RESEARCH ORGANIZATION - hro.house.texas.gov

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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


page 2

- 63 -





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


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


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


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.


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


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.



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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.




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.


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


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


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.




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


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.


SUPPORTERS

SAY:

HB 314 would give districts flexibility to use compensatory education

HB 314


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.



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.



HB 852


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


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.


RESEARCH Canales

ORGANIZATION bill analysis 4/15/2019 (CSHB 548 by Dutton)

- 96 -

SUBJECT: Reporting certain truancy information through PEIMS


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.



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.


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


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


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.





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


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


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.




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


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


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.


RESEARCH Howard

ORGANIZATION bill digest 4/15/2019 (CSHB 961 by K. Bell)

- 114 -

SUBJECT: Allowing school nurses to serve on concussion oversight teams


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


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.




Documents

RESEARCH ORGANIZATION - hro.house.texas.gov