Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dwayne Bohac
Chairman
86(R) - 46
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION • TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910
(512) 463-0752 • https://hro.house.texas.gov
Steering Committee: Dwayne Bohac, Chairman Alma Allen, Vice Chairman
Dustin Burrows Donna Howard Andrew Murr Angie Chen Button John Frullo Ken King Eddie Lucio III Toni Rose Joe Deshotel Mary González J. M. Lozano Ina Minjarez Gary VanDeaver
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
daily floor report
Monday, April 15, 2019
86th Legislature, Number 46
The House convenes at 11 a.m.
Part Two
Five bills are on the Major State Calendar, one joint resolution is on the Constitutional
Amendments Calendar, and 51 bills are on the General State Calendar for second reading
consideration today. The bills and joint resolutions analyzed or digested in Part Two of today's
Daily Floor Report are listed on the following page.
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
Daily Floor Report
Monday, April 15, 2019
86th Legislature, Number 46
Part 2
HB 663 by King Revising school curriculum, limiting instructional material adoptions 53 HB 306 by Herrero Creating an open burn pit registry for service members and veterans 57 HB 766 by Huberty Exempting disabled peace officers and fire fighters from university tuition 60 HB 128 by Hinojosa Notifying parents of school children of physical fitness assessment results 62 HB 726 by Larson Revising certain groundwater permitting processes 64 HB 105 by Minjarez Requiring driver education to include information on oversize vehicles 69 HB 1000 by Paddie Creating tax credits for investments in rural and opportunity funds 70 HB 80 by Ortega Requiring a statewide study of shortages in health professions 77 HB 218 by Krause Removing student loan default as grounds for certain disciplinary action 79 HB 314 by Howard Funding child care expenses through compensatory education funds 81 HB 629 by Landgraf Establishing a registry of protective orders related to family violence 84 HB 402 by Thompson Adopting the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act 90 HB 852 by Holland Prohibiting home value as a factor in inspection fees 93 HB 548 by Canales Reporting certain truancy information through PEIMS 96 HB 686 by Clardy Making certain fees charged by district and county clerks permanent 98 HB 1995 by King Reallocating part of simulcast betting pools to Racing Commission 99 HB 3366 by Kacal Creating fund for deposits for pari-mutuel wagering's Texas-bred program 101 HB 1421 by Israel Requiring election officials to participate in cybersecurity measures 103 HB 1802 by Bohac Extending the deadline for requesting arbitration to appeal an ARB order 106 HB 1702 by Howard Providing support services for college students in foster care 107 HB 1953 by Thompson Defining certain converted material, excepting from solid waste regulation 109 HB 961 by Howard Allowing school nurses to serve on concussion oversight teams 114
HOUSE HB 663 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH K. King
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 663 by Ashby)
- 53 -
SUBJECT: Revising school curriculum, limiting instructional material adoptions
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, Dutton, K.
King, Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver
0 nays
1 absent — M. González
WITNESSES: For — Randy Willis, Granger ISD, Texas Rural Education Association;
Kristi Hassett, Lewisville ISD; (Registered, but did not testify: Jennifer
Rodriguez, Apple Inc.; Wayne Schaper, Instructional Material
Coordinators' Association of Texas (IMCAT); Betsy Singleton, League of
Women Voters of Texas; David Edmonson, TechNet; Ted Raab, Texas
American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT); Barry Haenisch, Texas
Association of Community Schools; Mike Meroney, Texas Association of
Manufacturers (TAM); Michael Lee, Texas Association of Rural Schools;
Casey McCreary, Texas Association of School Administrators; Dominic
Giarratani, Texas Association of School Boards; Paige Williams, Texas
Classroom Teachers Association; Jennifer Bergland, Texas Computer
Education Association; Kristin McGuire, Texas Council of Administrators
of Special Education; Mark Terry, Texas Elementary Principals and
Supervisors Association (TEPSA); Buck Gilcrease, Texas School
Alliance; Lisa Dawn-Fisher, Texas State Teachers Association)
Against —Nicole Hudgens, Texas Values Action; Lynette Lucas;
(Registered, but did not testify: Cindy Asmussen; Amy Hedtke)
On — Paul Gray, Texas Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Monica
Martinez, Texas Education Agency; Pat Hardy
BACKGROUND: The State Board of Education (SBOE) is required by Education Code ch.
28 subch. A to develop the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
and curriculum necessary to prepare all students to read, write, compute,
problem solve, think critically, apply technology, and communicate across
HB 663
House Research Organization
page 2
- 54 -
all subject areas. The TEKS also must prepare and enable all students for
postsecondary success.
Education Code sec. 31.022 requires SBOE to adopt a review and
adoption cycle for instructional materials. SBOE issues a proclamation to
call for new instructional materials based on its adoption cycle.
DIGEST: CSHB 663 would require the State Board of Education (SBOE) to narrow
the curriculum and limit the projected cost of new instructional materials
proclamations to 75 percent of the total amount available for the
instructional materials and technology allotment during that biennium.
Curriculum review. The bill would require SBOE to review and, as
necessary, revise and narrow the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS) for the required foundation curriculum for English language arts,
math, science, and social studies. The scope of the TEKS for each subject
and grade level of the curriculum would have to be narrower in scope and
require less time for a student to demonstrate mastery than the TEKS
adopted as of January 1, 2019.
SBOE would be required to consider, for each subject and grade level, the
time a teacher would require to provide comprehensive instruction on a
particular student expectation and the time a typical student would require
to master the expectation. SBOE also would be required to determine
whether the TEKS of a subject could be comprehensively taught within
the required instruction time of a school year, not including the amount of
time for required testing.
Other duties for SBOE would include determining whether college and
career readiness standards had been appropriately integrated in the TEKS
for each subject and grade level and whether a required state exam
adequately assessed a particular student expectation.
SBOE would have to ensure that any revision of the TEKS performed
before September 1, 2022, did not result in a need for the adoption of new
instructional materials. That requirement would expire September 1, 2023.
SBOE would be required to adopt a schedule for continuing the required
HB 663
House Research Organization
page 3
- 55 -
review and revision for each subject and grade level.
Instructional materials proclamations. The bill would only permit
SBOE to issue proclamations for instructional materials in which the total
projected cost was 75 percent or less of the total amount used to fund the
instructional materials and technology allotment for that biennium.
Following the adoption of revised TEKS for any subject, SBOE would
have to determine whether a proclamation was necessary based on the
significance of the changes. If the board determined a proclamation was
necessary, it would issue:
a full call for instructional materials aligned to all of the TEKS for
the subject and grade level;
a supplemental call for materials aligned to new or expanded TEKS
for the subject and grade level;
a call for new information demonstrating alignment of current
materials to the revised TEKS; or
any combination of the above.
In determining the disbursement of money to the available school fund
and the amount of that disbursement that would be distributed to schools
through the instructional materials and technology allotment, SBOE
would have to consider the cost of all instructional materials and
technology requirements for that state fiscal biennium. SBOE would be
required to amend any proclamation to conform to that cost requirement
as well as the general appropriations act for the year of implementation.
The bill would repeal the requirement that a district or charter school that
selects instructional materials not on the instructional materials list use the
material for a certain period of time. It also would repeal the authorization
for a district or charter school to cancel a subscription for instructional
materials before the end of the state contract period under certain
conditions.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 663 would address a widespread concern that the scope of the
HB 663
House Research Organization
page 4
- 56 -
SAY: Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) is too broad to be
reasonably taught within the school year. By narrowing the curriculum,
the bill would allow more classroom time for students to develop a depth
of understanding through projects, group discussions, and activities that
use critical thinking skills. Since the TEKS and STAAR tests are linked,
the bill would reduce the stress of state-mandated tests on students and
teachers.
It is necessary to require that the State Board of Education (SBOE) and
the Texas Education Agency narrow the curriculum because over the past
four years, since SB 313 by Seliger, a similar bill, was vetoed in 2015, the
current number of standards and how those standards are assessed have
not been adequately addressed. For instance, the number of standards in
some subjects actually increased after recent SBOE reviews.
The bill would provide districts with flexibility to use 25 percent of their
instructional materials and technology allotment to meet local needs for
technology. Too often, districts must spend most of their allotment on
textbooks when technology products might better support their students.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
A similar bill enacted by the 84th Legislature in 2015 was vetoed by the
governor because it could have restricted the ability of State Board of
Education (SBOE) to address the needs of Texas classrooms. SBOE
should be allowed to continue following its own timeline for streamlining
the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), realizing that it takes
time to approve instructional materials and train teachers on the new
standards.
Narrowing standards may sound positive, but a recent SBOE review of
social studies standards resulted in controversial changes proposed for the
history curriculum presented to Texas students. Requiring that SBOE
further narrow the curriculum could result in students not being educated
about important subjects.
HOUSE HB 306 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Herrero, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 (CSHB 306 by Flynn)
- 57 -
SUBJECT: Creating an open burn pit registry for service members and veterans
COMMITTEE: Defense and Veterans' Affairs — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Flynn, Tinderholt, Ashby, Hinojosa, Lopez, Lozano, Ramos,
Romero
0 nays
1 absent — Reynolds
WITNESSES: For — Rosie Torres, Burn Pits 360; Ware Wendell, Texas Watch;
(Registered, but did not testify: Jose Carlos Gonzalez, Gonzalez and
Associates Homeland Security; Aimee Bertrand, Harris County
Commissioners Court; Valerie James)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Kirk Cole and Manda Hall, Texas
Department of State Health Services; Suzanna Hupp, Health and Human
Services Commission; James Cunningham, Texas Coalition of Veterans
Organizations, Texas Council of Chapters of the Military Officers
Association of America; Gary Lee, Texas Veterans Commission)
DIGEST: CSHB 306 would require the Department of State Health Services
(DSHS) to establish an open burn pit registry of service members and
veterans who were exposed to open burn pit smoke or other airborne
hazards during their service in any conflict or theater recognized by the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). For each entry in the registry,
DSHS would include the service member or veteran's:
name, address, phone number, and electronic address;
location and period of military service;
medical condition or death that could be related to exposure to
open burn pit smoke or other airborne hazards; and
other information considered necessary by the VA.
HB 306
House Research Organization
page 2
- 58 -
DSHS would share information in the open burn pit registry with the VA's
Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry and would electronically
link the state's registry with the federal registry.
Voluntary registration. A service member, veteran, or family member of
a service member or veteran could register a case of exposure to open
burn pit smoke or other airborne hazards with DSHS for inclusion in the
registry. Information obtained under the provisions of the bill would be
confidential and not subject to disclosure under the Texas Public
Information Act, a subpoena, or other release, except to the VA.
Open burn pit information. With assistance from the Texas Veterans
Commission, DSHS would include information on its website to inform
service members, veterans, and their families about:
the open burn pit registry and the VA's Airborne Hazards and Open
Burn Pit Registry;
the most recent scientific developments on the health effects of
open burn pit smoke or other airborne hazards;
the availability of treatment offered by the VA;
the process for applying to the VA for service-related disability
compensation; and
the manner of appealing to the VA an existing service-related
disability rating decision or requesting an increased rating based on
these illnesses and conditions.
Memorandum of understanding. The executive commissioner of the
Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) could enter a
memorandum of understanding with the VA as necessary to administer
the provisions of the bill. The memorandum would have to ensure that the
VA maintained the confidentiality of a service member or veteran's
personally identifying information.
Report. DSHS would submit a report to the appropriate standing
committees of the House and Senate by December 1 of each even-
numbered year. The report would include an assessment of the
effectiveness of collecting and maintaining information on the health
HB 306
House Research Organization
page 3
- 59 -
effects of exposure to open burn pit smoke and other airborne hazards and
any recommendations to improve the collection and maintenance of the
information. DSHS would submit an initial report by December 1, 2020.
The executive commissioner of HHSC would be required to adopt rules
and enter into any memorandum of understanding necessary to administer
the bill by March 1, 2020.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 306 would help to ensure service members and veterans received
the medical care and support they deserve by creating a registry for
information, education, and awareness of illnesses arising from exposure
to burn pit smoke.
The use of open burn pits in military conflicts since the Gulf War may
have exposed service members and veterans to airborne toxins. This bill
would provide outreach and education to these service members and
veterans by creating a central repository of information with the state.
The federal registry does not provide for ongoing outreach to veterans, the
updating of health information in the registry, or for the ability of family
members of deceased veterans to enter their information in the registry.
This state registry created by CSHB 306 would provide for all of these
items and integrate with the federal registry to provide the greatest
possible support to service members, veterans, and their families.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 306 could duplicate the existing functions of the VA's Airborne
Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.
NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board estimates that the bill would have a
negative impact of $2.6 million on general revenue related funds through
the biennium ending August 31, 2021. The bill would not make any
appropriations but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of
funds to implement the bill.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 766
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 Huberty
- 60 -
SUBJECT: Exempting disabled peace officers and fire fighters from university tuition
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 9 ayes — C. Turner, Button, Frullo, Howard, Pacheco, Schaefer, Smithee,
Walle, Wilson
0 nays
2 absent — Stucky, E. Johnson
WITNESSES: For — Chris Jones, Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas;
(Registered, but did not testify: Ray Hunt, Houston Police Officers' Union;
Monty Wynn, Texas Municipal League; Glenn Deshields, Texas State
Association of Fire Fighters)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Charles Puls, Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board)
BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 54.352 authorizes the governing board of a public
institution of higher education to exempt a peace officer of the state or one
of its subdivisions from tuition and fees if the student was injured in the
performance of duty, was permanently disabled, and was unable to
continue employment as a peace officer.
DIGEST: HB 766 would require the governing board of a public institution of
higher education to exempt a peace officer or fire fighter of the state or
one of its subdivisions from tuition and fees at higher education
institutions if the person was injured in the performance of duty, was
permanently disabled, and was unable to continue employment as a peace
officer or fire fighter because of the disability.
The chief administrative officer of the law enforcement agency, fire
department, or other entity that employed the person at the time of the
injury would determine whether the person was permanently disabled.
HB 766
House Research Organization
page 2
- 61 -
The exemption would be available only to in-state residents.
The bill would apply beginning with the fall 2019 semester.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE HB 128 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Hinojosa, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 (CSHB 128 by Allen)
- 62 -
SUBJECT: Notifying parents of school children of physical fitness assessment results
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, M. González,
K. King, Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver
1 absent — Dutton
WITNESSES: For — Joel Romo, The Cooper Institute; (Registered, but did not testify:
Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Ted
Raab, Texas American Federation of Teachers; Lonnie Hollingsworth,
Texas Classroom Teachers Association; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Lisa
Dawn-Fisher, Texas State Teachers Association)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Barry Haenisch, Texas Association
of Community Schools; Eric Marin and Monica Martinez, Texas
Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: Education Code ch. 38 subch. C requires school districts annually to
assess the physical fitness of students in grade 3 or higher. The results
may be made available to parents upon written request.
DIGEST: CSHB 128 would require school districts to provide parents with a copy
of the results of their child's annual physical fitness assessment. The
results would have to be clear, precise, and easy to understand, and school
districts would have to provide the results to parents no later than the last
day of the school year.
School districts also would have to update their student handbook to
explain that the district would provide parents with a copy of these results
at the end of the school year.
The bill would apply beginning with the 2019-2020 school year.
HB 128
House Research Organization
page 2
- 63 -
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE HB 726 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Larson
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 726 by Ramos)
- 64 -
SUBJECT: Revising certain groundwater permitting processes
COMMITTEE: Natural Resources — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Larson, Metcalf, Farrar, Harris, Lang, Price, Ramos
1 nay — T. King
3 absent — Dominguez, Nevárez, Oliverson
WITNESSES: For — Amber Beard, Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation;
Eddie McCarthy, Fort Stockton Holdings LP; Tom Oney, Lower Colorado
River Authority; Steve Kosub, San Antonio Water System; Linda Kaye
Rogers; (Registered, but did not testify: Heather Harward, Brazos Valley
Groundwater Conservation District; Kent Satterwhite, Canadian River
Municipal Water Authority; Marmie Edwards, League of Women Voters;
C.E. Williams, Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District; Leticia
Van de Putte, San Antonio Chamber of Commerce; Jess Heck, SouthWest
Water Company; Mia Hutchens, Texas Association of Business; Justin
Yancy, Texas Business Leadership Council; Marissa Patton, Texas Farm
Bureau; CJ Tredway, Texas Oil & Gas Association; Bill Kelberlau; Ronda
McCauley)
Against — Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; James
Lee Murphy, League of Independent Voters; Chris Mullins, Save Our
Springs Alliance; Esther Martinez and Andrew Wier, Simsboro Aquifer
Water Defense Fund; (Registered, but did not testify: Angela Smith,
Fredericksburg Tea Party; James Gaines, Texas Landowners Council; Rita
Beving, Texas Landowners for Eminent Domain; Kathy Denison; Meagan
Kennedy)
On — Doug Marousek, Circle D Civic Association; Vanessa Puig-
Williams; (Registered, but did not testify: Tammy Embrey, City of Corpus
Christi; John Dupnik, Texas Water Development Board)
BACKGROUND: Water Code sec. 36.113 directs a groundwater conservation district to
require a permit for the drilling, equipping, operating, or completing of
HB 726
House Research Organization
page 2
- 65 -
wells or for substantially altering the size of wells or well pumps. A
conservation district is authorized to require that any changes in the
withdrawal or use of groundwater only occur after the district has first
approved an amendment to the permit.
Sec. 36.122 allows a groundwater conservation district to require that a
person obtain a permit or an amendment to a permit for the transfer of
groundwater out of the district in order to:
increase the amount of groundwater to be transferred under a
continuing arrangement already in effect; or
transfer groundwater out of the district under a new arrangement.
DIGEST: CSHB 726 would amend permit requirements relating to the export of
groundwater out of a groundwater conservation district’s borders. The bill
would also establish a process for a conservation district to impose a
temporary moratorium on the issuance of permits.
Exporting and operating permits. Under the bill, a conservation district
could not require a separate permit for exporting groundwater for use
outside the district, and a district could not deny a permit because the
application intended to export it outside the district.
Before granting or denying a permit under Water Code sec. 36.113, a
conservation district would have to consider whether the projected effect
of the proposed water production would unreasonably affect existing
water resources, existing permit holders, or registered well owners.
A district would have to extend the term of a permit for transferring water
outside of the district's boundaries that existed on May 27, 2019:
to a term no shorter than the term of a corresponding water
production permit for the water that was to be exported; and
for each additional term the production permit was renewed or was
in effect.
The rules of a conservation district that were in effect on the day an
application for a permit or permit amendment was submitted would be the
HB 726
House Research Organization
page 3
- 66 -
only district rules that would govern the district’s decisions to grant or
deny the application.
Water export fees and surcharges. A groundwater conservation district
could impose an export fee or surcharge on the holder of an operating
permit for water exported for use outside the district. This fee or surcharge
would be determined by methods as described in statute.
A district that imposed an export fee or surcharge on the holder of a
permit to export groundwater before the effective date of the bill could
continue to impose the fee for the duration of the permit and any renewal
of the permit, so long as the holder of the permit was not the same as the
person who held the associated operating permit.
Operating permit moratorium. A groundwater conservation district
could not adopt a moratorium on issuing operating permits or permit
amendments unless the district conducted a public hearing and made
written findings supporting the moratorium.
The public hearing would have to provide residents of the district and
other affected parties the opportunity to be heard. The conservation
district would be required to publish notice of the date, time, and place of
the hearing in a newspaper in the district by the fourth day before the
hearing.
From the fifth day after the notice was published until the district made a
final determination on a proposed moratorium on issuing permits, a
temporary moratorium would be imposed, and the district could stop
issuing permits or permit amendments. By the 12th day after the public
hearing, the district would have to make a final determination on whether
to impose the moratorium and issue written findings supporting the
determination.
A moratorium imposed under the bill would expire after 90 days and
could not be extended. A moratorium adopted by a district before
September 1, 2019, would expire on November 30, 2019.
Effective dates. An administratively complete permit application to
HB 726
House Research Organization
page 4
- 67 -
export groundwater received by a groundwater conservation district
before the effective date of the bill would be governed by the law in effect
when the application was completed.
A permit to export groundwater approved by a conservation district before
the effective date of the bill would be validated and confirmed in all
respects. The bill would not apply to a permit to expert groundwater that
was subject to litigation that was pending on the effective date of the bill
or that resulted in a final judgement that the permit was invalid and that
could not be appealed.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 726 would improve the stability, equitability, and efficiency of
groundwater exportation by streamlining the permitting process. Under
the bill, producing and exporting groundwater from a groundwater
conservation district would no longer require separate permits. This would
simplify the permitting process and allow the development of more large-
scale groundwater production projects to move forward.
Long-term water planning requires stability in order for necessary,
significant investments in infrastructure to be made. This need is reflected
in the current maximum export permit term of 30 years. However,
production permits may be of any duration and are often as short as one to
five years. CSHB 726 would align production permits with export permits
to give water utilities the certainty they need in order to make long-term
plans and investments to serve their customers.
The bill would ensure water producers and exporters were treated
consistently throughout the permitting process. A permit or permit
amendment application would have to be considered under the rules in
place at the time the application was submitted, preventing applicants
from being subjected to rule changes mid-process.
Permits also would no longer be under the procedural threat of an
indefinite moratorium. The bill would limit a groundwater conservation
district's moratorium on the issuance of permits to 90 days and require any
proposed moratorium be considered at a public meeting, increasing
HB 726
House Research Organization
page 5
- 68 -
transparency and allowing stakeholders to weigh in on the process.
Moratoriums were never intended to be used as an indirect way of
denying an application, but they have been used in this way. Placing limits
on the duration of moratoriums is a sensible solution. Longer limits, such
as six months or a year, run the risk of exposing proposed projects to
increased uncertainty in the market and make it more likely the project
would have to be abandoned.
Exempting existing permits from the bill's provisions would negate the
benefits of stability for permit-holders and would not resolve the problems
districts face in dealing with misaligned exporting and production permits.
In addition, districts already have the ability to mitigate against negative
effects to an aquifer when they consider whether to issue or renew an
operating permit.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 726 would remove the flexibility and discretion necessary for
groundwater conservation districts to protect their aquifers in the long
term.
When many water export permits were granted, it was understood that at
the end of 30 years there would be time to analyze the permits' impact on
affected aquifers before the permit was renewed. Extending permits
across-the-board would run counter to this understanding and deny the
public and conservation districts the ability to correct for any impacts on
the aquifer. Current permits should be exempted from this change in the
process.
CSHB 726 also would impose overly restrictive limits on moratoriums.
The hard limit of 90 days would not take into account the varying
complexities of aquifers. A groundwater conservation district might need
more time in order to do its due diligence in studying permits' impact on
the life of an aquifer.
The bill also would override the enabling statutes of certain groundwater
conservation districts as the statutes relate to the districts' rights to control
the exportation of groundwater, conflicting with the will of local voters
who had ratified the district.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 105
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 Minjarez
- 69 -
SUBJECT: Requiring driver education to include information on oversize vehicles
COMMITTEE: Licensing and Administrative Procedures — favorable, without
amendment
VOTE: 8 ayes — T. King, Goldman, Geren, Guillen, Harless, Hernandez, Paddie,
S. Thompson
0 nays
3 absent — Herrero, K. King, Kuempel
WITNESSES: For — John Esparza, Texas Trucking Association; (Registered, but did
not testify: Aaron Gregg, Starsky Robotics; Chelsy Hutchison, Union
Pacific Railroad)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Brian Francis, Texas Department of
Licensing and Regulation)
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that drivers are not adequately trained in the
safe operation of vehicles around oversize and overweight loads,
contributing to the number of accidents involving those vehicles.
DIGEST: HB 105 would require the Texas Commission on Licensing and
Regulation to require that each driver education and driving safety course
include information related to safely driving near oversize and overweight
vehicles, including safe following distances and passing methods. The
commission would adopt these rules by March 1, 2020, and driver
education course providers would submit new curricula to the commission
by September 1, 2020.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE HB 1000 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Paddie, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 1000 by Metcalf)
- 70 -
SUBJECT: Creating tax credits for investments in rural and opportunity funds
COMMITTEE: International Relations and Economic Development — committee
substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Anchia, Frullo, Blanco, Cain, Larson, Metcalf, Perez, Raney
0 nays
1 absent — Romero
WITNESSES: For — Jeff Craver, Advantage Capital; Mackenzie Ledet, Stonehenge
Capital Company, Rural Jobs Coalition; (Registered, but did not testify:
Lauren Spreen, Apache Corporation; Jimmy Carlile, Fasken Oil and
Ranch, Ltd.; Annie Spilman, National Federation of Independent
Business; James Hines, Texas Association of Business; Jamie Dudensing,
Texas Association of Health Plans; Mike Meroney and Fred Shannon,
Texas Association of Manufacturers; Carlton Schwab, Texas Economic
Development Council; Michael Pacheco, Texas Farm Bureau; Shanna Igo,
Texas Municipal League; Donnis Baggett, Texas Press Association; Jay
Propes)
Against — Dick Lavine, Center for Public Policy Priorities; Jay Holtz
DIGEST: CSHB 1000 would create a tax credit program for investors who invested
in rural and opportunity funds. The bill would establish a tax credit
against an investor's state insurance tax liability, equal to a quarter of the
investor's equity interest in the fund or long-term loans made to it.
The Texas Economic Development and Tourism Office (TEDTO) within
the Office of the Governor would approve or deny investors' applications
to participate in the program, and the comptroller would administer the
program's tax aspects. Up to $35 million in tax credits per year could be
claimed under the program, excluding any credits carried forward from a
previous year.
An entity invested in a fund approved as a rural and opportunity fund
HB 1000
House Research Organization
page 2
- 71 -
would be eligible for a credit for a tax year if the entity held a tax credit
certificate for the investment and the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth
anniversary of the closing date of the fund had occurred during the tax
year.
The tax credit could not exceed the investor's total state insurance tax
liability in a tax year, but it could be carried forward to another tax year,
or transferred to an affiliate of the investor.
Application and selection process. An entity seeking approval as a rural
and opportunity fund would be required to send an application to TEDTO.
Applications would have to include:
the total investment authority sought by the applicant under the
applicant's business plan;
evidence that the applicant or applicant's affiliates had invested at
least $100 million in nonpublic companies located in rural counties
or small towns, as defined by the bill, or in qualified federal
opportunity zones;
evidence that at least one principal in a federally licensed rural or
small business investment company was, and had been for at least
four years, an officer or employee of the applicant or an affiliate of
the applicant;
a copy of the rural business investment company license or small
business investment company license for the company at which the
officer or employee had worked;
an estimate of the number of jobs created and retained as a result of
the applicant's growth investments;
a business plan that included a tax revenue impact assessment
prepared by a third-party independent economic forecasting firm
following specific criteria;
a signed affidavit from each committed investor stating the amount
of credit-eligible capital contributions the investor committed to
making; and
a nonrefundable application fee of $5,000.
The bill would require the office to make a decision on each application
HB 1000
House Research Organization
page 3
- 72 -
within 30 days of receipt and in the order in which the applications were
received. Applications received on the same day would be considered to
have been received simultaneously.
TEDTO could deny an application if the applicant's business plan did not
demonstrate that the plan's state and local tax revenue impacts would
exceed the cumulative amount of tax credits issued to the applicant's
investors or for certain other reasons.
An application also could be denied if less than 65 percent of the total
investment authority sought under the business plan consisted of
investments of entities subject to state insurance tax liability.
If the office denied an application, the applicant would have 15 days after
the denial to provide additional information to the office in order to
complete the application or cure any defects. The office would then have
30 days to review and reconsider the application.
Whenever TEDTO approved an application, the office would provide
written notice of approval to the applicant, including the amount of the
fund's investment authority, and a tax credit certificate to each investor
whose affidavit was included in the application. The certificate would
show the investor's credit-eligible capital contribution. This amount would
be used to calculate the tax credit due to the investor, equal to 25 percent
of the credit-eligible amount invested in the fund.
After receiving approval as a designated rural and opportunity fund, a
fund would have 60 days in which to collect the credit-eligible
contribution from each investor issued a tax credit certificate, as well as
certain other permitted investments. The fund would then have to send
documentation to the office that was sufficient to prove the fund had
collected the required amounts.
10 percent or more would need to consist of equity investments
contributed directly or indirectly by affiliates of the fund, including
employees, officers, and directors of those affiliates.
Duties. A rural and opportunity fund approved under the bill would be
HB 1000
House Research Organization
page 4
- 73 -
required to make equity investments or loans to targeted small businesses
in Texas. The bill would define a targeted small business as a business
that, prior to a fund's investment, had fewer than 250 employees and had
its principal business operations in rural or opportunity zones.
The bill would give rural and opportunity funds the right to request a
written opinion from TEDTO as to whether a business in which the fund
proposed to invest qualified as a targeted small business. The office would
be required to notify the fund of its determination within 15 days.
At least 60 percent of a fund's total investment authority would need to be
invested by a deadline about two years from the date of the fund's
approval. The entirety of a fund's investment authority would have to be
invested on or before the third anniversary of the fund's closing date, and
at least two-thirds of these investments would need to be in rural
communities.
Investors' report. A rural and opportunity fund would be required to
submit an annual report to TEDTO documenting the fund's investments,
providing a bank statement, and detailing the names of businesses
receiving an investment. The report also would include the number of jobs
created and retained as a result of those investments, the average annual
salary of the jobs created and retained as well as evidence of any other
benefit to the state as a result of the jobs, and any other information
TEDTO required.
Clawbacks. TEDTO would be required to revoke a tax credit certificate
in connection with an investment in a rural and opportunity fund if the
fund:
failed to invest certain amounts in targeted small businesses by
statutory deadlines;
made a distribution or payout to investors that resulted in the fund
having less than 100 percent of its investment authority invested or
available for investment; or
invested in a small business that itself was an investor directly or
indirectly in the fund.
HB 1000
House Research Organization
page 5
- 74 -
TEDTO would have to notify a rural and opportunity fund of the reasons
for a pending revocation of a tax credit certificate, and the fund would
have 90 days to correct any violation outlined in the notice.
When a fund's certificate was revoked, TEDTO would be required to
notify the comptroller, who would be required to recapture the amount of
credit claimed on a filed tax report for the entity. The bill would establish
a process for determining how remaining investment authority would be
awarded following revocation of a certificate.
Additionally, the bill would set penalties that a fund would have to pay to
TEDTO if it made a distribution to the fund's equity holders without
meeting certain job creation and job retention targets.
Exit from program. A rural and opportunity fund would be allowed to
apply to exit the program after six years. TEDTO would not be allowed to
unreasonably deny this application or to revoke a tax credit certificate
after the fund's exit.
Office of the Governor's report. Before the regular session of the 90th
Legislature, TEDTO would have to submit a report on the economic
benefits of the rural and opportunity fund program to the Legislature. This
report would detail assessments of various outcomes of the investments
made under the program.
Other provisions. TEDTO could not accept new applications to
participate in the program after January 1, 2022, unless it found that the
total positive fiscal effects of the program, under metrics defined in the
bill, exceeded the sum of all tax credit certificates issued.
The bill would require TEDTO and the comptroller to adopt rules
necessary to implement the bill. TEDTO would be required to begin
accepting fund applications by January 1, 2020.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 1000 would stimulate investment in rural Texas and distressed
urban communities where a lack of access to capital is a key constraint on
HB 1000
House Research Organization
page 6
- 75 -
economic growth, job retention, and job creation.
By encouraging capital flows and cooperation among insurance
companies, local community banks, and small businesses, the bill would
help to grow the economy and generate jobs.
The investment program established by the bill would be open only to
federally licensed investors who had demonstrated experience in rural
growth-focused investing. This qualification should yield strong results
for Texas.
The bill contains transparency provisions, clawbacks, and penalties to
ensure that funds that would be authorized by the created program
invested in local businesses and met job creation and job retention targets.
This would help rural and distressed communities to generate more tax
revenue to make up for the tax credits awarded.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 1000 would create a tax credit program that would be costly and
ineffective at creating jobs and economic development. The bill would not
contain adequate clawbacks to ensure the funds' accountability for the
promised jobs and other economic benefits.
Eligibility criteria for participation in the program would be so narrowly
constructed as to limit the number of possible applicants, which could
limit competition. Tax credits would be awarded on a first come, first
served basis, rather than on the basis of evaluation criteria, which might
not allow for the best applicants to be awarded investment authority.
The tax revenues that would be forfeited under the bill could be better
used in other ways that would more directly help rural areas and other
struggling communities. A quarter of lost revenue would come out of
public school funding, which could affect public education.
HB 1000
House Research Organization
page 7
- 76 -
NOTES: According to an estimate from the Legislative Budget Board, CSHB 1000
would have no impact on general revenue related funds in fiscal 2020,
fiscal 2021, and fiscal 2022. The bill would be estimated to have a
probable negative impact of $35 million in general revenue related funds
in fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024, including $8.8 million from the Foundation
School program in each fiscal year.
HOUSE HB 80 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Ortega, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 80 by Howard)
- 77 -
SUBJECT: Requiring a statewide study of shortages in health professions
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 9 ayes — C. Turner, Stucky, Button, Frullo, Howard, E. Johnson,
Pacheco, Smithee, Walle
1 nay — Schaefer
1 absent — Wilson
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Ashley Williams, Center for Public
Policy Priorities; Jesse Ozuna, DHR Health; Will Francis, National
Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Maureen Milligan,
Teaching Hospitals of Texas; Jim Dow, Texas Academy of Anesthesia
Assistants; Deanna L. Kuykendall, Texas Association of Naturopathic
Doctors; Roland Leal, Texas Association of Nurse Anesthetists; Steve
Koebele, Texas Association of Physical Therapists; Stephanie Smith,
Texas Dental Hygiene Association; Bradford Shields, Texas Federation of
Drug Stores; Troy Alexander, Texas Medical Association; Denise Rose,
Texas Occupational Therapy Association; Craig Tounget, Texas Physical
Therapy Association; Kevin Stewart, Texas Psychological Association;
Joe Garcia, University Medical Center-El Paso; John Pitts Jr, Western
Governor's University-Texas)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Lisa Wyman, Texas Department of
State Health Services; Rex Peebles, Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board)
DIGEST: CSHB 80 would require the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
to conduct a study on shortages in certain health professions.
The study, which would be subject to availability of funds, would be
conducted in collaboration with the Texas Health Professions Resource
Center, the Texas Center for Nursing Workforce Studies, and the Texas
HB 80
House Research Organization
page 2
- 78 -
Demographic Center. The study would identify statewide and regional
shortages in health professions, with an emphasis on doctoral-level
training. The board would develop an inventory of existing health science
education programs and each program's enrollment capacity.
The study would analyze shortages in professions including medicine,
dentistry, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology,
psychology, pharmacy, public health, and speech-language pathology.
The board would be required to make recommendations regarding the
establishment and expansion of programs to meet the increased need for
health professionals in the state, and, by December 1, 2023, submit these
along with the results of the study to certain state officials.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board would be authorized to
solicit and accept gifts, grants, and donations from any public or private
source for the commission of the study and recommendations.
The provisions of the bill would expire January 1, 2024.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 80 would help Texas identify workforce needs across a broad
spectrum of health care professions and develop efficient, region-specific
solutions to meet those needs. It is essential that the state has a ready
supply of a variety of doctoral-level professionals to address current
demands and prepare for future population growth.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
Although well intentioned, CSHB 80 would mandate a study on
information that the Department of State Health Services already collects
through health professional shortage area designations.
HOUSE HB 218 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Krause, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 (CSHB 218 by Frullo)
- 79 -
SUBJECT: Removing student loan default as grounds for certain disciplinary action
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 9 ayes — C. Turner, Button, Frullo, Howard, Pacheco, Schaefer, Smithee,
Walle, Wilson
0 nays
2 absent — Stucky, E. Johnson
WITNESSES: For — Ashley Williams, Center for Public Policy Priorities; Fedora
Galasso, Young Invincibles; (Registered, but did not testify: Traci Berry,
Goodwill Central Texas; Will Francis, National Association of Social
Workers-Texas Chapter; Carrie Simmons, Opportunity Solutions Project;
Dwight Harris, Texas American Federation of Teachers; Mike Meroney,
Texas Association of Manufacturers; Mia McCord, Texas Conservative
Coalition; Shannon Noble, Texas Counseling Association; Kate Hendrix,
Texas Hospital Association; Lori Henning, Texas Association of
Goodwills; Ashley Harris, United Ways of Texas; Michael Openshaw)
Against — None
On — Ken Martin, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; John
Fleming, Texas Mortgage Bankers Association
BACKGROUND: Some have suggested that the practice of removing a person's
occupational or professional license due to a default on student loan
payments may only hinder the borrower's ability to make payments.
DIGEST: CSHB 218 would prohibit certain licensing agencies from denying or
refusing to renew a person's professional or occupational license solely on
the grounds of the default status of that person's student loans guaranteed
by the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation.
Agencies would be required to cooperate with the corporation in
providing information to a licensee regarding loan default prevention.
HB 218
House Research Organization
page 2
- 80 -
Agencies and political subdivisions no longer would be required to
provide the corporation with information to help with curing delinquent
loans and collecting defaulted loans.
The bill would prohibit certain medical licensing agencies from taking
disciplinary action against a person seeking a license or a renewal based
on the default status of the person's student loan or breached repayment
contract with a government entity.
CSHB 218 would remove the requirement that the director of the lottery
division of the Texas Lottery Commission deny, suspend, or revoke a
lottery sales agent license for an applicant or sales agent determined to be
in default on a loan administered by the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board or the corporation.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 314
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 Howard, et al.
- 81 -
SUBJECT: Funding child care expenses through compensatory education funds
COMMITTEE: Public Education — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, M. González,
K. King, Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver
0 nays
1 absent — Dutton
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify; David Anderson, Arlington ISD
Board of Trustees; Andrea Chevalier, Association of Texas Professional
Educators; Betsy Singleton, League of Women Voters of Texas; Jill
McFarland and Eric Kunish, National Alliance on Mental Illness-Austin;
Alissa Sughrue, National Alliance on Mental Illness-Texas; Will Francis,
National Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Deborah
Caldwell, North East ISD; Bob Popinski, Raise Your Hand Texas; Seth
Rau, San Antonio ISD; Josette Saxton, Texans Care for Children; Ted
Raab, Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT); Amanda
List, Texas Appleseed; Barry Haenisch, Texas Association of Community
Schools; Casey McCreary, Texas Association of School Administrators;
Dominic Giarratani, Texas Association of School Boards; Amanda
Brownson, Texas Association of School Business Officials, Texas
Association of School Administrators, Texas Association of School
Boards; Jennifer Biundo, Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy;
Michael Barba, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops; Paige Williams,
Texas Classroom Teachers Association; Kristin McGuire, Texas Council
of Administrators of Special Education; Mark Terry, Texas Elementary
Principals and Supervisors Association (TEPSA); Kyle Ward, Texas PTA;
Jerod Patterson, Texas Rural Education Association; Buck Gilcrease,
Texas School Alliance; Christy Rome, Texas School Coalition; Lisa
Dawn-Fisher, Texas State Teachers Association; Lee Nichols,
TexProtects; Knox Kimberly, Upbring; Columba Wilson)
Against — None
HB 314
House Research Organization
page 2
- 82 -
On — Kelly Hickman; (Registered, but did not testify: Terri Hanson,
David Marx, and Melody Parrish, Texas Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 42.152 establishes that compensatory education
allotment funds are distributed to school districts based on their student
enrollment in the national free or reduced school lunch program. Districts
generally must use these funds for instructional purposes including
improving student performance on state assessments and enhancing high
school completion rates for students who are at risk of dropping out of
school.
DIGEST: HB 314 would allow school districts to use compensatory education
allotment funds to pay for providing child care services or assisting with
child care expenses for students at risk of dropping out of school who
were pregnant or were parents.
Districts also could use compensatory education funds to pay for costs
associated with the following services provided through a life skills
program for at-risk students who were pregnant or were parents:
counseling and self-help programs;
day care for the students' children on campus or at a nearby facility;
transportation for students and their children to and from the
campus or day care facility;
instruction in child development, parenting, and home and family
living skills; and
assistance in obtaining government and community services,
including certain health plans.
No later than January 1, 2020, the commissioner of education would be
required to adopt rules requiring the Public Education Information System
(PEIMS) to include pregnancy as a reason a student withdrew from or
otherwise no longer attended school.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
HB 314 would give districts flexibility to use compensatory education
HB 314
House Research Organization
page 3
- 83 -
funds to provide child-care services and life skills programs as a way to
help at-risk students who were pregnant or parents. Difficulties in finding
reliable, affordable child care can distract students from their studies,
causing them to drop out.
Texas used to have a grant program that districts could use to provide
child care, but funding for that program ended. The bill would be in line
with HB 3 by Huberty, the House-passed school finance bill, which would
remove some restrictions on the use of compensatory education funding.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
HB 314 would inappropriately allow school districts to divert
compensatory education funds to pay for child care expenses.
Compensatory education funds were designed to provide additional
instruction for students who are struggling academically and should not be
used for other purposes. Districts that want to provide those services
should use other funds.
HOUSE HB 629 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Landgraf
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 629 by Burns)
- 84 -
SUBJECT: Establishing a registry of protective orders related to family violence
COMMITTEE: Homeland Security and Public Safety — committee substitute
recommended
VOTE: 9 ayes — Nevárez, Paul, Burns, Calanni, Clardy, Goodwin, Israel, Lang,
Tinderholt
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Jon Nielsen; (Registered, but did not testify: Joseph Chacon,
Austin Police Department; Christine Wright, City of San Antonio; Jessica
Anderson, Houston Police Department; Kent Birdsong, Oldham County
Attorney; Monty Wynn, Texas Municipal League; CJ Grisham)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Reginald Smith, Texas
Criminal Justice Coalition; Alexis Tatum, Travis County Commissioners
Court)
On — David Slayton, Office of Court Administration; Joel Rogers, Office
of the Attorney General-Child Support Division
BACKGROUND: Family Code ch. 82 establishes the process for a person to file an
application for a protective order with regard to family violence. Before
obtaining an order, notice of the application must be served on the
respondent, and the court must set a hearing. Under ch. 85, a court issues a
protective order if at a hearing on the application it is determined that
family violence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future.
Under ch. 83, if the court finds from the application that there is a clear
and present danger of family violence, it may issue a temporary ex parte
order without notice to the respondent or a hearing.
Code of Criminal Procedure art. 17.292 allows a magistrate to issue an
order for emergency protection at a defendant's appearance after arrest for
certain offenses, including family violence. The magistrate may issue the
order on the magistrate's own motion or on the request of the victim or
HB 629
House Research Organization
page 2
- 85 -
victim's guardian, a peace officer, or a prosecutor.
DIGEST: CSHB 629 would create and establish requirements for a registry of
protective orders related to family violence, including public access.
The bill would apply only to:
an application for an order filed under Family Code ch. 82;
a protective order issued under Family Code ch. 85;
a temporary ex parte order issued under Family Code ch. 83; or
an application for or an issued order for emergency protection
under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 17.292, with respect to a
person who was arrested for an offense involving family violence.
Protective order registry. CSHB 629 would require the Office of Court
Administration (OCA), in consultation with the Department of Public
Safety, to establish and maintain a centralized internet-based registry for
applications for protective orders filed and protective orders issued in the
state that were related to family violence, including a vacated or expired
order. OCA would have to establish the registry in a manner that allowed
it to easily interface with municipal and county case management systems.
OCA would have to establish the registry by June 1, 2020, unless a delay
of up to 90 days was authorized by the Texas Judicial Council.
Entry of information. The clerk of a court generally would have to enter
within 24 hours a copy of a protective order application after it was filed
or an original or modified order after it was issued or extended.
For an issued, modified, or extended protective order, the clerk would
have to enter into the registry:
a copy of the order and notation regarding any modification or
extension of the order;
the court that issued the order;
the case number;
the full name, county of residence, birth year, and race or ethnicity
HB 629
House Research Organization
page 3
- 86 -
of the person who was the subject of the order;
the dates the order was issued and served;
the date the order was vacated, if applicable; and
the date the order expired or will expire.
The clerk would have to modify the record of an order in the registry if it
was vacated or had expired to reflect the order's status.
Restricted access to registry. Under the registry, only an authorized user,
the attorney general, a district attorney, a criminal district attorney, a
county attorney, a municipal attorney, or a peace officer could access a
copy of each application for a protective order filed and a copy of each
order issued. OCA would have to ensure that those users were able to
search for and receive such information through the registry's website.
An authorized user would include a person to whom OCA had given
permission and the means to submit records to or modify or remove
records in the registry.
Public access to registry. OCA would have to establish and maintain the
protective order registry in a manner that allowed the public to search for
and receive public information on each issued protective order for free.
The registry would be searchable by the county of issuance and the name
and birth year of a person who was the subject of the protective order.
Publicly accessible information on each protective order would consist of
only the information a clerk had to enter into the registry for an issued,
modified, or extended protective order under the bill. OCA could not
allow public access to any information related to a temporary ex parte
order under Family Code ch. 83 or an order for emergency protection
issued under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 17.292. OCA also would
have to ensure that the public could not access the application or any
information related to it through the registry's website.
Request for grant or removal of public access. The public would have
access to information in the registry only if OCA approved a request from
a protected person granting the public access. A person later could request
that OCA remove public access to the information, which would be done
HB 629
House Research Organization
page 4
- 87 -
within three days of receiving such a request.
The Supreme Court of Texas would prescribe the form for requesting a
grant or removal of public access and could prescribe procedures for
requesting a grant or removal of public access.
Before September 1, 2020, OCA could not allow a member of the public
to view publicly accessible information included in the registry.
Training program. The bill would require OCA to establish and
supervise a training program for magistrates, court personnel, and peace
officers on the use of the protective order registry by June 1, 2020.
Implementation. OCA would be required to implement the bill only if an
appropriation was made for that purpose. Otherwise, the office could, but
would not be required to, implement the bill using other available funds.
Effective date. The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would
apply only to an application for a protective order or a protective order
issued on or after September 1, 2020.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 629 would make public information about protective orders
relating to family violence more accessible to law enforcement agencies,
courts, governmental entities, and the public. While much of this
information already is public information, there is not currently a process
for accessing it. By providing a central location where these individuals
and agencies could easily access such information, the bill could help
reduce the recurrence of domestic violence and possibly save lives.
The registry created by CSHB 629 would provide law enforcement
agencies, courts, and governmental entities a more reliable way of
obtaining and confirming information about protective orders relating to
family violence. Currently, a law enforcement agency might be unaware
of a protective order if it was issued in another jurisdiction. Courts and
governmental agencies also do not readily have a way to obtain complete
information about protective orders. Having access to such information
across jurisdictional lines could save the lives of officers and other first
responders executing their duties.
HB 629
House Research Organization
page 5
- 88 -
The bill would empower and protect victims of family violence by
allowing them to proactively choose to grant public access to information
on protective orders. They would be able to choose to remove that public
access at any time. The registry created by the bill also could help people
avoid entering into abusive relationships by making some information
about the subjects of previous protective orders publicly available and
accessible online.
Concerns that the bill would result in unintended consequences for
innocent people are unfounded. The bill would ensure that only protective
orders that had gone through due process would be accessible on the
public portion of the registry. The public could not access any information
related to the application for an order or on a temporary order. Further, if
an order was later revoked or expired, it would be removed from the
registry.
The bill would not overly burden clerks or result in a large cost to either
the state or counties. Clerks would have up to 24 hours to enter relevant
information into the registry after a protective order was applied for or
issued, and the bill would ensure that the registry could interface with
existing systems of municipalities and counties. There would be no
additional cost from general revenue to implement the bill as the
Statewide Electronic Filing Fund, a general revenue dedicated account,
appropriately could be used to cover both the start-up costs of the registry
and possibly any related operational costs. The House-passed version of
the general appropriations act would appropriate to OCA all balances of
the fund.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 629 would include information in the proposed public registry that
had the potential to be significantly abused. Personal information for civil
rulings, like protective orders, should not be made public because the
burden of proof is lower in these rulings than in a criminal court, which
could result in innocent people unintentionally being implicated.
There are always two sides to a story, and once basic factual information
about the subject of an order was entered into a public database online, it
could affect the person's reputation for life. Making this information
HB 629
House Research Organization
page 6
- 89 -
public could subject innocent people to retaliation or other unintended
consequences. For example, many family law attorneys recommend that
their clients get a protective order, even if there has been no indication of
family violence. Making information about these orders publicly available
could have unintended and outsized effects on the subjects of the orders.
OTHER
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 629 could result in a compliance burden on court clerks and
significant implementation costs for counties.
NOTES: According to an estimate by the Legislative Budget Board, the bill would
have a negative impact of $350,000 to general revenue related funds
through the biennium ending August 31, 2021.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 402
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 S. Thompson
- 90 -
SUBJECT: Adopting the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 9 ayes — Leach, Farrar, Y. Davis, Julie Johnson, Krause, Meyer, Neave,
Smith, White
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Barbara Bintliff; (Registered, but did not testify: Trish McAllister,
Texas Access to Justice Commission; Jay Bowlby; Ghada Ghannam;
Kolby Monnig)
Against — None
On — Jeffrey Archer, Texas Legislative Council; (Registered, but did not
testify: Robert Sumners, Secretary of State)
DIGEST: HB 402 would adopt the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act, which
would designate the state's official publishers of legal material in an
electronic record and impose certain requirements for these materials.
Official publishers. The Texas Legislative Council would be the official
publisher of the state constitution, while the secretary of state would be
the official publisher of the general or special laws passed in a regular or
special session of the Legislature and of any state agency rule adopted
under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Official publication. If an official publisher published legal material only
in an electronic record, the publisher would have to designate that
electronic record as official. If the official publisher published legal
material in an electronic record and also published the material in a
different record, the publisher could designate the electronic record as
official.
To be official, an electronic record would have to comply with
authentication, preservation, and public access requirements.
HB 402
House Research Organization
page 2
- 91 -
An official publisher would not be required to publish legal material on or
before the date on which the legal material took effect.
Authentication. An official publisher would be required to authenticate
an official electronic record of legal material by providing a method for a
viewer to determine that the electronic record was unaltered from the
published official record.
An electronic record of legal material that was authenticated in this state
or in a state with a law that was substantially similar to this bill would be
presumed to be an accurate copy of the legal material. A party contesting
the authenticity of legal material in an authenticated electronic record
would have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
the record was not authentic.
Preservation. An official publisher would be required to preserve and
secure an official electronic record in an electronic or other form. If
preserved in an electronic record, the official publisher would have to
ensure the integrity of the record, provide for its backup and disaster
recovery, and ensure its continued usability.
Public access. Legal material in an official electronic record would have
to be made reasonably available to the public on a permanent basis.
Standards. In implementing the requirements of this bill, an official
publisher would be required to consider the standards and practices of
other jurisdictions, the most recent standards regarding electronic records
as adopted by national standard-setting bodies, the needs of users, and the
perspectives of interested persons.
To the extent practicable, an official publisher also would have to consider
the methods and technologies that would be compatible with those used
by official publishers in other states that have adopted a law substantially
similar to this bill. Consideration would be given to the need to promote
the uniformity of the law regarding electronic records of legal material
among such states.
HB 402
House Research Organization
page 3
- 92 -
Federal law. The bill would modify, limit, and supersede the federal
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, except with
regard to provisions relating to consumer disclosures and the delivery of
certain notices.
Implementation plans. Texas Legislative Council would be required to
consult with the lieutenant governor, the House speaker, the Senate
Committee on Administration, and the House Committee on
Administration to develop an implementation plan for the authentication
and preservation of electronic legal materials. The secretary of state would
develop such a plan in consultation with the Texas State Library and
Archives Commission.
These implementation plans would have to advise as to the method by
which each type of legal material could be authenticated, preserved, and
made permanently available and would establish a timeline for the official
publisher to comply with the requirements of this bill.
The Texas Legislative Council would be required to submit its
implementation plan to the lieutenant governor and the House speaker by
September 1, 2020. The Texas State Library and Archives Commission
would have to submit the secretary of state's implementation plan to the
Legislature by that same date.
Effective date. The bill would apply to all legal material in an electronic
record designated as official and first published electronically by an
official publisher on or after January 1, 2021.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE HB 852 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Holland, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 852 by Button)
- 93 -
SUBJECT: Prohibiting home value as a factor in inspection fees
COMMITTEE: Urban Affairs — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — Button, Shaheen, Goodwin, Middleton, Patterson, Swanson
3 nays — J. González, E. Johnson, Morales
WITNESSES: For — Kevin Webb, Altura Homes; David Lehde, Dallas Builders
Association; Ned Munoz, Texas Association of Builders; (Registered, but
did not testify: Jon Fisher, Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas;
David Glenn, Home Builders Association of Greater Austin; Cary
Cheshire, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility; Todd Kercheval and Michael
Warner, Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers; Kyle
Jackson, Texas Apartment Association; D.J. Pendleton, Texas
Manufactured Housing Association; Daniel Gonzalez and Julia Parenteau,
Texas Realtors)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Kevin Shunk, City of Austin;
Clifford Sparks, City of Dallas; Sarah Kuechler, City of Denton; Bill
Kelly, City of Houston Mayor’s Office)
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Michael Kovacs, City of Fate)
DIGEST: CSHB 852 would prohibit a city from considering the value of a dwelling
or the cost of constructing or improving that dwelling in determining the
amount of a building permit or inspection fee for the dwelling's
construction or improvement.
Cities also would be prohibited from requiring the disclosure of
information related to the value of or cost of constructing or improving a
dwelling as a condition of obtaining a building permit, except as required
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
HB 852
House Research Organization
page 2
- 94 -
effect September 1, 2019. The bill would apply only to a building permit
or inspection fee assessed on or after the effective date.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 852 would keep cities from using construction fees as a backdoor
tax for the funding of other services, bring greater fairness to the
distribution of the fee burden, and reduce property taxes on homeowners
undergoing construction or building projects.
Long-standing Texas Supreme Court precedent holds that fees, unlike
taxes, can cover the cost of providing a service but may not serve the
purpose of generating revenue. On this principle, fees collected for the
inspection of construction projects may be used only to fund inspection
programs. Infrastructure and other related expenses related to new
construction and municipal growth should be covered by other means,
such as impact fees.
Some Texas cities violate this principle by charging construction permit
fees the amount of which are determined by the selling price of the house
rather than the costs of the inspection process. Because a difference in
home values does not necessarily indicate a difference in the difficulty of
inspecting homes, charging different fees based on home value is
irrelevant to the cost of providing the service for which the fees are
nominally collected. CSHB 852 would end this practice by banning the
use of home values in the setting of inspection fees.
In Texas, appraisal districts may not require homeowners to disclose the
sale price of a home, yet cities that learn of the value of new homes may
share that knowledge with their assessment districts. Property taxes levied
on homes with disclosed purchase prices are often higher than an appraisal
might have warranted. By prohibiting cities from requiring disclosure of
the value of the home, the bill would show respect for the privacy of
homeowners and avoid burdening them with higher property taxes.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 852 could represent an infringement on local control and place a
burden on less affluent homeowners. Although cities are prohibited from
using fees generated by a program for expenses unrelated to that program,
they are not required to set each individual fee so that it corresponds
directly to the costs of a specific project.
HB 852
House Research Organization
page 3
- 95 -
New building and construction projects require infrastructure and utilities
the costs of which are impossible to tie to a particular new home. The
overall cost of new services must be divided among a city's construction
projects, and cities should be allowed to choose the principle on which
they make that division. The bill would remove that choice by disallowing
cities from apportioning costs on the principle that those who have more
should pay more.
When cities share information on the sale price of a home with assessment
districts, the districts are able to assess the property tax of the home on the
basis of its market value. This does not represent an excessive valuation
but the actual price upon which a buyer and seller were willing to agree.
Denying cities this information could lead to the newest and most
expensive houses being systematically under-assessed, resulting in
longtime homeowners subsidizing the property taxes of real estate
developers and the wealthy.
HOUSE HB 548 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Canales
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 548 by Dutton)
- 96 -
SUBJECT: Reporting certain truancy information through PEIMS
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, Dutton, M.
González, K. King, Meyer, Talarico, VanDeaver
0 nays
1 absent — Sanford
WITNESSES: For — Ellen Stone, Texas Appleseed; (Registered, but did not testify: Lisa
Flores, Easter Seals Central Texas; Paige Williams, Texas Classroom
Teachers Association; Jose Flores and Reginald Smith, Texas Criminal
Justice Coalition; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Martha Leal, Texas School
Counselor Association)
Against — Jeremy Newman, Texas Home School Coalition; (Registered,
but did not testify: Bill Kelberlau; Joshua Newman)
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Eric Marin and Melody Parrish,
Texas Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 25.085 requires a child who is at least 6 years old, or
who is younger than 6 and has previously been enrolled in 1st grade, and
who has not yet reached 19 years old to attend school. Sec. 25.086
exempts certain students from the requirements of compulsory school
attendance.
Education Code sec. 25.0915 requires school districts to initiate truancy
prevention measures for students who fail to attend school without excuse
on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period. Sec.
25.093 makes it an offense for a parent to, with criminal negligence,
contribute to a child's nonattendance at school.
DIGEST: CSHB 548 would require the education commissioner to require each
school district and open-enrollment charter school to report through the
HB 548
House Research Organization
page 2
- 97 -
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data
disaggregated by campus and grade regarding:
the number of children who are required to attend school and who
failed to attend school without excuse for 10 or more days or parts
of days within a six-month period in the same school year;
the number of students for whom the district initiated a truancy
prevention measure; and
the number of parents of students against whom an attendance
officer or other appropriate school official had filed a complaint for
contributing to a student's nonattendance.
The education commissioner would adopt these rules by January 1, 2020.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CHSB 548 would ensure legislators had access to grade-level data on
truancy information so they could make informed policy on truancy.
There are specific funds at the Office of the Governor designated to
helping schools address truancy, but without the data the office cannot
properly identify the schools that could benefit from their grants.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
Although well intentioned, CSHB 548 would not explicitly exempt
students who are homeschooled or who attend a private or parochial
school. Inadvertently requiring school districts to report information on
these students would be difficult as they do not currently count these
children under compulsory attendance statutes.
NOTES: The author plans to offer a floor amendment that would exempt certain
children from being counted for truancy purposes under Education Code
sec. 25.086.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 686
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 Clardy, et al.
- 98 -
SUBJECT: Making certain fees charged by district and county clerks permanent
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 9 ayes — Leach, Farrar, Y. Davis, Julie Johnson, Krause, Meyer, Neave,
Smith, White
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Stacey Kemp, County and District Clerks' Association of Texas
(Registered, but did not testify: Nancy Rister, Patti Henry, Joyce Hudman,
Lynne Finley and Cary Roberts, County and District Clerks' Association
of Texas; Charles Reed, Dallas County Commissioners Court; Lynn Holt,
Justices of the Peace and Constables Association; Russell Schaffner,
Tarrant County; Lee Parsley, Texans for Lawsuit Reform; John Dahill,
Texas Conference of Urban Counties; Deece Eckstein, Travis County
Commissioners Court)
Against — None
DIGEST: HB 686 would make permanent a $10 cap for the district court records
archive fee collected by district clerks and the records management and
preservation fee and records archive fee collected by county clerks.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 1995
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 T. King
- 99 -
SUBJECT: Reallocating part of simulcast betting pools to Racing Commission
COMMITTEE: Licensing and Administrative Procedures — favorable, without
amendment
VOTE: 9 ayes — T. King, Goldman, Geren, Harless, Hernandez, Herrero, K.
King, Kuempel, Paddie
0 nays
2 absent — Guillen, S. Thompson
WITNESSES: For — Tommy Azopardi, Gillespie County Fair and Festivals;
(Registered, but did not testify: Michael Pacheco, Texas Farm Bureau)
Against — None
On — Chuck Trout, Texas Racing Commission; (Registered, but did not
testify: Adrianne Courtney and Gerald Dube, Texas Racing Commission)
BACKGROUND: Under the Texas Racing Act in Occupations Code sec. 2028.202(a), a
portion of the wagering pools on simulcast races is set aside for the state.
A simulcast race is one that is broadcast from one track with betting
occurring at another track. Depending on the type of race, 1 percent or
1.25 percent of each betting pool is set aside for the state. Under sec.
2024.055, these funds are deposited in the general revenue fund.
Occupations Code sec. 2023.053 requires the Racing Commission to
deposit money it collects into the Texas Racing Commission fund, which
may be appropriated only for the administration and enforcement of the
Texas Racing Act. The commission collects funds through licensing,
registrations, fines, and other sources. The Legislature also may
appropriate money from the general revenue fund to administer the
Racing Act. Any general revenue appropriated to the commission in
excess of the amount deposited in the Texas Racing Fund must be repaid
with interest.
HB 1995
House Research Organization
page 2
- 100 -
Some have suggested that declining revenue from the shrinking pari-
mutuel industry has strained the Racing Commission's ability to fulfill its
mandate of protecting racing and the public interest and that a more stable
source of funding is needed for the commission.
DIGEST: HB 1995 would allocate the portion of simulcast betting pools that
currently is set aside for the state to the Racing Commission for its
administration.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply to
deductions from wagering pools for races conducted on or after that date.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 3366
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 Kacal, Bailes
- 101 -
SUBJECT: Creating fund for deposits for pari-mutuel wagering's Texas-bred program
COMMITTEE: Licensing and Administrative Procedures — favorable, without
amendment
VOTE: 8 ayes — T. King, Goldman, Geren, Harless, Hernandez, Herrero,
Kuempel, Paddie
0 nays
3 absent — Guillen, K. King, S. Thompson
WITNESSES: For — Jimmy Eller, Texas Quarter Horse Association; (Registered, but
did not testify: Michael Pacheco, Texas Farm Bureau)
Against — None
On — Chuck Trout, Texas Racing Commission; (Registered, but did not
testify: Adrianne Courtney, Texas Racing Commission)
BACKGROUND: Occupations Code secs. 2028.103 and 2028.202(3) require horse
racetracks to set aside 1 percent of certain betting pools from live and
simulcast races for a Texas-bred program, some of which is sent to the
Racing Commission and then to the horse breed registries for awards.
Sec. 2028.202(4) requires greyhound tracks to set aside 1 percent of
certain simulcast wagering pools for a Texas-bred program for greyhound
races. These funds must be distributed and used according to commission
rules to promote greyhound breeding in Texas. The Racing Commission
must adopt rules relating to the accounting, auditing, and distribution of
all amounts set aside for the Texas-bred program.
Under the Texas Racing Act, breakage is the odd cents by which the
amount paid on each dollar bet exceeds a multiple of 10 cents. Under
Occupations Code sec. 2028.105, a portion of the breakage from wagering
at horse tracks is sent to the commission and then to breed associations for
various purposes. Similarly, under sec. 2028.154(a) a portion of the
breakage from greyhound tracks is distributed by the commission to the
HB 3366
House Research Organization
page 2
- 102 -
state greyhound breed registry, subject to commission rules.
The Texas Racing Commission is required to deposit money it collects
into the Texas Racing Commission fund, which may be appropriated only
for the administration and enforcement of the Texas Racing Act.
Concerns have been raised that sending funds designated for the Texas-
bred program to the Racing Commission's fund that is appropriated only
for administration artificially inflates the commission's fund with monies
that are being passed through the agency to organizations for specific
breeds.
DIGEST: HB 3366 would establish the Texas bred incentive fund in the state
treasury and would require the Racing Commission to deposit into the
fund money set aside for the Texas-bred program.
Money currently set aside from the wagering pools that goes to the
commission for the Texas-bred program would be deposited in the newly
created fund instead of the general revenue dedicated Texas Racing
Commission Account 597. The Racing Commission would be required to
adopt rules for the use of the Texas-bred program and funds by the state
breed registries. The current breakage amounts sent to the commission and
then to state breed registries also would be deposited by the commission
in the Texas-bred incentive fund before being distributed.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply to
deductions and breakage from betting pools for a race conducted on or
after that date.
HOUSE HB 1421 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Israel, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 1421 by Klick)
- 103 -
SUBJECT: Requiring election officials to participate in cybersecurity measures
COMMITTEE: Elections — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Klick, Cortez, Bucy, Burrows, Cain, Fierro, Israel
2 nays — Middleton, Swanson
WITNESSES: For — Heather Hawthorne, County and District Clerks' Association of
Texas; Brian Engle, CyberDefenses; (Registered, but did not testify: Joyce
Hudman and Jennifer Lindenzweig, County and District Clerk's
Association of Texas; Damon Fleury, CyberDefenses; Cinde Weatherby,
League of Women Voters of Texas; Fatima Menendez, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Lon Burnam, Public
Citizen; Chris Davis, Texas Association of Elections Administrators;
Windy Johnson, Texas Conference of Urban Counties; Glen Maxey,
Texas Democratic Party; Daniel Gonzalez and Julia Parenteau, Texas
Realtors; Aryn James, Travis County Commissioners Court; Idona
Griffith)
Against — Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party Ballot Security
Committee; David Carter; Ed Johnson; (Registered, but did not testify;
Daniel Greer, Direct Action Texas; Russell Hayter)
On — Keith Ingram, Texas Secretary of State
DIGEST: CSHB 1421 would require certain Secretary of State's Office personnel
and county election officers to participate in cybersecurity trainings and
assessments related to the security of election infrastructure.
Secretary of state. The secretary of state would be required to define
classes of protected election data and establish best practices for
identifying and reducing risk to the electronic use, storage, and
transmission of election data and the security of election systems. The
secretary of state would train appropriate personnel in the Secretary of
State's Office on best practices annually and train county election officers
upon request.
HB 1421
House Research Organization
page 2
- 104 -
If the secretary of state became aware of a cybersecurity breach that
impacted election data, the secretary would be required immediately to
notify the appropriate legislative committees with jurisdiction over
elections.
County election officers. County election officers would be required to
request cybersecurity training from the secretary of state and, on an annual
basis, another provider of cybersecurity training if the county election
officer had available state funds for that purpose.
County election officers would be required to request assessments of their
election systems if the secretary of state recommended them and the
necessary funds were available. The officers would have to immediately
notify the secretary of state if there was a cybersecurity breach that
impacted election data.
County election officers would be required to implement cybersecurity
measures to ensure that all devices with access to election data complied
with the cybersecurity rules adopted by the secretary of state, to the extent
that state funds were available.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 1421 would strengthen the state's election infrastructure by
requiring all counties to participate in cybersecurity training and risk
assessments of their work environments if the necessary funds were
available. The bill would extend the participation requirements to some
counties that previously had declined to participate in such programs
offered by the secretary of state because they did not know how they
would pay to fix problems that arose or deemed themselves not vulnerable
to attacks.
The bill would not place a financial burden on counties because federal
funds received in connection with the federal Help America Vote Act are
earmarked for cybersecurity purposes through the Secretary of State's
Office. Many cybersecurity programs currently are offered to counties
HB 1421
House Research Organization
page 3
- 105 -
free of charge using this funding. The bill would help reduce the risk of
data breaches and other cybersecurity incidents that could present
significant costs.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 1421 would require the state to pay for unnecessary cybersecurity
trainings and assessments. Election systems are not connected to the
internet, and the state's election system has never been hacked. Voter rolls
are connected to the internet, but the information contained in voter rolls
is largely public information already.
HOUSE (2nd reading)
RESEARCH HB 1802
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 Bohac
- 106 -
SUBJECT: Extending the deadline for requesting arbitration to appeal an ARB order
COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 10 ayes — Burrows, Guillen, Bohac, Cole, Martinez Fischer, Murphy,
Noble, Sanford, Shaheen, Wray
0 nays
1 absent — E. Rodriguez
WITNESSES: For — Michael Henry, Ryan, LLC; (Registered, but did not testify: Julia
Rathgeber, Association of Electric Companies of Texas; Roland Altinger,
Harris County Appraisal District; Matt Grabner, Ryan, LLC; Ray Head,
Texas Association of Property Tax Professionals; Daniel Gonzalez and
Julia Parenteau, Texas Realtors; James Popp)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Tax Code sec. 41A.03 requires a property owner who seeks to appeal an
appraisal review board order through binding arbitration to file a
completed request for binding arbitration and the applicable fee with the
appraisal district within 45 days of receiving notice of the order.
DIGEST: HB 1802 would extend the deadline for a property owner to file a request
for binding arbitration to appeal an appraisal review board (ARB) order to
within 60 days of receiving the order.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019. The bill would apply only to an appeal of an
ARB order that a property owner received notice of on or after the
effective date.
HOUSE HB 1702 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Howard, et al.
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 (CSHB 1702 by E. Johnson)
- 107 -
SUBJECT: Providing support services for college students in foster care
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 11 ayes — C. Turner, Stucky, Button, Frullo, Howard, E. Johnson,
Pacheco, Schaefer, Smithee, Walle, Wilson
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Andrew Homer, Texas CASA; Toni Watt; (Registered, but did not
testify: Marilyn Hartman and Eric Kunish, National Alliance on Mental
Illness Austin; Lee Nichols, TexProtects; Nataly Sauceda, United Ways of
Texas; Maria Person)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: CJ Grisham)
On — Debra Emerson, Department of Family and Protective Services;
Sarah Matteson
BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 51.9356 requires each institution of higher education
to designate at least one employee to act as a liaison officer for current
and incoming students at the institution who were formerly in state
conservatorship. The liaison officer must provide those students with
information regarding support services and other available resources.
Some have noted that many eligible students are unaware of the services
provided by the liaison officers.
DIGEST: CSHB 1702 would require institutions of higher education to identify
students who are or were formerly in the conservatorship of the
Department of Family and Protective Services and to provide their names
to the institution's liaison officer. Such identification would be made, to
the extent allowed by state or federal law, each semester or academic term
from information provided to the institution.
Each higher education institution would be required by January 1, 2020,
to publicize through its website, social media, email, or other means the
HB 1702
House Research Organization
page 2
- 108 -
name and contact information for the institution's liaison officer and
information on support services and other resources available to students
currently and formerly in foster care.
The liaison officer could participate in training and coordinate with liaison
officers at other educational institutions.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
HOUSE HB 1953 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH E. Thompson
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 1953 by Lozano)
- 109 -
SUBJECT: Defining certain converted material, excepting from solid waste regulation
COMMITTEE: Environmental Regulation — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Lozano, E. Thompson, Blanco, Kacal, Kuempel, Reynolds, J.
Turner, Zwiener
0 nays
1 absent — Morrison
WITNESSES: For — Richard Wagner, Chevron Phillips Chemical; Stephen Minick,
Republic Services; Hector Rivero, Texas Chemical Council; (Registered,
but did not testify: Mike Meroney, BASF Corporation; Daniel Womack,
Dow Chemical; Samantha Omey, ExxonMobil; Mindy Ellmer,
Lyondellbasell; Adam Burklund, National Waste and Recycling
Association; James Mathis, Occidential Petroleum; Caleb Troxclair, SM
Energy; Shana Joyce, Texas Oil and Gas Association; Mark Vickery,
Texas Association of Manufacturers; Chris Macomb, Waste Management
of Texas Inc.)
Against — Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club; Andrew Dobbs,
Texas Campaign for the Environment; (Registered, but did not testify:
Tammy Embrey, City of Corpus Christi)
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Earl Lott, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality)
BACKGROUND: Health and Safety Code ch. 361, also known as the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, gives the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) the
authority to regulate and manage municipal solid waste and solid waste
facilities. "Solid waste" includes refuse from a waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other
discarded material. The statute imposes a fee on all solid waste disposed
of in the state and specifies disposal practices.
DIGEST: CSHB 1953 would prohibit the Texas Commission on Environmental
HB 1953
House Research Organization
page 2
- 110 -
Quality (TCEQ) from considering post-use polymers or recoverable
feedstocks to be solid waste if they were converted using pyrolysis or
gasification into a valuable product. Processed post-use polymers and
recoverable feedstocks would be considered recyclable materials.
"Post-use polymers" would be defined as plastic polymers derived from
any household, industrial, community, commercial, or other source of
operation that could otherwise become waste if not converted into a
valuable raw, intermediate, or final product. The term would include used
polymers containing incidental contaminants or impurities, but not used
polymers mixed with solid, medical, hazardous, electronic waste, tires, or
construction debris.
"Recoverable feedstock" would mean post-use polymers and certain other
material containing post-use polymers derived from recoverable waste,
other than coal refuse, that was processed so that it could be used in a
gasification facility.
"Pyrolysis" and "gasification" would be defined as separate processes
through which post-use polymers or recoverable feedstocks, respectively,
were heated in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere and converted into a
valuable raw, intermediate, or final product. Converted products could
include plastic, monomer, chemical, wax, lubricant, crude oil, diesel,
gasoline, home heating oil, ethanol, or another fuel.
Under the bill, post-use polymers and recoverable feedstock converted
using pyrolysis or gasification into valuable products would be considered
recyclable materials, and the conversion of these materials using pyrolysis
or gasification would be considered recycling.
Pyrolysis and gasification facilities would be exempt from regulation as
solid waste facilities under the Solid Waste Disposal Act if the facilities
demonstrated that:
their primary function was to convert materials that had a resale
value greater than the cost of conversion; and
solid waste generated from converting the materials was disposed
of in a hazardous solid waste management facility or solid waste
HB 1953
House Research Organization
page 3
- 111 -
facility, excepting small amounts of solid waste inadvertently and
unintentionally disposed of in another manner.
The bill would specify that the recycling and reuse of post-use polymers
and recoverable feedstocks classified as hazardous waste under federal
law would be subject to federal requirements.
TCEQ would have to adopt rules necessary to implement this bill as soon
as practicable after the effective date.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:
CSHB 1953 would encourage a new sustainable plastics-to-fuel market to
increase recycling and reuse of traditionally non-recyclable and single-use
materials. The current state of recycling is a hodgepodge among different
local entities, making some plastics more recyclable than others
depending on local recycling facilities. Heavier plastics that cannot be
recycled in these facilities are either shipped overseas, which is expensive,
or end up in landfills, which is environmentally problematic.
Pyrolysis and gasification are new practices that can break down these
plastics into usable items and fuels. There is no oxygen present in the
process, so this technology does not include incineration. Instead, it is an
environmentally friendly recycling process that will help reduce waste.
The bill would ensure that materials recycled by pyrolysis and gasification
facilities were not considered solid waste so that the facilities were not
treated as landfills. This would be appropriate since the facilities would be
involved in the manufacturing of new products. CSHB 1953 would
encourage the conversion of everyday consumer items that are
traditionally non-recyclable, such as plastic shopping bags, into fuel and
other useful materials.
Concerns that this bill would disrupt traditional recycling are unfounded.
Pyrolysis and gasification facilities instead would create a market for non-
recyclable materials to be sold rather than simply collected by cities. The
HB 1953
House Research Organization
page 4
- 112 -
techniques also would work for heavier plastics that would not qualify for
some recycling programs and would otherwise sit in a landfill.
Several recent investments have been made in new plastics-to-fuel
technology, creating millions or even billions of dollars of economic
opportunity. This bill could help increase the number of these facilities,
supporting local economies.
The industry would not be unregulated, as gasification and pyrolysis
facilities would be regulated in a manner similar to other manufacturers in
the state. The recycling of post-use polymers and recoverable feedstock
would fall under applicable federal regulations as well.
OPPONENTS
SAY:
CSHB 1953 would exempt a problematic industry from necessary state
regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Gasification and pyrolysis
processes, which are practically incineration, have economic and
environmental issues and could harm the recycling industry.
Pyrolysis and gasification processes at best would reduce rather than
eliminate waste. Various toxic materials and additives within plastics are
processed through pyrolysis and gasification, resulting in waste and
pollution. Incinerators also compete with traditional recycling markets for
material, and the bill would incentivize greater consumption of plastics
and other materials to keep pyrolysis and gasification plants running.
Plastics-to-fuel operations do not work on a municipal scale, and several
gasification and pyrolysis incinerators have either failed to produce
enough product to justify their continued operation or were cancelled due
to insufficient investment. The operation of these facilities requires large
amounts of energy, making them inefficient. Recycling and composting
programs conserve more energy and cost less than gasification and
pyrolysis.
The Legislature should not exempt gasification and pyrolysis operations
from state regulation. The bill would strip regulations and standards for
these practices, making pollution and waste regulation uncertain.
OTHER
OPPONENTS
CSHB 1953 should be amended to limit the types of materials allowed to
be converted through gasification or pyrolysis to certain thinner plastics
HB 1953
House Research Organization
page 5
- 113 -
SAY: with a known, relatively small environmental impact. The current list is
too broad for the full impact of processing the items through gasification
or pyrolysis to be determined.
HOUSE HB 961 (2nd reading)
RESEARCH Howard
ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 (CSHB 961 by K. Bell)
- 114 -
SUBJECT: Allowing school nurses to serve on concussion oversight teams
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 12 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Allison, Ashby, K. Bell, Dutton, K.
King, Meyer, Sanford, Talarico, VanDeaver
0 nays
1 absent — M. González
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Jason Romero, Indivisible Texas;
Dwight Harris, Texas American Federation of Teachers; Dax Gonzalez,
Texas Association of School Boards; Paige Williams, Texas Classroom
Teachers Association; Kate Kuhlmann, Texas High School Coaches
Association; Troy Alexander, Texas Medical Association; Kevin Stewart,
Texas Nurse Practitioners; Andrew Cates, Texas Nurses Association;
Bobby Hillert, Texas Orthopedic Association; Loree LaChance, Texas
School Nurses Organization; Rick Dennis, Texas State Athletic Trainers
Association; Darren Grissom, TX PTA; Elisa Saslavsky; Arthur Simon)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Monica Martinez, Texas Education
Agency; Lisa Dawn-Fisher, Texas State Teachers Association)
BACKGROUND: Education Code sec. 38.153 requires the governing body of each school
district and charter school with enrolled students who participate in an
interscholastic athletic activity to appoint or approve a concussion
oversight team. Sec. 38.154 requires a concussion oversight team to
include at least one physician and, to the greatest extent practicable, one
or more of the following: an athletic trainer; an advanced practice nurse; a
neuropsychologist; or a physician assistant. If a district or charter school
employs an athletic trainer, that individual must be on the team.
DIGEST: CSHB 961 would allow a school nurse employed by a district or charter
school to be a member of the district or charter school concussion
HB 961
House Research Organization
page 2
- 115 -
oversight team if the nurse requested to be on the team. A nurse who
served on a concussion oversight team would have to take a training
course from an authorized training provider at least once every two years.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2019.