Before saying that someone else is wrong about proposed legislation, it is a good idea to actually be familiar with the conventions of statutory construction. @:-)
Can you point to any rule of statutory interpretation (or a case) which supports your position in a criminal statute? If it said "includes, but is not limited to" I would certainly agree. But where it says "includes" and has a comprehensive list (ending with an "and"), do you feel that there would be a fatal ambiguity for a criminal statute which says "includes" but is interpreted to be much broader?
Or, in the alternative, can you direct me to the Texas statute which you are "sure" specifies the definition of a "public servant" in a manner which does *not* include federal employees and those acting under color of federal law? The one which I located refers to anyone employed by "government" without specifying which government.