Instructing the enrolling clerk of the house to make corrections in H.B. No. 140.
Summary
HCR 156 is a corrective concurrent resolution related to House Bill 140. It directs the enrolling clerk of the Texas House to make a technical correction to the enrolled version of H.B. 140 by striking Section 2 and renumbering the remaining sections accordingly. The resolution does not create new policy on its own; instead, it ensures that the final enrolled bill reflects the Legislature’s intended text before it is formally finalized and sent for executive action.
Because HCR 156 is limited to correcting an enrolled bill, its practical effect is procedural rather than substantive. It affects the enrollment process for H.B. 140 and any statutes or legal changes that H.B. 140 would enact, by removing a section identified as erroneous and adjusting section numbering to preserve internal consistency. The resolution was adopted by both chambers and was later signed by the Governor, indicating it completed the legislative process successfully.
Impact
The resolution has no independent regulatory or fiscal effect, but it changes the final form of H.B. 140 by instructing the enrolling clerk to delete Section 2 and renumber subsequent sections. Its impact is therefore on legislative drafting and the accuracy of the enrolled bill, which in turn may affect how the underlying law is codified, interpreted, or implemented if H.B. 140 becomes law.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment appears broadly supportive and noncontroversial. The House adopted the resolution by a strong margin, 116 yeas to 7 nays with 3 present not voting, and the Senate adopted it by viva voce vote. The available record suggests lawmakers viewed the measure as a routine technical correction rather than a substantive policy dispute.
Contention
The only notable point of contention is the existence of the technical error in H.B. 140 and the decision to remove Section 2 from the enrolled version. The bill text and context do not explain the underlying mistake or identify a policy disagreement over the section, so any opposition appears limited and likely procedural rather than ideological. No committee debate is available in the provided materials.