>>Becky>> Record funding for public education, a first ever voucher bill, funds for water infrastructure, funds for dementia research.

Bans on phones in public schools emergency exceptions for abortions and state oversight of public universities.

Those are just a few of the new laws to come out of the recent Texas Legislative session.

I'm Becky Ferguson with a special edition of One Question brought to you by Diamondback Energy and Permian Resources.

Tonight, I am joined by Representative Tom Craddick of Midland, Representative Brooks Landgraf of Odessa, and Senator Kevin Sparks of Midland to learn more about the just ended session and an upcoming special session on THC regulation.

[Intro Music] - Welcome, Representative Craddick, Representative Landgraf and Senator Sparks, thank you all so much for taking some time to talk to us about the just completed legislative session.

Y'all were there for 140 days, and we have a little bit less than an hour for you all to recap it.

But um I know you covered lots of territory, but let's start local and I'm going to start with you, um Representative Craddick.

Um, I know there was some funding for The Beacon, so if you will talk a little bit about that.

But if you'll first start by telling people what The Beacon is in case they don't know.

>> Rep. Craddick >>Okay.

Well, The Beacon is a medical complex thats been built between the cities of Midland and Odessa.

The per out there has to take care of a lot of the needs medically for the whole Permian area.

And uh we've built two behavioral health facility or they're being built right now.

In fact if you go out there and look at, you'll think a new city is being built out there.

It's 200 beds under one roof and it's huge.

And uh it's it's going to be sometime next year to open right after the first of the year.

If you go out there.

I was out there two days ago.

You're not going to say, well, they're not going to make it.

But anyway, it looks great.

And this is for mental health and which is a drastic needs in this area.

And two years ago, I guess, or three years ago, Brooks and I went to the speaker and the session basically was almost over.

And we went in there and said, hey, we would like some money to do this and he said., - To do what, infrastucture?

- To build, build some facility.

- Build the facility, okay.

- And we said, well, we don't have any money.

We've already passed the appropriations bill.

It's over.

He looked at this and said, You know how to do this, don't you?

And I said, Yeah, if you just get us the money.

Well, so we asked for I think $65 million or something.

He said, Give me 10 minutes.

And uh he came back to us and he said, Well, I've got 40.

I said we'll take it and we'll raise the rest locally in Midland and Odessa, which we did.

And we built the first one and then we got back in session and they they were doing that.

Then all across the state.

We were the first one and first ever do a private one with the state that had ever been done, which is great.

And so uh so we get into the second deal and they build them around the state to take care of the needs for mental health.

And so they wanted to put a second one in the in the Permian Basin to take care of the of the whole Permian, but mainly the Midland Odessa area.

And so we got into how are we going to do that?

We built that an and then you're ask about The Beacon and I'm sorry, I didn't mean - That's okay, yeah - trying to describe it.

- Yeah - So you've got this huge tract of land out there that they've acquired and so this was this this hospi, two hospitals are now one were built together and then we started looking at other things that could be built.

I mean, they're trying to get a uh cancer center and a children's hospital center and things like that, which they're working towards.

But it's out there and just kind of a, you know, oilfield - Land.

Mmhmm.

- And so they start moving things around.

But the they needed uh you know, - infrastucture?

- infrastructure, water and sewer and whatever.

And so they couldn't afford to do that on this huge site.

And they were getting people to help and donate to build, you know, buildings and stuff.

- Right - And you go up to someone and say, how would you like to help?

- Build a sewer line.

- Put your name on it what are you going to put my name on the sewer?

You know, I mean, you know, so you need some help on the infrastructure.

- So y'all, um how much money did you come up with for the infrastructure out there?

- Well, we got $123 million - $123 million - for the infrastructure alone and the other buildings that are being done are already being funded.

Okay, So about half of the state, half by the city's uh uh, the second hospital, the first hospital was funded totally between Midland and Odessa and uh the State.

Okay, the state paid for about half the less than half, and then the cities paid for the rest.

The second one is is 50/50.

It was 200 and some million dollars.

- So we've got this new Behavioral Science Center to look forward to.

And the infrastructure to support it, um.

- Right.

And now we're they're going to expand it and they're going to put a there's a playa lake sitting in the middle of it, and theyre gonna turn in a park and build build it around it.

So, you know, the Playa lake course will flood when, - Yeah, - when it rains if it ever rains and so that's kind of how it started.

But we needed help funding it.

And that's where I thought we were very fortunate to be able to get.

- Very successful.

That's exciting.

Uh, Senator Sparks I know one of the big events for the session was a property tax relief bill.

Could you tell us a little bit about what that does?

- Yeah.

So um we're basically just building on what we did last time, um which um the bulk of that is going to be um additional homestead exemption.

And so like for seniors, I'm specifically think um could be it's going to get the senior exemption up to 200,000.

Um, you guys correct me if I get off on the specific numbers um um and but it's going to take the the normal homestead exemption from uh 100 to uh was it 100 and 20?

- 140, - $140 um thousand dollars.

And so, you know, again, it's the state listening to our constituents saying we need property tax relief and continuing to try and make you know, owning homeownership affordable here in Texas.

- Does uh the state uh pick up the slack because that will mean fewer tax dollars for the various taxing entities?

- That's correct.

Yeah.

So um the state is going to be picking up the the burden for that and, um you know, I we heard the speaker earlier today and um he made the comment and I think he's right, that next session probably going to be a lot of um a lot of discussion in the interim as to property tax um burdens moving forward.

And so I think there's going to be significant discussion on um the ideas in restructuring property tax for Texas.

- And substituting something else, which will be a fun conversation, I'm guessing.

- Well, as as you might expect, it'll be a tough discussion.

- You know, Becky, if I might - Sure - On that line In the past year, for years and years, we've talked about property tax relief.

And a lot of times we've passed something and then we do it and we're cutting back on what your taxes are.

And then within two years, three years, whatever, it's built back up.

And so we've gone to this exclusion where you get so much off here, you know to start with the way we've done in the past.

And I think, you know, that's a big plus for the people.

- That's interesting.

Senator Landgraf of course uh, five and a half million Texas children go to public school.

So funding for public education is important to almost everyone in the state, um.

Could you tell us what the legislature did on this front?

- Well this was a tremendously successful legislative session when it comes to educational opportunities in Texas, and particularly for public schools uh not only here in the Permian Basin, but throughout the entire state.

And that's something that's important for me uh I mean personally, just because I'm the father of a of a fourth grader in public schools here in West Texas.

And uh I know that the opportunities that are provided there are the best chance that the vast majority of Texas schoolchildren have to get a good education, which is something that has been a foundational principle for uh Texas, even going back to the Republic of Texas days.

And so uh we have to make sure that we're putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to that and I think that we had some tremendous successes.

The biggest one is the fact that we increased the state share of funding for public education by eight and a half billion dollars.

And that's transformational in a lot of ways.

That actually puts the state, uh when you look at all public support for public schools, we are approaching a $100 billion benchmark, which is we've never come close to approaching that in the history of the state before.

And that's important because we have schoolchildren who are being added to our uh enrollments every day, every school year, and making sure that we have those resources provided so that those children can be provided a good education is important.

Now, what I'm also proud of is the way that we came together uh and we really had near unanimous support for this proposal.

But I think the smart approach that we took was making sure that we get as much of that eight and a half billion dollar increase directly into the classroom.

- Into the classrooms - Yeah.

- So a lot with teacher salaries Is I understand it.

- That that's right.

So of the eight and a half billion 4 billion was directly earmarked or tagged for teacher pay raises and so we've seen uh the Ector County ISD, MISD both released their budgets for the upcoming year.

I hear their school boards have just voted on that, and we've seen uh that teacher pay has increased uh for every single teacher in not only those two large school districts here, but every school district throughout the state uh because again, we put our money where our mouth is, and I think that we're going to be able to recruit teachers uh at a higher rate than we have been in.

Even more importantly, we're going to be able to retain the great teachers that we have, and in fact, along with those teacher pay increases, if you've been teaching in the classroom for more than ten years or or even more than eight years, you get longevity pay, basically, and so you're actually entitled to a pay raise that's twice as big as if uh you've only been teaching for four years.

And I think we want to value that experience.

We want to value that excellence.

And and we're doing that in the positive feedback has been pretty remarkable so far.

- Representative Craddick, another education related bill was what a lot of people are calling vouchers.

Could you tell us about that Bill?

- Right.

Well, vouchers, which we've been trying to do since since I've been in the legislature here, are give me a bad time.

But when is in the closest has ever been is a tie vote years ago and what and it failed two years ago and this was the governor's major program and he went out and ran against members in in the Republican primary, which was their his party's primary, and got enough votes to pass vouchers.

And what this does, it allows for people to apply and get get vouchers in in uh for you can move your children if you want, from a public school to to a private - And the money goes to the school.

It doesn't go to the family.

- That's correct.

- Right.

- So, I mean, there's a that's basically allow for the first time ever for the state's going to come in and pay part of the cost of if you want to move your child from, say, a public school to a private.

- Who qualifies?

- I'm sorry?

- Who qualifies?

- It's a it's a long basis, but I think they're going to look at it and there's specific things in it I don't remember all the different terms, but a lot had to do with where you are in the pecking order - Finanicially?

- in schools and that.

And so, I mean, I don't remember all that.

- But the children what children would would qualify?

I mean, children that are um financially underprivileged?

- Right.

- Or disabled or - That's correct.

- Or anyone?

- Anyone can.

But really there you've got the first priority.

- First priority.

- And so when you get through that, I think the first phase of it's going to be basically that.

Don't you agree?

- Right.

Yeah.

It's earmarked for 80% of that billion dollars that, again, not coming out of previous school funding.

This is in additional billion dollars um that the state's putting towards that 80% are gonna to go towards financially um challenged or uh disabled uh children.

- And if I could add to that, - Of course - because there was - please do.

- a lot of chatter about this particular issue throughout the the early parts of the legislative session and a as we already discussed, we did a tremendous amount record breaking levels of funding for public education.

This is the ESA program, the education savings accounts, also known as vouchers, also known as school choice, will provide some opportunities for students who otherwise wouldn't have them.

An as as Speaker Craddick mentioned, I think it is a very important piece to this that low income students are prioritized and that special needs students are prioritized, especially in small school districts where they don't uh where they don't have uh the same opportunities that uh that other schools that specialize in in special education can have.

So I think it's actually tailored very well to to meet the moment that we're in, in Texas in terms of providing these new opportunities.

And I do want to clear up some uh there's been a little bit of misinformation about the price tag for all of this.

As I mentioned earlier, for public schools, we are basically devoting uh just shy of $100 billion.

This ESA program is capped out at $1 billion.

- $1 billion - And so, when you kind of put that into perspective, it shows there have been some numbers that have been saying that this is a $7 billion program.

That's that's not anywhere close to being uh true.

Now, if it's successful and it grows and the people of Texas want it to, then it could increase uh to that amount, but that would require future legislative approval.

But right now, we're in a situation where we're prioritizing low income students and special education students, and we're dedicating a billion dollars which is not insignificant uh to do that.

But we can always make uh decisions on uh how to uh modify that as the needs - become apparent.

- become apparent.

- I'm going to stay with you for just a moment on uh public schools, and this is about something that didn't happen.

I think you were very interested in eliminating the STAAR test, which is the uh test required of all Texas public school students - Right by which their schools are then rated, uh, could you talk about that bill, why you think it's important and why you believe it fell short?

- Well, sure.

So I'm no fan of the of the STAAR exam.

It's a standard it's a high stakes standardized test that every uh you know, whenever I go speak in schools and I'm sure it's the same for y'all any time you uh ask anybody and I'm talking about teachers, students, principals, parents who likes the STAAR exam and nobody will raise their hand.

It's kind of one of those rare moments where you can get agreement from everybody.

And I think one reason why it is so universally uh disapproved and disfavored is that it is a very expensive test.

Taxpayers are footing the bill for a what's essentially a multibillion dollar contract at this point.

There are all sorts of technical glitches with the uh with the online administration of the test, which is frustrating.

It also forces us to measure how students are performing on one single day, uh, and we put so many eggs in that basket.

So it's a very expensive, uh, very inaccurate, high stakes standardized test that uh really doesn't uh and by the way, it totally handcuffs our teachers.

Uh we really forced them to teach to that test uh more than any other assessments that are used.

I like to brag that Texas does everything the best, because I I I generally believe that's true, except for when it comes to standardized testing.

Other states use something that's very akin to the Iowa assessments.

- Or California Achievement Test - or the California Achievement uh Test.

In that Iowa model is used by 27 other states in a much cheaper way, in a much more accurate way, and with lower stakes.

- So why did it fall short?

- Well, uh we we were able to pass it in the House.

And there's been support in the in the House for quite some time uh about that.

There was uh so we passed it in the House that an and I can't remember if anybody voted against it.

- I don't think I did.

- I know certainly Speaker Craddick and I were a very proud to support it on in the Senate.

It had a a a different fate and we actually did come together.

They did pass a version of it.

It was different than the one that we sent over.

And I was actually on the conference committee to iron out some of the differences.

And uh in working with uh our uh some of our counterparts on the conference committee, there's basically an effort to rename the STAAR exam but still have the, - Gotcha.

- still have the same structure to it.

And I and most of us on the House side thought that that would be disingenuous to uh put lipstick on a pig and then say that we did something u to make a real change to the STAAR exam.

This is something that I'm very passionate about and will be committed to uh to getting it done.

Uh, and but anyway, I think this can make a big uh this can be as big of a positive change for education in Texas uh as the historic education funding that we had in the session.

But it is something that I think needs to be addressed.

- Senator Sparks, let's change the subject.

Let's talk about water.

Water is pretty important to West Texans, uh.

Uh, yall passed some funding for water that I think voters get to weigh in on - That's right.

- So tell us explain that.

- They'll make the decision on that so that, you know, this is a project that a number of folks.

But but Senator Perry, primarily for more than a dozen years now, has been trying to help um legislators understand the need for water is statewide.

And so when you look at the state of Texas, um outside of just one small area in east Texas, all the rest of the state, including Houston, um is in various um degrees of being water challenged.

A part of that is because of the, you know, the tremendous growth that we're seeing.

But also, you know, another part is in the state goes through droughts, and, um, you know, we're we're going to continue to see population increase in the state.

And so the idea behind the water legislation that was passed um is twofold.

One is to commit real resources to um a few things.

Part of it is putting more money towards infrastructure, replacing leaking pipes, which we um passed legislation last time, which put money that direction.

This is going to free up funds for that, but then also um create um piping across the state, which would allow us to move water around the state as needed.

Probably the most significant thing is um finding and creating new water sources.

And the idea behind that is to um take the pressure off of our groundwater resources, which are primarily what's used for agriculture.

Make sure that we leave those resources available, available for our agriculture industry, and develop new sources like brackish water.

And that could be anywhere from um desalinization of of water from the coast or all across the state of Texas.

We have aquifers that have brackish water, and we the technology is there.

We have the capability to clean those up and make those potable and we're going to be designing and developing brackish water sources.

Really.

So so the bill itself, I think, was a little over $2 billion to begin with um and then basically a billion dollars a year for the next 20 years, which sounds like a lot of money, but realistically um is probably just a start for what's going to be needed.

- And the voters have to approve this because it's a constitutional amendment and that'll be on the November ballot right?

- That's correct.

And so the challenge now is to try and help our constituents understand that we need we need to view water differently than what we've historically seen it.

We've historically seen water as a local issue.

And the reality is, if you don't have water in a community, you no longer have a community.

And so not unlike power, right?

Not unlike road infrastructure.

And that's I think that's the challenge for us, is to help um Texans understand these infrastructure dollars are needed for a healthy Texas long term.

- Well, also on the November ballot is uh something that you have felt very passionately about, which is research for dementia.

Can you tell us a little bit about that?

- Sure.

Dementia, of course, is an overall like an umbrella.

And the thing that most people if you went to a group and say, you know, I've been doing this for several years and say, okay, what's your biggest fear for you and health wise?

And you'll name these different things and you say dementia.

Some people will raise their hand.

If you talk about Alzheimer's, everybody raises their hand.

I mean, it's amazing.

We saw that the other day when we spoke together the other day.

And it's just amazing because of the desire they either maybe their family has it or they know somebody that has it.

And it's not just the it's the care for the people that are taking it.

Yes.

With its food takes care of the people that are taking care.

And then how do they make a living when they've got to be doing it?

I mean, it's a huge deal.

And so what we did, we've got $3 billion, which is the same we did for cancer when I was speaker.

And we did the same thing and it went over so well.

Two years later, they added another $3 billion.

This work.

Unbelievable.

So this ideas we put this in, it's only for research and it's on the constitutional amendment in uh November.

I think it's November the fourth.

I believe the election.

And um so we're two for the people to deside.

Why do you make it a constitutional amendment?

Because we passed it in both houses.

The idea is, once you put it in a constitutional amendment, it's locks in the spending.

- So it's harder to get it out of the constitution.

- That's exactly right.

You can't say in the next session, well, we need money.

Why don't we take this?

And we debated whether or not to do it in different ways, which we could have.

And then you wouldn't have had to have a vote and all that.

But when we put it together, the Lieutenant Governor, my wife, Nadine and I met a year ago roughly, and we kind of, you know, look at this and look at the different amounts and put it together.

We put that money in the in the early budget so that we wouldn't have to fight it on the floor.

I think it'll be well received.

- Uh, we need to take a short station break, but please stay with us and we will be right back with the conversation with our panelists.

- Welcome back to Basin PBS.

Let's continue our discussion on the most recent legislative session.

Representative Landgraf, I want to come to you.

We were talking a minute ago about research for dementia.

This is addressing another what I think is a potentially a mental health problem.

The legislature passed and the Governor signed a law banning phones in schools.

So could you tell us about that bill, when it will go into effect and how school districts will manage it?

- Well, this uh, this is another big topic that did get some uh some degree of conversation because this is going to have a big impact on uh what life is like in Texas classrooms beginning with this upcoming school year.

And this is a bill uh that our colleague, Uh State Representative Caroline Fairley, who uh shares is from Amarillo and overlaps with Senator Sparks as a district.

But this she's actually the youngest member of the House now - Right.

- uh, I think uh just turned 25 uh years old, uh so she wasn't uh you uh know, it wasn't too long ago that she was in school herself as a student.

And so she remembers very clearly, you know, growing up in a digital age where, you know, she saw the distraction that having personal devices provided in the classroom uh, I'm sure uh uh my friends here will agree that I've gotten a lot of complaints from teachers that it's just hard to maintain focus in the classrooms when when their students can be distracted by any number of things on a personal device like like a cell phone, and so uh this bill, again, had broad support in the legislature, but it will basically disallow the use of personal uh phones by students in public school classrooms.

And uh the feedback that I've gotten from teachers is has been very positive.

- Thank you very much.

- Well, uh, I think so.

Now, there are some uh concerns about how it's going to be enforced.

And I think we're going to have to make sure that we work through those issues.

And I know that we want to make sure that we're providing all the resources not only to the teachers but to school districts to be able to do that.

But I think by eliminating that distraction, we can really uh improve focus and improve academic achievement in our classrooms.

- And school districts can um implement it however they choose is that correct?

- You know, so I'll I'll keep them allow them to remain nameless.

But I've talked with a lot of school board trustees about this, and they've said, thank you.

This is something that we've wanted to do for a long time, but we you know, we don't want to necessarily face the wrath of local voters.

- Parents.

- So let's sort of make this a statewide decision.

You know, it's the right policy for us to have.

Uh, but we're glad that you went ahead and just did that on a statewide basis.

And I think I think that's probably right.

- I think we'll see tremendous benefit from this, as I did a town hall tour of 24 stops last fall.

And this issue actually came up pretty frequently.

And I've actually visited a number of um elementary schools um whose principals have already put that in as a policy for that particular school.

And it was remarkable the difference in and being one who had a hard time paying attention as a student, I can see where I.

- Didn't need one more distraction.

- We didn't I didn't need another distraction, especially one like that.

- Uh, another bill related to what goes into our classrooms is a bill requiring every public school classroom to post the Ten Commandments.

A three judge federal panel, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, recently ruled a similar Louisiana law unconstitutional.

Uh, so, Representative Craddick, uh could you tell us about the Texas bill, What is intended to accomplish?

And if you have concerns about that recent Fifth Circuit opinion?

- Well, if I'm not mistaken, first of all, I think the governor signed that bill and somebody filed suit like yesterday or something like that.

I think that's right.

So it'll be in court here.

But I think the intent was there's been a lot of discussion about the Ten Commandments.

I mean, even shopping centers.

I know we've had lawsuits in the state up in the Dallas area.

They've had several where they've had groups come in and they don't want it for it's mandatory.

And so I think it's going to be interesting to see how we end up before the next session or so, not the one we're going to have in July and see when after it gets to court.

Uh, but I think it was I mean, as I remember, it was hugely popular in both House and the Senate.

I don't remember the numbers yall remember.

- I dont remember.

- No it was it was very popular.

And I think, you know, part of it is the Ten Commandments.

When you go back and you look at our founding fathers and then our culture moving forward, um, you know, a lot of our our lot of our laws and statutes were all built around the Ten Commandments.

So we kind of see it as a historical document.

And um so I think it'll be a good thing for our schools.

And we'll we'll see if the courts agree.

- All right, Senator Sparks, I think all three of you all voted in support of a bill regarding emergency exceptions for abortions.

Uh, could you tell us about that bill, how and why it came to be and what it means?

- Well, so as you know, Texas has um outlawed abortion on demand uh and there have been cases cited Um I think I personally think the media has probably overblown some of those cases.

But what we're trying to do is make sure that um the medical industry itself has the tools that they need without fear of repercussion, to take care of the medical needs of the mom.

- In the event of an emergency or in... - The in the in the - eplain more.

Yes, in the event of emergency.

That's correct.

- Well, isn't there a question to what's going on now in the suits that are being brought now and whether or not basically you can get an option of emergency from someone in Texas, from another state?

Isn't that kind of what's going on with it?

But that's the big question, whether or not that is going to be deemed, you know, feasible or not for us to enforce, I think.

- Right.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, that's another one that that obviously is probably going to end up in the courts.

And and it's not just here in Texas.

It's it's other states as well.

So -Um, there was one bill in which the state uh seeks to control what has previously been the purview of cities, and that is lot size.

So, Representative Landgraf, can you explain, I guess, why the state is getting involved in city business and what is the purpose of the lot size law?

- Sure.

Well, I think this all really stems from the fact that we have 1300 people a day moving to Texas every single day.

Uh we are experiencing the uh fastest population growth of any large state in the country and really one of the largest population growth rates uh anywhere in the country, regardless of the size of the state.

But bottom line is we have a lot of moving to Texas.

We have a lot of people moving to the Permian Basin every single day.

And affordable housing continues to be a bigger problem the more uh that we have people coming.

And so what this uh what the bill that you're referring to really uh sought to do was uh allow, as much housing to be built, uh.

You know, with with health and safety standards in mind.

Uh, but to uh allow for more uh densely populated neighborhoods in areas that are experiencing uh higher growth, I don't think it's going to have uh that big of an impact on any our communities here uh in the Permian Basin, just based on the um zoning ordinance that they've already that they've already passed.

This is more for a suburban areas in the major metropolitan areas.

And um more importantly for landlocked communities that don't have anywhere else to grow.

And so uh this really applies in all situations where if you want to tear down an old, you know, ranch style home and then build on its place, two or three multi-story uh condominiums is really to design that kind of growth in a lot of cases.

- But does that override a code?

Are it for the city like in Midland, if somebody tore down the house next door to me, could somebody build a condominium?

- So there there are the municipalities still retain a great deal of authority when it comes to land use restrictions and zoning authority.

Uh but this uh this state law, the new state law, clarifies that uh the municipalities don't have the sole authority to uh say that a lot has to be a certain size.

- You know, along same -Like you were to say something.

- Yeah.

- Along the same thing.

We passed a bill.

In fact, I sponsored it.

But we've had a lot of problems statewide, mainly like Austin or or Lake Travis was a big thing.

I passed it three times before it finally passed.

But what happened in there, Becky, is basically what you're saying, so that the city comes in and they allow you to annex an area, to build a housing area, but you then live there in that building, that deal but they get no city services, but they're paying city taxes.

So there's been the question of, well, if you don't get city services, water, fire, police, whatever it is, then you shouldn't be paying for those.

And it's been very controversial for years.

We passed a bill to clean it up for the first time - Uh another bill that control um to the state um is one about oversight of our public universities.

Um, can you tell us what that bill is about and what you expect to change?

You know, I don't know that much about that, bill.

I don't know.

- Yeah, I think I could speak to that.

- Okay, please do.

- So, yes.

So, you know, what we have learned is over time, u, the Board of Regents are who we've all thought, you know, that who that that's who really has the authority over their particular university and uh like a Board of Directors would over a corporation.

And what we've learned is over time, that power has been ceded to the the staff at those universities.

And so what this bill is intended to do is basically confirm that the power um of the direction of those universities actually comes from that Board of Regents as opposed to the hired staff.

- I see um a bill that has caused a lot of conversation recently is um then I think all of y'all voted for is the ban on the sale of THC in Texas, THC being the substance most responsible for the high people experience when they take cannabis.

Uh,the Governor vetoed the bill very recently and it's now call for a special session to address the issue again.

I have read that it has become a huge industry in Texas employing 50 55,000 people.

Um how did we get here and what is next?

- Well, - Representative Landgraf - I think the story about how we got here is actually very important to this conversation.

So in 2019, the legislature passed an industrial hemp law that would allow for uh hemp to be grown in Texas, mainly to be used for textile production, not for personal or human consumption.

And but there was a lack of clarification on the THC content associated with that hemp.

And there were a few enterprising Texans who figured out that there's a little bit of a loophole here that we can use to start selling THC products.

And that's and now by last count, I think there are 8000 businesses across the state, whether it's in a gas station or in a vape shop or, you know, these places that we all see throughout our communities uh that are selling uh these products and they've obviously become very popular.

There does seem to be a high demand for those products.

But I do think it's important to note that THC products were never specifically legalized in the state of Texas, but this industry has popped up as a result of a loophole in a hemp law.

And so that's kind of why we are where we are today.

And I think why there has been a push to have a ban on that.

Now, in my view, this did become a very highly charged issue late in the session and uh the largest concern that I have with this is that because that industry was created as a result of a loophole, it's completely unregulated.

It's the Wild West.

Now, if if consenting adults or a physician wants to say, you know, if you use this, you know, this might be a good way to treat that, I really don't have any concerns with that.

And that's why I don't have any problems with the Governor vetoing the bill, because I think it does give us a chance to actually get this done the right way in a less charged environment.

The one thing that I do want to accomplish through all of this, and one thing that we did do in SB three uh is we do need to have age restrictions.

I don't think any minors should be able to legally purchase or possess THC products, but because we're in the Wild West with THC right now, that's exactly what can happen.

My ten year old daughter would not be in illegal possession if she had a THC product.

Now, thankfully, as far as I know, uh that's that's not the case.

But there's no law that is preventing that right now.

So I do think in the special session in addressing the THC issue, that's the that's my primary concern is keeping it out of the hands of kids.

- I think another problem along that line is the federal government is looking at a bill to to do this and different different but do it.

And so the question is they have a list now, federal list.

These things can be sold and you can buy these.

But I don't know what your number was 8000 or something, but they've got them in all these places with all these things that are being sold that aren't on the approved list.

And unless you get it on your approved list, but it's very small.

And so the federal government wants to put it all down where you either have got that or you can't sell it in some type of a convenience store or whatever like Brooks was talking about.

So I think the push is by a lot of members.

Let's wait and see what the federal government does if they're going to they're going to supersede the states anyway.

And I think a lot of members of the House and I think that we've talked about it, I was in on a conference on that thing where they're saying, let's see what's going to happen.

I suppose they're going to do it in this session.

- Well, - Did you want to add something?

- Yeah, I I would say, you know, I reference the the ‘24 stop town hall uh meetings I did last fall.

That was the second biggest issue that was brought up at those town hall meetings.

in a lot of rural communities and it was brought up and Im first by law enforcement and second by educators, you know, saying, hey, it's hey we - Saying we dont like saying we don't like this?

- It's hard to teach kids that are high.

And from the from the law enforcement side, they basically said we have no tools really to to fight against this.

And my concern about my concern about the direction that we're headed now is how do we give law enforcement the real tools that they need?

Yes, you can test each of those products, but it's about $250 per test.

No community law enforcement has those kinds of funds available to do that.

And so not sure how we get past that.

- Well, maybe you could look at the federal deal again.

And they're this list and they're doing the testing and they're coming back and say, A, is on our list, B is not.

And so what the way I understand the federal bill they want to do it where if you're not on A you're on the list and that had been tested then you can't sell any longer.

And so if you're a, B, C, D, whatever you want to sell these items, which all these people do, they no longer will be able to sell in those facilities.

- Yeah, it's a when you look at the vast array of products that that are on the market now, I mean, it's amazing.

It's it's candies, it's it's snack foods, it's um drinks.

Some of these alcoholic drinks have started adding THC to their to the concoction um and and and and very high levels of THC which you know, we're seeing we're seeing reports now where they believe that, you know, a number of these psychotic breaks are a result of very potent THC material.

- So you all have your work cut out for you.

- I think we're going to yeah, I think it's going to take a little time - Certainly and I think one other important part of - Yeah, please - conversation is that just about everybody who voted for uh SB three also voted to expand the Texas Compassionate Use program.

- Right.

- Uh, which allows a physician to prescribe uh a cannibas product I mean, we're not.

- For like somebody's getting.

chemotherapy.

- That's right.

So so I think we increased that by ten fold - I think thats right.

- in this session.

So, uh you know, I think that was a justification that a lot of us have.

Well, if we're going to if we're going to ban on kind of on this unregulated side, we want to expand those options for people who need them and have it.

- Medicinal reasons.

- from a from a physician medicinal purposes.

- Uh, it's been reported that President Trump and his political team are urging the Governor to include redistricting in the upcoming special session, something that is generally done in conjunction with census, uh although I know there's been a departure from that tradition in the past, uh.

What do you think of departing from that tradition, and do you think that will be included?

- Actually, I did that when I was speaker.

- Back in the ‘70s.

- I'm the one that did.

- In the seventies?

- Yup.

- And there was a Supreme Court decision that says you were right to do that or you could do that, - Thats correct, now I mean, I think you looked at me and I thought, well, but I remember.

And that's when the Democrats left the state.

- Right.

- I don't know if you remember all that.

- Yes I do.

- When I was speaker And and so they uh we're going to have that same problem now.

I don't know.

But I would believe if he calls or puts that in the special session, I would think that the Democrats will not show up.

- Do you think he'll put it in the session?

- I don't know.

I think he's talked about putting it in the session.

I do think more than once.

So I think the chances are that he is.

And of course, the whole concept is the same as it was when we did.

It was you need additional votes of the other party, which is the Republican Party.

They need additional what do we got, a one vote or two vote majority in Federal House?

I don't know exactly what that is, but this this is the idea that if you're redistricting, you get three more seats in Texas.

That's what our goal is.

That's where you kind of help at the federal level.

- So we just have to wait and see.

- Right.

- Okay.

Another reference to what's going on at the national level, - Uh, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to prepare a memo to abolish FEMA, which of course, helps states when they undergo an emergency.

Um, if that happens, is our state prepared to pick up the slack?

- I think and you know, it's not something that I've studied a lot, but I have had quite a bit of um interaction with um our Texas helping out.

- Texas Division of Emerg Division of Emergency Management, just because we've had a number of um incidents across District 31.

And um it is a very well-run organization.

And I do believe that Texas, probably better than a lot of states, is prepared to take on those responsibilities.

- And the financial burden that goes along with them.

- Well, I mean, obviously, if you do away with that at the federal level, there ought to be dollars there that ought to come back to states.

And I would hope that that's the way that those would be directed, is that those dollars would go back to the states and and come under the direction of the state.

- Yeah, I would take Texas DEM over uh over FEMA any day now Not to say what should happen with FEMA, but I'm very confident in the ability of TDEM here in Texas to meet the needs.

Uh, Chief Nim Kidd is the is the leader.

And John, our friend John Sharp, uh basically put that under the umbrella of the Texas A&M system and they've really run with it, resourced it properly.

We've helped in the legislature, uh but whether it was during the pandemic, whether it's been for natural disasters, whether the Panhandle fires TDEM has really stepped up, I honestly don't have anything uh negative to say when when we have needed their resources.

They've been able to provide them under very difficult circumstances.

- On the negative side of that, if there is one.

I remember when the state had all controlled the railroads that were in Texas, okay?

And so we changed that and gave it to the federal.

They came in and they did not give any money back.

And so we ended up not having the people to check the railroads.

We lost all that.

And now it's been dumped back over at the Railroad Commission.

- Wow.

- Let's go back uh to a local issue.

I understand that the legislature provided some funds for a couple of hotels that are planned in Midland, one downtown and one out by The Beacon.

Uh Representative Craddick, I think you were instrumental in making that happen.

Could you tell us about it?

- Yes.

We have what we call a hot tax is that's where we team it or term it as.

And so.

- And what does HOT stand for?

Well, some its for this.

I'm going to tell.

- Oh, okay sorry.

- You create hotel through the legislature.

It gives it to a city or or county or whatever.

And they don't pay any tax, state tax over a certain let's say you do a ten year program, okay.

And for a thousand feet around wherever the hotel is built, instead of that tax go into the state, it stays locally so the cities can continue using.

And in the past in the Senate, put an amendment that would have stopped it if we did pass it, instead of you being able to go for A, B, C, and you have ten hotels and serve facilities, they wanted to make it where you couldn't do that.

But I think we will have one in downtown Midland.

That's you know, we have named the location, but they've got some they're working out and then one out in The Beacon area because there's nowhere for people to stay that are visiting people in there and that type of thing.

- Um a very non-controversial issue, Daylight savings time, year round.

You want to talk about that?

I think you all passed a bill on that.

- Well, we did.

- But its contingent.

- It is contingent we need a little help from our friend August Pfluger and uh our congressional delegation.

But we did pass a law, I think, with overwhelming support, both the Senate, the Texas Senate and the Texas House that uh would basically keep it would create Texas time uh and allow Texas to remain on daylight saving time year round so that we don't have to go through the rigmarole associated with changing clocks back and forth twice a year.

Uh everybody I've talked to is in favor that nobody likes changing the clocks.

And there is a lot of evidence.

And studies show that uh cardiac events actually uh dramatically increase.

- It's bad for our health.

- Its bad for our health uh to change the clocks back and forth that we actually see a spike in fatalities due to heart attacks and other uh uh coronary issues uh after we change the clocks because some people's bodies have difficulty adjusting.

So uh I I was all for that.

But I think it would be it would be nice for us to do that.

We don't have the need for changing back and forth the way that we have had in the past.

- But it's dependent on what they do at the national level.

And what are the chances of that happening do you know?

- Well because there's there's an interstate commerce um uh issue related with Daylight Saving Time.

And so that's why we do have to have basically federal authorization.

So what we've done in Texas is we've teed that up.

If we do get the congressional authorization, then it's a it's a done deal, whereas other states might have to wait and go through that legislative process again.

uh so we would be ahead of the curve here in Texas.

As far as the odds, uh, I think there's actually a little bit more momentum uh behind it on Capitol Hill than there has been in the past.

- Every mother in our district is going to be happy.

- Yes.

- I can tell you that.

- You all also passed a ban on DEI uh Senator Sparks, what does that mean?

And what what will that look like?

- Um, well, diversity, equity and inclusion is what the DEI stands for.

And it's the idea that um we're basically going to view people and their jobs and um responsibilities based off of the their actual performance as opposed to hiring folks because they're a particular ethnicity or, um you know, a particular gender.

Um it's getting back to um a culture that is merit based.

- Do you want to add anything to that?

Either one of you all?

Okay.

This is a sort of an interesting law that you passed.

It's the Cottage Food Law that, as I understand it, loosens the regulations controlling food prepared by a home cook in her kitchen and then selling those products.

Can you talk to us a little bit about that and why we thought that was necessary?

- Well, so I candidly I don't know too much about that.

if anybody else does.

- I can speak to that that that came through on the Senate side, Health and Human Services.

And it's this idea of trying to get back to healthier foods.

And we have a lot of we have a lot of small businesses that prepare healthy items.

And, you know, as government does way too often, um we continue to regulate.

And once you begin to regulate, you come up with more regulations and more regulations and you look up and and realize that we've squelched a lot of entrepreneurs with what I would consider overregulation.

So what this is trying to do is just peel back some of that so that we give those small businesses the opportunity to, you know, um pop up in their community and and be successful.

- Because it used to be that you had to have a commercial kitchen in order to prepare food that was then sold.

Is that correct?

And now you can do that in your home kitchen.

- You'll be able to do that in your home kitchen.

Now, obviously, I mean, there still federal regulations that will control some of that, depending if you're getting any type of federal dollars.

I believe you still come under those regulations.

But the idea is that we're trying to help one entrepreneurs, but also um become more efficient in what we do and services we provide.

- And one thing I can add to that and thank you for that good explanation that some of the same folks who are supporting the cottage food bill were supporting a bill that I was proud to file and author after hearing from some food truck operators in Monahan's and uh in Odessa, where they talked about, you know, if we want to take our food truck to Midland or down to Crane or over to Pecos, we have to get a different permit for every single jurisdiction that we're in, even though they're all protecting for the same food uh safety standards.

So I think we all agree there need to be safety standards to protect the public.

But you probably don't really need a separate license and a separate fee for every municipality, every county that you're in.

And so we call it the Food Truck Freedom Bill.

It actually kind of started out as a small thing, but then it gained a lot of momentum.

People love it, uh but it allows one state wide permit to be issued to a food truck operator so that they can go between Midland and Odessa or Dallas and Fort Worth or El Paso and Beaumont uh under one uh under one issued permit.

And uh I think that's going to help.

And that's becoming a very big industry across the state.

Uh, but really happy to set those food trucks free.

- I mean, it ultimately became an additional tax.

- Yeah.

- Especially if you're in a county, you know, a highly densely populated county, you know, and you're close to county lines, you may make a number of events in three different counties, even in the course of a weekend.

And so just trying to make it easier for entrepreneurs, really.

- They truck freedom.

Texas has a very large budget.

And I heard you the other day, compare our budget to worldwide budgets.

- Right.

- Make that comparison for us.

- Right, well, what I talked about is I think ours is 338 billion isnt that right what we ended up with and a if you look at there's been this idea of how big are we, you know, in Russia's here, they're saying we were the ninth biggest economy in the world.

Okay.

And then all of a sudden we Texas is and all of a sudden we're now supposedly the seventh.

And what I did when we were speaking together, I just made that comparison of you know, that we've moved down.

If you honor up how we look at it, and we've gone from supposedly ninth to seventh.

And then I heard the Governor speak the other day.

He talked about being the sixth.

So I don't know where we go, but that's kind of where we are number wise.

- Okay, here's a lightning round uh tell me your greatest disappointment and your greatest highlight of the last session.

- Oh, - Lightning round.

- You know, I had a great session, so um I don't know that I had a disappointment.

I will say on the HOT tax deal Midland got theirs.

Okay.

And our two in Lubbock got thers.

But they were different than ours.

Exactly.

And Corpus got their one because I shifted it.

But there were 41 cities out there that applied and that got beat.

They got defeated.

So Midland got theirs thats - So I mean, you know, and unfortunately for me, I was asked to sponsor it.

And so I ended up doing that to get ours passed and then I shifted and passed our separately.

- Representative Landgraf, - So - high and low.. - So STAAR is still the not passing STAAR, still the low.

But we're we're going to come back to fight another day on that.

Uh a lot of highs uh to mention.

But one thing that I will say and I was very proud to work with Senator Sparks on this and also had Speaker Craddick support, uh, we broke down a bureaucratic barrier to a very new and innovative cancer treatment for hospitals here in the Permian Basin.

It's called CAR-T therapy.

It's kind of the cutting edge on cancer treatment and there have been some bureaucratic uh obstacles to having that.

Thanks to Senator Sparks is a co-sponsorship in the Senate we were able to pass a bill that will allow that treatment to be provided at hospitals here in the Permian Basin so long as they meet the FDA guidelines.

But uh we were able to knock down that barrier, very proud of that.

- 15 seconds, high and low.

- High and low, um.

We missed an opportunity to um bring more reliability to our electric grid.

Um, we'll have to continue to work on that.

Um, on the high side, um, we passed and with the help of these gentlemen, passed um oilfield theft, um three very um productive oilfield theft bills that I think is going to going to help give the tools that law enforcement needs, hopefully, to improve that situation across the Permian.

- Senator Sparks, Representative Landgraf - Becky one thing in - One thing quickly - The dementia bill to me was the highlight - was a high - without a doubt.

Well Representative Craddick, we thank you.

Representative Landgraf, Senator Sparks, Thank you all so much for taking time to be with us today.

We really appreciate your time and your service.

- Thanks for having us.

- And thank you to Basin PBS.

What a what a great service for our region.

- Yeah, I think it is.

- Thank you for joining us for this special edition of One Question brought to you by Diamondback Energy and Permian Resources.

Our thanks to our panelists, our viewers and our members.

If you're not a member of Basin PBS, we hope you'll join by going to basinpbs.org.

I'm Becky Ferguson.

Good night.

[Outro Music]