Ed. Note: To see a quick overview of the bills the Texas House considered today -- along with a policy overview of each bill -- read the Texas Legislative Study Group's floor report.
Here is a look at today's calendar in the Texas House -- the first of the session. The hyperlink over the bill number will take you directly to the Texas Legislature Online page for that bill, wherein you can look at the actual text of the bill, the bill analysis, etc.
We hope to do this, as much as possible, every day there is a calendar on the floor of the Texas House. The Texas Legislative Study Group puts out an analysis for each day's Calendar. I'll be linking to them atop the page every day because, well (See Update below.) They do outstanding work and it would be foolish not to highlight their efforts. Their reports are made by a large group of staffers that track the bills through the Committee process, speak to lobbyists about the bill, and work with the individual Member to make sure they understand the bill. Their work is just incredible.
And yes, I used to be Chief of Staff for Rep. Garnet Coleman, who chairs the Legislative Study Group. There's a reason I write so much about policy on BOR -- he taught me about how to talk about policy, and he helped develop my belief that if you focus on the policy, the politics will take care of itself. Anyone should be so lucky to have the opportunity to work for him; I did, and I want to share some of the excellent work he and the LSG produce because I think it will better inform all Texans about the actual laws that our Representatives are working on at the Capitol.
Finally -- I'd link to the conservatives' version of their floor report, but it just says "yes/no" and gives no actual policy analysis. You know -- lock step and all.
Here's today's calendar -- and I promise, future posts won't have the long and winding introduction:
HB 873 by Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D) - Film incentives bill. Want to have more movies made in the state of Texas? This bill will make that easier to happen by allowing grants to be awarded to digital media producers, and it will increase incentives for those who spend more money in the state.
This bill is a lot bigger deal than some of Rep. Dukes critics give her credit for; it's an easy way to bring money to communities while simultaneously encouraging the arts as an important subject. Art/movie/film communities are non-existant in public schools, and this bill at least brings the real deal to town -- so those who want can learn from experience and have the opportunity to see and work in a field of industry they can't gain knowledge about in school.
HB 394 by Rep. Patrick Rose (D) - Allows small businesses to qualify for the Texas Economic Development Fund. First two bills -- Democrats working to improve the the economic issues of the day. I am proud to be a Democrat.
HB 1822 by Rep. Burt Solomons (R) - Gives rulemaking authority to the PUC to unify language on electric bills, thereby creating transparency in the process. freshman Rep. Diana Maldonado (D - Round Rock) is a co-author of the bill.
HB 313 was enacted in 2007 to rectify the abuse of NAFTA in which individuals buy a truck or trailer in another state and use it outside border commercial zones. The unintended consequences of this legislation required Mexican truck operators to obtain Texas registration plates every time they crossed into border commercial zones, even if they were not owners of the vehicle.
HB 782 allows truck drivers passage to and from border commercial zones without having to obtain new registration plates for Texas. The vehicle must have registered plates indicating a reciprocity agreement and must also be registered in the country that the owner of the ehicle is a citizen in or resides in. Canadian provinces that exempt currently registered vehicles owned by nonresidents are also effective in a border commercial zone.
HB 38 by Rep. Franke Corte (R) - Allows for veterans and their families to pay in-state tuition rates regardless of their residency status.
HB 693 by Rep. Vicki Truitt (R) - "Exempts falconers from having to hold a pest control license." For the record, that was two economic development bills, a utility rate bill, a transportation bill, a veterans & higher education bill...then that other big issue, Falcon licensing. Republican State Rep. Vicki Truitt, everyone -- FTL.
HB 968 by Rep. Mark Homer (D) - "Removes the restrictions on hunting with crossbows during bow hunting season." And right behind Rep. Truitt we have Democrat Rep. Mark Homer! Who says good things don't come in pairs!
(I joke around, but I worked for a rural State Rep. for nearly two years, from 2005 through summer of 2006, and these are absolutely the bills that constiuents will write in and demand action on the loudest. So while I joke about their relative importance to state business, both Rep. Truitt and Rep. Homer are still serving their constiuents. If you can survive the crossfire of the bow-hunter shooting down the falcons, you can see a certain amount of democratic beauty in that.)
HB 1695 by Rep. Sylvester Turner (D) - Allows the PUC to require for utilities that experience severe outages due to weather to consider a disaster preparation/management kind of plan. Though it doesn't outright require them, it lays the groundwork for the creation of those plans -- and when it comes to the PUC and utilities, sometimes you need the small moves to set up the big ones.
HB 1637 would improve benefits under the shared work unemployment compensation program for underserved workers and industries by adding greater work schedule flexibility in determining benefits. Currently, benefits are granted based on a consistent 40-hour workweek, which many businesses and employees do not follow, especially in the manufacturing industry.
In manufacturing, for example, facilities operate on a 24-hour, 7 day-a-week basis, so it makes sense to employ workers on a schedule alternating 3 and 4 day weeks. However, under current statute, workers on an alternating biweekly schedule that averages 40 hours per week would be eligible for less benefits than workers who work consistent 40-hour work weeks.
This bill gives affected businesses greater flexibility in retaining their workers, thus preventing layoffs. In this economic climate, this bill is needed to make the shared work unemployment compensation program more effective and equitable when it’s needed most. This bill is favored by a broad array of business and labor groups.
I'm very proud to see two of our freshman members, Rep. Diana Maldonado and Rep. Chris Turner, with legislation on the first day's calendar. Rep. Maldonado and Rep. Chris Turner were the first two candidates that TexBlog PAC endorsed. For everyone who donated to TexBlog PAC and helped us support these candidates -- this is your investment paying off for you.
Update: I forgot that the LSG Floor Reports are subscription-only, and it is the other reports -- their higher ed reports, state school reports, etc. -- that are open to everyone. I should have remembered this since I worked with them so much, but I think I just got excited at reading the first Calendar of the session and their first Floor Report of the Session. And yes, I'm a policy dork that gets excited about stuff like that -- why do you think I'm spending my Spring Break posting on BOR? Deal with it.
Since they sell subscriptions -- a la Quorum Report & Texas Weekly -- I won't be able to link directly to it every day. Though, like I do with QR, I will crib from my subscription if/when it is necessary and appropriate, and I will still use their excellent research to form and shape these calendar posts.
Bottom line: you'll still be able to come to BOR for coverage of what is happening at the Capitol. So keep reading!
The list of five Democrats and three Republicans running against Craddick includes conservatives such as Republican Jim Keffer, who represents Granbury, and Burt Solomons of Carrollton. But either would need a centrist majority of both Democrats and Republicans to win.
Correct! Craddick can't win without Democrats, and neither can any Republican. Kennedy went on to mock the recent "OMG the liberals are coming! the liberals are coming!" letter that is floating around, correctly noting that Craddick is beholden to Democrat votes as much as any other Speaker candidate.
For now, let's forget the idea that Democrats will support Craddick. If he can't win any decisive block of support from Democrats (and he can't), no one Democrat should support him (they won't), and there are too many important issues this cycle for anyone to make a power play for their own losing benefit at the expense of good public policy.
But, that's just an argument. Anyone can have an opinion.
The problem is when Kennedy get into some strange cocktail napking math that refutes public records that are out there:
At least eight of the 76 Republicans either think Craddick stinks or are running against him. On the other side of the aisle, eight Democrats think Craddick’s a great guy.
So if everybody votes as expected, the cross-party math shows Craddick clinging to an edge as thin as one vote.
No, no, no, no.
There are 11 Republicans, as I've tallied preivously, that are publicly opposed to Craddick. Again, here are the eleven:
Add those 11 to the "64 strong" Democrats, and you have 75 "Not Craddick" Members of the Texas House. Add in Rep. Al Edwards, who e-mailed me to tell me he is not supporting Tom Craddick (so I am taking him at his word), and you have 76 House members that have publicly stated they are not supporting Tom Craddick this election.
Of course, you cannot then attribute the remaining 74 to Craddick's camp (as Kennedy does), because there are still at least 12 "toss-ups" out there that have not definitively publicly declared who they will support:
(Click "There's More" for the rest of the numbers)
In a letter, Turner asked that contributions be made in the next two weeks because the speaker’s race is a “time-sensitive matter.” After the speaker’s election is over, Turner said he would refund the balance if he loses.
Typically, speaker candidates use the money to travel to members’ districts to court support from their colleagues.
There has been a discussion on BOR about whether Sylvester Turner, who in the past has been a loyal lieutenant to Tom Craddick, is running a serious race or is just running to provide cover for Democrats who will ultimately vote for Craddick.
Phillip recently wrote a very convicing post in which he argued that those who say Turner is a stalking horse for Craddick are wrong. I was skeptical at first, but I think I've come to agree with Phillip's analysis. Some Democrats had been waiting for an indication that Turner was actually actively campaigning and this is the closest thing we've got so far.
Also, I don't know if I've ever heard of a candidate promising to return contributions if they lose. Perhaps someone can shine some light on this for us.
Although it is disappointing that Turner is actively seeking lobbyist money, the aggressive nature of the letter does make it seem like Turner is running for his own reasons and not those of Tom Craddick, which is certainly good news.
But we also should remember that the speaker's race is not just about getting rid of Craddick (though it certainly seems like it at times). It is about ending the pay-to-play practices that have given us a state government that all too often puts the special interests above the people's interests.
Defeating Craddick will help immensely, but we should be careful not to get too caught up in the ABC (Anybody but Craddick) fever that we wind up with a new boss who is just the same as (or dangerously similar to) the old boss.
Having said that, there is a lot to respect about Rep. Turner outside of his past association with Craddick and I'd be interested to see his response to the Statesman's report.
Ok, I admit it. I was out sick last week. And today I wake up to find, what? That Sylvester Turner is considered an alternative (?) to Craddick? In 2006, even with the House turned what we would call upside down, the Dems put up a real fight for Speaker of the House, with even some Republicans puttting Committee Chair postitions on the line to overthrouw Craddick. Yet, thanks to the right-of center D's lead by Sylvester Turner himself, Craddick prevailed. Heads rolled. Even birds died in Austin.
And one of the bills sponsored by Turner that year....A tribute to Al Edwards years of service.....
IMHO...'Nuff said.
Reference: Birds died in Austin: (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2007/01/08/drivers_should_avoid_congress.html) (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA011207_01B_Rodriguez_304bea5_html6723.html)
I attended the Center for Politics and Governance Forum today (Thurs., Nov. 6th, 08') at UT, Austin. Below are some of my notes from the speakers and panelists, as well as comments from audience members, and some of my own.
I interviewed Houston Mayor Bill White and found him to be refreshing to speak with. Personable, compassionate, genuine, and he wants to make things happen. Bill gave a speech that was down-to-earth just before I spoke with him. He had a great line about true leaders, that leaders "have a responsibility to inspire people to want to get involved in the process and (political) system. To inspire them to want to do the right thing". He talked about education and how's it's everyone's responsiblity while explaining how he and his wife visited highschool drop-outs in their homes to help them get back into school. White also talked about a a very successful 6 week summer education program he and his wife started during the summer to help students stay educated instead of getting in trouble during their summer off.
During my brief intereview with Mayor White, I asked him if he's going to run for state office, and he said "most likely". I than asked Governor or Senator? And he didn't answer that question, but did go into detail about a number of important issues in the state of TX, especially Energy.
I very much enjoyed White's speech and speaking with him one-on-one. No ego, genuine, and it was clear that he means business.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst: While commenting about Obama's Presidential victory, Dewhurst said "Presidential elections are about reactions to the past and vision for the future"... I agree!
Dewhurst said "greed went rampant" while talking about our Economy, and added that "even Greenspan apologized for not providing enough oversight to the market".
Dewhurst was proud about his role in championing Education and committed to "continue to raise teacher's salaries and end teaching to the TAKS tests". Dewhurst also talked about Health Care, commenting that we spend too much money on Health Care in the US, the 2nd most of any country, adding "but I'm not recommending Universal Health Care".
Dewhurst gave a very safe speech, covering Edu, Health Care, and the Economy.
A number of audience members privately commented to me that it was one of the most boring speeches they've ever heard...one woman said "it's amazing that he can speak for over 20 minutes and say nothing". I wouldn't go that far, but he certainly didn't say anything groundbreaking. And being that it was our "keynote", I would have enjoyed something more captivating.
TX State Rep Sylvester Turner was on a panel and contrast to my comments above on Dewhurst, he was a real crowd-pleaser...Turner said he's running for the Speaker's race and he received a great applause from the audience when he compared the changing political climate in TX to a "cool breeze coming from the North East to TX"...the crowd loved this analogy, explaining how the cool air is mixing with the "hot air of TX" to turn it a cool blue.
TX Sen. Kirk Watson got the crowd laughing with his comment "we had two hurricanes in TX, Ike and Lehman Brothers". Watson also talked about how critical redrawing of the Congressional lines will be in 2010. Watson joked that the agreement before the last TX legislative session was to "stop the diversions", but that the lege still had over $1.6B of diversions, a 15% increase from the previous session! Watson also said Climate Change needs to be an issue, that "TX is the #1 state in the country producing Carbon".
Sen. Florence Shapiro talked about Education alot...and then talked about Education a little more, and then talked about Education some more to wrap it up.
TX State Rep Scott Hochberg, who also said he's running for Speaker, commented on how the Speaker's performance needs to be improved.
One of the panelists said that "70% of unmarried women in TX voted for Obama".
Burka made the comment that "the average age of the Republican Party has gone from age 42 to 56 in recent years".
The panel was asked if Gov Rick Perry is really running for reelection...and most said "he says he is, and I do believe he's honest"...but it was clear that they have their doubts. But they all felt that Kay Bailey Hutchison is running.
TX Monthly's Paul Burka commented on Kay Bailey Hutchison saying that "Kay is typically risk averse. But she did vote for the bailout and for SChip, so it'll be interesting to see how Perry uses that against her if they run head-to-head"...Burka went on to say "this would be a tough, bitter fight. Does Kay have the stomach for a tough/bitter fight? Maybe. Does Rick? Yes".
Bryan Eppstein, TX based Republican consultant and pollster gave a few poll#'s showing that Kay Baily is beating Perry...and commented that "Kay Bailey will win against Perry"...Burka was not so sure.
While talking about state-wide races and "up-and-coming Dems", Kelly Fero throughout Donna Howard's name, and a few folks in the audience immediately clapped.
The big topics were the speaker's race and the Gov's race.
Burka recommended that Mayor Bill White should run for US Senator and not Gov (Kay Bailey's open position, assuming she runs for Gov).
If Phillip's predictions are correct, House Democrats will have the opportunity to unite to elect one of their own as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.
While many names have been thrown around, a House Democratic staffer has told me their boss has received calls from five Democrats about the Speaker's race: Scott Hochberg, Alan Ritter, Pete Gallego, Richard Raymond and Senfronia Thompson.
The staffer also dismissed Sylvester Turner's speaker candidacy as a "decoy for Craddick" and said Turner had not been making calls to many other members.
A call to the Texas Ethics Commission confirmed that as of October 24 the only Democrats to have filed for speaker are Thompson and Turner.
I'm off to canvass for Obama here in Colorado. Good luck to everyone GOTVing in Texas.
(This is a response to the post I made on Monday updating the Craddick D's. It's definitely worth a read. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
In response to a previous post on the Craddick D's, I'd like to offer a different perspective.
Tom Craddick is the single biggest roadblock to a more progressive agenda ever seeing the light of day in Texas! For example, if you believe in health care for kids and the elderly, more funding for public and higher education, progressive and reasonable tax policy that benefits the middle class, and a cleaner environment, then your single biggest obstacle is Tom Craddick.
When a member votes for Craddick, he or she votes for the person who is the single biggest roadblock to our core democratic values. What they do afterwards is almost irrelevant, because they just empowered the guy who will NOT allow good, meaningful things to happen. They can vote all day to fully restore CHIP, but when they start the session voting for the guy who will block it, then the game is rigged before it ever begins. The end result is a partial restoration of CHIP (which Craddick had to do anyway since his R's were getting killed at the polls on that issue). I would argue that for a handful of the biggest issues facing the state, the single biggest vote you cast is the vote for Speaker; in many ways it's the only one that matters since it dictates so much of what will inevitably happen on the House Floor. You can't exactly say, "I voted for Hitler, but damn if I didn't fight him all the way after that". Give me a break.
Whether one supports or opposes the actions of the Craddick D's last session, they chose to establish themselves as a separate group in the Texas Legislature. Calling themselves "Democrats for Reform," they laid out an agenda at the start of session. At the end of session, they claimed their agenda was a success, and that the key successes for Democrats this session were the result of the deals they had struck with Speaker Craddick. They also touted the personal victories they won for their district by supporting Craddick, and many were proud to call themselves "Craddick D's."
It should be noted, though, that only a handful of those who attended the first press conference (announcing the Democrats for Reform, at the start of session) attended the second (after the challenge to Craddick at the end of May). More over, the voracity to which "their agenda" can be called a success was called into question.
With the announcement that Chairman Robert Puente will retire, I thought it would be appropriate to see exactly how those "Democrats for Reform" are doing today. This is merely meant as an update -- trying to keep track of our Democrats in the Texas House. I select them out as a group not out of hostility, but because they chose to set themselves apart from the House Democratic Caucus.
Update: To clarify, I designated whether or not any of the following State Representatives would "still vote for Craddick" based on their last known public position -- which I sourced as best as possible in the middle column. Any additional news that any of the Members or anyone else wish to share, please send me an e-mail or post a comment, and I will update the chart appropriately.
The Craddick D's: Where We Are Today - October 22, 2007
Voted "present, not voting" during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech; Rep. Chavez was quoted in the Houston Chronicle saying she would support new leadership in 2009.
No
Deshotel, Joe
Voted "against" Craddick during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech.
No
Dukes, Dawnna
Though there were rumors that some in Austin were looking for a primary challenger, none have surfaced. The last known public statement was that Rep. Dukes stands by Craddick - though I'm not certain she'd vote for Craddick again.
Was one of the handful of Democrats proudly trumpeting the "Democrats for Reform" agenda at the end of session. No other public indication of her stance, and no primary news to date.
Yes
Guillen, Ryan
No challenger, no news. Though if the budget committee is still this hard, would he want it?
On the motion to vacate at end of session, was said to be "flip-flopping." No news, though with Rep. Puente's retirement, she is the only Craddick-supporter in San Antonio.
Of the 15, there are definitely 5 fewer supporters for Craddick, two "maybes" (three, if you include Rep. Turner), three Craddick D's facing primary challenges, and maybe a few more who would no longer call themselves Craddick D's.
(We are working on other speaker pieces and they should be treated as a theoretical debate. Currently there are two Democrats in the race-- Turner, Craddick's Speaker Pro Tempore and Senfronia Thompson. This debate will heat up as the election cycle continues. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
Thursday was the day of Sylvester Turner's "Third Annual 50th Birthday Party & Re-election Campaign Kick-off." Some of us here may be supporters of Mr. Turner as a legislator who has fought for high ideals through legislation. Others, like me, are significantly disappointed in the representative's firm support of Tom Craddick's dictatorial grab of power in the 2007 House Session. There is one fact that is true and irrefutable. That is; he is an announced candidate for Speakership of the House.
Some of us claim that it is a ploy to present a situation to where he and other Democratic Craddick supporters can hide behind a veil of non-Craddick support. That might be very true. However, I'd like to propose that he might actually be running hard for the position, and that he actually has a solid chance of winning.
First, I would like to point out that any ideas of pushing him out of his seat in a primary would be ridiculous. This is a man who has had very solid legislative leadership. He is also a former candidate for the Houston mayorship who put up a decent campaign in that. He isn't the easiest guy to mess with, and a primary attack would most likely be too difficult for a success.
Now onto the argument that he might be our next speaker. It is actually quite simple. Assuming he keeps office, as I did above, he only needs a little bit of luck for his personal power to rise higher than ever. We have a new Democrat in Kirk England, and that makes it easier for us to win the House back. We only need to win 6 to have a majority, and we proved our ability to do so in the last election. But what if we do well, but only get 5?
There would be a split legislature. Equal Republicans. Equal Democrats. What then? Well, my current thoughts are simple: While some Democrats don't like Sly's leadership style, I think all would agree he would be better than any Republican speaker. Meanwhile, some Craddick Republicans might trust him as their best bet for power. Granted, Turner would need some luck to win a tied House; but if the House is indeed tied, then I think he would be the Democrat to do it.
Since Rep. Sylvester Turner filed for speaker last week, there's been a lot of talk about his "impeccable" Democratic credentials combined with his relationship with Tom Craddick can help him "cut the best deal" for ordinary Texans. Essentially, the argument Turner supporters have made all along is that his support of Tom Craddick gives him leverage to push a progressive agenda in the House. Taking a look at his voting record from this past session, you have to wonder: who's leveraging who?
Teacher pay-raise: Sylvester Turner supported the Noriega amendment to this year's budget, which would have swept all funds for a failed incentive pay program for an across the board teacher pay raise. Within the hour, he switched his vote and voted against it.
Civil liberties: Sylvester Turner voted against Charlie Howard's "religious viewpoints" bill, a piece of legislation inspired by Bill O'Reilly's War on Christmas that essentially turns every spelling bee and morning announcements period into a fire-and-brimstone tent revival. Within the hour, he switched his vote and voted for it.
Suppoting our troops (for real): Sylvester Turner voted against increasing funding for counseling for wounded and disabled veterans. Paul Burka has some analysis of that vote here.(Incidentally, once they realized they had lost this vote, twenty Republicans from Team Craddick made entries in the journal switching their vote to support this amendment. On this vote, Turner decided to go down with the ship and kept his vote with the speaker).
Enforcing child support payments: Sylvester Turner voted against providing more funds to crack down on deadbeat dads who don't pay child support.
The Children's Health Insurance Program: Voting agains tkeeping funding for your own bill in the budget seems like a pretty counterintuitive step to take, but not for Sylvester Turner. He voted against instructing the conferees for this session's budget to retain funding for his own bill.
The problem isn't that Turner isn't progressive enough to be speaker; the problem is that he's consistently shown that, for him, good policy will always be second to political convenience. When Tom Craddick has come calling on a vote he wants to win (like better teacher pay, protecting our civil liberties, taking care of our veterans, enforcing child support, and providing health care for children from above), Turner's allegiance has been to forces that stand opposed to the basic principles that underlie any sort of progressive agenda. For any Democrat considering Turner's run for speaker, it's hard to ignore that.
Cartoon image from 