The Texan Podcast - A Panel on Legislative Dynamics — The Texan’s 89th Session Kickoff

Episode Date: February 4, 2025

Reps. Cody Harris (R-Palestine), Cody Vasut (R-Angleton), and John Bucy (D-Austin) joined Senior Reporter Brad Johnson for a discussion on the dynamics shaping the Texas Legislature in the 89th Legislative Session.Listen to more interviews from our 89th Session Kickoff wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, subscribe and leave us a review.

Hello everybody, my name is Brad Johnson, senior reporter here at the Texan. This is the legislative dynamics panel. It's pretty broad, we're going to talk about quite a bit, but first I'll introduce our panel. We have Representative John Busey, Democrat from Austin, Williamson County, Representative Cody Vasut, Republican from Angleton, and another Cody, Williamson County, representative Cody Vasut, a Republican from Angleton, and another Cody, representative Cody Harris, a Republican from Palestine. Thanks for joining us, guys. First question I want to throw at y'all. It's kind of a philosophical question.

There's two general modes of thought on how to be a representative uh trustee model statesman model is one you mentioned um and the delegate model i want to get your thoughts first on where you guys think you fall between those two polls represent bc all right thanks so much thanks for having me um you know i think the truth is we are representative. We need to represent our district's 200,000-plus people. You're not going to share the values of everybody, but what you can do is think about how I can do good work that will benefit everybody. I think it is somewhat of a balance. You are sent here to be the representative.

You've got to make decisions. You have to lead, but if you lead too far outside of your district, that's why we have an election every two years, to hold you accountable. That's the real term limit, right? Absolutely. We don't need term limits when we have an engaged electorate. Representative Vasut. I think it's fair to say I'm somewhere in between.

The way I look at it is statesmanship in protecting, you know, that deals with principal value. So when I first ran, I put onto my website my value statement, and I made sure everybody knew. I believed in a biblical worldview, and I was never going to compromise on that, okay? And so that's a trustee model. If a majority of my constituents wanted to legalize abortion, I would say no, because that's my value. Now, if something is in accordance with those core values, right, that's, for me, it's biblical worldview, conservatism, limited government, things of that nature, then I think

the representative model comes into play, right, where what is best, what does the majority of my constituents want, what are they passionate about, you know, particularly where we put, you know, this type of drainage system, or how do we function that right so trustee model when it comes to protecting those values those core values but I was very transparent when I ran that's what I'd stand for and then delegate model for everything else I never thought I would actually use my political science degree but here we are having a political theory discussion. And it's really pertinent today because this is a conversation that we have inside the Republican Party a lot, especially right now.

And do you act as a delegate and carry out the orders of the people back home when there's millions or, you know, 200,000 people trying to tell you what they want you to do I think the correct answer and especially if you go back and study the founding of our country and our state the representative model is the one that we were what they were founded on and when you run for office you're telling the voters these like Vasut just said these are the core principles that i'm going to make the decisions on that are that i'm faced with as a as a legislator and the voters choose the person that most accurately reflects the district they're their values and i think the delegate model is more close to a direct democracy model, which obviously that's not what we were founded on. We were founded as a representative republic. And so that's my theory on it.

There's your civics lesson of the day. Next thing I want to ask you all, just as a level setter, local control is a big topic. Every session, there are tons of bills that are filed on this. We saw a really big one passed last session in the Death Star Bill. How do you approach legislation from that point of view in terms of local control versus state sovereignty when assessing these kinds of things? Representative Harris, let's start with you. Man, that's a tough question, especially coming from a rural area. The dynamics are very, very different, I think, when you compare someone like me, who's, I've got 31 ISDs and four counties, and so all these

commissioners' courts and local control is very, very important. And those local elected officials are the ones who are the closest to the people that you represent at the same time every single one of those local officials are elected to represent a political subdivision of what the state of Texas and so the legislature has ultimate authority over those political subdivisions and that we are elected to set the guidelines and a lot of times that comes in conflict with what those local elected officials want so again it goes back to representative form of government and we make the decisions that we believe are the best in the best interest of the 200,000 people we represent and those local elected

officials represent a smaller group and it puts us in conflict a lot but at the end of the day you have to choose what you believe is in the best interest and what aligns with your core principles. Senator Vesute. I've always said the way I've handled this issue is I believe I'm a former city councilman I was a city councilman for four years before I ran for office I I believe in local control over local issues, and I think that's the key is what is a local issue. I don't think that a local issue involves a city taking away the private property rights of individuals. I think that's a state issue because the state is the sovereign and has the authority. What's the chief end of man is to bring glory to God.

The chief end of government is to protect individual liberty. So the state's core responsibility, us up here, is to protect individual liberty. So if I've got a city taking away private property rights, I as a state representative have a responsibility to intervene. If a city is not violating somebody's rights, and it is a purely local issue, it's not impacting other areas of the state, it's not a plastic bag ban, right? They just want to figure out where they put a park or what kind of streets that they put in. That's a local issue. It's not impacting other areas of the state. It's not a plastic bag ban, right? They just want to figure out where they put a park or what kind of streets that they put in. That's a local issue and the state of Texas ought not be involved in that. And in fact, the state of Texas ought to get out of the way. Representative Busey, you're on the Democratic

side of the aisle. And so you and similarly affiliated cities especially find themselves at the brunt end of the state legislature quite a bit. What's your perspective on this? Well, I think in general we need to trust our local control, and that's where I start the conversation when I analyze bills. I represent the city of Austin, the city of Cedar Park, and the city of Round Rock. They are on very different stages in their development. They need different needs, different spectrum of philosophical, political values. And so if we just start arbitrarily saying this is good for all of

them, we're going to get it wrong. And so trusting them at the local level to make those decisions, I think is generally correct. That's also to say, I agree with these guys that we have to look at what's best for our constituents. It can't be a black and white issue. If we approach this black and white, I think we're doing a disservice to our job. So there have been exceptions where I have voted in ways that have upset my mayors, and maybe all three of them, or there's been times where I filed bills that have upset my mayors. But in general, I think philosophically, we need to trust the voters. I've spent my time working on elections and fighting for the representative democracy that we're all so proud of. And so I tend to go back to trusting the voters to make the local decision

and hold their local people accountable. Now let's move on to the current session. Broadly speaking, where do you see this thing going? We've had a couple sessions of a lot of turmoil, particularly the last one. There seems to be new hope, at least somewhat, that this session will take a different turn. And nobody wants to be in Austin on June 3rd. You know, everyone wants to be done after Siney died. Representative Vasut, where do you see this thing going? I'm going to share an optimistic view because I'm a very optimistic person. But let me lay some ground rules of what I think needs to be done.

The most important thing for me, obviously, besides passing good conservative public policy, which we all agree with. Okay. That's good policy. Good policy. But I would say this. You know, it's important that everyone is treated with respect, that respect returns to rule the day. Respect between the bodies. I think the House needs to respect the Senate.

Senate, respect the House. Good working relationships, that we would work very well with the governor. That's what I want to see. I want to see every member of the House, all 150, treated with respect, heard, involved, and voting their districts. And the votes will fall where the votes fall. And I think the way the votes are going to fall is because we have a good conservative majority. We're going to pass good conservative bills. Bring those to the floor. Let's get them done, right? But when I think about this session ahead, it's early yet. I think there was a parliamentary inquiry today. How many days are left in the session? And I honestly don't know.

What are we, like 130? I went to A&M, math, you know, okay, anyways. But we've got time to restore and improve the level of respect in the chamber, between the chambers. And if we do that, we will have a good session. So that's what I want to focus on, is ensuring that we are restoring these good relationships, that we don't have the House at war with the grassroots and the grassroots at war with the House. We don't have the House at war with the Senate

and the Senate at war with the House, or anybody at war with the government, right? Let's all work together to pass good public policy. That's what I want to see happen, and that's what I hope happens. That is quite optimistic. Representative Busey, what do you think? You know, I we've got a lot of work to do to mend some fences around here. I think The house is a deliberative body We have been allowed in my six now going into my seventh year to let a good idea rise to the top

I am a Democrat. I've never been in the majority party I've never passed a bill without bipartisan support, at times with these two guys' support. And that's something I'm really proud of. The Texas House allows a good idea to rise to the surface and ultimately help people of Texas. I think when you see the Senate chamber and the House chamber getting involved in each other's politics, we hurt that relationship and our ability to work across the aisle on our best days. And we've had some really good days we have 150 votes for a bill we have 140 150 and then it goes over the senate and they have 31 votes and the governor makes it law quickly because there

are days we all come together to the table to do something good we need more of those days and it starts as representative said with respect and i think as we see one chamber struggle to tell the other chamber what to do, we create a division that makes it hard to get to that level of production that all the Texans are expecting us to do. Representative Harris, want to jump in? I as well share an optimistic viewpoint of how session is going to go. We had our fights. We've battled it out.

And now it's time to focus on delivering the policy results that we were elected to come here and deliver for the people of Texas. And I think that's what unifies us between the chambers and with the governor. And so I'm excited about that. And like Representative Busey said, there are many issues that are not left versus right. They're not conservative or liberal. These are things that we can agree on. And they get 31 votes in the Senate when a D authored it in the House. And so we have an opportunity to deliver on some really, really big policy goals for the entire state that I think the stars haven't aligned before. And I really do think that those stars are starting to align

between both chambers and the governor's office. And we're off to a rocky but very good start. And I think things are really heading in the right direction. We were going to have Senator Paul Betancourt here to provide the senate yeah there he is there's our stand-in um to provide the senate perspective but the um education savings account bill is being heard in committee so unfortunately we missed it on him um so we're going to stick with the house you know from my perspective, the last year looked like about as fractured as you can have in a legislative chamber. Is it still that fractured? Representative Busey, what do you think?

I think we have a strong bipartisan coalition, as we just talked about in the last question, believes that every member gets to represent their district, gets to be there for the 200,000 voices, does not believe that that section of the state should be silenced um representative of suits point at the end of the day you got to hold the vote and you got to win over the votes to pass good legislation but i think there's a vast majority of the texas house that still believes we should remain a deliberative body doesn't matter if a dr and r is next to your name if it's a good idea that will help Texans, let's go. And I think there's a lot of noise on social media. I think there's 125 plus that share that value of the 150 of us.

President Vassut, you were on the opposite side of these two on the speaker fight. What's your takeaway from the first couple weeks? Well, you know, going back to the respect, I mean, certainly there are some fractures, but I'm optimistic that they can be healed. And I think what the core comes down to is respect. I mean, certainly there are some fractures, but I'm optimistic that they can be healed. And I think what the core comes down to is respect. Respect both ways, both ways. Ain't nobody, ain't nobody pure and perfect, right? We're all sinners fall short of the glory of God, right? Amen? I think the most important thing going forward is that those relationships and that respect get restored over time. I don't know exactly how that happens.

That's what needs to happen. If we do that, we'll have 150 that might not agree on all the policy, but will be of the same mind that we're all there for the policy and will vote accordingly and let the votes fall where they fall. That's what we need to have happen is the restoration of those respectful relationships on both sides. Dialogue needs to happen. Dialogue will happen. We ain't going to talk about it here. We're going to talk about that over dinner and breaking bread. I'd encourage, what I'd encourage every member to do, every member needs to meet with every member, even if you had a good relationship with them or you felt like you didn't have a good relationship with them. Meet with them, break bread together, seek forgiveness of any issues that you've had, and seek to move forward. But you have to build that fundamental respect. Otherwise, you could

potentially have, you know, more fractures. And fractures don't help anything. They don't help pass good conservative public policy. But you can't just heal things without respect. That's what I'd say. Anything to add, Representative Harris? Yeah, I mean, I totally agree with Cody. You know, once we get away from just knowing each other on Twitter or X or social media, and then you get face-to-face, and you literally live together for almost 140 days, and you get to know each other's families and and things like that you you understand what drives people it becomes a whole lot harder uh for those massive fractures to remain there will always be fractures no question about that politics there's no politics

exactly but the suit is 100 correct in that um we're doing a disservice to the people of Texas if we only let our relationships exist based on what's said on Twitter. We've got to get to know each other and figure out what ways can we. John and I are never going to agree on a lot of policy. But sometimes there are those things that we do and uh let's work together to get that done uh and move it across the goal line so if i can add because they both brought it up we socialize together all the time it may seem like we're not that way we are friends with each other we build friendships with each other we build relationships with each other there's a legislative ladies club which is the spouses club they become friends and i think when when we get mad at each other on the floor

the spouses remind us that we're friends and get back in line um and and that's really essential you go to dc you're scared to be taking a photo with the other guy and that's that's insane and if we become that i don't know i've got a lot of Republicans in my district not enough that they can beat me but I've got a lot of Republicans I don't want to come down here and be like their voice doesn't matter either there's one of my constituents in the front right here laughter

laughter in the last session we saw we touched on it a bit the House and Senate have been at odds is that kind of intrinsic in the set up you know the checks and balances or has at odds. Is that kind of intrinsic in the setup, you know, the checks and balances, or has this devolved into, you know, personalities? Anybody want to jump in on that? The House and Senate are never going to perfectly agree because they are two separate bodies. And that actually is a function of the system because the Senate helps the House pass better legislation.

And I hope the House in times will help the Senate pass when we work together. But I think it's important that there be dialogue and that we be working in tandem together in order for that to be achieved. Right. So to answer your question, literally, yes, you're never going to have perfect agreement. My desk mates, Briscoe came and there's a uh there you know some people may think we vote identically on everything we're probably like the one and two most conservative members of the house a few years ago right but we disagree 3.47 percent of the time according to the statistical analysis run by whoever did that we don't even agree all the time good lord i mean even if you i sit right in front of him and sometimes it's like watching a married couple fight and i'll tell you a really funny story one time we're on the floor it's not been the 87th and briscoe's over here and uh votes coming i don't

even know what it is uh but briscoe i i pushed his button because i thought on his sheet it's supposed to be green or red or something whatever it was but he yells him and he goes cody you know like what are you doing so c Cody turns around and pushes the other button because he called the wrong Cody. Anyway, so things happen. Things happen. But yeah, it is a product of the system that we're not always going to agree, but we can work together. And so I refuse to believe that anything is devolved to personalities or anything. I think that there's always going to be some disagreements and if people will work together respectfully, we can have a great session and should. I've got great senators. I love working with them. They're good people.

And we look forward to working with them again this session. The legislative process and, you know, the speaker's fight that we just had is example A of this has become more publicized. More people are in the know about it they have the opinions because of twitter we all see it right has that made the legislating more difficult or is that enabled y'all to get more feedback from constituents you know i i think part of the challenge with twitter or x is it's it's coming from all over the state. And while that is fair, we're making laws that impact the whole state, you really do want to try to be a strong representative, and that's listening to your constituents.

And I think it's easy to forget, are these my constituents, or are they just a Texan from somewhere else? And when we have direct outreach into our offices, we track that. We track it's a constituent outreach, or if it's someone from another office. So I think in that sense, you, there is some benefit to knowing the statewide landscape of the conversation. But I think you can get clouded by representing your district, I tend to also see a difference between social media platforms, some being more of my actual constituents versus others being more of a statewide conversation. I think it's a two-edged sword, really. It's good to get input from your constituents as their representative. And so it's good for them to have a broader view of what we're doing and what's going on, what votes are taking place, what's happening.

But at the same time, whether whether we're talking about the RPT or TASB or, you know, the different alphabet suit of education groups, all the different special interest groups, there is always deceptive information being disseminated down to our voters. And so that's why, and I'm not blowing smoke, but that's why I value publications like the Texan who pride yourself on accurate reporting and not creating spin. Because when our constituents make their opinions based off of information that is purely spin,

man, all we're doing is trying to correct what the truth is. And so that's why it's important to have publications like y'all to point to to say, no, look, this is the truth. This is what the actual truth is. And so those instances are increasing, in my opinion, where we're getting calls from constituents that have the wrong information. They've been lied to or misinformed. I don't care what the issue is that they're calling about. I'm not talking about just a speaker's race. I mean, during school choice, my teachers and superintendents were calling, and they had been fed a bunch of information that was just straight-up made-up lies from the alphabet soup groups.

And that took months to go back. And now, in private conversations with them, I tell them what was in that bill. And they now think, man, we should have taken that. We should have gone along with that. Last question before we get to policy. You know, there's a lot of, this is all relationships, right? And obviously, this is politics. People want to run for higher office.

What is it like dealing with someone, is it any different than anybody else, who is looking and angling to run for higher office. What is it like dealing with someone, is it any different than anybody else, who is looking and angling to run for a different office in negotiating legislation? It's absolutely different. When somebody makes that decision that they're moving on to something else, I think it impacts their equal participation

in the process of the body. I think a lot of us that want to see the Texas house function, as we've talked about, or I've said, regurgitating, deliberative body where a good idea can rise. It's easy in the world of Twitter to get popular if you buck the system. And so when you know you're going to go do something else, you can utilize that tool, but it's at the expense, I think, of the cohesion and deliberative

deliberation of the body. Anybody else want to jump in on that? I think, I think you're, you're, you're right, John. Um, it's night and day difference, uh, interacting with members who it's obvious that they're just in the house as a stepping stone to the next political run. Because you make decisions differently. It's no longer just about what you believe is in the best interest of your constituents or the people that elected you. Now it's what places me in an advantage in the next primary that I'm about to run for over whoever else is out there.

That was really just a way of me getting to ask y'all you running for higher office you want to tell us absolutely not nope when these guys endorse me i'll do it okay so when pigs fly um okay let's talk some policy uh representative harris what's a must pass this session school choice what kind of school choice that's up to the body and the two chambers and and the governor to to that's why we have a representative republic to go through the messy process of creating new laws uh and so i don't think anyone right now can say this is what the the school choice bill is going to look like at the end of session. School choice, property tax relief continued.

When we have a $20 billion surplus, we've got a big duty to the people who put that money in to either spend it wisely or return it to them. Those are our two options, in my opinion. And so, you know, we've got a lot of public schools in our rural areas that are still good. And they need resources. They've got failing infrastructure, and we don't want them to raise property taxes at the local level. So, you know, is that something that the surplus is put towards? I mean, the number of things that we have that are big items to deliver this session, the list is long. And so it's going to be a long process for the whole legislature to figure out what those are going to be.

Representative Busey, I can feel a differing opinion bubbling up within you. Well, to keep it nice and answer must pass, I would say we need to dramatically use that budget surplus to help our public schools and to help our we're the leading state in uninsured rate. And we have the biggest health crisis of any state per capita. We got a lot of work to do. We're a big ass state with a lot of money and we can we can do some good with that um i think uh school choice we we talk about school choice a lot i i've been supportive of public charter schools i've been supportive of our public schools i think when we start talking about losing accountability with taxpayer dollars we're going down the wrong line so i'll be opposing a privatization of school choice but i think texas right now has lots of school choice inter-district transfer and and lots of public charter schools all over the state and i'm happy to continue to have that conversation

and see where we can support it all legislation that limits government and and proves individual liberty expands individually you really got specific i mean what do you i mean you're gonna list them all let me tell you okay the whole all the legislative priorities universal universal school choice uh for everyone um and and a host of others uh you know must pass uh that's what the people are looking for uh those things that are going to really impact their lives maybe i think if you ask the average Texan, most of them would probably gravitate towards either universal school choice or probably even more so property tax relief, permanent property tax relief, restructuring of that system. I was a delegate to the Republican Party of Texas Convention.

I support the grassroots priorities because I'm a member of the grassroots. I voted for them, so they're kind of like they're mine. But, you know, 60% of the surplus at least needs to be used to buy down property taxes. And that's what I'd like to see. That's what my constituents like to see. They're having trouble affording groceries right now. Let's pour more money back into their pockets. It's their money.

When you have a surplus, that means people were, what, overtaxed. So let's give it back to them. That's number one. You mentioned restructuring. Right now, it's kind of a band-aid fix. Whether it's homestead exemption or compression, you're going to be back here in two years having to do the same thing. How do you fix this? Well, I'm of the mindset i like expanding consumption taxes in exchange for eliminating property taxes and i do not believe that uh expanding consumption taxes will hurt the poor because what you do is you exempt medical care and treatment you exempt housing you exempt groceries

and you exempt clothing right and then basically the food on your on your plate clothes on your back the roof over your your your head is not taxed. So there's not a harm to senior citizens and those who are poor. And then instead you tax luxury items at a slightly higher rate and a broader base in order to eliminate property tax. That's a structural change. Now, that is easier said than done. And let me tell you why. Because every time we come up with an alternative solution, the people that don't like it freak out. They freak out, right? And that's why I filed the bill that I filed the last three sessions, which is basically until the legislature's hands are tied, they're not going to do it. And so I've continually filed

a bill that would basically say, we take a vote to eliminate the property tax system in 10 years. It's done. The vote's taken. You get 10 years to figure it out. And then if you decide that you're not going to figure it out, then you get to take the vote to re-implement the property tax system. You see, when you hold people's feet to the fire, you get results. And so I think until we do that, let's be realistic, it's going to be hard. We can continue to take bites at it but a wholesale change is going to take feet to the fire and the only way to do that i think is with a fiscal cliff anything to add here some property tax i think he he covered it really well i totally agree we are

you're right we are just going to be doing band-aid fixes unless we completely eliminate the property tax system altogether is that possible possible? Right now, no. But I think that compared to when I came into the legislature in 2019, we had those conversations among different members. There was a much smaller group then that was willing to really try to tackle this issue and put us in the position to eliminate property taxes. Now, I would say a broad majority of at least the Republican caucus would support something like that. The problem comes when you talk to constituents and you say, I think we're not going to eliminate property taxes unless we completely swap out for consumption tax. They'd say, yes, I love that idea. But the CPA says, hey,

but can you exempt CPAs? Or the lawyer says, love it, but hey, can you exempt lawyers? You go down the list on everybody. Everybody wants to be exempted from it. So how do we get there? We have a $20 billion surplus because we're not spending our money to help the people of Texas. It should not be give it back in the form of another $100. It should be let's have the best health care system in the state, the best schools in the nation, and that's how we should spend this money. That may not be an agreement on this stage, but I just think when Texas is last in so many of these categories, I believe this to be the greatest state in the nation,

but we have to show it every day to our constituents, and we're failing to do that with our budget priorities. And so when you talk about property taxes, we need money to support our needs throughout the state of Texas. Your biggest issue is going to your schools. Well, we're sending out a lot of money. Let's go help our schools. Back on the education issue

last session we saw in the house an omnibus combination of school finance increase esas and teacher pay is that what we're going to have to do again in the house and senate we see is planning on separate bills but do you all think the dynamics have changed enough where you can have separate bills on these issues personally i think the dynamics have changed enough and there will be two separate bills in my opinion i think that's the best way to go about it this time i agree i also agree we're all in agreement it should be separate bills i know trifecta i think uh one we need we all have an obligation to support our public schools and i and i think that's pretty there's a big consensus for that so we should do that we should take care of

that and then if people believe their constituents truly won ESA's or vouchers then let's take that vote on its merit and see where it gets us you want to talk gambling a bit you know this this is you was it I said I'm pro yeah that's it you know no more'm pro. Yeah, that's it. No more discussion. You know, there's a huge lobby effort to push this. And, you know, if you look at the polling, Texans overwhelmingly support it. Now, getting to the nitty-gritty, what does it actually look like? And, you know, that doesn't mean that there aren't tradeoffs or problems with it.

What do you think, Representative Harris, on this issue? If we do it, is it just resort-style casinos, or is it just sports betting? Where are you at? I think that's a question for another legislature, not this one. I don't think the votes are there in either chamber to get it done. And so knowing that, and then knowing that, you know, last session we took a vote on it, it failed. We know that it won't pass the Senate. And so if you know that going into it, what's the point in having the discussion on the floor of the House?

Representative Vasut? Yeah, I agree. Time is precious, and I don't know if we should spend time on something that cannot pass. I'd also note, you know, no secret, I'm not a fan of expanding gambling. Make the argument. Okay. Well, I mean, I don't think that the expenses that come with expanding gambling offset the gains that come from it. I'm not convinced on that.

I have very concerns about, you know, some of the negative things, whether it's people going into debt or spending money. Look, we passed the lottery, and it was supposed to be this magical thing to fund public education. It's just a tax on people that can't do math, okay? That's all the lottery is. So that's why I filed a bill this session. Nobody really paid attention to it. I filed a bill that would require the percentage of, if we're not going to get rid of the lottery, which that's what I'd probably vote to do, but I'm realistic that's not going to happen, but then it's at least mandate that the prizes primarily go to education and not to the winners. Who's going to care whether or not they get a billion-dollar payout or $700 million? I think it matters whether or not our public education system is really going to be getting, I don't know, $2 billion or $3 billion in public ed dollars.

I'm the only one, I think, so far that's filed a bill to increase public education spending. And nobody's really caught on to that because all it is is just increasing the amount of money the the lottery puts into public education you think you can back that uh and so i think that uh i think that that's a that's a win for texas i mean if we're going to have the lottery and it's going to be funding education let's make sure it does uh to a degree but uh no i'm not in favor of expanding gambling and i tell you what a super majority of the texas house and good lord the texas senate they're not going to do it either. So why would we waste time on it? Herb Thunbusy, make the case for. Well, I think the case for is we shouldn't tell adults what they can and can't do

when it's not hurting other people. Do bad things come from having a drink sometimes? Do bad things come from driving a car? Do bad things come from gambling? Absolutely. We can put some guardrails on, but we should have more freedom and liberty in the state of Texas than we have right now. And so I think the case is why shouldn't we? Why should we tell adults they can't do this? We know they do it. Texans gamble. They gamble among themselves.

They go to other states. They find ways to get around the laws on the Internet. We are the leaders of gambling, Texans are, in our neighboring states and probably in Vegas. So I think, you know, let's just be honest and let's protect more liberty. And yes, there are bad things that happen and can happen when we enable more sinful activities, but we can put guardrails up, but we shouldn't tell adults what they can and can't do. So you're going to support our bill to end vaccine mandates? If you can come up with a way to do it where it won't impact the people around them.

Okay. And then if you can come up with a way to do it where it won't impact the people around them. Okay, then if you can come up with a way that would expand gambling without impacting the people around them, right? I mean, see, these are great public policies. So are you contradicting me or am I contradicting you? I love John. I love John. Anyways, these are the great public policy debates. This is what the House and the Senate should be about. Let's have it out on policy. I've got some land in Big Bend if people want to go live in the middle of nowhere and not get vaccinated and not impact anyone around them let's have a conversation

big bend looks great at night anyways cody you're gonna jump in here i think this will be the last question um this has been fun um what is in your your mind, the most underrated, under-talked-about issue this session? I'll give you guys time to think. There's a lot of infrastructure. Go ahead. Water. Nukes.

Nuclear technology. Nuclear energy. No, we're not building a bomb. I think nuclear energy. We, we're not building a bomb. I think, I mean, nuclear energy, right? I mean, we're in the nuclear energy caucus, and I think, you know, that doesn't – we're working on it. We're working to raise the profile of the issue. But we talk about reliable power generation that we want to be able to turn the lights on immediately and have that onto the grid. Well, nuclear energy is a clean, safe way to do that, particularly small module nuclear reactors.

We need to have those in the state, proliferating those. Dow's got one coming into CGIF 2030. We're going to see how that goes. If that goes good, I'd need to have those in the state, proliferating those. Dow's got one coming into CGIF 2030. We're going to see how that goes. If that goes good, I'd love to see that in my district. And the water and the nuclear discussion go hand-in-hand together as well. Because you need the nuclear energy for desal. Absolutely. And we are sitting on a literal ocean of brackish groundwater

that is the future of water supply for Texas, and we need small modular reactors and nuclear technology in order to provide the power to desalinate that water. I think this is something I probably could support, Cody, just so you know. We're not talking enough about the general welfare of Texas children, health care, education. We are talking education, but health care, what's going on, foster care. We've got a lot to do to take care of Texas children, and that should be at the heart of our obligations. Water is essential.

I do think this session people are being aware of it. We are going to take good action. I think you're going to see one of those good days where we're going to have almost unanimous support for that type of stuff. I think you filed Medicaid expansion, didn't you? Absolutely. Yeah. Two different ways. We can vote for it as representatives, or if we think we shouldn't do that, we can do a constitutional amendment and let the voters decide. A couple sessions ago when we had the test vote on it, there were a few Republicans that were supportive of it. I think before we actually

had the vote, there was like nine that signed on. It doesn't seem like that's there anymore. So how do you get this across the line? Well, we got to keep having an honest conversation. I think a lot of people think here in Texas, it's up to us to debate the policy. If you're not aware, everyone in this room is paying for the Affordable Care Act or your federal taxes. Our decision is, do you want your federal taxes to help Texans, or do you want it to help Californians? And I'd like it to come home and help Texans. If you disagree with the Affordable Care Act, you need to call your congressman. That's not our job in the Texas legislature. Our job is to deny money and send it to California, New York, or bring it home to help Texans. And that's why I want to bring it home. And I think as we keep having that conversation, people will become more aware of how this actually works. I'm not saying there's

no flaws in the policy, but I'm going to have to call my congressman and talk about that. I'm going to throw this over to the two Codys. You mentioned nukes and water. Draft budgets are out. And we have money for water infrastructure fund and also a nuclear energy fund. But that can't just be it, right? What else has to be done other than just throwing money at the issue? On the nuclear side, we need to set up the statutory framework to allow the state to be the regulatory authority and permitting place and not just rely on the federal government. Ideally, we would, NRC, under the new leadership under President Trump, would grant primacy to the state of Texas to make those decisions on small modular reactors and permitting new site locations.

And we make those decisions in Texas and not in Washington, D.C. So we need to statutorily set that up that will allow that process to happen. Yeah, what he said. Because if we increase the nuclear power footprint, that comes at a cost, right? Nuclear waste. And we just had a fight a couple sessions ago over this. The storage of high-level radioactive waste, interim storage of it, was banned.

The feds are still a mess. They don't have Yucca Mountain together. What's the bridge solution? I think that's where it's important to dive into the different types of small modular reactor technologies. Many of them come with little to no nuclear waste at all because of the the way it's either completely utilized or the leftover leftovers can be harvested for medical isotopes and different things that are used throughout the country so it's not it's not the same as the 1960s conventional reactors that we're used to this is completely different technology that's walk away safe in many cases,

depending on the type of technology that you're talking about. And you're not going to have stockpiles of radioactive waste in the backyard of anyone in the state when we're really talking about the small modular reactors or the advanced nuclear technology. Okay. Well, I think that'll about do it. thank you all for joining this was a great discussion hope you all got something out of it and I think lunchtime's next so we'll go to that I'm I'm I'm