By J. Carl Lyn
Austin, TX – Activity on the House side of the rotunda came to a screeching halt Wednesday as the House began taking up more than 300 amendments to HB 4 by Rep. Joe Nixon (R-Houston), described as the most sweeping tort reform legislation in years.
House Speaker Tom Craddick said the House will work through the day and into the night on the bill. He added that the House will deliberate on the bill Thursday beginning at 9 a.m. but the House will adjourn late in the afternoon so that members may attend a rosary service for the late Rep. Irma Rangel, who died Monday. To honor Rangel's memory, the House will not be in session on Friday so that members may attend her funeral. However, Craddick indicated that House members should be prepared to be in session on Saturday and Sunday if necessary to continue consideration of the bill.
"Before this day ends," said Nixon in laying out his bill before the House this morning, "this body will mold HB 4 into a bill of which we can all be very proud."
Nixon said his legislation calls for "comprehensive civil justice reform" that will create fairness and efficiency in civil lawsuits and "provide meaningful remedies" for those wronged for doing nothing wrong.
Nixon said the legislation is "not about laws," but rather about "how we in Texas choose to live with each other." He said the bill seeks to "create a balance between meaningful compensation in malpractice cases and the availability of health care."
One after one, members approached the microphone to offer amendments. They discussed caps and rates and rollbacks, among other issues.
One of the more impassioned pleas came from Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), whose amendment would roll back malpractice insurance rates for physicians.
"Let all the greedy people step back," she shouted from the House floor. She said it is doctors who should be able to benefit from this bill. "We're not up here to be helping the greedy. We need to be helping the needy."
Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) argued with Nixon on whether rate rollbacks or rate decreases were better. Nixon said decreases in rates are better than a rate freeze.
"If an elephant had wings, it would be a heck of a bird," said Gallego. "I don't like to deal with 'ifs.'" He said requiring a rate rollback, or at minimum a freeze, would be an absolute.
Supporters of the bill heaved a sigh of relief six hours deep into the debate when Rep. Terri Hodge (D-Dallas) raised a point of order. Hodge alleged that Rule 4, Section 32-C was violated because the bill analysis did not adequately identify those sections of the measure relating to rulemaking authority.
After a lengthy discussion, the House parliamentarian ruled the bill does not grant rulemaking authority, but instead expressly prohibits rulemaking authority, with the point of order overruled.
Arguing for one amendment, Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston), noted something he learned in law school and said it applied to bill author Nixon: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, just keep arguing."
Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (R-Lampasas) provided a light moment noting that staff had done the math - debating the 300-plus amendments would take 900 hours. At 40 hours per week, she noted, that would figure out to take 22.5 weeks to hear all the amendments. She then asked how many days were left in the session.
Rep. Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont) argued that members were voting to table proposed amendments based solely on whether they were acceptable to the author. He challenged members saying they did not campaign that they were "going to Austin and vote on what Joe Nixon wants" and that they should make independent decisions on the merits of each amendment. Without doing so, he said, the amendments become irrelevant.
Debate was expected to continue late into the night and if there are no successful points of order, perhaps through the weekend.