HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION • TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910 (512) 463-0752 • http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us
Steering Committee: Dwayne Bohac, Chairman Alma Allen, Vice Chairman
Rafael Anchia Ken King Andrew Murr Angie Chen Button John Frullo Brooks Landgraf Eddie Lucio III Joe Pickett Joe Deshotel Donna Howard J. M. Lozano Ina Minjarez Gary VanDeaver
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
daily floor report
Tuesday, May 09, 2017 85th Legislature, Number 67 The House convenes at 10 a.m. Part Four
Fifteen bills set for second-reading consideration on today's daily calendar are analyzed or digested in Part Four of today's Daily Floor Report. They are listed on the following page.
Dwayne Bohac Chairman 85(R) - 67
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Daily Floor Report Tuesday, May 09, 2017 85th Legislature, Number 67 Part 4
HB 1152 by S. Davis Requiring a referendum before a school district can change names 74 HB 543 by Raney Adjusting rules for presidential electors 76 HB 4231 by White Allocating a portion of severance tax revenue to counties for roads 80 HB 1421 by J. Johnson Requiring TDCJ to report quarterly on inmate grievances 82 HB 2478 by S. Davis Creating a grant program for residency training in psychiatric fields 84 HB 2276 by Martinez Increasing fee for oversize or overweight cargo in Hidalgo County 87 HB 40 by Simmons Separating federal funds from the general revenue fund 89 HB 3238 by Nevárez Prohibiting political subdivisions from regulating unmanned aircrafts 91 HB 4047 by Workman Changing annexation requirements for certain special districts 93 HB 1749 by S. Thompson Allowing for expunctions in justice and municipal courts 95 HB 2250 by Darby Classifying certain entities as retail trade for purposes of the franchise tax 96 HB 1226 by Herrero Exempting firefighters and police officers from jury duty 98 HB 1922 by E. Rodriguez Determining eligibility for survivor benefits 100 HB 1620 by Sanford Creating a voluntary temporary caregiver program for certain children 103 HB 200 by Burkett Requirements for fetal tissue disposition and donation, banning its sale 106
HOUSE HB 1152 RESEARCH S. Davis, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/9/2017 (CSHB 1152 by Koop)
SUBJECT: Requiring a referendum before a school district can change names
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Huberty, Bohac, Deshotel, Gooden, K. King, Koop, Meyer, VanDeaver
1 nay — Dutton
1 absent — Allen
1 present not voting — Bernal
WITNESSES: For —Adrienne Murry, Houston Concerned Citizens; William Edmundson; Janet McMasters
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Kara Belew and Von Byer, Texas Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: Education Code, sec. 11.160 allows the board of trustees of an independent school district by resolution to change the name of the school district.
DIGEST: CSHB 1152 would prohibit the board of trustees of a large school district in a certain populous county (Houston Independent School District) from changing the name of a school district or a campus before a majority of voters in a referendum election approved the name change.
A referendum could be placed on the ballot for any type of district election, including an election of district trustees, a bond election, or a special election. If a majority of voters approved the name change, the board by resolution would be allowed to change the name of the district or campus. The school board would be required to give notice of the name change of a district or school by sending to the Commissioner of Education a copy of the resolution attested by the president and secretary
- 74 - HB 1152 House Research Organization page 2
of the board and a copy of the election results.
The district or school with the new name would be considered for all purposes a continuation of the district or campus as it was formerly named.
This 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, 2017.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 1152 would allow voters in the Houston Independent School SAY: District (ISD) to have their voices heard before it made a decision about district or campus names that could have major fiscal implications. School or district name changes require substantial tax dollars to fix equipment, signage, and stationery, and public input should be sought and considered before a district the size of Houston ISD makes a change of this magnitude.
Regardless of the reason the board might consider changing a school's name, it should be transparent and accountable. At one middle school in Houston ISD, a community poll revealed that 90 percent of respondents were opposed to a name change, and many believed a renaming committee that offered alternatives to changing the name was essentially ignored. Requiring a referendum for any change in a school's name would help ensure the school board made future decisions based on the will of the community.
OPPONENTS Many recent name changes involving Houston schools were intended to SAY: address schools named for individuals tied to the Confederacy. Changing the names of those schools was not an arbitrary decision but one made to remove names that many people find offensive, which is a valid district decision that should not be subject to a referendum.
NOTES: CSHB 1152 differs from the bill as filed in that the committee substitute would apply only to the Houston Independent School District.
- 75 - HOUSE HB 543 RESEARCH Raney, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/9/2017 (CSHB 543 by Fallon)
SUBJECT: Adjusting rules for presidential electors
COMMITTEE: Elections — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Laubenberg, Israel, R. Anderson, Fallon, Larson, Reynolds, Swanson
0 nays
WITNESSES: For —Eric Opiela, Republican Party of Texas; Bill Fairbrother, Texas Republican County Chairmen's Association; Virginia Abel; James Randall; (Registered, but did not testify: Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party Ballot Security Committee)
Against —Joanne Richards, Common Ground for Texans; William Greene; Curtis Nelson; Tara Ross; Matthew Stringer; (Registered, but did not testify: Dan Eckam; Rosemary Edwards; Hans Maverick; Naiman Rigby)
On — Glen Maxey, Texas Democratic Party; Keith Ingram, Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division
BACKGROUND: Elections Code, ch. 192, subch. A governs presidential electors.
Eligibility and method. To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector, a person must be a qualified voter of Texas and must not hold the office of U.S. senator or representative, or any other federal office of profit or trust. To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a political party, the person must be affiliated with the party. To become a presidential elector candidate, a person must be nominated by a political party in accordance with party rules or be named as an elector candidate by an independent or write-in candidate for president.
Vacancy. An elector candidate nominated by a political party may withdraw before the presidential election day by delivering written notice to the secretary of state and the state party chair. The party may then name a replacement candidate. If the party's rules do not provide the procedure
- 76 - HB 543 House Research Organization page 2
for choosing a replacement, the party's state executive committee may choose a replacement. The state chair then must file with the secretary of state, before presidential election day, the name and residence address of the replacement candidate, and a written statement signed by the replacement stating that the individual consents to being a candidate.
A replacement elector may be appointed by a majority vote of the qualified electors present at the meeting to vote for president and vice- president if:
the vacancy occurred before the presidential election day and a replacement was not chosen; an elector is declared ineligible or dies on or after presidential election day; or the vacancy is declared at the meeting.
Meeting. The secretary of state must arrange for the meeting place, notify the electors, and call the meeting to order at the state Capitol at 2 p.m. on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election. If an elector is absent at the time for convening, the electors may declare the position vacant by a majority vote of those present.
DIGEST: CSHB 543 would make several changes to laws governing presidential electors, including changing the term for electors from "elector candidates" to "elector nominees."
Eligibility and method. The bill would require the state chair of each political party to submit to the secretary of state the names of two qualified individuals: one designated elector nominee and one alternate elector nominee.
The bill would require each political party holding a national presidential nominating convention to adopt rules providing for the selection of elector nominees and alternate elector nominees. The rules would have to require the presidential nominee of that party to provide a list of eligible persons for nomination as alternate elector nominees and for an alternate method of selecting alternate elector nominees in the event that the presidential nominee did not timely provide the list. - 77 - HB 543 House Research Organization page 3
Pledge. Each elector nominee and alternate nominee of an independent or write-in presidential candidate would have to execute a pledge before a notary agreeing to mark their ballots for that candidate and that candidate's vice-presidential running mate. If required by political party rule, each elector nominee and alternate nominee of the party would have to execute a pledge before a notary agreeing to mark their ballots for the candidates for president and vice president chosen by the party.
Vacancy. The bill would allow an elector nominee or alternate elector nominee to resign on or after the presidential election day. In addition to other necessary filings, a replacement would have to submit the executed pledge, if required, to the secretary of state.
The bill would remove the current method for replacing an elector at the meeting to vote for president and vice president. If a vacancy occurred on or after the presidential election day, the secretary of state would have to appoint an individual as a substitute elector to fill the vacancy following specific rules laid out in the bill.
Voting. At the time designated for voting and after all vacancies were filled, the chair would have to provide each elector with a ballot. The electors would have to mark their vote for president and vice president, and sign and legibly print their names. The chair would have to examine the completed ballots and accept as cast all ballots of electors whose votes were consistent with all necessary requirements.
If an elector refused to present a ballot, presented an unmarked ballot, presented a ballot in violation of the executed pledge, or refused or otherwise failed to vote for the candidates for president and vice president receiving the most votes in Texas in the general election, the elector would be ineligible to serve and could never serve as an elector in Texas and would vacate the office, creating a vacant position to be filled.
Certificates. The secretary of state would have to immediately prepare an amended certificate of ascertainment and transmit it to the governor for the governor's signature if the final list of electors differed from a previous list included on a certificate of ascertainment and transmitted under - 78 - HB 543 House Research Organization page 4
federal law. The electors would have to prepare and sign a certificate of vote and process and transmit the signed certificate with any amended certificate of ascertainment.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017. If a provision of this bill or its application was held invalid, the invalidity would not affect other provisions or applications that could be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 543 would make several necessary adjustments to the law as it SAY: relates to electors. First, the bill would bind electors to vote in a manner that reflected the November general election results. This requirement is necessary to ensure that the candidate chosen by popular vote in the state is also chosen by its electors. A majority of other states and the District of Columbia already do this, and it is permissible by the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the bill would provide for the selection of alternate electors to replace an elector who could not attend the elector meeting or who chose to vote in a manner that did not reflect the popular vote in the state. Providing alternate electors would alleviate any delay in selecting replacement nominees.
OPPONENTS CSHB 543 would bind electors, forcing them to cast their vote for the SAY: candidate chosen by the general population in the state, which diminishes the purpose of the Electoral College. Electors are meant to consider the popular vote in the state, but ultimately should choose the candidate they believe to be the most qualified.
Binding electors is unnecessary because electors generally honor their pledges and vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the state. Last November's election was only the eighth to have had a faithless elector in the history of the Electoral College, and no election outcome has ever been determined by a faithless elector.
NOTES: A companion bill, SB 394 by Buckingham, was left pending in the Senate State Affairs Committee following a public hearing on April 20.
- 79 - HOUSE HB 4231 RESEARCH White, et al. ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 4231 by Shine)
SUBJECT: Allocating a portion of severance tax revenue to counties for roads
COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 11 ayes — D. Bonnen, Y. Davis, Bohac, Darby, E. Johnson, Murphy, Murr, Raymond, Shine, Springer, Stephenson
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Daryl Fowler, County of DeWitt, Eagle Ford Shale County Coalition of DeWitt, Gonzales, Karnes, McMullen, and Victoria counties; Shelby Dupnik, Karnes County; Ben Sebree, Permian Basin Petroleum Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Adrian Acevedo, Anadarko Petroleum; Matthew Thompson, Apache Corporation; Paula Barnett, BP America; Mark Harmon, Chesapeake Energy; Julie Williams, Chevron; Steve Perry, Chevron USA; Tom Sellers, ConocoPhillips; Jim Allison, County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas; Gavin Massingill, Denbury Resources; Kinnan Golemon, Devon Energy; Kim Halfmann, Glasscock County; P.T. (Pat) Calhoun, Goliad County; Tully Shahan, Kinney County; Kent Pollard, Matagorda County Commissioner Court; Jody Richardson, Plains All American Pipeline LP; Mark Mendez, Tarrant County; Ender Reed, Texas Association of Counties; Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties; Lindsey Miller, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association; Shannon Rusing, Texas Oil and Gas Association; Tricia Davis, Texas Royalty Council)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Tax Code, sec. 201.404 and sec. 202.353 provide that 25 percent of gas and oil severance tax revenue is dedicated to the credit of the Foundation School Fund. Of the remaining 75 percent, 25 percent goes to general revenue and 75 percent is split equally between the Economic Stabilization Fund and the State Highway Fund.
DIGEST: CSHB 4231 would dedicate 2 percent of total severance tax revenue to a new severance tax trust fund outside the state treasury and administered by the comptroller. Money within the trust fund would be returned to the
- 80 - HB 4231 House Research Organization page 2
county where the revenue was collected in proportion to the amount of revenue produced in each. A county could use the money only to supplement construction and maintenance of county roads and bridges impacted by oil and gas exploration and production.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2019, and would apply only to tax revenue collected on or after that date.
NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board estimates that the bill would have a negative impact to general revenue related funds of about $140 million each biennium beginning in fiscal 2020-21.
- 81 - HOUSE HB 1421 RESEARCH J. Johnson ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 1421 by White)
SUBJECT: Requiring TDCJ to report quarterly on inmate grievances
COMMITTEE: Corrections — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — White, Allen, S. Davis, Romero, Sanford, Schaefer, Tinderholt
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Nicholas Hudson, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Shane Johnson, Austin Justice Coalition; Chris Kaiser, Texas Association Against Sexual Assault; Wallis Nader, Texas Civil Rights Project; Mary Kate Bevel, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; Robert Elzner and Jennifer Erschabek, Texas Inmate Families Association; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Lucia Quigtar-Hamilton; (Registered, but did not testify: Annette Price, Austin/Travis County Reentry Roundtable; Jose Rodriguez and Charleston White, Hyped about HYPE Youth Outreach; Scott Henson, Just Liberty; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Darwin Hamilton, Reentry Advocacy Project; Mary Sue Molnar, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice; Lauren Oertel; Wolf Sittler; Gary Wardian)
Against — None
On — Bryan Collier, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Michele Deitch; (Registered, but did not testify: Oscar Mendoza, Texas Department of Criminal Justice)
DIGEST: CSHB 1421 would require the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to submit a quarterly report about inmate grievances to the governor, lieutenant governor, the state auditor, and each member of the Legislature. The report would have to include the number and types of inmate grievances received by the department and would be aggregated and disaggregated by individual correctional facility.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
- 82 - HB 1421 House Research Organization page 2
NOTES: A companion bill, SB 485 by Miles, was referred February 6 to the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice.
- 83 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2478 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 S. Davis
SUBJECT: Creating a grant program for residency training in psychiatric fields
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 8 ayes — Lozano, Raney, Alonzo, Alvarado, Button, Clardy, Howard, Turner
0 nays
1 present not voting — Morrison
WITNESSES: For — Tom Kleinworth, Baylor College of Medicine; Greg Hansch, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Texas; (Registered, but did not testify: Eric Woomer, Federation of Texas Psychiatry; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Christine Yanas, Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas; Marilyn Hartman, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Austin; Adriana Kohler, Texans Care for Children; Leela Rice, Texas Council of Community Centers; Sara Gonzalez, Texas Hospital Association; Michelle Romero, Texas Medical Association; Clayton Travis, Texas Pediatric Society; Tomeka Velazquez)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Mike Maples, Texas Department of State Health Services; Rex Peebles, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board)
BACKGROUND: Observers suggest that there is a critical shortage of psychiatrists in Texas, especially in rural and underserved areas, and that the insufficient number of graduate medical educational residency slots exacerbates this shortage.
DIGEST: HB 2478 would require the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to establish a psychiatry specialty innovation grant program. The board would award incentive payments to medical schools that administered innovative residency training programs designed to increase the number of physicians specializing in pediatric or adult psychiatric care.
- 84 - HB 2478 House Research Organization page 2
In addition to legislative appropriations, the coordinating board would be required to first seek and apply for any available federal funds and then to solicit and accept gifts, grants, and donations from public or private sources as necessary to implement the program effectively.
The bill would direct the board to consult with medical schools to adopt rules for program administration, including provisions on the awarding of grants, such as:
eligibility criteria for medical schools; grant application procedures; guidelines relating to grant amounts; procedures for evaluating grant applications; and procedures for monitoring the use of grants.
The board also would have to adopt rules on methods for tracking the effectiveness of grants that considered relevant information on the career paths of medical school graduates during the four-year period after their graduation and evaluated whether and for how long those graduates practiced in a psychiatric specialty field in Texas.
HB 2478 would require the coordinating board to award 60 percent of the amount available in each program year to medical schools with innovative residency programs that trained physicians to specialize in pediatric psychiatric care. The remaining 40 percent would go to medical schools with innovative residency programs that trained physicians to specialize in adult psychiatric care. Priority for awarding grants would be given to medical schools with innovative residency programs based in rural or underserved areas. An amount not to exceed 3 percent of money appropriated for the program could be used for administrative costs.
The coordinating board would be required to adopt rules to implement the provisions of the bill as soon as practicable after the bill's effective date and to establish the psychiatric specialty innovation grant program by September 1, 2018.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
- 85 - HB 2478 House Research Organization page 3
NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, HB 2478 would have an estimated negative fiscal impact of $2.1 million to general revenue related funds through fiscal 2018-19 and in each subsequent biennium.
- 86 - HOUSE HB 2276 RESEARCH Martinez ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 2276 by Morrison)
SUBJECT: Increasing fee for oversize or overweight cargo in Hidalgo County
COMMITTEE: Transportation — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 9 ayes — Morrison, Martinez, Burkett, Israel, Minjarez, Phillips, Pickett, S. Thompson, Wray
0 nays
2 absent — Y. Davis, E. Thompson
2 present not voting — Goldman, Simmons
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Gary Bushell, Alliance for I-69 Texas; Evelyn C. Castillo, Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority (HCRMA); Elizabeth Lippincott, Texas Border Coalition)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Chris Nordloh, Texas DPS)
BACKGROUND: Transportation Code, ch. 623, subch. S allows a regional mobility authority to issue permits for the movement of an oversize or overweight vehicle carrying cargo in Hidalgo County on certain highways and roads. Under sec. 623.364, the maximum amount assessed for the permit may not exceed $80 per trip. Fees collected must be used for the construction and maintenance of these roads and for the administrative costs incurred by the authority. Administrative costs may not exceed 15 percent of the fees collected.
Observers have suggested that the cap on the fee for a permit issued for the movement of an oversize or overweight vehicle carrying cargo in Hidalgo County is too low when compared to the effort required by regional authorities to issue those permits and maintain the permit registration system.
DIGEST: CSHB 2276 would increase the cap on the permit fee for the movement of
- 87 - HB 2276 House Research Organization page 2
an oversize or overweight vehicle carrying cargo on certain roads in Hidalgo County to $200 per trip. It also would decrease the percentage of fees allowed to cover administrative costs to 10 percent.
The bill would require up to 5 percent of the fees collected to be used to leverage funding from other sources to construct a specified bridge, improve certain roads, and support the construction of roads proposed by the City of Donna that would connect a proposed commercial import lot to an existing road and highway.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
NOTES: A companion bill, SB 2227 by Hinojosa, was approved by the Senate on April 26 and referred to the House Committee on Transportation no May 8.
- 88 - HOUSE HB 40 RESEARCH Simmons ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 40 by Phelan)
SUBJECT: Separating federal funds from the general revenue fund
COMMITTEE: Appropriations — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 16 ayes — Zerwas, Longoria, G. Bonnen, Cosper, S. Davis, Dean, Giddings, Gonzales, Howard, Koop, Miller, Phelan, Raney, Roberts, J. Rodriguez, VanDeaver
0 nays
11 absent — Ashby, Capriglione, Dukes, González, Muñoz, Perez, Rose, Sheffield, Simmons, Walle, Wu
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Carolyn Brittin, Associated General Contractors of Texas Heavy, Highway, and Utilities Branch)
Against — None
On — Rob Coleman, Comptroller; (Registered, but did not testify: Ursula Parks, Legislative Budget Board)
BACKGROUND: Art. 3, sec. 49-g of the Texas Constitution, ratified by voters in 1988, created the Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF). The fund, also known as the rainy day fund, is capped at 10 percent of general revenue funds deposited during the previous biennium, excluding investment income, interest income, and amounts in general revenue borrowed from special funds.
In 1995, the 74th Legislature enacted HB 3050 by Junell, which consolidated certain funds into general revenue. Among those were two welfare-related funds that had received most of the federal money that Texas received. As a result, federal funds that previously were excluded from general revenue now are included. Observers note that this increased the cap on the ESF beyond what was originally intended.
DIGEST: CSHB 40 would prohibit the comptroller from depositing monies received from the federal government to the general revenue fund. Instead, federal
- 89 - HB 40 House Research Organization page 2
money would be required to be accounted for and administered separately from general revenue in a way that would ensure federal money was used for the purpose for which it was received. Pursuant to this goal, the comptroller could create, consolidate, or segregate funds or accounts inside the treasury.
Interest and other earnings on money from the federal government would be deposited to the general revenue fund.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and to the extent of any conflict, CSHB 40 would prevail over other law providing for money received from the federal government or earnings on money received from the federal government, to be deposited to the credit of the general revenue fund.
NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note estimates that this bill would have a positive impact of around $825 million on general revenue related funds in fiscal 2019, due to reductions in the cap on the Economic Stabilization Fund, assuming no appropriations were made from that fund.
The fiscal note also indicates that health and human services agencies would need to reconfigure their internal accounting system, although a cost could not be estimated.
- 90 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 3238 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 Nevárez, Simmons
SUBJECT: Prohibiting political subdivisions from regulating unmanned aircrafts
COMMITTEE: Transportation — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 12 ayes — Morrison, Martinez, Burkett, Y. Davis, Goldman, Israel, Phillips, Pickett, Simmons, E. Thompson, S. Thompson, Wray
0 nays
1 absent — Minjarez
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Kelly Curbow, AT&T; Dana Chiodo, Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTI); Mark Vane, Consumer Technology Association; Amy Beard, DJI Technology; Jeffrey DeCoux, Hangar Technology; James Houck, Hillcountry Aeromodelers; Caroline Joiner, TechNet; Daniel Gonzalez, Texas Association of Realtors; Kyle Adams; Kristi Adams; Gabe Hodge)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: James Jones, San Antonio Police Department; Ruben Longoria, Texas Association of School Boards)
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Jesse Ozuna, City of Houston Mayor's Office)
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that efforts by local governments to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft have resulted in a layer of ordinances that may conflict with those that already exist at the state and federal levels. The Federal Aviation Administration has established that aviation and the regulation of aircraft is the responsibility of the federal government. Some have called for greater consistency in the law on this issue.
DIGEST: HB 3238 would prohibit a political subdivision from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, order, or other similar measure regarding the ownership or operation of an unmanned aircraft, except in certain circumstances. A political subdivision would include a county, municipality, or a board of public agencies acting jointly. A political
- 91 - HB 3238 House Research Organization page 2 subdivision could adopt a measure regarding:
the political subdivision's use of an unmanned aircraft; or the use of an unmanned aircraft near a facility or infrastructure owned by the political subdivision if it applied for and received authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt the regulation and held a public hearing on its intent to apply for the authorization.
An ordinance, order, or other measure that was adopted or enforced in violation of the bill would be void and unenforceable.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
- 92 - HOUSE HB 4047 RESEARCH Workman ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 4047 by Herrero)
SUBJECT: Changing annexation requirements for certain special districts
COMMITTEE: Land and Resource Management — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — Herrero, Bell, Bailes, Blanco, Faircloth, Krause
0 nays
1 present not voting — Stucky
WITNESSES: For — Jeffrey Wittig, Travis County Emergency Services District No. 3; (Registered, but did not testify: Bill Oswald, Koch Companies; Andy Barrett; Jack Erskine; Steve Koebele; Julie Moore; Bradford Shields)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Richard Bailey, City of Austin)
BACKGROUND: The Special District Local Laws Code governs the process by which municipalities annex special purpose districts. For certain Travis County special purposes districts, a municipality may annex the district on the earlier of the 20th anniversary of the date the district was confirmed, or on the installation of 90 percent of all works, improvements, facilities, plants, equipment, and appliances necessary and adequate to:
provide service to the proposed development within the district; accomplish the purposes for which the district was created; and exercise the powers provided by general law and this chapter.
Concerns have been raised that this process does not provide stakeholders in Travis County with sufficient input regarding annexation decisions.
DIGEST: CSHB 4047 would remove the authorization for a municipality planning to annex all or part of Travis County Municipal Utility District Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, or of the Travis County Water Control and Improvement District No. 19, on the earlier of certain dates.
Instead, the bill would require the governing body of a municipality to first adopt a resolution of intention regarding the planned annexation and
- 93 - HB 4047 House Research Organization page 2
to communicate the resolution to all districts identified by the bill.
Upon receipt of the resolution, all of the districts would be required to call an election to be held on the next uniform election date to authorize or reject the annexation, which would be funded by the municipality seeking the annexation. The bill would allow a municipality to annex the relevant district only if a majority of the total number of voters voting in all of the districts' elections voted to approve the annexation.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
NOTES: A companion bill, SB 2196 by Buckingham, was considered during a public hearing by the Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee on May 10.
- 94 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 1749 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 S. Thompson
SUBJECT: Allowing for expunctions in justice and municipal courts
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 6 ayes — Moody, Hunter, Canales, Gervin-Hawkins, Hefner, Wilson
1 nay — Lang
WITNESSES: For — None
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Leah Lobsiger)
BACKGROUND: Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 55.02 allows an acquitted person to petition a district court for an expunction.
DIGEST: HB 1749 would allow individuals who were acquitted of fine-only offenses to petition justice courts and municipal courts of record for an expunction. Justice, municipal, and district courts would have concurrent jurisdiction over these expunctions. Individuals could apply in the county where the individual was arrested or where the offense was alleged to have occurred.
The bill would authorize a $100 fee for filing an ex parte petition for expunction in a justice court or municipal court of record to defray expenses to notify state agencies. The fee would be waived if the individual filed a petition within 30 days of an acquittal for an offense other than one occurring during a single criminal episode for which the individual was convicted of or still subject to prosecution.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply to an expunction of records and files relating to an offense that occurred before, on, or after that date.
- 95 - HOUSE HB 2250 RESEARCH Darby ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 2250 by E. Johnson)
SUBJECT: Classifying certain entities as retail trade for purposes of the franchise tax
COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 10 ayes — D. Bonnen, Bohac, Darby, E. Johnson, Murphy, Murr, Raymond, Shine, Springer, Stephenson
0 nays
1 absent — Y. Davis
WITNESSES: For — Ryan Potter, Admiral Linen; John Otto, TRSA; (Registered, but did not testify: Annie Spilman, National Federation of Independent Business/Texas; Kevin Schwalb, Textile Rental Services Association; Patrick Garcia)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Tax Code, sec. 171.002 establishes that the rate of the franchise tax is 0.75 percent of taxable margin, except that it is 0.375 percent of taxable margin for taxable entities primarily engaged in retail or wholesale trade.
Some observers point out that companies engaged in the business of renting work uniforms have been improperly classified for franchise tax purposes because the industry groups they operate under are not expressly listed under the Tax Code definition of "retail trade," which they say more accurately describes this line of business.
DIGEST: CSHB 2250 would amend the definition of "retail trade" for the purposes of the franchise tax to include activities involving the rental of industrial uniforms, industrial garments, and industrial linen supplies that are classified as industry groups 7213 or 7218 of the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published by the federal Office of Management and Budget.
The bill would take effect January 1, 2019, and would apply only to a report originally due on or after that date.
- 96 - HB 2250 House Research Organization page 2
NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, the bill would have a direct impact of a revenue loss to the Property Tax Relief Fund of $2.6 million in fiscal 2019 and each year thereafter. Any loss to the Property Tax Relief Fund must be made up with an equal amount of general revenue to fund the Foundation School Program.
- 97 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 1226 ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/9/2017 Herrero, Lozano
SUBJECT: Exempting firefighters and police officers from jury duty
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 7 ayes — Smithee, Farrar, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Laubenberg, Neave, Schofield
2 nays — Murr, Rinaldi
WITNESSES: For — Greg Shipley, Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT), Corpus Christi Police Officer's Association; Charley Wilkison, Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, CLEAT; Scott Leeton, Corpus Christi Police Officers' Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Todd Harrison and Arianna Smith, Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas; Zindia Thomas, Texas Municipal League; Mike Gomez, Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA); John Carlton, Texas State Association of Fire and Emergency Services Districts)
Against — Lee Parsley, Texans for Lawsuit Reform
BACKGROUND: Government Code, sec. 62.106(a) establishes exemptions from jury service for certain people, such as people over 70 years of age and high school and college students.
DIGEST: HB 1226 would allow an exemption from jury service for firefighters who were permanent, paid employees of the fire department of a political subdivision and police officers who were permanent, paid employees of the police department of a political subdivision.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply only to a person summoned for jury service and required to appear on or after that date.
SUPPORTERS HB 1226 would benefit communities by entitling certain firefighters and SAY: police officers to an exemption from jury duty. Police officers and firefighters often are not selected for jury service, and responding to a jury
- 98 - HB 1226 House Research Organization page 2
summons removes these public safety employees from their important duties.
HB 1226 would help lift a burden from smaller municipalities that have fewer firefighters and police officers and cannot afford to lose the services of their public safety employees to jury service. The bill also could help reduce costs by freeing up firefighters from jury duty so municipalities did not have to fund replacements.
The bill would create an optional exemption, still allowing police officers and firefighters to participate in the jury selection process. Police and firefighters make up a small percentage of the total jury pool, so the bill would have a minimal effect on the selection and composition of juries but a significant effect for communities and their resources.
OPPONENTS HB 1226 would take good people out of the jury pool, exempting another SAY: set of people from jury duty when it is already difficult to get people to show up for service. Jury service in America is a privilege that is just as important to our system of government as voting. Texas needs all people to participate on juries; it is not something to be avoided but something to be anticipated.
The belief that police officers and firefighters rarely are selected for jury duty is not a reason to exempt them because this argument could apply to many different groups of people, such as lawyers. It is important for all Texans to do their civic duty and appear when summoned.
- 99 - HOUSE HB 1922 RESEARCH E. Rodriguez, et al. ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 1922 by Alonzo)
SUBJECT: Determining eligibility for survivor benefits
COMMITTEE: Pensions — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Flynn, Alonzo, Anchia, Hefner, Huberty, Paul, J. Rodriguez
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Matt Bachop and Bob Nicks, Austin Firefighters Association; Elishea Smith, Texas Firefighters; (Registered, but did not testify: David Crow, Arlington Professional Fire Fighters; Lynn Eichler and Rob Vires, Austin Fire Fighters Association; Randy Moreno, Austin Firefighters; Johnny Villarreal, Houston Fire Fighters Local 341; Javier Gutierrez, McAllen Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund; Christopher Steele, San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association; Casey Haney, State Firefighters and Fire Marshals Association; Rene Lara, Texas AFL-CIO; Glenn Deshields, Texas State Association of Fire Fighters; Suzanne Henry, United Labor Legislative Committee; Wayne Delanghe)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Jimmy Rodriguez, San Antonio Police Officers Association)
BACKGROUND: Government Code, ch. 615 qualifies certain survivors of deceased law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other individuals for financial assistance administered by the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) board of trustees. Sec. 615.021 qualifies survivors of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other individuals for financial assistance if:
the individual died from a personal injury sustained in the line-of- duty; and the survivor is the surviving spouse, a surviving child if there is no surviving spouse, or a surviving parent if there is no surviving spouse or child.
- 100 - HB 1922 House Research Organization page 2
Observers have noted that the statute lacks clear guidance on whether certain fatal illnesses, particularly cancers, should be included in the ERS board's process for determining eligibility for survivor benefits. Some observers have suggested that including scientific evidence and a treating oncologist's medical opinion in the board's consideration would help inform the board of cancer trends related to a firefighter's exposure to toxic chemicals.
DIGEST: CSHB 1922 would require the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) board of trustees to consider certain information about individuals who died as a result of a line-of-duty illness when determining a person's eligibility to receive survivor benefits.
In making a determination of payment assistance for deceased individuals who belonged to one of three categories of firefighters — those certified by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection, those whose duties were aircraft crash and rescue firefighting, or members of an organized volunteer firefighting unit — the ERS board would have to consider scientific evidence that established:
the incidence rate of an individual's illness that was statistically significantly higher than the incidence rate of the illness for the general population; or a causal link between the individual's illness and a hazardous condition the individual encountered while performing job duties.
If an individual died from a newly discovered or rare cancer for which current scientific evidence did not exist, the ERS board would have to consider the medical opinion of the individual's treating oncologist.
The bill would prohibit the ERS board from considering an employer's opinion on whether an individual's death resulted from an illness caused by line-of-duty work when determining a survivor's eligibility for financial assistance.
This 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, 2017, and would apply only to a claim brought on or - 101 - HB 1922 House Research Organization page 3
after that date.
NOTES: A companion bill, SB 1069 by Hughes, was referred to the Senate Committee on State Affairs on March 7.
- 102 - HOUSE HB 1620 RESEARCH Sanford, et al. ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/9/2017 (CSHB 1620 by Miller)
SUBJECT: Creating a voluntary temporary caregiver program for certain children
COMMITTEE: Human Services — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — Raymond, Frank, Klick, Miller, Swanson, Wu
1 nay — Rose
2 absent — Keough, Minjarez
WITNESSES: For — Wanda Brice, CASA of Collin County; Cecilia Wood, Center for the Preservation of American Ideals; Sarah Crockett, Texas CASA; Brandon Logan, Texas Public Policy Foundation; (Registered, but did not testify: Nicole Hudgens, Texas Values; Jennifer Allmon, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops; Thomas Parkinson)
Against — None
On — Elizabeth "Liz" Kromrei, Department of Family and Protective Services; Katherine Barillas, One Voice Texas; Kate Murphy, Texans Care for Children; Bee Moorhead, Texas Impact; Dimple Patel, TexProtects
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about finding initial placements for children removed from their homes within the state's foster care system.
DIGEST: CSHB 1620 would require the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to establish a program allowing a child who was removed from the child’s home to be placed with an approved voluntary temporary caregiver. DFPS would create an application and verification process to approve individuals to serve as voluntary temporary caregivers.
The verification process would include a background and criminal history record check for each caregiver, require each member of the caregiver's home to undergo a tuberculosis screening test, and include any other administrative procedure DFPS determined was necessary to ensure the child's placement in a safe home. The department also would be required
- 103 - HB 1620 House Research Organization page 2 to verify that the caregiver:
had a home with ample sleeping space; had a maximum of six children at home, including those receiving day care from the caregiver; agreed to nonphysical discipline; had any pets vaccinated; and maintained and submitted to DFPS proof of first aid and CPR training.
DFPS would require every voluntary temporary caregiver to receive four hours of training on child development and disciplinary techniques for children classified above a basic service level. The four hours of training would count toward the training required for a caregiver who applied to become a licensed or verified foster home.
A voluntary temporary caregiver would have to agree to care for a child for at least 14 days. If the child's caseworker determined it was in the child's best interest to remain longer in the voluntary temporary caregiver's care, the caseworker could, subject to the caregiver's agreement:
allow the child to remain under the caregiver's care; designate the voluntary temporary caregiver as the caregiver of the child under a parental child safety placement agreement; or designate the voluntary temporary caregiver as a designated caregiver of the child.
The bill would not entitle a voluntary temporary caregiver to any reimbursement for care provided for the child. The caregiver would not be liable for the cost of any medical care the child received while placed with caregiver, which would be covered by existing health insurance provided for the child. A caregiver also would have to ensure that the child continued to attend his or her school of origin or attended another school chosen by the child's caseworker if the caseworker determined that it was unsafe for the child to remain at the original school.
- 104 - HB 1620 House Research Organization page 3
DFPS would publicize the voluntary temporary caregiver program and notify the parents of a child removed from home whether the child would be placed with a voluntary temporary caregiver.
The bill would allow a law enforcement or juvenile probation officer who took possession of a child to release the child to an approved voluntary temporary caregiver.
As soon as practicable after the effective date, the Health and Human Services executive commissioner would adopt rules to implement the bill's provisions, and DFPS would implement the voluntary temporary caregiver program.
This 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, 2017.
- 105 - HOUSE HB 200 RESEARCH Burkett, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/9/2017 (CSHB 200 by Cook)
SUBJECT: Requirements for fetal tissue disposition and donation, banning its sale
COMMITTEE: State Affairs — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 9 ayes — Cook, Craddick, Geren, Guillen, K. King, Kuempel, Meyer, Paddie, Smithee
2 nays — Farrar, E. Rodriguez
2 absent — Giddings, Oliveira
WITNESSES: For — Tara Lee, Charlotte Lozier Institute; Kyleen Wright, Texans for Life; Jenny Andrews and Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life; Jennifer Allmon, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops; CJ Grisham; Joe Kral; (Registered, but did not testify: Ann Hettinger, Center for the Preservation of American Ideals; Kathryn Freeman, Christian Life Commission; Elisabeth Wheatley and Terry Williams, Texas Alliance for Life; Rick Smith; Cecilia Wood)
Against — Caleb Head, Abolitionist Society of Houston; Andy Prior, Equal Protection for Posterity - Texas; Brenda Koegler, League of Women Voters of Texas; Blake Rocap, NARAL Pro-Choice Texas; and 12 individuals; (Registered, but did not testify: Juliana Kerker, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Texas District; Katherine Pace, Austin Jewish Voice for Peace; Lucy Felix, RAL de Texas; Ryan Valentine, Texas Freedom Network; Carisa Lopez, Travis County Democratic Party; and seven individuals)
On — Robert Allison and Wesley Thomas, Abolish Abortion Texas; Justin Stanford, the pre-born of Texas; and 14 individuals; (Registered, but did not testify: Jonathan Huss, Department of State Health Services; Michael Toth, Office of the Attorney General; Amy Hedtke)
BACKGROUND: Under federal law, 42 U.S. Code, sec. 289g-2 makes it unlawful to purchase fetal tissue, to solicit or accept tissue for directed donation under certain circumstances, and to solicit or accept tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes if the transfer, donation, solicitation, or acquisition
- 106 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 2
affects interstate commerce.
Under 18 U.S. Code, sec. 1531, it is unlawful for a physician, in or affecting interstate commerce, to knowingly perform a partial-birth abortion.
DIGEST: CSHB 200 would:
add requirements for the disposition of fetal tissue remains; ban the donation of fetal tissue from an elective abortion; ban the sale of fetal tissue; and prohibit certain abortion procedures.
Fetal tissue remains. The bill would add Health and Safety Code, ch. 697 to govern the disposition of embryonic and fetal tissue remains and to specify that embryonic and fetal tissue remains would not be considered pathological waste under state law.
Health care facilities that provided health or medical care to a pregnant woman would be required to dispose of embryonic and fetal tissue remains by interment, cremation, incineration followed by interment, or steam disinfection followed by interment. Ashes could be interred or scattered in any manner as authorized by law and could not be placed in a landfill.
The bill would require the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to create a registry of participating funeral homes and cemeteries that were willing to provide free common burial or low-cost private burial and of private nonprofit organizations that registered to provide financial assistance for costs associated with the burial or cremation. The registry would be available to physicians and health care facilities. DSHS would be required to develop a grant program that used private donations to provide financial assistance for the associated costs.
DSHS could suspend or revoke the license of a health care facility that violated the bill's requirements. A person that violated the fetal tissue remains disposition requirements would be liable for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation. The attorney general, at the request of DSHS, - 107 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 3 could sue to collect the penalty and reasonable expenses, including court costs and witness fees.
Fetal tissue donation. The bill would add Health and Safety Code, ch. 173 to place restrictions on the donation of human fetal tissue and to ban it in most instances. Fetal tissue would be defined as any gestational human organ, cell, or tissue from an unborn child. The term would not include supporting cells or tissue derived from a pregnancy, associated maternal tissue that was not part of the unborn child, the umbilical cord, or the placenta.
The donation ban would not apply to fetal tissue obtained for diagnostic or pathological testing or for a criminal investigation. The donation of fetal tissue or human tissue obtained during pregnancy or at delivery of a child would be allowed, provided the tissue was obtained by an accredited public or private institution of higher education for use in approved research. Also exempted from the donation ban would be cell lines derived from fetal tissue or human tissue existing on September 1, 2017, that were used by an accredited public or private institution of higher education in approved research.
Only an authorized facility could donate human fetal tissue under these provisions and could not donate fetal tissue obtained from an elective abortion. An authorized facility would include a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or a birthing center. A facility would be required to obtain the written, voluntary, and informed consent of the woman from whose pregnancy the fetal tissue was obtained. An authorized facility could not dispose of any medical record relating to a woman who consented to the donation of fetal tissue before the seventh anniversary of the date consent was obtained or the later of the seventh anniversary or the woman's 23rd birthday if she was younger than 18 years of age on the date consent was obtained. An authorized facility that donated fetal tissue would be required to submit an annual report containing information specified by the bill.
It would be a criminal offense for a person to offer a woman monetary or other consideration to have an abortion for the purpose of donating human fetal tissue, consent to the donation of fetal tissue, or knowingly or - 108 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 4 intentionally solicit or accept tissue from a fetus gestated solely for research purposes. Violations would be a class A misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000.
Fetal tissue sale. The bill would add language to Penal Code, ch. 48 to prohibit the purchase and sale of human fetal tissue. A person would commit an offense by knowingly offering to buy, offering to sell, acquiring, receiving, selling, or otherwise transferring any fetal tissue for economic benefit. An offense would be a state-jail felony (180 days to two years in a state jail and an optional fine of up to $10,000).
It would be a defense to prosecution that the actor was an employee of or under contract with an accredited public or private higher education institution that received donated tissue as allowed by CSHB 200.
Banned procedures. The bill would add subchapter F to Health and Safety Code, ch. 171 to prohibit "partial-birth abortions," defined as an abortion performed for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knew would kill a partially delivered living fetus. The definition would include deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivering a living fetus until the entire fetal head was outside the body of the mother, or for a breech presentation if any part of the fetal trunk past the navel was outside the body of the mother, and performing an overt act, other than completion of the delivery, that killed the partially delivered living fetus.
A physician or other person would be prohibited from knowingly performing such a procedure unless necessary to save the life of a mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.
A person who performed the prohibited procedure would commit a state jail felony. A woman on whom a prohibited procedure was performed or attempted could not be prosecuted.
The bill would allow certain individuals, including the father of the fetus or a parent of the mother of the fetus if the mother was younger than 18 years of age to bring a civil action. Damages could be recovered for - 109 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 5
physical injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress, and relief could include exemplary damages equal to three times the cost of the procedure. A person could not bring a civil action if the person had consented to the prohibited procedure or whose criminally injurious conduct resulted in the pregnancy.
A physician who was the subject of a criminal or civil action could request a hearing before the Texas Medical Board on whether the prohibited procedure was necessary to save the life of a mother as allowed under the terms of the bill. A trial would be delayed 60 days for the board hearing, and the board's findings would be admissible in a court proceeding.
Enforcement. The bill would give the attorney general authority, upon request of DSHS or law enforcement, to assist in the investigation of a prohibited donation of fetal tissue and to sue to collect a civil penalty for violations of the fetal tissue remains disposition requirements. The attorney general also could, with the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, prosecute violations of the ban on the sale of fetal tissue and donation of fetal tissue from elective abortions.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply only to an abortion, fetal tissue donation, or offense that occurred on or after that date. The bill would apply to fetal tissue disposition that occurred on or after February 1, 2018.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 200 would affirm the state's profound respect for life by requiring SAY: fetal remains to be buried or cremated. In the same spirit, it would ban donations of fetal tissue from elective abortions to prevent situations where abortion procedures could be altered to harvest specific fetal parts. It also would ban the sale of fetal tissue and prohibit partial-birth abortions to allow state law enforcement officials to enforce these prohibitions.
Fetal remains disposition. CSHB 200 would restore a measure of dignity to the remains of aborted fetuses. Current procedures that allow the remains to be treated as medical waste to be incinerated and disposed of in a landfill are inappropriate. - 110 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 6
Although a similar fetal remains rule promulgated by the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has been blocked by a federal district judge, that ruling is on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The bill would address concerns the judge expressed about potential costs associated with handling the fetal remains by requiring DSHS to create a registry of the many groups that have offered to handle the burial costs and to create a grant program using private donations to offset the costs. The requirements for handling of fetal remains would not apply to a miscarriage that occurred outside of a health facility.
The requirements would not impact the ability of a woman to access abortion services. In addition, if a woman was concerned about the religious faith of an organization that might be handling fetal remains, the DSHS registry could provide other options.
Fetal tissue sale and donation. The ban on the sale of fetal tissue and the donation of fetal tissue from elective abortions would address public concerns about how such tissue is being procured. Although there is an existing federal ban on the sale of fetal tissue, CSHB 200 would create a state ban that the Texas attorney general could enforce.
Currently, there are no laws in Texas restricting the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions for research purposes. The bill would allow fetal tissue to be donated in an ethically responsible way from a woman who had suffered a miscarriage and given her written consent for the donation to a university hospital for use in approved research. The bill also would allow research to continue using certain existing cell lines.
Banned procedures. The bill would prohibit partial-birth abortion to align state and federal statutes on a procedure that has been banned in federal law since 2003 and by 19 other states, giving Texas authority to prosecute violations. The ban was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007.
While some have called for an outright ban on abortion, under existing precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court such a law could be struck down as unconstitutional, so CSHB 200 aims to limit elective abortions and defend - 111 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 7
life to the extent possible at this time.
OPPONENTS CSHB 200 would present more barriers to a woman choosing to terminate SAY: a pregnancy by requiring costly burials or cremations for fetal remains. The ban on fetal tissue donations would halt work at some Texas research universities to find cures to diseases and conditions, including some that impact babies born prematurely. It unnecessarily would duplicate existing federal bans.
Fetal remains disposition. CSHB 200's requirement that health providers bury or cremate fetal remains likely would be subject to a constitutional challenge. In January, a federal judge in Austin blocked a similar rule promulgated by DSHS from going into effect, saying the rule replaced tissue-disposal regulations that had caused no health problems and expressed concerns that the rule "may be pretext for restricting abortion access."
The requirements that fetal remains be buried or cremated could interfere with a woman's autonomy and decision-making. Some women may have an objection to having the fetal remains handled by a religious faith to which they do not subscribe.
Fetal tissue sale and donation. CSHB 200 would be an unnecessary duplication of federal law prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue. The ban on donated tissue from abortions would intrude into a decision that the woman involved should be allowed to make. Although the amount of research being done on fetal tissue in Texas is small, it is being used to study several diseases, including Zika. The research has led to progress in the study of lung development in prematurely born children with infant respiratory distress syndrome.
Banned procedures. It is unnecessary to ban a procedure that has been illegal in the United States for more than a decade.
OTHER Instead of enacting more restrictions, the Legislature should prohibit OPPONENTS abortion outright. Such a bold move could help lead the way to ending a SAY: practice that many Texans believe is morally unjustifiable.
- 112 - HB 200 House Research Organization page 8
NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, CSHB 200 could create costs for certain hospitals that are units of local government to meet burial requirements for fetal remains. One estimate from a Texas Hospital Association survey suggests that burial costs involving local funeral homes would be between $218,400 and $655,200 per hospital per year.
A companion bill, SB 8 by Schwertner, was reported favorably by the House Committee on State Affairs on May 10.
- 113 -