CAPITOL LETTERS

Don't mess with Texas? How about, Don't Mess With Dawnna.

Rep. Dukes, D-Austin, knew exactly what she was doing when she told the huge knot of state reps crowding around her last night that she refused to let Linda Harper Brown yank her anti-immigrant (that's right, i said it) amendment from consideration.

(And you know those guys normally wouldn't want to vote on that with their DESKMATE's voting machine, much less their own.)

She was forcing the House to take a stand, send a message, go on record on the idea of immigrants vs. illegal immigrants.

I mean, I haven't tracked her down today yet to ask her this. Because, I don't know, it's OBVIOUS what she was doing.

Clearly, she was mad as H-E-double-L at Linda Harper Brown for trying to knock non-citizen kids off the CHIP rolls (legal immigrants - illegal imms can't get CHIP) --- not to mention the slew of anti-immigrant (that's right, I said it) bills that would penalize the legal children of illegal immigrants.

Her decision to stick to her guns and force them to vote, on the record, on the amendment was classic human theater. What she did was force the House members to basically go on record that they didn't want to mess with children who are in this country legally.

She also forced a handful of members to go on record, publicly, that they actually have a problem with legal immigrants, too. Yeah. I said it.

As of this afternoon, the journal shows six of them who voted to save LHB's amendment from the block.

Notably absent from that list is LHB herself.

But two of her BFFs are on it:

- Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Houston, who got backup from LHB during her tortuous and short-lived run in the driver's seat of Jessica's Law.

- Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, who signed her name with LHB to a much-ballyhooed letter endorsing fellow Rep. Charlie Geren's primary opponent and, together, they were subjected to some wrist-slapping by fellow lawmakers for breaching House etiquette.

Debbie, Jodie and Linda all fought hard against the tax bill last year. Along with former Rep. Bill Keffer, God rest his term-in-office.

The others: Reps. Corbin Van Arsdale (huh?), Beverly Woolley (huh?), Dan Gattis, and Jim Jackson.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 4:18 PM | Permalink

A story I wrote earlier this week referred to anti-immigrant legislation, and it referred to Farmers Branch - a city near Dallas that has basically taken out a hit on illegal immigrants by proposing to make it illegal to rent to them, talk to them, kiss their babies, etc. etc. etc.

Just kidding about numbers 2 and 3. I don't think I should have to say that, but people are pretty sensitive. Consider that disclaimer my nod to the word police.

A letter from a reader chastised me for saying that the proposed ordinances were anti-immigrant, not "anti-illegal immigrant."

"Farmers Branch's proposed ordinances are not anti-immigrant. They are anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant. I know, for a reporter who only cares about sensationalism, what's a small little word like "illegal" when you can make an entire city out to be xenophobic?"

Sweet lady. LOVE getting fan mail. Seriously.

For the record, I don't ONLY care about sensationalism. I also care about Happy Hour.

I get this a lot. It's very important to some people that everyone knows they're not against immigrants, they're against illegal immigrants.

The reader, in her articulate indignation, is clearly onboard with her city's proposals and considers people who are against LEGAL immigration to be "xenophobic."

Wonder what she would think about Rep. Jim Jackson's vote in favor of an amendment last night that would have knocked children who are legal immigrants - just not citizens yet - off the CHIP rolls. 16,000 of them, actually. Legal immigrants.

As of 4:06 p.m., he hadn't sent the Journal Clerk any explanation of his vote, nor had he changed it.

Jim Jackson's district includes Farmer's Branch. Just for the record.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

I’m shocked. (Shocked!)

That 136-5 vote is changing as we speak. Members are calling the journal clerk’s office all day to change their vote. The journal hasn’t been published, so this isn’t official. Details, details.

We’ll start with Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, one of the five.

In the House Journal, he explains the reason he voted to save Linda Harper Brown’s amendment from The Table - when everyone and their mother voted to kill it.

Including Linda Harper Brown.

The amendment would have knocked 16,000 kids off CHIP because they’re legal immigrants but not citizens yet. Keyword here is “legal.”

At some point after last night’s vote (around 7:15 p.m. or so), Gattis submitted a written comment to the put in the House Journal, presumably so that anyone hoping to use his vote against him in the election will be stymied by the reason for that vote.

The spin he’s hoping to avoid from oppo researchers is that he voted to knock kids off of CHIP - and that doesn’t play well with voters.

I mean, ask Arlene Wohlgemuth.

Or, for that matter, anyone who was alive, breathing and not living under a rock during that particular post-2003 campaign.

Dan appears to be annoyed that Dawnna Dukes declined to back off and let LHB pull her amendment down without a vote. Dukes forced the vote, and Dan didn’t like it. Here’s his explanation of why he supported LHB in that weird little episode:

“I voted against the motion to table … because she had offered to pull the amendment down and not put the body through voting on a very divisive and emotional issue for many members. Pushing a vote on an item (ed note: lookin at you, Dawnna) only to cut up and divide the body or punish a member (ed note: LHB) for their position is not only disrespectful to the process but is disrespectful to the body, and to the legacy of this great institution called the Texas House.”

(I'm sorry, what's it called again?)

Other changes that had been submitted as of about 3 p.m. today.

Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, one of the five, reversed his vote and told the Journal Clerk he meant to vote “yes” on the motion to kill the bill.

Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, R-Parker, one of the 136, reversed her vote and said to put her down as a “no.” She’s friends with LHB.

Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, one of the 136, said she meant to vote “no.”

Rep. Allan Vaught, D-Dallas, was shown present but not voting. He wants to be shown voting “yes” to table.

Final tally would be, then, 136-6. At least until more reps call to change their votes for the record.

We’ll keep you posted.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If you were watching the House on TV last night, listening to the audio of the debate over the Linda Harper Brown amendment removing the children of legal immigrants from the CHIP rolls, (number 59), you were treated to a great dialogue off-camera, by the back mic, right before someone remembered to cut the audio.

If you were on the floor, you missed it.

While everybody was trying to figure out what to do after Dawnna Dukes moved to table LHB's amendment, a knot of Republicans and Dems stood around the back mic and talked to each other in disbelief.

I’m around these people a LOT and I’m about 99 percent sure that the guy I heard say the following quote was a certain Republican House chairman. But since I can’t be 100 percent sure, I won’t put his name here.

But I’m SO certain that it hurts … it HURTS … not to divulge his name.

Go the audio and go to hour 10:04 (that would be 7:04 p.m.) and listen for yourself. We can make it a game...

“You know, how .. how conservative is it to send everybody back to the emergency room with what we’re trying to do? It’s stupid.”

Another guy answers: “Not only, think how it’ll play in our newspaper tomorrow.”

First guy: “Oh, I know.”

“We’re not gonna do it.” “No.”

“I’m glad everyone seems to be coming around to our (position?).” No idea who said this.

Then a bipartisan group of reps asking each other: “These are legal residents?” “Legal residents.” “Yes, legal residents.” “Do you become a legal resident before you become a citizen?”

Then this, from a Democrat:
“You remember what happened in the election in Dallas. You all had half a million people marching, and all those have families that are citizens, vote.”

For those who weren't watching, the amendment died 136-5. More on that vote in the next post.
.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Karen's weekly Chamber Music column is available here.

She has some interesting tidbits about the budget fight. Take a look.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 7:58 AM | Permalink

Final passage came too late for our print edition, but here's Bob Garrett's report on the House's budget fight:.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 7:54 AM | Permalink

The House passed and sent to the Senate a $150.1 billion, two-year budget. The final vote was 129-14, with only Democrats dissenting.

The House also gave final approval to a supplemental appropriations bill. It spends another $400 million or so, much of it for unexpected bills in the current budget cycle. The vote was 144-0.

Nearly an hour earlier, a funny thing happened when the budget bill tentatively passed, 132-16.

Moments before the vote, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Jim Dunnam of Waco gave a speech. Mr. Dunnam said he hadn't voted for a budget since 2001. He really would like to vote for one, he said. But he said he couldn't do it this time because $8.5 billion has been left unspent.

Guess who got his wish, though, and voted for the budget? Jim Dunnam.

"We did some good stuff today," he said later. "Let's keep it going. Maybe hope springs eternal." But he added, "If it comes back from conference the way it is now, I'm a 'no.'"

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 2:32 AM | Permalink

Stop the presses! The House just sided with House Speaker Tom Craddick of Midland and kept in the budget a rider that would allow state universities such as UT-Permian Basin in Odessa to tap motor fuels tax money for campus parking lots and roads.

Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, proposed to kill rider language allowing $10 million from the Highway Fund to be used to build "access roads and parking lots for new facilities on public state university campuses." Members tabled Mr. Gallego's amendment by a mostly party-line vote of 96-50.

On Wednesday, Mr. Gallego said Mr. Craddick had asked budget writers for the language so the folks back home can get road and parking improvements for UT-Permian Basin's new performing arts center.

Late Thursday, Craddick spokeswoman Alexis DeLee confirmed, "He discussed funding for UTPB and other state universities that had an issue with road access."

Ms. DeLee said a 1967 attorney general's opinion allowed Highway Fund money to be used for parking lots and driveways at state mental hospitals, tuberculosis hospitals and special schools for the mentally retarded.

"We think it's an appropriate use of funds," Ms. DeLee said.

Countered Mr. Gallego, "It's a legal use. ... I simply question whether it's the best use." He said Texas would be less tempted by toll roads if it told universities, "Find your own money for the parking lot."

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 11:50 PM | Permalink

A vote to eliminate the nation's largest teacher merit pay program, and instead give school professionals an across the board pay raise, was definitely the shocker in the House's marathon budget debate today.

All Democrats supported the move, except for Reps. Norma Chavez of El Paso and Sylvester Turner of Houston.

But 23 Republicans broke ranks to back the gut merit pay amendment of Houston Democrat Rick Noriega, including key Craddick allies Will Hartnett of Dallas, Harvey Hilderbran of Kerrville, Mike Krusee of Round Rock, David Swinford of Dumas and Corbin Van Arsdale of Houston.

The other GOP members who voted for the Noriega amendment: Bonnen, Darby, England, Geren, Goolsby, Haggerty, Hamilton, Jones, Kuempel, McCall, Merritt, Orr, Otto, Patrick, Phillips, Pitts, Todd Smith and West.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston may have wished he had skipped work on Thursday. First, as he walked to his desk in the Senate, he noticed something on his leather chair - a towel - and it appeared to be wet. It was. Then, he was instructed by Sen. Kim Brimer of Arlington, who was presiding over the Senate at the time, to "please take your seat." Realizing a prank was afoot, the Republican lawmaker walked away from his desk and out of the Senate chamber for a few minutes to conduct an interview.

It was all part of a Senate tradition of hazing a freshman senator on the day he brings his first piece of legislation to the floor. But the fun and games were not over for Mr. Patrick, who is a radio talk show host in Dallas and Houston when he is not attending to Senate duties. As his first bill came to the floor - a measure creating a recognition day for election volunteers - most of the senators and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst filed out of the chamber to temporarily boycott consideration of the legislation.

Mr. Patrick remained behind with three Democrats, who patiently listened to him explain his bill. "I couldn't possibly imagine why anyone would be against this bill," he said. As he talked about the proposal and waited for the rest of the Senate to return, he called on his long experience in radio. "I have learned in my life to fill time," he said with a smile. The hazing finally came to an end as senators walked back into the chamber, where they passed Mr. Patrick's bill unanimously.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

House Speaker Tom Craddick just mowed down 17 proposed amendments to the budget bill with a ruling that incensed Democrats -- and a maverick Republican.

Mr. Craddick said 3 violated a calendar rule by trying to divert money from the State Highway Fund and 14 did so by seeking to siphon funds from the Enterprise Fund, Gov. Rick Perry's deal-closing fund on economic development projects. The logic? The speaker said the amendments messed with constitutionally dedicated revenues, a no-no. Irate Democrats questioned why amendment drafters at the Legislative Budget Board and Legislative Council didn't tell them the funds were off limits.

"I just want to know who is responsible," said Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston.

Mr. Craddick responded, "You're responsible, Mr. Eiland."

Things grew more tense when the speaker rejected Democrats' pleas that they be allowed to fix their amendments.

Rep. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview, seized the chance to settle an old score with Milton Rister, the head of the Legislative Council.

In late 2005, before he assumed his current state job, Mr. Rister was a GOP political consultant who specialized in opposition research. He was widely believed to be in cahoots with Dr. James Leininger's massive effort to defeat five anti-school voucher House Republicans, including Mr. Merritt. At the time, Mr. Rister declined to answer a reporter's questions about his work for Leininger-related political committees.

Back to the House floor today:

Mr. Merritt: What is (Mr. Rister's) background?

Mr. Craddick: The chair doesn’t have his resume.

Mr. Merritt: Is he an attorney? ... Does he have the background to do the job that we’re asking him to do today?

Mr. Craddick: Mr. Merritt, I think you need to ask him that.

Mr. Merritt: Are you familiar with his background as a political consultant doing research against the members?

Mr. Craddick: Mr. Merritt, that is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.

Postscript: Mr. Craddick ruled that "all of the funds in this appropriations bill relating to the Enterprise Fund" have been transferred outside of the state treasury, to special state funds maintained by the comptroller. They are dollars that can't be used by the comptroller to certify there's enough revenue to cover the budget, Mr. Craddick said. He cited last week's calendar rule, which says any amendment switching money from one purpose to another has to reduce a like amount of money from "funds against which the appropriation is to be certified." And the amendments didn't do that, he said.

Denise Davis, the House parliamentarian, said the Legislative Budget Board supplied the argument.

"We were all shocked by it," she said.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sorry this is a little belated, but I couldn't let the opportunity to post on the Governor's first bill signing pass me by.
The Castle (a.k.a. shoot everyone you want) bill seemed the perfect start for Mr. Perry -- who's been accused of being a little TOO moderate this session (can you say HPV vaccine?). Lest no one forget that he IS the governor of Texas. And we love our guns.
When I first walked in, there were 7 (count 'em, 7) pens on the guv's desk. All were laid out at perfect diagonal angles, spaced about 2.6 inches apart. But someone must've realized there weren't 7 co-sponsors there for the signing. As if by magic, those 7 pens turned into 5 -- still perfectly diagonal, still perfectly spaced. If anyone knows who this geometric wizard is, let me know. I'd like them to organize my closet.

And all this hubbub over a single signature! One that, I might add, took the governor almost a minute to get through. He'd start to sign, then give that pen away. He'd keep signing, and give another pen away. And so on and so forth until his incredibly lengthy signature was complete (I think he signed "Rick Perry" with about 30 characters).

A couple of other thoughts:

1) I'd like to see this much attention given to the first bill veto of the session. Imagine this: journalists crowded around in anticipation, staffers waiting in suspense, the bill's sponsors getting ready to throw pens at the governor, instead of accepting them as gifts. Boos and hisses all around. A few punches in place of congratulatory handshakes.

2) For gentlemen in positions of such great authority, The Guv and Lt Guv have pretty non-authoritative signatures. Perry's looks like a school teacher's signature -- every letter perfectly crafted, as if on a chalk board (a side effect of having to write one letter at a time to give out all those pens?). Dewhurst's is very bubbly and cute -- the kind of signature you'd see in the back of your 7th grade yearbook, or scrawled inside your locker. Neither of the signatures have much gusto. I better check Craddick's next.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 11:04 AM | Permalink

What do the following state reps have in common?
- Rep. Aaron Pena, Rep. Kino Flores, Rep. Ryan Guillen, Rep. Sylvester Turner, Rep. Kevin Bailey, Rep. Eddie Lucio III.

They've all got parks projects in their districts or counties listed on the budget wishlist (Article 11) to earmark $7.6 million in local parks grants from Texas Parks and Wildlife.

This is a rarity, by the way. These grants are usually applied for after the budget's been passed by both chambers and certified. And if its in Article 11 it is SO not guaranteed, so let's keep that perspective.

But let's put all that aside for a second.

Critics (cities that didn't get the money, House Dems who don't like the look of this list) point out that the members on that list have something else in common.

They're all Craddick D's who supported the speaker during the race on opening day. Craddick (the only R on the list) has a project on there, too, as do a couple members of the Approps Committee.

More on that list, and on the merits - and uncertainties - of Article 11 below...

The Craddick Ds and Craddick spokeswoman Alexis DeLee all say that the list is fluid, it's uncommitted, it could disappear at any time, and the reason for the list is, as Ms. DeLee said, "the parks issue is something that's obviously a big deal and we're willing to look at anything that comes forward."

"These are just local parks that were brought forth by some members," she said.

Turner says there's no quid pro quo going on here, that it's just members who expressed a desire to fund their local parks and used Article 11 as a way to do it. The proof, he said, is the fact that's it in the wishlist and not the actual bill.

"If you wanted a firm commitment, then you want to be included, for example, in the baseline bill."

A statement from Guillen says he's had his eye on using land along the Rio Grande River for a park in the tiny city of Rio Grande City - which would get $80,000 in matching funds if this list goes into the actual bill.

"Conversations with south Texas county officials and officials of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department last fall highlighted the relative lack of parks available in one of the fastest growing parts of the state. This funding will provide and expand park facilities for several communities in south Texas."

Here's the background.

Out of $15.5 million budgeted for next year in HB 1 for local parks grants (matching funds), half of that would be earmarked for 10 projects under an item in the as-yet-meaningless Article 11 - which is basically a wishlist, about 90 percent of which never get funded or moved into the rest of the bill.

Some of them, of course, do. And because this particular list would just earmark money that's already in the budget (B 2.1 Strategy in Article XI), it wouldn't change the budget's bottom line at all - wouldn't cost another dime - to just move that list up into the actual budget. Either on the floor or in conference committee.

And who knows what else could pop up in that list on Thursday during the budget marathon on the House floor (you'll laugh, you'll cry...)

But so far, as it was passed from committee, and as it will be introduced tomorrow, here's the list of 10 parks projects that would have a leg up in getting millions in matching state grants if this earmark list goes into the actual bill.

Which, who are we kidding, everyone figures it will. Since the line item is already in the bill. These are all matching funds, so the cities would have to pony up first.

- $1 million for Townwood Park (Houston - Alma Allen, Approps member)
- $60,000 for renovations of the Kleberg County Youth Soccer Complex (we're assuming Kingsville - Rep. Juan Escobar)
- $80,000 for park construction in Rio Grande City (Guillen)
- $1.25 million for Senator Frank Madla Memorial Park
- $600,000 for expansion of rehab services at Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville (Eddie Lucio III and Rene Oliveira - Lucio supported Craddick and is on Approps, Oliveira did not, the zoo is technically in O's district)
- $2.5 million for construction of McAllen City Park. McAllen is rep'ed by three: Reps. Aaron Pena and Kino Flores, and Rep. Veronica Gonzales. Gonzales is not a Craddick D, but the other two are. And we don't know yet where exactly that park will be.
- $200,000 for Raymac Park construction (Houston - Rep. Kevin Bailey's district)
- $500,000 for construction at the Sibley Nature Center in Midland (Craddick)
- $750,000 for construction at the Will Looney Legacy Park (Pena's district)

Posted by Karen Brooks at 7:48 PM | Permalink

Texas homeowners could not be hit with a surcharge on their insurance premium unless they filed at least two claims within a three-year period, under legislation approved Wednesday by the Senate. The bill by Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, would revise a current provision in the law that allows insurers to tack on a surcharge for one claim in a three-year period. Senators passed and sent the measure to the House on a 30-0 vote.

"You've got to be able to have more than one claim in three years before they can increase your premium," Mr. Watson said, noting the law was changed a few years ago to allow insurance companies to slap on a surcharge with just one claim. "The purpose of having insurance is so that if you need it you make a claim without facing a surcharge. We're trying to be reasonable about this," he said. Big insurance companies opposed the Senate bill and are expected to try to kill it in the House.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 3:53 PM | Permalink

It's a rather slow day on the House floor bec the reps are doing their Local-and-Consent calendar, which is for bills that have no objectors.

So I was really hoping to see a near-brawl (or an actual brawl, who are we kidding) when I stepped into the little press conference room off the House floor and saw Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, and House State Affairs Chairman David Swinford within a few feet of each other, doing TV interviews and acting like the other one wasn't there.

Berman is trying like crazy to pass a bill challenging "birthright citizenship" and Swinford has just announced that he plans to kill it.

On one side - Berman: "We want our day in court."
A yard away, at the same moment, Swinford (paraphrased): We don't want to go to court.

I waited for the fisticuffs, or even a reallly good frowning, to break out between the two. Never happened.

Sounds like the guys need to take a lesson from the ladies of the House. It's gonna be a long session if ya'll keep being civil to each other.

/Wait, where am I??

Posted by Karen Brooks at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Let's see ...
A president accused of politicizing the White House. An unpopular war. A nation polarized. Karl Rove on TV. Sound familiar?

How about January 1972. Only in this case, Richard Nixon was president and the TV guy was longtime GOP bete noire Dan Rather. In the years since, everyone's gone -- Nixon, his circle of Watergate-indicted White House aides, the Committee to Reelect the President, the Democrats who pursued impeachment (Sam Ervin and Barbara Jordan), even Dan Rather. Only Karl remains ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM0zJl9Bxk8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecrooksandliars%2Ecom%2F

Posted by Wayne Slater at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Kinkster outlines his future -- and an interesting scenario for his opponent last year, Gov. Rick Perry -- in this video interview with the DMN.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 6:15 PM | Permalink

The Senate moved Tuesday to close a loophole in state ethics laws that allows public officials to receive unlimited cash gifts without disclosing the amount – as long as they simply report receipt of a check or other negotiable instrument as a gift. The loophole was opened up last fall when the Texas Ethics Commission ruled that a $100,000 gift to a member of the state employee retirement system board did not have to be disclosed on his personal financial statement other than to be listed as a check worth more than $250 – the current dollar limit for disclosure.

The ruling prompted criticism from Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who prosecutes wrongdoing by state officials. Mr. Earle said that under the ethics commission interpretation, it would be “perfectly legal to report the gift of a wheelbarrow without reporting that the wheelbarrow was filled with cash.” He urged the commission to rethink its position, handed down in a case involving former state Rep. Bill Ceverha, a member of the retirement board, who was given $100,000 by a prominent Republican donor after Mr. Ceverha filed for bankruptcy.

With no further action by the commission, the Senate stepped in and voted Tuesday to remove all doubt about the disclosure law by requiring that lawmakers and other state officials report not only the receipt of a check, gift certificate or other negotiable instrument, but also the dollar value of the gift. The measure by Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, was approved and sent to the House on a unanimous vote.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 4:59 PM | Permalink

Sen. Eliot Shapleigh made headlines late last week when he suggested the Senate's Health and Human Services Committee hold hearings on reported abuse and negligence at the Lubbock State School, one of more than a dozen Texas schools for the mentally retarded. But a letter he sent to the committee's chair, Sen. Jane Nelson, didn't get the anticipated response.

Ms. Nelson responded today that it was too soon to hold hearings on the U.S. Justice Department-sanctioned facility -- and that the state needed to come to some kind of "settlement agreement" with the U.S. Attorney General's Office first.
Shapleigh -- who has also written to the Lt. Gov. to request Senate hearings -- is crafting a rebuttal letter, his staffers said, to ask Nelson to reconsider.
Some lawmakers think the abuse reported at the Lubbock school, which agency officials say has been resolved, is the tip of the iceberg of a scandal that could be on par with the TYC's.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 4:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Gov. Rick Perry popped into the House this afternoon. The impromptu visit lasted about 15 minutes. The guv spent most of his "floor time" sitting in a window sill with Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas. Both wore cowboy boots.

Mr. Perry said later that he and Mr. Swinford talked about border security. Mr. Swinford has filed a bill granting the governor's wish for $100 million that he could distribute to border law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Swinford said bills and budget items were secondary to some down-home visiting by a couple of West Texas guys.

"We talked about how there's been rain in places," he said. "Crops are looking good. The bull's in the pasture. And some of the fields are greening up. Important stuff that West Texans talk about."

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Wonder what Kinky Friedman's doing these days? Having finished fourth in a five-way race for Texas governor, the Kinkster says he's writing a new book about the ordeal. The working title: "You Can Lead A Politician To Water but You Can't Make Him Think." The gonzo cowboy says the book should be out in the fall.

In the meantime, here's something you can smoke as you wait for the Kinkster's account. He's going to sell cigars -- Kinky's Select.

A box of 25 will set you back $100. While he's partial to Cubans, which are, ah, sort of illegal here, Kinky's Select will be totally legit. According to his website, they will be Honduran cigars "hand rolled by Cubans." (Hey, wasn't that an episode of Seinfeld or something?) Profits go to Friedman's pet project, the Utopian Animal Rescue Ranch.

Posted by Wayne Slater at 9:35 AM | Permalink

Even though our lawmakers almost came to blows, at least they're not arguing over a former Mouseketeer.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

House Democrats objected today to a calendar rule that will prohibit them from adding to overall spending during next week’s House debate of the budget.

Calendars Committee Chairwoman Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, and Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, said the rule is the same that has governed floor debate of budgets in previous sessions:

You can propose amendments to shift money around, but you can’t grow the budget.

Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, said Mr. Chisum’s committee left about $8.5 billion unspent, either in idle money or the state’s “rainy day fund” for emergencies and economic downturns.

By adopting the rule, Mr. Eiland said the House will have “locked in the amount that’s going to be spent” at $150.1 billion.

He noted, though, that a lucky five House members -- those chosen to work out differences with the Senate – will be able to accept a higher amount from the Senate. Or, they could try to obtain the House’s permission to go higher, Mr. Eiland noted.

Why not debate, now rather than later, spending a larger amount? he and other Democrats asked.

Rep. Joe Helfin, D-Crosbyton, asked about community colleges and retired teachers, who have gone for years without a cost of living increase.

Mr. Chisum said the budget puts $110 million of new money into community colleges. He said it significantly boosts the state’s contribution to retired teachers’ pension fund, though it’s not guaranteed they will receive a cost of living increment. If the fund earns 8 percent on its investments, retirees should get “a 13th check,” he said.

The House adopted the rule by a vote of 100-46.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Machine malfunctions are the most convenient bullsh*t in all of the House chamber.

Honestly. They're even worse than points of order. I challenge anyone to find anyone else who argues with me. Legitimately. On the record.

The board, the electric board that lights up everyone's vote next to their name, sometimes is wrong on a few particular machines. On a few particular votes.

I would say, "Don't get me started on machine malfuctions" but, yeah ... I'm started.

So typically, the voting machines at members desks never EVER, and I mean EVER, malfunction on non-controversial votes. Five sessions I've been here. Never seen it.

Or, if its happening, no one's telling the press about it. Which means, it ain't happenin. Or more accurately, it doesn't matter that it is.

Surprising everyone (I mean, NO ONE) today, the board malfunctioned many times. TYC and confederate statues and all. Not to mention one-vote margins. Wow.

What I love about voting machine malfunctions is that somehow - interestingly - they only become apparent after the vote tally. Everyone's sitting in their chairs, the clerk roll-calls the votes, everyone affirms, and then a handful of them go to the front and say their machine malfunctioned.

A verification takes about 10 to 15 minutes. But yet, there's no waving of arms as the bell is ringing, "No, no, the board says 'yes' but I vote NO!" None of that. It's always, after a verification, usually: "The following members had a machine malfuncton and meant to vote no." Or something like that.

Bee. Ess.

Predictably, it happened on all three verification votes (what?! three? In a single day? In March?).

A freshman Dem went up to me and a House chairman on the floor and asked: "What's the deal with the board malfunctions?"

I answer, "It's bullsh*t."

The freshman looks past me to the chairman, seeking confirmation.

The chairman, a Craddick D, looks him in the eye and says, "It's bullsh*t."

At that moment, Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson, steps to the mic and says:

"Mr. Speaker? Is there room in the budget to fix the boards?"

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Chairman Steve McQueen.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

If this isn't a testament to committee work, I don't know what is.

After two hours of seriously divisive, finger pointing, emotional, nearly tearful debate over slavery, the kkk, history, terrorism, the confederacy and racism in general, a House chairman just apologized to the whole floor and got a standing ovation - and a conservative member who sponsored the bill that EXPLODED into the most emotional debate I've seen yet this session on the House floor.
The bill protected statues and plaques from being removed by anyone but the Lege or the preservation board. Rep. Sid Miller said it would be inocuous, bec it passed without question last session in the House (to die in the Senate).

But the House Black Caucus (all Dems) took issue and started fighting it (most of whom had voted for it last session), and suddenly even the Republcans who wanted to pass it to preserve history and were voting with Miller the whole time started wondering why on earth it ever came to the floor.

Eventually, House State Affairs Chairman David Swinford apologized to the entire Houes for letting t get through his committee. And then Miller apologized and pulled down his bill.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

But someone just said it on the House floor (off-mic). Why? Because Rep. Senfronia Thompson and Rep. Beverly Woolley just went toe-to-toe - I mean they were this close to throwing fists - in front of the speaker's desk over a bill that's gotten some SERIOUS tempers raised.

Inches from each others face and about to start talking loud enough for the press to hear, Bev and Ms. Thompson were separated by the sergeant at arms and Rep. Borris Miles (all three reps are from Houston). As soon as the refs stepped away, the two women started circling each other again, Woolley had her finger wagging in Thompsons's face this time, so they had to step in again.

It started over a Sid Miller bill making it really hard to remove memorial plaques and statues from state owned land. This would protect the confederate statues on UT, among other things.

The minority members are trying to get some amendments passed that would take exception for KKK, etc., and the supporters are having none of it. At which point Ms. Thompson said she had "a problem with you (Miller) and a problem with the speaker for letting this bill on the floor."

Woolley, Calendars chair, steps up to the mic and says that she let the bill on the floor, not the speaker. At which point Thompson said, off mic, that she begged to differ, apparently - and they were off.

It was tense. T-E-N-S-E.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Remember that effort by Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht to have the state pay his legal bills after he challenged a judicial sanction for promoting Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Well, never mind.
The two Republican sponsors of bills to reimburse Hecht with taxpayer dollars have withdrawn the legislation. They changed their minds after The Dallas Morning News reported last week that Hecht had solicited campaign donors for the money. Hecht told us he'd collected the full $340,000 from political contributors to pay his legal bills -- but said he still thought the state should pay.
Not so much, said Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio and Rep. Tony Goolsby of Dallas. They've pulled their bills.
The donor list will be made public in July when the next round of campaign finance reports are due.

Posted by Wayne Slater at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Talk about a no-win.

House Correx Chairman Jerry Madden, R-Plano, says that Dunnam's amendment creating a "special prosecutor" for the TYC scandal-related crimes passed because "7 or 8 members" came to him later and said "they thought they were voting on the bill" instead of Dunnam's amendment.

Translation - Had those, let's say 8, members voted on the amendment, they would have voted it down. Which would have changed that 63-75 vote to 71-67 and Dunnam's amendment would have gone down. And Madden's bill wouldn't have been thrown back to committee because the sponsors didnt' like the amendment.

This can only mean two things. If there's a third confusing alternative, by all means tell me....

1) Asleep at the wheel: That these members were daydreaming, passing notes, or watching American Idol re-runs on their new iPhones when they should have been paying attention to a bill on arguably the most important issue of the session. So when they heard the bell ring, they woke up, snapped to, and hit "yes" because they thought, "Oh, we must be voting on the bill." Or, "Oh, we must be voting to table the amendment."

Without looking up at the big black screen over the Speaker's head that said "Amendment #2". Without checking to see how Madden was voting on his own bill (which is typically how members figure out how to vote on some of these things).

After nearly two hours of debate? Seriously?? They weren't paying attention to the vote? When DUNNAM'S at the mic? Have they never met this man?

If its true, then because they weren't watching what they were doing, a bill that Madden said was key to helping stop abuse in TYC immediately got delayed at least a week. Madden should be furious. Instead, he's relieved.

2) They were so surprised that the amendment won and the bill got pulled down because of it that they're now backpedalling with Madden. That sounds likely, too.

But at the same time, a look at a few of these surprise "yesses" on Dunnam's amendment tells me it's scenario number one.

Gattis, Taylor, Phil King, Bonnen, Gattis, Crownover? These are not typically breakaway Rs. So that means they mistakenly voted "yes" and accidentally injured the bill.

Here's the 411 on at least two of them: Apparently, Rep. Larry Taylor voted for himself and for Phil King, at King's request in case the vote came up while he was called to the lobby. Sure enough it did, and Taylor thought it was a motion to table (kill) the amendment ... and voted yes for both of them.

Sigh. Not that this is going to teach them to vote themselves and not trust anyone else to do it. Nothing ever does.

You know what? Whether it's option 1 or 2, either way, it just looks bad. No. Win.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

House Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner, a Craddick ally, didn't vote when the budget passed in the Appropriations Committee this morning. The Houston Democrat explained -- oh, did he explain -- why: He suspects he's being "suckered" to move the budget along but will see his priorities gutted by the Senate.

"I don't want to be hoodwinked," Mr. Turner said in an at times passionate, sometimes funny exchange with Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa.

"Don't wave a carrot and keep moving the carrot away, and I keep chasing the carrot," said Mr. Turner, who fears the Senate will strip out money to help poor families pay electric bills and to provide health coverage for more poor children. "I'm not falling for that."

Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, then tried to ask a question of Mr. Turner. But he either didn't hear her, or pretended not to. He hunched over to whisper to a seat mate, Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso.

"Mr. Speaker Pro Tem!" said Ms. McClendon, asking a question about Mr. Turner's bill to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. "Mr. Speaker Pro Tem!"

No answer.

"He's chasing carrots over here," Mr. Chisum said, to much laughter from committee members and the audience.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

OK, Dunnam's amendment goes on 75-63.

So now Rep. Larry Phillips is trying to kill the whole bill with a point of order because he and Madden are FURIOUS (and Hartnett) that Dunnam's amendment survived Round Two.

I swear, this is better than theater. It's free.

SUSTAINED. Shocking.

So what next? Dunnam files his special prosecutor as a bill, or something.

Guess we know where Craddick stands on this, since he just sent hte bill back to Madden's committee.

OK. Back to business as usual. When's lunch?

Posted by Karen Brooks at 1:09 PM | Permalink

Woah. Didn't see that one coming.

Rep. Jim Dunnam and the rest of the House Ds - with some help from some Rs - just blocked a move by Correx Chair Jerry Madden to kill Dunnam's move to create a special prosecutor for the TYC scandal-related crimes.

The original vote was 74-73 to table it, effectively killing it. But since it was one vote, Dunnam asked for a verficaton, everyone sat down in their desks, and the vote flipped to 69-70 in favor of keeping it alive.

Another pin-drop moment on the House floor. Entertainment.

Initially, voting with the Ds on that motion to table were five Rs. Voting with the Rs were one D. Then, when verifyng the votes, several people weren't in their desks - about seven, to be exact, which fliipped the votes. At which time two reps reported their machine malfunctioned and voted them opposite of what it should have been - this happens all the time on verification and it's weird, and convenient -

Madden is trying like h-e-double-ell to kill Dunnam's amendment, which he's trying to tack onto Madden's bill allowing DAs to ask the TDCJ's special prosecutors unit for help in TYC cases as well.

Madden's annoyed that Dunnam hasn't introduced this as a bill into his committee, but it doesn't sound like he likes it anyway.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 12:44 PM | Permalink

Sen. John Carona of Dallas got a surprise in the mail last weekend - a traffic ticket for running a red light in University Park. Mr. Carona wasn't ticketed on the scene, but his violation was captured by one of the growing number of red light cameras in metro areas of the state. Interestingly, the Dallas Republican is carrying legislation this year that would put restrictions on - but not disallow - use of the cameras across Texas.

When the ticket came, Mr. Carona noticed the violation was on his wife Helen's car. But when he questioned her about it, she looked at a calendar and pointed out that Mr. Carona had her car on the day in question. "It was me," the senator admitted Wednesday. There is a bright spot, however. "At least it was only $75 and not $150 like they're charging in other cities," he said. His revelation came during a Senate transportation committee meeting as the panel was considering one of several red light camera bills this session.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 10:42 AM | Permalink

The House appropriations committee passed a $150.1 billion, two-year state budget this morning. That's up $5.4 billion -- or about 4 percent -- from the current two-year cycle.

There's more money for education (because of population growth) and enough to put 100,000 more children back on the CHIP state health insurance plan.

Next step for the budget: The full House. Then it's over to the Senate.

Posted by Mike Drago at 10:21 AM | Permalink

When Rep. Bill Callegari introduced his bill to clarify the law about obstructed license plates, he got a House clerk to hold up a plate with a formerly illegal bracket around it.

For grins, I ran the plate. Did I get a lobbyist? Nope. A fellow legislator? Nope? Stolen plates? I shoulda been so lucky.

Nah, the plate belonged to Jeremy Mazur, Callegari's chief of staff. Mazur admitted that yes, that was his plate, and ... even worse ... he didn't put the bracket around it - he used his boss' bracket, sacrificing his own law-abiding status to turn into a scofflaw, if just for a moment.

"Sometimes," he said, "You gotta do what you gotta do in order to help get your boss' bill passed."

Now that's dedication.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 4:19 PM | Permalink

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson told me Sunday that he called on fellow Democratic contenders for president to accept a pledge against attacking each other.
When asked if anyone had signed the pledge, he smirked and proclaimed: "Joe Biden."

Posted by Gromer Jeffers Jr. at 1:49 PM | Permalink

... with your Aggies license plate bracket.

And more importantly, your legislators are, too - after passing a bill protecting drivers with fancy license plate holders this morning, an "unintended consequence" of a law against obscuring license plates. Several of the scofflaws were parked in the Capitol driveway on the day everyone heard about people getting ticketed for buying state-sponsored license plates.

The bill passed on a voice vote without objection. Shocking, I know.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 10:59 AM | Permalink

The House gave final passage to the so-called "stand your ground" legislation removing Texans' legal duty to flee from an attacker before killing him in self-defense.

Yesterday it got preliminary approval on a voice vote. Today, it passes 133 to 13. The Senate voted it out unanimously a week ago.

In Dallas, the only reps who voted against it today were Rep. Terri Hodge and Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway, both Ds. Yesterday, Yvonne Davis registered a no vote but didn't show up on today's board - when we know her vote (it'll be a no) I'll update.

Is this the very first bill to hit the gov's desk this session? How very Texas THAT would be.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Former Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, lists a surprise client in ethics disclosures about her new lobbying practice: She represents a group trying to cull from the state's jail and prison populations offenders who've committed "nonviolent and victimless crimes," such as possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Ms. Hupp is the lobbyist for and one of three founders of Texans for Public Safety Solutions. It supports passage of HB 2391, which would let law enforcement officers write citations to -- and not have to take to jail -- people who are found with less than 2 ounces of marijuana, an expired driver's license or in the act of trespassing.

The fine-don't-incarcerate option would apply to hundreds of different Class B misdemeanors, said David Fried, the group's executive director.

Go directly to jail would still apply, though, to driving while intoxicated, inciting a riot and enticing a child, said Mr. Fried, who has been active in the Libertarian Party.

"We don't want to be labeled a 'pot organization,'" he said. "We're about reducing the number of people that are spending time in jail."

He said Ms. Hupp and Marc Levin, a criminal justice expert at the free market-oriented Texas Public Policy Foundation, "got funding for this project" from a donor who prefers not to be identified publicly.

Ms. Hupp described the roll-out -- no pun intended -- of her lobbying practice as part adventure, part pain.

"I'm still trying to get my lobby legs," she said. "The ethics rules are difficult. I don't like gray areas."

While she reported her six clients will pay her gross fees of between $55,000 and $145,000, Ms. Hupp expressed some disappointment that two causes close to her heart aren't among the pharmacists, foreclosure lawyers and massage school owners she's representing.

"I didn't get hired by a gun group and I didn't get hired by the chiropractors," said Ms. Hupp, a chiropractor and ardent advocate of gun owners' rights.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 6:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The last time Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was around so many Texas senators was the summer of 2003 when he welcomed 11 Senate Democrats to Albuquerque and promised to protect them from efforts to forcibly return them to Austin for a special session of the Legislature. The Democrats had bolted the session and left the state to block Senate action on a GOP-led effort to redraw congressional districts in Texas.

On Monday, Mr. Richardson - a Democratic candidate for president - came to Austin and was welcomed to the Senate by Democrats and Republicans. He delivered brief remarks to the chamber, stressing the common interests and strong ties between Texas and New Mexico. His role in protecting Senate Democrats from GOP-backed efforts to retrieve them from an Albuquerque hotel four years ago seemed a distant memory. Several Republicans were among the senators who walked to the front of the chamber to shake hands with the former U.N. ambassador and U.S. energy secretary and have their pictures taken. Mr.