A.R. "Babe" Schwartz Interview, 20 January 2006, Part 2 of 3

  • JS: Now the, I mean, the legislature has an archive (?) do you regret-or why you say those are bad bills and what are their effects on development?
  • 00:00:16 - 2388
  • BS: Well, I always refer to most of what I did in the legislature as being bad. And of course, most of what you do in the legislature is done to promote your own political programs within your district. The things that you do for your district are the things that get you elected. Most of what you do for your district is good for your district but it may not be good for everybody. And I use that expression a lot when I'm being interviewed because one of the worst things I ever did, and I say this about these things in their time, but using the same ex-expression. I passed a constitutional amendment legalizing Bingo and it was-and it's the sorriest piece of legislation in the history of mankind
  • 00:01:14 - 2388 because from that, we wound up not only getting Bingo, which has turned into a racket, but we got horse and dog racing. And I lobbied for dog racing, I lobbied for the greyhounds. And I thought to myself, well, how in the hell did the authorization for horse and dog racing come under this Bingo amendment? But what I had done was alter this definition of a lottery. Now, then we passed the state lottery, I didn't but others did and I was already a lobbyist then. And now we're considering gaming legislation. Well, as I review the people who are in the horse and the dog racing today and their attitude
  • 00:02:08 - 2388
  • about wanting video lottery-video lottery terminals or video poker in-in their tracks, they've become a bunch of people who selfishly believe that because their business is bad, that they ought to have the exclusive right to the next gambling method, which would be the video poker. So I, you know, I learned that great lesson. Everything you do
  • 00:02:37 - 2388 that's good for somebody, has got some part of it that can be seized upon by folks who want to do something bad or want to do something selfish. And they will pervert your intent and they will pervert the legislation you passed to suit their purposes. And I don't always agree with the purposes that-that have wound up being a part of somebody's genius by coming along and saying well, I've got this law, but if I twist it this way and add that to it, well, then I can be a millionaire. And I don't object to people being millionaires, but I object to the perversion of a lot of good law occasionally. And
  • 00:03:28 - 2388
  • that's when I re-reflect on the things that I've done that have been expanded to include all the things I don't like-or I don't like the way they're being done, then I like to reflect on that as being a bad thing in the first place. (misc.)
  • JS: Well tell me how that-how that applies to the insurance laws in particular, because I'm...
  • 00:04:00 - 2388 BS: Well...
  • JS: ...thinking it's developers (?).
  • 00:04:02 - 2388 BS: ...sure. I have invited-by the passage of that law, I have invited everybody to take risks at public expense which they shouldn't take at public expense. If they want to take a risk, it ought to be a private risk. If you want to live on the beach and you want to enjoy living dangerously when you know that the erosion rate is two feet per year minimum and you know that the storm is going to come as certainly as the sun's going to rise and you buy into that game, then you don't have a right to ask me to subsidize it. And although my pool thing subsidized it from the very beginning for-and I was doing it for my senatorial district with benefits to those other districts on the coast, of course, to
  • 00:04:59 - 2388 everybody. It still boils down to the fact that it was a good idea and it provided that-an excellent basis for development.
  • And all those houses got built and all got insured and it was just beautiful until it cost the state twenty-seven million dollars. And when it costs the state a hundred million dollars, you know, it ain't going to be near as good as I have thought it is. So we've got to provide that pre-event fund; we've got to create it with assessments on policies. And we've got to be ready to pay the assessment after the event.
  • Much of that now is taken up by buying reinsurance, but reinsurance is a very expensive
  • 00:05:54 - 2388
  • insurance policy to buy. The reinsurance companies are, you know, all English companies, Lloyds of London, whatever else and when you have to take a substantial part of your premium to buy reinsurance so that this risk is not all on the back of the companies in Texas that write this business because they could go broke too. And there is a guaranty fund against insurance companies going broke. If they exceed-if their
  • 00:06:28 - 2388 losses exceed their ability to meet those losses, then they can dip into the Texas guaranty fund. Now I, you know, all of this works together and it's not as bad as I envisioned, but I know that I invited all these people to take this risk because they can insure it.
  • And the federal government with flood insurance has invited everybody to take greater risks. And the flood insurance program nationally, in my opinion, is on the verge of being a disgrace. The subsidy that's going to be required after Katrina will eventually, you know, tell the Congress that there are some limits to how much you can give in
  • 00:07:15 - 2388 assurances to people who want to live in a hazard zone. I mean, if you want to guarantee somebody the right to live on the riverbank and guarantee that when a house is washed away in the flood, that you're going to rebuild their house and when it disappears on the beach, that you're going to rebuild their beach house, you know, you got to look at who you're doing this for and with whose money. So, you know, the e-the equation's there that sometimes there's a benefit. There's always a detriment that goes with the benefit. And those of us who have been legislators and who are legislators need to worry about
  • 00:08:00 - 2388
  • well, did I do that for the most selfish of my constituents, did I need to do it, is it sound business now?
  • And now we got the people who have the insurance, windstorm, have the flood, they have the sand sock in front of their subdivision, which was paid for by public funds, and they have the beach restoration and replenishment, which is paid for by public funds. And they are saying, well, if the tide takes me, now I want the public to pay me to move my house. Now, so there's a never ending element of greed here that goes with-
  • 00:08:49 - 2388
  • with having enjoyed some public-some leisure at public expense. It-it's a-it's an addiction. The more they get, the more they want. And that's not a new formula. I mean, it di-didn't just happen yesterday. People-human beings have-are naturally greedy and naturally want to protect their rights, their property, what they believe in and they don't give a damn who pays for it, just as long as they don't have to pay for it.
  • JS: So, what do you think the next like ten or fifteen years will bring for federal and state subsidized insurance and homeowners?
  • 00:09:34 - 2388
  • BS: Well, I think the insurance is about to get straightened out in terms of cost. I think that the-the windstorm insurance, for instance, is going to become more expensive and self s-and self-self-proving. In other words, the pre-event assessment is going to come about. I mean, there's no way to avoid it. Policies are going to have to have not just a rate that is actuarially sound, but an assessment in order to create a fund against which a catastrophic loss might be paid, because you're paying reinsurance costs now.
  • 00:10:18 - 2388 Instead of having the fund, you're paying an enormous amount of money for reinsurance. When you create the fund reserve, then you have to buy less reinsurance. And that fund itself accumulates interest and so if you live ten years without a hurricane loss, you know, a billion dollar fund is a two billion dollar fund. And you eventually create that cushion against that ultimate loss. So I think that-the next movement is create the fund, fund it through assessments of coastal policies, have a provision for assessments of all policies in the state where there is a catastrophic loss in excess of a certain amount of money. And that's what we're working on and that will replace my tax credit for the premium tax, which is an abomination because it goes right to the general fund and takes, you know, money out of the treasury to pay for these losses.
  • JS: How will that impact what the average homeowner pays? Or
  • 00:11:38 - 2388
  • BS: Well in coastal counties it-it will-it will affect them to the extent that those who are on the barrier islands and exposed to the windstorm risk and whose policies are in the pool, will have an assessment on their policy. It may be ten dollars, it may be fifty dollars. It will be some number that the legislature decides on. They will pay a rate which is established by the insurance commissioner and for Coastal Insurance Windstorm. The assessment will be established again either by the commissioner or by law and then there'll be that post-event assessment which will be provided for in the
  • 00:12:24 - 2388 event of a catastrophic loss from a hurricane, that's Windstorm.
  • Secondly, the federal government's going to have to do something about the flood insurance program. They have proposed that they only replace a house twice. Third time, you're out or maybe they propose that a three-time loser cannot obtain flood insurance again. Well, that shows you how absurd politicians are. I mean, why in the hell are we going to replace it the second time? I mean, if-if-if you're lucky enough to get your house replaced once at public
  • 00:13:05 - 2388
  • expense through a subsidy, why do we have to do it twice? You know, this guy Stossel, on national television, what is it, 20/20 or? Stossel was on television about two, three months ago pointing out the folly of their rep-of the federal Flood Insurance Program replacing his house. I mean, he's on the beach, he bought the house, the house has been destroyed, it's going to be replaced. Now, does-does the federal government do that again? I mean his house is going to be destroyed down there in-at Hilton Head in the Carolinas or-or on the upper coast somewhere periodically, once every five years, eight
  • 00:13:52 - 2388 years. Yo-we going-is the federal Flood Insurance bu-going to replace it? Look at all the houses that are being flooded today nationwide. Now, some of them-people have to live where they live. They live in downtown blankety-blank and they get flooded and it's a hundred-year flood, why you give them a replacement and unless there's some condition which they had a right to know about when they built their house, why, they could still buy the insurance. But you don't do that for somebody that builds on the bank of a river and-and knows that the house that was there before this house, was
  • 00:14:34 - 2388
  • washed out and gone and so I'm going to go build there and wait for the flood to wash me out. Anyhow, that-those things have to change but they're-we're dealing with political minds and-and they're as shallow as mine and they will take care of their constituents.
  • JS: Well, what-I mean, speaking of the rivers, what do you think of the-the Army Corps of Engineers? Because, you know, I don't know much about them, but it seems like their mission is sort of to control nature and make it safe throughout (inaudible).
  • 00:15:08 - 2388 BS: Yeah, well, the Army Corps of Engineers was originally provided for public works projects which were of general benefit to the communities, areas, and aid to navigation essentially, the-the major Corps responsibility. For instance, in Texas, deals with-aids to navigation, the channels have all been dredged by the Corps. The Corps maintains those channels. The Corps builds earthen embankments. The Corps builds anything that-that the Congress authorizes them to build or directs them to build. So they've dammed the Mississippi in a variety of ways. They've tried to prevent floods in a variety of ways, with a variety of structures which they designed and create, which all serve the
  • 00:16:10 - 2388 purpose that they were intended to serve until they fail. That's what happened in New Orleans. The Corps of Engineers built all those levees and they dug all the channels and the federal government paid for it. But the flaw in that formula down there in New Orleans was that every levee district has a different board, a corrupt bunch of people who maintain and oversee those levees and who, I think, in many instances, have perverted justice by-for profit. And so the levees haven't been as good as they ought to be and when they fail, the federal government's got to come along and apologize. You know, the Corps did the best they knew how. They provided the levees to withstand a three hurricane and they didn't withstand a three hurricane. They failed because they were engineered poorly. So, if you judge the Corps by New Orleans, it's a complete failure, in
  • 00:17:19 - 2388 my opinion.
  • If you judge the Corps by the Galveston ship channel, it's a hundred percent success. If you judge it by the Houston ship channel, it's a marvelous organization and entity which has provided billions of dollars to the economy of Texas through a ship channel to nowhere. Nobody ever intended a merchant vessel to go fifty miles inland nor did they anticipate there'd be thirty or forty chemical plants and oil refineries and processing companies on that ship channel. I'm sure there were smart people who believed that it would lead to unlimited industrial growth, but they did not then know the
  • 00:18:09 - 2388
  • kind of growth it would-it would-that'd take place on the Houston Ship Channel. Nor did they know the destruction and pollution to the environment that those industries would create.
  • And so we had to come back thirty years, forty years later and worry about the salvation of Galveston Bay, which again, the Congress has taken care of. It is a nationally designated estuary and-and it's cleaned up. And the pollution is cleaned up. We had to catch everybody that was violating all the laws, which was every plant on the Houston Ship channel, but over years, it has happened and we are relatively in good shape now.
  • JS: Well, I mean, how sound do you think this policy is of damming up the rivers and preventing the sediment from passing?
  • 00:19:04 - 2388 BS: Well, the failure to prevent a sediment bypass-the failure to provide a sediment bypass has adversely affected the beaches of Texas. But the Corps wasn't designing the dams with any view in mind to provide a sediment bypass. That came about through conservationists and associations and people in colleges studying what could and could not be done to better the condition of the beaches and they came up with the idea that one of the problems was that there was no sediment in the rivers that flowed to the-to the coast. And they combined that with their knowledge of what happened to the
  • 00:19:54 - 2388
  • Mississippi. And the Mississippi again, is, you know, largely a-a factor of nature and the cr-creation of the delta, but it also is largely a factor of how many dams there are along the Mississippi that prevent that sediment flow.
  • JS: Well, I just have like two more questions for you and then we can talk if we want to go over David's, but as a lobbyist, tell me how are you continuing your work on behalf of the public trust and on behalf of conservation that you did when you were in office?
  • 00:20:35 - 2388
  • BS: Well, I upset people over there a lot by showing up at the Natural Resource Committee hearing, which I go to all the time. And I testify against bills by members and they always, you know, are insulted, you know, what the hell gives you the right to come up here and testify against my bill, I mean, who are you lobbying for. And, you know, I have to look at Dennis Bonnen and say, Dennis, when you introduce a bill to let those folks in Treasure Isle steal state property, you know, it's my duty, having been around here forever, to point out the fact that that shouldn't occur. Those people are under a
  • 00:21:21 - 2388 lawsuit by the Attorney General and you're trying to give them a right which they do not have. You're trying to give it to them legislatively. It violates the constitution for you to do that. It is not a good bill and you're a great guy and I taught your wife in my law school class on Coastal Management and Ocean Law. And she will tell you that what you're doing's wrong. And all he did was get more insulted. She was a great student too and is a great student, probably a great lawyer. But it-it just, you know, you-eh, you got to talk to a guy who's a State Representative and he's doing what I used to do but I
  • 00:22:09 - 2388 hope more intelligently. He thinks he's doing something for his district that just must be done. And you don't have to do anything that violates the constitution to get re-elected. I mean, it's-I didn't vote for the segregation bills because they were unconstitutional. And I used to tell people, you know, you just-you took an oath to defend the constitution, to uphold the laws and the constitution of this state and the United States. Now, why are you forgetting that-that oath of office, you know, you didn't take an oath to make gifts to your constituents and that offends them, too. But I-I do-I do that and what I'm explaining is basically that I think those of us who have taken on a project for
  • 00:22:57 - 2388 life, like I have in this Coastal Management Ocean Law protection of public property, all of that-why I owe some duty while the legislature's in session and while I'm alive to show up at these meetings. I'm here anyhow. And Ellis [Pickett] shows up all the time, he ain't here, he's got to drive from up on the coast somewhere, Beaumont and-but we do, we-we testify that the things that we find wrong with these ideas that members have to take
  • 00:23:31 - 2388 care of their little problems in their districts. But we-and we try to convey to the legislature at large that there's a greater duty on their part to protect the public rights everywhere. One chairman was heard to say by one of my friends, that-said, you know, I don't know why Schwartz shows up here all the time, he acts like he owns the beaches. And of course, my response would be, I do, you know, so do you, so does the chairman. When you-when she wants to take her grandchildren to the beach, she better damn well
  • 00:24:06 - 2388 have somebody defending her right or they going tell down in Corpus Christi she's got to check in that hotel and pay somebody some money and then she can use that beach in front of that hotel. Well, that-that's basically what keeps you here.
  • JS: Okay, so, what work, as a legislator or as a lobbyist are you most proud of?
  • 00:24:33 - 2388
  • BS: Well, I think the proudest thing I've done in-in the legislative process is-well, we can clean that one up. I think the proudest thing I've done in the legislative process or what I am proudest of is the fact that I built a twenty-five year reputation amongst the people who observe the legislature and care about the environment and particularly about the coastal environment. And I have got all the awards to show for that attitude a-and not limited to the coast, but my attitudes about nature in general, my attitudes about conservation, my attitudes about pollution, my attitudes about everything that society does that is an injustice to the environment or to a public right has to be brought to public
  • 00:25:39 - 2388 attention. And somehow we've got ha-everybody's got to be knowledgeable about this. And the reason I started teaching coastal law in 1970 when I was-no, not 1970-I started teaching when I was 70 years old and I taught eight semesters at the University of Houston Law School. And the reason I did that was because I thought, well, I've got a chance to influence the minds and thoughts of fifty people a semester in coastal law and in environmental concerns and ocean concerns. And I can do that simply by teaching a law school course. And everything I tell them can be true and I can tell them all the
  • 00:26:31 - 2388 funny stories and-and all the sad stories as well. And in the final analysis of what they've learned, they become lawyers who are good lawyers but who have a different attitude about the coastline than other lawyers who haven't had the opportunity to be enlarged in their view of what's good and bad in public rights and public access and antipollution measures. See, they don't know that Dow Chemical Company pollutes every day, all day long and could care less. They don't know that Texas (?) Refinery spews junk into the air 24 hours a day that causes cancer. They-you know, they-
  • 00:27:19 - 2388
  • unless they've worked in a plant, live in a town that depends upon that kind of economy, they have no idea that all of these plants have violated every pollution law, antipollution law that has ever been written every day of their existence. And they do it because they know they can pay the fine and they can get away with it.
  • And that-you know, I love to see them brag about the fact that they have reduced their volume of particulate matter in the air by fifty percent in the last ten years. And I think to myself, well you bastard, ten
  • 00:28:00 - 2388
  • years ago I was breathing that crap that you have now reduced by fifty percent. And the fact is that you've poisoned millions of people when you had the intelligence and the authority, the ability and the money and the knowledge with which you could've prevented it. And so all those lung cancer cases down there on the Houston Ship Channel and all those skin cancer cases and all those brain cancer cases that these hospitals spend all their time keeping people alive because of, you know, could've been prevented. You knew and I was making speeches damning you and-and telling you publicly that you
  • 00:28:52 - 2388 knew-in Texas City, when you were in my district and now you tell me you reduced it by fifty percent in the last ten years. Now you tell me that what you were doing to me when I was making speeches against you and cursing you to the high heavens, now you tell me that you were doing exactly what I said you were doing and, in fact, you did have a remedy when you said you didn't have a remedy.
  • And the-the power companies, you know, soon as we went to coal-why coal was the greatest pollution-and all of the coal plants had to get waivers for everything they were doing for the last twenty years because they were putting mercury into the air. Mercury comes down with the rain,
  • 00:29:40 - 2388
  • winds up in the streams and all of a sudden, kids have got mercury poisoning.
  • Lavaca Bay, I think it's Lavaca Bay, but it's right at Port Lavaca, has so much mercury in the bay bottom from the Alcoa aluminum plant, that there have to be signs all over that bay front that you're not supposed to eat the fish or the crabs or any of the seafood from that bay because of mercury content in the bottoms and in the water. And you go over there and
  • 00:30:17 - 2388
  • you see big fat happy people, pregnant ladies sitting on the-sitting on the banks of the bay and sitting in boats fishing and eating all that stuff and the signs don't mean anything. And they're destroying their children, they're destroying themselves and it's all because of Alcoa. Alcoa has never paid a dime in penalty to the State of Texas for that.
  • So, it's not just that I worry about the beaches, but Ed Harte from the Corpus Christi Caller lectured or spoke before one of my committees and he point out to me and he got me on-on the program early, that it was a complex system that began with
  • 00:31:04 - 2388
  • the Gulf, encroached upon the shoreline, became a barrier island or peninsula as it rose from the sea centuries ago, created a bay or estuary, which was the producing cause and producing habitat for all of the life that emerges from the bay system and goes to the Gulf. The baby shrimp have to spawn in the shallowest water, in the salt grass where the water is freshest at the edge and where the sunlight reaches the shallowest portions. And he goes on at length, he's just a pied piper, telling us how we better protect the bay or there won't be any shrimp. And we better protect the salt grass and the habitat and the
  • 00:31:55 - 2388 wetlands or there won't be any waterfowl-I mean, won't be-there won't be any fowl, there won't be any ducks and geese and there won't be any habitat of the-for the birds that fly. And you got to protect the redfish and the trout from the commercial people, who will, as a predator, destroy the population to the extent that they can't restore their numbers. And you have to protect the oyster reefs because the folks that put oyster shell on the roads are taking live oysters from the oyster reefs. And they believe that they have
  • 00:32:34 - 2388
  • a right to do that and they're paying the state twenty-five cents a yard, which is absurd. Even in those days, twenty-five cents a yard was a gift and the Haden family got rich off of it. And I can name four or five other families who got richer maybe than the Haden family. But that's the kind of thing that Ed Harte said and he said, and then you reach the shoreline of the coastal plain where all the wetlands are and where all the farmland is and where all the rice is grown and where all these things take place, right on into the second or third tier of counties. And you have the rivers and you have everything that flows to
  • 00:33:17 - 2388
  • the bays and to the Gulf and you've got to protect the freshwater inflow. If you don't, you destroy the bay and the estuary. And so, if you're going to degrade nature in the process of development and the process of doing all these things that man wants to do, then you've got to take the consequences of it. So this little thing like my worrying about the beaches because I was a beach bum and surfing because I love to surf and-and building a fire on the beach and boiling shrimp in a number three washtub, you know, all those things become relatively minor at-compared to the overall picture of what the
  • 00:34:02 - 2388 coast is and why the coast needs protecting. So, more than just being the beach bum, Ed Harte's responsible for convincing me that I had a greater duty and that's how I got into the whole-in legislating after the first Open Beaches Act and legislating all the other things.
  • Bob Armstrong was the first to propose a Coastal Management Program after the federal government created the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. And we've built a Coastal Management Program from the legislation that was passed, from the Open
  • 00:34:46 - 2388 Beaches Act until that very time. But we couldn't get a governor to certify it to the-to the feds in order for it to take effect as the Coastal Management Program. We couldn't get Clements to do it, we couldn't get Briscoe to do it, we couldn't get Mark White to do it for whatever reason. But when Gary Mauro became commissioner and Ann Richards became governor, Gary Mauro proposed a new Coastal Management Program to comply with the 1972 federal law and put us into the other states who had adopted Coastal Management Programs. There are only three coastal states now that don't have a
  • 00:35:31 - 2388
  • Coastal Management Program. And Ann Richards was ready to sign off on it and she got beat. And I thought, well, we're dead again. But what happened is that Gary Mauro took on George W. Bush as a project to get him to sign onto the program and ultimately convinced him that the program was worthwhile and good and it was good for George W., because it made him kind of an environmentalist of the moment. And so we have a Coastal Management Program certified by the federal government from which we receive countless numbers of dollars and-and the coast is protected and that's why G-Gary
  • 00:36:15 - 2388 Mauro did it. And then Jerry Patterson, who's commissioner today, has carried on the effort, I think, very well. He and I disagree on some of these things that I think are more necessary to protect as a public right than some of the private rights that he worries about protecting. But we've got a Coastal Management Program and it-and it works well. (misc.)
  • JS: I wanted to ask you what-re-real quickly though, who, I mean, I've read a little bit about Ed Harte and-and Bob Eckhardt, but who do you see carrying on the work that you've done? I mean, who is in office now that's continuing to advocate for coastal areas?
  • 00:37:13 - 2388 BS: Well, I think we've-I think we've missed the boat in not-in not enlarging-those of us who are active today by not incorporating within our-within our group of people socially somehow folks who would perpetuate this idea in the legislative process and I created a nonprofit corporation called Protect-Corporation for the Protection of Op-of the Open Beaches, Public Lands and Public Rights. That nonprofit, in my opinion, can grow into a pretty decent sized group of people who would then become advocates legislatively. My first board of directors of that group, which hasn't begun to function yet, include Bob Armstrong and Gary Mauro, include Mike Martin, who passed
  • 00:38:18 - 2388 a Coastal Management legislation when he was a member of the legislature and who used to work for me, practices law in Houston today. He was my clerk on the Natural Resource Committee. I-Sharon Stewart, who is from Brazoria County and is an environmental consultant who worked for me as a dollar a month person in the legislature when she first started, Jamie Mitchell, who is the surfer-former employee of the-of the General Land Office and good friend and myself. And I'm trying to think-and Patty Gray, Patricia Gray, who was a former state representative and a very active coastal
  • 00:39:10 - 2388 person. If I were going to turn this over to somebody, I'd turn it over to Patty Gray because she'll-well I'd turn it over to Gary Mauro and Bob Armstrong in a minute. But there has to be somebody like Patricia, who's young enough and vigorous enough and involved enough, having been a legislator, to carry on this battle in the legislature. And then the Jamie Mitchells and the Ellis Picketts have to provide the foundation and-and the breadth of-of surf riders, fishermen, folks who will become involved if they're stimulated.
  • JS: David wanted-had this-had a really good question here, you talked about how-since Texas reps and senators have such small staffs and-and you said public policy is really influenced by lobbyists and industry, how has this affected environmental policy?
  • 00:40:13 - 2388
  • BS: Well, environmental policy has been adversely affected by industry from the beginning of time. What has to be done is, there have to be-there have to be people who focus on these agencies and who focus on the lobby attempts of industry to destroy these agencies or prevent these agencies from doing their job by public acclaim and by public denunciation. They've got to pat these folks on the back that do something good. They've got to condemn to hell anything they do that's bad. And that will reinforce the agency's ability to do what's right. Given the situation in which the agency...
  • JS: I'm sorry. (misc.)
  • JS: Just pick up where you left off.
  • 00:41:15 - 2388 BS: No, given-given the situation these agencies are in, they can only function in an environment in which they know if they do what's right, they'll be commended for it. And the folks who don't want them to do what's right, would be condemned when they oppose what they're doing. But all that comes about by the public outcry. That's what comes about when the Sierra Club says, you know, damn you, you know, what you're trying to do would destroy the environment in a given area, would adversely affect this many things in our-in our natural environment. I mean, I don't care nearly as
  • 00:41:57 - 2388
  • much about the yellow-bellied woodpecker as I do about the fact that they would also destroy every stream there is with pollution, if they could do it without limitation. The water boards and the E-EPA and the folks that govern all of that have to-have to monitor everything industry does, twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year, or they will do what they want to do, which will never be what's best for the environment. So, it-it is always public acclaim or condemnation, which gives the agencies the best ability to do what's right.
  • Jerry Patterson is a political animal, like every body else. He runs a good agency. The land office is commendable, in my opinion, but when they do something that I disagree with, I like to go to the legislature and say that I disagree with it. I disagree with this moratorium thing because it's useless. And I pointed it out. Hell, the
  • 00:43:06 - 2388 Attorney General's not moving anybody's house anyhow, you know, they weren't-the Attorney General wasn't doing anything. Worthless as what I call a tit on a fish, if you'll pardon my expression. So, you know, why'd he have to have a moratorium. Why it's feel-good stuff. I mean, this is Jerry patting these people on the head and saying I'm going to take care of you. Well I love to throw those things in to get your attention.
  • JS: Oh, I love the expressions.
  • BS: Well I'll give you another you can put on tape. It's as useless as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. You can use either one, or both.
  • JS: Um, I know that you're getting tired. David had one more that is pretty good. What does the fact that, or now that the Legislature is under Republican control, what does that mean for environmental protection?
  • 00:44:26 - 2388
  • BS: Well that is interesting, because it doesn't change much. These Republicans who have been elected are by and large, and this is awful hard to put in the record. By and large, they're a step above a lot of the Democrats that I served with. It's hard for me to criticize them as Republicans because I know that really, they function just as well if not better than a lot of those Democrats who I served with, who I really didn't like, and some of whom I despised. They belonged, lock, well, body and soul, to the worst kind of lobby: I mean, the chemical industry, the Texas Chemical Association, and the oil and gas industry - all of those folks who oppose all environmental advances and want to pollute everything and want to own everything, or destroy what they can't own. Really, the folks I served with, I fought about for twenty-five years. I mean there was never a time when I had a clear majority. I had friends, but I had, I made some enemies, and I loved them. I think that may be what I'm most proud of: I may be more proud of my enemies than I am of my legislation. But, these new people, to answer his question, they are better educated, they are better motivated in many areas for for the public and the public right, than the Democrats that they replaced, as a body.
  • Their fault is that they are governed by the conservative, right wing of the Republican Party in Texas, and too often they just simply vote like the right wing tells them to vote. I don't think I'm offending anybody when I say that the Christian Coalition dictates what this Republican Party in Texas today does on any issue which involves church and state. They will take the most extreme position. It will be a very narrow position based on a religious belief or a set of beliefs which is not common to the majority of the population, but these elected Republicans believe that their election depends upon keeping the peace with the Christian Coalition. Now, the right wing of the Republican Party also has more influence with these Republicans, as a group, than I think they ought to have. I can go talk to these people about public issues and they understand and they sympathize and they believe as I believe when you talk about 'em face-to-face. But if the edict comes down from Tom Craddick as Speaker, or from the Lieutenant Governor, which I haven't picked up on yet. But I know in the House the edict does come down from time to time, then they will do what the Republican Party believes that they ought to do, rather than what they feel in their heart they might do.
  • Now that's not true in every case. If I could talk to every member, one-on-one, about every issue that I love and care about, I would be able to persuade half of them, even if the Republican Party said well you ought to not do that, or don't listen to Schwartz - he's crazy. But I can't do that. And until I have, until we have, all of us, enough people talking one-on-one to these members, and saying, "look, this is not a party line - this is a public issue. Tell the party, there are some things you can't do, even if Dow Chemical wants you to do them, or even if X Y Z wants you to do 'em.
  • You know, Republican Party today, Bob Perry gives three, four million dollars in political contributions. Leinegger, from San Antonio, gives three or four million dollars. You know, when you do that .. David Weekley, a home builder like Bob Perry give two or three million or four million dollars. Those three people start calling the shots, and if there is an environmental issue that adversely affects home builders, why Bob Perry and Weekley go nuts. You know, this is something they control. They own it. They bought it. They paid for it.
  • And the members ought to be insulted. But the members don't know that these guy are out there saying, "I own this guy", you know. He'll vote the way I tell him. And I was a member long enough to know that that's what the lobby says. You know, they'll sit around, have a drink at noon, and start counting the people they own. And it would be insulting to the members if they heard it and knew it, but a member when he's serving doesn't really understand it how much the lobby thinks that they own of him on any given issue. And so, if the very worst of the lobby owns the most of the legislature in their mind then it has to be controverted in some way by public demand.
  • But, otherwise, again without trying to make any friends, they are by and large a better bunch of folks than the ones I served with. Now, one more thing, and I'll use up some more time. My favorite expression about this, when I went to the Senate, the average waistline was 45 inches, the average IQ was 75, in my opinion, the average age was 60. And I said, today, the average waistline is 35, the average IQ is 135, or 125, if you don't like 'em, and the average age is probably 50, or 45. So, you got to have a better group with those numbers. They didn't get a 45-inch waistline from abstaining from eating and drinking with the lobby. They didn't get their IQ except by genetics, but an IQ was never a requirement when I went to the Senate.
  • And they hated me when I got there. I was young: I was the youngest member. I was arrogant, outrageous, brash. I was Jewish. I'd been in the House four years and cussed everyone of 'em, line and page, on the microphone while I was a House member. So I come over there and I don't have a friend in the House, in the Senate. And I can reflect now upon why they didn't like me, and understand it. But, better than that, I can also define them pretty well. And they were as bad as bad can be.
  • And it was ten years before I came to a point where I could be in the governing body of the Senate, with Ben Barnes, and then with Bill Hobby. And all of that took place because the election process bettered the members, as one got beat, a better one came along. And I think that process is still working.
  • 00:52:41 - 2388 BS: And that's why I gave you such a long answer to your question. Doesn't make any difference whether they're Republicans or Democrats.(misc.)
  • JS: I think I-(inaudible), you can't go wrong with this, but just...
  • 00:53:00 - 2388
  • BS: Oh, I'll do whatever.
  • JS: ...briefly for this last thing and just comment a little bit more on that one thing you said about there's some-coastal management is not a-a partisan thing, it's a public thing.
  • 00:53:16 - 2388 BS: Right.
  • JS: So, just tell me a little bit more about that, just finalize your thoughts.
  • 00:53:17 - 2388 BS: Well, the whole i-the whole idea of having Coastal Management Programs came out of a commission called the Stratton Commission in the 60's. And it became a program legislated in 1972 called Coastal Zone Management. Uh, Bob, I'm sorry, I forgot-Bob Knecht became the manager or the-or the director of the Coastal Zone
  • 00:53:48 - 2388 Management Program. And his vision was that every state would adopt a Coastal Management Program that had to pass muster with the federal government. And if it was good enough for the federal government to approve that program, then it became certified. And when it became certified, certain funds from the federal government would flow to the states. And by that-by that mechanism, all but three states have a Coastal Management Program. And the Coastal Management Programs are dedicated and they're required to be, by the federal government to the preservation and-and-
  • 00:54:33 - 2388
  • well, the preservation and en-and enhancement of the coastline and the coastal states within the costal management area, coastal management area is defined by the state. In Texas, basically, it's the first tier of counties from the Gulf of Mexico inland. That single county tier is the coastal management area. A different set of rules, laws and governance takes place in that area for permitting of certain aspects of construction and projects and occupation and utilization of the lands and the water and the air within that area. So that Coastal Management Program is dedicated to the entire coastal area within the coastal
  • 00:55:23 - 2388
  • management program within-within the rules adopted by the General Land Office here in Texas. And we benefit immensely in every respect because the permitting system has to go through processes through which all state agencies, through the Coastal Commission, meet and there's a-an appointee from the Railroad Commission, from the Transportation Department, from the oil and gas-from the railroad-I said railroad from every agency, from Parks and Wildlife. And every agency person who's nominated
  • 00:56:04 - 2388
  • or designated to that board, sits on that board and so when a mat-when an item that concerns that coastal area comes up for consideration before the commission, all the state agencies have their input and they even have to sign off on those matters approved or disapproved. And this is a very general proposition, but you get an interagency reaction on all coastal issues through the commission and through the fact that there is a Coastal Management Program which guides them. The genius of the Coastal Zone Management Act was that it provided that if a state received an approval and certification of their program, then the federal government programs had to be consistent with the state
  • 00:57:00 - 2388
  • program insofar as practicable, which just simply means that within-within the realm of reason really, the federal government has to match its programs to the state and abide by state regulations where-where that is a practical thing to do. And that had never been done, in my opinion, in the relationship between the states and the feds. Feds always tell the states what to do and tell them if they don't like it, we won't give you anymore money. And here we got a program that says the federal government has to have programs consistent with the state programs. (misc.)
  • BS: How much time you got?
  • 00:57:50 - 2388 BS: Let me do three minutes on Open Beaches.
  • JS: Okay.
  • 00:57:55 - 2388
  • BS: The single thing that needs to be remembered in the passage of the Open Beaches Law is that the phrase, the free and unrestricted, ingress and egress to the beaches is what is protected. And that phrase has never been altered. When I was in the legislature, in the Senate, every session of the Senate, somebody tried to take out the word free or somebody tried to add or subtract from the ingress and egress. But free is still in there. I have drawn a line through the elimination of the word free as many times as-as I've drawn any line through any phrase or-or word in a piece of legislation. Everyone I saw
  • 00:58:49 - 2388
  • when they took that free out, I'd write it back in and scratch out whatever they took out. But it's only free for the public to access it, parking is provided for both free and paid, but that, again, using this overworked term of mine, that was the genius of Eckhardt and it-it was the basic right which I tried to protect for all these years. Get it in three minutes? I didn't think I did that as well on the beginning, opening up as I... (misc.)