Now that the smoke has cleared and we are all reviewing (or trying to forget) just exactly what we did on the night of Sine Die, info that was overlooked last week in the mad rush is starting to emerge. Get this:
We heard that when constituents and supporters of Rep. Martha Wong called to ask her why she stripped her management district bill (HB 1830) of an amendment by Senate sponsor Rodney Ellis, that a lot of them wanted to see enacted, she told them it was not germane to her bill and had to be removed. The amendment created an International Management District in Houston and is widely supported by the Asian community.
Uhhhh, Martha, history on this bill indicates no point of order. So, do you think your callers are too stupid to figure out that if you wanted the amendment on, it was likely to stay. Or do you not understand the process, yet?
There is one other possibility, someone more influential to Martha than the folks who sent her to Austin and the folks who have helped bankroll her campaigns, told her to get rid of it. As we have noted before, Martha votes more like the Representative from Midland than the Representative of the urban district 134.
Before you critize others, perhaps you need a lesson on house practice and procedure. Action on legislation would note a point of order only if raised and sustained on the floor of the house. That is not the only way amendments are rejected. The House parliamentarian reviews senate amendments to house bills and routinely rejects amendments that are not germane to the bill. The author then has the option of stripping the amendment -- by not concurring, or going to conference to remove it. To persist in seeking passage with the non-germane amendment would likely result of an objection being raised on the floor, and sustained, threatening the bill in its entireity. That was the case with the bill that is the basis of your latest attack. You are clearly misleading people -- either intentionally or through ignorance -- and that is so ironic given your sanctimonious tone.
it is unlikely that Denise was checking every Senate
amendmnet to every House bill for germaness last week. Of course if Craddick or Wong
asked her to review then she might have given that opinion. But also, Rodney's
amendment also amended the caption so germaness is an unlikly POO.
As far as needing a lesson on house procedure, that's doubtful. Sanctimonious? Perhaps, but Wong usually deserves the criticism she gets.
Lastly, Thanks for reading Martha!
One other point to be considered:
If Rep. Wong's constituents and supporters wanted this International Management District, why wouldn't she fight to concur and get the legislation passed? Even if the Parlimentarian thought a POO would be sustained, if raised, she has no authority to reject it without the POO being made. In order to help create something her Senate Sponsor thought was good and supporters liked Rep. Wong could have checked around to see if any one had a beef with the amendment and as it only related to a small area of SW Houston, those interested in raising the POO, would be few in number.....like 3. Someone had to have had a problem with the legislation, other than Denise Davis for it to die, I'd reckon.
Edmonton dominated the Carolina Hurricanes on Saturday night and the 4-0 margin in Game 6 makes it hard to imagine the Oilers not hoisting hockey's Holy Grail above their heads in less than 48 hours. And it would not come as any shock to see defenseman Chris Pronger, who had another 31-minute night, take the honors for the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoff MVP.
RSS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
http://www.takebacktexas.com/
TAKE BACK TEXAS: "WRONG AGAIN, MS. WONG"
(AUSTIN) -- In the closing days of the failed legislative session, State Representative Martha Wong killed an amendment that would have created new jobs and provided new tourist revenue in Houston, falsely claiming that business owners had not been asked for their input when in fact the idea has long had the overwhelming support of the Asian community and other business leaders in Southwest Houston.
"Wrong again, Ms. Wong," said Take Back Texas chief strategist Kelly Fero, saying that the main reason the Richmond Republican seems to have opposed the measure is partisan retaliation.
An International Management District in Houston had long been a priority of the Asian community as a means of highlighting the rich diversity in the southwest area of the city. The district would create new jobs and bring in increased revenue from tourism and global trade.
Wong removed the amendment to create the International Management District during House floor debate last week. The amendment was part of a bill sponsored by Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) relating to the establishment of municipal management districts.
Wong reportedly removed the amendment as retaliation against fellow Houston lawmakers who had just voted against an unrelated effort to siphon billions of tax dollars out of public schools to fund a private-school voucher scheme. Wong voted in favor of the voucher proposal, which failed, then followed her partisan leaders' instructions to strip out the International Management District as retaliation.
The Richmond Republican argued that the management district amendment had to be removed from the bill under parliamentary rules, which require that another lawmaker must object to the provision. The only lawmaker who objected was Wong herself.
The Wong maneuver capped off a particularly poor legislative session for the two-term lawmaker. Besides supporting private-school vouchers, Wong also voted for HB3, the single-largest tax increase in Texas history. In addition, Wong failed to deliver the property tax relief she promised during last year's campaign
-- 30 --