ELEVENTH DAY (CONTINUED) --- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

The house met at 6 p.m. and was called to order by the speaker.

The roll of the house was called and a quorum was announced present (Record 154).

Present — Mr. Speaker(C); Alders; Allen; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Cook; Cortez; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hernandez; Hickland; Hinojosa; Holt; Hopper; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Johnson; Jones, J.; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; Martinez; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Money; Moody; Morales, E.; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Ordaz; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Plesa; Raymond; Richardson; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Simmons; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Turner; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Dean; Garcia, L.; Martinez Fischer; Morales Shaw.

Absent — Campos; Davis, Y.; Garcia, J.; González, J.; Guerra; Jones, V.; Manuel; Morales, C.; Reynolds; Rodríguez Ramos.

The invocation was offered by Ferman Carpenter, chaplain, Texas Department of Public Safety, Round Rock.

The chair recognized Representative McQueeney who led the house in the pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas flags.

The following members were granted leaves of absence for today because of illness:

Dean on motion of Darby.

L. Garcia on motion of M. Perez.

The following member was granted leave of absence for today because of important business:

Martinez Fischer on motion of Raymond.

Notice was given at this time that the speaker had signed bills and resolutions in the presence of the house (see the addendum to the daily journal, Signed by the Speaker, House List No. 3).

Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 9(f), of the House Rules, the chair announced the introduction of HR 174, suspending the limitations on the conferees for SB 5.

(Harris in the chair)

The following member was granted leave of absence for the remainder of today because of illness:

E. Morales on motion of Rosenthal.

The following member was granted leave of absence for today because of important business:

V. Jones on motion of Ward Johnson.

(Manuel now present)

Representative Noble moved to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time HR 157.

The motion prevailed.

The following resolution was laid before the house:

HR 157, In memory of former state representative Jodie Anne Laubenberg.

The chair recognized Representative Noble who addressed the house, speaking as follows:

A life made rich through meaningful service drew to a close with the passing of former state representative Jodie Anne Laubenberg on September 1, 2025, at the age of 68. A sixth-generation Texan, Jodie was born on April 20, 1957. She graduated from The University of Texas at Austin. She worked in the computer industry before concluding her career to focus on her home and family. She shared a rewarding marriage with Bob, and she was a devoted mother to their two children, David and Liz.

Jodie began her public service as a member of the Parker City Council, and in 2002, she was elected to the first of eight terms in this body. Over the course of her amazing tenure, she represented House District 89, and she distinguished herself through her membership on numerous legislative committees, including more than a decade of service on the Public Health Committee, which she chaired for two legislative sessions. She also served as the chair of Elections Committee during the 84th and 85th Legislatures.

A stalwart champion of conservative values, Representative Laubenberg authored the Woman's Health and Preborn Pain Act. She also played an instrumental role in supporting legislation on issues such as tort reform, responsible budget management, and private property rights.

Jodie was a dear friend and mentor and example to me of grace, grit, and service. I loved having her as my state representative. I came down here on a regular basis to share my opinions on bills and support and encourage her as she battled for Texas. I sat right there in the gallery and watched her more times than I can count. It was a surprise to me when she came to my house and told me that she was running for the last time and that I was going to run for her seat, so get ready. And I told her that I would need to pray about it. She told me she already had and that I was going to run. That was Jodie. My office is full of things that Jodie passed on to me––I cherish those items––but she did have a caveat. I could have the microwave, TV, fridge, flags, and pictures if I gave a sizable donation to her favorite pet rescue. And I didn't mind it at all because I shared that love of pets with her. Since she retired, she and Bob added grandkids to the family––so she was living her best life. On the day I was sworn in to her seat, she called me and said, "I am so happy for you, and I am so happy for me." She loved Jesus and is at home with him. So today, sweet Jodie, we are so happy for you. And it is with great sadness that today we celebrate her life, her love, her service, and her legacy.

HR 157 was unanimously adopted by a rising vote.

On motion of Representative Craddick, the names of all the members of the house were added to HR 157 as signers thereof.

The following member was granted leave of absence for today because of illness:

Guerra on motion of Barry.

Representative Leach moved to print remarks by Representative Noble on HR 157.

The motion prevailed.

(J. González now present)

The chair recognized Representative Schatzline who addressed the house, speaking as follows:

Members, today it's with great heartbreak that we pause to honor and remember the life of an extraordinary young woman, Ava Renee Moore. Ava was just 18 years old when her life was tragically cut short in an accident this past May. She was a beloved daughter, a sister, a teammate, and a friend whose impact has and will continue to reach far beyond her years. Ava was formerly a student at Timber Creek High School, a school within my district––House District 93. She excelled in every arena that she entered, whether leading her high school basketball team as captain, competing on the varsity golf team, or continuing her athletic career at the U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School, where she helped her team remain undefeated. She was gifted not only athletically but also academically with a deep love for languages, art, literature, and international relations. Those who knew her describe her as witty, humble, deeply kind, and someone who encouraged others to rise to their best.

On November 7 of this year, her school and community are honoring her memory by retiring her jersey and creating a scholarship in her name. And today, we as the Texas House, join them in that tribute, recognizing November 7, 2025, as Ava Moore Day in honor of her legacy. On behalf of this body, we extend our deepest condolences to Ava's parents and her brother, who loved her deeply. I cannot imagine. As you're watching today, we just want to tell you that we love you, we're praying for you, and we're so incredibly sorry, and we're praying that the Lord would give peace that passes understanding to walk with you in this season. Though her time was brief with us, her light continues to shine in the lives that she touched. Members, I ask you to join me in adopting this resolution in honoring the life and legacy of Ava Moore.

Representative Kerwin moved to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time HR 153.

The motion prevailed.

The following resolution was laid before the house:

HR 153, In memory of John Michael Percifield Sr. of Alvarado.

The chair recognized Representative Kerwin who addressed the house, speaking as follows:

It is my honor tonight to present a resolution in the memory of Mr. John Michael Percifield Sr. A beloved and respected civic leader in Alvarado, Johnson County, passed away on August 23 at the age of 84. Whereas, born in Fort Worth on May 23, 1941, John Percifield was a fifth-generation resident of Alvarado and a descendant of the McLeroy, Harris, Clayton, and Senter pioneer families. He graduated from Alvarado High School in 1959 and went on to attend Texas A&M University, where he was a proud member of the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. After earning his degree, he returned to Alvarado and married the former Mary Schwartz, with whom he shared 61 years of love and companionship and raised two sons, Michael and Paul.

And whereas, Mr. Percifield dedicated his life to education and public service; in addition to teaching at Cleburne High School for a decade, he served multiple terms on the Alvarado Independent School District Board of Trustees and distinguished himself through his work as an assistant superintendent, business manager, and teacher in Alvarado ISD until his retirement in 1997.

Whereas, deeply committed to civic leadership, Mr. Percifield contributed greatly to his community through service to the Johnson County MHMR board, the Bethany Water Supply Corporation, the Johnson County Antique Tractor Club, the Alvarado Economic Development Board, the Johnson County Historical Commission, and the Glenwood Cemetery Association, where he spearheaded the creation of the veterans memorial; moreover, he played an instrumental role in preserving local history by restoring Alvarado's original 1942 Ford fire truck.

Whereas, Mr. Percifield was a lifelong member of the First United Methodist Church Alvarado, where he served more than 40 years as chair of the board of trustees and was an enthusiastic supporter of Boy Scouts of America programs; in recognition of his many contributions to his fellow residents, he was honored as Alvaradoan of the Year by the Alvarado Chamber of Commerce in 2013; he was also inducted into the Alvarado ISD Hall of Excellence in 2017 and named Citizen of the Year by the City of Alvarado in 2023.

Whereas, remembered for his sense of humor, storytelling, generosity, and devotion to his family, John Percifield embodied the highest ideals of citizenship, and although he will be deeply missed, he has left behind a legacy that will continue to resonate in the community he loved and the countless lives he touched.

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representative of the 89th Texas Legislature, Second Called Session, hereby pay tribute to the life of John Michael Percifield Sr. and extend heartfelt sympathy to the members of his family: to his wife, Mary; to his sons, Michael and his wife, Teresa, and Paul Percifield and his wife, Jennifer; to his grandchildren, Seth and his wife, Brittney, Emilie Campbell and her husband, Clayton, Paul Percifield Jr. and his wife, Lodie, Camden Percifield, Everett Percifield, and Chloe Percifield; to his great-granchildren, Riley and Grayson Rosser and Brooks Campbell; and to his many other relatives.

Be it further resolved, that an official copy of this resolution be prepared for his family. And on behalf of the State of Texas in the House of Representatives and Johnson County and your wonderful city of Alvarado, thank you for sharing this wonderful man with us.

HR 153 was unanimously adopted by a rising vote.

On motion of Representative Money, the names of all the members of the house were added to HR 153 as signers thereof.

Representative McQueeney moved to print remarks by Representative Schatzline on HR 176 and Representative Kerwin on HR 153.

The motion prevailed.

The following members were granted leaves of absence for today because of important business:

Y. Davis on motion of Ward Johnson.

Reynolds on motion of Ward Johnson.

Representative Geren moved to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time HR 177.

The motion prevailed.

The following resolution was laid before the house:

HR 177, Creating a general investigating committee on disaster response.

HR 177 was adopted by (Record 155): 132 Yeas, 0 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Allen; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Cook; Cortez; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris(C); Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hernandez; Hickland; Hinojosa; Holt; Hopper; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Johnson; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; Manuel; Martinez; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Money; Moody; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Raymond; Richardson; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Simmons; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Turner; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker.

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Campos; Garcia, J.; Jones, J.; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Plesa; Rodríguez Ramos.

(Patterson in the chair)

The following congratulatory resolutions were laid before the house:

HCR 20 (by Craddick), Commemorating the 75th anniversary of St. Ann's Catholic School in Midland.

HR 131 (by Guillen), Congratulating Alicia Canales Gonzalez of Hebbronville on her 100th birthday.

HR 133 (by Guillen), Congratulating Albino Bazan Jr. of La Casita on his 100th birthday.

HR 135 (by Guillen), Commemorating the dedication of the Official Texas Historical Marker for Rancho de Pataguilla.

HR 136 (by Guillen), Commemorating the 60th annual Freer Rattlesnake Round Up barbecue cook-off.

HR 137 (by Guillen), Commemorating the Summer Under the Stars Block Party & BBQ Cook-Off.

HR 144 (by V. Perez), Congratulating Manuel Delgadillo of Del Valle High School on his selection as the 2025-2026 Secondary Teacher of the Year in Ysleta ISD.

HR 145 (by V. Perez), Congratulating Gladis Hinojos of Riverside Elementary School on her selection as the 2025-2026 Elementary Teacher of the Year in Ysleta ISD.

HR 146 (by Hunter), Recognizing April 8, 2026, as Texas Dance Day.

HR 149 (by Moody), Commemorating the 100th anniversary of Cathedral High School in El Paso.

HR 150 (by Flores), Commemorating the 45th anniversary of Austin Regional Clinic.

HR 151 (by Buckley), Honoring the Rotary Club of Killeen Heights on the occasion of its 40th anniversary in 2025.

HR 152 (by Buckley), Commemorating the 7th annual Bell County Area Go Texan BBQ Cook-off in Belton.

HR 158 (by Dyson), Commemorating the 30th anniversary of Scotty's House Brazos Valley Child Advocacy Center in Bryan.

HR 161 (by Olcott), Honoring the first responders, government officials, volunteers, and donors who have assisted in the recovery from the May 2025 tornado in Gordon.

HR 162 (by Moody), Commending Judge Niland for his service as a legislative aide in the office of Speaker Pro Tempore Joe Moody.

HR 163 (by Flores), Commemorating the 45th anniversary of Juan in a Million in Austin.

HR 165 (by Curry), Honoring Scottie James Curry on her first birthday.

HR 166 (by Lujan), Commemorating the 65th anniversary of the incorporation of Universal City.

HR 168 (by Martinez Fischer), Honoring El Pastor Es Mi Señor in San Antonio.

HR 169 (by Gámez), Commemorating the 25th anniversary of Dr. Ruben Gallegos Elementary School in Brownsville ISD.

HR 170 (by Zwiener), Commemorating the grand opening of the new Hays County Food Bank headquarters in San Marcos.

HR 175 (by Bucy), Recognizing HEARD for its efforts to assist flood victims in Williamson County.

HR 178 (by Dyson), Congratulating Justin and Amy Farrell of Bryan on the birth of their daughter, Maeve Faye Farrell.

The resolutions were adopted.

The following memorial resolutions were laid before the house:

HR 127 (by Hull), In memory of Lainey Anne Landry of Houston.

HR 129 (by Howard), In memory of Abby Lynn Pohl of Austin.

HR 130 (by Howard), In memory of Linnie Anne McCown of Austin.

HR 132 (by Guillen), In memory of Luis V. Allala Jr. of Cotulla.

HR 134 (by Guillen), In memory of William "Bill" Franklin Hunt of Stockdale.

HR 138 (by Guillen), In memory of Arturo M. Garza of Rio Grande City.

HR 139 (by Guillen), In memory of Alejandro "Alex" Lopez Jr. of San Diego.

HR 140 (by Guillen), In memory of Roldan Montalvo Jr. of Hebbronville.

HR 141 (by Johnson), In memory of Ellen Elizabeth Getten of Houston.

HR 142 (by Johnson), In memory of Anna Margaret Bellows of Houston.

HR 143 (by Phelan), In memory of Mary Grace Baker of Beaumont.

HR 153 was previously adopted.

HR 154 (by Harless), In memory of Nelda Sue Hardie Napp of Houston.

HR 155 (by Flores), In memory of John R. "Johnny" Gonzales of Manor.

HR 156 (by Curry), In memory of John, Julia, Jack, and James Burgess of Liberty.

HR 159 (by Flores), In memory of Susan Gay Morrison of Austin.

HR 160 (by Canales), In memory of Sabrina Walker-Hernandez of Edinburg.

HR 164 (by Guillen), In memory of David Homer Guerra of McAllen.

HR 167 (by Martinez Fischer), In memory of Amparo Hurtado Ortiz of San Antonio.

HR 172 (by Muñoz), In memory of Alejandro Rodriguez IV.

HR 173 (by Leach), In memory of Jennifer Lynn Young Cook of Plano.

HR 176 (by Schatzline), In memory of Ava Renee Moore and recognizing November 7, 2025, as Ava Moore Day.

The resolutions were unanimously adopted by a rising vote.

(Harris in the chair)

The following member was granted leave of absence for the remainder of today because of important business:

J. Jones on motion of Ward Johnson.

Representative Buckley called up with senate amendments for consideration at this time,

HB 8, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions and sanctions under the public school accountability system, a grant program for school district local accountability plans, and actions challenging Texas Education Agency decisions related to public school accountability.

REPRESENTATIVE BUCKLEY: Members, first I'd like to thank the 82 members that supported this bill, as amended by the house, as it left the floor several days ago.

Representative Gámez raised a point of order against further consideration of HB 8 under Rule 8, Section 3, of the House Rules and under Article III, Section 40, of the Texas Constitution on the grounds that the bill contains more than one subject and that the subject matter of the bill is not included in the field of legislation designated by the governor's proclamation. The point of order was withdrawn.

BUCKLEY: Again, I want to thank the 82 members that supported this bill, as amended by this house, as it left the floor several days ago. Today, it returns with senate amendments, and it still eliminates the STAAR. I'd like to explain those amendments now.

First, the senate has created a fail-safe clause for the implementation of our three-year growth measure. This is actually something that was in our bill as filed. The creation of the three-year indicator is statutorily required. Again, it's statutorily required, and TEA is required to brief this legislature and the Accountability Advisory Committee on that indicator's impact on A-F ratings in March of 2029. This fail-safe allows an opportunity for the legislature to course correct if a new indicator negatively impacts A-F ratings compared to current methodology. However, current growth measures would remain in place should the three-year measure be shown to have a negative impact on our schools. So this is what our districts have asked for. Members, I will refer you to the Education Code, Section 39.034, paragraph A. A measure to improve student achievement, which describes a year-over-year growth, remains in statute, while an antiquated predictive measure is repealed. Remember, this bill moves to a new form of measuring growth. Instead of having to make a prediction—what happens from the end of the year to the next end of the year—this bill will provide three points to check in: a beginning-of-the-year, middle-of-the-year, and an end-of-the-year so that we know our students are growing throughout the school year.

Second, the senate restores the automatic rescore provision for writing samples, lessening the burden on schools in submitting for rescores. The resubmissions are still permissible if they choose to do so, and if the score changes, the state pays for the rescoring. Third, the senate amendment reinstates the social studies and U.S. history exams, but it agreed with the house to eliminate the English II exam as a required end-of-course exam in high school. This is the first reduction in the number of required EOCs since 2015. Fourth, the senate maintained the study of local indicators, which will be performed by an institution of higher learning, with some clarification of the topics to be covered. And finally, the senate supports our statutorily required collaboration between TEA, the Workforce Commission, and the Coordinating Board to approve new IBCs but required a 90-day timeline for approval.

Members, HB 8, as amended, creates a transformational change in our accountability system. I will move to concur in a few moments, but first I'd like to highlight several facts about HB 8, as amended. HB 8 ends the high-stakes and high-stress nature of "one test, one day." HB 8 prohibits TEA from changing the rules of the game at any time for the A-F system, as they currently have. HB 8 codifies the refresh to every five years and codifies a two-year heads-up or, "what if," two years in advance, that promotes more fairness and transparency. HB 8 requires the TEA to publish the A-F Accountability Manual by July 15, before the school year starts, or the schools will operate under the previous year's rules. HB 8 bans excessive benchmarking and testing of Texas students. HB 8 statutorily bans this detrimental practice.

Members, many of you have seen a yellow flyer floating around the chamber and also on social media. Let me be perfectly clear that this yellow flyer is a piece of yellow journalism. It does not reflect the facts. The fact is that our districts now, by chasing "one test, one day," are absolutely overtesting in the form of multiple check marks and multiple check-ins, which this bill once and for all eliminates. Members, this is the most important part. When we talk about this yellow sheet—HB 8 is the same testing schedule that passed this body as HB 4: through-year testing—beginning-of-the-year, middle-of-the-year, and end-of-the-year. Members, this bill also prohibits TEA from revoking IBCs after a student has completed their credential, as HB 8 requires the IBC to remain in effect throughout the student's career in high school. One of the issues that was extremely detrimental to our schools was students earning a credential and then having the IBCs revoked when our districts could not meet the CCMR credit. This bill bans that practice. And most importantly, HB 8 mandates—for the first time ever—TEA to brief and report to the legislature changes to assessment and accountability. HB 8 statutorily requires unprecedented oversight of TEA by legislators but also includes teachers, school leaders, and the public. Speaking to our fast-growth campuses around the state, HB 8 prevents TEA from issuing failing ratings to new campuses due to current unfair calculations in unfair Domain III, which is our closing the gap measure. HB 8 mandates that TEA use data from the previous campus to more fairly rate the new campus. And finally, HB 8 mandates assessments that are shorter, aligned to state standards, provide results within 48 hours, and are instructionally supportive, which is better for teachers and parents, but most importantly, our students.

Members, the current assessment and accountability system is complicated, lacks transparency, has minimal oversight, and is not trusted by school leaders. HB 8 addresses each of these shortcomings and creates statutory requirements to create a more fair, clear, and trusted system. And don't just take my word for it. Our most trusted school organizations—our Texas Associations of Midsize Schools, our Texas Urban Council, and our Texas Rural Associations—all support HB 8, and they're asking you to concur. These are school districts that have eight kids to school districts that have more than 100,000. They all understand that HB 8 is an important step in restoring trust in our system. And I'd be happy to answer questions.

REPRESENTATIVE HINOJOSA: Representative Buckley, since you've brought up my yellow fact sheet and you said it wasn't factual—it's very straightforward. The bottom says we're going from 16 state-required tests to 51 state-required tests. Which part of that is not factual?

BUCKLEY: It's absolutely not factual because, under your current STAAR practice, you leave out the overtesting and overbenchmarking that every district has agreed—and it's the same schedule that you supported when HB 4 left this floor.

HINOJOSA: This doesn't say anything about HB 4. This says we're going from 16 state-required tests to 51 state-required tests. I'm wondering what's not factual about that.

BUCKLEY: What's not factual about it is that you leave in this other category. In your second column here—I feel like a teacher; I hold up the yellow paper—you leave off the excessive benchmarking. That goes away. The bill bans it. You're going to have kids receiving fewer tests, shorter tests, and check-ins from teachers to know where they're at to report to parents within 48 hours.

HINOJOSA: I don't doubt that you have heard from somewhere that there is excessive benchmarking. I have been on the Public Education Committee now for two sessions. I have kids in public school, and I used to be on the school board. A complaint to me was never about benchmarks or excessive benchmarking—maybe that was just my district. The complaint to me was always about the STAAR test, which is state-required. It's a very different kind of test environment and pressure. So it is an important distinction to say that while some districts may have benchmarks that are excessive—maybe that's true. What we do—

BUCKLEY: It is true.

HINOJOSA: What we do in this bill is require 51 state tests, when current law is just 16 state-required tests. That is absolutely factual. So I just want to say that I don't appreciate you trying to impugn my credibility when this is completely factual. You may disagree with the impact on our districts, but this document is factual.

BUCKLEY: Well, school districts from around the state that have eight kids to 120,000 agree with me. There have been letters on your desk from the Texas Urban Council, which actually represents Austin ISD—

HINOJOSA: Yes, and do you know what all of those—

BUCKLEY: Hold on just one second; let me finish. Texas Urban Council superintendents: "We are writing to express the Texas Urban Council's, or TUC's, support of HB 8, second called special session, and to encourage you to vote yes to concur with senate amendments." When you look on their letter that I received from them—

HINOJOSA: I have seen the letter.

BUCKLEY: Texas Urban Council—let's just look on here. Aldine ISD, Alief ISD, Austin ISD, Brownsville ISD, Corpus Christi ISD, Dallas ISD, El Paso ISD, Fort Worth ISD, Garland ISD, Houston ISD, and Ysleta ISD—some of the largest districts in our state are saying, "Concur; we need this bill." It's in black and white, not yellow. And that's because this is factual.

HINOJOSA: Do you know what all of the superintendents who I spoke to—the several I spoke to who are represented by this letter—all had in common when I talked to them after receiving this letter? None of them knew the senate removed the requirement that through-year growth would be part of the indicators that districts would be evaluated on. None of them did.

BUCKLEY: Well, that's not true.

HINOJOSA: You know what else all those three associations have in common? They are all represented by lobbyists here—Dan Huberty. They all have that in common as well. So what I am very concerned by is what our school districts are being told. You laid out for this body here some description of growth—through-year growth—that I didn't understand. I've read the bill, and I understand these things. And isn't it true that what the senate did was take away and strip from this bill the requirement that we show growth and use it in the indicators for the A-F—use it to evaluate our schools in the A-F accountability system, which is the whole point of having all these tests? According to this new bill, it's to show growth. And now there is no requirement that our districts get credit for growth in the school year. Isn't that true?

BUCKLEY: That is not true.

HINOJOSA: How is that not true?

BUCKLEY: Because it's not true. That's not true.

HINOJOSA: Let me read it. I want to read it to you. So this is what the house's language said. The house said: "The agency shall develop a measure of student through-year instructional growth and shall incorporate into the indicators adopted under this subchapter the measures developed, not later than the '32-'33 school year. The change from the senate says: Not later than the '29-'30 school year, the commissioner shall present the measure described to the advisory committee to consider the incorporation of the measure. And not later than 2029, that agency shall submit to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker a report regarding the measures. So we go from a requirement where you show growth and districts get credit for it—from that to a report.

BUCKLEY: That's not what—

HINOJOSA: I just read you the language from the bill.

BUCKLEY: Well, you're reading the language incorrectly, because here's what happens. This is at the behest of school districts. What they have said is—what they are tired of is—they are tired of indicators changing without TEA checking in with legislators, without checking in with parents, with teachers, and with school leaders. That's what this required: that they shall—in (c-5)—they "shall develop a measure." They will report that that measure does not harm our school districts' A-F ratings. If they harm our A-F ratings, the current growth measure stays in, because we're giving districts flexibility to use MAP testing, i-Ready testing, and other districts' choices. But they do not want to risk their ratings if the growth measure will not be helpful to them. Time after time, they've been in your office, they've been in my office—it seems like we get going, and they change the rules. There is no more rule changing without informing this body, without informing parents, teachers, and school leaders. That's just what the bill does.

HINOJOSA: First of all, the bill doesn't say that once we consider it, if it hurts the districts, then we won't use it. Or if it doesn't hurt them, then we will. It doesn't say any of that. That's not in the bill. That might be your intention, but that's not in the bill. And I have not once heard anyone from any district complain. In fact, they want credit for through-year growth.

BUCKLEY: If it works. If it works.

HINOJOSA: Well, they all think it works.

BUCKLEY: We moved the timeline up at the behest of Representative Bell. And districts said, "Well hey, if we do this measure and it hurts our districts, what should happen?" I said, "Well, maybe we need to make sure it doesn't." So the year-over-year growth measure language remains in place. It requires the development of the through-year growth measure, and then that will be implemented when we make certain—when we make certain—we make certain that our districts will receive the benefit of the beginning-of-the-year to the end-of-the-year. And we also repeal the section that says TEA can do this ridiculous predictive measure where they want to guess how a kid will do at the end of the year or the year before. We take that out. We developed sound policy that protects our districts from unknown implications. That's all this does.

HINOJOSA: So you and I have different interpretations of the impact of, or why, the language changed. You're describing to me why it changed, but the plain language of the bill is what it is. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I want to ask you about something else in this bill. How is the beginning—your understanding, because it's not in the bill—how is the beginning-of-the-year assessment going to affect the A-F accountability rating for schools or districts, and how is the middle-of-the-year assessment going to affect the A-F accountability ratings?

BUCKLEY: They are a stop along the way from the beginning-of-the-year. An immediate result within 48 hours—I would call that immediate—from the beginning-of-the-year—it's another check-in. These are state-aligned—in the middle of the year and at the end of the year—so you can measure growth.

HINOJOSA: I understand how the beginning-of-the-year, middle-of-the-year, and end-of-the-year work. I don't understand how the beginning-of-the-year and the end-of the-year impact the A-F accountability system. For instance, if a kid gets a bad score on the beginning-of-the-year test, is that going to impact their A-F accountability rating for the school district? Or if they don't show enough growth from the beginning to the middle? I don't know how those are impacting A-F, and that's what I'm asking you about.

BUCKLEY: The bill reads through a year. Through a year—BOY to EOY. These are check-ins so that we know where our kids are. And again, it's kind of back to your previous question. What we're talking about is—let's look at what that looks like. What happens? Let's think about it.

HINOJOSA: I just want to know how it impacts A-F ratings. That's all I want to know.

BUCKLEY: It does not. It will be an indicator of BOY to EOY growth that will be available as a portion of our A-F rating, but the BOY test doesn't impact it at all. It's the starting point.

HINOJOSA: I'm sorry, you said what will be a portion of our A-F rating?

BUCKLEY: The through-year progress.

HINOJOSA: The progress, but not—

BUCKLEY: Not the standalone BOY.

HINOJOSA: Not the standalone BOY. Will the standalone MOY or the comparison between the two?

BUCKLEY: No, it's a through-year progress measure from BOY to MOY to EOY. It starts at the beginning, and it ends at the end.

HINOJOSA: Okay. So it is your statement to this body that the beginning-of-the-year assessment won't impact the A-F accountability rating, nor will the middle-of-the-year test impact the A-F accountability rating?

BUCKLEY: That's right. It's a check-in point along the way. I mean, that's good teaching. A teacher finds a student that's struggling at first. How far does he or she get them by the middle of the year, and where do they end up? That's where we end up taking the measurement.

HINOJOSA: Okay, thank you for that clarity. You said this bill eliminates the high-stakes nature of the one test on one day of the year. How, when we're only still assessing the final tests—we're only still assessing the final test because there's nothing in here that says we're assessing growth yet, right? Maybe that is a decision made on another day by another legislature.

BUCKLEY: You're still assessing growth. That growth measure does not go away.

HINOJOSA: But it doesn't impact A-F—you just said it.

BUCKLEY: Like I said, the BOY. I said the through-year growth measure impacts A-F, but not the standalone test.

HINOJOSA: How does through-year growth impact A-F if the senate just took it out?

BUCKLEY: They didn't. They didn't take it out.

HINOJOSA: I mean, what part of issuing a report on it is meaning that that's going to impact A-F?

(Speaker in the chair)

Pursuant to Rule 5, Section 28, of the House Rules, Representative Hinojosa requested an extension of speaking time on HB 8.

The request was granted by (Record 156): 86 Yeas, 42 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Allen; Barry; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Button; Canales; Cole; Collier; Cunningham; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dutton; Dyson; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Hernandez; Hinojosa; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Johnson; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Luther; Manuel; Martinez; McLaughlin; Meyer; Meza; Money; Moody; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Oliverson; Orr; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Plesa; Raymond; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Simmons; Spiller; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Turner; VanDeaver; Villalobos; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wu; Zwiener.

Nays — Ashby; Bell, C.; Bumgarner; Cain; Cook; Craddick; Curry; Dorazio; Gerdes; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Holt; Hopper; Isaac; Kerwin; Leach; Leo Wilson; Louderback; Lowe; Lujan; McQueeney; Metcalf; Olcott; Patterson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Swanson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Vasut; Virdell; Wilson.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Bonnen; Campos; Capriglione; Cortez; Fairly; Garcia, J.; Lozano; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Rodríguez Ramos.

The following member was granted leave of absence for the remainder of today because of important business in the district:

Hernandez on motion of Walle.

HINOJOSA: Let's try this way. Can you show me in the bill where it says—with the senate amendment—where it says that districts or schools will get credit for through-year growth? If you could point me to the line in the bill, I would really appreciate that.

BUCKLEY: If you will go to page 28—the agency shall develop the through-year growth—the amendment says—

HINOJOSA: Can you tell me what line? I'm sorry.

BUCKLEY: Fifteen. Line 15. I've got the house engrossed version in front of me—(c-5), line 15. "The agency shall develop a measure of student through-year instructional growth and improvement from the beginning of the school year through the end of the school year for evaluating the performance of campuses serving grade levels in which BOY and MOY assessment instruments adopted or developed . . . are required to be administered."

HINOJOSA: But that was taken out.

BUCKLEY: No, it wasn't. It's in the bill.

HINOJOSA: That's the previous language.

BUCKLEY: No, it's not—(c-5) remains, and (c-6) just says, listen, if we come up with this new growth measure and it hurts school districts, how about not rating us based on it until we figure it out?

HINOJOSA: Wait, wait. I'm sorry.

BUCKLEY: It's in the bill.

HINOJOSA: You are right. It is creating a measure of through-year growth. But (c-6) is incorporating it into the indicator; (c-6) is what puts it into A-F. The new (c-6)—where does that say it goes into A-F?

BUCKLEY: It says it's reported back to us and the committee to make sure it doesn't have a negative, detrimental impact on A-F. I know there's no other bigger fan of TEA than you, and I mean that facetiously. Are you ready just to take them, after a shortened timeline, to develop this? Are you ready just to say, "All right, let's figure it out. All right, it's in A-F"? This is absolutely the smartest thing to do for our schools.

HINOJOSA: That's not the question. The question is: Does this bill, with the senate removal of (c-6), still give districts or schools credit for growth in the A-F system? And if so, where does it say that?

BUCKLEY: Yes.

HINOJOSA: It doesn't. A report is not that. Now, we may come back here after the report in four more school years or whenever and do that, but this bill doesn't do that. Unless you can show me where in the bill it says it impacts our A-F accountability ratings—the through-year growth.

BUCKLEY: It absolutely creates the indicator. And then the impact of the indicator on our schools is reported—if it's not a negative impact, as requested by school districts. Unlike you, I don't want to create an indicator and authoritarianly impose it on our schools if it's going to impact their A-F.

HINOJOSA: Okay, well, you know what? I'm not getting into the whole "authoritarianly" thing. But what I'm only asking really is where it says—even if it's the way you say that first we're going to see if it hurts our schools, and then we're going to use it for A-F. Where does it say that part—that we're going to use it for A-F—in the senate version?

BUCKLEY: Because that's what we use indicators for. That's what they are.

HINOJOSA: But does the bill say it? That's what I'm asking. Does the bill say it?

BUCKLEY: The bill says to create the indicator and then report back to us—for the first time ever. I know that you and I have talked about in committee—many times—that TEA just does stuff. You even referred to it a minute ago as a "black box." There's no more black box. This opens the lid on that box.

HINOJOSA: Representative Buckley, look—I am not here to question your intent, but the way this body works, the way our school districts work, and the way our accountability system works is if it's not in the black letter of the law, it doesn't exist. It is not in the black letter of the law as you have it here before this body that our school districts or our schools will get credit for through-year growth in the A-F accountability system. Not after the senate just stripped that part of our bill.

BUCKLEY: The senate created a fail-safe to make sure we don't hurt our districts as we implement a new indicator. That's all.

HINOJOSA: Okay, so—

BUCKLEY: You know, you just said that if it's not in the letter of the law—well, I'm pretty sure you're probably—you don't like a lot of the letter of the law. This, for the first time, says before we impose this on our schools, how about legislators and parents and teachers and school leaders take a look at it and say this will work for us. We have seen so many indicators that have been changed without anyone knowing. I know I never knew; I know you never knew that it negatively impacted our schools. That ends today with HB 8.

HINOJOSA: Okay, let's set aside through-year growth. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. This bill does not—I don't see where this bill says our schools will get credit for through-year growth. But let's set that aside. So now we have the last test like we have now. The last test, the STAAR test—one day, one test—in this bill, that wasn't eliminated. We still have one day-one test. That is the only thing that I see that for sure we know will impact the A-F accountability rating. What am I missing that is different?

BUCKLEY: It's no different than HB 4. There's an end-of-the-year test. So you have your beginning-of-the-year, and you see where they're at; middle-of-the-year, you check in; end-of-the-year test, you see how far they've come. They either have an achievement level or they have a growth measure. That's what we do now. It does not change—Domain I, Domain II, Domain III. It is about making certain that we have better aligned instruments that are instructionally supportive and allow our school teachers to make adjustments along the way, because they'll know where kids are.

HINOJOSA: Okay, but HB 4, of course, did require through-year growth to be measured. It was a nationally norm-referenced test. Representative Buckley, didn't you—

BUCKLEY: It didn't cover state standards, by the way; it was Common Core. So this makes sure we hone in on our state standards, which we all worked very hard—our State Board of Education works to create so that we know just what we have in our curriculum for our kids.

HINOJOSA: But you can do that with a nationally norm-referenced test. That's what you did in HB 4, correct?

BUCKLEY: Yes, but you can also in a nationally norm-referenced test. You take a group of kids, and you can get 90 percent on the test and be on the bottom quintile. I mean, it is—even the teacher groups came up and said, "Wait a minute, this doesn't work."

HINOJOSA: You can see that same thing happening with the STAAR test.

BUCKLEY: That's what "norm-referenced" means. "Norm-referenced" literally says, just compare me to whoever is around me. If I'm in a school that has extremely high-achieving kids where everyone is knocking it out of the park, you're going to have kids that are achieving certain levels who are going to be in the bottom 10 percent of the cohort.

HINOJOSA: Isn't that how we do cut scores with the STAAR currently?

BUCKLEY: Not at all. It's about what you attain as far as meeting the standards that are in the curriculum.

HINOJOSA: But we figure out the cut scores—or TEA figures out the cut scores based on how students all across the state are doing. That is also about curve.

BUCKLEY: Exactly, and this is what this bill does for the first time ever: It says every five years we're going to change those cut scores. We're going to propose a refresh, but two years ahead of time, we're going to tell you, Austin ISD, here's what you would do if we were using the new cut score standards that we will implement in two years. For the first time, our districts will have a heads-up, and they will know what adjustments to make and what subject areas they need to focus on. This is absolutely—this solves one of the biggest problems I've heard from school districts from the last three years. They're changing the rules after we start. The changing of the rules after we start ends with HB 8 today when we concur.

HINOJOSA: Representative Buckley, didn't you stand before this body in regular session and say that to restore trust in the accountability system, we need to take TEA out of the business of creating the test?

BUCKLEY: Absolutely. The TEA is required in this bill to go out to a test maker and get the test created. And to coin a phrase—I'll use my good friend, Chairman Dutton's words: If TEA is not going to do this, who do we suppose, who do we recommend, do it? Texas Parks and Wildlife? I mean, you can't separate them from the process.

HINOJOSA: I'm just asking if you said that to the body. The bill does say TEA shall develop—

BUCKLEY: Does TEA create the MAP test? Does TEA create the iReady test? They don't. I mean, this bill provides lots of flexibility in individual freedom for our districts.

HINOJOSA: So are you no longer concerned, like you were before, when you stated before this body that we needed to restore trust by removing the TEA out of the business of creating the test?

BUCKLEY: There is nothing that will restore more trust than our school districts having the accountability manual on July 15 before school starts to make certain that kids' IBCs are not going to be revoked when a student is in the process of graduating. To make certain they know when the refresh occurs and they get the two-year heads-up.

REPRESENTATIVE LANDGRAF: Dr. Buckley, I just wanted to thank you for all your work on this issue, dating back to the regular session with HB 4, as it's been referenced. I personally witnessed you with very different stakeholders on this issue, and I just want to say thank you for all that. I know this is not the bill that a lot of us want to have. It's not a perfect bill, but it certainly moves the ball forward, and I know that you're trying to make sure that we don't make perfect the enemy of good. If I could, I just want to clarify on the benchmark tests that Representative Hinojosa—

Representative Buckley moved to concur in the senate amendments to HB 8.

HINOJOSA: This issue is personal to me. I've talked before about how my son tried to run away from school in second grade because they were already preparing for the third-grade STAAR test. But this issue is personal to a whole lot of Texas mothers and fathers because so many of our kids have been hurt by the STAAR testing, and this bill does not eliminate the STAAR test. This bill expands the STAAR test. Somehow we got to a place with HB 8 where we just grew the STAAR test exponentially. We have heard the only reason to do this is that our districts are giving a lot of benchmark tests. Well, think about that. That's something the districts are doing. If this bill was just banning a lot of benchmark tests, I would be all over that. That's not what this bill does. You own it now when you vote for this bill. You own all the tests. It's no longer pointing the finger at the district. The state is requiring now all these benchmark tests. Fifty-one state-required tests by the time a kid gets through middle school—up from 12. So you own it. You vote for this bill; you own it now.

Representative Buckley stood up here and acknowledged the problem with this test and the reason why our schools are so stressed out about it, our teachers are so stressed out about it, and our kids are so stressed out about it. Because it is an unreliable test. It is arbitrary; there are many flaws. We heard Representative Anchía, when this bill was first on the floor, point out all the different—the high percentage of rescores that came out where the TEA had scored too low a grade. They had to change most of the rescores that they submitted. This test is unreliable. The TEA has not proved reliability when it comes to creating the tests, and here we are giving the TEA more power.

We also heard Representative Buckley say that now this is not so bad because we're giving shorter tests. Members, I challenge you to look in this bill and tell me where the test is shorter. If anything, there is one section of this bill that increases the length of time a child would need to finish this test. So right now, in statute, a third or fourth grader—85 percent of third and fourth graders must be able to take the test in 60 minutes. The end-of-year test—this bill takes it up to 90 minutes. For fifth through eighth grades in statute, it says 85 percent of kids should be able to finish the test in 75 minutes. This bill takes it up to 105 minutes. So while it may be a wonderful talking point that this is a shorter test at the end, that's not what this bill says. In fact, the bill increases the length of time it takes to take this test. The senate also, by the way, stripped my amendment that said we would go down to only what is federally required. That has always been a position of this house. That is no longer in the bill. And I hope you understood by listening to the debate that the senate also stripped out the requirement that growth in the school year is taken into account for the A-F accountability system. So now, guess what? Now we're requiring all these tests throughout the year for what? For a report in three years to the governor and to the lieutenant governor. Basically all these tests for nothing. All of these tests for our kids and our neighborhood schools for nothing.

Members, no parent has asked for this. No parent wants this. And I guarantee by the time parents figure out what we have done, they will be so angry. This is happening too fast. Our superintendents don't even understand what's going on in this bill. They're too busy getting the schools up and running for the school year. Every single one I called after I got those letters said, "Hey, I didn't know the senate took that out." This is unfair, what we're doing to our public schools. It's unfair what we're doing to our kids. Remember how we got here in the regular session? This bill was supposed to be the bill that was the win for the house. This bill was supposed to be the win for our public schools and for our kids—especially people who supported vouchers but who had heartburn about it. This was a bill—in fact, I remember hearing from one of my Republican colleagues on the Public Education Committee that the accountability bill was going to be the win for our public schools. This is no win.

This is a terrible bill, members. I can't even believe it's made it this far, much less that it would pass and become law. Remember, the chairman stood here when we debated the voucher bill, and I tried to get parity for our kids in public schools when it came to accountability with what our kids getting a voucher for private school would get—many of whom are already in private schools—with the same accountability—the fair and objective accountability tests of a nationally norm-referenced test. Not one TEA created that can be manipulated and is not trusted and creates anxiety in our schools, but a nationally norm-referenced test. Objective and fair is what our kids and our public schools deserve, and Representative Buckley stood here with me and agreed that was good and said, "Just wait, we're going to get it. We don't need your amendment of parity for our kids in public schools." And here we are. Here we are about to pass a bill that more than triples—in fact, it quadruples—the amount of tests now required by the state for our kids in public schools.

The most heartbreaking call that I had yesterday with a superintendent was one where the superintendent told me, "Representative Hinojosa, we are so sick of being put in the middle of this and so sick of the retaliation we get when we oppose the commissioner. And that's why we signed off." So members, if we sign this bill, it's not just trust in the test that's missing, it's not just trust in the accountability system that's gone, it's trust in the Texas House. I urge you to vote no.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHOOLCRAFT: I want to try to simplify this a little bit because I think there's a lot of confusion. The description of what we have today is actually leaving out an awful lot. Today, we do have the STAAR test at the end of the year. But virtually every school district also administers what's been called the "benchmark" tests—that's the MAP test. That test system is administered three times a year, and it covers all of the same topics that we've been talking about. It's mathematics, reading, language arts, sciences. So three times a year, they're administering this test, and then there's a STAAR test at the end. This chart doesn't say anything about those MAP tests that are being administered three times a year from grades three through eight. We have a massive testing regimen today that the new system will be replacing.

The new system will be providing three tests to be given during the year: beginning of year, middle of year, end of year. What's great about these tests is they are to be developed to be testing the children's knowledge of the TEKS, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. That's what the State Board of Education has said is what we expect our children to know when they get through with our public school system. These tests will measure the beginning of the year—what's the standard, what's this benchmark for that child, how well have they mastered, and how well do they know the TEKS? That's a great benchmark for the teacher to understand where that child is starting. The middle-of-the-year assessment measures the child's progress on the TEKS, so the teacher can then say, "Okay, this child is doing well. This child is having difficulty with this," et cetera. It gives them the ability to adjust their teaching to match the needs of the child. At the end of the year, we once again measure that student's mastery of the TEKS. We say, "How well does that child now know what we, in Texas, have said we expect them to know?" It's not a national norm-referenced test. It measures them on what we expect them to know as a result of our public education system in Texas. That's the difference between what's being proposed and what we have today.

Interestingly, there's been no discussion about the costs. I know some folks are worried about the cost of developing these tests. The best I could find—the best estimate on what we're spending on this system today is that the districts are spending at least $92 million per year to administer these MAP tests. On top of that, TEA has a four-year contract—$97 million to administer the STAAR test. That's almost $190 million a year. If you look at our fiscal note, I think the highest year is $37 million as they're developing it. Then, once it's fully implemented, it's about $17 million a year. So it's a tremendous savings, but the money is not the big issue here. It is the absolute logical sense of creating a test system that literally measures if the students are learning what we expect them to know in Texas. Please vote for the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE GARCIA HERNANDEZ: I rise today in opposition to concurrence with senate amendments to HB 8. Not because I oppose assessment reform, but because this bill doubles down on high-stakes testing, empowers state control over local education, and imposes burdensome new demands without proper deliberation. HB 8 does not eliminate STAAR; it simply rebrands it. This replaces one long test with multiple, but the stakes remain just as high. If this feels like an overreach, it's intentional. TEA writes the tests, scores them, rates schools by them, and now holds unaccountable power to change the system at will. This bill impacts our children, and not in a good way. This bill increases, not reduces, the testing loads on our students. Instead of one STAAR test, we'll have multiple that are all supplied by TEA, unless additional districts can afford third-party options like MAP. But with tight budgets, the free TEA test becomes the de facto default test.

In regard to governance and oversight, there's no meaningful stakeholder engagement here. Parents, educators, and local officials have been sidelined. I've had the opportunity to speak with them, and it's clear that HB 8 doesn't address their concerns in its current form. What little advisory structure remains is toothless and minimal, Representative. Four school districts serve House District 115––Coppell ISD, Dallas ISD, Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, and Irving ISD. I've spoken with many of our duly elected trustees, faculty, and education experts, and there's no confusion on the need to pump the brakes here to give them more time to analyze and truly understand what's in this bill currently and what the senate cut. And if that means we don't find a solution now, then so be it.

We have to get this right. We need real reform with less testing, more meaningful metrics, and greater transparency, not a hurried rebranding of STAAR with more TEA control. We have bipartisan models already on the table that prioritize student growth, local input, and fairness. Let's pause HB 8 and pursue thoughtful, inclusive reform. And I wanted to make sure to clarify to the body: I know the chairman discussed the Texas Urban Council of Superintendents—the August 31, 2025—letter that was on all of our desks. I can confirm that Dallas ISD is opposed to this bill. So please join me in refusing to concur with senate amendments to HB 8.

LANDGRAF: Dr. Buckley, again, thank you for your work on this bill. It's a good bill. It may not be a perfect bill, but I do want to ask about your intent with this bill as amended if you don't mind answering a few questions. And then—just to clear up some of the misinformation that's been discussed about the bill as amended. So with that in mind, Dr. Buckley: Is it your intent that the agency incorporate this new measure into the A-F accountability system and that it also establish a fail-safe that allows a deeper dive into the results from these assessments to ensure that school districts are reflected fairly in that process?

BUCKLEY: Yes, absolutely. That is the intent of this bill. It's framed in a way that requires TEA to develop this indicator of through-year growth and allows us, the legislature, multiple checkpoints to ensure that the use of this metric will not ultimately harm districts' accountability ratings. As I mentioned in my layout and the debate between myself and Representative Hinojosa, (c-5) on page 28 charges TEA to develop this measure of through-year growth. This is clear, and it is binding. (c-6), which the senate added, requires that TEA update this legislature, teachers, parents, and other leaders—to include the governor's office and lieutenant governor's office—on this progress measure and how it will impact our schools. That will be reported no later than March 15, 2029. There has also been some concern that a year-over-year growth measure is being repealed. That, in other words, we'll have no growth. That it'll be all just pure achievement. That is absolutely not true. Section 39.034, paragraph (a), remains in statute, as I mentioned earlier.

LANDGRAF: So Dr. Buckley, to that point—if I'm hearing you correctly, HB 8 will ensure that the growth measures do remain in this process, as far as the agency is concerned. They'll be transparent, and they'll be accessible not only to teachers, students, and the general public, but that meaningful data will be provided to them as well as to us here in the legislature. Is that right?

BUCKLEY: That is correct. The assessments that are created in this bill, first and foremost, will be reported to parents and educators. Parents will have full access to the end-of-the-year test questions and student results. They'll report to the legislature in 2027 on test development, and they'll report again to the legislature in 2029 on new growth measures in A-F. This is the first time ever that TEA has been required to report to this body in test development and in any change in indicators that involve our A-F system.

LANDGRAF: I appreciated some of the remarks from Representative Schoolcraft and his speech in support. He did mention the cost-effectiveness of the assessments in this bill and the validity of the data that would come from them. I just want to hear from you directly, though, about what safeguards—what guardrails—are built into HB 8 that ensure that these assessments remain valid and cost-effective as we move forward.

BUCKLEY: Absolutely. This is unprecedented oversight of the assessment accountability system by this body. This bill requires TEA to contract with a nationally recognized assessment vendor so that TEA's not building it in a dark room somewhere. Our education service centers will nominate teachers to be part of an advisory committee that vets each test question. We have tremendous concerns about whether or not the questions on these exams are appropriate. This bill requires that. This bill also requires that a third-party institution of higher education vets the test to ensure it's accurate, reliable, and appropriate for grade level. We hear about our tests being beyond grade level; this bill requires that it is. And again, this bill also gives districts recourse to request a rescoring of written responses, and in fact, the senate amendment restores an automatic rescoring to make sure our children get all the credit they need.

LANDGRAF: Dr. Buckley, thank you for bearing with me. A couple more questions. You know this—I've told you this story. I've got a fifth grader who lives at our house—our daughter. She's three and a half weeks into her fifth grade year, and already she's talking about all of the benchmark tests. She's talking about taking MAP starting this Friday, so she's already got her BOY schedule for the entire semester. This is something that's very real, and if you talk with her, if you talk with any of her classmates, she does talk about the overtesting that does take place, even at the elementary school level. I do want to ask you how HB 8, including the senate amendments, prevents overtesting—because there has been a lot of discussion—while still capturing sufficient data to inform, properly, accountability for our schools?

BUCKLEY: Absolutely. So this bill explicitly bans benchmark testing and overtesting. And when you take the beginning-of-the-year and the middle-of-the-year tests, your daughter—Hollis Rose, I believe—will, in her journey, will know that she'll have a beginning-of-the-year, a middle-of-the-year, and an end-of-the-year test that she'll have to sit for, with a small writing sample that she'll have to take separately. But she won't be under the pressure of that at the end-of-the-year test. She will know what her assessment journey will look like from the beginning of the year. But we also, in the bill, make sure that these assessments are valid and reliable. We want them to provide feedback in a timely fashion to teachers and parents so we can help our kids along. And we also want to make sure that we can create a through-year growth measure. That absolutely provides the best indicator of the great teaching that's going on in Texas schools. We create a pathway for that to make sure that we get it right.

LANDGRAF: Just so that I can understand—you're saying three testing periods. No more, no less?

BUCKLEY: That's right. That's what it does.

LANDGRAF: Okay. And last question: There's obviously been some consternation here on the floor about what's not in the bill, and, as I mentioned, I'm the first to admit it's not perfect, although I do appreciate your good work on this, because I do think it moves the ball forward. If there is something that you, or that we, missed in this bill—or that the senate did—do we have time in the next legislative session to make further adjustments to it in order to make it even better?

BUCKLEY: Yes, absolutely. The timeline of this bill that begins in the '27-'28 school year is designed on purpose. February 15 of 2027, TEA must report to this body, the body on the other end of the building, and the executive branch, as well as teachers, parents, and other interested parties, just what this new system looks like, what the new assessment looks like, and where we're going.

REPRESENTATIVE GERVIN-HAWKINS: Thank you, Representative Buckley, for answering questions. I would ask that instead of elaborating, can we just do some bullet-type responses so we won't run out of time? My question—I just need clarity. I know we're doing the beginning-of-the-year, middle-of-the-year, end-of-the-year, but when we talk about the letter grade itself, is that based on the results of the end-of-the-year, or are the three tests averaged out?

BUCKLEY: It is a growth measure that is established in the bill—or achievement—just like it is now. We're just going to measure growth. We're on a pathway to measure growth. The first in the country—beginning-of-the-year to the end-of-the-year.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Okay.

BUCKLEY: I can't say it any shorter than that.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So end-of-the-year is really the final grade that the school will be accountable for in their A-F letter grade?

BUCKLEY: No, absolutely not.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So it includes the growth average?

BUCKLEY: No, it doesn't average anything. It looks at the growth just like it does now, but we're moving to a system where it starts at the beginning of the year to the end of the year. It's growth.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Representative Buckley, let me reword my question. Each of the three tests impacts the A-F, correct? Or no?

BUCKLEY: No, they are instructionally supportive. Okay? And they are to give feedback to teachers so they know who needs to grow and which kids are going to achieve.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: I get that. Beginning-of-the-year will tell you where the kid is at, middle-of-the-year will tell you if they grew and they're improving, and the end-of-the-year––you're confusing when you're saying that they're not averaged but they all play a role. Do they all play a role, yes or no? Do they all play a role?

BUCKLEY: Yes, because you have to start somewhere, and you have to end somewhere. If you start low and end high, you grew a lot. That's it in a nutshell.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So our school districts can say that the end-of-the-year test is not the only piece of the puzzle. The puzzle consists of the beginning-of-the-year, the middle-of-the-year, and the end-of-the-year––whatever. If it's growth or achievement, they all three play a role in the final grade for that school district?

BUCKLEY: I would agree with what you say, yes.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Okay, thank you. Then my other question is: You say they're coming back to the legislators to see if it works. Is that in the form of a study? Or is that in the form of asking the legislators—or telling the legislators—that here's where these schools are? What is that mechanism as we come back to the legislature to get the results?

BUCKLEY: It's two parts. 2027—it's "here's where we are implementing this new testing program." 2029 is "here's what the through-year growth measure looks like, here's how schools are doing, here's how we recommend implementing it so that our schools are not harmed by the results." Because many districts are concerned about any new indicator. For the first time ever, as opposed––

GERVIN-HAWKINS: I know; we heard about this the first time. So now the other thing that we want to be clear on—because as you well know, the letter grades are important to every district, right? That's how they promote to their kids and to their families how the school is doing, right?

BUCKLEY: Yes.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So we're looking at the testing as a piece. We're still including CCMR, and we're still including graduation if you have a high school. So those three pieces are still components of the final letter grade. Is that correct?

BUCKLEY: But they're much improved. We have a much-improved military readiness indicator––

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Yes, the DD-4. I got it. I understand it.

BUCKLEY: We also have a rule concerning IBCs to make sure that children can receive their IBC credit if those change over time. And overall, with A-F, we have the notice in statute. A five-year refresh cycle and a two-year heads-up.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So along with the IBC currently, you have to have a program of study. Is that still included?

BUCKLEY: Yes, absolutely. But if it starts and then TEA decides that that IBC is no longer relevant and that child has obtained it, they no longer can yank that certification from them. They will count until they graduate, and then the new cohort of students starts. So they're all on the same page, and it follows them through.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So our districts, as they look at overall accountability, which is critical to them—the only difference you're seeing in this bill is that we're monitoring progress beginning of the year, middle of the year, and end of the year. But all the components are basically the same. Is that true or false?

BUCKLEY: Well, yes, we have an A-F system. But we have an A-F system that is way more transparent and way more fair for school districts, because they can no longer change stuff midstream.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Okay, thank you. And then I asked you the other day if the beginning-of-the-year and middle-of-the-year testing is different because you're using a norm-referenced test. But you're saying those tests or assessments will be aligned to the TEKS, and the end-of-the-year is state-developed. So we're looking at the beginning-of-the-year and middle-of-the-year being national, norm-referenced, and then the end-of-the-year being what TEA has developed. Is that true or false?

BUCKLEY: They are norm-referenced. You can norm-reference between a class, a state, the world, whatever—but they are aligned to state standards. So what we want to know is—we want to know at the beginning of the year and at the middle of the year where are our students, in terms of their rankings on our state standards—which students need help and which ones are running away with it. That's the benefit of through-year testing—we get this immediate feedback; it's part of our process. Our students are seeing our standards. They know what the standards are now. And that, in itself, removes the high-stakes nature of it.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Thank you, Representative Buckley. So my final question to you is: Our districts, as they look at the new system, do not have a waiver period, like they do when new assessments are developed. That waiver period doesn't exist. So this will come into effect for school year '25-'26?

BUCKLEY: '27-'28.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: '27-'28. So we're in school year '25-'26 now; we're under the old rule. And '26-'27 will be the new rule. Is that true or false?

BUCKLEY: No. '26-'27 is the old rule, '27-'28––because in February '27, before the school year starts in August of '27, is when TEA must report that status on the new assessment system to this body.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO WILSON: So I was a teacher for 38 years. I appreciate that this really brings it back before the insanity of TEAMS, TAAS, TAKS, and STAAR. I've been through all of those. I don't know of any teacher––and I do believe this leaves out benchmarks, and correct me if I'm wrong––that believes from third to eighth grade that students are only tested 16 times. I absolutely believe that this leaves out the benchmarks.

BUCKLEY: It does.

LEO WILSON: Does this bill leave out the addition of an administrator coming up to a teacher and saying, "I'm going to require you to do these for our building," or "I'm going to require, as a district, we do this additional thing"?

BUCKLEY: That is correct. It absolutely bans benchmarking beyond what this bill provides for, with some exceptions, like SAT, ACT—tests that students are required to take for college applications.

LEO WILSON: I got some feedback from my superintendents, and they felt like this was less intrusion from TEA and that this required TEA to contract with many different kinds of individuals in the development of the tests. Is that true?

BUCKLEY: Yes, absolutely. I mean, it's the first time we've ever had this much oversight of development of assessment and accountability, with more TEA reporting back to the legislature. And it's timed in a way so we're actually in session. So anything we see that we need to change, we're able to do so, because this body will be in session in '27 and '29. And this bill ends the STAAR test. It creates a very much different system that is way less high-stakes for our students. That is why we have the support of the rural schools, the midsize schools, the big-city schools, and our Texas Rural Education Association. I spent all weekend on Zoom calls with superintendents from around this state, walking through this bill and what we were doing, because the rumor mill was in full effect. But when they actually studied what was in the bill, and we talked about the future and what's good for kids, all four of those organizations weighed in in support of what we're doing.

LEO WILSON: Can you tell me again—I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the same person that put this out supported the same number of testing that was in HB 4, as it is in HB 8. Has this changed the schedule?

BUCKLEY: No, this through-year testing model was the same in HB 4. That is the innovative model that Texas can move to, and it remains the same.

LEO WILSON: So they supported the same schedule in HB 4, but it hasn't changed, so that doesn't make any sense to me.

BUCKLEY: That is correct. This is the same schedule that was in HB 4.

LEO WILSON: Okay. Can you also tell me a little bit about the pilot program in between?

BUCKLEY: The pilot?

LEO WILSON: There's a pilot that they're doing for the writing right now. Those results will come back, like you said, before we meet at the next legislature.

BUCKLEY: The writing is going to be automatically rescored for any student that's within one point of achieving a higher-level standard, and that is at no cost to the district. And the schools can also resubmit any writing test that they would like in terms—and if they do achieve a higher score, then that will be paid for by the state. That's as current law.

LEO WILSON: Okay. And then can you tell me a little bit more about how this prohibits TEA from making changes? I think one of the frustrations as a teacher is: Here's the bar. I'm getting to the midyear benchmark, and I am comparing how my students did with the other third-grade students in the building, noticing that mine aren't doing as well. What do I need to reteach? What do I need to do differently?

BUCKLEY: That really is the guts of the bill. It allows a beginning-of-the-year and a middle-of-the-year assessment that immediately informs teachers.

The motion to concur in the senate amendments to HB 8 prevailed by (Record 157): 79 Yeas, 47 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Ashby; Bell, C.; Bonnen; Buckley; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Capriglione; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dyson; Fairly; Frank; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Holt; Hopper; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Lopez, J.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Money; Morgan; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Pierson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Swanson; Tepper; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Wharton; Wilson.

Nays — Allen; Barry; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bowers; Bryant; Bucy; Canales; Cole; Collier; Davis, A.; Flores; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Harrison; Hinojosa; Howard; Johnson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, R.; Manuel; Martinez; Meza; Moody; Muñoz; Perez, V.; Phelan; Plesa; Raymond; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Simmons; Spiller; Talarico; Thompson; Turner; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wu; Zwiener.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Hernandez; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Bhojani; Campos; Cortez; Dutton; Garcia, J.; Lalani; Lambert; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Perez, M.; Rodríguez Ramos.

When Record No. 157 was taken, I was in the house but away from my desk. I would have voted no.

Bhojani

When Record No. 157 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted no.

C. Morales

When Record No. 157 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote no.

Morgan

When Record No. 157 was taken, I was in the house but away from my desk. I would have voted no.

M. Perez

When Record No. 157 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted no.

Rodríguez Ramos

When Record No. 157 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote no.

VanDeaver

Representative C. Morales submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote to concur with the senate amendments on HB 8 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of this special session's redistricting scheme and the harm the proposed map would impose. I would have voted no because HB 8 significantly increases the burden of standardized testing by mandating three state assessments, effectively tripling the number of TEA-required testing days for Texas students. This expanded TEA testing regime will increase disruptions to instruction and disproportionately impact underfunded campuses, while doing nothing to contribute to genuine student learning. The senate amendments make a bad bill worse, reversing and partially reversing amendments that made improvements to the bill.

Representative Rodríguez Ramos submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote to concur with the senate amendments on HB 8 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session called to pass a racially gerrymandered redistricting scheme. I would have voted no because HB 8 significantly increases the burden of standardized testing by mandating three state assessments, effectively tripling the number of TEA-required testing days for Texas students. This expanded TEA testing regime will increase disruptions to instruction and disproportionately impact underfunded campuses, while doing nothing to contribute to genuine student learning. The senate amendments make a bad bill worse, reversing and partially reversing amendments that made improvements to the bill.

Amend HB 8 (senate committee report) as follows:

(1)  In SECTION 1.004 of the bill, strike amended Section 39.023(a), Education Code, and substitute the following:

(a)  In creating and implementing the instructionally supportive assessment program under Section 39.022, the [The] agency shall adopt or develop appropriate beginning-of-year, middle-of-year, and end-of-year [criterion-referenced] assessment instruments designed to assess essential knowledge and skills in reading language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. Except as provided by Subsection (a-2), all students, other than students assessed under Subsection (b) or (l) or exempted under Section 39.027, shall be assessed in:

(1)  mathematics, annually in grades three through eight;

(2)  reading language arts, annually in grades three through eight;

(3)  social studies, in grade eight;

(4)  science, in grades five and eight; and

(5)  any other subject and grade required by federal law.

(2)  In SECTION 1.004 of the bill, strike amended Section 39.023(c), Education Code, and substitute the following:

(c)  The agency shall also adopt or develop end-of-course assessment instruments for secondary-level courses in Algebra I, biology, English I, [English II,] and United States history and provide for the availability of optional beginning-of-year and middle-of-year assessment instruments for those courses. The Algebra I end-of-course assessment instrument must be administered with the aid of technology, but may include one or more parts that prohibit the use of technology. The English I [and English II] end-of-course assessment instrument [instruments] must [each] assess essential knowledge and skills in both reading and writing and must provide a single score. [A school district shall comply with State Board of Education rules regarding administration of the assessment instruments listed in this subsection. If a student is in a special education program under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, the student's admission, review, and dismissal committee shall determine whether any allowable modification is necessary in administering to the student an assessment instrument required under this subsection. The State Board of Education shall administer the assessment instruments. An end-of-course assessment instrument may be administered in multiple parts over more than one day. The State Board of Education shall adopt a schedule for the administration of end-of-course assessment instruments that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c-3).]

(3)  In SECTION 1.005 of the bill, in added Section 39.02301(d)(3)(B), Education Code, strike "under Subsection (d-1)".

(4)  In SECTION 1.005 of the bill, in added Section 39.02301(d-1), Education Code:

(A)  Between "rescore" and "the writing", insert ", at no cost to a school district or open-enrollment charter school,".

(B)  Between "determines" and "the student's", insert "the student would attain the next highest overall performance level on the assessment instrument if".

(5)  In SECTION 1.005 of the bill, immediately following added Section 39.02301(d-1), Education Code, insert the following:

(6)  In SECTION 1.006 of the bill, in amended Section 39.025(a-2), Education Code, strike "A student may take" and substitute "To the extent authorized by federal law, a student may take".

(7)  In SECTION 2.003 of the bill, strike added Section 39.053(c-6), Education Code, and substitute the following:

(8)  In SECTION 2.004 of the bill, immediately following added Section 39.0531(a), Education Code, insert the following:

(9)  In SECTION 2.004 of the bill, in added Section 39.0535(a), Education Code:

(A)  Strike "educator quality,".

(B)  Strike "parental engagement, and school climate" and substitute "and parental engagement".

(10)  In SECTION 4.005 of the bill, in amended Section 28.0211(a-8), Education Code, strike "Algebra I, English I, or English II," and substitute "Algebra I or[,] English I, [or English II,]".

A message from the senate was received at this time (see the addendum to the daily journal, Messages from the Senate, Message No. 1).

The following bills were laid before the house and read second time:

Representative King moved to suspend Rule 8, Section 5(d), of the House Rules to designate representatives on the signature lists submitted by the committee chair to the chief clerk as joint sponsors and co-sponsors to SB 1.

The motion prevailed.

CSSB 1, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to campground and youth camp safety.

REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: This legislation has been a long time coming. We've got folks in the audience whose girls died at Camp Mystic. Thank you for your patience. I'm asking this house to stand with them and me again for CSSB 1. Members, for the past two weeks, Senator Perry, the speaker, lieutenant governor, and myself have been negotiating HB 1 and CSSB 1 to achieve a singular goal: to pass the two strongest bills we can on camp safety that respect the families who have gone through tragedies unimaginable. Before you is the product of that negotiation. I want to thank the families of those lost at Camp Mystic, some of whom join us again today in the gallery.

Now, members, I want to walk through some of the technical aspects of CSSB 1 for the benefit of the body. First, you'll notice there are some provisions of CSSB 1 that are identical with HB 1 as it left the floor. These provisions are duplicative by design to affirm the commitments of both chambers to this important subject but do not conflict. When passed, they will simply layer on top of one another, and the changes between the two will be codified as one. I'm specifically referring to the plan—Section 141.0091 is nearly identical to the policy in HB 1 as passed off this floor and identical in structure to HB 1 as it will be returned to the senate, hopefully this evening. For that reason, I'm not going to talk about the emergency plan in detail, saving those comments for when I move to concur on HB 1 from the senate later this evening.

Unique to CSSB 1 is on page 9, which is the addition of Chapter 762 to the Health and Safety Code. The structure of SB 1 and HB 1 as finalized is that Chapter 762 will broadly set safety requirements for campgrounds, while Chapter 141 will be heightened in specific requirements as it pertains to licensure and other regulatory structures. Members, a version of the Howard Amendment to HB 1 is before you in CSSB 1 with some key differences. The Howard Amendment was Senator Perry's original language from CSSB 1 as introduced. That language has evolved in coordination with the families and others on this issue. That is the language before us today.

Let me be very clear: This bill does not provide a blanket prohibition on a youth camp cabin from being constructed in a floodplain. That language says that the department will not license any camp with residential structures in the floodplain unless that camp is either a lake camp or is 1,000 feet from a floodway. Members, practically, this says that a residential cabin cannot be in a floodway or 1,000 feet from the border of a floodway. For the Houston, Galveston, and coastal members, this will take care of your coastal camps, because camps are required to evacuate if there is a warning, which operates much differently from the flash flood type of situation we saw on July 4. Similar situation with lake camps, where the lake can rise significantly but once again would be under an evacuation umbrella because of our current flood control system at lakes—as well as basic science, which shows lakes rise far more slowly with far greater warnings ahead of time. The language in CSSB 1 specifically targets areas that border bodies of water and around dangerous floodways, which pose severe and deadly risk to children sleeping in them. The agreement on both bills was after weeks of negotiation with both chambers, leadership, and families of Camp Mystic. I've given my word to the families to honor this language—and to you—and I ask that you do the same. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

REPRESENTATIVE VIRDELL: Thank you, Representative Darby. I appreciate the conversations we've had. I've got a few questions here. On page 10, lines 3 through 9, it's created a definition of floodplain that states that LOMAs and LOMRs, which are known as letter of map amendments and letter of map revisions, will not be considered acceptable to prove that a cabin's not in a floodplain. Is that correct?

DARBY: That's correct.

VIRDELL: And would you agree that by doing so you are bypassing the federal process determined by FEMA of what actually is and isn't in a true floodplain?

DARBY: Well, that's exactly the problem. LOMA, which is a federal option under the FEMA maps—you can apply for a waiver to leave out, if you will, for flood insurance purposes. You can signify through a licensed surveyor that the base point of an improvement is one foot above the floodplain. But what this bill does is—this legislature is defining what a floodplain is. And a floodplain is simply that which is designated on the flood maps with no exceptions.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir.

DARBY: What happened was that Camp Mystic had applied for LOMA exceptions in order to not be required to have flood insurance, and that's the problem.

VIRDELL: So would you say that a surveyor that comes out that's certified and proves that that's not in the floodplain is then wrong for saying, "This is not in the floodplain"?

DARBY: This legislature is saying whatever is in the 100-year floodplain—that is prohibited area from having residential cabins.

VIRDELL: Okay, next question: On page 3, line 5, your bill states that a cabin must be at least 1,000 feet from a floodway. Does that mean that a cabin that's on a hillside and elevated—let's say 50 or even 100 feet above a floodway—would no longer be allowed to exist if it is not almost a quarter of a mile from the floodway?

DARBY: The language is very specific. It says 1,000 feet from the border of the floodway.

VIRDELL: I presume that means horizontally?

DARBY: Floodway means the river. We don't want kids sleeping in the river.

VIRDELL: I don't want kids sleeping in the river either. Next question: What will have to happen to cabins that are currently within 1,000 feet of a floodway?

DARBY: Unless they don't have residents sleeping there, they'll have to be moved or reconstructed farther away.

VIRDELL: Okay. And then does that mean they'll have to build new cabins at least 333 yards away from what's considered a floodway?

DARBY: If that's the only option.

VIRDELL: Okay. Does that apply to cabins that are not in the floodplain or a floodway and have never seen flooding near their cabins if they're still within that 1,000 feet of a floodway?

DARBY: This legislature's addressing this problem by establishing that there will never be residential sleeping for kids within a floodplain.

VIRDELL: Okay, then next question—I'm almost done here. I think I've got two more left. Do you believe smaller camps and nonprofit camps will be able to financially afford tearing down cabins or repurposing them and rebuilding farther away if their property boundaries are not far enough from the floodway?

DARBY: This legislature has to take a strong stand and to say we no longer will allow children to go to sleep in a river.

VIRDELL: Right, and they're not going to sleep in rivers right now. Next question: How many camps do you project will be forced to close because of this legislation?

DARBY: I have no idea. We have heard from three camps.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir. I called a flood engineer a while ago, just before I came up here, and he projected it'll be several camps located near rivers and creeks. And he says that when the future maps get redrawn that it could be many more camps. And he also says that this could actually, because of this, encourage counties not to redraw the maps where it's needed because they would be worried about losing those camps.

DARBY: I think this would encourage counties to draw the maps to what the actual data shows. So hopefully this will encourage local authorities to take a look at their maps and to make sure they're fully compliant.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir. Thank you. That's all I have. I appreciate it.

(Landgraf in the chair)

Representative Virdell offered the following amendment to CSSB 1:

Amend CSSB 1 (house committee report) as follows:

(1)  Strike SECTION 3 of the bill (page 1, line 21 through page 2, line 15) and renumber subsequent SECTIONS of the bill accordingly.

(2)  On page 2, line 17, strike "141.0052,".

(3)  Strike page 2, line 19 through page 3, line 5.

(4)  On page 7, line 24, between "with" and "a", insert "access to".

(5)  On page 8, strike lines 8 through 13 and substitute the following:

(6)  On page 8, line 23, strike "REDUNDANT INTERNET CONNECTIONS" and substitute "BROADBAND INTERNET CONNECTION".

(7)  Strike page 8, line 26 through page 9, line 6 and substitute the following:

(8)  On page 10, strike lines 3 through 9 and substitute the following:

VIRDELL: Members, there are issues with this bill, and I want to go through them. And I want to be thorough so that y'all can understand why this amendment exists and why we're trying to fix it. On page 2, there are issues that say camps shouldn't have to submit a renewal application for a license every time they make a change. So if you change the number of beds that are in a cabin, this bill would require that camp, every time, to reapply for a new license. Striking those requirements out is what part of this amendment does. Next one, on page 3, when it talks about the permits and the 1,000-foot floodway—y'all heard me ask questions a while ago. It also creates issues that are going to close camps down, and it honestly should be left up to the counties, because the counties know what's best in their district, not a statewide rule.

Next up, on page 8: This appears to be a requirement that could be confusing, considering camps probably have lighted pathways. What this is doing is taking out a requirement for lighted pathways because, in the bill, it's stating you have to have a lighted pathway for evacuation. The reality is that some of these camps already have lighted pathways that are there for other issues, which would cause confusion. I think that that part of the bill should not be in there. Next page, page 9—we're striking a few lines, and let's see what it says here. This has to do with broadband. The bill would put on a mandate that you have to have an Internet connection that is actually a landline connection through fiber optic. I think that with modern technology that that's not necessary, and I think that by striking that out and sticking with strictly broadband and the language––if you read in the Texas code, broadband has a very specific set of requirements to meet that broadband. And so as technology changes, I think that we would be causing problems here.

Page 10—I'm being thorough just so y'all understand what this amendment actually does. The purpose of striking the language from page 10 on lines 7 through 9 is that the proposed bill is based on physical––striking the language from the proposed bill is based on physical fact. The bill attempts to undermine FEMA by implying that letter of map amendments and letter of map revisions are not accurate or reliable. In fact, LOMAs and LOMRs are critical to accurate flood maps. The original flood maps are made with broad assumptions, and LOMAs and LOMRs require actual surveys that show what truly is and isn't in the floodplain. It's not simply a waiver. They have been presented as a way to skirt around floodplains, but they exist because it enables real data to correct the broad maps. While it is true that LOMAs and LOMRs are requested to show insurance companies that the structure may not be in a floodplain, it isn't a nefarious attempt to skirt around safety. To exclude LOMAs and LOMRs is a serious mistake. And that is the end of the amendment, and I would ask for your support on adding this amendment to the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TINDERHOLT: I want to be clear. I want to set the tone for anyone that's watching. You represent an area that had these floods occur, where human life was lost?

VIRDELL: I watched it firsthand. Yes, sir.

TINDERHOLT: How many days did you spend afterward looking for survivors and people that may have passed?

VIRDELL: I spent 10 days before I went home.

TINDERHOLT: What does your brother do for a living?

VIRDELL: I appreciate you bringing that up. My brother is in law enforcement. He was at the funeral home, having to ID the bodies that came in. I was at the funeral home too, and unfortunately, we lost a lot of people in our county.

TINDERHOLT: The reason I bring this up is that I want people to understand that you're not just trying to slice and dice a bill. You're not trying to be silly about things. You want to protect human life. You want to protect these children. Is that correct?

VIRDELL: That is correct. I have been a lifeguard for multiple years—a certified CPR instructor. I have worked at a camp as a camp counselor, and this means a lot to me. I want kids to be safe. This is very important to me.

TINDERHOLT: The main reason I'm coming up here to set that tone is that you want to make change, and effective change. But oftentimes, is it fair to say, the legislature does things very well-meaning, but they do a shotgun blast that hits other things that are really not necessary?

VIRDELL: That is fair to say.

TINDERHOLT: You and I hadn't talked about this. I want people to know that I just felt compelled to come up here to make sure people know. I feel like your intent, correct me if I'm wrong, is to not do a shotgun blast but to do several very targeted things to stop this from ever happening in Texas again. Is that correct?

VIRDELL: That is correct. Yes, sir.

TINDERHOLT: So you're not up here trying to pick this bill apart and do silly things? You're trying to do an amendment that does very targeted things that fix the problem but doesn't harm other Texans at the same time.

VIRDELL: That is correct. I want to make this bill as good as it can be.

TINDERHOLT: I want to say thank you, personally, for what you did. I know it was tough. I know it's been tough on the families. I could never imagine what they've gone through and what you and your brother and the other first responders did. Thank you for bringing this amendment forward. I know it's been a tough time for everybody in Texas, and I truly appreciate what you've done during this disaster, so thank you.

VIRDELL: I appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE MONEY: I want to thank you for the work that you have done on this floor trying to get this bill correct. I think everyone in this chamber wants what's best for these families and not just these families but all the families who send their kids to camp every single year. I know this is a very difficult situation, and it's even more difficult for you because of what you have personally been through and watched these families go through over the past few months.

I want to focus, specifically, on two of the things that you mentioned that really struck me as we're trying to balance safety, which is critically important, with making sure these camps are still viable. One of those is this requirement that cabins be at least 1,000 feet from a floodway. Am I to understand that the way the bill is now, without the amendment, there is no regard for how high it is above the floodway? So you could be sitting on a cliff 100, 200 feet above a floodway, but if you're not also 1,000 feet back from that cliff, you're not allowed to have a cabin there? Is that correct?

VIRDELL: That is correct.

MONEY: And that if a cabin is there and no flood has gotten within 80 feet of that ever before, they're going to have to not ever let any kid stay in that cabin again? And they're going to have to, you know, either move the cabin, demolish it, rebuild something else, regardless of the height?

VIRDELL: That is correct. I wish the bill language actually said "floodway" and not put an additional distance on it.

MONEY: Yeah, I mean, I think all of us don't think there should be a cabin in the floodway, and we understand that floodways can fluctuate. But it would seem like there should be some engineering or understanding that elevation is critically important here. And so I'm concerned about that. I also wanted to draw attention to the requirement of a physical, landline, fiber optic cable. Some of these camps are very remote. Is that correct?

VIRDELL: That is correct.

MONEY: And with technology growing the way it is, oftentimes satellite technology, like Starlink or other things that do meet the definition of broadband, are reliable, high-speed Internet for the kinds of communications that need to be done and are very reliable. And as technology grows and improves, this law, if it's not amended, is going to say those don't count. You have to have a landline, even if we get to a point, which doesn't seem far off at all, where other types of broadband technology are even more reliable than that physical line. Is that correct?

VIRDELL: That's correct. I can actually tell you a story about that. My hometown, a small town––I'll keep it quick––it's not uncommon—I mean, it does happen where somebody's digging a ditch somewhere, they hit the fiber optic line, and our entire town loses communication, or we lose cell service and Internet service. You think about a flash flood like this, and that's very possible for something like that to happen too. Now, the bill does have a secondary requirement to have something else. But I think with the technology that—between the feasibility of the actual fiber optic line versus Starlink or some other technology, I think that it is unnecessary to have that in the bill.

MONEY: I thank you for your time and attention. I know this is a difficult and emotional thing for all of us, but especially for you. And we want to get this right, but we don't want to have requirements that unduly burden camps so that kids can't go to camp ever. We want kids to be able to go to camp and come home safely. Everybody wants that.

DARBY: I don't question Representative Virdell's commitment to represent his district. But we're here representing kiddos who have been placed in harm's way, and we're here to make a difference. And we're going to do it today. With regard to his amendment, page 2, lines 4 through 15, requiring camps to renew their licenses if they alter their boundaries, construct new cabins: This provision of the bill ensures that DSHS will receive proper notification and ensures that substantial changes in the camp premises or cabins will be fully compliant with CSSB 1's emergency planning requirements. Page 7, line 24—parents need to have a copy before an emergency occurs, not after.

Page 8, lines 12 through 13—this requirement was specifically requested by Heaven's 27 families and by the families of other children who survived the flooding at Camp Mystic. One of the concerns raised is that the Hill Country youth camps are often poorly lit at night, and this condition would make an evacuation during an overnight emergency, like the July 4 floods, inevitably complicated by the darkness.

Page 9, lines 1 through 16—the goal of the redundant Internet connection requirement is to ensure that youth camps have a means of receiving emergency weather alerts, even if one of the connections fails due to the inclement weather. Page 10, lines 6 through 9—this provision was specifically requested by Heaven's 27 families and by the families of the other children who survived the flooding. Camp Mystic took advantage of the letter of map change process afforded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to exempt several of the cabins where campers were lost from the various insurance and other requirements that attach when a structure is erected in a floodplain. This language in the bill ensures that all floodplain-related requirements in HB 1 and CSSB 1 will remain intact, even when youth camps, and campgrounds in general, try to exempt themselves.

Page 10, lines 14 through 16—this requirement was born from the experience of Camp La Junta, just downriver from Camp Mystic. Ladders were intended to be an egress method of last resort. In the event an emergency evacuation plan is not implemented for some unforeseen reason, emergency egress ladders in campground cabins should offer an opportunity for them to escape. So with that, members, I would respectfully ask to table this motion in honor of the commitment to keep this bill intact without amendments.

Representative Darby moved to table Amendment No. 1.

(Speaker in the chair)

VIRDELL: I understand the families have lost family members, and that is something no one should ever have to go through. I fear we're rushing this legislation. I believe that the families deserve our due diligence to have more thorough, vetted conversations and another committee that looks into more of what happened through this and throughout the state. I'm going to ask you to vote against the motion to table.

The motion to table prevailed by (Record 158): 90 Yeas, 38 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Allen; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Craddick; Curry; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Hefner; Hickland; Hinojosa; Howard; Hunter; Johnson; King; Kitzman; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Little; Longoria; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lujan; Manuel; Martinez; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Moody; Muñoz; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Plesa; Raymond; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Shaheen; Simmons; Smithee; Spiller; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Turner; VanDeaver; Villalobos; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Nays — Alders; Ashby; Cain; Cook; Cunningham; Dorazio; Gates; Gerdes; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Holt; Hopper; Isaac; Kerwin; LaHood; Leo Wilson; Lowe; Lozano; Luther; McLaughlin; Money; Morgan; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Pierson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shofner; Slawson; Swanson; Tinderholt; Troxclair; Vasut; Virdell.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Hernandez; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Campos; Cortez; Garcia, J.; Hull; Lopez, J.; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Rodríguez Ramos; Toth.

When Record No. 158 was taken, I was shown voting no. I intended to vote yes.

Ashby

When Record No. 158 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote no.

C. Bell

When Record No. 158 was taken, I was shown voting no. I intended to vote yes.

Cunningham

When Record No. 158 was taken, I was shown voting no. I intended to vote yes.

Harris Davila

When Record No. 158 was taken, my vote failed to register. I would have voted yes.

J. Lopez

When Record No. 158 was taken, I was shown voting no. I intended to vote yes.

McLaughlin

VIRDELL: I'll admit it's disappointing to watch us rush through legislation when we know that there are problems with this bill. Members, I want to thank you for your time and your attention to this bill. I stand here today asking you to oppose this legislation with me. While it's important that we do our due diligence and draft legislation that can help improve camp safety, I believe we've rushed too quickly into legislation that has many flaws and will be detrimental to camps and to campers. For over a century, our state has had many thousands of young campers that have benefited from their experiences at camp. If this bill passes, it will likely cease the operations of many camps and future camper experiences that have had little to no problems in their history of operations. Our communities appreciate the existence of these camps, and we want them to continue existing for a long time. I know you're concerned that it will be unpopular to vote against this bill, but we owe it to the families of those who lost loved ones—the campers and the others—and to our communities to do our due diligence.

I have sensed among some members that we must do something immediately for the sake of doing something, and we all know that's a terrible way to approach legislation. I want to point out that some have been quick to point fingers and blame others for the loss of life. I want to be clear: This was an unprecedented flood. As the flood engineer talked about a while ago, this was not a 100-year flood. And as another member pointed out to me, it was said that it's 688 years that they calculated on this. This was an unprecedented flood that no one has seen in Kerr County before July 4. Yes, there are ways to address requirements for camps, but how do we plan for something no one has ever seen before? We need more discussion and review before passing legislation. My amendment had the opportunity to fix this bill. Unfortunately, the amendment did not pass, and this bill has flaw—and some are major.

If you are willing to vote for this knowing it has problems, the problem lies in your hands. What is a moment in time for you tonight is possibly the end of camps that have existed for a century. We all made a commitment to our constituents to put in the work to do what is best and right. We shouldn't turn our backs on that commitment for the sake of rushing legislation. I urge you to vote against this bill and to help me draft legislation in the future that enables campers to be safe and enables camps to continue operation. Thank you for your consideration.

DARBY: In the gallery are Caitlin and Blake Bonner, representing their daughter, Lila; Stacy and Johnny Stevens, representing their daughter, Mary Stevens; Lacey and Lars Hollis, representing Virginia Hollis; and CiCi Steward, whose daughter, Cile Steward, still has not been located. CSSB 1 and HB 1 would not have happened without your relentless advocacy, fight, and determination. Thank you for trusting us to do your work; that is the people's work. This bill has been expedited less than two months from the date of the occurrence because we want to make sure that another camper, another child, will not go to sleep subject to the horrors that you've had to endure. With that, members, I urge passage.

CSSB 1 was passed to third reading by (Record 159): 122 Yeas, 8 Nays, 0 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Mr. Speaker(C); Alders; Allen; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Frank; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Hinojosa; Holt; Hopper; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Johnson; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; Manuel; Martinez; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Moody; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Plesa; Raymond; Richardson; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Schatzline; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Simmons; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Turner; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Nays — Dorazio; Harrison; Lowe; Money; Olcott; Schofield; Swanson; Virdell.

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Hernandez; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Cain; Campos; Cortez; Flores; Garcia, J.; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Rodríguez Ramos.

When Record No. 159 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted yes.

C. Morales

When Record No. 159 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted yes.

Rodríguez Ramos

Notice was given at this time that the speaker had signed bills and resolutions in the presence of the house (see the addendum to the daily journal, Signed by the Speaker, Senate List Nos. 3 and 4).

Representative Harris called up with senate amendments for consideration at this time,

HB 27, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to a groundwater study of certain aquifers underlying the territory of the Neches and Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District by the Texas Water Development Board before the issuance of permits or permit amendments by the district.

REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS: Members, you supported me by passing out HB 27 nearly unanimously. Most of you know how important this bill is to me and my constituents, and you know the threats and the name-calling by a certain high-profile water profiteer.

Yesterday, the senate gutted the most important part of this bill. This is personal because this is a local bill affecting only my district, and it is the most important bill I have ever carried for my constituents. The bill has two parts. One is a study by the Water Development Board to ensure we have accurate aquifer data before issuing massive export permits in this particular GCD. The second part was a moratorium on this particular district from issuing permits until that study is completed, giving this body a chance next legislative session to make sure we're being good stewards of our most precious natural resource: water. One part of the bill is worthless without the other. The senate removed the moratorium, which put a two-year pause on permit approvals for export wells.

I want to thank Speaker Burrows for making this bill a house priority and for having my back throughout this fight. I also want to thank the governor for adding this issue to the call. The governor has made it clear that he stands for private property rights and understands the need to protect our most precious natural resource. I have worked with the governor's office, and I have confidence that the Water Development Board can—and will—still conduct a study without this legislation. I know others, including the Trinity River Authority, are also conducting independent studies. We will have science on this aquifer in the coming months.

REPRESENTATIVE ASHBY: Like you, I was disappointed to see some of the changes that the senate made to our bill. Chairman, would you agree that a temporary moratorium on high-capacity export permits was a critical component of your bill's original design and that removing it fundamentally alters the safeguards that your bill was meant to provide?

HARRIS: Absolutely. Removing the moratorium removes the mechanism that gives our communities breathing room while the study is conducted. Without it, the bill is nothing.

ASHBY: And is it your position, as it is mine, that allowing large-scale groundwater exports to move forward before we complete a sustainability study puts the cart before the horse and risks long-term harm to our aquifers and our local water supply systems?

HARRIS: Absolutely, and while we started with this in just a small area in the state—in just my district—we don't approve massive infrastructure products without knowing their impact, their environmental impact. Why on earth would we approve high-capacity exports in groundwater without knowing the data of how that groundwater's impacted?

ASHBY: Chairman Harris, what options remain available to ensure that the people of East Texas aren't left vulnerable to high-capacity groundwater extraction in the absence of meaningful protections?

HARRIS: Unfortunately, in some areas of the state they have no protection—like a county you represent.

ASHBY: That's right.

HARRIS: Houston County has no protection. But in areas that do have a groundwater conservation district—in the three counties that I represent—and I'll do it right now. I call on the groundwater conservation district in Anderson, Henderson, and Cherokee Counties to deny the permit applications on these water projects. Stand firm, and this body will have your back.

ASHBY: Chairman Harris, do you believe, as I do, that this body has a responsibility to stand together in defense of our shared natural resources, and that we cannot let short-term profits for a few come at the long-term expense of millions of rural Texans?

HARRIS: Absolutely. This isn't just about water. This is about trust, right?

ASHBY: That's right.

HARRIS: And our constituents in East Texas are relying on us to protect their private property rights. They know that we have fought for them, they will remember who stood with East Texas; and they will remember who didn't.

ASHBY: And I have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in this fight, Chairman Harris. I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. I want to highlight one thing you said a minute ago. It is not lost on any member of this body, or the other chamber, how big of a deal it is to get the governor to add a local bill to a special session call. That is a Herculean feat. So I want to thank you, I want to thank this body, and I want to thank Governor Abbott for recognizing the importance of this issue—not just in East Texas but for the entire State of Texas—and for putting this issue on the call. I appreciate your leadership on this important matter to East Texas.

HARRIS: Thank you, Representative Ashby. Thank you for your help getting it to this point. Members, this fight is not over. This is just the beginning. I'll have hearings on this throughout the interim, and we will use the full power of the house to figure out exactly who all the investors are in this project. We will demand answers.

REPRESENTATIVE C. BELL: Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your leadership, as Chairman Ashby said, on this matter. I just wanted to point out a couple of things that may not be apparent to everybody in this body. We talked about profiteering, but in that profiteering we don't necessarily hear or see the fact that they're talking about reducing the aquifer level to a point where people whose wells have been there generationally will no longer function. So your neighbors—by not allowing this moratorium to be in place while we figure out the cause and effect of such a dramatic pumping could be, we are putting at risk our neighbors' ability to access water, the one thing you cannot live without. Is that right?

HARRIS: Absolutely. And not only—it would be bad enough if it was just the local property owners and the surrounding landowners that have wells, but we're talking about 47 wells that are along the alluvium flow of the Trinity River and the Neches River. That is going to dramatically—possibly dramatically—impact the drinking water supply for the entire Houston region. Twenty-five percent of this state's population is going to be put in harm's way because this local bill couldn't pass out of the other chamber.

C. BELL: And I would agree with that assessment totally. Did we also not hear the local cities suggesting—and other water purveyors suggesting—that not taking action against this type of movement of water in such a large capacity would compromise the access and viability to water for the citizens of our cities and our businesses in those local areas that are affected by this excessive pumping potential?

HARRIS: Yes. Not only would it compromise it, but in this particular instance the applicant is proposing to pump 50,000 acre-feet of water, roughly, per year. The model available groundwater is 36,000 acre-feet per year—so well over the allocated amount. That means if he goes forward and starts pumping to his heart's content as much as he wants and as much as he is allowed to under the MAG or exceeding the MAG, there can be no economic development. There can be no new wells drilled or permitted. This is a massive problem for all these Texans, and it will not stop in my district. This is coming to every district in East Texas or anywhere that has fresh groundwater available. This is going to proliferate throughout the State of Texas. That's why it's so important that we stop this now.

C. BELL: I would agree with that statement totally. I would also come back to the Trinity River Authority that suggested that allowing this type of pumping could have dramatic effects, as you touched on earlier, on the ability of the river to continue to supply water downstream. Is that what you recall from those hearings?

HARRIS: Absolutely, that's correct.

C. BELL: And when we talked to the local—I'm going to go back to those individuals, to the cities, and to those water purveyors. When the local well drillers in the community talked about the depths that most of those wells were at, and then we heard the developer of the potential project talk about the amount of water reduction, was it the consensus in the conversation from that well driller or the testimony we heard at that hearing that the reduction in water—based on the permittee requesting the permit to pump all this water out of these counties—that it would reduce the water that was available and leave those wells unserviceable for the local citizens? I know I'm coming back to the same point. I just want to make the point. We're talking about taking the water away from our businesses, our cities, and our citizens—not just for today, but for the future. Is that correct?

HARRIS: You're absolutely correct, Representative.

C. BELL: I greatly appreciate your leadership, and we'll stand with you in the fight.

REPRESENTATIVE MCLAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, my district sits about 300 miles away from your district. Is it not true that if these wells are allowed to go forward and pump, then my district will lose millions of gallons of water through those aquifers that will be pumping through there? So it's not just going to affect that; it's going to affect an area that has been hit hard by drought already.

HARRIS: Is your area in the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer?

MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, sir.

HARRIS: Then absolutely, yes, sir. It's very possible.

MCLAUGHLIN: I stand with you. We've got to make a stand and stop this. For some reason our neighbors across the street don't want to put Texas' interest first. So thank you for this.

HARRIS: That's right.

Representative Harris moved that the house not concur in the senate amendments and that a conference committee be requested to adjust the differences between the two houses on HB 27.

The motion prevailed.

The chair announced the appointment of the following conference committee, on the part of the house, on HB 27: Harris, chair; Ashby, K. Bell, Bonnen, and M. González.

Representative Garcia Hernandez moved to print all remarks on HB 8.

The motion prevailed.

A message from the senate was received at this time (see the addendum to the daily journal, Messages from the Senate, Message No. 2).

Representative Gerdes moved to print all remarks on HB 27.

The motion prevailed.

The following privileged resolution was laid before the house:

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, 89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2025, That House Rule 13, Section 9(a), be suspended in part as provided by House Rule 13, Section 9(f), to enable the conference committee appointed to resolve the differences on SB 5 (making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations) to consider and take action on the following matters:

(1)  House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(4), is suspended to permit the committee to add text on a matter not included in either the house or senate version of the bill in proposed SECTION 4 of the bill, by adding contingent appropriations to the Department of State Health Services for campground and youth camp safety, to read as follows:

SECTION 4.  DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES: CAMPGROUND AND YOUTH CAMP SAFETY CONTINGENT APPROPRIATIONS. (a) Contingent on the enactment of SB 1 or similar legislation of the 89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2025, relating to campground and youth camp safety, the amount of $2,594,265 is appropriated from the economic stabilization fund for use during the two-year period beginning on the effective date of this Act, and the amount of $2,484,726 is appropriated from the general revenue fund for use during the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2026, to the Department of State Health Services to implement the provisions of that legislation. The department shall adjust the amount of license fees established under Section 141.0035, Health and Safety Code, as necessary to recover the costs of the appropriations made under this subsection.

(b)  During the state fiscal biennium beginning September 1, 2025, in addition to the capital budget authority other law grants to the department during that period, the Department of State Health Services may use $500,000 in capital budget authority for the appropriations made by Subsection (a) of this section, if any.

(c)  During the state fiscal biennium beginning September 1, 2025, in addition to the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees other law authorizes the department to employ during that period, the Department of State Health Services may employ 16.0 FTE employees out of money appropriated by Subsection (a) of this section, if any.

Explanation: The change is necessary to appropriate money to the Department of State Health Services, and authorize the department to take other actions necessary, to implement the provisions of SB 1 or similar legislation of the 89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2025, relating to campground and youth camp safety.

(2)  House Rule 13, Section 9(a)(1), is suspended to permit the committee to change, alter, or amend text not in disagreement in proposed SECTION 6(a) of the bill, by changing the effective date to read as follows:

(a)  Subject to Subsection (b) of this section, this Act takes effect immediately.

Explanation: The change is necessary to provide for an immediate effective date.

HR 174 was adopted by (Record 160): 127 Yeas, 1 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Allen; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Flores; Frank; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Hinojosa; Holt; Hopper; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; Manuel; Martinez; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Money; Moody; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Raymond; Richardson; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Simmons; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Turner; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Nays — Harrison.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Hernandez; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Campos; Cortez; Gámez; Garcia, J.; Johnson; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Plesa; Rodríguez Ramos.

Without objection, Representative Bonnen submitted the conference committee report on SB 5.

Representative Bonnen moved to adopt the conference committee report on SB 5.

The motion to adopt the conference committee report on SB 5 prevailed by (Record 161): 129 Yeas, 0 Nays, 2 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Allen; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Davis, A.; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Hinojosa; Holt; Hopper; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Johnson; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; Manuel; Martinez; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Money; Moody; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Raymond; Richardson; Romero; Rosenthal; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Simmons; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Turner; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Vo; Walle; Ward Johnson; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C); Rose.

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Hernandez; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Campos; Cortez; Garcia, J.; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Plesa; Rodríguez Ramos.

The chair stated that SB 5 was passed subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 49a, of the Texas Constitution.

When Record No. 161 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted yes.

Rodríguez Ramos

When Record No. 161 was taken, I was shown voting present, not voting. I intended to vote yes.

Rose

Representative C. Morales submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote to adopt the conference committee report for SB 5 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of this special session's redistricting scheme and the harm the proposed map would impose. I would have voted yes because SB 5 makes critical investments in disaster preparedness and local infrastructure, like flood warning systems and emergency communications. These investments will help protect working families from the devastating impacts of extreme weather in our rapidly changing climate.

Representative Rodríguez Ramos submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote to adopt the conference committee report for SB 5 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session called to pass a racially gerrymandered redistricting scheme. I would have voted yes because SB 5 makes critical investments in disaster preparedness and local infrastructure, like flood warning systems and emergency communications. These investments will help protect working families from the devastating impacts of extreme weather in our rapidly changing climate.

Representative Hopper moved to print all remarks on CSSB 1.

The motion prevailed.

The following resolution was laid before the house:

WHEREAS, the house desires to adopt penalties to reduce the frequency with which members absent themselves without leave for the purpose of impeding the action of the house while ensuring that members' constitutional rights are protected, all penalties herein are proportional to the proscribed conduct, and members' constitutional responsibilities as legislators are not unfairly impaired; now, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the 89th Legislature, that Rule 5, Section 3, of the permanent rules of the House of Representatives of the 89th Legislature is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 3.  LEAVE OF ABSENCE. (a) No member shall be absent from the sessions of the house without leave, and no member shall be excused on his or her own motion.

(b)  A leave of absence may be granted by a majority vote of the house and may be revoked at any time by a similar vote.

(c)  Any member granted a leave of absence due to a meeting of a committee or conference committee that has authority to meet while the house is in session shall be so designated on each roll call or registration for which that member is excused.

(d)  If a member is absent without leave for the purpose of impeding the action of the house, the member is subject to one or more of the following:

(1)  fines as provided by this section;

(2)  payment of costs incurred by the sergeant-at-arms;

(3)  reprimand;

(4)  censure; [or]

(5)  recalculation of seniority as provided by this section;

(7)  expulsion in the manner prescribed by Section 11, Article III, Texas Constitution; or

(8)  any other penalty allowed by the house rules in accordance with Section 10, Article III, Texas Constitution, and this section.

(e)  Unless the house excuses the payment by a majority vote, each member who is absent without leave is liable to the house for:

(1)  a fine in an [the] amount equal to three times the per diem set by the Texas Ethics Commission for each day of a regular or special legislative session under Section 24a(e), Article III, Texas Constitution [of $500] for each calendar day of absence; and

(2)  the member's pro rata share of the costs incurred by the sergeant-at-arms to secure the attendance of absentees.

(e-1)  (1) Unless the house excuses the following penalty, each member who is absent without leave while the house is operating under a call ordered under this rule shall forfeit the pro rata portion of the member's monthly operating budget for each calendar day of absence.

(f)  The Committee on House Administration shall notify a member of the total amount of fines and costs for which payment is not excused. A member must pay the amount stated in the committee's notice by making payment of that amount to the House Business Office not later than the third business day of the first calendar month after the date of the committee's notice. A member may not make any payment from funds in the member's operating account or from funds accepted as political contributions under Title 15, Election Code. If a member does not make full payment as required by this subsection, the committee shall direct the House Business Office to reduce the amount of the monthly credit to the member's operating account established under the housekeeping resolution by 30 percent in each month that any amount of a fine remains past due and owing. When a member has made full payment as required by this subsection, the committee shall direct the House Business Office to restore the impounded funds to the member's operating account subject to any limitations on the carrying forward of unexpended funds established by the housekeeping resolution.

(g)  Before a member is expelled under this section, the matter shall be referred to the Committee on House Administration for investigation and report. A report issued under this subsection shall not be considered by the house until a printed copy of the report has been provided to each member of the house at least 24 hours before consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE VASUT: Members, I know it's a little late, but I think any time we are amending the rules, it's important to carefully do so. I'm going to lay this out for a little while, and then I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Members, HR 128 was filed at the request of the house republican caucus to amend the rules to increase penalties for breaking quorum to discourage future quorum breaks. I'm going to cover this in three ways for you today. First is the law as it is right now on penalties for breaking quorum. Second, what many believe are deficiencies with those current penalties. And finally, how HR 128 addresses those deficiencies.

As to the law right now, Article III, Section 10, of the Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of each house to be present to conduct business. Texas is one of only four states with this two-thirds quorum requirement. Since the majority party in Texas holds less than two-thirds of the seats in the house, the practical effect of this provision is that it creates the ability of the minority party to deprive the house of quorum. Yesterday, we heard a lot said about the "constitutional right to break quorum." There is no constitutional right to break quorum. You cannot have a constitutional right if, in the same provision, there is a penalty for exercising it. And there is a penalty in Article III, Section 10. It says that less than a majority have power to compel a quorum and punish members who break quorum. Section 11 of Article III also gives the house the power to adopt rules and punish members for disorderly conduct.

In 2023, following the 2021 quorum break, the house adopted the current penalties in its rules to punish members who break quorum. Those provisions can be found in Rule 5, Section 3. It's on page 89 of your handy rule book. Some of you, like Ms. Noble, have it buried deep in––there it is. You can turn with me there. That will be our chapter and verse this evening. It will be in Rule 5, Section 3. If you look there—in Rule 5, Section 3(a)—it says that no member can absent themselves from the sessions of the house without leave. Any member who breaks quorum violates the rules of the house that were adopted by the members. The Constitution gives the house broad authority to punish quorum breaking. In Article III, Sections 10 through 11, of course, the house has the power to limit any penalties it will impose when it adopts its rules.

Prior to the 2021 quorum break, the only penalty for breaking quorum was in Rule 5, Section 8, and that was simply arrest. Now, we had a lawsuit about whether or not we could actually arrest quorum breakers. In In re Abbott, the court held that we have the power to physically compel the attendance of absent members. Now, some argued yesterday that the court recognized the constitutional right to break quorum. It did not. It simply said that just as Article III, Section 10, enables quorum breaking by a minority faction in the legislature, it likewise authorizes quorum forcing by the remaining members. So in 2023, we amended Rule 5, Section 3, to add five express penalties for breaking quorum. Those are fines of $500 a day unless they are excused, the pro rata portion of costs incurred securing quorum unless excused, reprimand, censure, and expulsion. Late in August, I think around the 21st, the Committee on House Administration sent out letters to those who broke quorum informing them of the amount of the fines and pro rata costs that they have incurred. Those are about $9,000 per member, almost half a million dollars. Those must be paid out of personal funds, not campaign funds. If they are not paid—I think, by tomorrow—then starting from that day going forward, you will lose 30 percent of your operating account.

Now, these penalties that were in place under the current rules are not perfect. Why? Because we had a quorum break under the current rules. And so while the fines and costs that we added in 2023 probably helped limit the duration of the latest quorum break to only a couple of weeks versus 38 days back in 2021––I'm reminded that you do have an appeals process in the Committee on House Administration, of which I'm not aware of anyone exercising, and I don't think you'll succeed. Anyway, alas, it's there. We'll see. To be determined. Now, it's the view of myself and many that those penalties were not enough, either to discourage the quorum break from occurring to begin with, or shortening it even more. And I would argue from this sense where, maybe, individuals would have something that they can look at to dissuade outside interests from seeking to pressure them to break quorum by pointing to, "I can't for this reason." So the whole idea, first and foremost, with this resolution is to increase the available penalties to ensure that they are more robust to help prevent a quorum break or shorten its length.

The other issue with the current penalties that we're seeking to address is that it's unclear from the current penalties what is available for the house to use as punishments. In Rule 5, Section 3(d)(4), there's a reference to censure. That censure power, when it is exercised by Congress in many other cases, has been coupled with the loss of committee positions or with loss of seniority. However, there's a difference of opinion about whether or not censure, in our current rule, allows us to strip committee positions or seniority under the current rules because the congressional manual basically lists censure in addition to other penalties. So there's an open question whether censure can include those things, and I know there's differences of opinion there. So what we have sought to do in this resolution is to address that ambiguity by being more explicit in our rules about available penalties for breaking quorum.

HR 128 amends Rule 5, Section 3, to increase existing penalties and adopt additional penalties available for the house to use to help prevent, or at least reduce, the duration of quorum breaks. First, we increase the existing fine in Rule 5, Section 3(e), from $500 per day to three times of the per diem. That way when the per diem is modified at any particular time, the fine automatically rises with it. It goes up with inflation without us having to take any other action. We also add new penalties. Under Rule 5, Section 3(e-1), quorum breakers will lose the pro rata portion of their monthly operating budgets for each day they break quorum, unless excused by the house. Under Rule 5, Section 3(e-2), quorum breakers who are gone at least two consecutive days during a call will lose their chairmanships and vice-chairmanships, whether designated by the speaker or a committee chair, unless excused by the house. If a member loses their leadership position under this provision, they are ineligible for appointment to another during the rest of the session. The speaker and the committee chair, as applicable, depending on who appointed him, has the discretion to fill the vacancy or not. Under Rule 5, Section 3(e-3), quorum breakers who are gone at least three consecutive days during a call will lose one session's worth of seniority. That's two years for each day they are gone during a call, unless excused by the house. If this penalty is not excused, the chief clerk will revise the seniority roster accordingly, and the Committee on House Administration will have the discretion to allow members to reselect offices and parking spaces based on recalculated seniority if a member falls below another. This penalty is similar to how the Texas Senate currently punishes quorum breaking—by targeting seniority. Whether or not a reduction in seniority extends beyond the current session is up to the next house when it adopts its rules.

I had a question get asked of me, and I'm going to maybe preempt it if it was going to be asked at the back mic. Can your seniority be restored the next session? That's up to the next house. The 89th Legislature has no power to control the 90th Legislature and how it adopts its rules. That's up to the 90th Legislature and so on. Rule 5, Section 3(d) is amended to expressly add loss of seniority, loss of these leadership positions, and other penalties to the list of available penalties. I've got an amendment that's going to come up here in a second. We're going to talk about other penalties. What we had in the original draft was a catch-all provision in Rule 5, Section 3(d)(8), that said we can impose other penalties allowed by the rules in accordance with the Constitution. In Article III, Section 10, we have the constitutional power to impose penalties on quorum breaking. We have that plenary power. When we put specific penalties into our rules, the holding has been that we waive the right to impose other penalties allowed by the Constitution because we haven't included them in our rules. The purpose of (d)(8) was simply to say we reserve the right to exercise our constitutional authority. When I come to the amendment in a second, I think it's going to address that in a more clear fashion without the surplus of language we had put in (h). I'm going to defer that to when we take up the amendment.

I think these penalties are reasonable. I think they're strong to help defer a future quorum break. I hope that the availability of these penalties will give the members of both parties, in whatever circumstance they find themselves, to resist outside influences that would seek to have them break quorum. I think that worked in the senate much more than it did in the house. I hope with these rules' changes it will work more so in the house going forward. I don't desire for these penalties to be imposed because my strong desire is that we would always have quorum. Because Texans expect their members to show up for work. When the average Texan doesn't show up for work, they don't get paid; they get laid off. And it's important that we ensure that the people's representatives are here in Austin doing the work that they signed up to do according to the rules that they agreed to pursuant to the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold. On that basis, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

(Harris in the chair)

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIER: Thank you for preempting my question on Section 8. I do have a question. I'll hold off on that one and move on to my next question.

VASUT: Absolutely. Maybe the amendment might address your question. We can come back to that. I'd be happy to.

COLLIER: So then on page 2, lines 13 through 19—

VASUT: Let me turn there for just a moment. You said page 2, line 13?

COLLIER: Yes, 13 through 19.

VASUT: Okay. Go for it.

COLLIER: Is there a provision in this section that deals with the source of payment of the fine?

VASUT: That source of payment provision is not modified by this resolution. So that provision, I believe, is set out separately in Subsection (f), which you can see on page 4 of the resolution, unaltered.

COLLIER: Okay. Then going down to lines 15 through 19—it said that the fine would be three times of whatever the Texas Ethics Commission sets the per diem rate as for each calendar day. Can you tell me what a "calendar day" is?

VASUT: A "calendar day" is basically each day, as opposed to a legislative day, which is each day we are in session. They're magical days that we make up. Sometimes we have two legislative days in one day. It's really quite crazy. But the business day, of course, is Monday through Friday.

COLLIER: I'm just trying to clarify if "calendar day"––

VASUT: Yes, "calendar day" would be the traditional each day of the week.

COLLIER: Is it each day of the week that the house is in session, or is it each day?

VASUT: It would be while the house is in session, but maybe not a day that the house is on the floor, if that makes sense. For example, if we're called into session on August 1 and we are in session, then every single day of August would be a calendar day subject to this financial penalty if you're not there, all the way until you return or we adjourn sine die.

COLLIER: Okay. Then let's go down on page 2, lines 22 through 26. What happens if the penalty exceeds the monthly operating budget?

VASUT: Because it's limited to the pro rata portion, it would not exceed the operating budget. It would be capped at what the operating budget is. Good question. On that basis, it would never exceed the operating budget in total.

COLLIER: All right. Where does the money go that is not paid to the members' operating budget?

VASUT: The House Business Office debits the account, and it'll flow back into the general house account, I believe, which is under the control of the house at large, but the speaker in specific.

COLLIER: Can you clarify that? Say that again.

VASUT: My understanding is we have a base house account that we appropriate money into in the base budget. And the speaker, as our constitutional chief executive, has control over that, as does House Administration. They can appropriate funds from it to us, which they do with our operating budgets that come to us from House Administration right now.

COLLIER: Let me go back to lines 13 through 19. What is the enforcement mechanism to collect the fine?

VASUT: The enforcement mechanism remains the same, which is in Subsection (f). It's a requirement of personal payment, to the chair of House Administration's earlier point, after your hearing and your opportunity to appeal. Once that is determined, and the final amount is owed, you then have to pay it. I believe it says by the third business day of the month following that final determination. If it is not paid out of personal funds at that time, the enforcement mechanism is a reduction in the operating budget of 30 percent each month going forward until paid.

COLLIER: Okay. What if that never happens?

VASUT: If that never happens, then it's just a reduction the whole time. Theoretically, could the house sue you in small claims court? Maybe. I don't honestly know the whole answer to that question, but the house rules provide a mechanism basically tied to a reduction of your budget to enforce payment of the financial penalties.

COLLIER: But there's no mechanism for the house to obtain a judgement against a member for the fines that remain unpaid?

VASUT: I don't know definitively what the answer is. I defer you to the house counsel's office. I don't know if the house would have standing as a creditor in any ordinary sense of the word in a JP court or something of that nature. You'd have to ask them.

COLLIER: So did your HR affect the due process? Is there a due process in here?

VASUT: Due process is implicit already in the rules. It's a constitutional right that you're entitled to according to the note in the House Rules Manual. You may have seen it. There's a reference to a court case.

COLLIER: I know, but you just mentioned that the fines are implemented tomorrow, and that's not true because there's a due process.

VASUT: There's an appeal if you challenge them, right? So you're entitled to a hearing before House Administration to challenge. Just so we're clear—because I got this question earlier and I don't know if you were going to ask it—I'm going to preempt it. Well, what happens, for example, under the House Rules? You can't be absent without leave, but you have to get an excused absence from the members of the house to be excused, right? What happens if the members of the house just don't excuse you and are trying to just pick on you, right? They just don't give you an excused absence. Can you be subject to these penalties? The answer is no because all of these penalties for due process reasons are tied solely to proof that you were absent without leave with the specific intent of impeding the action of the house.

COLLIER: Okay. I didn't ask that question, but I appreciate you bringing that up. So you're saying the operating budget—no one will ever exceed because it's a pro rata share?

VASUT: Right. So if you were gone 31 days out of 31 days, then it would be zeroed. I don't know offhand if we've ever had that situation. Usually the breaks happen over the course of the end of one month over into the earlier part of another. But in no case would it go negative.

COLLIER: If the member does pay the fine, does the member's operating account get reinstated?

VASUT: So the fine—which is, under the current regime, the $500 per day—if that is paid, then your operating budget is no longer debited. I believe if it already has been debited, it is not returned, but I would have to defer to the parliamentarians on that ruling specifically. But under this resolution, there is now an additional operating budget penalty, and that is not returned. That is debited if you are gone without leave.

COLLIER: And that was my next question. Just to be clear: These are penalties that could be assessed on top of each other?

VASUT: That's correct. They can stack. Now, the house does have discretion to excuse, in whole or in part, one or all penalties, right? But if no excuse is given, or no excuse can be given—for example, if quorum is never reestablished—that was the reason why "excuse" was written in there to begin with. Because you can't get an excuse if you don't have quorum.

COLLIER: Okay. So then my next question deals with––on page 3, you mention (e-2)––unless the penalty is excused by majority vote, a member could be stripped of their committee assignments and/or chair or vice-chair positions?

VASUT: Only the chair or vice-chair positions, not committee assignments themselves.

COLLIER: Well, 15(a) mentions committee assignments. If you read 15(a), it says the speaker will appoint the chair and vice-chair and the committee.

VASUT: That's a good question. The specific provision that you're looking at on page 3 is solely tied to losing a designation under Rule 1, Section 15(a), Rule 4, Section 2(a)(7), Rule 1, Section 15(d), and Rule 4, Section 44. Four subsections, right? As a chair or vice-chair at the end of that sentence.

COLLIER: It's a run-on sentence, so it didn't read very well.

VASUT: Yes, it runs quite a long time, like the Apostle Paul in the beginning of Ephesians.

COLLIER: Okay. You've already said that the money that's for the budget—the fines that are collected, where does that money go?

VASUT: That's a good question. My assumption would be it goes into the general house account. I don't know that for sure. I would have to defer you to the chair of House Administration for that exact answer.

COLLIER: Are the fines payable to House Administration?

VASUT: I don't know, definitively, whether they're payable to House Administration or to the Texas House of Representatives or some other, but it would be, essentially, to the house in some form or fashion.

COLLIER: Okay. So then it doesn't apply to committee assignments. And then you mentioned something earlier about the next legislative session.

VASUT: Yes, ma'am.

COLLIER: I did see something about––it kind of is wide-open about whether it does apply to the following session. It says on page 3, line 11, "If a penalty under this subsection is not excused: a member losing a designation or appointment is not eligible for a new designation or appointment until the convening of the next legislature."

VASUT: Correct. Because any penalty imposed under the rules can only be functionally imposed for as long as that session is in session. Just so we're clear, our rules disappear when the next session gavels in. There are no rules. So in that case, we have no authority as the 89th Legislature to govern the internal proceedings of the 90th.

COLLIER: So if a member—if their seniority was lost in one session, it would be restored under the next session?

VASUT: There's not a guarantee of that.

COLLIER: Why not?

VASUT: It would be up to the 90th or the 91st or the next legislature, depending on what rules that they adopt. Let's use this hypothetical: If these rules remain enforced and in the 90th Legislature there was a quorum break and someone lost seniority in that session in the 90th, it would be up to the 91st Legislature, when it adopted its rules, to restore that seniority or not. If they were to adopt a rule that said, "your seniority shall be calculated with a deduction for any loss of seniority in a prior session," then it would continue forward. But if they don't have a provision like that, it would not.

COLLIER: I want to ask about an appeals process. If a member wants to appeal the vote on asking for an excuse, is there a process for that?

VASUT: My understanding is the process is that you would go to the Committee on House Administration for a hearing where you would appeal the determination of whether or not you actually were absent without leave with the specific intent of impeding the business of the house and whether or not you should receive an excuse for that penalty ascribed there too.

COLLIER: And would the committee vote on that?

VASUT: My understanding is that they would. They could bring, for example, some type of motion or report to the house for excuses if they so chose to.

COLLIER: For these fines that are assessed—because I saw something––it said on page 5, "Before a penalty described by Subsection (d)(8)."

VASUT: Yes.

COLLIER: Okay. It says that the Committee on House Administration must adopt a motion.

VASUT: That is for that catch-all provision that I have an amendment for. I think that cleans up the language. The original, as filed, had other penalties as allowed by the rules. And because there was a question about what those other penalties are, I had a due process provision put into (h). I think that the amendment's going to obviate the need for that because we already have existing due process provisions. So I'd like to take that up when I take up the first floor amendment.

COLLIER: But you're not saying that there's no due process throughout all of this?

VASUT: There's always due process, and there must always be due process.

REPRESENTATIVE WARD JOHNSON: You stated that one of the reasons for your resolution was to prevent outside influences from causing people to break quorum. Can you define who the outside influences could be?

VASUT: They could be anyone. It could be constituents, it could be otherwise. Maybe you want to break quorum, and that's what you want to do, in which case it doesn't matter what anyone on the outside has to say about it. But if you would prefer not to, and you could point to some type of penalty that you don't want to have to incur or you don't believe justifies that quorum break, that may provide you some degree of protection to avoid breaking quorum. Ultimately, that's what we care about the most. We just don't want there to be a quorum break because we want to get the people's business done here on the floor of the house.

WARD JOHNSON: So the outside influences could be constituents? You're implying that we should not listen to our constituents for fear of receiving a fine?

VASUT: I'm only stating that if you did not want to break quorum, it may be beneficial to have something that you can point to that would defend your decision not to break quorum and whatever that may be.

WARD JOHNSON: Who would you say the outside influence was that caused the maps to be created or HB 4 to be created? Who was the outside influence?

VASUT: I'm actually unable to answer the question under the rules of the house, which prohibit me from answering questions unrelated to the matter at hand.

WARD JOHNSON: Okay. So you are refusing to answer who the influence was that caused us to––

VASUT: This is about a quorum break and not about any other bill.

WARD JOHNSON: Which the quorum break was because––

CHAIR: Members will confine their remarks to the subject of the resolution before the body.

WARD JOHNSON: It is the subject of the resolution because the quorum break is the cause of the fines. We have to define what caused the quorum break and what outside influence because he mentioned outside influence. I was just trying to get a clarification on what he meant by "outside influence."

VASUT: Again, it's anybody. It's just for those that don't want to break quorum to be able to point to something, I hope, in the penalties that would provide them a way not to. Because, again, my whole goal here is that we would not have any quorum breaks, period. That's it.

WARD JOHNSON: And to confirm—you said the outside influences could be constituents?

VASUT: It's anybody.

REPRESENTATIVE GERVIN-HAWKINS: I'd like to ask the author of the resolution, what's the purpose of the resolution?

VASUT: The purpose of the resolution is to increase the penalties for quorum breaking so that we either prevent quorum breaks from every occurring or we shorten them in their duration even more than we already did when we did the rules in 2023. That's it.

Representatives Vasut and Schofield offered the following amendment to HR 128:

Amend HR 128 (house committee report) as follows:

(1)  On page 2, line 7, following the underlined semicolon, insert "or".

(2)  On page 2, line 9, strike "; or" and substitute a period.

(3)  On page 2, strike lines 10 through 12.

(4)  On page 5, strike lines 2 through 13 and substitute the following:

VASUT: Members, this amendment simply clarifies the language that we had in (d-8). The whole purpose of having (d-8) in the resolution as filed was to ensure that the house has not, and never would, waive any of its constitutional powers to impose other penalties that were allowed by the Constitution.

As you know, in Article III, Section 10, it gives us the plenary power to punish quorum breaks. The question that we had come up recently, members, as you'll recall, was whether or not when we adopted Rule 5, Section (3-d), and we listed those five penalties—could we not do anything else? Whether that was chairmanships or whether that was seniority or otherwise. What this amendment does is it clarifies that language and ensures that the house retains its authority under the Constitution to impose any other penalty that it so wishes. It's not being waived by adopting any of the penalties in this rule. It specifically states now, in Section (h), "The penalties prescribed by this section are not exclusive, and this section does not preclude the imposition of any other penalty allowed by the House Rules or the Texas Constitution." This simply affirms what the Texas Constitution already provides—that we have plenary authority to impose other penalties, and therefore we are not waiving that with the rules.

REPRESENTATIVE LITTLE: As I'm looking at your amendment here—it says, "The penalties prescribed by this section are not exclusive, and this section does not preclude the imposition of any other penalty." My concern here is with the last section of this. It says, "allowed by the House Rules or the Texas Constitution." At first glance, it seems circular to me. What I mean is that the penalties are not exclusive, except that they're exclusive to the rules in the Constitution, is how I read that. Am I misreading it? Am I overreading it?

VASUT: The way that I read it is that just because we have a penalty in Rule 5, Section 3 for breaking quorum does not mean we cannot rely on another part of the rules to impose a penalty. That's number one. That's that first part, "allowed by the House Rules." The key word there is "or," not "and," "or Texas Constitution." The Texas Constitution provides us our global authority in Article III, Section 10, to impose any penalty for quorum breaking that we believe is justified. Subject, of course, to the other constitutional provisions like due process.

LITTLE: So my problem with it is that was exactly my argument when we were addressing the penalties that we could assess now. My understanding is that the parliamentarian's view is our penalties were limited to what is expressly identified in the rules.

VASUT: Because we did not have a provision like this in the rules.

LITTLE: Well, I think the way that I would write it is, "the penalties prescribed by this section are not exclusive, and this section does not preclude the imposition of any other penalty." Period. Full stop. Is there any reason we shouldn't do that?

VASUT: I don't see a problem with it. I think that the current verbage here would have that same functional effect, because when we say it's allowed by the Texas Constitution—we can only do things allowed by the Texas Constitution. It's basically—where do you set the upper limit? And the upper limit, by this or your language, is the same.

LITTLE: I would like to think that it was, but my concern is that a future parliamentarian is going to read this nonexclusion as excluded under the plain language of the House Rules.

VASUT: I understand. My only preference—I do like referencing the Texas Constitution so as to avoid the situation that you and I went through, which is that the rules somehow limit our constitutional authority. I do not believe they should because we have a constitutional authority under Article III, Section 10, to punish through penalties for quorum breaking to compel a quorum. We shouldn't be tying our hands. If the Constitution allows it, it ought to be available.

LITTLE: I wonder if you would take an amendment to remove "allowed by the House Rules of the Texas Constitution" from this.

VASUT: I mean, it's fine with me if you want to bring that down. I mean, I think functionally, they do the same thing, so I don't have a preference either way. I'm happy to filibuster for a brief moment.

REPRESENTATIVE MONEY: I know what you're trying to do with this amendment. I like what you're trying to do with this amendment, but I have a question for you. Do you believe that without this amendment, the rules currently prohibit any punishments that are not clearly outlined in the rule as it's listed now?

VASUT: I think that's correct because I think the house, by adopting a penalty regime and not adopting certain things—they don't include them in the list—has made an implicit finding that the others are not available. It would have been better had they not done anything at all.

MONEY: And that is your belief. Your belief is that censure does not include providing other penalties?

VASUT: My personal belief is that censure could, but I understand there's a difference of opinion on that. I think that when we're talking about this, it's important to correct the rules to ensure that ambiguity and that discussion—or that disagreement—won't happen again.

MONEY: I appreciate the clarity. I'm going to vote for this amendment, either as it is or as it is amended—the amendment.

VASUT: Representative Little is signaling the vote for it.

MONEY: I'm going to vote for it, but it's the house itself that is the arbiter of its own rules, correct?

VASUT: Correct. And just to be clear, the senate, in its rules when it talks about its power to punish—it just says, "the senate may punish any member for disorderly conduct," and it just cites the Constitution. So the senate rules are very clear that they're not giving up their powers.

MONEY: So what we're doing with this entire rules change that you have proposed here—HR 128—is providing a clear explanation to any would-be quorum breakers of what the punishment will be. But we are not limiting ourselves to punishing beyond that if we think it warrants it?

VASUT: If we think it warrants it, and we comply separately with the due process clause—which would require some type of prior notice of the conduct and then an opportunity for notice and hearing to be heard, right? So you have some awareness of what the penalty could be.

Representative Gervin-Hawkins moved to print all remarks on HR 128.

The motion prevailed.

(Landgraf in the chair)

Amendment No. 1 was adopted.

Representative Hopper offered the following amendment to HR 128:

Amend HR 128 by inserting the following appropriately numbered section after Subsection (e-3) of added Rule 5, Section 3, Texas House Rules, and renumbering subsequent subsections and cross references accordingly:

REPRESENTATIVE HOPPER: We just had a great discussion where we were talking about the plenary powers of this body. That's described in the Constitution to compel—

Representative Moody raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 2 under Rule 11, Section 2, of the House Rules.

(Harris in the chair)

The speaker sustained the point of order, announcing his decision to the house as follows:

Mr. Moody raises a point of order against further consideration of the Hopper Amendment to HR 128 under Rule 11, Section 2, on the grounds that the amendment is not germane.

As explained by the author on the front microphone, the resolution would amend the House Rules of Procedure prospectively to impose additional penalties on members who are absent without leave for the purpose of impeding the action of the house. The amendment would apply these additional penalties retroactively. The subject of the resolution is to adopt penalties for future conduct, and the subject of the amendment is to effectively impose penalties for prior conduct. The amendment is not on the same subject as the resolution and thus is not germane. See 86 H. Jour. 1758-1759 (2019).

Accordingly, the point of order is well-taken and sustained.

The ruling precluded further consideration of Amendment No. 2.

Representative Turner offered the following amendment to HR 128:

Amend HR 128 (house committee report) on page 1, line 9, between "that" and "Rule 5" by inserting ", effective on the date legislation to expand eligibility for Medicaid to all persons in this state for whom federal matching money is available becomes law,".

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Members, I have a very simple amendment here. It doesn't change anything about the prescribed penalties in this resolution. It simply says the changes contained in the resolution will take effect, and they will take effect once legislation expanding Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act is adopted by this legislature because we have the highest rate in the country of—

Representative Little raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 3 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. 3 was withdrawn.

Notice was given at this time that the speaker had signed bills and resolutions in the presence of the house (see the addendum to the daily journal, Signed by the Speaker, House List No. 4).

A message from the senate was received at this time (see the addendum to the daily journal, Messages from the Senate, Message No. 3).

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Colleagues, members of this body, I must ask each and every one of you—where is the trust? Where is the trust? I also ask my colleagues, where is the respect for the Constitution? Colleagues, I must ask, what's the thought behind punishing colleagues like children? Is it to be hurtful? But more importantly, it's because we all know it's unnecessary. "Punishing"—that word bothers me tremendously. I'm neither a child nor a runaway slave. I don't need to be punished.

Now, I must ask my sensible republicans—doesn't the minority party have rights, or is there a sense of feeling superior? I must ask us, and ask you, how can you smile in a colleague's face and stab them in the freaking back? How can you do that? I must ask, where are the leaders in the majority party? Where y'all at? Those that stand up for rights and the rights of others and not try to suppress and hurt others. Where you at, leaders? I haven't seen y'all all session.

As we talked about the quorum break—it was positioned as folks running away, but we know the real issue was to let America know that democracy is under attack. It's under attack by an oppressive regime that believes they can suppress and scare everybody. But I want to let y'all know this: You can put a fine—a dime, or a nickel—but when the time is right, I'm going to use my constitutional right to say this place smells so bad. Because it's not respecting one's right under the Constitution that we must lead. I must ask, when will my colleagues in this house stop dancing in the end zone? You know, I come from a sports family. If you win something, you shouldn't have to cheat. When you win something and you're in the majority, really what you should do is show a little class and understand that there are two sides and we play fair. We don't try to cheat. The word "punish"—really? You're going to punish me for using my constitutional right? You're going to treat me less than because you're in the majority rather than understanding that fair debate, fair dialogue, and interaction is what we're supposed to do as leaders?

Colleagues, I will give you these words of wisdom: Watch what you do. I was taught that when a person thinks they're digging a hole for you, they're going to watch out, because most likely they're going to fall in it. As we pray together every morning and say we love the Lord, then you know these words: Do unto others as you have them do unto you. And when you can't do that in this body, that tells me you're truly not worthy—you're not worthy of sitting in these seats. So colleagues, grow up.

MONEY: I heard you say you don't want to hear the word punishment. Are you okay with the word penalties?

GERVIN-HAWKINS: I am; that's sanctions. Yes, sir.

MONEY: Okay, penalties exist in the Constitution that a smaller number of the house may "compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide." Is this HR 128 doing anything other than amending what penalties may be provided in the future if people, regardless of the reason, decide not to show up for work?

GERVIN-HAWKINS: We were working every day for our constituents, and that's the thing—

MONEY: Well—

GERVIN-HAWKINS: You want me to answer, right? So you wait on my answer, okay? We were working every day talking to our constituents and resolving constituency cases, okay. We were working every day to try to save democracy. We were working every day to tell people what was happening here. We were working every day to make sure people see what's happening in the Texas House under rigged gerrymandered mapping because you want to respond and bow down to what's happening in D.C. So yes, we were working.

MONEY: Ms. Gervin-Hawkins, every day that you were in Chicago, New York, California, or wherever you may have been or other quorum breakers were, we were here as called by the governor as required by the Constitution to do the will of the people of Texas—

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Is the will of the people to be mean, ugly, and trying to be able to hurt people? Is that the will of the people? I doubt it.

MONEY: We were not mean and ugly. We were present.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Call you names, put you on social media, put a bounty on your head—that's the will of the people? Put your address and then post that?

MONEY: I haven't asked you a question yet, but we were not doing those things. We were here ready to vote on things that were on the call, taking time away from our families and taking time away from our business to do the work of the people of Texas—

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Don't you think we were taking time away from our families, some of us, as caregivers? We left our jobs, we left our homes, all of that, because we knew what was happening was wrong.

MONEY: And walked out on the responsibilities required by you under the Constitution to show up when we are in session.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: We took up the responsibility when we shone the light. We showed America what Texas was up to, which was trying to rig the system and cheat on the upcoming election. That's what we were doing.

MONEY: And you used the rules allowed to do so. We have a right to change the rules to make it more painful if that happens in the future, under such penalties as the house may provide.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: If y'all wanted to change the rules, you would have taken up that flood issue because that was the most important issue. Because people died.

MONEY: We took it up—

GERVIN-HAWKINS: That's what should've been taken up first. If y'all were serious, that would've been the first item of business—dealing with the flood and the fact that young people passed away. That would've been priority.

MONEY: Would we not have passed that flood legislation more quickly if there had been a quorum here to do the business of the people of Texas?

GERVIN-HAWKINS: We should've that first week we came back. It was two weeks that we were here. We should've passed that flood bill as soon as we hit this floor. That's what should've happened.

MONEY: We had hearings. We had time to draft documents.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: No, the flood bill was held hostage because of a bigger agenda that we shed the light on.

MONEY: It was held hostage for three weeks while y'all were in Chicago not doing the work that was called on you to do here.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Representative Money, you know what? What's so sad about that is that you may believe that, you know? That's what's so sad about it. The reality is that nothing should've prevented this house from taking care of that flood bill up front—nothing.

MONEY: And yet we did.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: As a matter of fact, there's enough money in the governor's pocketbook that a check could've been written right away. The resolution is—sir, any other questions?

MONEY: No, no questions at this time.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: I didn't think so.

TURNER: Members, as I was listening to the resolution author's layout, he said a lot of words. Something really struck me when he talked about how the purpose of the resolution was to protect the house against outside influences. Outside influences. May I remind Chairman Vasut and all of you that this whole thing started because of an outside influence named Donald J. Trump? Lest you forget, President Trump picked up the phone, called Governor Abbott, and he said, "Governor, I need five new seats in Texas. What you need to do is you need to go out and find majority-minority congressional districts and tear them apart and deny those communities representation so I can have five more yes-men and women who will never hold me accountable for anything. Not the Epstein files, not the Big Ugly Bill, not anything." And Governor Abbott said, "Yes, sir." And y'all said, "Yes, governor, we'll do what you and President Trump want us to do." That's how this started—an outside influence.

There have been, in this century, four major quorum breaks in the Texas Legislature. Two in 2003—one in the house and one in the senate—one in 2021, and the one this year. What do all four of those have in common? They all had to do with voting rights. They all had to do with legislation that systematically sought to disenfranchise minority Texans. It was the redistricting plans in 2003—another mid-decade congressional redistricting. It was the anti-voter legislation in 2021, and, of course, it was this year's mid-decade redistricting. What I would like y'all to understand is my democratic colleagues and I, we broke quorum not because it was fun, not because it was something that would help us in any way politically or professionally or any other way, but because it was the right thing to do for our constituents. It was the right thing to do for the millions of primarily Black, Hispanic, and Asian Texans who are no longer going to have a voice in the U.S. Congress if this map eventually becomes law. And I predict, by the way, it will not eventually be enacted. But we thought it was important to stand up and fight for our constituents' voting rights. It was important to stand up and fight and say that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 still means something, even in the State of Texas. The Constitution of the United States still means something, even in the State of Texas.

So you can bring this resolution with all these penalties and punishments—all this retribution. The reality is, if you think that taking away my parking space is going to make me stop fighting for my constituents' voting rights, then you are sadly mistaken. And I'm pretty confident I speak for every other democratic member when I say that. You can pass this—and you will pass this—and that's your right as the majority to do that. But it's bad for this house, and it misses the larger point, which is—I do agree with Chairman Vasut on this—outside influences on this body are a problem. We've seen it over and over again this year—on vouchers and, certainly, on congressional redistricting because Donald Trump made a phone call. So I hope that this body, this house, will learn to start to say no to these outside influences that are so damaging to the people of Texas. I ask you to vote no.

A message from the senate was received at this time (see the addendum to the daily journal, Messages from the Senate, Message No. 4).

REPRESENTATIVE GARCIA HERNANDEZ: I rise today in strong opposition to HR 128, the proposed amendment to Rule 5, Section 3, of the permanent rules of the Texas House of Representatives. This resolution, cloaked in procedural language, introduces punitive and coercive measures against duly elected legislators. Measures that, if enacted, would mark a dangerous erosion of democratic norms in this chamber. No one here advocates for disorder or not fulfilling duties, but this resolution goes far beyond ensuring attendance. It creates a weaponized framework that can be used to punish political dissent and silence minority voices. This HR is a threat to constitutional rights. Under the Texas Constitution, legislators have the right and responsibility to represent their constituents, even through dramatic—and very often uncomfortable—means like quorum denial, which has a long and recognized place in our state and national legislative history. Penalizing members for exercising this tool with fines, budget forfeitures, loss of seniority, committee leadership, and even expulsion are chilling precedents. The penalties are not proportionate to the offense. They are designed to deter protests, not protect order.

This HR is an overreach and an abuse of power. This resolution grants the majority party unprecedented power to strip members of their titles, budget, and offices, debilitating their ability to represent their constituents effectively, all for the act of strategic political dissent. What's to stop a future majority from using these tools arbitrarily under the guise of enforcing discipline? This HR is financial coercion. It undermines representation by tripling the per diem as a fine, forfeiting a member's operating budget, debiting salaries, and withholding office funds. These aren't just fines; they are economic punishments designed to cripple dissent. They force compliance through financial harm, not persuasion or reasoned debate. This HR sets a dangerous legislative precedent. In this country, and in this chamber, we resolve disputes with votes and debate, not with retribution. By embedding such harsh penalties in the rules of the house, we institutionalize punishment over persuasion. Let us not forget, walkouts and strategic absences have been used on both sides of the aisle throughout our history—often to protect civil rights, block unjust legislation, or stand up for principles deeply held by our constituents. Are we now to say that principled protest is grounds for political annihilation? Members, this house is not a rubber stamp for the majority party. It is a deliberative body where debate, disagreement, and, yes, even dissent are not just allowed; they are essential.

I urge this body to reject this resolution—not to condone absences, but to defend democracy, preserve balance, and honor the history of this chamber as a place where conscience and conviction are not punished, but respected. It's been said tonight that people get fired if they don't show up to work. Well, in this job, there's already a mechanism for that. It's called an election. Ultimately, it's the voters—not political opponents—who get to decide whether we keep our jobs. Some of us will answer for our decision to stand and fight against an attack on our democracy and the silencing of our constituents' voices, just as others will answer for their decision to prioritize political power over the voices of their own constituents and for their willingness to rig the rules instead of respecting the will of the people. Let it be said we were not present in body but absent in courage. History does not honor the obedient but the brave. You may cast these rules like iron—sharp edged, cold, and final. But power, like seasons, shifts. The chains you fastened for others may one day close around your own hands. So write carefully, rule justly, and remember: It is not the comfort of the moment but the courage of the stand that time remembers. Members, I urge you to vote no on HR 128.

REPRESENTATIVE V. PEREZ: Members, when each of us took the oath of office, we promised to uphold not just the laws and the Constitution, but the very principle of representative government. Every community in Texas deserves a voice here in this chamber. Public service is not about power. It's about stewardship. It's about recognizing that the seat we hold is not ours; it belongs to the people who sent us here. Increasingly it feels as though our institutions and our leaders at both the federal and state levels have forgotten that. It feels as though they see themselves not as servants of the people, but as controllers of the machinery. I have been a representative for 232 days. In that time, the governor of this state has governed with such disdain—and even contempt—for the Texans I serve that he has never once felt the need to even afford their representative so much as a conversation. That, members, is the sad state of our politics today.

I stand here only as their voice in this chamber. This seat belongs to them, not to me. Yet he and his party do not respect them or their voice. That, members, is becoming the republican approach to governance—not service to all Texans, but contempt for the communities they do not value. This resolution takes that same philosophy and writes it into our rules. It says if your community elects someone who uses the constitutional tools available to defend their constituents, the majority can punish that community by stripping its resources, wiping away its seniority, and silencing the influence in this house. The effect is not discipline for a member; it's disenfranchisement for the people who sent them here. This is what happens after 30 years of one-party rule. Power begins to see itself as its own justification. Instead of persuasion, it uses punishment. Instead of debate, it uses discipline. Instead of respecting every Texan's voice, it silences those who dare to dissent. That is not leadership. That is what happens when government forgets that it exists to serve all Texans, not just those in the majority party.

There is a difference between service and power. Service is humble; power is arrogant. Service respects every community; power erases the ones it dislikes. Service listens; power silences. We, as democrats, have stood time and time again to defend the right of every Texan to be heard in this house. That is the contrast before us today. Republicans have chosen power. We choose service. Let us remember, quorum requirements are not a loophole. They are written in our Constitution. They exist to ensure that the majority cannot steamroll the minority unchecked. To punish the use of that constitutional safeguard is to punish the Constitution itself.

Members, Texans deserve leaders who rise above partisanship, who value service over power, principle over retaliation, and respect over raw force. This resolution fails that test. It is not about protecting this institution; it's about protecting one party's grip on power. For the sake of our democracy and for the dignity of this house, I urge you to reject it.

REPRESENTATIVE TINDERHOLT: I hear you talk about duty. Where is your normal place of duty? Where is your place of duty that you're expected to be on a daily basis for quorum? Where would that be?

V. PEREZ: Representative Tinderholt, the maps that were before this house, as I said in my remarks against it, were the most segregated by skin color––

TINDERHOLT: I didn't ask that.

V. PEREZ: You asked me about my duty, sir.

TINDERHOLT: Where's your place of duty? When we come to work, where do we go?

CHAIR (Harris in the chair): The members will refrain from speaking over each other so that the rest of the body can hear the debate between the front and back mics.

TINDERHOLT: I will ask with respect—where is our place of duty? When you come to work in Austin, where are we supposed to be when we do quorum?

V. PEREZ: Representative Tinderholt, the maps that were before this body—which was the cause of the quorum break—were the most segregated maps that this state, that this institution, that this house has seen since the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

TINDERHOLT: Where's our place of duty?

V. PEREZ: And I'll tell you. It was my duty, sir, to stand up against that injustice. The injustice that you and your party are inflicting on the people of Texas that you refuse to acknowledge. There are Latinos, there are Blacks in this state that deserve equal representation, but you, sir, feel entitled to have three times the representation as Latinos in this state. You feel entitled to have five times the representation as the Black residents in this state.

CHAIR: The members will refrain from engaging in personalities.

TINDERHOLT: Are you saying that Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are all democrats? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

V. PEREZ: Sir, this isn't about party. It's not about republicans or democrats. I told you in my remarks that the maps you passed give white Texans three times the political power as Latinos, regardless of party, and five times to African Americans in this state. That is what you and your party stand up for and passed in this house.

TINDERHOLT: Pointing at me doesn't help any. I asked a simple question.

V. PEREZ: You asked me for my duty, and I gave you an answer.

TINDERHOLT: Where is your place of duty on a normal daily basis?

V. PEREZ: Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean you have to keep asking the same question.

TINDERHOLT: Let me ask this: Where were you during the days that we were not able to make quorum?

V. PEREZ: I was fulfilling my duty, Representative Tinderholt.

TINDERHOLT: Where?

V. PEREZ: You may have forgotten yours, but I have not forgotten mine.

TINDERHOLT: I'm going to follow the rules. I'm not going to engage in personalities with you, but––

V. PEREZ: Representative, I wish you the best of luck in your election for county commissioner.

TINDERHOLT: Where were you? What state?

V. PEREZ: What does it matter? I'm telling you, I was fulfilling my duty, sir. I was telling you that I was letting my constituents know about the abhorrent map that you and your party passed. I wasn't on vacation. I didn't take a day off. I was working every single day for the people that I serve, Representative Tinderholt. You may not like that, and we can disagree, but that's the sad state of our politics.

TINDERHOLT: Here's the real question I wanted to get to before you started pointing and acting like a narcissist, so here's where I want to go—$221 a day to be in Austin at the Capitol. That's almost $4,000. Are you going to pay taxpayers? Because you weren't here in Austin. You were in another state. Two hundred and twenty-one dollars is the per diem according to the state, and you weren't even here. Are you going to personally pay taxpayers back for stealing? I asked a question. Are you going to pay taxpayers back for stealing money from them?

V. PEREZ: You and I both know––

TINDERHOLT: Are you going to pay the taxpayers the $3,978 you owe them for stealing because you were not in Austin, and that per diem is for Austin? Two hundred and twenty-one dollars a day. Are you going to pay it back, yes or no?

V. PEREZ: You and I both know––

TINDERHOLT: Are you going to pay it back, yes or no?

V. PEREZ: Representative, do you want an answer to your question or not?

CHAIR: Members, please engage in respectful debate.

V. PEREZ: Let's say this: The people of Texas are really fed up with politicians, Representative Tinderholt.

TINDERHOLT: You stole money. Are you going to pay it back?

V. PEREZ: Let me tell you this: There are people on both sides of the aisle who sit here––

CHAIR: The members will refrain from engaging in personalities.

V. PEREZ: There are representatives on both sides of the aisle—both republicans and democrats—who sit in this chamber, collect the $221 or whatever, and they're about as useful as the chairs they sit on.

TINDERHOLT: You weren't even in the state. You were not even in the state.

V. PEREZ: They don't make any contributions. So if the value to you, Representative Tinderholt, is based on sitting in this chamber and earning $221—well then, I wish your future constituents in Tarrant County the best of luck because that's the kind of representative that they're going to get. Somebody who just values their service by sitting in this chamber collecting the $200. Congratulations.

TINDERHOLT: Are you going to pay taxpayers the $221 you've stolen—almost $4,000?

CHAIR: The members will refrain from engaging in personalities and impugning the motives of the body.

TINDERHOLT: I'll ask one more time: $3,978 was the total for 18 days. I don't know how many you were gone. Are you going to pay the state and your taxpayers back for taking that money, yes or no?

V. PEREZ: Representative, as I said in my remarks, that money is being used to intimidate and silence representatives.

TINDERHOLT: I feel like you stole from taxpayers––

V. PEREZ: And you know what?

TINDERHOLT: And it's despicable you stole from taxpayers.

V. PEREZ: Representative, I hope you got your sound bite. And I will add that the representative himself is running for county commissioner in a seat that was also taken from African Americans in Tarrant County.

REPRESENTATIVE VIRDELL: Members, this isn't complicated like a lot of things. This is simply adjusting the rules because certain members flee to a state that has serious gerrymandering issues, and then they turn this issue into an issue about race. It's disappointing that they have chosen to take the path of claiming that it's a racist issue. It is not a racist issue. It is not. This is not rocket science. You show up to do a job. You took an oath; you swore to the Constitution to do your job. You are collecting a paycheck for not showing up to do your job while you flee to one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. How disappointing and hypocritical is that?

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Did I hear you correctly say that the maps were not based on race?

VIRDELL: What I said was that those who have fled to another state with serious gerrymandering made this issue about race instead of about their constituents.

DUTTON: And you don't think the maps were about race?

VIRDELL: I think that four of the five maps are congressional districts that were supposedly created are majority-Hispanic.

DUTTON: What happened to the Black population?

VIRDELL: I think they still exist and still are able to vote.

DUTTON: No, what happened to them under your maps?

VIRDELL: I don't know.

DUTTON: You don't know that?

VIRDELL: So you're making it about race again?

DUTTON: No, I didn't make it about race. You all made it about race when you put race in the maps.

VIRDELL: Unrelated to the resolution, I believe.

DUTTON: You did what? I didn't hear you.

VIRDELL: I believe that's unrelated to the resolution.

CHAIR: Please confine your remarks to the resolution before the body.

DUTTON: Sorry? Would you say it again? I didn't hear you.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir. I said I believe it's unrelated to the resolution.

DUTTON: Well, it's related in this way. I don't know—you ever see a movie about slave patrols?

VIRDELL: Can you repeat that?

DUTTON: Have you ever heard of slave patrols?

VIRDELL: Slave patrols?

DUTTON: Yes.

VIRDELL: I'm not familiar with it.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, when people run away from an unconstitutional event––

VIRDELL: I believe the courts found this was not unconstitutional.

DUTTON: You believe that what?

VIRDELL: I believe the courts found it was not unconstitutional to change the maps.

DUTTON: I believe just the opposite. I believe these maps will be found unconstitutional because they were based on race. Because the letter that ignited this whole map drawing was done by a president who said it was based on race.

VIRDELL: I don't know if that's correct or not. I can say this: Did you go to Illinois, sir?

DUTTON: Did I go where?

VIRDELL: Did you go to Illinois during this?

DUTTON: I've been to Illinois a thousand times.

VIRDELL: Did you go to Illinois to break quorum?

DUTTON: Well, no. What I did to break quorum was I left here so that these maps––perhaps you would have a thought process that would tell you that these maps were racially—

VIRDELL: Yes, sir. I think we're getting off topic again with the maps.

DUTTON: I'm sorry?

VIRDELL: I think we're getting off topic again with the maps.

DUTTON: Well, you asked me a question. I was simply answering.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir.

DUTTON: Okay. You have another question or something?

VIRDELL: No, sir. You can ask questions from the back mic.

DUTTON: Okay, so I can ask you a question. Well, the maps were not based on race according to you, but you can't tell me what happened to the Black population in terms of the maps.

VIRDELL: I'm pretty sure they are still there and still allowed to vote.

DUTTON: Hold on, I didn't finish my question. The Black population prior to the maps—were they better off or worse off after the maps?

CHAIR: Please confine your remarks to the subject matter of the resolution.

VIRDELL: I think the reality is that many of us here don't base a person's character or voting record on the color of their skin.

DUTTON: Well, I wish that were true.

VIRDELL: You should be judged by the character of you, not the color of your skin, sir.

DUTTON: I wish that were the case, sir. I really wish to the bottom of my heart that that was the case. But I will tell you this: That being race-blind doesn't make you any less race-conscious.

VIRDELL: I think you're a great man, Representative Dutton, but I will disagree with you on this.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, perhaps we'll disagree, but I hope that this resolution––it says that you're going to now penalize people for engaging in a constitutionally accepted activity.

VIRDELL: I think that the house has the authority to adjust the rules as necessary.

DUTTON: They sure do. The house—do you think they could make the rules so that Black people couldn't serve here?

VIRDELL: I don't think that the color of someone's skin is relevant to this rulemaking that we are doing currently.

DUTTON: Well, I just want to know how far you would take the house rules changes. If the house could change the rules for this, they could change the rules for just about anything.

VIRDELL: It would be completely asinine to make house rules about race.

DUTTON: That's what I think about these rule changes under HR 128.

VIRDELL: But they don't have anything to do with race. They have to do with not showing up for the job you're paid to do that you swore an oath to the Constitution to show up for.

DUTTON: Why do you think they have quorum requirements, sir? Why is the quorum requirement even there?

VIRDELL: Because we need people to show up to vote. For the promise that we made to the citizens of Texas.

DUTTON: Why do you think it's there? Is it there for a reason, or is it not there for a reason?

VIRDELL: I think that the rules are amendable as how this house sees fit.

DUTTON: Well, I think you're doing it now, and I think that because it's a majority––you're the majority—you can do pretty much what you please. But I would just caution you––

VIRDELL: I think we should do what's honorable, not as what we please.

DUTTON: Do you think this HR 128 is honorable?

VIRDELL: I think when people refuse to show up for a job that they're paid for, this is an honorable approach.

DUTTON: Well, do you think the quorum is part of your job?

VIRDELL: I think that the rules are open to amending, and that's what we're doing.

DUTTON: But, no. You're not answering my question. My question is this: If the quorum requirement is in the Constitution, then they're there for a reason, correct? Would you agree with me?

VIRDELL: It was agreed upon by the house that the rules are there for a reason, and also that we have the ability to change those rules if we see fit.

DUTTON: Right, but you're not changing the quorum rules. That's not what you're changing. You're trying to say that because a person, or a group of people, in this body elect to use the rules that you're then making, that—somehow or another—subject to a punishment.

VIRDELL: I think that when people don't show up to do their job, we have to recognize that there is an issue with the current rules we have. And we need to amend those rules as necessary so that people show up to do their job.

DUTTON: So you don't believe that we were engaging in the job while we were not here?

VIRDELL: In Illinois? No.

DUTTON: Well, wherever we were.

VIRDELL: Right. Outside the boundaries of the State of Texas in a state that has some of the worst gerrymandering in the country. It's hypocrisy.

DUTTON: So you think the only place we could do a job was here in this body between these walls?

VIRDELL: I think that's the job we promised our constituents to show up and do.

DUTTON: That's what?

VIRDELL: That's the job we promised our constituents to show up and do. I know maybe y'all didn't make that promise to your constituents, but I made a promise to my constituents to show up. Now look, I lost a vote earlier that I wanted to see go differently, right? But that doesn't mean I don't show up.

DUTTON: The problem with what you're saying is that you're not understanding that the quorum requirements are there so that it will protect something. And what it protects is the interest of the people who decide that they will break the quorum simply because they do not like a provision that's taking place. In fact, if they believe it's unconstitutional, they have an obligation not to be there.

VIRDELL: I understand your reasoning, and I hope you understand mine.

DUTTON: Well, I do, but I want you to try to open, somehow or another, and begin to understand that there may be a difference of opinion, but that doesn't engender a punishment.

VIRDELL: Nullification is not something that's new to me, sir.

DUTTON: Is what?

VIRDELL: Nullification is not something that's new to me.

HR 128, as amended, was adopted by (Record 162): 80 Yeas, 28 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bonnen; Buckley; Bumgarner; Button; Capriglione; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dyson; Fairly; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Guillen; Harris(C); Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Holt; Hopper; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Lopez, J.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Money; Morgan; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Phelan; Pierson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Tepper; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Wharton; Wilson.

Nays — Bowers; Bryant; Bucy; Cole; Collier; Dutton; Garcia Hernandez; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; Goodwin; Hinojosa; Howard; Lalani; Lopez, R.; Manuel; Meza; Moody; Perez, V.; Raymond; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Simmons; Talarico; Turner; Walle; Ward Johnson; Zwiener.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker.

Absent, Excused — Anchía; Davis, Y.; Dean; Garcia, L.; Guerra; Hernandez; Jones, J.; Jones, V.; Martinez Fischer; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Reynolds.

Absent — Allen; Bernal; Bhojani; Cain; Campos; Canales; Cortez; Davis, A.; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia, J.; González, M.; Harless; Johnson; LaHood; Lambert; Longoria; Luther; Martinez; Morales, C.; Muñoz; Ordaz; Perez, M.; Plesa; Rodríguez Ramos; Thompson; Vo; Wu.

When Record No. 162 was taken, I was in the house but away from my desk. I would have voted no.

Bhojani

When Record No. 162 was taken, my vote failed to register. I would have voted yes.

LaHood

When Record No. 162 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted no.

C. Morales

When Record No. 162 was taken, I was in the house but away from my desk. I would have voted no.

M. Perez

When Record No. 162 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted no.

Rodríguez Ramos

When Record No. 162 was taken, I was in the house but away from my desk. I would have voted no.

Wu

Representative C. Morales submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote on HR 128 was cast, I was away from my desk in protest of this special session's redistricting scheme and the harm the proposed map would impose. I would have voted no because HR 128 is designed to punish lawmakers for standing up for their constituents by wielding financial threats and stripping leadership roles. Instead of limiting individual campaign contributions or banning political dark money, HR 128 chases false "accountability" by suppressing civil disobedience and dissent by elected representatives. In a healthy democracy, protest is not a punishable offense.

Representative Rodríguez Ramos submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote for HR 128 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session called to pass a racially gerrymandered redistricting scheme. I would have voted no because HR 128 is designed to punish lawmakers for standing up for their constituents by wielding financial threats and stripping leadership roles. Instead of limiting individual campaign contributions or banning political dark money, HR 128 chases false "accountability" by suppressing civil disobedience and dissent by elected representatives. In a healthy democracy, protest is not a punishable offense.

Representative Darby moved that the house adjourn until 11:10 p.m. today.

The motion prevailed.

The house accordingly, at 11:03 p.m., adjourned until 11:10 p.m. today.

The following bills and resolutions were today signed in the presence of the house by the speaker:

House List No. 3

HCR 13

House List No. 4

HB 7, HB 8

Senate List No. 3

SB 54

Senate List No. 4

SB 8

The following messages from the senate were today received by the house:

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

SENATE CHAMBER

Austin, Texas

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

The Honorable Speaker of the House

House Chamber

Austin, Texas

Mr. Speaker:

I am directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has taken the following action:

THE SENATE HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING MEASURES:

Relating to prohibitions on the manufacture and provision of abortion-inducing drugs, including the jurisdiction of and effect of certain judgments by courts within and outside this state with respect to the manufacture and provision of those drugs, and to protections from certain counteractions under the laws of other states and jurisdictions; authorizing qui tam actions.

THE SENATE HAS CONCURRED IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING MEASURES:

Respectfully,

Patsy Spaw

Secretary of the Senate

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

SENATE CHAMBER

Austin, Texas

Wednesday, September 3, 2025 - 2

The Honorable Speaker of the House

House Chamber

Austin, Texas

Mr. Speaker:

I am directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has taken the following action:

THE SENATE HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING MEASURES:

Relating to measures to prevent and reduce fraudulent charitable solicitations and theft during declared disasters, including establishing a designation program for disaster relief nonprofit organizations and financial institutions; creating a criminal offense; increasing a criminal penalty.

(Committee Substitute)

Respectfully,

Patsy Spaw

Secretary of the Senate

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

SENATE CHAMBER

Austin, Texas

Wednesday, September 3, 2025 - 3

The Honorable Speaker of the House

House Chamber

Austin, Texas

Mr. Speaker:

I am directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has taken the following action:

THE SENATE HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING MEASURES:

Relating to youth camp emergency plans and preparedness; authorizing penalties.

(Committee Substitute/Amended)

Respectfully,

Patsy Spaw

Secretary of the Senate

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

SENATE CHAMBER

Austin, Texas

Wednesday, September 3, 2025 - 4

The Honorable Speaker of the House

House Chamber

Austin, Texas

Mr. Speaker:

I am directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has taken the following action:

THE SENATE HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Respectfully,

Patsy Spaw

Secretary of the Senate