By J. Lyn Carl, GalleryWatch.com
Austin, TX –
Saddled previously with a point of order that brought his bill to a grinding halt, Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford) gave it one more try Sunday as he brought SB 408, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) Sunset bill to the House floor.
It's not the issue of sunset recommendations for the PUC that is so volatile; it's King's addition of the language of HB 3179 that riled Sunset Advisory Commission Chair Rep. Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton).
HB 3179 would establish a statewide franchise authorizing a cable or video service provider to offer service in Texas. It also would establish provisions governing rights-of-way access by communications service providers and compensation for relocation of communications facilities. Some argue that it will allow major communications providers to corner lucrative portions of the market, while discriminating against existing cable providers and possibly harming consumers.
Solomons took King to task early in the debate, reminding him of the hard work the Sunset Commission put in on SB 408, the PUC sunset bill. "It appears we are jeopardizing it with this language," said Solomons, telling King that the addition of the language is "putting members in a position of having to take sides."
Solomons asked King if he had made any changes to the bill since it was recommitted to committee following a successful point of order. King first denied there were changes and then admitted to removing "pressure points" that were causing difficulty with germaneness. "I don't think we've added anything other than what was in the perfecting amendment," said King. "I don't think we changed anything substantive."
"I don't want to drag this out," started Solomons.
"Then why are you doing it?" responded King.
"Why are you holding it hostage?" Solomons asked King of the Sunset bill.
King said he is only trying to add to SB 408 policy changes that passed out of the Committee on Regulated Industries but never made it to the Calendars Committee in time to get to the House floor as the session nears end. He said the language added will "create billions of dollars for Texas," spur job creation and increase revenue opportunities for many municipalities in the state.
Solomons then questioned that if that were true, why does the bill have a negative fiscal note of $1.5 million.
"I think that's an incorrect fiscal note," responded King.
"Why are you so insistent on putting this in the Sunset bill?" Solomons asked again, wondering out loud why King was choosing "this particular vehicle" to get the language of his bill passed.
"This is good for Texas," said King. "It's good for the citizens of Texas." He said it will lower the cost of video for consumers and increase competition, which will also serve as a method of lowering consumer costs.
"What is in this bill today...show me the page, show me the paragraph...that if I vote for this bill...there is a guarantee of any reduction in my telephone or cable bill," said Solomons. "Let me have a vote that actually means something."
King said the 5 percent franchise fee in his new language will provide a substantial revenue increase for small to mid-size cities in the state.
"I don't care about that," said Solomons. "I care about the Sunset bill. That's all I care about here. Where are you going to get the money, Phil? From the teachers?"
Standing his ground, King said his language from HB 3179 will spur billions of dollars for businesses in Texas, hundreds of millions of dollars for cities and will increase competition. "You'll see prices go down...services go up...you'll see new products." King described the current system in Texas as a "monopoly of entertainment."
"This is not a utility."
Solomons kept returning to his argument that the language should not be added to a sunset bill. "Why is this a telecom reform bill instead of the PUC Sunset bill?" He said House members want to know why instead of an 18-page PUC sunset bill, SB 408 has become a "60-something-odd page bill."
"Because the Sunset bill was insufficient to do what was in the best interest of Texas," responded King.
Many are fearful that another point of order would kill the bill for the session and sunset recommendations for the PUC would be thwarted until the next legislative session in 2007.
Even if the bill does pass in the House, there is some concern whether it will pass muster in the Senate. Bill author Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) has argued all session that sunset bills should remain bills relative to sunset recommendations, and should not include policy.