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: Alma Allen, Chairman Dwayne Bohac, Vice Chairman
Rafael Anchia Donna Howard Eddie Lucio III Myra Crownover Joe Farias Bryan Hughes Susan King Doug Miller Joe Deshotel John Frullo Ken King J. M. Lozano Joe Pickett
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
daily floor report
Monday, May 11, 2015 84th Legislature, Number 67 The House convenes at 10 a.m. Part Three
Eighty-two bills are on the daily calendar for second-reading consideration today. The bills analyzed or digested in Part Three of today’s Daily Floor Report are listed on the following page.
Alma Allen Chairman 84(R) - 67
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Daily Floor Report Monday, May 11, 2015 84th Legislature, Number 67 Part 3
HB 4182 by Lucio III Creating the Cameron County Healthcare District 85 HB 548 by Johnson Barring agencies from asking about criminal history on job applications 88 HB 3374 by Morrison Requiring DSHS to provide information regarding Down syndrome 90 HB 3074 by Springer Providing artificially administered nutrition and hydration 93 HB 1892 by Rodriguez Establishing the Texas community school grant program 98 HB 2020 by Martinez Expanding the scope of certain paramedics’ duties 102 HB 2205 by Crownover Expanding the State Board for Educator Certification 105 HB 1624 by Smithee Requiring health benefit plans to post formulary information, directories 107 HB 3781 by Crownover Creating the Texas Health Improvement Network 110 HB 799 by Capriglione Establishing study on impact of federal regulation on state agencies 113 HB 1265 by Wu Regulating certain deceptive acts involving solicitation of goods, services 115 HB 71 by González Revising affirmative defense for indecency with a child 117 HB 2150 by Alvarado Expanding reasons for issuing challenges against jurors on grand juries 119 HB 603 by Davis Offense for unlawful dissemination of certain visual material 121 HB 211 by Rose Adjusting rules for criminal cases after competency determinations 124 HB 2356 by Bohac Allowing certain election administrators to combine election precincts 126 HB 2221 by Huberty Limiting a municipality’s ability to annex 128 HB 2303 by Kuempel Limiting liability for injuries incurred from certain recreational vehicles 132 HB 2703 by Simmons Establishing the Texas Board of Behavior Analyst Examiners 133 HB 3750 by Simmons Conducting an inventory of real property owned by the state 139 HB 2318 by Ashby Creating a tax credit for diesel fuel used for certain purposes 142 HB 3835 by Isaac Changing provisions for alternative fuel vehicles used by state agencies 144 HB 2525 by Coleman Counsel for indigent defendants with warrant, arrest in different counties 147 HB 2571 by Johnson Requiring report on projected environmental changes for agency planning 149 HB 2646 by Giddings Disclosing information about communicable diseases to first responders 153 HB 2684 by Giddings Requiring specific training for school district peace and resource officers 156
HOUSE RESEARCH HB 4182 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 Lucio, et al.
SUBJECT: Creating the Cameron County Healthcare District
COMMITTEE: County Affairs — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 5 ayes — Coleman, Farias, Romero, Spitzer, Wu
0 nays
4 absent — Burrows, Schubert, Stickland, Tinderholt
WITNESSES: For — Daniel Sanchez, Cameron County; Arturo Rodriguez, City of Brownsville; Chris Boswell, City of Harlingen; Julee LaMure, City of South Padre Island; Randolph Whittington, South Texas Medical Foundation; Elena Marin, Su Clinica; Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties; (Registered, but did not testify: Ramiro Garza, City of Edinburg; Ramon Garcia, Hidalgo County; Richard Glancey, Valley Baptist/Tenet Health)
Against — Jordan Campbell, Cameron County Women’s Republican Club; Jim Barnes, McAllen Tea Party; Joshua Ballenger, North Cameron County Republican Club; Matthew Machner, UT Brownsville College Republicans; (Registered, but did not testify: Eva Euler, HC Republican Women; Merrijo Bonds, Hidalgo Tea Party; April Lopez, Lopez Family Clinic; Elizabeth Barnes, McAllen/Hidalgo County Tea Party, and 40 individuals)
BACKGROUND: Cameron County’s relatively low rate of health coverage and lack of a public hospital or hospital district to help meet indigent care needs have caused some to call for the creation of a health care district to provide a vehicle to address some of these needs.
DIGEST: HB 4182 would allow for the creation of the Cameron County Healthcare District and the authorization of a property tax of up to 25 cents per $100 of taxable property valuation, contingent upon voter approval. The bill would outline the process and requirements for the election, which would be held in the territory of the proposed district.
- 85 - HB 4182 House Research Organization page 2
Formation and duties. The bill would provide for the creation of a board of nine directors to govern the district if voters approved the health care district. It would include provisions detailing the requirements for board appointments, terms of service and election of officers for the board, as well as appointment of a district administrator, assistant district administrator, and attorney. The bill would provide for employee recruitment and benefits as well as the appointment and removal of medical staff.
HB 4182 would specify that the state could not be obligated to support or maintain the district and the Legislature could not make a direct appropriation for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of a district facility. The bill also would provide for the dissolution of the district through the approval of a majority of voters in an election held for that purpose and related allowances and requirements.
The bill would establish district powers and duties, including establishing its responsibility for operating the district’s hospital facilities and providing medical and hospital care for the district’s needy inhabitants. The district could operate or provide for the operation of a mobile emergency medical service, home health services, long-term care, skilled nursing care and other types of care. The bill would include provisions for management of the district, rule-making, contract operation and management, payments for treatment, the power of eminent domain, and other powers and duties.
Financing. The bill would establish requirements to be met by the board and the district administrator for budget preparation and adoption and other matters related to general financial management and reporting. It would establish the board’s ability to issue and sell general obligation bonds in the name and on the faith and credit of the district to be used to purchase, construct, acquire, repair or renovate buildings or for other uses.
HB 4182 also would establish the board’s ability to impose a property tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on general obligation bonds at maturity contingent upon the approval of the majority of voters voting in an election called for that purpose. The bill would provide requirements for calling a bond election. It would include provisions on the imposition - 86 - HB 4182 House Research Organization page 3 of a property tax to pay bond debt and the district’s maintenance and operating expenses.
On the creation of the Cameron County Healthcare District or as soon as practicable after the district was created, the bill would require that the Cameron County Commissioners Court transfer to the district all operating funds, and any funds held in reserve for operating expenses, that had been budgeted by the county to pay the costs associated with administering a county program to provide to residents of the district indigent health care assistance under Health and Safety Code, ch. 61 during the fiscal year in which the district was created.
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, 2015, and the provision authorizing the district to exercise eminent domain would not apply.
- 87 - HOUSE HB 548 RESEARCH Johnson, Elkins ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 548 by Elkins)
SUBJECT: Barring agencies from asking about criminal history on job applications
COMMITTEE: Government Transparency and Operation — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — Elkins, Walle, Galindo, Gutierrez, Leach, Scott Turner
0 nays
1 absent — Gonzales
WITNESSES: For — Douglas Smith, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; Jennifer Erschabek, Texas Inmate Families Association; Carisa Lopez, Texas State Employees Union; Natalie Baker; Ryan Barney; (Registered, but did not testify: Victor Cornell, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Seth Mitchell, Bexar County Commissioners Court; Kathryn Freeman, Christian Life Commission; Charles Reed, Dallas County Commissioners Court; Traci Berry, Goodwill Central Texas; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Mark Mendez, Tarrant County Commissioners Court; Rick Levy, Texas AFLCIO; Lori Henning, Texas Association of Goodwills; Rebecca Bernhardt, Texas Fair Defense Project; Harrison Hiner, Texas State Employees Union; Lauren Johnson, Travis County Reentry Planning Council; Maxie Gallardo, Workers Defense Project)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Frederick Frazier, Dallas Police Association; Mark Clark, Houston Police Officers' Uniom; Julie Acevedo, Texas Fire Chief's Association)
BACKGROUND: Government Code, ch. 656, subch. A requires state agencies with employment openings to list openings with the Texas Workforce Commission.
DIGEST: CSHB 548 would amend Government Code, ch. 656, subch. A to prohibit state agencies from asking applicants about their criminal history on initial employment application forms. This prohibition would not apply to applications for positions that involved the provision of services to or care of children, required direct interaction with children, or for which a
- 88 - HB 548 House Research Organization page 2
criminal background check was otherwise required by law. Agencies could inquire into or consider an applicant’s criminal history after the agency had invited an applicant for an interview or extended a conditional offer of employment.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 548 would lower barriers for individuals with criminal records to SAY: obtain jobs and contribute to society by barring agencies from asking about criminal history on initial job applications. Asking applicants about their criminal records on initial applications can immediately disqualify formerly incarcerated individuals. This leads to a situation where those who were formerly incarcerated are punished twice by having their employment prospects limited.
Formerly incarcerated individuals are less likely to commit further offenses if they hold a job. CSHB 548 could help reduce recidivism and contribute to public safety. Moreover, in certain states where asking about criminal records is forbidden, fewer staff hours are needed to screen applicants because criminal records are not considered.
OPPONENTS CSHB 548 could increase costs for agencies by taking away a tool for SAY: reviewing applications. Agencies may have to work harder to screen applicants if this information is not available or may have to interview many individuals who eventually are excluded after background checks.
- 89 - HOUSE HB 3374 RESEARCH Morrison, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 3374 by Cook)
SUBJECT: Requiring DSHS to provide information regarding Down syndrome
COMMITTEE: State Affairs — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Cook, Giddings, Farney, Geren, Huberty, Kuempel, Smithee
1 nay — Harless
4 absent — Craddick, Farrar, Oliveira, Sylvester Turner
WITNESSES: For — Suzanne Shepherd and Jeanette Holahan, Down Syndrome Association of Central Texas; Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life; Katie McCann-Authement; Beverly Nuckols; Jenny Stone; (Registered, but did not testify: Chris Masey, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities; Kyleen Wright, Texans for Life; Ruth Allwein, Leah Brown, and Erin Groff, Texas Alliance for Life; Jeffrey Brooks, Texas Conservative Coalition; Gerard Jimenez, Texas Down Syndrome Advocacy Coalition; Emily Horne, Texas Right To Life; Jennifer Allmon, The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops; John Davis; Vilma Luna)
Against — Carrie Kaufman, American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Texas Association of ObGYN, Texas Medical Association, TX Association of Family Physicians, Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Society of Genetic Counselors; Heather Busby, NARAL Pro-Choice Texas and the Trust Respect Access Coalition; Denee Booker; Heather Ross; (Registered, but did not testify: Rebecca Robertson, ACLU of Texas; Emily Rooke-Ley, Jane's Due Process; Amelia Long and Drew Stanley, NARAL Pro-Choice Texas; Ana DeFrates, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; Lucy Stein, Progress Texas; and 16 individuals)
DIGEST: CSHB 3374 would require the Department of State Health Services to make available information regarding Down syndrome that included:
information addressing the overall development of individuals with Down syndrome; information about available treatment options for Down syndrome;
- 90 - HB 3374 House Research Organization page 2
contact information for national and local Down syndrome education and support programs, services, and organizations; and any other information required by the department.
This information would have to be current and evidence-based and published in English and Spanish. It would be available on the department's website in a format that could be easily printed. DSHS could provide this information in writing to health care providers if it was cost- effective.
A health care provider who tested for or initially diagnosed a child with Down syndrome would be required to provide the above information to:
expectant parents who received a prenatal test result indicating a probability or diagnosis that the unborn child had Down syndrome; a parent of a child who received a test result suggesting a chance or diagnosis that the child had Down syndrome; or a parent of a child who received a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
In addition to providing the above information, a health care provider could provide additional, evidence-based information about Down syndrome.
A health care provider who was unable to access the above information would not be held civilly or criminally liable or subject to review or disciplinary action for failing to provide the information.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 3374 would require that parents be educated on Down syndrome at SAY: the time they received this diagnosis. Many parents do not receive current, accurate information on Down syndrome or information about their local Down syndrome association at the time they receive a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. It would be beneficial for both children with Down syndrome and their parents if parents received this information early. CSHB 3374 would not change options for parents but simply would help disseminate accurate and current information about
- 91 - HB 3374 House Research Organization page 3
Down syndrome. While this bill would establish a requirement for physicians, Down syndrome occurs in only about one of every several hundred births, so the bill would not be a large burden on physicians.
OPPONENTS Parents should be presented with information and counseling on all SAY: available options upon receiving a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, and the government should not attempt to sway decisions of parents who receive this diagnosis. Every family should receive evidence-based and unbiased information so they can make the right decision for them. CSHB 3374 inappropriately would require that physicians provide specific information to patients. Physicians are best trained and equipped to give patients accurate medical information and work with patients to determine when it is appropriate to receive such information and in what setting.
- 92 - HOUSE HB 3074 RESEARCH Springer, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 3074 by Cook)
SUBJECT: Providing artificially administered nutrition and hydration
COMMITTEE: State Affairs — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Cook, Giddings, Geren, Harless, Huberty, Kuempel, Smithee, Sylvester Turner
0 nays
4 absent — Craddick, Farney, Farrar, Oliveira
WITNESSES: For — Kathryn Freeman, Christian Life Commission; Dennis Borel, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities; Jacqueline Harvey, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International; David Zientek, Seton Healthcare Family, Texas Catholic Conference, Texas Medical Association and Texas Hospital Association; Kyleen Wright, Texans for Life; Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life; Stephen Casey, Texas Center for Defense of Life; Jennifer Allmon, The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops; Joe Kral; Beverly Nuckols; (Registered, but did not testify: Vicki Perkins, CHRISTUS Health; Beverly Roberts, Concerned Women for America; Gregg Knaupe, Seton Healthcare Family; Ruth Allwein, Leah Brown, and Erin Groff, Texas Alliance for Life; Sara Austin and Darren Whitehurst, Texas Medical Association)
Against — Cecilia Wood, CWA of Texas; Paul “Scott” Miller, National Center for Life and Liberty, Inc.; Jennifer Popik, National Right to Life; Philip Sevilla, Texas Leadership Institute for Public Advocacy; Elizabeth Graham, Emily Horne, John Seago, Texas Right to Life; and 10 individuals; (Registered, but did not testify: Beverly Roberts and Mary Smith, Concerned Women for America; Cindy Asmussen, Concerned Women for America of Texas; Jason Vaughn, Pro-Life Texas; MerryLynn Gerstenschlager, Texas Eagle Forum; Emily Kebodeaux, Texas Right to Life; and 41 individuals.)
On — Jeremy Newman, Texas Home School Coalition; Read King; (Registered, but did not testify: Allison Hughes, Department of State Health Services)
- 93 - HB 3074 House Research Organization page 2
BACKGROUND: The Advance Directives Act in Health and Safety Code, ch. 166 consolidated former chapters of code governing a directive to physicians (more commonly known as a living will), durable power of attorney for health care, and out-of-hospital do-not-resuscitate orders. This chapter defines “artificial nutrition and hydration” to mean the provision of nutrients or fluids by a tube inserted into a patient’s vein, under the skin subcutaneously, or in the stomach (gastrointestinal tract).
Health and Safety Code, sec. 166.046 requires an ethics or medical committee to review a physician’s refusal to honor a patient’s advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient. A patient’s attending physician cannot be a member of that committee. Statute requires a patient to be given life-sustaining treatment during the review. Section 166.046 also requires a physician to make a reasonable effort to transfer a patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the patient’s directive if the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the patient’s health care decisions does not agree with the decision reached during the review process.
DIGEST: CSHB 3074 would remove references in Health and Safety Code, ch. 166 to “artificial” nutrition and hydration and would replace them with references to “artificially administered” nutrition and hydration. The bill also would specify that “treatment decisions” were “health care or treatment decisions.”
The patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual who had made the decision regarding the directive or treatment decision would be entitled to receive a copy of the portion of the patient’s medical record related to the treatment received by the patient in the facility for the lesser of:
the time period of the patient’s current admission to the facility; or the preceding 30 calendar days.
The patient or the person responsible for the patient’s decisions also would receive a copy of all the patient’s reasonably available diagnostic results and reports.
- 94 - HB 3074 House Research Organization page 3
If the patient or the person responsible for the patient’s health care decisions requested life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician had decided and the ethics or medical committee had affirmed to be medically inappropriate, the patient would be given available life- sustaining treatment pending transfer to another facility. Life-sustaining treatment would include life-sustaining medications and artificial life support such as artificially administered nutrition and hydration. During this period, the withdrawal or withholding of pain management medication, medical procedures necessary to provide comfort, or any other health care provided to alleviate a patient’s pain would not be authorized.
The bill would specify that the attending physician, any other physician responsible for the care of the patient, and the health care facility were not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment except for artificially administered nutrition and hydration after the 10th day after both the written decision and the patient’s medical record were provided to the patient or the person responsible for the patient. A physician or health care facility could decide not to provide artificially administered nutrition and hydration if, in their reasonable medical judgment, providing it would:
hasten the patient’s death; be medically contraindicated such that the provision of the treatment seriously exacerbated life-threatening medical problems not outweighed by the benefit of providing the treatment; result in substantial irremediable physical pain not outweighed by the benefit of providing the treatment; be medically ineffective in prolonging life; or be contrary to the patient’s or surrogate’s clearly documented desire not to receive artificially administered nutrition or hydration.
The bill would change the form that current law requires a patient or the person responsible for the patient’s health care decisions to receive when an attending physician refuses to honor a patient’s advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient. The bill would specify that the form read, “You have been given this information because you have requested life-sustaining treatment for
- 95 - HB 3074 House Research Organization page 4
yourself as the patient or on behalf of the patient, as applicable, which the attending physician believes is not medically appropriate.” The bill would require the form to use the term “medically inappropriate” rather than “inappropriate” throughout the document. The bill would require the form to specify that the list of providers a patient would receive regarding transfer of the patient from one facility to another would include licensed physicians and health care facilities.
The bill would specify that the patient would continue to be given life- sustaining treatment until the patient could be transferred to a willing provider for up to 10 days from the time they were given both the committee’s written decision that life-sustaining treatment was not appropriate and the patient’s medical record.
The bill would require, after the 10 days, that a patient continue to be given treatment to enhance pain management and reduce suffering, including artificially administered nutrition and hydration, unless, based on reasonable medical judgment, providing this nutrition and hydration would hasten the patient’s death, be medically contraindicated such that the provision of the treatment seriously exacerbated life-threatening medical problems not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment, resulted in substantial irremediable physical pain not outweighed by the benefit of the treatment, was medically ineffective in prolonging life, or would be contrary to the patient’s or surrogate’s clearly documented desires.
The executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Committee would adopt all rules necessary to implement the bill by March 1, 2016. The bill would take effect September 1, 2015 and would apply to a review, consultation, disagreement, or other action relating to a health care or treatment decision made on or after April 1, 2016.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 3074 represents a negotiated compromise to correct a flaw in SAY: Texas law by requiring artificial nutrition and hydration to be provided to a patient in the natural process of death. The bill would include clear criteria that would have to be met to address situations when provision of food and water could be actually harmful to the patient. No federal laws prohibit withholding of nutrition and hydration when medically - 96 - HB 3074 House Research Organization page 5
appropriate, and current law does not provide clear criteria for when and how a decision to remove artificially administered nutrition and hydration may occur.
The bill adds additional patient protections to statute by ensuring that the time period for transfer of a patient from one physician or facility to another would not start until the patient or surrogate received a copy of the relevant portion of the patient’s medical records.
Medical professionals need discretion when trying to heal patients. There are cases where food and water exacerbate a patient’s condition and hasten a patient’s death. The substitute would address issues with the definition of “medically appropriate” by more narrowly defining the exceptions under the bill and by providing a narrower definition for the term “medically contraindicated.” Doctors have six or more years of training and the expertise and experience to make these decisions, and the bill would allow doctors to use their discretion in these cases only when necessary.
The bill specifically does not intend to be an omnibus advance directives bill but would focus specifically on artificially provided nutrition and hydration to address stakeholder concerns on this particular issue.
OPPONENTS A hospital should not be able to remove food and water from a patient. By SAY: specifying certain circumstances under which hospitals could withhold nutrition and hydration from a patient, the bill would allow this inappropriate practice. In addition, the bill also would allow a physician to make decisions about the patient’s care based on what was medically appropriate without defining what “medically appropriate” would mean. One physician’s opinion is different from another’s and the bill may not provide enough guidance to protect a patient’s wishes concerning end-of- life decisions.
- 97 - HOUSE HB 1892 RESEARCH E. Rodriguez, VanDeaver ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 1892 by Aycock)
SUBJECT: Establishing the Texas community school grant program
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Aycock, Bohac, Deshotel, Dutton, Farney, Galindo, González, K. King
0 nays
3 absent — Allen, Huberty, VanDeaver
WITNESSES: For — Allen Weeks, Austin Voices for Education and Youth/Save Texas Schools; Donna Hagey, The Austin Project; (Registered, but did not testify: Ann Teich, Austin ISD; Chandra Villanueva, Center for Public Policy Priorities; Annie Spilman, National Federation of Independent Business-Texas; Ted Melina Raab, Texas American Federation of Teachers; Nelson Salinas, Texas Association of Business; Jesse Romero, Texas Association for Bilingual Education; Barry Haenisch, Texas Association of Community Schools; Casey McCreary, Texas Association of School Administrators; Paige Williams, Texas Classroom Teachers Association; Janna Lilly, Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education; Mark Terry, Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association; Joshua Houston, Texas Impact; Bee Moorhead, Texas Impact; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Colby Nichols, Texas Rural Education Association; Maria Whitsett, Texas School Alliance; Ed Martin, Texas State Teachers Association; Portia Bosse, Texas State Teachers Association; Monty Exter, The Association of Texas Professional Educators; Grover Campbell, Texas Association of School Boards; Casey Smith, United Ways of Texas; Susan Moffat; Kristi Morrison)
Against — None
On — Steve Swanson; (Registered, but did not testify: Mark Baxter, Texas Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: Education Code, sec. 11.251 establishes a planning and decision-making
- 98 - HB 1892 House Research Organization page 2
process for district and campus improvement plans that involves district staff, parents, and community members.
Some public schools have collaborated with community organizations to provide services that help students and their families overcome barriers to learning. Some say the community school model works best when there is a position specifically dedicated to coordinating the partners and services, particularly in the initial years of developing a community school.
DIGEST: CSHB 1892 would create the Texas Community School Grant Program to assist schools in developing plans to transition into community schools.
Grants. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) would administer two-year grants to eligible schools from funds appropriated for that purpose. Each grant could not exceed $60,000 per academic year to pay the salary and benefits of a full-time community school coordinator and $25,000 per academic year to develop and implement a community school plan. A grant could be extended for an additional year.
TEA would set aside at least 10 percent of grant program funds to contract with at least one public or private entity that had experience in developing and implementing a community school plan to act as a technical assistance provider.
Definitions. The bill would define “community-based organization” as a nonprofit corporation or association located in close proximity to the population it serves. “Texas community school” would be defined as a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school that partners with one or more community-based organizations to coordinate academic, social, and health services to reduce barriers to learning and improve the quality of education.
Eligibility. A school would demonstrate eligibility for the grant program by establishing a school community partnership team and a partnership with a lead community-based organization such as Communities in Schools, a social service provider, or an education or youth services organization with experience in developing and implementing a community school plan. A school also would have to develop and - 99 - HB 1892 House Research Organization page 3 implement a plan for sustaining the community school plan beyond the end of the grant period.
Before implementation, a community school plan would have to satisfy the requirements for a campus improvement plan and be approved by at least 75 percent of campus faculty and staff and 75 percent of parents.
Coordinator’s duties. A community school coordinator employed using grant funds must have relevant experience. The coordinator’s duties would include:
recruiting community partners and building community support; coordinating planning, training, and evaluation efforts between the school and community partners; coordinating academic and student and family support programs; coordinating after-school, summer, and enrichment programs; encouraging community and parent engagement; conducting an annual needs assessment; and developing a plan for sustaining the community school beyond the grant period.
Low-performing schools. A school’s community partnership team would function as the campus intervention team under interventions and sanctions requirements for certain low-performing schools.
Oversight. TEA would be required to establish benchmarks and performance measures for determining whether a school awarded a grant had improved since transitioning into a community school. A school determined by TEA to have not made satisfactory progress could continue to receive grant funds only if the school amended its plan to address deficiencies and demonstrated strong community support.
TEA would be required to establish the grant program by November 1, 2015.
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
- 100 - HB 1892 House Research Organization page 4
effect September 1, 2015.
NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board estimates CSHB 1892 would have a negative impact of $7.2 million on general revenue related funds for fiscal 2016-17.
- 101 - HOUSE HB 2020 RESEARCH Martinez ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2020 by Crownover)
SUBJECT: Expanding the scope of certain paramedics’ duties
COMMITTEE: Public Health — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 10 ayes — Crownover, Naishtat, Blanco, Coleman, S. Davis, Guerra, R. Miller, Sheffield, Zedler, Zerwas
0 nays
1 absent — Collier
WITNESSES: For — Dudley Wait, City of Schertz Emergency Medical Services; Bryan Norris, San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association; Ryan Matthews; (Registered, but did not testify: Randy Moreno, Austin Firefighters Association; Wayne Delanghe, San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association; Courtney DeBower, Texas Emergency Medical Services, Trauma and Acute Care Foundation (TETAF); Dan Finch, Texas Medical Association; Mike Martinez; Joseph Palfini)
Against — Cindy Zolnierek, Texas Nurses Association
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Joseph Schmider, Department of Safety and Health Services)
BACKGROUND: Health and Safety Code, ch. 773 governs Emergency Medical Services.
DIGEST: CSHB 2020 would allow a certified emergency medical technician- paramedic or licensed paramedic to provide advanced life support in a facility’s emergency or urgent care clinical setting, including a hospital room and a freestanding emergency medical care facility, under certain conditions. The emergency medical technician-paramedic or licensed paramedic would have to be acting under the direct supervision of a licensed physician and would have to be authorized to provide advanced life support by the health care facility.
The bill would define “advanced life support” as health care provided to sustain life in an emergency, life-threatening situation. It would include
- 102 - HB 2020 House Research Organization page 2
the initiation of intravenous therapy, endotracheal or esophageal intubation, electrical cardiac defibrillation of cardioversion, and drug therapy procedures.
As soon as practicable, the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission would be required to adopt any necessary rules to implement the bill.
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, 2015.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 2020 would allow emergency medical technician-paramedics and SAY: licensed paramedics to work in emergency rooms under appropriate circumstances. Currently, paramedics or licensed paramedics who wish to work in an emergency room are permitted only to be paid and employed as orderlies, which deprives health care facilities of these individuals’ specialized skills honed in an emergency setting.
Allowing these types of paramedics to be employed by medical facilities in a more appropriate role could benefit both the paramedic and the medical facility. Emergency rooms often are understaffed, particularly in rural communities. Working in a hospital alongside physicians could help alleviate staffing challenges, while also helping paramedics further develop their skills.
The bill would not require any additional training for paramedics. They would be performing procedures in emergency rooms that they are already allowed to perform when providing emergency services, so this bill would just extend the scope of where they could provide them.
The bill could extend the careers of paramedics who were injured or no longer wished to provide their services in the field by allowing them to put their skills to use in a hospital environment.
The bill would not attempt to substitute paramedics for nurses and would not affect nursing ratios in emergency rooms.
- 103 - HB 2020 House Research Organization page 3
OPPONENTS CSHB 2020 would place paramedics in a field for which they were not SAY: trained. There are significant differences between the standard of care and the resources for paramedics in the field and in the hospital. Registered nurses also have a broader skill set than paramedics and are better qualified to help provide advanced life support in an emergency room.
- 104 - HOUSE HB 2205 RESEARCH Crownover ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2205 by Aycock)
SUBJECT: Expanding the State Board for Educator Certification
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 11 ayes — Aycock, Allen, Bohac, Deshotel, Dutton, Farney, Galindo, González, Huberty, K. King, VanDeaver
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Diann Huber; (Registered, but did not testify: Rae Queen, ACT San Antonio; Kate Kuhlmann, Association of Texas Professional Educators; Mike Meroney, Coalition for Effective Educator Preparation; Melva V. Cardenas, Texas Association of School Personnel Administrators; Holly Eaton, Texas Classroom Teachers Association)
Against — None
On — Sandra West, Science Teachers of TX; Ted Melina Raab, Texas American Federation of Teachers; Zenobia Joseph; (Registered, but did not testify: Tim Miller, Texas Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: Education Code, sec. 21.033(a) establishes the composition of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). The 14 members include three nonvoting members and 11 voting members. Sec. 21.049 allows SBEC to provide for educator certification programs as an alternative to traditional educator preparation programs.
As more new teachers enter Texas classrooms through alternative certification programs, observers have noted that it is important that these programs be of high quality and that the addition to SBEC of an individual with alternative certification experience could provide valuable input to the board's decision-making process.
DIGEST: CSHB 2205 would increase SBEC from 14 to 15 members. The new non- voting member would be appointed by the governor, would have had experience working for an alternative educator preparation program, and would not be affiliated with the same institution of higher education as
- 105 - HB 2205 House Research Organization page 2 another nonvoting member.
The board would add the following to consumer information to be made available about educator preparation programs:
for each semester, the average ratio of field supervisors to candidates completing student teaching, clinical teaching, or an internship in an educator preparation program; and the percentage of teachers employed under a standard teaching certificate within one year of completing the program.
The bill would add a requirement for SBEC to provide a board procedure for changing the accreditation status of a program that did not meet certain accreditation standards or that violated a board or agency regulation.
This bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
- 106 - HOUSE HB 1624 RESEARCH Smithee ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 1624 by Sheets)
SUBJECT: Requiring health benefit plans to post formulary information, directories
COMMITTEE: Insurance — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 9 ayes — Frullo, Muñoz, G. Bonnen, Guerra, Meyer, Paul, Sheets, Vo, Workman
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Blake Windham, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; Stacey Pogue, Center for Public Policy Priorities; Simone Nichols-Segers, National MS Society; David Bryant, Texas Society of Anesthesiologists; Audra Rea; Tara Seidenberg; (Registered, but did not testify: Trey Berndt, AARP; Laura Guerra-Cardus, Children's Defense Fund - Texas; Christine Bryan, Clarity Child Guidance Center; Blake Hutson, Consumers Union; Tanya Lavelle, Easter Seals Central Texas; Dianne Wheeler, League of Women Voters of Texas; John Pitts, Legacy Community Health Services; Kirby Consier, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers - Texas Chapter; Ana DeFrates, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; Joshua Houston, Texas Impact; Patricia Kolodzey, Texas Medical Association; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Nicholas Yarbrough, Texas Pharmacy Association; Maxine Cooper)
Against — None
On — Doug Danzeiser, Texas Department of Insurance
BACKGROUND: Provider directories of health benefit plans that are not updated frequently can provide consumers with outdated information. Prescription drug formularies also often are not available to health insurance consumers online, and little information on cost sharing for prescription drugs is available until after a plan is purchased. Consumers therefore report trouble determining whether a plan meets their individual or family needs.
DIGEST: CSHB 1624 would require that health benefit plans compile and make
- 107 - HB 1624 House Research Organization page 2 publicly available certain information for consumers, including formulary information and a provider directory. The bill would specify which health benefit plans would be subject to its requirements.
The bill would require a health benefit plan issuer to display on a public website formulary information as required by the commissioner of insurance. A direct electronic link to the formulary information would have to be displayed conspicuously on the health benefit plan issuer's website. The information would be publicly accessible to interested parties without requiring a password, a user name, or personally identifiable information.
The information would have to be displayed in template form, as specified in the bill. The Department of Insurance, in consultation with a committee of stakeholders, would be required to develop the template, which all health benefit plan issuers would have to use to display formulary information. The template would be electronically searchable by drug name and would include each enrollee's cost sharing amount for each prescription drug subject to coinsurance and dispensed at an in-network pharmacy or a cost-sharing range, in addition to other required information.
Information required in the template would include any cost sharing for each prescription drug covered under the health benefit plan and typically administered by a provider. A health benefit plan issuer could make available this information to interested parties through a toll-free telephone number that would operate at least during normal business hours.
Certain health benefit plan issuers, as specified by the bill, that offered coverage for health care services through preferred providers, exclusive providers, or a network of physicians or health care providers would be required to develop and maintain a physician and health care provider directory. The directory would include the name, street address, and telephone number all of the issuer's physicians and health care providers and would indicate whether they were accepting new patients.
A health benefit plan issuer would be required to display on a public - 108 - HB 1624 House Research Organization page 3 website the directory described above. A direct electronic link to the directory would have to be displayed conspicuously on the website.
The health benefit plan issuer would be required to clearly indicate in the directory each health benefit plan of the issuer that could provide coverage for services provided by each physician or provider included in the directory. The directory would have to be:
electronically searchable by provider name and location; and publicly accessible without needing a password, a user name, or personally identifiable information.
The health benefit plan issuer would be required to conduct an ongoing review of the directory and would update the information as needed. Corrections and updates, if any, would be made at least once a month.
The health benefit plan issuer would be required to conspicuously display in the directory an e-mail address and a toll-free number to which individuals could report inaccuracies in the directory. If a report was made, the issuer would have to investigate and correct the information by the seventh day after the date the report was received.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015, and would apply only to a health benefit plan that was delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed on or after January 1, 2016.
- 109 - HOUSE HB 3781 RESEARCH Crownover, Coleman ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 3781 by Simmons)
SUBJECT: Creating the Texas Health Improvement Network
COMMITTEE: Public Health — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 11 ayes — Crownover, Naishtat, Blanco, Coleman, Collier, S. Davis, Guerra, R. Miller, Sheffield, Zedler, Zerwas
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Darren Whitehurst, Texas Medical Association; (Registered, but did not testify: John Hubbard, Coalition for Nurses in Advanced Practice; Miryam Bujanda, Methodist Healthcare Ministries; Greg Hansch, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Texas; Amanda Martin, Texas Association of Business; Clayton Travis, Texas Pediatric Society; Casey Smith, United Ways of Texas)
Against — Read King
On — David Lakey, The University of Texas System; (Registered, but did not testify: Doug Danzeiser, Texas Department of Insurance)
DIGEST: CSHB 3781 would create the Texas Health Improvement Network (THIN) to address urgent health care challenges, improve the health care system within Texas and nationally, and develop health care initiatives and policies based on population health research. The purpose of THIN would be:
reducing per capita health care costs; improving the individual experience of health care; and improving the health care of residents of the state.
The network’s duties would be to evaluate and eliminate health disparities and contain health care costs by incubating and evaluating health improvement practices and by supporting local community health care needs. THIN would be administratively attached to the University of Texas (UT) System, and the network would be composed of faculty with expertise in certain health- and science-related fields from public and
- 110 - HB 3781 House Research Organization page 2
private higher education institutions throughout the state.
The bill would also establish an advisory council appointed by an executive officer of the UT System to advise THIN on the health care needs of the state. These council members, who would serve staggered three-year terms, would be nominated by members of THIN and would have to meet certain qualifications related to leadership or expertise in a field of health or a related discipline. The advisory council would not be subject to the requirements of Government Code, ch. 2110, which applies to state agency advisory councils.
THIN would be able to accept and administer gifts and grants to fund the network from individuals, corporations, trusts, foundations, or the federal government. The network could use available funding to support demonstration and pilot projects that employed an established peer- reviewed award process. The funds also could be used to pay for internships or other educational programs to prepare a health care workforce to improve population health. Funding priority would be given to projects that were multidisciplinary and offered multi-institutional collaboration.
The network would be required to issue a report on its efforts, findings, and projects to the Legislature, state and federal partners, and other interested entities.
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, 2015, and the UT System would be required to establish THIN as soon as practicable after that date.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 3781 would help study and address the substantial and growing SAY: health care costs paid annually in Texas and the United States. While there are many initiatives related to health care improvement throughout the state and nation, there is no unified effort in Texas to study the efficacy of these efforts or to collaborate to bring proven practices to scale. The bill would establish a network of academic and health science institutions to support and evaluate promising practices in improving health care and decreasing health care costs in Texas. - 111 - HB 3781 House Research Organization page 3
The bill would allow funds for the network to be secured through donations, grants, and federal money, which would decrease or eliminate any need for state legislative appropriations, as indicated by the fiscal note. By establishing THIN, the bill seeks to decrease health care costs, which should address concerns that this initiative would simply invest more money in a problem that has already been costly to the state.
While personal health may be the responsibility of individuals, the health care system as a whole is the public’s responsibility, particularly as taxpayers become responsible for certain health care costs when individuals do not take care of themselves. If doctors and hospitals do not have information needed to provide efficient or adequate care, insurance costs can increase for everyone. In addition, the state must comply with certain federal regulations for providing health care to individuals that carry real financial costs for health care providers and taxpayers if they are not met. Therefore, these costs must be addressed regardless of personal viewpoints on the government’s role in individual health decisions.
OPPONENTS CSHB 3781 would invest a large sum of state money into creating a SAY: commission to evaluate a health care system that already presents a great expense to Texas. The bill carries no guarantee that money the state might invest would result in any cost savings. In addition, improving the health of Texans is the responsibility of the individual, not of the state. The bill would attempt to involve the state in a matter in which it should have no role.
NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the bill would not make an appropriation, but could provide the legal basis for one. The LBB projects that $4.4 million in general revenue funds, derived from grant awards and administered by the UT System, would be spent on THIN- related projects and activities during fiscal 2016-17.
- 112 - HOUSE HB 799 RESEARCH Capriglione ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 799 by P. King)
SUBJECT: Establishing study on impact of federal regulation on state agencies
COMMITTEE: State and Federal Power and Responsibility, Select — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — P. King, Workman, C. Anderson, Clardy, Miles, Parker
0 nays
1 absent — Walle
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Annie Spilman, National Federation of Independent Business/Texas; Barbara Harless, North Texas Citizens Lobby; Thomas Lindsay, Texas Public Policy Foundation)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Under the House-passed version of the general appropriations act for fiscal 2016-17, state agencies in Texas would receive more than $69 billion in federal funds in the next biennium, or nearly one-third of the proposed budget. The funding supports programs in health and human services, public education, transportation, and other areas. It is accompanied by regulations that include federal mandates and the spending of state money as a condition of receiving federal dollars.
DIGEST: CSHB 799 would require the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) to study the effect on state agencies of federal regulations and mandates. The LBB would set a schedule for conducting a study of each state agency that included the following information:
a cost-benefit analysis on the impact of agency compliance with federal regulations, including a comparison of the direct and indirect costs of regulatory compliance with the amount of federal funds received; a list of all mandates required under federal law and regulations for which the federal government has not provided reimbursement sufficient to cover the agency’s cost of compliance; and
- 113 - HB 799 House Research Organization page 2
recommendations for reducing the federal regulatory burden on the agency and citizens of Texas, including proposals for state or federal legislation or litigation against specific federal agencies.
After studying a state agency, the LBB would deliver a report of its findings and recommendations to the Legislature.
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, 2015.
NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note, the studies required under the bill would cost about $500,000 in general revenue during fiscal 2016-17.
- 114 - HOUSE HB 1265 RESEARCH Wu, et al. ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 1265 by Simmons)
SUBJECT: Regulating certain deceptive acts involving solicitation of goods, services
COMMITTEE: Business and Industry — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Oliveira, Simmons, Collier, Fletcher, Rinaldi, Romero, Villalba
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — None
Against — None
On — Tommy Prud'homme, Office of the Attorney General
BACKGROUND: Certain businesses advertise by sending material that appears to be mail from a governmental entity, a valid check, or a bill that carries criminal penalties if not paid. These advertisements are confusing and can lead individuals to believe that they are in trouble with the government, have received money, or owe money to avoid criminal prosecution.
DIGEST: CSHB 1265 would add certain practices to the list of acts that were considered false, misleading, or deceptive under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The bill would add to the list the act of delivering or distributing a solicitation in connection with a good or service that:
represented that a solicitation was sent on behalf of the government when it was not; or resembled a governmental notice or form that represented or implied a criminal penalty would be imposed if the recipient did not pay for the good or service.
The bill also would add to the list the act of delivering or distributing a solicitation in connection with a good or service that resembled a check or other negotiable instrument or invoice, unless that portion of the solicitation included the following notice, clearly and conspicuously printed in at least 18-point type: “Specimen-non-negotiable.”
- 115 - HB 1265 House Research Organization page 2
The bill would take affect September 1, 2015, and would apply only to a cause of action that accrued on or after that date.
- 116 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 71 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 González, et al.
SUBJECT: Revising affirmative defense for indecency with a child
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 6 ayes — Herrero, Moody, Canales, Hunter, Leach, Simpson
0 nays
1 absent — Shaheen
WITNESSES: For — Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; (Registered, but did not testify: Victor Cornell, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Donald Baker, Austin Police Department; Gary Tittle, Dallas Police Department; Chuck Smith, Equality Texas; Daniel Williams, Equality Texas; Thomas Ratliff, Harris/Fort Bend County Criminal Lawyers Association; Donald McKinney, Houston Police Department; Patricia Cummings, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; Sean Mannix, Texas Police Chiefs Association; Lon Craft, Texas Municipal Police Association; Eugene Silvas, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo; and six individuals)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Penal Code, sec. 21.11 establishes the offense of indecency with a child. The offense must be committed against a child younger than 17 and can be committed either through sexual contact or through exposure.
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for the offense that the person accused:
was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex; did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim; and at the time of the offense the person was not required to register for life under the state’s sex offender registration law or did not have an offense for indecency with a child that required registration.
- 117 - HB 71 House Research Organization page 2
DIGEST: HB 71 would remove the requirement from the affirmative defense to prosecution for indecency with a child that the person accused and the victim be of the opposite sex. The first component of the affirmative defense would be that the person accused was not more than three years older than the victim.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015, and would apply to offenses committed on or after that date.
- 118 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2150 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 Alvarado, et al.
SUBJECT: Expanding reasons for issuing challenges against jurors on grand juries
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 6 ayes — Herrero, Moody, Canales, Hunter, Leach, Simpson
0 nays
1 absent — Shaheen
WITNESSES: For — Justin Wood, Harris County District Attorney's Office; Kristin Etter, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Douglas Smith, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 35.16 and Government Code, sec 62.105 provide numerous reasons that jurors serving on criminal juries and petit juries may be challenged for cause or disqualified. Jurors serving on grand juries may be challenged only if they are not qualified as jurors or if they are the prosecutor upon an accusation against the person making the challenge, under Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 19.31.
DIGEST: HB 2150 would expand the causes for challenging a grand juror to include that the juror:
was insane; had a defect in hearing or feeling; had a bodily or mental defect or disease that would render the juror unfit for jury service; was legally blind and the court was not satisfied that the juror was fit for jury service in that particular case; was a witness in an investigation of the grand jury; served on a petit jury in a former trial of the same alleged conduct or offense that the grand jury was investigating; had a bias or prejudice regarding the accused;
- 119 - HB 2150 House Research Organization page 2
had already come to a conclusion, from hearsay or otherwise, regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused that would influence the juror’s vote; was related to the accused or to a victim of the offense; and had a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the state was entitled to rely for an indictment.
The bill would require courts to instruct jurors that, if the jurors determined that they could be subject to a valid challenge for cause, they must recuse themselves from grand jury service. If the jurors knowingly failed to recuse themselves, they could be held in contempt of court. Persons authorized to be present in the grand jury room would be required to report any violations of the recusal requirement.
The bill also would increase the maximum number of alternates impaneled by a grand jury from two to four and would allow a juror to be considered unavailable if the juror was unwilling to serve on the grand jury or was otherwise neglecting the juror’s duty to serve.
This bill would take effect September 1, 2015, and would apply only to grand juries impaneled on or after that date.
- 120 - HOUSE HB 603 RESEARCH S. Davis, et al. ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 603 by Herrero)
SUBJECT: Offense for unlawful dissemination of certain visual material
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Herrero, Moody, Canales, Hunter, Leach, Shaheen, Simpson
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Randy Kildow, Texas Association of Licensed Investigators; (Registered, but did not testify: Kathryn Freeman, Christian Life Commission; Jennifer Tharp, Comal County Criminal District Attorney; Ann Hettinger, Concerned Women for America of Texas; Gary Spurger, Harris County Constable Pct. 4; Justin Wood, Harris County District Attorney’s Office; David Nettles, Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce; Bill Elkin, Houston Police Retired Officers Association; Lon Craft, Texas Municipal Police Association)
Against — Mark Bennett, Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association; Kristin Etter, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Matt Simpson, ACLU of Texas)
DIGEST: CSHB 603 would create a new criminal offense for the unlawful dissemination of certain visual material. It would be an offense if:
a person intentionally disseminated visual material depicting another person engaging in sexual conduct or with the other person’s exposed intimate parts; the person obtained the visual material under circumstances in which a reasonable person should have known or understood that the visual material was to remain private; the person knew or should have known that the depicted person did not consent to the dissemination; and the depicted person was identifiable from the visual material or from other information displayed in connection with the material.
“Exposed intimate parts” would be defined as intimate parts that were entirely unclothed or clothed in a manner that left any portion of the parts
- 121 - HB 603 House Research Organization page 2
uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing.
It would be a defense to prosecution that:
the dissemination was made in the course of the lawful and common practices of law enforcement or medical treatment, reporting unlawful activity, or a legal proceeding, if permitted by law; the dissemination consisted of visual material depicting only a voluntary exposure of intimate parts or sexual conduct in a public or commercial setting; or the actor was an interactive computer service under federal law or a provider of information services under federal law and the dissemination consists of visual material provided by another.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 603 would address the problem of the electronic distribution of SAY: sexually explicit images of someone without the subject’s permission. The images, sometimes taken without consent, may be posted on websites or emailed to employers, schools, family members, and others. Sometimes contact or identifying information is included.
Current laws provide inadequate deterrence and punishment for these actions. Explicit images can be uploaded to websites where thousands can see them and they can be shared with other sites. Victims can suffer threats, harassment, stalking, and sexual exploitation that intrude into their work, school, or personal lives. Harm is difficult to remedy because removing images from the Internet rarely prevents continued distribution.
Civil lawsuits may provide inadequate compensation. Websites and defendants may have limited resources, making damage recovery difficult. Victims may lack resources to pursue lawsuits or be unwilling to attract further attention. Website operators can deny knowing who posted the content, while those who post or distribute it may deny responsibility for its viral spread. Copyright law also may provide ineffective redress.
The bill would address this problem with a new offense that was carefully - 122 - HB 603 House Research Organization page 3
crafted to not be under-inclusive or over-inclusive and to meet all legal and constitutional standards. The bill would include provisions requiring that individuals be identifiable and that the person knows or should have known that the depicted person did not consent to the dissemination of the images. The bill contains several thresholds an action would have to meet to fall under the offense so that common actions would not be included.
The bill would establish certain defenses to prosecution to ensure it captured only criminal activity and not legitimate law enforcement, medical, legal, or commercial actions. It also would be a defense to prosecution if the material depicted only voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting. A state jail felony is the proper penalty for this crime as it would give law enforcement proper leverage to pursue it, and the category is designed for non-violent but serious actions.
OPPONENTS CSHB 603 would be a content-based restriction on speech, which would SAY: be presumptively unconstitutional. The bill would be overly broad and could lead to unfair convictions. Some of the definitions in the bill are so broad that common situations could be captured under the crime. For example, the definition of “exposed intimate parts” means clothed in a manner that leaves any portion of someone’s intimate parts uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing, and this could describe commonly seen street attire that might appear in visual images.
The state should be cautious about creating new crimes for nonviolent behaviors. Making such actions a state jail felony is too punitive given the nonviolent nature of these actions. In some cases, current statutes, including those for harassment and impersonating another already criminalize some activities that occur in these situations. While distributing these images may be reprehensible, these cases generally could be handled outside the criminal justice system, where victims could seek damages through civil courts.
- 123 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 211 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 Rose
SUBJECT: Adjusting rules for criminal cases after competency determinations
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 5 ayes — Herrero, Moody, Leach, Shaheen, Simpson
0 nays
2 absent — Canales, Hunter
WITNESSES: For — Paul Blocker, Dallas County; Elizabeth Valderas, National Alliance on Mental Illness; (Registered, but did not testify: Matt Simpson, ACLU of Texas; Seth Mitchell, Bexar County Commissioners Court; Craig Pardue, Dallas County; Charles Reed, Dallas County Commissioners Court; Cate Graziani, Mental Health America of Texas; Greg Hansch, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Texas; Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Josh Gravens, Texas Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE); Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Marc Levin, Texas Public Policy Foundation Center for Effective Justice; Alicia Vogel)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: James Oakley, Burnet County; Jim Allison, County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas)
On — Lynda Frost, Hogg Foundation for Mental Health; (Registered, but did not testify: Donna Warndof, Harris County)
BACKGROUND: Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 46B.084 requires the court to make a determination of whether a defendant is competent to stand trial within 20 days after receiving notice from the head of a health care facility or outpatient treatment program that the defendant is competent to stand trial, or that the defendant is not likely to attain competency in the foreseeable future.
DIGEST: HB 211 would require the court to notify the attorney representing the state and the defendant’s attorney of the defendant’s return to the court after a prior determination of incompetency to stand trial. This would be
- 124 - HB 211 House Research Organization page 2 required no later than the next business day following the return.
Within three days of receiving the notice, the defendant’s attorney would be required to meet with the defendant to evaluate whether there was any suggestion that the defendant had not regained competency. The bill would amend the date that a court would be required to make a determination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial to within 20 days after notice was received or not later than the fifth day after the date of the defendant’s return to court, whichever occurred first.
If a defendant was found competent to stand trial, the bill would require that criminal proceedings resume on the court’s own motion within 14 days after the court determined that the defendant’s competency had been restored.
This bill would not require that the criminal case be resolved within any specific period.
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, 2015, and would apply only to a criminal proceeding that included issues with a defendant’s competency to stand trial that began on or after that effective date, regardless of when the defendant committed the underlying offense.
- 125 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2356 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 Bohac
SUBJECT: Allowing certain election administrators to combine election precincts
COMMITTEE: Elections — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 5 ayes — Laubenberg, Goldman, Israel, Reynolds, Schofield
0 nays
2 absent — Fallon, Phelan
WITNESSES: For — Ed Johnson, Harris County Clerk's Office; (Registered, but did not testify: Dana DeBeauvoir, County Clerks Legislative Committee; LaQuan Rogers, Get Fit Wit Me; George Hammerlein, Harris County Clerk's Office; Alan Vera, Harris County Republican Party Ballot Security Committee; John Oldham, Texas Association of Elections Administrators; Glen Maxey, Texas Democratic Party; Colleen Vera)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Bill Fairbrother, Texas Republican County Chairmen's Association; Ashley Fischer, Office of the Secretary of State, Keith Ingram, Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division)
BACKGROUND: Under Election Code, sec. 42.0051, commissioners courts and county executive committees of political parties may combine election precincts to avoid unreasonable expenditures for elections in:
counties that have a population of less than 250,000, if the consolidated precinct has less than 500 registered voters; counties that have a population of 250,000 or more, if the consolidated precinct has less than 750 registered voters.
Election Code, sec. 42.006 limits the size of a county election precinct to 5,000 registered voters.
DIGEST: HB 2356 would allow commissioners courts for general or special elections or county executive committees of political parties for primary
- 126 - HB 2356 House Research Organization page 2 elections to combine election precincts to avoid unreasonable expenditures for elections if:
the county had a population of 250,000 or more regardless of the number of voters in the precinct; or the county had a population of less than 250,000 and the consolidated precinct had less than 500 registered voters.
The bill would repeal Election Code, sec. 42.0051(b), which provides restrictions in current law on the consolidation of consolidated precincts with populations greater than 250,000.
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, 2015.
- 127 - HOUSE HB 2221 RESEARCH Huberty, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2221 by Deshotel)
SUBJECT: Limiting a municipality’s ability to annex
COMMITTEE: Land and Resource Management — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 5 ayes — Deshotel, Bell, Cyrier, Krause, Sanford
1 nay — E. Thompson
1 absent — Lucio
WITNESSES: For — Jane Cohen
Against — Virginia Collier, City of Austin; Melinda Ramos, City of Fort Worth; Scott Houston, Texas Municipal League; Bob Riley; (Registered, but did not testify: Jennifer Rodriguez, City of College Station; Tom Tagliabue, City of Corpus Christi; Lindsey Baker, City of Denton; Lindsay Lanagan, City of Houston; Jeff Coyle, City of San Antonio)
BACKGROUND: Local Government Code, ch. 43 governs municipal annexation.
DIGEST: CSHB 2221 would make changes to Local Government Code, ch. 43 relating to municipal annexation, including those highlighted below.
Limited purpose annexation. The bill would prohibit a municipality from annexing an area for the limited purposes of applying its planning, zoning, health, and safety ordinances in the area. This would supersede any municipal charter provision that conflicted with the prohibition.
General authority to annex. The bill would allow a municipality to annex an area that was noncontiguous to the boundaries of the municipality if the area was in the municipality’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. It also would allow a municipality to annex an area upon the request of each owner of the land, subject to the governing body of the municipality meeting requirements to enter into a written agreement that included the services to be provided and to hold public hearings as defined in the bill.
- 128 - HB 2221 House Research Organization page 2
Areas under a municipal annexation plan. The bill would create one process and set of requirements for areas with populations of less than 200 and another for areas with populations of 200 or greater.
To annex an area with a population of less than 200, the bill would require the municipality to obtain consent by petition of more than 50 percent of registered voters in the area or more than 50 percent of owners of land in the area if registered voters did not own more than 50 percent of the land
To annex an area with a population of 200 or more, the bill would require the municipality to hold an election in the area to be annexed by which the majority of qualified voters approved an annexation and also to obtain consent through a petition signed by more than 50 percent of the owners of land in the area if the qualified voters did not own more than 50 percent of the land in the area.
The bill also would define the types of public hearings and notifications that would be required through these processes, the time frames certain steps in the processes would have to follow, and how the results of petitions, elections, or protest petitions would be handled. In addition to these requirements, a municipality proposing to annex an area would be required to adopt a resolution that would include specified elements, including a statement of intent to annex, a description and map of the area to be annexed, and a description of the services to be provided under the annexation.
Strategic partnership agreements. The bill would prohibit strategic partnership agreements from providing for limited purpose annexation starting September 1, 2015. It also would make changes to provisions governing areas that were annexed for a limited purpose as these were authorized before September 1, 2015.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015, and would not apply to an annexation for which the first hearing notice was published before that date.
SUPPORTERS CSHB 2221 would prevent cities from annexing areas around them SAY: without the desire or consent of residents. Cities still would be able to - 129 - HB 2221 House Research Organization page 3
annex areas outside their limits under the bill, but they would first have to get buy-in from residents via an election. This would place more power in the hands of residents potentially affected by annexation and would give property owners a greater voice in their destinies.
The bill would protect the rights of property owners throughout the state. A property owner who chooses to live outside the jurisdiction of a city should not have to worry about the property being subject to annexation one day, unless the individual received an opportunity to make that decision through an election.
The bill also would speed up and streamline the process of annexation if consent was obtained, which would reduce associated costs for all parties and bring about shared benefits sooner if annexation was desired.
Limited purpose annexations provide no services and few benefits to the areas annexed and should be eliminated. Strategic partnership agreements should not be used to force areas into a limited purpose annexation that goes against the residents’ wishes.
OPPONENTS CSHB 2221 essentially would eliminate cities’ ability to annex areas SAY: around them by requiring elections in many areas and eliminating limited purpose annexation. The power to annex allows cities to expand their tax bases and ensure that residents living outside city limits help pay for the services they use. This is especially important in growing urban areas. The petition and election process required under the bill would be both complicated and excessive and would withhold from many cities the additional financial support they need from the ability to annex surrounding areas.
Texas cities receive little to no financial assistance from the state, yet they pay for infrastructure and services that benefit everyone, including roads, public safety systems, and utilities. Without the ability to annex, cities could begin to deteriorate as the growing populations around them choose not to contribute to the city’s tax base, which supports maintenance and infrastructure that benefit residents and non-residents alike.
In addition, limited purpose annexations have worked well for many - 130 - HB 2221 House Research Organization page 4 communities because they allow the city to plan for the extension of municipal services to coincide with development activity in the region. This enhances the quality of life for all residents. Strategic partnership agreements have worked well for areas that utilize special districts.
- 131 - HOUSE HB 2303 RESEARCH Kuempel ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2303 by Schofield)
SUBJECT: Limiting liability for injuries incurred from certain recreational vehicles
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Smithee, Clardy, Hernandez, Laubenberg, Raymond, Schofield, Sheets
0 nays
2 present, not voting — Farrar, S. Thompson
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Kevin Cooper and Thomas Ratliff, Polaris Industries; Mike Hull, Texans for Lawsuit Reform; Royce Poinsett, Texas Motorcycle Dealers Association)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Civil Practice and Remedies Code, ch. 75, regarding the limitation of landowners' liability, provides that if owners, lessees, or occupants of agricultural land or other real property give permission or invite another to enter the premises for recreation, they do not assure that the premises are safe for that purpose. They also do not owe that person a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises or assume responsibility or incur liability for injury to any individual or property caused by that person.
DIGEST: CSHB 2303 would amend Civil Practice and Remedies Code, sec. 75.001(3) by extending the definition of "recreation" under the limitation of landowners' liability to include the use of recreational off-highway vehicles.
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, 2015. The bill would apply only to a cause of action that accrued on or after the effective date.
- 132 - HOUSE HB 2703 RESEARCH Simmons, Gonzales ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2703 by Crownover)
SUBJECT: Establishing the Texas Board of Behavior Analyst Examiners
COMMITTEE: Public Health — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 11 ayes — Crownover, Naishtat, Blanco, Coleman, Collier, S. Davis, Guerra, R. Miller, Sheffield, Zedler, Zerwas
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — Duy Le, Child Study Center; Gordon Bourland, Jennifer Fritz, Richard Smith, and Russell Lang, Texas Association for Behavior Analysis; Shylo Bundy; (Registered, but did not testify: Suzanne Potts, Autism Society of Central Texas; Pati McCandless, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Shannon Struble, Bluebonnet Trails Community Services; Morgan Chapple, Ben Seifert, and Aarti Thakore, Central Texas Autism Center; Kelle Rich, Central Texas Autism Society; Chris Masey, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities; Tanya Lavelle, Easter Seals Central Texas; Jennifer Haggar, Haggar Behavioral Consulting, LLC; Emily Ferris, University of North Texas; and five individuals)
Against — Michael Ratheal, Texas Psychological Association; (Registered, but did not testify: David White, Texas Psychological Association; Shannon Noble, Texas Counseling Association)
On — Kate Johnson-Patagoc, Texana Center; (Registered, but did not testify: Darrel Spinks, Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists)
BACKGROUND: A regulatory board that specifically oversees behavior analysts does not exist in statute. Some have called for the creation of a board to provide licensing for these professionals as well as legal recourse and remedies for individuals who might be harmed by someone practicing as a behavior analyst.
DIGEST: CSHB 2703 would create the Behavior Analyst Licensing Act. This would include the establishment of a board to oversee behavior analysts, including licensing requirements for these individuals, and related policies, sanctions, and statutory definitions of the profession.
- 133 - HB 2703 House Research Organization page 2
Boards. CSHB 2703 would establish the Texas Board of Behavior Analyst Examiners, also known as the behavior analyst board. The bill would specify the composition of the board, membership requirements, terms, meetings, election of officers, training requirements for members, and grounds for removal. Board members could not receive compensation for their services but could receive a per diem and travel allowance for behavior analyst board business. A member of the board would not be liable in a civil action for an act performed in good faith while performing duties as a member.
Subject to the advice of the Texas Medical Board, the behavior analyst board would:
establish standards of conduct and adopt a code of professional ethics for license holders; adopt rules to carry out the behavior analyst board's duties in administering the provisions of the bill; set fees that were reasonable and necessary to cover the costs of administering the provisions of the bill; implement a policy requiring the behavior analyst board to use appropriate technological solutions to improve the board's ability to perform its functions; develop and implement policies for rulemaking procedures; and develop policies to encourage the use of appropriate alternative dispute resolution procedures to assist in the resolution of internal and external disputes under the behavior analyst board's jurisdiction.
The behavior analyst board's procedures for alternative dispute resolution would conform, to the extent possible, to model guidelines issued by the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the use of alternative dispute resolution by state agencies.
The Texas Medical Board would provide administrative and clerical employees as necessary to allow the behavior analyst board to administer the provisions of the bill.
- 134 - HB 2703 House Research Organization page 3
By itself, the behavior analyst board would:
administer and enforce the provisions of the bill; issue and enforce licenses of behavior analysts; by rule adopt a standardized form for filing complaints with the board; provide reasonable assistance to a person who wished to file a complaint with the board; designate a person to coordinate the board's alternative dispute resolution policy, serve as a resource for training related to that policy, and to collect data about the effectiveness of procedures; prepare information for the public describing the functions of the board and make that information available; establish notification methods for a person to direct complaints to the board; list a toll-free number established under other state law to call to present a complaint about a health professional; maintain a system to promptly and efficiently act on complaints filed with the board; adopt rules concerning the investigation of a complaint filed with the board; and adopt a schedule of sanctions for violations under the provisions of the bill.
License. A person could not engage in the practice of applied behavior analysis, use the title "licensed behavior analyst" or "licensed assistant behavior analyst" unless the person held a license. A person could not use the title "behavior analyst" unless the person held a license or met certain requirements in the bill for an exception. An applicant for a license would submit an application and required fees to the behavior analyst board for approval. A license would expire on the second anniversary of the date it was issued unless the board specified otherwise.
CSHB 2703 would specify the requirements for a person to be licensed under the bill, including requirements for certification, education, examination, and compliance with certain professional, ethical, and
- 135 - HB 2703 House Research Organization page 4 disciplinary standards. The bill also would specify grounds for the behavior analyst board to deny a license to applicants or to suspend, temporarily suspend, emergency suspend, or revoke their license, or place a person on probation following a hearing.
The bill would require the behavior analyst board to issue a license to a person who was currently licensed as a behavior analyst or as an assistant behavior analyst from another state or jurisdiction that imposed similar licensure requirements as those in CSHB 2703.
Excepted individuals. The bill would not apply to a person licensed to practice psychology or another profession if the applied behavior analysis services provided were within the scope of the licensed person's education, training, and competence and the scope of the person's license, if the person was not licensed to practice psychology.
The bill also would not apply to a family member or a guardian of applied behavior analysis services who was implementing a behavior treatment plan for the recipient under the authority of a licensed behavior analyst or assistant. The bill would specify the conditions under which the bill's provisions would not apply to paraprofessional technicians; a college or university student, intern, or fellow; an unlicensed person pursuing supervised experience in applied behavior analysis; a behavior analyst licensed in another jurisdiction; or a teacher or employee of a private or public school.
The bill would allow a person to be exempt from the provisions of the bill but still use the title "behavior analyst" if the person practiced with nonhumans and met other requirements.
Definition. The bill would define the practice of applied behavior analysis and applied behavior analysis interventions. The definition of the practice of behavior analysis would not include:
psychological testing, psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, psychoanalysis, hypnotherapy, or counseling as treatment modalities; or the diagnosis of disorders. - 136 - HB 2703 House Research Organization page 5
Advertising or competitive bidding. The Texas Medical Board or behavior analyst board could not adopt rules restricting advertising or competitive bidding by a license holder except to prohibit false, misleading, or deceptive practices.
Complaint confidentiality and subpoena. A complaint and investigation concerning a license holder under the bill and all information and materials compiled by the behavior analyst board in connection with the complaint and investigation would not be subject to disclosure under Government Code, ch. 552, which governs public information, or disclosure, discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for release of other information to any person. These materials could be disclosed to the behavior analyst board and the board's employees or agents involved in license holder discipline and certain other parties specified in the bill.
The presiding officer of the behavior analyst board could issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of a relevant witness or the production of evidence for an investigation of a complaint filed with the board.
Sanctions, penalties, and offenses. The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) would use the broad schedule of sanctions adopted by the behavior analyst board for sanctions as the result of a SOAH hearing. The board could impose an administrative penalty of up to $200 against licensed person who violated the provisions of the bill or a rule or order adopted under the provisions of the bill.
A person found by a court to have violated the provisions of the bill would be liable for a civil penalty of $200 for each day the violation continued. The penalty could be recovered in a suit brought by the attorney general, the district attorney, or a county attorney. A person who knowingly violated the provisions of the bill would commit a class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $4,000). Each day of violation would be a separate criminal offense.
Effective dates. By January 1, 2016, the Texas Board of Behavior Analyst Examiners would adopt the rules, procedures, and fees necessary - 137 - HB 2703 House Research Organization page 6 to administer the provisions of the bill. A behavior analyst or assistant behavior analyst would not be required to hold a license under the bill to practice until June 1, 2016.
As soon as practicable after September 1, 2015, the governor would appoint nine members to the Texas Board of Behavior Analyst Examiners. In making the initial appointments, the governor would designate three members to have terms expiring February 1, 2017, and three members to have terms expiring February 1, 2021.
The rest of the bill would take effect September 1, 2015, except for provisions in the bill related to license denial and disciplinary procedures and a required license under subch. H and sec. 506.251 of the bill, which would take effect June 1, 2016.
- 138 - HOUSE HB 3750 RESEARCH Simmons ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 3750 by Deshotel)
SUBJECT: Conducting an inventory of real property owned by the state
COMMITTEE: Land and Resource Management — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 7 ayes — Deshotel, E. Thompson, Bell, Cyrier, Krause, Lucio, Sanford
0 nays
WITNESSES: For — None
Against— None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Mark McAnally, General Land Office; Robert Siddall, GLO; Michelle Tooley and Stephen Vollbrecht, State Office of Risk Management; Chris Connealy, Texas Department of Insurance, State Fire Marshal's Office; Jess Berglund, Texas Department of Transportation; Thomas Keaton, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Wayne Pulver, Legislative Budget Board; Kirk Tames, The University of Texas System)
BACKGROUND: Currently there is no comprehensive and accurate system for collecting and reporting information related to the state's real property. Some observers have noted that a one-time inventory could benefit the state in providing an accurate picture of the state's holdings, and a study of the benefits and burdens of maintaining such information going forward could help to determine the appropriate next step.
DIGEST: CSHB 3750 would require the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) to conduct an interim study on insurable state assets to develop a statewide strategy to ensure that all real property owned by the state, including buildings, facilities, and land, was adequately insured. The bill would require SORM to use information provided by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB).
The LBB would be required to collect information from state agencies and institutions of higher education that possess real property. It would coordinate with various state agencies to collect the information.
- 139 - HB 3750 House Research Organization page 2
The bill would require comprehensive real property data to be collected for each state-owned building or facility other than higher education institutions. The data would include:
identifying and descriptive information about the building or facility; information about the building or facility's protection systems and features; information about the value of the building or facility and its contents and the fund from which it was purchased; and information about any surrounding use of the building or facility.
Similar information about real property of an institution of higher education would be collected from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
The LBB also would be required to collect specific data on state-owned land, which would include:
the land's address and name (if any), its geographic coordinates, and the name of the agency that had charge of and control of it; the presence of any historical marker located on the land and, if so, a description of the marker; the size, value, surrounding uses of the land and whether it was located in flood plain; and the fund from which the land was purchased.
The bill would require the LBB to collect similar information about land owned by an institution of higher education. For both state-owned land and land owned by a college or university, the bill would require the collection of the number assigned by the Federal Interagency Committee on Education.
CSHB 3750 would require that the LBB report the collected information to SORM by a date set by the office. SORM would consolidate the information received and make it available to the Legislature, state
- 140 - HB 3750 House Research Organization page 3 agencies, and institutions of higher education by June 1, 2016.
The bill also would require that SORM complete an interim study on insurable state assets — including findings, recommendations, and the statewide study — and report it to the Legislature by August 31, 2016.
The bill also would establish select committees on State Real Property Data Collection, Reporting, and Assessment in both houses of the Legislature to separately or jointly study issues associated with real property owned by the state. Issues to be studied by the committees would include the potential benefits of maintaining a comprehensive database of all real property owned by the state and the potential financial loss to the state that could result from the state owning uninsured and underinsured real property. Chairs and members of both committees would be appointed by November 30, 2015. The bill would require that the select committees issue a report, including findings and recommendations jointly adopted based on the issues specified in the bill, to the Legislature by January 13, 2017.
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, 2015.
- 141 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2318 ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 Ashby, Darby
SUBJECT: Creating a tax credit for diesel fuel used for certain purposes
COMMITTEE: Ways and Means — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 10 ayes — D. Bonnen, Bohac, Button, Darby, Martinez Fischer, Murphy, Parker, Springer, C. Turner, Wray
1 nay — Y. Davis
WITNESSES: For — Matt Grabner, Ryan, LLC; David Bishop, Texas Trucking Association; John Esparza, Texas Trucking Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Michael Stewart, Lattimore Materials and US Concrete; Steve Carr, Republic Services; Chris Macomb, Waste Management of Texas, Inc.; Tara Snowden, Zachry Corporation)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: David Reed, Comptroller of Public Accounts)
BACKGROUND: Tax Code, ch. 162 imposes a motor vehicle fuel tax on gasoline and diesel sold in the state. A portion of that money is directed to the State Highway Fund. Sec. 162.202 imposes a 20-cent tax on each gallon of diesel fuel.
“License holder” is defined by Tax Code, sec. 162.001 as a person holding one of a number of licenses issued by the comptroller, including an interstate trucker, a motor vehicle dealer, or a supplier, distributor, or importer of motor vehicle fuels.
Tax Code, sec. 162.125(e) provides that certain people may take a credit if they paid a fuel tax on gasoline used by auxiliary power units or power take-off equipment on any motor vehicle.
DIGEST: HB 2318 would allow a license holder, as defined by Tax Code, sec. 162.001, to take a tax credit on diesel fuel used in the state by auxiliary power units or power take-off equipment on any motor vehicle if the usage by the auxiliary equipment could be accurately measured. A person
- 142 - HB 2318 House Research Organization page 2
who did not hold a license could file a refund claim with the comptroller.
If it there was no separate metering device or other approved measuring method, the license holder could take the credit and claim the refund on a percentage of the diesel fuel consumed. The comptroller would determine the percentage of tax credit granted.
The bill would provide that fuel used for idling, or for an air conditioning or heating system used to provide for the comfort of the operator or passengers was not eligible for the tax credit.
This bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
SUPPORTERS HB 2318 would correct a fundamental unfairness in the state’s tax system. SAY: The state collects a fuel tax on each gallon of gas or diesel sold to offset the cost of maintaining the wear and tear on the roads. However, power take-offs and auxiliary power units do not contribute to road wear, which is why the state does not charge a fuel tax on gasoline used by those types of machinery. This bill would make the tax system fairer by ensuring a tax credit existed for buyers of diesel who used it for the same purpose.
The fuel taxes collected should reflect the actual amount of wear and tear necessitated by the use of the fuel. While this bill would cost money, it would uphold a long-standing principle in the state’s Tax Code and eliminate a source of an unfair tax burden.
OPPONENTS HB 2318 would result in a loss of millions of dollars in tax revenue, and SAY: the state should not cut taxes when it faces needs in critical areas such as transportation and public education.
In addition, the Legislature should consider not just the cost of this individual exemption but also the aggregate cost of all exemptions and tax cuts proposed during this biennium. This aggregate cost could make this and other tax exemptions unsustainable during future budget periods.
NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note estimates that this bill would have a negative impact of approximately $4.3 million on general revenue related funds through fiscal 2016-17. - 143 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 3835 ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 Isaac
SUBJECT: Changing provisions for alternative fuel vehicles used by state agencies
COMMITTEE: Energy Resources — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 11 ayes — Darby, Paddie, Anchia, Craddick, Dale, Herrero, Keffer, P. King, Landgraf, Meyer, Riddle
0 nays
2 absent — Canales, Wu
WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: June Deadrick, CenterPoint Energy; Mark Gipson, Pioneer Natural Resources; Tricia Davis, Texas Royalty Council; Greg Macksood)
Against — Amber Pearson, Protec Fuel; Todd Garner, Protec Fuel Management; (Registered, but did not testify: Arleen Averhoff, Corn Producers Association of Texas; Michael Pacheco, Texas Farm Bureau; Wayne Cleveland, Texas Grain Sorghum Producers Association)
On — (Registered, but did not testify: David Brymer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)
BACKGROUND: Government Code, sec. 2158.005 requires certain state agencies that operate fleets of more than 15 vehicles to ensure that at least 50 percent of those vehicles use alternative fuels by September 30, 2010. The comptroller may reduce that specified percentage or waive the requirement for a state agency that cannot comply due to a scarcity of alternative fuels or refueling equipment at a competitive cost in the area in which such vehicles are operating.
DIGEST: HB 3835 would prohibit a state agency from purchasing or leasing a vehicle that uses ethanol or ethanol/gasoline blends of 85 percent or greater. The bill also would remove the authorization for state agencies to purchase or lease a vehicle that would be converted to use biodiesel.
No later than September 30, 2025, the bill would require certain state
- 144 - HB 3835 House Research Organization page 2
agencies with fleets larger than 15 vehicles to update their fleets such that 50 percent used compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or electricity. The comptroller no longer would be able to waive the requirement or reduce the required percentage for an agency whose vehicles were operating in an area in which there was a scarcity of alternative fuels or refueling equipment at a competitive cost.
This bill would establish that, for the purposes of the Office of Vehicle Fleet Management, an “alternative fuel” does not include blends of gasoline with either methanol, ethanol, or biodiesel.
This bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
SUPPORTERS HB 3835 would begin a transition toward the use by state agencies of SAY: better, cheaper fuels than ethanol/gasoline blends in their fleet vehicles. The use of ethanol as a fuel has been shown to increase corrosion and to degrade rubber seals in engines. Although ethanol could become increasingly economical if the price of oil spikes again, the long-term maintenance costs far outweigh any gains.
The state should begin the transition toward different fuels soon. Although the refueling infrastructure does not currently exist for ethanol alternatives, this bill would be a positive first step toward establishing a viable alternative. HB 3835 would set an ambitious but achievable goal for state fleets to have at least a 50-percent alternative fuel mix that did not include ethanol/gasoline blends, which would cut state costs in the long run while reducing energy consumption and air pollution.
OPPONENTS HB 3835 would prevent the expansion of a valuable alternative fuel that is SAY: already integrated into the distribution infrastructure. According to the comptroller’s State of the Fleet report, the vast majority of vehicles purchased by the state in the past two years were equipped to run on a blend of ethanol and gasoline.
Certain attributes of ethanol-based fuel make it particularly attractive to state agencies. Ethanol blends cost much less than gasoline while yielding a higher octane rating, which translates to better performance for less money, particularly if the price of gas rises sharply again. Ethanol is the - 145 - HB 3835 House Research Organization page 3 most widely available alternative fuel that cuts emissions and should therefore be retained by state agencies as a possible option for alternative fuels in fleet vehicles.
- 146 - HOUSE HB 2525 RESEARCH Coleman ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2525 by Herrero)
SUBJECT: Counsel for indigent defendants with warrant, arrest in different counties
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — Herrero, Moody, Canales, Hunter, Leach, Simpson
0 nays
1 absent — Shaheen
WITNESSES: For — John Dahill, Texas Conference of Urban Counties; Rebecca Bernhardt, Texas Fair Defense Project; (Registered, but did not testify: Matt Simpson, ACLU of Texas; Patricia Cummings, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; Sarah Pahl, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 1.051, governs the appointment of legal counsel for indigent criminal defendants. Art. 1.051(c) states that if certain conditions are met, courts shall appoint counsel within specified time frames. In some cases, a warrant is issued for someone's arrest in one county, but the defendant is arrested and jailed in another county. In these situations, it is unclear which county is responsible for appointing counsel if the defendant is indigent.
DIGEST: CSHB 2525 would establish a process for determining the responsibility for appointing counsel for indigent defendants when a warrant was issued for an arrest in one county and the defendant was arrested and jailed in another county.
If an indigent defendant were arrested under a warrant issued in a county other than the county in which the arrest was made, a court in the county that issued the warrant would be required to appoint counsel within the current time frames, regardless of whether the defendant was present in the county issuing the warrant. The appointment would be required even if adversarial judicial proceedings had not yet been initiated in the county
- 147 - HB 2525 House Research Organization page 2 issuing the warrant.
However, if the defendant had not been transferred or released to the county issuing the warrant before the 11th day after arrest and if counsel had not already been appointed by the arresting county, a court in the arresting county would have to immediately appoint counsel to represent the defendant for matters under Code of Criminal Procedure, ch. 11, which deals with writs of habeas corpus, and chapter 17, which deals with bail. This appointment would occur regardless of whether adversarial proceedings had been initiated in the arresting county.
If the arresting county appointed counsel in these cases, that county could seek reimbursement from the county that issued the warrant for the costs paid for the appointed counsel.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015, and would apply only to a person arrested on or after that date.
- 148 - HOUSE HB 2571 RESEARCH Johnson ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 (CSHB 2571 by Bernal)
SUBJECT: Requiring report on projected environmental changes for agency planning
COMMITTEE: International Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 6 ayes — Anchia, Lozano, R. Anderson, Bernal, Burrows, Koop
0 nays
1 absent — Scott Turner
WITNESSES: For — Luke Metzger, Environment Texas; Laura Blackburn, League of Women Voters of Texas; Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club; Tom “Smitty” Smith, Public Citizen, Inc.; Bee Moorhead, Texas Impact; Kenneth Flippin; (Registered, but did not testify: Theodore (Tod) Wickersham; Kate Zerrenner, Environmental Defense Fund; David Weinberg, Texas League of Conservation Voters; Chloe Lieberknecht, The Nature Conservancy; David Matiella, U.S. Green Building Council)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Steve Perry, Chevron USA; Richard A. (Tony) Bennett, Texas Association of Manufacturers; Patrick Tarlton, Texas Chemical Council; Bill Peacock and Leigh Thompson, Texas Public Policy Foundation; William Hussey)
On — Ursula Parks, Legislative Budget Board; (Registered, but did not testify: Steve Hagle, Vincent Meiller, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Katy Sellers, General Land Office)
BACKGROUND: State agencies are required by Government Code, sec. 2056.002(a) to issue strategic plans of operation every two years to cover the five years that follow. These plans are created to identify and prepare for issues which may affect that agency’s operations.
DIGEST: CSHB 2571 would amend the elements to be included in an agency’s strategic plan by adding requirements for certain state agencies.
Agency strategic plan requirements. The bill would require strategic
- 149 - HB 2571 House Research Organization page 2 plans to include an analysis of expected changes, including adverse impacts, in the services provided by the agency because of projected changes in weather, water availability, and climate variability as determined by the Texas state climatologist’s report. These requirements would apply only to agencies most affected by these environmental changes, including the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Public Utility Commission, and the Texas Water Development Board, among others.
Each selected agency also would be required to include a description of the means and strategies for meeting the agency’s needs and managing the risks associated with the projected changes for five years beginning with the next odd-numbered year, and for at least 20 years and not longer than 50 years beginning with the next odd-numbered year. For this description of the means and strategies, each agency also would be required to identify any financial resources and analyze partnerships between the agency and other state, local, and federal government entities that would be needed to carry out those means and strategies.
State climatologist report. The bill would require the Texas state climatologist to provide a report on projected changes in weather, water availability, and climate variability across the state. The report would be provided to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) for state agencies to use to develop their strategic plans by February 1 of each even-numbered year. It would include projected changes for a period of five years beginning with the next odd-numbered year and at least 20 years and not longer than 50 years beginning with the next odd-numbered year. The bill would list the specific environmental projections that the report could include, including projections of precipitation, temperature, and sea level changes.
The bill would allow the Texas state climatologist to use a forecast created outside the office of the state climatologist if the climatologist considers it suitable for the requirements of the report.
The LBB would be required to distribute the climatologist’s report to the state agencies identified in CSHB 2571 by March 1 of each even- numbered year. - 150 - HB 2571 House Research Organization page 3
This bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
SUPPORTERS Agency strategic plan requirements. CSHB 2571 would give agencies SAY: most impacted by weather changes, water availability, and climate variability needed information for strategic agency plans to prepare for ways that changes in weather could affect their operations. The agencies identified in the bill would not be required to use specific portions of the climatologist’s report — it would be available to use only as they saw necessary or appropriate. No agency would be penalized for failure to use the information.
Texas has a unique and varied climate that could pose threats to the operations of government agencies if they did not consider informed projections in developing their strategic plans. Forecasts in the climatologist’s report are reliable because the climatologist develops the report based on educated, informed studies and accepted scientific research.
State climatologist report. The bill would give the state’s expert climatologist discretion to decide which forecasts from outside the climatologist’s office to use in the report. The climatologist already has discretion to decide what appears in the report, so it would be appropriate for the climatologist to make the final decision about using outside forecasts.
OPPONENTS Agency strategic plan requirements. CSHB 2571 could weaken each SAY: agency’s strategic plan by requiring them to incorporate limited and potentially inaccurate information from the state climatologist. Much of the information is based on far-off projections that are nearly impossible to estimate with enough accuracy to benefit the agencies’ plans.
The bill would duplicate the activities of regional water groups, which already are projecting water conditions every five years as part of the state water plan.
State climatologist report. The bill would not include any particular requirements for which forecasts developed outside the climatologist’s - 151 - HB 2571 House Research Organization page 4 office could be used for the report, potentially allowing information from less credible experts or organizations into the report.
- 152 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2646 ORGANIZATION bill digest 5/11/2015 Giddings
SUBJECT: Disclosing information about communicable diseases to first responders
COMMITTEE: Public Health — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 6 ayes — Crownover, Naishtat, Coleman, Guerra, Zedler, Zerwas
0 nays
5 absent — Blanco, Collier, S. Davis, R. Miller, Sheffield
WITNESSES: For — Christopher Perkins and Zachary Thompson, Dallas County Health and Human Services; Ryan Matthews; (Registered, but did not testify: Seth Mitchell, Bexar County Commissioners Court; Craig Pardue, Dallas County; Charles Reed, Dallas County Commissioners Court; Don Allred, Oldam County; Margo Cardwell, State Firefighters’ and Fire Marshals’ Association; Mark Mendez, Tarrant County Commissioners Court; Rick Thompson, Texas Association of Counties; Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties; Dudley Wait, Texas EMS Alliance; Courtney DeBower, Texas EMS, Trauma and Acute Care Foundation; Julie Acevedo, Texas Fire Chiefs Association)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Marilyn Felkner, Department of State Health Services)
BACKGROUND: Health and Safety Code, ch. 81 defines communicable disease as an illness that occurs through the transmission of an infectious agent or its toxic products from a reservoir to a susceptible host, either directly, as from an infected person or animal, or indirectly through an intermediate plant or animal host, a vector, or the inanimate environment. Section 81.046 of this chapter governs confidentiality of health information, reports, and records related to cases or suspected cases of diseases or health conditions.
Government Code, sec. 421.095 defines a “first responder” as a public safety employee or volunteer whose duties include responding rapidly to
- 153 - HB 2646 House Research Organization page 2
an emergency.
In 2014, cases of Ebola were confirmed in Texas. Following the confirmation of these cases, local health authorities monitored individuals who had been exposed to the Ebola patients. These events highlighted gaps in state statute regarding the ability of local health authorities to share information about communicable disease with first responders who respond in these situations.
DIGEST: HB 2646 would add new entities to whom medical or epidemiological information, including information linking a person who was exposed to a person with a communicable disease, could be released. Under the bill, this information could be released to the following entities for the following reasons in addition to the ones already specified in existing statute:
governmental entities that provided first responders who could respond to a situation involving a potential communicable disease of concern and who needed the information to properly respond to the situation; or a local health department or health authority for a designated monitoring period based on the potential risk for developing symptoms of a communicable disease of concern.
The bill would require a local health department or health authority to provide to first responders the physical address of a person who was being monitored by the local department or authority for a communicable disease for the duration of the disease’s incubation period. The local health department, health authority, or other governmental entity, as applicable, would be required to remove the person’s physical address from any computer-aided dispatch system after the monitoring period expired.
The bill would allow only the minimum necessary information to be released under the above provisions, as determined by a health authority, local health department, governmental entity, or department.
The bill also would allow reports, records, and information relating to - 154 - HB 2646 House Research Organization page 3 cases or suspected cases of diseases or health conditions to be released to the extent necessary during an outbreak of a communicable disease to law enforcement personnel and first responders, solely for the purpose of protecting the health or life of a first responder or the person identified in the report, record, or information.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2015.
- 155 - HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2684 ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/11/2015 Giddings
SUBJECT: Requiring specific training for school district peace and resource officers
COMMITTEE: Juvenile Justice and Family Issues — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 6 ayes — Dutton, Hughes, Peña, Rose, Sanford, J. White
1 nay — Riddle
WITNESSES: For — Scott Peters, Dallas County Schools Police Department; Greg Hansch, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Texas; Josette Saxton, Texans Care for Children; Morgan Craven, Texas Appleseed; Jennifer Carreon, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition; (Registered, but did not testify: Victor Cornell, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Chris Masey, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities; Traci Berry, Goodwill Central Texas; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers - Texas Chapter; Katherine Barillas, One Voice Texas; Lauren Rose, Texans Care for Children; Lori Henning, Texas Association of Goodwills; Patricia Cummings, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Rona Statman, The Arc of Texas; Alicia Vogel)
Against — None
On — Steven Aleman, Disability Rights Texas; Kim Vickers, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
BACKGROUND: Peace officers, defined under Education Code, sec. 37.081, and school resource officers, defined under Occupations Code, sec. 1701.601, serve in individual schools in some school districts. Among other duties, they enforce state laws and maintain a police presence at the schools at which they are posted.
DIGEST: HB 2684 would require all school districts that engage school resource officers and peace officers to adopt an education and training program policy for the officers at their schools.
- 156 - HB 2684 House Research Organization page 2
The bill would require the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement to consult with institutes specializing in the training of law enforcement to create, adopt, and distribute a training curriculum model for school resource and peace officers across the state. This curriculum would address learning objectives regarding child and adolescent development, mental health crisis intervention, and cultural competency, among others.
The commission would provide this curriculum, along with any supplemental educational materials, to entities such as school district police departments and other entities that place or train officers in schools. The commission would be required to review and, if necessary, update the curriculum once every four years.
All school resource and peace officers would be required to receive training under this curriculum either before commencing their placement at a school, or within 120 days of starting at the school. The commission- approved training program would consist of at least 16 hours of training, and comply with the bill’s curriculum requirements.
The commission would be required to begin providing the training mandated by the bill by February 1, 2016, and school districts would be required to adopt their individual training policies by that date. Any school resource or peace officer who commenced employment or placement at a school before February 1, 2016, including those currently employed or placed at a school, would be required to complete the new training by June 1, 2016.
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, 2015.
SUPPORTERS HB 2684 would ensure that school officers were trained in the specific SAY: needs of serving in an educational setting with young children. While school officers receive certain training as police officers, this training is relevant to street policing, not to the unique needs of children and working in a school setting. Without the appropriate training, officers accustomed to police work in a different setting may respond disproportionately to school incidents. - 157 - HB 2684 House Research Organization page 3
HB 2684 would not impose additional costs on school districts because peace officers already are required to regularly complete training hours to maintain their law enforcement licenses. The program in this bill could count toward that training. School districts that have officer training policies in place have been able to take advantage of existing resources such as free or subsidized trainings by different groups and initiatives. In addition, by enhancing the quality of services provided by school officers, the bill could help schools save money by cutting down on the number of officers a school would need.
OPPONENTS HB 2684’s requirements would be an unfunded mandate for school SAY: districts, which would be required to provide this training to their school officers without any additional resources.
- 158 -