Print 🖨

The House and Senate Conference Committee on HB 1 met on April 23 to hold an organizational hearing and to discuss key issues concerning the state budget.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Rep. Zerwas

  • Vice Chair Longoria will lead the way in Articles I, IV and V, assisted by Ashley Mann.
  • Sarah Davis will lead Article II, assisted by Will Sielhimmer.
  • Greg Bonnen will lead Article III, assisted by Emily Howl.
  • Walle will lead Articles VI, VII and VIII, assisted by Cameron Cox.

 

Sen. Nelson

  • Both chambers are prioritizing property tax relief, education reform, and teacher salaries. Both of us have set aside $9 billion dollars to accomplish those goals.
  • Both chambers have also demonstrated committed to communities affected by Harvey. We certainly know that we will need to draw from the Economic Stabilization Fund.
  • Huffman will lead Article I, IV and V.
  • Kolkhorst will lead Article II.
  • Taylor will lead Article III.
  • Nichols will lead article VI, VII and VIII.

 

Sarah Keyton, LBB

  • Discussed differences in GR, All Funds, and ESF.
  • Both chambers are within the pay-as you go and spending limits.

 

John McGeady. LBB

  • There are funding differences on every article except Article IX.
    • Many of these differences seem significant but are not. Many are differences in funding or approach rather than a difference in decision.
    • One real difference is in Article II, $922m difference in GR there. There are dozens of items that will have to be worked through, including a $350m cost-containment measure that was adopted by the Senate.
  • Same in the $9b approach to public education.
    • Each chamber identified $636m in estimated foundation school program impacts due to impacts from Harvey on local property tax revenue and state costs. Senate funded that in HB 1, House funded that in SB 500, which explains a significant part of the difference.
  • Use of ESF explains a lot of the difference in the use of GR between the House and the Senate.
  • Some slight differences in GR dedicated funds.
  • Zerwas – Thanked the LBB for their hard work. Have no doubt that the Senate and the House will be able to work out differences. This is not a partisan budget, it is a budget for the State of Texas.
  • Nelson – One of the biggest challenges coming into this session was Harvey, there has been a lot of time spent figuring out how to deal with those expenses. Thanked the LBB for keeping Harvey as a priority.