House Research Organization • Texas House of Representatives P.O
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION • TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910 (512) 463-0752 • http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us Steering Committee: Dwayne Bohac, Chairman Alma Allen, Vice Chairman Rafael Anchia Ken King Andrew Murr Angie Chen Button John Frullo Brooks Landgraf Eddie Lucio III Joe Pickett Joe Deshotel Donna Howard J. M. Lozano Ina Minjarez Gary VanDeaver HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION daily floor report Tuesday, May 16, 2017 85th Legislature, Number 72 The House convenes at 10 a.m. Part Two Twenty-two bills are on the daily calendar for second-reading consideration today. The bills analyzed in Part Two of today's Daily Floor Report are listed on the following page. Dwayne Bohac Chairman 85(R) - 72 HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Daily Floor Report Tuesday, May 16, 2017 85th Legislature, Number 72 Part 2 SB 826 by L. Taylor Eliminating sequencing of required English and math high school courses 40 SB 291 by Whitmire Requiring hearing before issuing writ of attachment for certain witnesses 43 SB 1305 by Nichols Eliminating county energy transportation reinvestment zones 48 SB 42 by Zaffirini Creating certain court security measures, establishing a filing fee 51 SB 533 by Nelson Requirements, oversight of state agency contracting and procurement 56 SB 667 by Zaffirini Establishing a guardianship compliance and monitoring program 62 SB 1367 by Menéndez Authorizing epinephrine auto-injectors at institutions of higher education 65 SB 2082 by L. Taylor Expanding student roles under Work-Study Student Mentorship Program 69 SB 2087 by Hancock Creating a temporary health insurance risk pool 71 SB 74 by Nelson Adjusting contract requirements for providers in Medicaid MCO networks 76 SB 511 by Rodríguez Allowing for certain notarized designations of guardians 79 HOUSE SB 826 RESEARCH L.Taylor (Huberty) ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (CSSB 826 by Bohac) SUBJECT: Eliminating sequencing of required English and math high school courses COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended VOTE: 11 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Bohac, Deshotel, Dutton, Gooden, K. King, Koop, Meyer, VanDeaver 0 nays SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 3 — 31-0, on Local and Uncontested Calendar WITNESSES: For — Pauline Dow, North East Independent School District; Tyra Walker and Mary Williams, Texas School Alliance, TASA, Alief ISD; (Registered, but did not testify: Deborah Caldwell, North East Independent School District; Priscilla Camacho, San Antonio Chamber of Commerce; Seth Rau, San Antonio ISD; Richard Webster, Spring Branch ISD; Barry Haenisch, Texas Association of Community Schools; Michael Garcia, Texas Association of Manufacturers; Grover Campbell, Texas Association of School Boards; Michael White, Texas Construction Association; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Dee Carney, Texas School Alliance; Mike Meroney, Texas Workforce Coalition, BASF Corporation, Huntsman Corporation) Against — None On — Mark Wiggins, Association of Texas Professional Educators; (Registered, but did not testify: Kara Belew and Monica Martinez, Texas Education Agency) BACKGROUND: The 83rd Legislature in 2013 enacted HB 5 by Aycock, which required the State Board of Education (SBOE) to set curriculum requirements for the foundation high school program established by the bill, including four credits in English, three credits in math, and three credits in science. Education Code, sec. 28.025(b-2), as amended by HB 5, requires the SBOE to provide for advanced courses that students may take to comply with curriculum requirements for advanced courses in English, - 40 - SB 826 House Research Organization page 2 mathematics, and science following the successful completion, respectively, of English 1, English 2, and English 3; Algebra 1 and geometry; and any advanced science course. In 2013, the 83rd Legislature enacted HB 2201 by Farney, which also amended sec. 28.025(b-2). It requires the SBOE to allow a student to comply with curriculum requirements for the third and fourth mathematics or science credits by successfully completing an advanced career and technical course designated by the board as containing substantively similar and rigorous academic content. DIGEST: CSSB 826 would reenact Education Code, sec. 28.025(b-2) to harmonize differences between two versions of the subsection that were amended through the enactment in 2013 of HB 5 by Aycock and HB 2201 by Farney. It also would amend Education Code, sec. 28.025(b-2) to allow a high school student under the foundation school program to enroll in an advanced English or mathematics course without first having successfully completed English I, English 2, and English 3 or Algebra 1 and geometry, as applicable. This bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply beginning with the 2017-18 school year. SUPPORTERS CSSB 826 would give high school students critical scheduling options by SAY: allowing flexibility in the sequencing of English and math courses. The bill would correct an unintended consequence of HB 5, enacted in 2013, in setting curriculum requirements for the foundation school program. It would allow students the option of concurrently enrolling in lower-level and upper-level English and math courses. This flexibility would benefit students who wanted to graduate early from - 41 - SB 826 House Research Organization page 3 high school, those seeking to obtain an associate's degree along with their high school diploma, and those who might need to double up in a subject in order to graduate on time. One suburban district has estimated that 10 percent of its junior class is affected by the current sequencing requirement. Counselors and school administrators would work with students on their graduation plans to ensure that courses were taken in an appropriate progression. The bill also would provide districts with instructional flexibility to offer a math course sequence of Algebra I and Algebra 2 followed by geometry, which could better align with instruction in science courses. OPPONENTS CSSB 826 would address a problem that affects a small portion of SAY: students by eliminating the reasonable sequencing of English and math courses. It is generally not appropriate for a student to take advanced courses before passing foundational courses, and this bill could result in students failing an advanced class because they had not mastered the content in prerequisite courses. OTHER CSSB 826 should be made effective for the current school year to help OPPONENTS those students who will lose their credit for Algebra 2 as an advanced SAY: math course because they took it at the same time they took geometry. NOTES: CSSB 826 differs from the Senate-passed version in that the committee substitute would reenact sec. 28.025(b-2) to reflect the language in HB 2201 by Farney. Two House companion bills, HB 1531 by VanDeaver and HB 1854 by Huberty, were referred to the House Committee on Public Education on March 9. - 42 - HOUSE SB 291 RESEARCH Whitmire ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Alvarado) SUBJECT: Requiring hearing before issuing writ of attachment for certain witnesses COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment VOTE: 5 ayes — Moody, Canales, Hefner, Lang, Wilson 0 nays 2 absent — Hunter, Gervin-Hawkins SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 5 — 30-0 WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 3881: For — Kim Ogg, Harris County District Attorney's Office; Maisie Barringer Against — None BACKGROUND: Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 24.11 defines an attachment as a writ issued by court clerks, magistrates, or grand jury foremen in criminal cases, commanding a peace officer to take a witness into custody and to bring the witness to court to testify for the defendant or the prosecution. Art. 24.12 allows a defendant or prosecutor to request and obtain a writ of attachment for a witness who lives in the county where a prosecution is taking place and who has failed to appear before a court after being served with a subpoena to appear and testify in a criminal proceeding. Art. 24.22 allows a court to issue a writ of attachment for a witness who lives outside the county of prosecution if the witness has refused to obey a subpoena. Under Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 24.14, courts issue writs of attachment after the defendant or prosecution has filed an affidavit with the court stating a belief that a material witness who resides in the county of prosecution is about to move out of the county. These may be issued - 43 - SB 291 House Research Organization page 2 whether or not a witness has disobeyed a subpoena. DIGEST: SB 291 would revise the procedure for requesting and issuing writs of attachment for witnesses in criminal proceedings and would require reporting on the writs that were issued. Process to request writ. When a witness in the county in which a criminal case was being prosecuted had been served a subpoena to testify and had failed to appear, the prosecutor or defendant could request a writ of attachment, instead of being "entitled" to have one issued as provided under current law. The request would be filed with the court clerk and would have to include an affidavit from the defendant or prosecutor stating that there was good reason to believe that the witness was a material witness. The same requirement for an affidavit would apply to a request for a writ of attachment for a defendant from outside the county of prosecution who had refused to obey a subpoena. When the defendant or the prosecutor believed that a witness was about to move from the county of a prosecution, either party could request a writ of attachment through the procedure established by the bill. In these cases, the affidavit also would have to state that the requestor had good reason to believe and did believe that the witness was about to move out of the county.