121015 dsimpsonpftexas

Emails, David Simpson, Dec. 10, 2015

1:35 a.m.

Thanks for contacting me and for the work you do in verifying political claims. It is important.

First, with regard to the short quotation picked out by my opponent’s political consultant about education and driver’s licenses, here is the whole article to read in context: http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+Local/202745/rep-simpson-back-from-valley-tour

This article was about my trip to the border. I presented a slideshow about a dozen times in and around HD7 and I published it in July of 2014 on the internet: http://www.slideshare.net/davidsimpsontx

Both the article and the slideshow make it clear that I do not support giving handouts (freebies) or privileges to illegals—not education, not health care (except critical emergency care).

When I mentioned driver’s licenses and eVerify, it was to show our dysfunctional and inconsistent policy. To make it consistent and reform it as far as what the state can do, I advocated for (see slide 86):

(1) requiring compliance with federal immigration law (referring to meeting with and satisfying immigration courts, etc.) to receive a K-12 education. (I also tried to write a bill to do this, but could not get the legislative council to do it in the 84th Legislature. My office was told it was unconstitutional.)

(2) Reducing health care to only emergency critical care.

And (3) overturn the mandate to provide public education to illegal aliens.

I did not advocate for giving driver’s licenses to illegals or to stop using of eVerify to correct the inconsistent and dysfunctional policy.

Second, in regard to SB 1729 in the 83rd Legislature, Rep. Cook sought to amend the bill about a pilot program for counties to help DPS in regard to issuing licenses. He did so on both second reading and third reading. However, the amendments were very different. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Amendments.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1729

The second reading amendment was a four page amendment (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/amendments/pdf/SB01729H22.PDF). It was killed on a point of order by Rep. Van Taylor. It would have allowed for some illegal aliens to have received driver’s licenses if they could show they resided in the state at least a year; they would not have to provide documentation from the United States that they were legal residents. Here is the language:

The department may issue a Texas resident driver’s permit to a person who: (1) as of the date the permit is issued, has resided in this state for at least one year; (2) is unable to present to the department documentation issued by the United States agency responsible for citizenship and immigration authorizing the person to be in the United States; and (3) has not been finally convicted of a Class B misdemeanor, a Class A misdemeanor, or any felony offense.

I oppose this on the same grounds as I oppose providing public education or health care to illegal aliens. We should uphold the rule of law and not undermine it by rewarding illegal behavior.

The third reading amendment to SB 1729 was one sentence. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/amendments/pdf/SB01729H31. Here is the language the amendment would have added:

(g) In this section, "driver’s license" includes any Texas resident driver’s permit authorized by law.

This amendment in no way authorized illegal aliens to receive driver’s licenses.

The same is true with a similar amendment to SB 1705 in the 83rd.

My opponent is not relying on his own explanation about how these amendments authorize illegal immigrants to receive driver’s licenses, but Empower Texan’s comments (http://www.empowertexans.com/features/straus-leadership-team-too-far-left-for-wendy-davis-consultants/) and Young Conservatives of Texas scorecard (http://www.yct.org/wp-content/uploads/ratings/YCT_83rd_Session_Ratings.pdf).

Tony McDonald in an Empower Texas article published on December 13, 2014 claims that the first Cook amendment on second reading was the "same amendment in rump form” offered on third reading, but it was not the same at all. The second reading amendment was a four page amendment. The third reading amendment was one sentence. Here is McDonald’s claim:

When Alonzo’s bill failed to pass on the regular calendar, Cook went out of his way to try to pass the bill as an amendment. First he offered the bill as an amendment to Senate Bill 1729 before it was defeated on a point of order called by now-Senator Van Taylor. The next legislative day, on third reading, Cook attempted to offer the same amendment in a rump form as a test vote on the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The amendment received Republican votes from Straus allies Byron Cook, Sarah Davis, Kyle Kacal, Jim Keffer, John Otto, Jim Pitts, J.D. Sheffield and Jason Villalba. http://www.empowertexans.com/features/straus-leadership-team-too-far-left-for-wendy-davis-consultants/#sthash.7YMo9u1p.dpuf

Although I have agreement with Empower Texan’s perspectives on the dangers of giving driver’s licenses to illegals, I based my votes on the language of the legislation, not politics, parties, or associations. I fear politics has driven the interpretation of this amendment (which had a record vote) to go after the “Straus allies.” The amendment that would have authorized illegals to receive driver’s licenses only incriminated Cook, its author, since it died on a point of order. These organizations wanted to go after the Republicans that supported the Speaker or were moderate Republicans.

This is also what probably drove Young Conservatives of Texas as well. Here is its interpretation of the amendment:

44. SB 1729 Floor Amendment 1 Adoption; May 20, 2013; RV #971; Journal Page 3767: 72 Yeas, 67 Nays, 1 Present-not-voting YCT Nay.Amendment 1 to SB 1729 would have allowed for illegal immigrants to receive driver’s licenses. The Texas legislature should not create new programs to in-centivize illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a serious problem and must be addressed. One of the first steps in tackling this serious problem is eliminating misguided local policies that perpetuate it.” http://www.yct.org/wp-content/uploads/ratings/YCT_83rd_Session_Ratings.pdf (See page 16.)

I agree with its perspective on giving driver’s licenses to illegals, but that is not what the language authorized in this amendment would have done. It would not have incentivized it or perpetuated it. It was the second reading amendment that would have done this, not the third reading amendment.

Third, the amendment requiring documentation for driver's licenses was in the 82nd Legislature (my first session). It was Amendment 132 by Rep. Pitts to the fiscal matters bill (SB1) in the first called session. It required that you prove legal status in the state to qualify for a license. It was passed on a non-record vote with a few of the Democrats registering “No” votes. If I had not supported this amendment I would have registered a “No” vote as I have done many other times on non-record votes.

I voted “No" on the whole bill due to its accounting gimmicks—namely, the deferment of Foundation School Program payments and the speed-up of tax payments—and its misplaced priorities, not because of the license provision which I supported.

I was attacked on this issue by Tommy Merritt’s campaign in 2012 when I first ran for re-election. Here is a letter I published and sent throughout the district to tell the rest of the story about Tommy's Tall Tales.

On Dec 10, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) <wgselby@statesman.com> wrote:

Hello again.

I am still unclear why you voted as you did in a couple instances given your declared opposition to licenses for certain immigrants. I am hoping you can elaborate.

You told me you would have voted in 2013 against the amendment by Cook, reflecting Alonzo’s committee-amended House Bill 3206. That was knocked out by a point of order May 17, 2013.

On May 20, 2013, you voted for Cook’s shorter amendment envisioning legal driving permits. Cook was clear about wanting to see more legal insured drivers. Why did you vote for this proposal?

A day later, you voted against tabling Alonzo’s amendment along similar lines. Why? Before that vote to table, Alonzo told House colleagues that under his amendment, schools could give driving tests to individuals who obtained resident driving permits, provided such permits were legalized. “Texas has a problem,” Alonzo said, with people driving without auto insurance or a driver’s permit. Alonzo told me today his goal then and now is to give undocumented residents an opportunity to legally drive in the state. He said he couldn’t tell me specifically how the proposed permit was different from a driver’s license.

Thanks again.

W. Gardner Selby

Reporter / News

Austin American-Statesman

PolitiFact Texas

SB 1729 by Ken King was the bill to which Cook attempted to add an amendment to authorize driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. After ‘Cook’s amendment was killed on a POO he offered a third reading amendment which Rep. King left to the will of the House. The author of the bill was not fighting the amendment which is what would have been expected if it would have allowed driver’s licenses for illegals. During the debate on the House floor, (http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=20&clip_id=5123 1:14:46) it was made clear that the amendment being proposed would not allow a person who could not prove they were lawfully in the state to receive a license unless the law was changed to allow that.

Rep. Villabea and Rep. Taylor both asked clarifying questions specifically to ensure that an undocumented driver could not currently get a driver’s license. If the state changes law to permit Texas resident driver’s permits then those permits would have been included in the program proposed by SB 1729.

Both Cook’s and Alonzo’s amendments applied only to licenses or permits authorized by law.

Should the legislature choose to pass licenses or permits for undocumented residents (which I would oppose), it would show a political will to make a policy change. If a policy change were made, there would honestly be no reason to not include permits under the change from being renewed under the program in question. I voted yes to the amendment because it would only include licenses or permits already AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

Due to my well documented commitment to the rule of law, my principles would never allow me to vote to allow a privilege such as a driver’s license to be awarded to someone here in violation of state and or federal law.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I attempt to vote based on the language of the measure before me, not for a political or special interest purpose. This was a amendment where a stampede to vote no was initiated by an outside group looking for a vote that would incite the voters in opposition to the author of the bill. I agreed with the group when the amendment would bestow a privilege to persons violating the law. I did not stampede with the herd to vote against the amendment when it referred to licenses or permits authorized by law.

During my tenure in the legislature I have made it a habit to stand up and voice my concerns anytime that the Legislature is not adhering to the laws and rules pertaining to it. I stood up many times in opposition to unconstitutional legislation and when our procedures violated our own House rules at great political cost. It is rather absurd that my opponent would assume I had violated one of my core principles on this issue when just reading the amendment clarifies that it does not do what he has claimed.

Outside organizations can and do offer good input on policy. However, they can and sometimes are wrong in their interpretation. This is one of those times.

I do not support giving any benefit to a person here illegally. I have never supported any measure that would not adhere to the rule of law.

3:02 p.m.

Both Cook’s and Alonzo’s amendments applied only to licenses or permits authorized by law.

Outside organizations can and do offer good input on policy. However, they can and sometimes are wrong in their interpretation. This is one of those times.

I do not support giving any benefit to a person here illegally. I have never supported any measure that would not adhere to the rule of law.