AUSTIN – House members called on the federal government Saturday to stop forcing unfunded mandates on Texas, approving a states' rights resolution that was nearly derailed by a technicality earlier this month.

The resolution, which is nonbinding, passed 99-36, and now heads to the Senate. It was opposed by some Democrats who said it conjures up images of Southern "states' rights" rallies during the civil rights era and sounds like a resolution on Gov. Rick Perry's recent secession comments.

The words states' rights "bring up the emotion of a denial of rights: a denial of the right to vote, denial of the right to get an equal education, denial of the ability to be a full citizen," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.

But supporters, including the resolution's author, Rep. Brandon Creighton, said it's not an effort to strip away anyone's rights. He said he's simply tired of the federal government burdening Texans with unfunded costs – programs like the Real ID Act and the No Child Left Behind education law. He's asking for a renewed respect for the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government for the states.

"It is very difficult to balance that budget when we have mandates from Washington that are unfunded," said Creighton, R-Conroe. "This is in no way about secession. It's about succeeding in the union, not seceding from it."

Earlier this month, Houston Rep. Senfronia Thompson knocked the resolution off of the House's agenda with a technicality. At the time, she said that raising issues of segregation was not her immediate concern but that such resolutions, which several states are considering versions of, could challenge federal authority and funding of programs such as children's health insurance and unemployment benefits.

Before it passed, the resolution was amended by lawmakers to clarify that it does not seek to override the rights of any Texans, or insinuate that Texans aren't committed to the rest of the country.

Coleman, who voted against the resolution, tacked on an amendment saying the resolution doesn't apply to mandates that protect civil rights, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"I do have problems with D.C. telling us what to do," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco. "But when a state is trying to infringe on someone's rights, it is the place of the federal government to step in."