State Rep. David Spiller Talks Data Centers, Border Policy, and the House Speakership - Episode 39

State Rep. David Spiller joins Brad Johnson for a stint in Waffle House to discuss top issues of the day, including data centers, transmission lines, and the next steps on border policy.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:08

Hello everyone, this is Brad Johnson, uh co-founder and reporter at Texas Bullpen, coming to you live from Waffle House, not our usual location, which is our office on Congress Avenue in Austin. Uh, but today we have someone who is uh taking one for the team, helping me get through this crucible of a uh bet I have placed myself in. State rep David Spiller is joining us. David, welcome. Glad to be here.

SPEAKER_02 0:36

I was happy to drive four hours uh to be here to help you out. So that's not true. It got rained on, but uh of course we were we were most of the way there anyway. We went to the uh parade they had Spring Ho, uh, which is a major event, annual event at Lampasa, one of my counties. So we were there this morning and we're heading to San Antonio, so I said, hey, let's stop and yeah, help Brett out.

SPEAKER_01 0:58

I worked out, and I'm glad you're here. I would try and force you to eat a waffle, but I doubt you're uh pining for one of those.

SPEAKER_02 1:04

You know, I love Waffles and I love Waffle House. Um I've been a fan of Waffle House for a long time. And I this is not a paid advertisement. But I I have loved Waffle House. In fact, I think years ago, Anthony Bourdain, when he did his series, did an entire episode over some Waffle House when he was in Alabama. So it was like the original Waffle House or I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 1:28

I thought that's like an Atlanta deal.

SPEAKER_02 1:30

It was the same menu. I mean, yeah. You got waffles, but you got hash browns, but you get them scattered, smothered, covered, the whole the whole deal. So yeah, it was it was fantastic.

SPEAKER_01 1:41

Well, so far I've had five, and the bet is that I have to sit in here for 24 hours and I get to knock a waffle or an hour off for every waffle I eat, and uh I've only had five. It's uh it's gonna be a long night.

SPEAKER_02 1:53

You know, I don't mean to sound critical, but uh I I really as far as 24, I I could do 24 waffles in the time frame though.

SPEAKER_01 2:04

And how short is it?

SPEAKER_02 2:04

Well certainly within 24 hours. Well yeah. Yeah, but I you know, I saw Jared Patterson put something out where for everyone you did he would donate. Uh you know, I could make Jared spend a lot of money uh on uh paying for waffles.

SPEAKER_01 2:17

Well maybe I should order a waffle right now, maybe two. Very good. Um well David, how's the how's the interim going? I mean, there's there's obviously charges to take care of and also just the election to deal with, but how's it going for you? Getting much of a break?

SPEAKER_02 2:31

Uh it's been great. Uh, and I like the interim because it's the time that you have to talk with constituents, listen to constituents, hear, hear what's important to them, uh, and help kind of develop a legislative agenda. When we finished uh the session, I would have thought hands down the most important issue was property tax relief. Um and some of that we were gonna get anyway, but it was kind of a delayed because people thought, well, you hadn't done anything. Well, that's because we have to pass a constitutional amendment or several of them to get done everything we need to get done. But in my district and the 12 rural counties that I represent, it has moved from number one probably to number three at best, uh, with number one issue being data centers and number two being 765 KV lines.

SPEAKER_01 3:18

Yeah. Uh and so those both seem to be getting caught up into the same mix, you know, or at least the 765 lines weren't really a big thing, and now are getting kind of intermixed with the data center uproar, right? Right, right.

SPEAKER_02 3:30

And and I've I've tried to stay very involved, my staff has stayed very involved with trying to stay on top of this, not only on the data center issue and data centers as it relates in certain counties, because that's not really the main issue in some counties, but it is in others that I have. Those up maybe toward the north part of the district. Because my district, as you know, goes 300 miles from one end to the other. So uh, but on the 765 KV lines, there are not one but two proposed lines coming through my district. The uh the Bell County line takes in potentially Lampasa, San Saba, and Mills County. The uh Dinosaur line takes in potentially uh Comanche, Brown, Eastland, and Shakfer counties. So, and you know, the downside of saying, hey, we want you to take more time to study this and look at it, and they come up with alternative routes, the problem is that brings more people into the mix, and some of those folks that are being potentially affected have not had the due process, have not been involved since the start, or even came in too late to even intervene. Yeah, and have a lot of people. Or even know what this is. Yeah, right. So, well, and that gets to the original concern there is why are we really even doing this? I I mean, I know we we base it on HB 5066 as their rationale for doing it from uh session ago, but the reality of it is why are we transporting power to West Texas? They've got their own power. I I've yet to have anybody explain to me why this is necessary. And I think those are some of the concerns that continue to be raised by not just myself, but some other other representatives, other senators. Uh we filed in uh on the uh on the amicus brief. Yeah. Uh and and certainly so Representative Buckley. Right. And I and I think when's the last time you saw an amicus brief joined by that many House members and senators saying, hey, wait a minute, we we've got some real questions about this process. So that continues to play out, and I'm trying to uh uh as you've said before monitor the situation, but I'm trying to uh to stay on top of that. The data center thing I've tried to be tried to learn all I can and be very involved in that process because that potentially affects all of rural Texas, um and and not in a good way because you know, rural Texas, the the counties I represent, they feel like look, we we're the we're the heart of Texas. We keep Texas red. That's a whole nother issue. But we, you know, you look to us for power, you look to us for uh for food, you look to us for textiles, you look to us for everything, our workforce, all that, and yet, you know, you want us to supply this to you, and just because it's out of sight, out of mind to you, uh means that you should we should all be okay with it, and we're not. And there need to be some safeguards, there need to be some guardrails, and I think the governor has recognized that and uh addressed some of those things, and I think there are others too, not only setbacks, siding uh uh safety, they should have their own power generation. Uh water, water is a huge issue because what's sometimes not discussed is they say, well, uh data centers are using a closed loop system. Okay, well, that's good. Number one, they're not really required to, they should be. But the other problem is that uh they have power generation for the data center. Well, those power generation are not using closed loop systems, yeah. And so that's where the water usage comes, and in many areas, not only of our state entirely, but also of rural Texas where they're looking to put these things. Uh, water is a is a huge issue or the lack thereof. And so some of these that gets into a groundwater uh discussion. Uh of my 12 counties, five uh of those twelve have are part of a groundwater conservation district, seven are not. Yeah, and so uh that's a concern as well because uh the if you don't have that, uh, and I'm not saying they have to, uh, but if these counties don't have that protection in place, it's the Wild West under rural capture, and somebody can come, a commercial person can come right up next to your property and drill wells and suck your residential wells dry, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it.

SPEAKER_00 7:51

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 7:51

So the um it's funny you mentioned the rural capture because I was reading a book about the Railroad Commission the other day, and it got brought up uh because of course that it was initially a an oil and gas rule. And you know where they got that from back in like a hundred years ago when they first pulled that into use? From English common law and determining who had hunting rights for deer jumping over property lines. Really? And they used that and decided that that sounded uh at least close enough, similarly, to uh oil, petroleum moving between moving underneath property lines underground as like some of it got pulled up, you know, it's a liquid, it's uh it gets moved around. Um so we're using a hundred-year-old law that was based on deer hunting to determine water rights.

SPEAKER_02 8:45

And to that point, in the in the oil and gas industry, uh the rule of capture has been been there for years, but it's also been tweaked in their safeguards, their spacing rules, their uh it's not applied the same as it is with water. Exactly. And it could be it'd be difficult to maybe to do that statewide without a statewide oversight, and not everybody wants that. But we've got to do something to protect our water. And water was a huge issue last session. It's gonna be just as much so this next session. We're gonna have round two of that. But in that discussion, we've got to provide protection to some of these counties that don't have that, and we need to at least have a discussion uh as it relates to data centers, is that counties. I mean, yes, we can have some statewide protections, but do we want to give counties locally the authority to better regulate outside um municipalities in the unincorporated parts of the county for 150 years? We have not. Now, there have been a few of those things that we've allowed, and there are certain things we do relative to subdivisions and things of that nature, but there's very little that counties, county governments have the authority to regulate. And I'm just saying it may be time for a discussion, at least, because I'm hearing from a lot of my counties, you know, the dilemma. They they say, okay, well, the only way we can have any control is if we do a tax abatement agreement with them and a pilot program. Well, you do that, and then are you giving away something in return to get a uh the a right or an ability that you might should have to begin with to protect your citizens? So it's just a discussion I think that we're probably gonna have that we haven't had. Um but there's some counties that quite frankly, uh how do I say this, uh, have been bad actors.

SPEAKER_01 10:29

And so maybe that's not the ones that are trying to issue moratoriums?

SPEAKER_02 10:34

Well, no, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying in other areas and certain counties uh that are larger counties that are doing some things that uh that maybe they shouldn't be. And so because of that, do we not want to we may not want to give that power to every county, or we may not want to expand the power as much as I I'm just saying we need to have that discussion. I think we're gonna have that discussion.

SPEAKER_01 10:54

So the governor laid out various items in his is it really it wasn't an executive order, just a directive to the agencies. Is that sufficient for the legislature in terms of just passing basically passing that into law, or what else do you think needs to be looked at?

SPEAKER_02 11:11

I think that's a start. Uh I think he covered a lot of those areas. I think it could be more inclusive. There are some things that that I'm hearing in my district, and particularly with water. I don't know that there was a great deal about water in that discussion. Um, and and that's because we don't really have a statewide water policy.

SPEAKER_00 11:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 11:30

Um, you know, we leave it's kind of a a hodgepodge of different rules and regulations as far as water, whether it's surface water or whether it's groundwater. So uh I understand why that was omitted, but I do think we at least need to have a discussion about some of those protections and restrictions on what data centers and the power uh plants for those data centers can do relative to water. Um so I I think that's I think that's great. The other concern is you know, we don't really pass anything unless we're in session. And so it's I appreciate the governor trying to do everything he can, but the question is what happens to those things that are that are done before we get before we get to session, and by the time we pass it, and it goes into effect. Are those folks grandfathered in? Are they exempt from those regulations? There is so much going on now and it's happening so fast, uh, and the technology is is there and is in such demand, I don't know what's gonna happen by the time you know we get there. So typically the effective date for most bills may be September 1, September 1 of next year. It's a long time. Uh what always gonna happen between now and then, and that's a concern.

SPEAKER_01 12:43

Yeah. So one of the objections I've heard is that uh okay, great, let's build thermal plants out in West Texas, and that takes a long time. And the oil and gas industry is being told that there could be rolling blackouts over the summer because of congestion problems. What do you make of that? How do we solve that problem?

SPEAKER_02 13:05

Lines uh and unless until there's another way to transmit power from point A to point B, we have to have lines. I just don't understand why the 765 KV lines and why they're going in the area that they are. I don't know why they're going from out to West Texas uh rather than otherwise. And um and going through areas, I mean I've got concerns from people that say, look, you're wanting to go through Indian barrel grounds, you're wanting to go on the San Saba River, you're wanting to go things that would normally be somewhat exempt from from major construction, and and it's almost as if there's no concern for that whatsoever. So I don't know what the rush is for that. I don't know why we need to have this size, I don't know why we're going from central to to west, Texas, to do it. And uh so it's it's just a concern. I I haven't had those questions answered yet.

SPEAKER_01 14:03

So on the political side of that, it's causing a massive upload. You know, you're in a rural district. That's where this thing is better than both these issues. What are the implications for particularly Republicans right now uh going into this election? We already looked not great for them on this issue, and I've seen videos of long uh voting Republicans say they're not voting for the GOP this time around because of this issue. How do you how do you score that?

SPEAKER_02 14:35

Well, to those people, I hope they change their mind, I hope they reconsider. Uh I will say this it is a concern, and it's a concern because um, and I've said this consistently, in the past, rural Texas has been the key to keeping Texas red. I mean, we live in the greatest country in the world, Texas is the greatest state in our country, and rural Texas is what helps keep us great and keeps us red and keeps us conservative and and develops helps support the policies that have made us the eighth greatest economy in the world and the freedoms that we have. That's at risk when when Republicans don't hold office. And in the past, rural Texas uh uh districts like my house district, which has the been rated the number one most conservative district out of 150 house districts, we're 88% Republican. Uh those folks come to vote and they counter the votes that are happening in urban areas. Uh Beto would be our senator right now had rural Texas not come to the aid and defense and support of Senator Cruz. I'm hoping that happens this time, but my concern is that we don't want to poke my folks in the eye over data centers, 765 KB lines, and other issues that are important to them, and then expect them to bail everyone out. And so I think we need to do all that we can. I know the governor's trying to do that, and we need to do all we can to support rural Texas and listen to the voices of rural Texas when we say that there are no safeguards and protections for data centers, when we say that uh, you know, some of these 765 KV lines, why are we doing them? Why are we doing them now, and so forth. And we need real answers uh to these things and and real response to some of these concerns. Uh, my concern is that some of those folks in rural Texas may not be as responsive as they've been in the past. And I hope that doesn't happen. I hope they do come out to vote and and support our candidates. But I'd be lying if I if I said it wasn't a concern. It is a concern.

SPEAKER_01 16:47

These issues that we all talked about, data centers, power lines, and water, and a lot more that the state of Texas is dealing with, all really centers on growth and coping with that growth. And clearly that's the challenge for state leadership, and not an easy one to solve. Um, you know, how do you how do you balance those those competing interests between the age-old fight we've had? You know, every session we have the fight over the Marvin Nuclear Reservoir between the rural guys out in East Texas and the urban representatives in Dallas who want the water. I mean, somebody's gonna lose that, somebody's gonna get the the short end of the stick on this.

SPEAKER_02 17:24

Right.

SPEAKER_01 17:25

How is a lawmaker do you navigate that?

SPEAKER_02 17:27

Well, it's I think you do it just like you do in practice and law that I I do for a living. You do it on a case-by-case basis. You try to you try to navigate it one day at a time, one issue at a time, one problem at a time, and try to get through, and then you reevaluate and see where we go from here. I don't think it's any different in the legislature. Uh, I think we uh every situation, every case, if you will, is different. And I think you just try to develop good conservative policy, and uh and hopefully that applies not only on a statewide basis, but also on a local basis to the extent it's a local bill or a local which the uh since we're kind of on a political topic here, you know, like I mentioned, the election it's it's not looking good for Republicans.

SPEAKER_01 18:14

The question is how bad is it? Comparisons are being made to 2018, and I think Democrats have a lot of reason to think that. But it doesn't mean it's gonna happen. You're in a very, very bad district, even in a bad subject. You're gonna be okay. I think I have the right, correct?

SPEAKER_02 18:28

Um we hope so.

SPEAKER_01 18:30

Yeah, not gonna live there. Uh but you know, I'm hearing anywhere between four and twelve house seats lost for the GMP. I know you don't want that to happen. You want to lose those seats. But where what is your read on that now? What do you think the environment's up?

SPEAKER_02 18:47

That's hard to tell because each race is unique. Each every election is local to it to an extent. And so, you know, without knowing the ins and outs of each district and and all, it's hard to predict, it's hard to say. Uh those that say that they're gonna, you know, turn 12 seats. I look at those districts and I look at those folks that are there and how they performed. Um I don't see it. I don't see that at all. Uh do we have some that are in danger and some that we might lose? Absolutely. There are some. I I think uh four to six would be a closer number than than than twelve. So uh and the plan would be, the idea would be that we don't lose any, and that's what I'm gonna be working on. I mean, uh yes, I'm when I'm campaigning between now and November, you know, it's about me, but it's really this cycle, it's not about me. It's for me to get out and help those others, to help everyone at the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket, and to uh explain what we're doing, why we're doing it, why the policies that we have in place are good for Texas, they're good for my district and other places, and how we need to build on those. And now is not the time to turn around. Now it's the time to move forward. So SP4 is uh you were the sponsor for that.

SPEAKER_01 20:08

That's the border bill. Uh one of the biggest bills passed in the last few cycles. Um run me through where that is right now. I know you were just out at the uh Fifth Circuit arguments earlier this year where my colleague Richie was at. Um what's the state of the okay?

SPEAKER_02 20:24

That the first round uh the the hearing that we were at um at the Fifth Circuit, uh, in fact, my uh my wife, Ginger, my chief of staff, Susanna Feather, we all we all went out uh there, and we've been very involved in that process from the get-go. And so we were there previously for a hearing at the Fifth Circuit. Now this was the other en banc hearing, that means all all 17, I think, justices uh hear it. And uh and we we were there for that and uh and ruled, they ruled correctly that the plaintiffs did not have standing. There's some new rules and and Supreme Court uh precedent that's in place uh that says that you actually have to be affected to have standing. Shocker. I mean a great concept. So these people did not, they're not affected. And so basically they said you didn't have standing. Well, that basically gutted that case. Yeah. Well, quickly there was another case that was filed. Uh the ACLU and others put together a couple of plaintiffs uh that they thought would somehow meet uh standing muster. Uh, in my view, they did not. Okay. Uh because and it's like they don't understand the bill. I mean, the charge for illegal entry and and legal illegal reentry and violation of the order's return for illegal entry is a class B misdemeanor. That means it's just with as anyone that handles criminal law knows that the statute of limitations for a Class B misdemeanor is two years, or a Class A misdemeanor is two years. The people that they drugged up to be plaintiffs, those people had not crossed To our country illegally in the last two years. So they had no standing whatsoever. And so again, was that a deliberate designing of a law?

SPEAKER_01 22:10

The Class B misdemeanor part?

SPEAKER_02 22:12

It's like they don't understand SB4. They don't understand the concept. And so they filed that suit. The federal district judge, uh, the same district judge that issued the injunction before, he heard this and issued an injunction. The Fifth Circuit said no and overturned uh the injunction against the temporary enforcement. SB4 is the law as we sit here today. SB4 is being enforced. There have been several arrests under SB4. And as a matter of fact, uh I think just a week ago, uh, we had our first order to return of one of those cases. So um that was down in Hidalgo County. And so SB4 is functioning exactly as it was designed to. The world has not stopped or fallen apart. Uh people's grandmothers that have been here for 50 years are not being sent back to Mexico. That's not happening. Uh people are not being hijacked off the street, out of their vehicles, sent to jail and shipped off to another country. Those things aren't happening. Yeah. As exactly as I said that they would not. Uh the enforcement has been on the border uh and uh it's and it's operating the way that it should. So I anticipate that that's gonna continue. I appreciate uh the uh uh everybody with the uh border patrol and their efforts. I wish I appreciate DPS. I appreciate uh Governor Abbott uh and and their team being very involved in this. Uh Trevor Azell and others are doing a fantastic job monitoring that, making sure that it's enforced, enforced promptly, enforced fairly. And again, with this order, there was an order and it was a consent order. The person signed says, hey, you got me, I'll I'll go back. They signed the order, they had an attorney, the attorney signed the order. So the system is operating exactly as it was designed to without the wheels falling off.

SPEAKER_01 24:10

Is this gonna get the SCOTIS at all or is is that not in the works?

SPEAKER_02 24:15

I don't see how that happens. You to me, you don't have anybody that has standing yet unless you had someone of one of these cases that through the enforcement that's been filed that decides that they want to appeal that process.

SPEAKER_01 24:30

Will SCOTUS not take the standing issue up?

SPEAKER_02 24:35

They could. Um I don't know that I don't know. I don't know. It hadn't made it that far. They could, but uh, you know, they've got to find someone that would have standing. Now we do because we have the enforcement. What they currently had on case number two, in my view, and I said from the start, those people didn't have standing. The first group didn't have standing, the other individuals they trumped up this last time didn't have standing. Uh could you have someone with standing? Absolutely, uh, but that's yet to be determined. But I think again, this SB4 is written and designed to uh to be in uh to not be in conflict with existing law, uh, to not be preempted by existing law, and uh, and so I think it meets all those requirements, and Texas has the constitutional right to uh to secure its sovereign. Uh and so I I think for all the reasons that I've said it many times, I think it's good law, I think it'll stand up, and I and so far that is played out uh to be the case. In in the face of all the so-called experts that said otherwise, and I've never claimed to be an expert in anything, uh, and and certainly not immigration law, but I actually read cases uh they require us to do that at law school, and if you read the Arizona case, it it gives a pathway of here's what you can do. So that's what we did.

SPEAKER_01 25:58

I remember this bill on the House floor in 23, right? It was one of the most heated environments I've ever seen, and uh there was some conflict in the floor and west. Uh obviously, Democratic colleagues did not like the bill. Have you had any conversations with them, directed ones about the SB4 ever since? Is we don't have you have you made any converts on this?

SPEAKER_02 26:21

We uh, you know, it's hard to tell. Uh you have some of those folks that voted against SB4 that are Democrats that are in districts that are closer to a 50-50 split. And I think if they needed to vote for it today, they would vote for it today. I think they may regret their vote on that. Maybe while they're in some of them, maybe in the trouble that they're in. Uh, but uh I think uh, you know, I understand people vote their district, and I don't, you know, that's fine. I get that, I understand that. I don't take it personally just because somebody votes against my bill. I've had discussions with them. Uh I don't think it is, it's they think it's the end of the world. There's some that tried to make something out of that at the time, uh, but I I don't I don't know that they believe all the stuff that they were saying. And I certainly when you look at the facts and you look at the bill and you look what the bill actually said and did, uh, I don't think uh they should have the objections that they that they did. Yeah, because the things that they raised just were not relevant. They that was not a product of the bill, that would not be an effect of the bill. So I I'm you know, I don't know how much opposition they really had to it personally. Uh I understand they voted their district and they felt that was the thing they needed to do, but so we've got us before uh last year y'all passed uh 247G.

SPEAKER_01 27:45

207G program. What's next on the immigration?

SPEAKER_02 27:49

I don't know. Um we're still looking at a number of things. I I filed a uh e-verify bill last time uh that uh I think still we need to do uh for state uh for state and local governments and contractors uh of local government. We still need to do that. Um there are several other things we need to do to be able to verify who's in our who's in our state, who's in our country here and who's not, especially if they're charged with a crime. Uh we need to know that. We need to know that sooner rather than later, and that's a fair question. We have that ability under the code of criminal procedure right now, uh, and it is authorized under federal law and state law, but there's some there's some things that we can do uh you know better in that regard. So we're still working on a lot of policy things between now and and uh the next section, but I I anticipate that uh we won't disappoint that we'll have we'll have some other things uh to bring up.

SPEAKER_01 28:49

What are the sleeper issues that you think are getting enough attention for next year on the policy? Anything that or is the data center thing that's subsuming every year?

SPEAKER_02 29:01

Uh hard to tell. I think I think well the data center is not a sleeper in my history. Certainly not a sleeper issue. Uh but the uh I think uh and water is no sleeper, but we have we have got to address water, we've got to address power in my rural counties, uh, aside from data centers, 765 KV lines, and and property tax, and I think just like what the governor had a plan, I think there are several things we can do relative to property tax. Those aren't really we're not gonna catch anybody's surprise, those are the big issues. But I think in my district, uh rural fire protection, uh, I had a bill last time provide for a study to look at disparities between urban versus rural. I think we'll have an opportunity. That report will be here before the end of the end of the year, and I think that will allow us to have a bill to support rural uh fire protection. I think rural um emergency services, medical services, uh things that help uh rural hospitals and things of that nature we're gonna have to look at. Um you know, I think there are just a number of things, and I will say this we have a bad habit in the legislature of dealing with one thing and say, okay, for example, education. Uh we just put more money in public education than we have in the history of our state, even adjusted for inflation, and to say, okay, we checked that box and we'll revisit that in about 10 years. That's not what we need to do. Uh that discussion is not done. We need to look at that. I think you're we're gonna have some some more public education uh discussions. There's some things that we need to address and will address. So nobody's really talking about that, but I think that I think we're absolutely gonna have to do that. Uh uh, we need to help work toward making our teacher retirement uh solvent. Uh we were close and we had it, but there's some things we need to do about that as well.

SPEAKER_01 30:53

In terms of making that a defined benefit plan or no, a cash balance plan versus defined benefit plan.

SPEAKER_02 30:58

Well, no, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say we changed the nature of the plan. We just need to fund it. Okay. We're there where it's it's what we all did with ERS was make that change, right?

SPEAKER_01 31:07

Right, right, right. But not TRS, yeah. Right.

SPEAKER_02 31:09

So I think some of those things are things people aren't really talking a great deal about. We've got uh some other things that we've done in the past that didn't get across the finish line that I think that we we want to do and and do again, but we're still we spend a lot of time listening. Um I don't the way I approach things, I don't go to my district and tell them, here's what's important, here's what you need to think is important, and here's what I'm gonna do. I think I need to go and visit with them and have a conversation with them and listen to constituents. Some of the best ideas we have on bills come from constituents in the district. And so I think my job is to listen. Uh, you know, we we have a bad habit of doing a lot of talking. Sometimes we have to be quiet and listen to what concerns are of individuals in the district, and I think that's how we develop good policy. We understand what's important and and hopefully can find pathways to resolve issues and problems and conflicts so that we can uh you know be better and have a better system.

SPEAKER_01 32:08

One more for you. I'm gonna ask you about speaker politics, even though we're not in the speaker race yet, but we will be soon enough. Uh last session, of course, we had the great new speaker race, but you know, it's worked everything previously. Um since then, a lot has changed, and it seems like Burroughs is well on track to get the Republican politics endorsement. You have to say read on it?

SPEAKER_02 32:31

Uh absolutely, he will be our next speaker, period. And he has done a fantastic job. And I will say this, he has worked extremely hard, not just during the session. I know he came in, and it's like when I came in the legislature late, I said it's like drinking through a fire hose. You have to understand as a as a new speaker, you come in, you're elected day one. You don't have all you first before you can do committees and chairmanships and all this, you've got to you've got to hire a staff. I mean, you need policy people. There's all this stuff that you have to do, and you don't have much time to do it. And then you get through the session, and he did a marvelous job uh managing that, uh, overseeing that, working with a great relationship with the Senate, working with the governor. Uh, I don't know that how you could do better than what he did. But now I don't know that I've seen anybody as a speaker work so hard with members, uh, with with all members in trying to move forward and bring people together for for next session. And so uh, you know, I'm not saying everybody in the building is gonna be unanimous. I I think you know that's uh that's probably not gonna happen. Uh but but I think clearly he will have the support, he will get there, and we will move forward and and he'll do a fantastic job.

SPEAKER_01 33:47

Anything else you'd like to add?

SPEAKER_02 33:49

Um no, I I just uh in that regard. I mean I I just mean about anything. Oh no, not really.

SPEAKER_01 33:57

I mean uh get you a waffle to go. You can drop it out for me now.

SPEAKER_02 34:02

I love Waffle House, and I've it's been a while since I've had a waffle at Waffle House, but I uh but no, I'm hey, I can't think of a better place to do an interview. It's a little loud. It's busy. This place is rocking.

SPEAKER_01 34:13

So uh it was it's dying down right now, but man, it was not an empty chair in the house earlier. But uh I appreciate you making the trip, and uh we'll get this up here in a couple days. But uh thanks for joining.

SPEAKER_02 34:25

You bet. Thank you for having me.