Bill requiring air conditioning in all Texas prisons wins preliminary House approval
Lawmakers passed 89-43 House Bill 3006 by Terry Canales, D-Edinburg. If the Legislature or the federal government allocates funding, it will require the installation of climate control in phases to be completed by the end of 2032. The bill must go through one more round of approval in the House before it can clear its last hurdle in the Senate.
'The bill targets key housing units and medical spaces, kitchens, and administrative offices in state prison facilities to ensure the most critical spaces are temperature-controlled,' said
Rep. Eddie Morales Jr., D-Eagle Pass, a co-sponsor of the bill, told lawmakers.
The bill mandates that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice purchase and install climate control systems to ensure temperatures are maintained between 65 and 85 degrees in certain areas. The installation will occur in three phases, capped at $100 million per phase, and completion is set for 2028, 2030 and 2032.
This session, four prison heat-related bills filed by House members have been referred to the House Corrections Committee: HB 1315, HB 2997, HB 3006, and HB 489. However, Canales' bill was the only one to make it out of committee.
Officials from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which oversees the state's 101 prison facilities, asked lawmakers for $118 million over the next biennium to install air conditioning in about 11,000 units. Even if lawmakers grant that request, millions more will be needed to get to the at least $1.1 billion the TDCJ says will be needed to fully air condition its prisons.
Since the House Corrections Committee wrote in its 2018 interim report to the Legislature that TDCJ's heat mitigation efforts were not enough to ensure the well-being of inmates and the correctional officers who work in prisons, lawmakers have tried to pass bills that would require the agency to install air conditioning. None of those bills made it to the governor's desk.
During that time, TDCJ has been slowly installing air conditioning. The department also has added 11,788 'cool beds' and is in the process of procuring about 12,000 more. The addition is thanks to $85.5 million state lawmakers appropriated during the last legislative session. Although not earmarked for air conditioning, an agency spokesperson said all of that money is being used to cool more prisons.
Still, about two-thirds of Texas' prison inmates reside in facilities that are not fully air conditioned in housing areas. Indoor temperatures routinely top 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and inmates report oppressive, suffocating conditions in which they douse themselves with toilet water in an attempt to cool off. Hundreds of inmates have been diagnosed with heat-related illnesses, court records state, and at least two dozen others have died from heat-related causes.
The pace at which the state is installing air conditioning is insufficient, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman wrote in a 91-page decision in late March. The lack of system-wide air conditioning violates the U.S. Constitution, and the prison agency's plan to slowly chip away at cooling its facilities — over an estimated timeline of at least 25 years — is too slow, he wrote.
Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said in an emailed statement that the supplemental appropriations bill will include the $118 million TDCJ requested to fund approximately 11,000 new air-conditioned beds. It also will include $301 million to construct additional dorms — which the prison agency requested to accommodate its growing prison population — and those new facilities will all be air-conditioned.
An internal investigation also found that TDCJ has falsified temperatures, and an investigator hired by the prison agency concluded that some of the agency's temperature logs are false. Citing that report, Pitman wrote 'The Court has no confidence in the data TDCJ generates and uses to implement its heat mitigation measures and record the conditions within the facilities.'
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats accuse GOP of racism in proposed Texas map
House Democrats are hammering President Trump and GOP leaders for their effort to redraw the congressional map in Texas, accusing the Republicans of 'rigging' the system to keep a grip on power — and purposefully disenfranchising millions of minority voters in the process. 'The truth of the matter is: Somebody has to have the courage to say that it's racism,' Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, told reporters in Austin on Thursday morning. 'Unfortunately, we have grown to the point in this country where you can use racism against people of color, but people of color can't respond and say, 'That's racism.'' The outcry comes in response to a proposed congressional map unveiled on Wednesday by Texas Republicans at Trump's urging. The new lines, if approved, are designed to flip at least five Democratic seats to the GOP, making it much harder for Democrats to seize control of the lower chamber in next year's midterm elections. The Trump administration, in pushing Texas GOP leaders to redraw the lines, argued the change is needed because the current map gives favor to Black and Latino voters in ways that are illegal. In a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, urged state Republicans 'to rectify these race-based considerations.' The Democratic critics dismissed that argument as projection, saying the current lines — drawn by Texas state Republicans just four years ago — already give disproportionate voice to white voters, and the newly proposed districts would only exacerbate that lopsided power dynamic. 'Black and brown communities will suffer the most. They're getting torn up across the state,' said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas). 'In the last few decades, the overwhelming majority of growth in the state of Texas has come from Latino and African American communities. And yet the number of seats that have been drawn to serve those communities has stayed flat or shrunk. 'And so there is racism to this.' The proposed Texas map targets Democrats in the state's largest cities — Houston, Dallas and Austin — as well as those on the U.S.-Mexico border. Two of those border-district Democrats — Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez — represent regions won by Trump last year. The Democratic critics of the plan are quick to note that Republicans already control 25 of Texas's 38 seats in the U.S. House — an advantage aided by the lines drawn by Republicans in 2021. They say GOP leaders have to 'cheat' to stay in power because the Republicans' policy agenda — including the sharp Medicaid cuts Trump signed into law earlier this month — are unpopular with voters. 'Politicians who don't want to face the consequences of their votes and their choices can't just change the rules of the game in the middle of it,' Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) said. 'Texas already has the most racially gerrymandered congressional map in the country, and it's important to know that of Texas's 38 congressional districts — in a state with a majority-minority population, where the population of the state is more than 60 percent minority — only 13 districts allow voters of color to regularly and consistently elect their candidate of choice. And this new map cuts that number down to just eight.' In years past, the Democratic critics could have leaned on the minority protections provided by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which had required certain states to get federal pre-approval before changing election rules. The law had applied on a blanket basis to nine states, including Texas, with documented histories of racial discrimination. That landmark law was weakened in 2013, when conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down the decades-old formula dictating which regions are subject to the additional layer of scrutiny. Twelve years later, Republicans are seeking new ways to eliminate the remaining VRA protections. Despite the challenges, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said he's hopeful the courts will strike down Texas's proposed map on the grounds that it discriminates against minority voters. 'The current map violates the law,' he said in Austin on Thursday, 'and this congressional map will double and triple down on the extreme racial gerrymandering that is silencing the voices of millions of Texans.'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
From Power Of The Purse To Power Of The President
During the first six months of the Trump presidency, an assertive executive branch has wrested some budgetary power from Congress. Whether this trend continues is an open question, but it is unfolding against a backdrop of now-standard disagreement and dysfunction over how to fund the government for the coming fiscal year. The White House has capitalized on procedural ambiguities and executive tools to assert greater control over spending decisions—raising legal and constitutional questions and the stakes of future budget showdowns. To be sure, the administration has achieved notable success in advancing its fiscal agenda, including: While the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, this authority does not constitute a legislative monopoly over fiscal matters. The executive branch plays a vital role in administering appropriated funds. As I have written previously, the Trump administration appears determined to expand that role—at times in ways that raise legal concerns. They have used tactics to delay, cancel, and otherwise not spend funds provided by law. The full impact of those actions may not be clear until the current fiscal year ends and agency chief financial officers issue financial statements. Still, the persistent risk of unilateral funding decisions—and the use of arguably unlawful 'pocket rescissions'—may prompt Congress to reassert its budgetary powers as the scope of such practices becomes more apparent. Sharing Budgetary Power Through Impoundment Controls Like other legislation, appropriations bills—whether standalone measures, omnibus packages, or continuing resolutions—are considered and passed by Congress and then sent to the president for approval or veto. Once enacted, the president assumes the constitutional duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. The process of obligating and disbursing funds is referred to as budget execution. Much of the framework governing budget execution is rooted in the power of the purse statutes: the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Antideficiency Act. I've written previously about the 1974 Act's impoundment controls, which outline a lawful process for the president to delay or withhold spending of appropriated funds. Despite President Trump's views that impoundment controls represent an unconstitutional constraint on executive authority, those statutory procedures were followed earlier this year when the White House proposed and the Republican-led Congress enacted a rescission package aimed at reducing funding for USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Whether the executive branch will formally submit additional rescissions or resort to pocket rescissions in the final weeks of FY 2025 remains to be seen. The Other Power Of The Purse Statute Budget execution is guided by the Antideficiency Act, prohibiting federal agencies and employees from incurring financial obligations without explicit legal authorization. Dating back to 1870, the law is designed to enforce constitutional separation of powers, ensuring that Congress—not the executive branch—controls how taxpayer dollars are spent. It has been amended and reinterpreted over time. For example, at the end of the Carter administration, then–Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a pair of legal memos from the Department of Justice (DOJ) offering a narrow definition of the types of government activities that could continue during a lapse in appropriations. Along with subsequent DOJ guidance issued in 1995 clarifying the scope of emergency exceptions, the memos have served as the foundational legal framework for shutdowns. Since 1981, agencies have generally been barred from obligating funds beyond what has been appropriated or from entering into contracts before appropriations are enacted. Agencies are also prohibited from accepting voluntary services or employing staff, except for activities involving emergencies related to the safety of human life or the protection of property. Unlike the impoundment control features of the 1974 act, the Antideficiency Act includes significant administrative and criminal penalties for willful violations, ensuring a high degree of compliance. Nevertheless, as discussed in a 2024 paper by Eloise Pasachoff, different administrations have taken inconsistent and sometimes legally questionable approaches to keep parts of the government open during funding lapses. And there is no reliable way for courts, Congress, or the public to assess the legality of these decisions due to the short duration of shutdowns and a lack of transparency. Could Government Shutdown Rules Be Revisited? Before the DOJ memos, agencies generally operated under the assumption that they could remain open during temporary funding gaps, based on the belief that Congress did not intend for a government shutdown to result from routine delays in appropriations. While nonessential activities—such as hiring or discretionary travel—were curtailed, core operations typically continued. Then–Comptroller General Elmer Staats supported that approach, arguing that the Antideficiency Act was meant to prevent overspending and unauthorized commitments, not to bring government functions to a halt. In his view, congressional intent did not support a complete cessation of agency activity during short-term funding lapses. The DOJ memos effectively created the modern concept of a government shutdown by requiring agencies to halt all non-excepted operations and furlough employees during a funding hiatus, under threat of legal penalties. Notwithstanding the plain language of the Antideficiency Act, another administration could conceivably revisit the memos to reinterpret the scope of executive branch authority to guide shutdown operations and keep favored programs and policy priorities operational while shuttering activities deemed less important. Congress has made some progress on FY 2026 appropriations, but the risk of a full or partial shutdown remains. Lawmakers engaged in high-stakes budget negotiations should recognize the potential consequences of ceding discretion over government operations to President Trump—particularly given his demonstrated willingness push the boundaries of emergency powers and other executive tools. A failure to complete on-time appropriations could once again see the balance of budgetary powers swing toward the executive branch. A future shutdown might not only be a fiscal standoff but a test case for reimagining the structure—and constitutional boundaries—of shutdown governance itself.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Jeb Bush is wrong about charters. They are gutting Florida's public schools
Former Gov. Jeb Bush recently praised, in a Miami Herald opinion article, Florida's expanding charter school and 'Schools of Hope' programs as bold education reform. But what he describes as courageous and innovative is, in truth, part of a coordinated, well-funded campaign to defund and depopulate traditional public schools — not to improve them, but to replace them with privately managed institutions operating with public dollars. As a Miami-Dade school teacher, I believe that behind the narrative of 'choice,' 'accountability' and 'innovation' lies a troubling reality: a strategy to dismantle public education and convert it into a profit-driven marketplace. These outcomes in Florida are not accidental — they result from deliberate policy choices designed to shift control away from democratically governed schools and into the hands of private operators. While traditional public schools follow strict transparency laws and financial reporting standards, charter schools are exempt from many of these requirements — even though they receive public funds. This double standard allows charter operators to profit from taxpayer dollars while shielding their operations from scrutiny. Bush points to 'persistently low performing' schools in Florida as justification for charter takeovers. But he ignores the fact that many traditional schools in low-income communities — despite chronic underfunding — have earned consecutive 'A' grades under Florida's punitive grading system. Rather than celebrate these successes, the Florida Legislature has withheld resources, expanded vouchers and rewritten rules to tip the scales against public schools. This is not reform — it's a campaign of forced failure, designed to create a false narrative that public schools are broken and must be handed over to private actors. It is nothing but a hostile takeover of a vital public good for private gain. Bush also cites declining public school enrollment as a reason to grant charters access to taxpayer-funded buildings. But this trend is no accident. It's the result of deliberate policies: Florida's universal voucher scheme, for-profit virtual schools and aggressive charter expansion have siphoned students and dollars out of public schools. When enrollment drops by design, schools are labeled 'underutilized' or 'surplus,' paving the way for their buildings to be handed over to private entities. It's a manufactured crisis with real consequences. Public schools also serve critical community functions that charters do not. They act as hurricane shelters, polling sites and hubs for vital services. These are not just schools — they are the backbone of community life. What's too often ignored is that many charter schools in Florida are run by for-profit Education Management Organizations (EMOs). These companies receive public tax dollars but operate with little accountability. Though labeled as public, they are privately managed, profit-driven institutions. Their goal isn't to serve every child — it's to reduce costs, maximize revenue and grow market share. Public dollars are flowing into private hands while communities lose control. Charter expansion is often marketed as 'parental choice.' But without information, there is no real choice — only manipulation. Many families are selecting schools without knowing whether they meet standards for safety, certified staff, special education or curriculum. Despite charter schools push to divert students, most Florida families still choose traditional public schools, including magnet and choice programs. That speaks volumes: families still believe in public education. It's up to policymakers to stop undermining it. This isn't just a Florida issue — it's part of a global playbook: starve public schools, declare them broken, then privatize under the banner of 'reform.' The winners are corporations, investors and real estate developers. Florida is the model. If we don't push back, the rest of the nation could follow. Here are some suggestions: Florida needs to tie public funds to public oversight, ban for-profit school operators, preserve public ownership of school buildings and protect the civic role of public schools. Crystal Etienne is a Miami-Dade school teacher and president of EDUVOTER, a nonprofit organization committed to protecting and strengthening Florida's traditional public schools.
