Issue 15: Week of May 21, 2007

That Was Then...

Are We There Yet?

Like the budget conference committee itself, the self-imposed deadline for finalizing all decisions on all 10 articles of HB 1 came and went Thursday. Much of the week was spent chasing rumors about when the conferees would meet and what they would do. After three days of fits and starts, however, higher education spending came into view by week’s end.

Following Tuesday night’s meeting, the two houses were approximately $20 million short of funding all spending given the identified target, the remaining issue being research funding for the general academic institutions (GAIs). The Speaker’s Office, however, wanted to review the entire package. The conferees did not meet again until Thursday afternoon and tentatively decided the major elements of Article 3 dealing with higher education that evening. Here are the highlights (all figures are rounded approximations subject to change):

• Formula funding increases: up $66 million for GAIs and $34 million for health-related institutions (HRIs) over the base bill (the initial version prepared by Legislative Budget Board staff).

• Hold-harmless funding for institutions losing money through application of the formulas so as to maintain at least 97 percent of previous appropriations.

• Creation of the new Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund. The inclusion threshold of $50 million in total research funding would encompass UT Austin, Texas A&M, University of Houston and Texas Tech. UT and A&M each would receive $40 million, a net gain to UT of $23 million; UH, $8 million; and Tech, $5 million.

• More research spending: the Research Development Fund, from which all other UT System institutions benefit, would increase $40 million; the Advanced Research Program, another $8 million.

• Graduate medical education formula funding increased $35 million; state institutions and the Baylor College of Medicine share this appropriation.

• Fully funded tuition revenue bond debt service, as in the base bill.

• Financial aid increases: $747 million overall -- $427 million for TEXAS Grants; $77 million, B-on-Time loans; $15 million, work-study.

• Employee group health insurance benefits: UT and A&M Systems’ independent programs would be funded at 95 percent of costs; all other systems, whose employees participate (along with all other state employees) in the Employees Retirement System’s insurance program, would be funded at 97.5 percent of costs.

• Joint Admission Medical Program (JAMP) -- $5.6 million.

• Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) nursing shortage reduction program -- $15 million.

No decisions were made on any exceptional/special items for individual institutions.

On Friday, there was little if any news about the status of final budget discussions. The committee did not meet over the weekend, but as of Saturday morning performance incentive funding still was under negotiation. Gov. Perry reportedly still wants to fund it at $300 million for the biennium (see also “Moving Right Along” below).

An overview of the two houses’ proposed total budgets follows:

The UT System Controller’s Office has prepared a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate versions of House Bill 1, as well as summaries of the House and Senate general revenue appropriations for UT institutions and System Administration.
View side-by-side comparison. View UT GR summaries: House Senate

Budget documents now available online
Senate version:
• SCSHB 1 [note: 17 MB file]
• LBB summary
• Controller’s higher ed overview
• Frew amendment summary

House version:
• CSHB 1 [note: 18 MB file]
• LBB summary
House supplemental appropriations bill, HB 15

Fiscal Nuts and Budget Bolts

The budget-writing committees’ clerks and phone numbers are:

House Appropriations – Cristina Self, 463-1091

Senate Finance – Amy Jeter, 463-0370

From session to session, the two houses alternate writing the initial version of the appropriations bill. The starting point this session was HB 1. Now that the House and Senate each have approved spending plans, and the legislative leadership has appointed a 10-member conference committee, that group is meeting to reconcile the differences in the two proposed budgets. The committee will present a compromise bill to both houses for approval.

 

Higher Ed Highlights

Top (10 Percent) This
The House Higher Education Committee last Monday reported its version of a limit on automatic college admissions, or the “top 10 percent law.” Gone are the Senate’s conditional 60 percent “cap,” the tuition and fees “scholarship,” and the sunset provision. By contrast, the House is taking a “bare bones” approach – so far – but it was not unanimous; Rep. Helen Giddings (Dallas) voted no.

CSSB 101 by Shapiro/Morrison would allow universities to admit as little as 50 percent of the institution's first-time resident undergraduates from the top 10 percent of high school graduates. The Senate, however, would have allowed public universities to cap the number of entering students admitted by virtue of graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school classes at 60 percent. The first 50 percent would be admitted automatically as they are now. The next 10 percent would be subject to holistic review, however, as would the remaining non-top 10 percent applicants. Under the Senate bill, schools implementing the cap would also have to exempt top 10-percenters from paying statutory tuition and fees. All these new provisions would have expired in 2015.

Like the Senate bill, the House committee substitute also would require high school students in the top ten percent of their graduating classes to complete the recommended or advanced high school curriculum to be eligible for automatic admission to a Texas public university. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) would have to consult with the Texas Education Agency to adopt rules establishing standards applicable to students who attended a school that did not offer either curriculum. Each general academic institution would have to report to the THECB and post on its Internet website information about the demographic characteristics of the incoming freshman class.

During the hearing, Chair Geanie Morrison (Victoria) argued that the current law actually is hindering its original purpose at UT Austin, i.e., to increase racial/ethnic diversity. She pointed out that only a quarter of the top 10 percent enrollees, who comprised 71 percent of the resident entering class in 2006, are minority students. Although top 10-percenters do well scholastically, she noted that their performance has been declining relative to the non-top 10-percenters during the past 10 years. And some well-qualified students graduating from competitive high schools are not applying to UT Austin, she claimed, because they are not in the top 10 percent of their classes.

UT Austin President William Powers, who registered as neutral, testified in support of the change because the school faces a crisis: 24,000 top 10-percenters graduated in Texas in 2006. “We don’t have room for them all,” he said. He added that admitting half of each entering class through the entitlement was the original vision in 1996, when the law was enacted in response to the ban on race-based admissions in the Hopwood case involving the UT Law School. Ninety-two percent of each entering class at UT Austin is reserved for Texas residents, according to testimony.

Powers attributed UT’s current historic diversity levels primarily to recruiting and institutional financial aid. As he has previously, he predicted that diversity will stagnate absent more flexibility in admissions decisions to consider other criteria such as leadership, singular academic achievements, and community service.

Giddings praised UT’s commitment but insisted that legislation is necessary to make it work and reach goals. Powers, previously the UT Law School dean, noted that its minority enrollment increased post-Hopwood without any statutory mechanism (the top 10 percent law does not apply to graduate schools). Powers said that more Hispanics enroll under the top 10 percent law, whereas more African Americans enroll otherwise. But the number of applicants subject to admission under holistic review is shrinking, he noted, as the proportion of top 10-percenters continues to grow.

Representatives of two minority organizations challenged the rationale for changing the law, noting that comparable schools have larger top 10 percent enrollments than UT. Luis Figueroa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) equated a cap to repeal, predicting that it would not increase racial/ethnic diversity and decrease geographic diversity, one of its main effects. Applicants turned away from UT by the law are elevating other Texas colleges, he claimed. Rather than a cap, which he said no minority organization supports, Figueroa called for more holistic review among top 10 percent applicants, prioritizing under-represented high schools, and financial incentives for universities.

Anna Alicia Romero of the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) pointed out that UT Austin enrolls about as many international students annually as it does resident African Americans. Findings from her group’s study of the law’s impact on UT Austin show that, while the overall number of Texas high schools from which UT draws students has increased 38.5 percent, half of all its freshmen come from only 54 high schools. UT’s “feeder” schools have the fewest low-income students, the study found. Although minority enrollment is growing incrementally, it is not increasing in significant numbers, she asserted, especially among underserved populations.

Morrison debated both witnesses vigorously, repeatedly taking the IDRA study’s methodology to task for invalid numerical comparisons and inconsistent data. She pointed out that California, which Figueroa cited, applies the top 10 percent standard statewide, not by high school. She asked for the number of applicants, admittees and enrollees at UT Austin since 1996.

Watch the video [beg. 0:53]

Moving Right Along

The Senate last week approved creation of the Texas Tomorrow Fund II (TTF2) by passing HB 3900 by Morrison/Shapiro. The program would give families a new means of pre-paying for college education. The state’s current program, the Texas Tomorrow Fund (TTF), was closed to new investors four years ago due to actuarial unsoundness. As Senate sponsor Florence Shapiro (Plano) explained on the Senate floor, the state was on the hook to pay any difference between the initial investment and actual costs (tuition and fees) at enrollment, and “it didn’t have the money.” She said the bill shifts responsibility for the fund from the state to parents and students and the colleges (general academic teaching institutions and two-year colleges, public or private, undergraduate only).

Investors would purchase one or more of three types of “units,” each equivalent to 1 percent of the annual cost of enrollment. Investors purchasing 100 units, equal to 100 percent of costs, would be guaranteed to have tuition paid in full upon redemption. They would have to make up the difference, however, if they purchased fewer than 100 units or purchased units for a lesser of one of the three tiers of institutions. Investors also could “cash out” unused units.

Institutions would receive the original purchase price plus the return on investment (ROI), with a minimum ROI of 5 percent, up to 101 percent of tuition and mandatory fees. They would have to make up any difference between tuition and fees at the time of redemption and the value of 100 units if costs have risen faster than the ROI on the purchased units. If tuition and fees have increased at rates less than the rate of return, on the other hand, schools actually could keep the 1 percent, with the additional ROI going back into the fund.

TTF2 would be administered by the same entity overseeing the TTF, the Prepaid Higher Education Tuition Board, which remains obligated to honor existing TTF contracts. The Senate amended the bill, at Shapiro’s request, to allow the board to contract with the UT Board of Regents so that The University of Texas Investment Management Co. could manage TTF2’s assets. The bill now goes back to the House for concurrence or, if not, to a conference committee.

Other bills of interest passed last week by the Senate include:
• HB 2639 (Smithee/Duncan) – mandating risk management education programs for fraternities and other student organizations registered on college campuses.

• SB 750 (Deuell) – expanding the Health and Human Services Commission’s Inspector General’s Office to five more agencies, including the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Texas Education Agency, overseen by a coordinating council chaired by the state auditor (referred to House Government Reform Committee).

The House passed several bills last week dealing directly and indirectly with higher education. Some do have significant impact, however, among them:
• SB 138 (Nelson/S. King) – mandating a THECB study of how to promote the retention and graduation of professional nursing program students.

• SB 139 (Nelson/Kolkhorst) – directing a THECB study, in consultation with the Board of Nurse Examiners, on improving professional and vocational nursing education program curricula, emphasizing patient care.

• SB 201 (Nelson/Morrison) – authorizing tuition exemptions at public institutions of higher education for certain professional nursing program preceptors and their children.

• SB 289 (Nelson/Morrison) – using professional nursing shortage reduction program grants to encourage clinical nursing instruction by part-time faculty at public or private institutions of higher education.

• SB 1031 (Shapiro/Eissler) – modifying high school graduation requirements by replacing exit exams with end-of-course assessments, including a series of optional questions based on college readiness standards and questions designed to identify students likely to succeed in advanced courses.

• SB 1325 (West/McCall) – prohibiting relatives of public college and university board members from receiving specified institutional scholarships.

• SB 12 by Averitt – requiring institutions of higher education to implement energy efficiency standards and electricity consumption reduction goals.

• SB 1332 (West/Chavez) – requiring more reporting about and oversight of interest rate swap agreements and mandating a debt affordability study by the Texas Bond Review Board.

• SB 285 (Shapiro/Hill) – authorizing student services fees at UT Dallas.

• SB 654 (Seliger/Pickett) – clarifying and updating statutory restrictions on the granting of easements over state lands, including university lands.

• SB 757 (Hegar/Callegari) – planning and management of state telecommunications services by the Department of Information Resources.

• SB 831 (Ellis/Straus) – increasing the maximum allowable pay-back period for energy or water conservation measures.

The Senate Education Committee Thursday reported favorably, 5-1, the House version of the performance incentive funding bill, HB 3828 by Morrison. The bill as filed would allocate funding to colleges and universities through a point-based system of rewarding achievement in various measures. Senate sponsor Florence Shapiro (Plano) said two of the measures involve accepting more at-risk students and graduating more students in critical fields. She said rewards would address efforts to improve graduation rates, accelerate time to degrees and reduce shortages in nursing, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes said the concept tracks a national trend toward focusing diverse institutions on critical needs. He said the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) already was working along similar lines when the legislation was filed.

A committee amendment moved some of the THECB’s oversight authority to the Legislature. Shapiro objected, noting that the Legislature exerts oversight every two years and should not manage the program. It is based on a model in the Governor’s higher ed reform proposal, but funding remains an issue (see “Are We There Yet?” above). A senator’s “tag” had threatened to stall the fast-tracked bill, which was referred directly to the full committee, instead of the Higher Ed Subcommittee, and set for hearing within two days of arriving in the Senate. The bill also had been set for hearing on Saturday before the tag was removed.

Also Thursday, the committee voted favorably a student financial aid reform bill, including elements of two others, prompted by the nationwide investigation into student loan lenders. CSSB 2049 by Zaffirini would prohibit operational practices and business relationships creating conflicts of interest between lenders and institutions’ financial aid offices (see below). Two amendments by Sen. Royce West (Dallas) would require disclosure by financial aid employees of stock ownership in lending companies having business arrangements with universities; extend the bill’s provisions to include affiliated entities; and change the term “student loan” to “educational loan.” Zaffirini acknowledged being in search of a House bill on which to amend CSSB 2049, due to looming legislative deadlines (see “Session Snapshot” and following).

The panel also approved a $76 million grant program targeting at-risk high school students. HB 2237 by Eissler/Shapiro would expand pilots of the Texas High School Project that use clubs and intensive academic summer programs to prepare students for college. A conservative “think tank,” the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), questioned the approach as too expensive for unproven effectiveness. A TPPF spokesperson urged more local and private efforts with greater accountability. Sen. Shapiro responded that the program contains many evaluation mechanisms.

Other bills voted out last week included:
• HB 3851 (Morrison/Shapiro) – directing the THECB to develop standardized grade point averages for college admission and requiring general academic teaching institutions to adopt written policies promoting the admission of undergraduate transfer students.

• CSHB 3826 (Morrison/Zaffirini) – requiring the recommended or advanced high school curriculum, or the equivalent, for college admission eligibility (vote: 5-2)

• HB 2225 (Giddings/West) – placing a student representative on the THECB.

View agendas: Tuesday ll Thursday
Watch videos: Tuesday ll Thursday: Part 1 ll Part 2

Last Monday, the Senate Higher Education Subcommittee heard three bills aimed at addressing questionable business practices and conflicts of interest in the student loan industry. SB 2048 by Shapleigh would prohibit a student financial aid employee from owning stock or holding another ownership interest in a student loan lender. The bill also would prohibit the employee from soliciting or accepting any gift from a student loan lender. As filed, SB 2049 by Zaffirini would prohibit loan companies from sharing any revenue generated from student loans with higher education institutions. The bill also would prohibit loan lenders from giving gifts or employees of institutions from accepting gifts in exchange for loan information. It would prohibit lenders from compensating higher education institution officials for serving on lender advisory boards. In addition to the bans on gifts, revenue sharing and paid board service, SB 2047 by West prohibits an employee, representative, or agent of a student loan lender from acting as a member of the staff of a financial aid office of a higher education institution. The bill requires institutions providing preferred lender lists to disclose how the lenders were chosen. It also prohibits high-risk student loan agreements and sets forth various disclosure requirements for student loan information and financing options. Lenders would be subject to civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation of the statute.

The trio eventually became a solo – CSSB 2049 by Zaffirini – which was voted out Thursday by the full committee (see above). The substitute clarifies the meanings of “gift” and “institution” and excludes schools’ relationships with the THECB and the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation from the statute’s applicability.

UT System General Counsel Barry Burgdorf testified that the law should not ban lender gifts to universities unrelated to gaining an advantage in student lending, such as scholarships. Sen. Dan Patrick (Houston) said he wants to know if such scholarships were linked to firm’s placement on preferred lender lists. Burgdorf recommended adopting new disclosure requirements exceeding current ethics laws; “safe harbors” for lender funds going directly to students; and objective criteria and full disclosure for lender lists to ensure that they benefit students.

Having just completed an investigation into the activities of former UT Austin Financial Aid Director Lawrence Burt, Burgdorf said that he found no evidence of revenue sharing or express inducements. Burt did own stock in a lending firm, Burgdorf said, and poorly managed UT’s lender list. Burgdorf said he is in the process of studying the same issues at the System’s other institutions.

A representative of the Texas Bankers Association raised some definitional issues with the bill that could inadvertently classify some firms as student lenders or prejudice borrowers against loans dubbed high-risk. He also noted potential compliance problems with the proposed disclosure requirements and effective date.

Zaffirini said she was convening a workgroup and invited any and all interested parties to attend.

On Thursday, the subcommittee probably held its last meeting of the session. The panel expedited several bills by reporting them to the full committee without substitution or amendment.

The subcommittee never voted out the Senate’s performance incentive funding bill, SB 1029 by Shapiro. It had been awaiting an amendment by Sen. Kip Averitt (Waco) setting measurement benchmarks based on schools’ historical performance data. The full committee did report the House companion, (HB 3828), however (see above). Chair Judith Zaffirini (Laredo) said Thursday that she expects no more bills to be referred to the subcommittee.

View last week's agendas: Mon ll Wed ll Thu
Watch the videos: Mon ll Wed ll Thu

The House Higher Education Committee okayed electronic “report cards” for higher education last week. SB 1146 by Shapiro/Morrison directs the THECB to develop and maintain online performance reports containing specific data for each general academic teaching institution, medical and dental unit, and two-year college. One report card is for legislators and geared toward policymaking (e.g., one- and two-year retention rates); the other is for the general public aimed at prospective students (total academic costs). They must be accessible by Sept. 1, 2008. Committee Chair Geanie Morrison (Victoria) noted there is no easily accessible, comprehensive higher ed information source for families or legislators. Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes said no new information would be required, just putting current data into one easily used location.

Performance evaluations of the higher education commissioner and public university presidents and system chancellors may remain open to the public after all. SB 1045 by Wentworth, which would make such evaluations confidential, hit a snag last week when the committee failed to report it favorably with an affirmative majority. The vote was 4-2 in favor with one abstaining and two absent, one vote short of the requisite five on a nine-member committee. The new policy would have mirrored that for public school superintendents, and the contents would have been accessible to lawmakers. Critics argued that the public needs to know not only how well top college executives are doing but how, and how well, they are being evaluated.

Among the other bills the committee reported favorably last week were:
• SB 963 (Shapleigh/Haggerty) – authorizing a student recreational facility fee at UTEP.

• SB 523 (Seliger/West) – authorizing a student services building fee at UTPB.

• CSSB 649 (Shapleigh/Morrison) – allowing the THECB to study whether institutions of higher education may effectively enter into joint partnerships agreements.

• SB 1007 (West/Giddings) – mandating a non-voting student representative on the THECB.

• SB 1053 (Zaffirini/Aycock) – requiring the THECB to establish assessment methodology for the quality and effectiveness of student academic advising services at each higher education institution.

View last week's agendas: Mon ll Tues
Watch videos: Mon ll Tues Pt. 1 ll Pt. 2

 

Miscellany

Merry Christmas to All
Colleges and universities across Texas will receive almost $20 million in federal grant funds for tutoring, mentoring and other assistance to help low-income high school students and veterans prepare for higher education, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn announced last Monday. The funding comes through the U.S. Department of Education's Upward Bound program, according to Gallery Watch

"This funding will help ensure that low-income students and veterans are well-prepared and well-equipped to excel in higher education, which is so important to success in today's world," Cornyn said. "The tutoring, mentoring and other assistance provided through these programs will give a boost to students across Texas. In addition, in an increasingly global marketplace, the math and science preparation will help make sure America's students can compete with anyone in the world."

The grants will be used for academic instruction in math, laboratory sciences, composition, literature and foreign languages along with tutoring, counseling, mentoring and work-study programs. Upward Bound primarily benefits high school students from low-income families; high school students from families in which neither parent holds a bachelor's degree; and low-income, first-generation military veterans who are preparing to enter postsecondary education.

Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee's Airland subcommittee.

UT System and other institutions and their grant amounts:
UT Arlington - $640,000
UT Brownsville/Texas Southmost College - $814,478
UT El Paso - $738,392
UT Pan American - $580,258
UT San Antonio - $637,547
Texas Tech University - $445,529
University of Houston (Downtown) - $461,682
University of North Texas - $386,628

Going South in a Hurry
Sen. Eddie Lucio (Brownsville) has issued a call for more graduate education in South Texas to keep pace with population growth and expanding needs for professional services.

In a recent opinion piece, Lucio notes that, except for the Irma Rangel School of Pharmacy at Texas A&M University in Kingsville, South Texas has no other professional schools. “It is a serious concern that needs to be addressed now or we will continue to shortchange the region,” he wrote.

The area comprising Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy and Starr counties has seen a population growth of 39.4 percent from 1990 to 2000, according to Lucio, compared to the state's 22.8 percent for that same time period. Many South Texans aspire to obtain professional licenses and degrees, he stated, but they cannot afford to study elsewhere. Lucio said studies show that border college students tend to study closer to home; about three in four enroll in local universities. Local graduates would tend to stay and practice where they live, thus curbing the region’s "brain drain," Lucio wrote.

South Texas has been improving its higher education infrastructure since a 1987 lawsuit drew the attention of state leaders from outside the border to the lack of funding for graduate and undergraduate degree programs, Gallery Watch reported. Lucio filed two bills this session to address the lack of professional institutions.

SB 420, which is pending in the House, would lay the foundation for a free-standing medical facility that would be called the University of Texas Health Science Center - Rio Grande Valley. A medical school and many health-related degree programs would increase access to health care and supply a much-needed labor pool, according to Lucio, to keep up with the health care needs of a burgeoning population.

The counties designated for service by the health science center have been classified as "Medically Underserved Areas" by the Department of State Health Services, Lucio wrote. A medical school would help recruit doctors to improve the underserved area. Also, it is known that medical students from underserved areas are more likely to stay and practice in those areas.

Lucio would set up research and training facilities within the existing infrastructure of the Regional Academic Health Center (RAHC) at UT Brownsville, UT Pan American and at Harlingen, with startup costs estimated at $28 million. Currently, there are eight medical schools in other areas of Texas, with the southernmost in San Antonio. Developing these facilities would increase the availability of culturally sensitive physicians, he said.

SB 1400 would establish the first public law school in South Texas at U.T. Brownsville. The Rio Grande Valley is also underrepresented for attorneys. On average, there is one attorney for every 328 Texans. Cameron County has an attorney-to-population ratio of 1:788, and Hidalgo County of 1:821, more than twice the state average.

Lucio cited previous findings by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board that South Texas is the most needy part of the state for a medical and law school. Lucio pointed to the Pharmacy School and the RAHC as evidence that South Texans have a strong desire to pursue professional degrees.

…This Is Now

 

If It’s Monday, It’s Higher Ed

That’s still true, even though committee meetings now will be almost exclusively of the conference, as opposed to the standing, variety. The crush of the actual calendar and the ticking of the legislative clock have put the focus of the session on the two house floors. The race is on to pass each other’s bills by midnight Wednesday. Then, it’s concur or confer till Monday.

In the House, the “top 10 percent cap” bill looms large. CSSB 101 could be debated as early as today, depending on how much progress members make and how late they work. Its sponsor, Higher Education Chair Geanie Morrison (Victoria), has said that she would consider some amendments, and there are indications that some type of financial component could be proposed. But Morrison has stated that she remains committed to the 50 percent cap (see “Higher Ed Highlights” above).

View House Major State Calendar ll Watch House floor debate

 

Your Hit Parade

Bills of interest scheduled for full House consideration include:

MONDAY
• SB 10 (Nelson/Delisi) – reforming the operations and financing of Medicaid and other programs providing health care benefits and services and reducing the number of uninsured recipients.

• SB 1299 (Wentworth/Murphy) – updating the right of access to certain information maintained by governmental bodies after 75 years.

• SB 1332 ((West/Chavez) – requiring more reporting about and oversight of interest rate swap agreements and mandating a debt affordability study by the Texas Bond Review Board.


TUESDAY
• SB 2033 (Williams/Chisum) – issuance of general obligation bonds by the Texas Public Finance Authority for certain maintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects.

• SB 1640 (Williams/Chisum) – authorizing bond issuance for the student loan program administered by the THECB.

• SB 2031 (Ogden/Chisum) – requiring legislative consent or approval of settlements or compromises of claims or courses of action against the state involving expenditures exceeding $5 million or $10 million during a biennium, respectively.

• SB 1846 (Duncan/Truitt) – funding for, and benefits provided under, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

• SB 1848 (Duncan/Chisum) – dealing with state fiscal matters of importance to the Comptroller’s Office.

• SB 1719 (Ogden/Chisum) – appropriating amounts from various funds to pay specific, miscellaneous claims, judgments, and settlements.

• SB 439 (Deuell/Delisi) – modifying procedures in disputed cases involving advance directives.

• SB 551 (Deuell/Coleman) – changing the asset requirements for Medicaid eligibility.

• SB 1597 (Janek/Zerwas) – adopting the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

• SB 4 (Shapiro/Patrick) – revising open-enrollment charter school regulation and the creation of public charter districts.

• SB 125 (Carona/Murphy) – depositing revenue collected from certain traffic penalties into the designated trauma facility and emergency medical services account.

• SB 1095 (Uresti/Truitt) – mandating studies on increasing the number of medical residency programs, medical residents, and physicians practicing medical specialties.

• SJR 57 (Williams/Chisum) – proposing a constitutional amendment to issue general obligation bonds to finance student educational loans and authorizing associated bond enhancement agreements.

• SB 769 (Zaffirini/Delisi) – setting contracting guidelines for state agencies including ethics issues related to state contracting.

• SB 1943 (Patrick/Corte) – participation by private school students in University Interscholastic League sponsored activities

Access House calendars

Bills of interest eligible for full Senate consideration include:
• SJR 43 (Nelson) – proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Cancer Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purpose of scientific research of all forms of human cancer.

• SB 1292 (Nelson) – creating the Cancer Research Institute of Texas and abolishing the Texas Cancer Council.

• HB 888 (Giddings/Watson) – requiring health care providers to provide free copies of injured employees' medical records on written request of a Workers' Compensation Division ombudsman.

• HB 1188 (Morrison/Shapiro) – revising the Texas Emerging Technology Fund.

• HB 1373 (Guillen/Zaffirini) – creating the Chronic Kidney Disease Task Force.

• HB 2235 (Guillen/Zaffirini) – creating a technology center grant program for rural counties.

• HB 2427 (Truitt/Whitmire) – continuing the functions of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

• HB 2694 (Hamilton/Janek) – relating to the disaster contingency fund.

Access Senate agendas

Session Snapshot

 

Week	20
Days Remaining	8
Bills/Joint Resolutions Filed*	6,363
Bills/Joint Resolutions Passed**
>House	1,348
>Senate	988
Bills Enacted*	546
Legislation Tracked	1,904
High Priority Bills	368

*Incl. SCR 20 (constl. spending limit)
**By each house

Two weeks ago, the Senate joined the House in meeting on Fridays, but neither house has met on a weekend. Committee hearings have subsided as floor action now is crucial to moving bills through the process. Both houses are considering bills almost exclusively from the other house. The deadlines for House committees to report House bills and for the House to pass non-consent House bills have passed. Friday was the last day the House could consider local bills and the first day the Senate could consider bills on the same day they appear on the Intent Calendar. Saturday was the last day for House committees to report Senate bills, and Wednesday is the drop-deadline for all legislation to be voted out of the non-originating house. Other legislative deadlines and important dates may be found at Key Legislative Dates.

House Committees’ permanent meeting schedules

Senate Committees’ permanent meeting schedules

Duly Noted

“When we go to the bathroom, we’re going to take a Republican along with us.”

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (San Antonio), explaining Tuesday how she and her fellow Democrats might thwart future attempts to bring up the voter ID bill (HB 218) on the Senate floor (as quoted in the Austin American-Statesman)