened to use the Tennessee standard because our constitution was modeled off it for the State of Texas. There are many other states, I believe 47 of them, something like that, that don't require a two-thirds number to support a quorum. Obviously, one of the things we'd like to see here is have a majority-supported quorum here in the Texas House, but that's not today.

DUTTON: Why have a quorum at all?

LITTLE: Excuse me?

DUTTON: Why have a quorum at all?

LITTLE: So that we have a sufficient number of members to transact business.

DUTTON: And to not have a sufficient number to transact business is what do you think?

LITTLE: The absence of a quorum.

DUTTON: Yes. Is that legal?

LITTLE: Is what legal?

DUTTON: Absence of a quorum. Is that contemplated in the Constitution?

LITTLE: What is contemplated in the Constitution is that there be a certain number of members present in order to transact business as a legislative body.

DUTTON: And if you don't have that number, you can't transact business, correct?

LITTLE: That's my understanding, yes.

DUTTON: So the Constitution requires that you have a quorum, and if you don't, it says you can't do anything.

[Representative Dutton raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 5 under Rule 11, Section 2, of the House Rules on the grounds that the amendment is not germane. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Representative Dutton raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 5 under Article III, Section 40, of the Texas Constitution. The speaker overruled the point of order.]

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Members, this amendment, number one, includes caucuses rather than just legislators, which are individuals. It's a problem. When you have a bipartisan caucus, we're penalizing members who are not of the same party. That's a problem. Members, the burden of proof has not been laid out. So what that means is any donation, regardless of which party you are in, we can question any donor. So I would say to my republican colleagues, when someone gives you $3 million, when someone gives you $63,000, or someone gives you $6 million, it could be under question because this amendment does not clearly outline the burden of proof. Now, I heard the amendment author say that he read it in the Tribune. Is that a factual burden of proof? Now, I'm not a lawyer, but one thing I do know is when you start accusing people of something, you need to have the facts. And so you need a legitimate, factual resource versus that I read it on TikTok or Instagram or I read it in a paper, who may not have all the facts. So as we're looking at this amendment, let's make sure we understand the broad implications. So there's no burden of proof, there's no process, and guess what? That means that anybody can question any allegation of a donation. With that, members, I would say let's vote against this amendment to the amendment. That's the right thing to do.

[Amendment No. 5 was adopted by Record No. 145.]

[Representative Martinez Fischer raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 1 under Article III, Section 40, of the Texas Constitution on the grounds that the subject matter of the amendment is not included in the field of legislation designated by the governor's proclamation. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Amendment No. 6 by Bucy was laid before the house.]

BUCY: This amendment would remove the limit of $221, referred to in the bill as the daily per diem amount, and replace it with $2 million, better known as Dan Patrick's pay-to-play donation from Defend Texas Liberty PAC. That's not a random number; it's the exact size of the largest single dollar donation the lieutenant pocketed during the Paxton impeachment trial. If we're going to clamp down on legislators for simply exercising their constitutional right, then surely we should be just and transparent––

CHAIR (Harris in the chair): The members will refrain from engaging in personalities during debate.

BUCY: If we're going to clamp down on legislators for simply exercising their constitutional right, then surely we should be just as transparent about the lieutenant governor's donation when the senate was in the middle of one of the most consequential proceedings in Texas history. It's hard to take seriously the outrage over a member getting donations when they are exercising their constitutional rights, meanwhile the presiding officer of the impeachment is cashing multimillion-dollar checks at the same time he is holding the gavel. That looks less like leadership and more like setting a play-to-pay price tag on justice. And with that said, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the Dan Patrick amendment.

SHAHEEN: Members, this obviously defeats the purpose of the legislation, so I would ask you to vote against the amendment. And the senate conducted its business.

BUCY: If it's okay to raise $2 million when you're in the middle of an impeachment trial, that sets the threshold. That says the standard. I will stand corrected if any of you spoke out against that at the time. I don't remember it. Let's be consistent. We're following the lieutenant governor's model here, and that's why I picked this number. It's not a random number, it's not a made-up number, it is a number that he accepted.

[Amendment No. 6 failed of adoption by Record No. 146.]

[Amendment No. 7 by Goodwin was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN: This amendment makes sure the rules we put in place are applied fairly. HB 18 sets a $5,000 penalty for members who accept contributions during a quorum break. My amendment applies that same penalty to anyone who knowingly makes a false allegation under this bill. HB 18 allows members to call up the speaker and report what they think is an absence, kicking off an investigation, a court case, and a lot more. My amendment says if you abuse the system, you face the same penalty because rules only work when they're applied fairly to everyone. By holding everyone to the same standard, we protect the integrity of this process. If members and donors are subject to fines for violations, then individuals who abuse the complaint system should be too.

SHAHEEN: Members, there is sufficient due process in this piece of legislation already. Maybe we revisit this during the regular session in 2027 and see if it can apply broader than just this bill. I would ask you to vote against it.

GOODWIN: Members, if somebody is going to accuse another member of something this serious, I think that we need to make sure that we aren't allowing it to be done lightly or indiscriminately and cause a lot of time and trouble and money to be spent on a false allegation. I mean, I just think about the fact that people travel out of state. One member might accuse another when it's not a valid accusation, so therefore, I think anyone who makes the accusation should have cause to make sure that they aren't doing this falsely, and the $5,000 penalty should apply if they are.

[Amendment No. 7 failed of adoption by Record No. 147.]

[Amendment No. 8 by Bucy and Little was laid before the house.]

[Representative Vasut raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 8 under Rule 11, Section 2, of the House Rules on the grounds that the amendment is not germane. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Amendment No. 8 was withdrawn.]

SHAHEEN: I close and encourage you to vote in favor of HB 18.

[Amendment No. 1, as amended, was adopted by Record No. 148.]

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: The right to peacefully dissent is a founding principle of our nation. In the centuries since, Americans have exercised this right in order to challenge our country's leaders to live up to the promise of America. As a country, we regularly celebrate and recognize the right for all Americans to use the tools available to them to shine light on what they perceive as government overreach. As a child of the 60s and 70s, I participated in peaceful protests during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. I learned at an early age the importance of using my voice, power, and privilege to stand up for what I believe is right and to stand against injustice. Now, as a legislator, denying the house quorum is one of my tools of dissent. As has been said many times today, this is also a constitutional tool that protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority and has been used by legislators since the inception of our state. Breaking quorum is utilized extremely infrequently. It's never a decision that is made lightly, nor is it a tool used to fight every legislative battle. In fact, the most recent quorum breaks in 1979, 2003, 2021, and 2025 were specifically about disenfranchising voters. Not once has it been used to push back on other policy issues, unlike the Oregon Republicans, who broke quorum four times between 2019 and 2023 on climate change, COVID restrictions, abortions, and gender-affirming care. The only reason I have denied this body a quorum is when this chamber has chosen to use its power and privilege to silence the voices of my constituents. As someone who believes I am a person of integrity, I simply cannot stand by and let that happen.

HB 18 seeks to punish legislators for fighting for their constituents and for using a constitutionally protected tool to do so. The fact is I have an overwhelming majority of my constituents write to me in support of the quorum break. Many even said they would support my decision to stay out as long as I thought was necessary to defeat the redistricting bill. And yes, I'm sure that there's a handful of constituents that did not support the break, just like I'm sure that many of you heard from both sides during the break. But that's the point. We each have our right and our responsibility to represent our districts, and it is the job of the voters to hold us accountable. As much as it may frustrate you, I do not answer to the people in this room; I answer to the people of House District 48, and if they are unhappy with how I am representing them, then they have the right to vote me out of office. But here we are, once again trying to sidestep––

Once again I will try to continue what I came here to say. I don't know if it's providential that my voice was silenced, but I will try to complete my statement before it goes off again. Doing what I could to defeat a redistricting map that divided my community and silenced my constituents is why I was elected. I have always said our vote is our voice and our voice is our power, and I believe that statement to my very core. Protecting the voice of my constituents is what guided my decision to break quorum, and it is why I know I did the right thing by doing so. Those of you who are angered and frustrated that legislative plans were delayed by a couple of weeks have been blinded by the fact that HB 18 undermines the Constitution and, in doing so, will intimidate future legislators––and one day that minority will certainly be republicans––from taking bold action necessary to stop legislation imposed by the majority that they believe threatens their constituents. It is wrong; it is shortsighted. My vote against this bill today will be made with the same clarity that guided my decision to break quorum. I will never support legislation that in one way or another silences the voices of dissent. Doing so would go against my truth and against my oath to serve the Texans that I was elected to represent. Please vote no on HB 18.

REPRESENTATIVE V. PEREZ: Members, HB 18 is being peddled as a bill about ethics and integrity, but integrity isn't what this bill delivers. What HB 18 really delivers is punishment, not for the representatives who took a stand against something that is fundamentally unjust, but for ordinary Texans who want their voices heard during a political fight. This bill punishes ordinary Texans who want to support their elected representatives in the middle of a political fight. If a nurse in my district or a teacher or a veteran sends a modest contribution to help cover basic expenses while standing up for them during a quorum break, this bill says that's a violation. That's the so-called problem this bill is trying to solve. But here's what nobody wants to talk about: These prohibitions against ordinary people and their donations are more restrictive than what special interests and lobbyists face.

Right now, a registered lobbyist can spend up to $133 per day, per legislator, for food, drinks, transportation, and lodging all without even having to disclose the legislator's name. That doesn't even include the $133 per day that can be spent on spouses, children, and their staff each. Now, let's do the math. There are more than 1,800 registered lobbyists here in Texas, but let's not even use that number. Let's just take 100 lobbyists, barely five percent of the total here in Austin. Over a two-week period, the same amount of time as those representatives took who took a stand, those 100 lobbyists could legally spend more than $16 million on the 88 republicans who stayed here at the Capitol. Add in their spouses, it jumps to $32 million. That doesn't even include staff. The average contribution by former Congressman O'Rourke's Power By People, was $32—32 bucks. But the public will never know how much is spend to wine and dine their legislators because as long as it falls under the $133 per person, per day, there's never going to be a report containing the name of the representative, their family, or their staffs. How many of the same republicans advancing this bill have racked up a $1,000 tab at a restaurant? It's over the $133 limit, but that's no problem. Get 10 lobbyists, each lobbyist pays 100 bucks, that covers the $1000 tab. Each lobbyist is under the $133 limit and the name of the representative is forever shielded from the public.

So let's step back. HB 18 punishes a teacher who makes a modest donation to support her representative, but it does absolutely nothing about the tens of millions of dollars in lobbyists wining and dining happening here every single night. Does that sound like integrity to you, or does it sound like selective punishment, retaliation against members who took a stand, exercising a constitutional tactic, while corporate levels of influence in this chamber are left untouched? This bill doesn't bring members back; it doesn't restore quorum. All it does is punish and silence the voices of their constituents. So let's be clear, HB 18 doesn't stop financial abuse, it doesn't make anything more ethical. The only outside influence it blocks is ordinary people, the very constituents we serve, cutting off one more way they can express their views. It doesn't create integrity; it creates a two-tier system of influence: one where ordinary Texans are silenced and another where lobbyists can still wine and dine lawmakers by the millions. If we're serious about integrity, get real. This bill doesn't do any of that, but if the goal is retaliation, if the goal is to scapegoat this issue to keep ordinary Texans from supporting their representatives, then HB 18 does exactly that. This bill silences the nurse, the teacher, the veteran while leaving the 1,800 lobbyists with the ability to spend millions every single day, without a single mention of the representative's name. So for the sake of ordinary Texans, for the nurse, for the teacher, and the veterans whose voices should matter as much as those 1,800 lobbyists, I urge you to vote no on HB 18.

HAYES: I hear that the Constitution allows people to flee the state. I'd like to read three provisions of the Constitution. The first is under Article XVI, Section 1, our oath of office. It says, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of state representative of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, so help me God." And that was written in 1876 when we adopted our Constitution. The oath is particularly important because it requires us to faithfully execute our duties and to follow the Constitution and laws. Second provision of the Constitution, Article III, Section 5, "Meetings; Order of Business. The legislature shall meet every two years at such time as may be provided by law and at other times when convened by the governor." Again, 1876. That language applies both to the regular and special sessions. Shall means mandatory. Under the Texas Code Construction Act, shall imposes a duty. Put in other words, the duty is not discretionary. Meet means the act of being assembled to conduct the business. As the Constitution is written, attendance is required. Go to the third section of the Constitution. I want to bring to your attention. Article III, Section 10, reads, "Quorum; Adjournments From Day to Day; Compelling Attendance. Two-thirds of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide." Again, 1876.

Fleeing the state with the objective of denying a quorum is the perfect example of absence without leave. Under the minority party's view, a minority group and one chamber could command the powers of fellow members and of the sister chamber and neutralize every function of state government, preventing even the passage of the one thing we are required to do under the Constitution, that is, to pass the annual budget. It makes no sense to say an individual has a right to engage in conduct that the Constitution subjects to punishment. As with all laws and rules, behavior for which there is a penalty is unacceptable. Unacceptable behavior results in a penalty. Being absent without leave is unacceptable behavior.

The house not only has the inherent but the expressed right to set forth and discipline—to set forth and establish repercussions for not attending and discipline its members. We know this, guys. The imposition of fines or assessment of costs has not served as a deterrent to motivation for members to not be absent without leave. Many laughed and scoffed at the Constitution and said they would do it again. The work of representing constituents during session does not consist of being an absentee legacy media personality or social media influencer. Additional consequences must be taken by this house. The Constitution plainly requires attendance, but if you believe that it does not, that is, that it establishes a minority faction to quorum break––what else do we know about the Constitution? It likewise authorizes quorum forcing by the remaining members. Members, I encourage you to vote in favor of the bill.

DUTTON: I listened carefully to your statement, and much of it was constitutional-based. Is that correct?

HAYES: Yes, sir.

DUTTON: And you will admit that the quorum is constitutionally based, right?

HAYES: Correct.

DUTTON: And the reason for—there could be two reasons for the quorum. Do you understand that? There can be two reasons for the quorum requirement.

HAYES: There's probably more than two, but which two are you thinking of?

DUTTON: It is. Well, it can be, one, to suggest how many members––somebody said it earlier about how many members we need to conduct business.

HAYES: Yes, the minimum number required to conduct business.

DUTTON: And the other, though, is what I consider to be, essentially, what all rules are for. We have rules, generally, to protect the minority. Would you agree with that?

HAYES: Some rules do protect the minority; some protect the majority.

DUTTON: All right. I don't know one that protects the majority, but protecting a minority under the quorum requirements would give the minority the opportunity to deny a quorum. Would you not agree that would be constitutional?

HAYES: It would not be constitutional. The way I read it, the Constitution says you shall meet. The word "shall" is mandatory; it's not discretionary. We even defined the word "shall" in the Code Construction Act and it says it is a duty imposed upon the member.

DUTTON: That's right. So it says the legislature shall meet—

HAYES: And to meet, you must have the minimum number of people required to conduct business.

DUTTON: Well, that's the point I was going to ask you about because the two would seem to clash with each other, wouldn't it?

HAYES: Not at all.

DUTTON: If I—well, then you don't need quorum requirements, then, do you? You wouldn't need it. All you need is the provision that says the legislature shall meet, and you wouldn't need a quorum requirement at all.

HAYES: Well, you want it. It's one of the checks and balances as far as we want a minimum number of people to conduct business. People could be sick, and therefore, you don't want a minority of the people making or passing the bills and laws.

DUTTON: If I follow your logic—

HAYES: Excuse me, I am not through with my answer. It would be the same in any organization, whether it's a Kiwanis club or the chamber or any other—

DUTTON: I got that, Mr. Hayes, I got it. What I don't think you get, though, is the fact that if the Constitution says if you're relying on the "shall meet" to be absolutely conclusive, then you wouldn't need quorum requirements.

HAYES: I would respectfully, again, disagree.

DUTTON: Why?

HAYES: Say we had an ice storm outside and people could not get here. Again, we don't want a minority of the body taking and passing bills and laws. There's all kinds of reasons.

DUTTON: But if it says shall meet—

HAYES: If a hurricane––could have been a flood in the Hill Country, you want the commissioners court in that particular county to have a quorum to conduct business.

DUTTON: So you're making an excuse to the Constitution for everything except what the Constitution prescribes? Because you're talking about ice storms, but the Constitution doesn't talk about ice storms.

HAYES: No, it just says you have to have the minimum number of people to conduct business.

DUTTON: That's exactly my point. It says you shall meet. But what I'm talking about is the Constitution prescribes the quorum requirements, and that's there for a reason. That's not there for anything. Let me ask you this: We don't do over here like the senate does where we have a filibuster. Would you think a filibuster in the senate was illegal?

HAYES: The member is not advised.

DUTTON: Well, let me see if I can do it this way. The quorum is there so that we can conduct business. I think you agree to that, right?

HAYES: Yes, sir.

DUTTON: And it specifies a number, correct?

HAYES: It does.

DUTTON: And that number means that if you have less than that number, what happens?

HAYES: You're not able to conduct business.

DUTTON: Well, but the House Rules also go a little bit further, don't they?

HAYES: They do. They provide that the minority may then compel attendance.

DUTTON: That's right. So again, that is, in my opinion, case closed about whether or not there is a constitutional link to breaking a quorum because that's why you have rules to try to get members back.

HAYES: I think the Constitution sets a clear standard. It says if people fall short and don't comply with the standard, then their attendance may be compelled, and, as we know, arrest warrants can be issued and people can be brought back to the chamber. Attendance is required. It is not optional.

DUTTON: Right. Maybe I'm not getting it, or you're not getting it, but, again, if that was all that was necessary, you wouldn't need quorum requirements.

HAYES: You do not want too small a number passing bills. You want a sufficient number. In Texas, for some reason, we've chosen two-thirds. We're only one of four states that require two-thirds. The other 46 require a majority. That's why we don't hear a lot about quorum breaking in other states.

SHAHEEN: Members, this legislation only penalizes those who interfere with our legislative process.

DUTTON: Mr. Shaheen, I'm just trying to understand the bill totally. So if members break the quorum and––it says on line 18, page 1, "a person may not knowingly make political contributions," and it says some other language, "or assist an absent member of the legislature."

SHAHEEN: Are you talking about page 2 or page 1?

DUTTON: I'm on page 1. I have the original bill.

SHAHEEN: Page 1 is the definition for "impeding absence." It might be page 2. What section are you talking about?

DUTTON: I was just reading; it says, "Restrictions On Contribution During Legislator's Absence." Let me ask this while I'm at it, apparently, the way the bill is structured and according to the caption, if members break a quorum by not leaving the state, this bill would not apply would it?

SHAHEEN: If they stay within the state, the punishment doesn't apply.

DUTTON: I'm sorry?

SHAHEEN: If they stay within the state, the punishment doesn't apply. It's if they leave the state.

DUTTON: This bill wouldn't apply to members who broke—

SHAHEEN: Because you have other provisions with respect to the sergeant-at-arms, civil warrants.

DUTTON: Right, I understand all that. But I just want to be sure that this only applies if members happen to go outside the state?

SHAHEEN: Right, because the enforcement ability of the State of Texas drops when an individual goes outside the state.

DUTTON: And would that be a fact issue in a hearing or something where whether or not the member went out of state or the member stayed in the state?

SHAHEEN: It would be part of the statement of fact that would be made to the president of the senate or to the speaker of the house.

DUTTON: Okay. And the fines can be up to $5,000 according to your bill, right?

SHAHEEN: If you accept a contribution illegally. Yes, sir.

DUTTON: Right. It says up to $5,000. Is there somebody who would decide whether that was $10 or $5 or $5,000?

SHAHEEN: That respective house.

DUTTON: That what?

SHAHEEN: The respective house.

DUTTON: The house?

SHAHEEN: The respective house. The respective chamber.

DUTTON: I'm sorry, I can barely hear you.

SHAHEEN: The respective chamber. The legislation says house. That's the legal term, but it's in reference to both the chambers—the senate and the house.

DUTTON: There was another question I had. This bill applies to the senate and the house, right?

SHAHEEN: Yes, sir.

DUTTON: But the $5,000––the house standing in full committee as a committee of the house would actually decide the punishment?

SHAHEEN: Yes, sir. Just like we do with all of our other enforcement and our other rules.

DUTTON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

SHAHEEN: Just like we do with our other rules and other enforcements.

DUTTON: Okay. So again, I guess I'll close with this. This bill doesn't prohibit quorums; it just prohibits quorum busting for out-of-state?

SHAHEEN: It addresses when individuals break quorum and they gain financially from the quorum break and raise money. That's what this bill addresses.

DUTTON: But it only applies, though, if the quorum busters go out-of-state?

SHAHEEN: That's correct.

DUTTON: Okay.

SHAHEEN: Move passage.

[HB 18, as amended, was passed to engrossment by Record No. 149.]