Capitol Annex Interviews Rep. Mike Villarreal On His HR 4 Amendment

With the intention of helping Democrats “negotiate from a position of strength” on progressive issues important to Texas families, State Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) yesterday extended an olive branch to Republicans in the House of Representatives over the contentious issue of suspending Article III, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution.

[AT LEFT: Villarreal at work in the Texas House]

Instead of being welcomed, however, Republicans tried to take advantage of Villarreal’s amendment and proposed other measures which would have diluted its effectiveness and made the first 60-days of the legislative session a virtual free-for-all in which any legislation could be considered.
Yesterday afternoon, Rep. Villarreal spoke at length with Capitol Annex by phone about his Amendment 1 to House Resolution 4. Rep. Villarreal discussed its intent, what caused him to propose it, and what ultimately made him pull what could have been a worthy compromise to totally suspending the constitutional provision on legislation considered in the first 60 days of the session and giving Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) and Republicans a blank check to steamroller over an enlarged and emboldened Democratic majority.

Rep. Villarreal: I looked at what had already been filed and prioritized what I thought was most the important to the every day Texan that also had an immediate impact in their lives.

Capitol Annex: What made you decide to pull the amendment?

Rep. Villarreal: I went into the debate with an open mind and a willingness to accept other amendments. What ended up happening, though, was that the Republican leadership, I think, decided to take advantage of that offer and began having multiple amendments drafted very broadly so that everything would be covered. It was at that point I decided they weren’t interested in receiving my extended hand—the extended hand of Democrats in the House—and I thought it was the right time to pull the amendment and just have an up or down vote on the resolution.

Capitol Annex: It was reported on Quorum Report earlier that the leadership is going to try again (and possibly repeatedly) to pass the same resolution that went down today. If they do, will you propose your amendment again, and what would you change if you do?

Rep. Villarreal: I read that myself, and it is a curious report. I would like to talk to some of colleagues on that side of the issue and get a sense of what they are trying to accomplish. Is this the same run or will they take it serious in [someone] meeting them halfway.

At this time, the way I see this issue is it comes down to negotiating from a position of strength. This resolution [HR 4] says ‘throw away the influence that you currently have on shaping the agenda during the first 60 days in exchange for nothing.

What I have learned in my terms in the House, is that it is important to negotiate from your true position of strength and to negotiate on things that are tangible. So, I really—as someone who is a part of a group of elected representatives that care about things like restoring cuts to CHIP, making higher education more affordable, doing something meaningful in terms of funding our state parks, and ethics reforms— say, ‘how do we serve these interests by voting to do away with our ability to set the agenda?’
That’s a question that I hope to ask [Rep.] Sylvester Turner [D-Houston]. If he truly cares about poor children having access to healthcare, how does this vote serve that interest? Doesn’t it just weaken his hand to influence the agenda in the first 60 days?

Capitol Annex: When we talk about this constitutional provision and how it’s been routinely suspended in the past, hasn’t it allowed, in 2003 and 2005, the Republicans to push forward more controversial measures—like tort reform—to being handled within those first 60 days?

Rep. Villarreal: By waiving this rule, we allow the house leadership to get the most out of this legislative session. And, if you support their general agenda, and what they’ve accomplished overall in ‘03 and ‘05, then you would be where Sylvester [Turner] is, which is enabling them to do more of what we’ve seen in the past.
If you don’t, one would think you would want to say, ‘hold on, I’m not going to weaken my position as a negotiator of progressive ideas on health care and the environment to let you accomplish your agenda, which is harmful to those ideas.’

Capitol Annex: Is this something that you worked with the House Democratic Leadership on or did you come up with this on your own?

Rep. Villarreal: It was an effort I came up with on my own because I saw the train wreck about to happen. With the Republican majority not willing to alter their requests for a blanket suspension of the constitution and the House Democratic Leadership counting votes just to kill the request I thought we needed an effort to demonstrate that Democrats can be strong, and be true to their policy agenda at the same time.

Capitol Annex: Let’s talk about what might happen if this had passed. Do you think that Speaker Craddick would have used the first 60 days as an opportunity to push through legislation important to the leadership? When I looked at this closely this time, not really having paid attention to it before, I though, ‘hey, this helps him push through what the lobby wants that supports him?’

Rep. Villarreal: I’m not sure what his plans were. I do know I’m a Democrat trying to be effective in this Republican legislature and offering my hand in addressing what I thought were major state issue, I believe for every day Texans, in these first few days of the session while still have effectiveness in the process, but properly respecting the influence that Democrats have in the House.

Capitol Annex: You were in the Legislature back in 2001 when Speaker Laney was there and we had a Democratic majority but also a reasonably sizeable Republican majority, perhaps not as large as the Democrats minority now, but still significant. Watching the debate today, I got the impression that one of the reasons suspending this provision wasn’t an issue back then was because Speaker Laney gave the Republican minority a more fair shot than Democrats have been given in the last two sessions, and that he at least gave them a shot at getting some of their issues to the gate. Is that a fair estimation?

Rep. Villarreal: I think that the minority did get the chance to get to the gate better a couple of sessions ago. People tell their own versions of history, and say how [Speaker] Laney was not as generous or as fair handed as some of us recall on our own, and maybe the truth is in he middle. But I do know today what we are faced with is a severely divided house.We had a speaker’s race against an incumbent and we have Democrats and Republicans on opposite sides opposing each other, so the House is really divided into four groups: those of us who voted for a confidential ballot, Republicans and Democrats, those who didn’t, then Democrats versus Republicans who voted to re-elect Speaker Craddick. It is a divided House and it is unrealistic to bring a four-fifths vote to the House floor and expect unanimous consent when that request has the end result of decreasing the minority party’s ability to influence the agenda.

Capitol Annex: I was kind of surprised it wasn’t a more lopsided vote, with more people voting not to suspend. I thought, given the vote on the Geren Amendment in the Speaker’s race as kind of a gauge of confidence in the Speaker’s leadership, we would see more Republicans and Democrats voting not to suspend. Any thoughts on that?

Rep. Villarreal: We did have several Democrats who were absent. And, I believe some members interpret it as a ‘no’ vote being a vote to be an obstructionist. Today, I don’t see it that way.
I ultimately voted against the resolution and I did so because I believed it weakened our ability to be strong voices for our constituents in this process and I did it because I believe, when you negotiate with the current House leadership, to be effective, you need to negotiate on tangible policy changes. If we’re going to be asked to decrease our influence on setting the agenda in the first 60 days, we have to ask ourselves, ‘what do we get in exchange that serves our constituents?’ Today, they could not answer that.

Capitol Annex: Today during debate on the resolution, there were several mentions that perhaps this constitutional provision is obsolete. I know Rep. [Joe] Heflin, who replaced Speaker Laney asked some questions about maybe replacing it if it is always so routinely suspended. Plus, I remember that Rep. [Helen] Giddings [(D-Dallas)] and others kind of went through the whole dog and pony show with Rep. Turner talking about how air conditioning and easier travel and things like that were what was behind the amendment and perhaps it is outdated. I watched that, though, and saw that this portion of the constitution is still a vital provision in place for a reason. Is that a fair assumption this day in age?

Rep. Villarreal: Of course, I think the provision is still vital. In the Senate, the Senate still thinks it is vital and they are able to out pace us, and they still respect the four-fifths vote [to suspend the provision] on each bill. Maybe the senators get the fact that by supporting a blanket suspension they individually control setting the agenda and, if they are in the minority party, they are at a greater disadvantage.

Capitol Annex: Listening to the debate, with the talk of suspending on a bill-by-bill basis, I got the impression that, doing it that way, it takes a lot of the control out of the Speaker’s hands and even the Calendar’s Committee and really gives a lot more control to the 150 members, individually and collectively.

Rep. Villarreal: There are lots of thoughts on who would end up setting the agenda. It is dependant on how the governor responds, how the Speaker responds and how the Senate and individual members respond on the house floor. One can only theorize who this will help or hurt in terms of ability to influence the agenda. Let me give you an example.

Today, Rep. [Mike] Krusse [R-Round Rock], set a of bills for consideration in committee, and he came to the mic and moved to suspend Article III Section 5 of the constitution to allow the House to take up and consider House Bills x, y, and z. I believe it was Rep. Eiland (D-Galveston) who took the back mic and ask him to describe what they did he described them. They were good bills about child safety seats, seatbelts, things like that which are of public interest and concern and we gave unanimous consent and supported suspension of the rules.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It