ADDENDUM
(FORTY-NINTH DAY — Tuesday, May 7, 2019)
The following remarks regarding CSSB 1663 before suspension of the regular order of business were ordered reduced to writing and printed in the Senate Journal.
Senator Creighton: Thank you, Mr. President and Members. Our historical monuments tell the story of Texas. Our history is part of who we are, part of the story of Texas, but history is never just one person's account. History is studied, debated, and constantly considered in different context. However, we've seen a trend across the nation and the world where controversial monuments are removed or destroyed, often without any input, study, or process. And I fear that we'll look back and regret that this was a period where deleting history was more important than learning from it. My bill today is simply a process for the state to rely on when considering removing or altering a monument in Texas. The bill will provide cities, counties, universities, a framework and a policy so that there can be adequate input before something is destroyed or set aside forever. I know many people believe that some monuments are too controversial to remain. But when does every hero become too flawed to remember? And when is it too late for us to discuss and, and learn, and educate ourselves if that person was not a hero but a part of a very flawed past, a past that we need to teach others going forward how to right the ship and what we want to be as Texans going forward? I know many people believe that the truth in, in that history is very complicated, and we have these monuments to remember, remember the good and the bad, the ugly and the success of how these important moments in history led to where we are today, just as we see on a walk through our Capitol grounds. A quote that has really stuck out to me is, when you start wiping out your history, sanitizing your history to make you feel better, it's a bad thing. Dr. Condolezza Rice continued to explain that she sees value in keeping our history in front of us. Dr. Rice believed that we need to look at certain names and recognize what they did and to be able to tell our kids and grandkids what they did, right and wrong, so that they could have a sense of their own history and of their own future and what they will stand for going forward. And I know this is an emotional topic. It's very emotional for me as well. Many monuments are important because they played a big role in our past and in our history, and they also connect us to our present and will define us as we teach from them going forward as Texans. My four-times great grandfather was part of Terry's Texas Rangers from Montgomery County, where I live now and where I was born and raised. He served to keep Texas safe and protected. And when I see the Terry's Texas Rangers monument here on the Capitol grounds, the front doors of the south side of the campus, I'm reminded of that family history in law enforcement and the sacrifice he made for the State of Texas. After his service, he founded a school for freedmen in my home county of Montgomery where my family's been for many generations. And these monuments connect us to our past as Texans as well. And I've always loved Texas history, I was raised that way. I was raised walking around my hometown and growing up seeing different monuments and, and different markers in history and learning from my father and mother and my grandfather, who were very, very much intent on raising me to understand our history, right and wrong. And I think that's in many ways what shaped me in powerful ways to want to be standing here with you today. I was taught Texas history by my parents and grandparents walking through city parks down Booker T. Washington Street or Sherman Street in Conroe, walking along with them learning history even on the, here at the grounds of the Capitol on school field trips. But every month I see a new story of a historical monument destroyed or removed. It's happening across the country, and Texas actually leads in the number of monuments removed. Senate Bill 1663 will protect all monuments from the Ten Commandments to the San Jacinto monument, from the Alamo to schools and streets named after Washington, Lincoln, or Martin Luther King Jr., from Union monuments to Confederate monuments, to monuments commemorating the Vietnam veterans, and many more. Monuments remind us of the high points and the low points of our history. They are part of who we are as Texans and where we came from, what we've accomplished, what we've overcome, and the standard we set for ourselves building forward together, working for a better Texas. They motivate us to strive for excellence and to be better than our ancestors, to shape the future of our communities and our state. And to accomplish our goal of protecting our historical monuments for future generations, Senate Bill 1663 creates a process for the removal, relocation, and altering of Texas statues, portraits, plaques, seals, symbols, building names, street names, park names, cenotaphs, because one should not decide the fate of our pieces of history behind closed doors. And first, Senate Bill 1663 protects state monuments like those removed from The University of Texas campus. If the monument is less than 25 years old, the monument may be altered keeping with current statute. And if the monument's older than 25 years old, then the monument can only be altered with two-thirds legislative approval. So, the governing body of the universities on university campuses would act if the monument's under 25 years old, and if it's older, the Legislature would decide. Local monuments are also protected and can be altered by formal action by the governing board if it's less than 25 years old or by voter referendum for the public to have a voice and a say if the monument's older than 25 years old. In addition, new monuments and plaques can be erected to compliment or contrast with existing monuments and can utilize the Texas Preservation Trust Fund Account. It's my understanding that this bill as we originally drafted it is the only bill in the nation that includes a provision that would allow for such, where under the Texas Preservation Trust Fund Account, if the effort was to balance history and to provide a balance of history as it's depicted from an older monument, that that could be used. Currently, there's $9 million in, in the account that's not awarded to a grant right now, and that that Texas Preservation Trust Fund Account, through this legislation and the change that this legislation makes to current statute, that a balance of history could be, a process is in place for that to happen. So, instead of removal and paying $400,000 for removal like the City of Dallas recently did to balance that history out in that same area with a monument that would contrast and depict history as we would work together in a constructive way to do so. And so, the savings of removal together with the power of what we're doing here in policy to, to allow for a grant would be something that I don't think any other legislation in the country is, is offering or has offered. I think we have a real solution in this bill that doesn't include hiding from our past. And we as Texans will face our past head on. We'll teach and learn from it and work forward together for the Texas we all want to see and that we all love so much. So, as Ronald Reagan once said, paraphrased, if we forget our past, we truly won't know who we are. And with that in the spirit of my intent for this legislation, Mr. President, I move suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1663.
President: Senator Miles, for what purpose?
Senator Miles: Thank you, Mr. President, questions to my good friend, Senator Creighton.
President: Do you yield, Senator?
Senator Creighton: Yes.
Senator Miles: Thank you, Senator Creighton. You know, Senator Creighton, I want to say to you starting off that you're correct, we all want to be better than our ancestors. I also want to commend your family for making sure that, taking part in our Texas history and making sure that you, their son and grandson, knew and was aware of all the historical things in Conroe and, and the State of Texas. That's to be commended. But I also want you to know that, and I'm going to get to the questions, Mr. President, I also want you to know that some of the history that our country and our state has seen was so devastating to different people that it's just untolerable for us to want to remember and live with. Some of the history in our country and state, majority of our people in our country and our state are embarrassed by. And all I'm going to say to you today is we don't want to keep reliving that, okay. It is our history, but it was so detrimental and so much on different people of different colors and race and ethnicities that we don't care to relive them. So, with that being said, I've got a few questions I'd like to ask you as relates to 1663, and I'll try to be as expeditiously as possible, Members. Senator Creighton, your bill, as I read it, requires a two-third vote from both Chambers to alter a monument over 25 years. Is that correct?
Senator Creighton: That's right.
Senator Miles: As I read and understand the rules that we have at this Capitol, that's like a constitutional amendment, two-thirds, is that right? Two-thirds, it takes two-thirds to change a constitutional amendment, make constitutional amendment.
Senator Creighton: It's a higher threshold, yes, Senator Miles, just as we need higher thresholds to suspend on the floor and make different changes in our rules, it would, it would be a higher threshold than a simple majority.
Senator Miles: So, it's your belief that that's essential requirement to have a higher threshold to alter the monuments that may be appropriate or inappropriate.
Senator Creighton: That, that's right. Monuments that are a part of our history and across all the different types of monuments that I mentioned, yes, to remove, to remove those monuments it would be a higher threshold than just a simple majority, that's correct.
Senator Miles: And that's how you want the bill to work. In addition to that, the bill waives the state's municipal and other municipalities' sovereign immunity, if a citizen files a complaint to the Attorney General's office when the bill's processings are not followed. Is that correct?
Senator Creighton: That's correct--
Senator Miles: That I--
Senator Creighton: --I mean--
Senator Miles: --is that correct--
Senator Creighton: --that's correct--
Senator Miles: --how I read the bill?
Senator Creighton: –that's correct. That, that, in, in, in the situation which I really couldn't foresee happening, if there was a blatant dis–
Senator Miles: Did you say you can't perceive happening?
Senator Creighton: Well, what I'm saying is that if there's a blatant disregard for this policy at the local level, and it's just ignored, then there's an enforcement provision in the bill, as you mentioned. Yeah.
Senator Miles: So, can you tell me what other claims that the state will waive their sovereign, waive their rights? I mean, whatever claims can you imagine that the state's going to waive our sovereign immunity? Do you have any example where we've done it in the past?
Senator Creighton: Well, I think the intention of the bill is, is to have an enforcement provision that matters, so that if we make sure that we, just on, like on these Capitol grounds we have a walk through time. If, if there is an effort locally in a city or county to subvert the intent of the legislation, there would be teeth in the legislation and a fine that would be set up for that purpose.
Senator Miles: Teeth that we're going to waive our sovereign immunity as a state.
Senator Creighton: It allows--
Senator Miles: Don't see a problem, you don't see a problem with that?
Senator Creighton: --it allows for a, a fine to be implemented. No, I, I don't.
Senator Miles: Okay. When you talk about historical significance, do you mean historical significance for the United States or for the State of Texas, local communities, or where the monument is located, so–
Senator Creighton: It, it really, Senator Miles, could be all of the above, but mainly as Texans making sure that instead of erasing our past, good or bad, that we, you know, can teach from it and learn from it. And as I, I mentioned, and I'll mention several times through the day today, as we've done that here on the Capitol complex, I think it's a very positive approach for kids like me that really couldn't afford to pay admission fee to a museum or travel to find one, that it would be on public grounds for families to be able to teach as they see fit.
Senator Miles: So, who's going to determine the, the historical significance for something that happens in Fort Bend County, in Lois Kolkhorst's and Joan, Senator Huffman's district, who's going to determine the significance, the historical significance for that--
Senator Creighton: You know, family--
Senator Miles: --under this bill?
Senator Creighton: --parents, grandparents, teachers, you know, mentors on field trips, the historical significance of these older monuments would be taught by all of us together, as Texans, as we see, as buses unload, you know, school after school coming through here during session and during the summer. And they're taking this walk through time of, of past to more recent years through this Capitol complex and, and teaching history in a way, good and bad, that we own and that we, you know, need to learn from. And so, that historical significance would be taught by those that you and I would want to teach it which would be educators and family.
Senator Miles: But that's being taught by, who's going to determine, who's going to determine we're going to put a monument here or take a monument down, just based on historical significance? Who's going to do that? You?
Senator Creighton: Well, I'm saying, in this legislation and as we've moved it through the process of, of the legislative session that we would all consider on removal, as you mentioned. On, on bringing a, a new one we, like we've seen on the newer monuments on the Capitol grounds over the past 12 years that you and I have been in the Legislature, since '07, we've had a--
Senator Miles: I understand what you're--
Senator Creighton: --process for bringing in new monuments, and that process is not altered in this bill.
Senator Miles: Senator Creighton, I understand what you're saying about the teaching of the historical significance, but what I'm trying to get to is who's going to determine and make the decision if Barbara Jordan should sit on that wall? You or me? You, who, who's going to make that decision?
Senator Creighton: Well, I may, and I may not have answered it clearly, but we, we all work together, Republicans and Democrats together, for the newer monuments.
Senator Miles: So, the legislative body's going to make the decision? That's what you're saying, the legislative body's going to make the decision.
Senator Creighton: Just as we worked together on the Latino monument and the African American monument on--
Senator Miles: So, the legislative body--
Senator Creighton: --on the complex.
Senator Miles: --is the one who's going to make the decision--
Senator Creighton: Yes--
Senator Miles: --is that what you're saying?
Senator Creighton: --we would work together through the current process. This doesn't, doesn't change that. We would work together.
Senator Miles: Senator Creighton, who's going to make the significant decision for historical designation in Missouri City or in Third Ward?
Senator Creighton: Well, the, a decision wouldn't, under the, under the, under the bill itself, the spirit of the bill itself, we would be talking about in Missouri City a removal not a placement. So, if there, if Missouri City, if they wanted to use the grant program that I'm establishing under the Texas Preservation Trust Fund Act in the bill, they would be able to rely on that for a new monument. If the monument that they have in consideration is to be removed and it's, and it's not to be put up for the first time and it's 25 years or older, we would all decide under this legislation for a two-thirds vote--
Senator Miles: So, for a--
Senator Creighton: --whether or not--
Senator Miles: --new monument--
Senator Creighton: --the history behind that monument warranted removal forever and destroying that monument or whether or not we would vote to keep it in place.
Senator Miles: Okay, let me ask you--
Senator Creighton: That's how it would work.
Senator Miles: --one more question as it relates to significance.
Senator Creighton: Yeah.
Senator Miles: If Garnet, Representative Garnet Coleman's father, Dr. John B. Coleman, who was a pillar of Third Ward community, one of the first African Americans on the Texas A&M, regent, Board of Regents, we've got streets named after him in, in, in the area, we've got buildings named after him, there's a hospital named after him in the medical center. If we decided if we wanted to erect a statue of Dr. Coleman in Third Ward, would we have to come to the Legislature or to you or to who do we go to to deem it historically significant enough under this bill to erect a monument of Dr. Coleman?
Senator Creighton: The local community could make those decisions. Of course, you and I, Senator Miles, would work together to support that effort, but the local governing board in Missouri City or wherever in Houston that wanted to put up a monument--
Senator Miles: You--
Senator Creighton: --commemorating his father--
Senator Miles: --so, the answer to my question is the local community.
Senator Creighton: --correct.
Senator Miles: That's the answer to my question.
Senator Creighton: Because that's not about removal, that's about a new monument.
Senator Miles: Okay.
Senator Creighton: And this legislation is tailored more towards removal, altering, and changing.
Senator Miles: I'm glad to hear you say that, Senator. Last session Senator West and I worked with Senator Estes to try to preserve the Muny golf course. Kirk Watson, Senator Watson's been working on it this session. In Austin, right here in Austin, it was the first designated golf course, the first desegregated golf course in the South. It's listed on the national registry for historical places and is recognized by the Texas Historical Commission. It's located, though, on land that's owned by University of Texas. Under your bill, would, well, before I go to your bill, would you consider this location historical significance, that location, the golf course, would you consider it?
Senator Creighton: You know more about it than I do, but I'm sure, I'm sure I would, yes.
Senator Miles: Okay, because I just listed to you that it's, you know, on the Texas Historical Commission and the national, so it's got historical significance. We agree? Can we agree on that?
Senator Creighton: That's right.
Senator Miles: Okay. We agree on that, correct? So, under your bill, if we agree on that, would this golf course now be protected, a protected site that would require two-thirds vote before UT could do the development on it that they want to do?
Senator Creighton: Well, this definitely isn't a Save Muny bill, but if--
Senator Miles: No, it's not.
Senator Creighton: --and my--
Senator Miles: But you just wait, it's, I understand it's not a Save Muny bill--
Senator Creighton: --I had more--
Senator Miles: --Senator.
Senator Creighton: --to my answer. Yeah, if under the legislation itself, if the area were named after an historical figure and, and the university would want to choose to rename an area, which the bill lists area. But I'm not sure that an entire golf course is within the scope of the intent of the bill. Then the Board of Regents could rename that area if it's 25 years old or less, if it's more than 25 years old and there was an effort to rename it, then it would happen in the Legislature.
Senator Miles: Senator Creighton, you and I just agreed that this is a significant location, a historically significant location. We agreed to that.
Senator Creighton: That's right.
Senator Miles: Okay.
Senator Creighton: We didn't agree that it falls under the scope of the bill.
Senator Miles: Why wouldn't it? It's on the national registry for a significant historical location.
Senator Creighton: For the answer I just gave, which is that this, the scope of the bill and the spirit of the intention of the bill is for name, and for areas is for naming and renaming purposes. It's not for historical designated--
Senator Miles: But you also said it was. This bill is for the destruction and the removal of historical monuments or locations. That's what this golf course is.
Senator Creighton: –not the removal of historical locations, but you were correct on the monuments part--
Senator Miles: Okay, then–
Senator Creighton: --or on names. So--
Senator Miles: It's on the national registry as a significant historical location.
Senator Creighton: –so, bridges--
Senator Miles: It wouldn't fit under this bill?
Senator Creighton: --no. Bridges--
Senator Miles: Why not?
Senator Creighton: --bridges, buildings, specific structures, street names, those are examples, parks that, that have a name after a historical figure, but not just a, a piece of land that golf course is not--
Senator Miles: A piece of land is not equivalent to--
Senator Creighton: --that, I still--
Senator Miles: --historical?
Senator Creighton: --I still had more of my answer going. Not just a piece of land that is deemed as historical by the Historical Commission or a national registry, no, that's not within the spirit of the bill. Now, if it was university property and it was named after Sam Houston, and to rename that property that would be in the scope of the bill. And if it was older than 25 years and it was called Sam Houston Golf Course at The University of Texas then we would make that decision with a two-thirds vote on whether or not we would rename the university property on behalf of the university's request.
Senator Miles: So, we're not talking about mass pieces of property, just the property that the statue might sit on.
Senator Creighton: Or, or be named--
Senator Miles: Only thing that's falling up under this bill.
Senator Creighton: --or be named after it.
Senator Miles: Or name, naming. Or the little plot of land that the property, that the statue may sit on.
Senator Creighton: That's right. So, we're talking about university--
Senator Miles: I'm going to move on, Senator, on that one because it sounds like you want it two ways on that one. I'm going to move on, respectfully. Senator Creighton, I'm sure you don't know this, but in Missouri City, in my district in an area that's shared by myself, Senator Kolkhorst, and Senator Huffman, there's a street named Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. And it was named in the '80s and that's over 25 years. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest was a Confederate leader who massacred, massacred Black soldiers who surrendered to him in the Battle of Fort Pillow. He was also the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. If the neighbors of our community on that street wanted to rename that street, will they have to convince the Missouri City to hold an election under this bill to rename that street? How would that work under this bill?
Senator Creighton: Yes, if it's a renaming in a municipality and it's over 25 years old, then under the bill--
Senator Miles: Over 25 years old, we've established that.
Senator Creighton: --yeah, under the bill there would be a, a public vote to allow for that.
Senator Miles: Of the, the local community? It wouldn't come up here, we wouldn't have to do anything in the body, Legislature, in the legislative body?
Senator Creighton: Is that right? Correct.
Senator Miles: So, we wouldn't have to, it'd be totally in control of the local community?
Senator Creighton: It'd be a referendum vote.
Senator Miles: Okay. Under your bill.
Senator Creighton: But where the Legislature would act, under this bill, is if it's state property or if it's state university property to be considered. But if it's a municipality and other, it is not otherwise found in the legislation then under this bill itself renaming of a street 25 years or older in a city would be a public vote.
Senator Miles: Thank you for that clarification. And I'm almost done, Mr. President and Members. Let's talk about the Capitol complex. The building that we work in every day, that we have the pleasure of serving our constituents in. In 2007, two plaques with the Confederate symbols on them were replaced in the Texas Supreme Court building. Were you aware of that?
Senator Creighton: Yes--
Senator Miles: Okay.
Senator Creighton: --I'm aware of that.
Senator Miles: This year the Children of the Confederacy Creed plaques were removed from the Capitol. Do you think the removal of those plaques from the Capitol complex was inappropriate?
Senator Creighton: I don't feel it was inappropriate. I feel like the Legislature, as those plaques were erected by a vote of the Legislature, I feel like there should have been a duplicative process there where the Legislature would have considered that this session. So in, and then you and I would've worked together through the process on that consideration for either removal or for redepicting or clarifying what that plaque actually stands for through an, you know, another marker next to it. Either way, removal or redepicting, we would've worked together. The Legislature erected that plaque, and I feel like the Legislature through the committee process and public input should have considered the removal. But that is behind us.
Senator Miles: Well, since that wasn't done, in summation what you're saying then, since none of that what you just stated was done, in summation you're saying that those were taken down inappropriately, wrong, violation–
Senator Creighton: I'm--
Senator Miles: –based on what you just said.
Senator Creighton: --the word inappropriate, I'm saying I think a better process would have been to consider removal based on the manner in which they were placed in the first, from the beginning and that would have been by legislative consideration.
Senator Miles: Okay.
Senator Creighton: And that stays consistent with my legislation, so I'm just, I'm just making sure I'm very consistent there. Yeah.
Senator Miles: Thank you for that. Senator Creighton, there's a dozen tributes to the Confederacy on the Capitol ground. Are you comfortable with the historical accuracy and the text of all the monuments that are around here? Have you read, have you gone around and read some of the text on some of the photographs in here, at all?
Senator Creighton: I've read several over the years, Senator Miles. I haven't read, I don't, I don't know that I can, you know, recite them or remember all of them, but I've tried to read most of them.
Senator Miles: Did any, any one of them, when you read it made the hair on your back stand up? When you've read them.
Senator Creighton: Yeah.
Senator Miles: When you've read these individually, did any of them bother you to the point that you said that's not something that we want to remember in history or something we should be proud of?
Senator Creighton: In reading of some of the manner in which the, the monuments are inscribed it, it did make me proud that you and I have worked together to balance history in a positive way since you and I both came in, in the Legislature in '07, to bring monuments forward so that this walk through the Capitol complex would allow for the right kind of education and the right kind of overall depiction of just where we've gone as a state, where we were in our past, what beliefs were back then, and where you and I are now, standing together, working together, and, and making sure we travel forward in a way that's good for, for our kids and in a better walk through time that we experience on these Capitol grounds as we brought new monuments to balance history in a positive way.
Senator Miles: I agree with you, Senator Creighton. Since 2007 as we came in as classmates, you and I have done some good work together, and we've strived to be better than our ancestors. But it's not going to negate the fact that some of our ancestors didn't have this relationship that you and I have. We can't deny that. We can't deny that in the history of Texas there was a time when you and I couldn't sit face to face or I couldn't challenge you on the questions that I'm challenging you on this Senate floor today. There was a time I would go to jail for challenging you as I'm challenging you today in this diplomatic environment. That's not something we should be proud of, so I agree, you and I are moving forward and, and being better than our ancestors. But let's address the issue that we have on hand right now. Okay? And the issue that we have on hand right now is the Capitol complex. There's a building named after William Travis, LBJ, and Sam Houston. The historical significance is clear for those individuals. The building housing our Legislative Council at the State Auditor's office is named after Robert Johnson. You familiar with that building?
Senator Creighton: Yes.
Senator Miles: You familiar with Robert Johnson?
Senator Creighton: I'm familiar with the building. Not--
Senator Miles: Are you familiar--
Senator Creighton: --not--
Senator Miles: --with--
Senator Creighton: --as familiar--
Senator Miles: --the person it's named after?
Senator Creighton: –not as familiar with the person--
Senator Miles: So, I can't ask you what significance, historical significance that Robert Johnson had to the State of Texas.
Senator Creighton: You can, you can explain it to me, though, Senator Miles. I'll, I'll understand the point.
Senator Miles: I don't, I can't, I'm still looking for the historical significance of Robert Johnson for his name to be on that building.
Senator Creighton: There, there's a--
Senator Miles: Let me finish, please--
Senator Creighton: Go ahead, you bet.
Senator Miles: --Senator. In this Chamber we have a lot of portraits on the walls. Some we all know like LBJ and Barbara Jordan. Some are less well known like Alfonso Steele, the last survivor of the Battle of San Jacinto. Are there portraits in this Chamber that you don't think meet the qualification of historical significance? Are there any that you don't think meets it? Are you comfortable with everybody that's on the walls--
Senator Creighton: These, these--
Senator Miles: –in this Chamber?
Senator Creighton: –these portraits and, and all that is found in this Chamber were, were decided a long time ago.
Senator Miles: I understand that, are you comfortable, have you--
Senator Creighton: From a--
Senator Miles: --do you know--
Senator Creighton: --from, from a--
Senator Miles: --the history of--
Senator Creighton: --from a com--
Senator Miles: --each one of them?
Senator Creighton: –from a comfort--
Senator Miles: And are you comfortable with them?
Senator Creighton: –from a comfort standpoint, I understand why some of these portraits are uncomfortable.
Senator Miles: You understand why?
Senator Creighton: The best I can. I mean I, I don't live in your shoes so all I can do is understand history.
Senator Miles: You don't live in my shoes, Senator Creighton, but you and I going to work together to make things better.
Senator Creighton: Absolutely.
Senator Miles: Correct?
Senator Creighton: So, the walk, as we walk through this Chamber, and you mentioned the Civil Rights leaders and, and the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on my side of the floor, I think that that is a, you know, those were powerful additions, but I can't speak to the, the way that certain portraits were--
Senator Miles: Well, let me give you a little bit--
Senator Creighton: --were--
Senator Miles: --let me share with you a little bit then.
Senator Creighton: --placed.
Senator Miles: Because I see your position, so let me share with you a little bit. John Reagan, Confederate postmaster, but was also the first chair of the Railroad Commission and U.S. Senator, historical significance under your explanation. Albert Sidney Johnston, behind me, was the Secretary of War for the Republic of Texas and a Confederate general, acceptable under your explanation. David Culberson, the Confederate officer but had to resign his seat in the Legislature before the war because of the opposed secession. And last, the great Jefferson Davis was President of the Confederacy and was an honored place in the Chamber right next to the very, very honorable Stephen F. Austin. I would say he's of national historical significance, but was he a significant historical person for the State of Texas in your eye?
Senator Creighton: I can't speak to why years and years and years ago any of these portraits were decided to be placed, Senator Miles. Otherwise, all I would say is it's a walk through time that is, they are all historical figures, and the balance through the Chamber, and I can see over the years how placement certainly with Ms. Jordan and with President Johnson, why those figures were placed in the Chamber but that others weren't removed because we own all of the history from all of them.
Senator Miles: You're right, Senator Creighton, and I agree as I close. You and I weren't here to approve these portraits being placed in this Chamber. I can tell you that every day people like myself and Senator West and those who have come before us walk in here and have to see the State of Texas honoring Confederate leaders. We have to deal with it. We have to accept it. It's not something that we would like to, but because we didn't have a say so in it at the time, we have to just accept it. Senator Creighton, I've known you since 2007. We're personal friends. We've fellowshipped outside of this building. We ask about our parents, each other about our mothers, each, every day we see each other, our kids. I hold a lot of respect for you and you're right you can't see it from the standpoint where I see it. But as your brother, I'm going to tell you the bill that you are carrying and that you're sponsoring on the Senate floor today is disgraceful to myself and people who have come before me, and I'd ask that you really consider some of the pain and heartache that we have to go through, ourself and some of my brothers and sisters on this floor of color, that we have to go through as it relates to our Texas history. Thank you, Mr. President.
President: Senator West.
Senator West: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Creighton, I'm going to try not to be repetitive, but I'm going to pick up where Senator Seliger left off. More specifically, I'm going to ask you to look at your bill on page 3, lines 18 through 20. I'm sorry, make that lines 16 to 17, and it deals with the, let me know when you get there.
Senator Creighton: Yes, I'm there, thank you.
Senator West: The issue concerning that you cannot remove a monument, and you define monument, a lot of portraits, memorials, or other designations, and when you say other designations, and we're going to talk about that, including a statue, portrait, plaque, seal, symbol, building name, bridge name, area name, street that honors an event or person of historic significance. And we've kind of danced around this issue of how do you determine historic significance. What's the methodology?
Senator Creighton: That the person of a historical significance would, under the terms of the bill where that provision would kick in would have been 25 years or older, so that local entity or those community leaders at that time that so determined that person was of historical significance and named a park, a bridge, a street after that individual, that would be, under their criteria, not mine.
Senator West: So then, you said that, you're saying that determining historical significance would be the job and responsibility of City of Dallas, as an example, right?
Senator Creighton: It would have been at that time, correct.
Senator West: Alright, and so, then, if for some reason the City of Dallas is now looking at repositioning, not tearing down history or erasing history, but repositioning a statue, as they have done, they would have to, under your bill, make a determination first that it met the definition of historically significant, right?
Senator Creighton: Well, first, I think they would, under my bill, they'd have to determine whether or not it was older than 25 years.
Senator West: Well, right, you're right about that.
Senator Creighton: And then after that, you're correct, it would be certainly determining whether or not it was a historical figure or a name in question.
Senator West: No, that's not what I said, a person of historic significance. If the city decides it's not a person of historic significance, then this definition wouldn't apply, is that correct?
Senator Creighton: I'm not so sure. I mean, it's not saying whether or not history depicts them as significant, it's just saying, I think, whether or not a reasonable person would agree that at the time of the naming of that individual's park, street, or area, structure, whatever it may be, that that person played a role in history, which is pretty broad definition.
Senator West: Where does it say, at the time, in your bill?
Senator Creighton: Well, the distinction between 25 years or older, so it would obviously not have been a legislative decision on if that park was named after a historically significant person, it would've been local community leaders. As Senator Miles and I, in our exchange, talked about, Representative Coleman's father and how back at that time, there were leaders that probably led an effort to name--
Senator West: No, I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying, where in your bill does it say that? You make a distinction between 25 years and older, but are you saying that just because that distinction makes the determination of historical significance, or does it make a distinction in terms of removal?
Senator Creighton: It would be subjective to the criteria they used back then to determine, but I'm sure it's whether or not a reasonable person would think that person played a role in history and then otherwise, it's local leaders that would lead the effort to name a structure or a street or park after that person.
Senator West: So, you're saying that it's prima facie that if it was, if you had a statue over 25 years old, then it's prima facie that that person was of historical, quote, unquote, significance.
Senator Creighton: Yes, I understand why you're focused on the word significance and what that means. I understand--
Senator West: Yeah, exactly.
Senator Creighton: --from a legal perspective, you know, how that could be manipulated or argued, or--
Senator West: I don't know whether it could be, I'm not talking about manipulation, I'm talking about a reading of the statute. If someone has to now, if this becomes law, which I hope it doesn't, I'm going to try to make sure it doesn't, but if it does, then someone reads this and they would say, well, okay, the person was not of historical significance. And their interpretation would be based on what they thought about the particular person. You understand what I'm saying? So, it would be an interpretation that would have to take place by a municipality or a county in this instance.
Senator Creighton: I believe it'd be pretty hard to argue around the fact significance, whether that's positive significance or negative, that they played a role in history, which is a pretty broad, you know, term or definition, it would be hard to exclude.
Senator West: Okay, and I want to go down that road in a few minutes. In terms of, in the same area, you talk about other designation. Isn't that pretty vague? When you define monument and memorials, you say, or other designation. What does that mean?
Senator Creighton: Uh, marker?
Senator West: Well, don't you think you should be more specific in terms of other designation, because that's kind of vague, don't you agree?
Senator Creighton: Well, there's like, there's a, you know, a survey marker that's of stone that is located in Montgomery County that just signifies the date and the location in which Montgomery County was established as the third county created in the State of Texas and that would be a marker--
Senator West: I mean, that's fine. I understand that, but--
Senator Creighton: --that would be a marker other than monument or--
Senator West: Okay, but again, there's not specificity, in terms of what other designation. Let me tell you why that's important.
Senator Creighton: Sure.
Senator West: The reason it's important is because you waive sovereign immunity under this particular bill. And so, by waiving sovereign immunity, the state or a governmental entity that decides to do something under this particular bill could, in fact, be held liable. You give the Attorney General the ability to file lawsuit as for a declaratory judgment or an injunctive relief, and then you provide for a pretty hefty penalty each and every day. So, given that, don't you think that there should be specificity in terms of what the definition of monumental memorial is?
Senator Creighton: I think it's a valid point. I certainly respect the point, Senator West. I think it, ultimately the bill allows for a process for a judge to make that determination and--
Senator West: Have to go to court. I thought we didn't like a bunch of lawsuits in this body.
Senator Creighton: Alright, you know, access to court is very important, access to grievances and to the courts is always a high priority. And so, no one likes lawsuits, but when you need a lawyer, thank God for them, right?
Senator West: Well, again, I think that's, when you have that particular vague language in there, I think you're inviting a lawsuit in this particular area.
Senator Creighton: I appreciate the point.
Senator West: Let's talk about, are you familiar, Sir, and I need to follow up now with my colleague Senator Miles. You know, two African Americans in this body, okay, and you know the history of Texas and other Confederate states. But I want to make certain that we don't leave this floor without recognizing what that history is and the importance of that history as we deal with this particular issue. Let's talk about it for a second. Now, you would agree with me that, quote, unquote, under your definition, monuments and memorials over 25 years, that's where you find most of your Confederate monuments and memorials, is that correct, over 25 years old?
Senator Creighton: Absolutely. Yes, the Confederate monuments, the Alamo monuments, the Ten Commandment monuments--
Senator West: No, I'm talking about Confederate. I'm not talking about all the, I understand, I'm talking about the Confederate monuments. We don't have any that's less than 25 years old.
Senator Creighton: That's correct.
Senator West: Okay, in your opening statements, you said that you were witnessing what was going on around the country, and more specifically, in the State of Texas, and that there was a lot of quote, unquote, movements in order to reposition monuments, specifically Confederate monuments. Are you aware, and Senator Miles pointed this out, George Bush was Governor of the State of Texas at the time that we removed from the Supreme Court a Confederate monument, were you aware of that?
Senator Creighton: Absolutely.
Senator West: Okay, and just this year, the Children of the Confederacy Creed was removed from, frankly, a wall just down from my Senate office, did you know that?
Senator Creighton: Yes, Senator Miles and I had that exchange as well, yes.
Senator West: And then two years ago, The University of Texas removed the Robert E. Lee. Is he a significant historical figure, significant?
Senator Creighton: He was significant enough for The University of Texas to place that monument originally, yes, of course.
Senator West: Okay, so it's, subjectively, The University of Texas Austin believed, just because they believed he was significant, that made it basically significant to everyone else?
Senator Creighton: Yes. This isn't about a process 25 years ago or 80 years ago or what you, have you. This is about a process for removal going forward, yeah.
Senator West: Oh, I understand what it's about.
Senator Creighton: Yeah, so I--
Senator West: I do, I do, it's probably one of the most--
Senator Creighton: --significant would've been--
Senator West: --divisive issues that we're going to have in this body, Sir.
Senator Creighton: --subjective and it's--
Senator West: But that's fine.
Senator Creighton: --this legislation's not only about removal of Confederate monuments, there's other monuments that have been removed that weren't Confederate.
Senator West: Okay, and that's great. I'm just talking about the Confederate monuments right now.
Senator Creighton: Correct.
Senator West: If you don't mind, let's kind of focus on that.
Senator Creighton: So, yes, I'm aware of the Supreme Court building--
Senator West: Alright, so do you--
Senator Creighton: --changes, yes.
Senator West: --so, then, because The University of Texas has depicted him as historically significant, then everyone else in the State of Texas should do the same thing, whether you be a university, whether you be a city, is that correct?
Senator Creighton: That's correct. And under my bill, there's also a process for balancing history, if you feel like, or the university felt like an additional monument would balance out that significance--
Senator West: So, then--
Senator Creighton: --and then contrast it, then this bill provides for a funding--
Senator West: Okay, I understand.
Senator Creighton: --process to provide that balance.
Senator West: In all due respect, I understand what you're saying, though, okay. I'm just trying to, because time is tight, we agreed upon a certain amount of time, so I'm just trying to get my questions answered. So, if the City of Dallas decides that Robert E. Lee is not historically significant, then they would, in fact, or Austin, whatever city, they would, in fact, be in violation of your bill if it becomes law, is that correct?
Senator Creighton: No, because the City of Dallas would be afforded a public vote on exactly that--
Senator West: Well, let me be--
Senator Creighton: --and with that public vote, the right of the people to speak would be within the spirit of the intention of the bill itself, and that's powerful, right?
Senator West: That's a great question, great answer. So, if the city council of Dallas, under current law decides whatever process they decide to use, citizen input, I know we have plenty of citizen input in Dallas on this, if the city council makes the decision, under current law, then they'd be in violation of your bill, correct? If they decide that Robert E. Lee is not a quote, unquote, historic, significantly historic figure, then they'd be in violation of your bill, would they not?
Senator Creighton: If the bill passed, correct. Yeah, the public would be allowed to vote and if the public rejected--
Senator West: Oh, I understand that.
Senator Creighton: --the signifi-- if the public rejected the city council's initiative, then the second choice would be to erect a General Grant or a Lincoln or a--
Senator West: Sure, I understand. I understand all that.
Senator Creighton: --an MLK--
Senator West: And they can do all that.
Senator Creighton: --and the bill will provide a--
Senator West: So, then the question is--
Senator Creighton: --path for that process--
Senator West: --my other question to you is this, let's talk about, now, was Lee a traitor? Was he declared a traitor, historically, was he declared a traitor?
Senator Creighton: That's all subjective review of history, Senator West.
Senator West: Oh, no, no, I mean, is there--
Senator Creighton: I mean, I've got to get more than eight words out. I promise, then, I'll have more than 15.
Senator West: Alright, I'll give you 10. I'll give you 10.
Senator Creighton: Alright. So, I'll keep it to 15 words, but I got to get past eight.
Senator West: Go to 20.
Senator Creighton: Okay, my opinion, which is truly subjective as well, I mean, anybody's opinion would be important to me on this floor, but at the time, there were opinions that he was and was not a traitor. Today, he would be considered one, but at the time, people thought differently on, you know, standing up for your state and then country second. Some people thought stand for your country and state second. And because Lee chose Virginia first, you know, history will depict him as they will. And you and I both know that if a Robert E. Lee did that today, the word you used, traitor, would be the label he would receive, but you and I both know, as well, as history played out under Republican and Democrat presidents, McKinley and Eisenhower, and those that gave a widow's pension to Confederate war veterans and gave a veterans' cemetery, a national veteran cemetery burial to those same, that those, to me, indicate, in reviewing history--
Senator West: Can I get a word in there?
Senator Creighton: --that those that followed him a hundred years later and both parties didn't feel like he was a traitor.
Senator West: Alright, so, now, do you believe, Sir, the reality is, is that the United States of America back then declared him and other veterans of the Confederacy traitors, okay. It was subsequently changed. It was subsequently changed in order to bring the country back together. Hold on a second. And then also, he was stripped of his citizenship. Were you aware of that?
Senator Creighton: That's why I mentioned President McKinley, because as Confederate veterans fought in the Spanish-American War--
Senator West: The question was not--
Senator Creighton: --that we can still erase--
Senator West: --the question was whether you wer-- I'm just asking were you aware of that, Sir?
Senator Creighton: --wher-- that reconciliation began to happen.
Senator West: I was just asking whether you were aware of that.
President: Members, we want one at a time, alright. Thank you.
Senator Creighton: I know I am aware that--
Senator West: Okay, and so--
Senator Creighton: --that when, that when General Lee surrendered, President, I mean, General Grant, his first comment was, those rebels are now again our countrymen. And I know that the people at the time began the process of healing as fast as they could and others, you know, it was a lot, lot slower long road. Like I mentioned, we all have our different depictions of history, but the word you used, traitor, I can't speak to that, other than people thought differently then. If that happened today, he would be considered one.
Senator West: Okay, but again, I'm just, you know, it's not my word, it's history's word, okay.
Senator Creighton: As it is for George Washington--
Senator West: Well, let me, can I finish this, can I finish?
Senator Creighton: --and like it is for William B. Travis and as it is for these leaders.
Senator West: It was, it was not my word, it's history's word.
Senator Creighton: That's right.
Senator West: Okay. And, yes, in order to bring the country back together again, it's my belief that a decision was made by the U.S. government not to declare them traitors but to bring them back into the fold, okay. Even if, and, Senator, we've got to go down this road, this book right here contains the original, the original, I've got to be real careful with it, yeah, please. This is the original Journal from the State of Texas when it wanted to secede, 1861 is when this was printed, okay. And, and again, I want to focus, Members, on the fact–be careful with that because that's an original, alright–that after the war, we attempted to bring the country back together. And some of the words, in terms of the convention to secede when Texas in 1845 decided to join the rest of the Confederate states. Here's some of the words in there, and on page 64, you need to look at: We hold as undeniable truths that governments of various states, and of the Confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightly held and regarded as inferior and dependent race, and in that condition, only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial–check this out–or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these states, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind–and listen to this part–and the revealed will of the almighty creator, as recognized by Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and the desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. That's just a part of it. Senator Creighton, the Journal is replete with these types of references. The state back then used almighty God, almighty God as a reason in order to secede and to maintain slavery of happenly African Americans. And so, when you getting to think about this particular angle, on and on, there's several other pieces, but I know others want to speak to this issue. I would think, Sir, that what we should be doing is trying to bring together like we did yesterday. But what you're doing now is basically saying that you want to substitute our judgment here at the Legislature for local communities. Think about this. The cities that you're complaining of right now are basically urban cities. You know what the common denominator is, the common denominator is, is those city councils, commissioners courts, et cetera, are more diverse now. They're more diverse. And so, people of different backgrounds are now having input into the decision-making process that they heretobefore didn't have. Something else I want to point to you, most of these monuments 25 years ago were authorized by Democrats. And Republicans were on the side of free men, African Americans. So, it's not a party issue. Democrats did this a long time ago. But what I say to you today is that these various bodies that have more diversity should be in a position to be able to make those decisions. And if they make the wrong decision, then, just as they got elected, they can be rejected.
Senator Creighton: And under Republican governance, we took the plaque down and under Republican governance, we erected the Latino monument and the African American monument. So, we are working together in a way as we step forward on this walk and this journey. We own, we own the history that you brought to me just now. I'm just simply saying we need to own it outright. And then we need to continue to walk and continue on that journey and continue to learn from it, so that everybody can be educated correctly and so we never, you know, make mistakes with our opinions or our judgment, or it's recalibrated in a way that would only come from hiding it or erasing it or removing it.
Senator West: Let me also go back to the Civil War. Do you realize, Sir, that we had more Americans, be they Confederate or otherwise, killed during the Civil War than almost all of the deaths that we've had of our brilliant, brave men and women in the military in history. And the point I'm, the reason I bring that point out to you is because I want you to recognize how much passion, that's a bad word, I shouldn't say it that way, but how divisive this issue was and how brothers fought against one another for, to maintain slave rights, state rights over people of color. I mean, that's what it was. I mean, look at history. Some people say this is about state rights. Yes, it was about states' rights, Senator Bettencourt, in order to make certain that they could maintain a slave industry, okay. And some of the people around here on these walls had slaves. I'm not going to point with specificity to them, but I think all of us know. And some of them were brutal towards slaves. But yet and still today, what we do on this floor, knowing the history of, frankly, the rationale between, about this particular bill, to say that we need to pass a bill that won't allow, I said it in the negative, cities to determine the significance, historical significance of these people. And I'm just trying to figure out, knowing that background, why would you want to do that?
Senator Creighton: Well, I understand that those beliefs that you mentioned, and those are not our beliefs now, and as those secession documents that you brought to me, you know, as painful as those are to read, we also know that Sam Houston stood against that effort, he stood against--
Senator West: Right, he did.
Senator Creighton: --what was found in that document, and he lost his support of the public and lost his election afterwards because he stood for it, and this bill--
Senator West: That's right.
Senator Creighton: --provides a process for protecting Sam Houston monuments.
Senator West: Well, out of all due respect, who, who is it protecting it from?
Senator Creighton: Oh, it's been, it's definitely been proposed and considered in and around the Houston area, Senator West, to remove Sam Houston monuments–
Senator West: Okay–
Senator Creighton: –right or wrong–
Senator West: –I'm sorry.
Senator Creighton: –right or wrong, that those considerations and those proposals have been brought forward, so that's why a process that would allow you and I to work together in a way that would consider this subject going forward is a good process. This conversation is a healthy process.
Senator West: Oh, no, I agree with you. I think we should have this conversation.
Senator Creighton: And I think that we're all better for it.
Senator West: Well--
Senator Creighton: And I understand what you mean by local control and the point you made, is why do I feel like that we should impose restrictions on cities, and we talked about that a lot this session and there's--
Senator West: We sure have.
Senator Creighton: --there's many more things that we do not impose on cities as political subdivisions of the state than we do, but what we are talking about here is allowing the public, with older monuments, the public that lives in those cities to have a voice and not just the councilman of the day or a two-term member that has an idea that might be palatable politically for that time, but the public would have a say in that vote, as the public would be able to come into this building if we have a Capitol complex change considered and testify in our hearings.
Senator West: Okay, now, let's talk about how, let's talk about that for a second. Did the public have input into drafting this particular bill?
Senator Creighton: Well, we drafted this legislation during the special session of last session. I didn't get a hearing. When the bill was refiled this session, the public's input was allowed during the hearings process.
Senator West: Did you reach out to any of the cities that have experienced issues with whether to take down or to leave up statues to get input?
Senator Creighton: We visited with representatives of the delegations from those cities, yes.
Senator West: You visit with me about this?
Senator Creighton: No, representatives from the local cities themselves that were sent to lobby on behalf of the cities. People that were hired to represent the cities' viewpoint.
Senator West: But you never did have any hearings or anything like that. I mean, given the explosive nature, Senator Creighton, of this particular bill, and you knew that there was going to be a lot of compassion concerning this bill or passion concerning this bill, excuse me. Would it not have been more feasible to, given the fact that it wasn't recognized during the special session, to spend some time in some of the urban centers that understand exactly what they thought would be the best solution for this bill so it would, truth be, in fact, a joint effort between Democrats and Republicans?
Senator Creighton: Well, and I appreciate the suggestion and the idea behind it. I mean, the hearings process itself, the meetings we had in our offices, and we, let me tell you, we had a very robust and thorough hearing in my opinion, in Senator Birdwell's committee, and all Members were welcome to join. All Members were welcome to testify. All Members were welcome to sit in on the dais, and, but with that being the case, and everyone's busy and everyone has different agendas and time frames and committees and places they have to be. I think the vetting process for the legislation by Members that are from big metropolitan areas, I think they were thorough.
Senator West: This was the same hearing where someone that was real passionate about the Confederacy used the N-word? Is that the same hearing?
Senator Creighton: That's the hearing, yes. And I sent a letter to that individual's house. I've never done it in 12 years of being in the Legislature. I sent a letter to that individual, which I have on my desk, denouncing that rhetoric and telling him--
Senator West: Person was, that person wasn't thrown out of the hearing, though, was he? Was he allowed to stay there?
Senator Creighton: The person was the last person, and from my understanding, to testify, and I believe Senator Zaffirini had the gavel at the time and excused him right then.
Senator West: Okay, and so, again, the reality is that's how explosive this particular legislation is, Sir, okay. And again, you have your right. I will defend your right to present your bill, okay. But I think you do a disservice to Texas, in terms of this particular bill, because the reality is some of the individuals that you would say are of historical significance, today would be labeled terrorist in America. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Senator Creighton: That would be just my opinion and yours, Senator West. I mean, I mentioned before, the word, as you mentioned the word traitor before, actions back then were different than how we would think if that were instigated today and how our definitions and the way that we would talk today. For instance, back then, it, the common verbiage was just, in general terms, the United States are a republic. Today, we would say, a hundred times out of a hundred, the United States is a republic. There's just different beliefs back then and what is and is not a breach of acceptable standards, and I can't be, I can't speak to that, or I can't be responsible for that. All I can do is work together with you for a balanced process going forward.
Senator West: Well, this is, if you want to work together with Senator Miles and myself, this is not the way to go about doing it. This is what I would say to you, if you decide to pull this bill down, I don't mind working during the interim with you to go around the State of Texas in order to try to get a true sense of what people think needs to be done in order to address these issues. That's what I would do and we would truly be working together if we did that, Senator. What do you think about that?
Senator Creighton: I respect the suggestion, and I don't prefer to pull the bill down, but what I will commit to is this is statute. And every two years we consider and we reconsider statute, and what I will commit to is I will come to your district and I will sit with stakeholders that you deem appropriate in your district, and I will work with you through the interim, committed to continuing to improve the framework that we set forward, and I'll do that.
Senator West: Well, you know, it would seem as though--
Senator Creighton: But I won't pull the bill down today, thank you.
Senator West: --it's opposite of you, you have a right to do that, but in terms of good faith, it would be a lot of good faith if you decided to, if you truly feel strongly about resolving this issue and you want bipartisan participation. And I agree that we need to come up with something, but I'd like to have input into the decision-making process and allow people that I represent. You know, and see, again, Senator, you're not, not walking in my shoes or Senator Miles' shoes. We now have African Americans that are sitting on city councils that can raise issues. We now have Hispanics that can do the same thing, and guess what, there's going to be more and more Latinos and African Americans working with Anglos and Asians that will be serving on city councils and, ultimately, here in this legislative body. And so, in terms of having input into the process and making a good faith effort to involve everyone, I think I would recommend, given what this is truly about, that you pull it down, and let's work together on trying to get something done.
Senator Creighton: Senator West, I celebrate with you the diversity on our city councils and the representation and membership that's in place today. That very representation and that diversity is reflective of the diversity of the constituency they serve, and because the diversity of the constituency they serve, the public referendum vote I have built into the bill will reflect in that public referendum vote the will and the voice of the diversity of the constituents that are in those cities. And so, with that, the outcome will be owned by the people, and that is the framework that, as I've worked on this bill a couple of years, I had hoped to always foster that inclusive framework and to make sure that as the House author has worked several years on the bill, I don't think that I can consider pulling it down because there's been so much time in the process included, but I will work with you afterwards for any necessary changes following that are needed.
Senator West: Well, I'm not going to prolong this discussion. Again, Senator, I wish you would pull it down, and I give you my word that I will work with you over the interim to try to perfect the bill. But, you know, it's your bill and you have the option to not pull the bill down, and I have the option to vote against it, which I plan on doing.
Senator Creighton: Thank you, Senator West. You're a class act.