The Texas Legislature: Following the Journey of S.B. 21 and H.B. 25
S.B. 21
After a journey of just over four months, S.B. 21 was signed into law by the Governor on June 14, 2013. S.B. 21 requires the Texas Workforce Commission to implement a policy requiring certain individuals applying to receive unemployment benefits be drug tested as a condition of the program. Not all applicants would be required to submit to drug testing, but those individuals that were previously employed in occupations predetermined by the United States Department of Labor as requiring pre-employment drug testing would be required to comply under the new law. Furthermore, any individual receiving unemployment benefits that is rejected for employment due to failing a pre-employment drug screen will also become ineligible to receive benefits. However, a failed drug-screen is not meant to permanently bar any individual from receiving benefits. One may provide proof of physician prescribed medications that may have caused the failure or proof of being presently enrolled in a drug-treatment program to regain benefits. After a period of one month, the individual may also complete another drug test, and pending negative results, would regain their benefits (Texas Legislature Online). Texas follows in the footsteps of Mississippi and Kansas in taking advantage of the provisions included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that allow the state governments to drug-screen applicants to their unemployment programs (Rocha).
On February 13, 2013, S.B. 21 began its journey when it was delivered to the Secretary of Senate. The bill was sponsored by Brandon Creighton along with joint sponsors Dennis Bonnen, Debbie Riddle, and Ralph Sheffield. Initially authored by Tommy Williams, after the bill had been read and referred to the Economic Development Committee, Brian Birdwell, Donna Campbell, John Corona, Craig Estes, Kelly Hancock, Glenn Hegar, Joan Huffman, Jane Nelson, Dan Patrick, Ken Paxton, Kel Seliger, and Larry Taylor are also considered to be authors of the bill. On April 10, 2013, Charles Schwertner was added as a co-author to the bill. Once the bill was read a second time on April 11, 2013, two amendments were offered by Wendy Davis and Kirk Watson and approved. The bill was read a third time and amended again by Kirk Watson. That very day, the bill was passed by the Senate as amended and was in the hands of the House the next morning. On April 15, 2013, the bill was read the first time and referred to the Economic and Small Business Development Committee. After two more readings and postponements, the bill was amended and passed the House on May 22, 2013. The bill was returned to the Senate, which accepted the amendment made by the House, and both the House and Senate signed off on the bill on May 27, 2013. The bill was sent to the Governor, signed, and scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2013 (Texas Legislature Online).
Opponents of S.B. 21 have argued that this piece of legislation serves no real purpose. They believe the legislation presents a solution to a problem that does not actually exist, citing “no trend of increased drug use among those receiving unemployment benefits” (House Research Organization). They also believe that since individuals who lose their job due to a failed drug-screen are ineligible to receive unemployment benefits to begin with, it is both unfair and unnecessary to put individuals that have already lost their job through the added indignity of an unwarranted drug screen (House Research Organization). The law appears to declare those that are most in need of help guilty, then forces them to prove their innocence. Proponents of the bill believe otherwise. It is their opinion that the number of people on unemployment that abuse drugs may not be proportionately higher than the number of people in our state that use drugs. They believe, however, that just because the number of abusers is not a high or increasing statistic, the fact that drug abuse is a serious issue must not be discredited. Supporters see the law as a potential avenue for decreasing the number of drug abusers in society in general (House Research Organization). Personally, I would have voted in favor of S.B. 21. I believe that drug abuse in our society is an evil which must be combatted on all sides. If an unemployment requirement helps to deter drug abusers in any way, I would have to side with it. There is no harm in requiring pre-employment drug tests for even low-level minimum wage jobs in today’s workforce, so where is the harm in a statute requiring the same before paying out unemployment wages? I agree with proponents of the bill who argue that allowing someone who cannot abide by our laws to receive state aid “sends the wrong message” to our citizens. The unemployment program is meant to help honest, law-abiding citizens in their time of need, not to support anyone’s illegal addictions.

H.B. 25 An example of a bill that may be permanently derailed on its path to becoming a law, H.B. 25 is a bill that aims to increase the number of college students that graduate on time. By requiring that up to 25% of the state funding given to an institute of higher learning other than a public state college be based upon meeting guidelines laid out by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the state can ensure that a school that is not supporting students on the path to a timely graduation is not being supported by the state (Texas Legislature Online). It is a concern that if students do not graduate in a timely manner, they likely will not graduate at all. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board authored a report entitled “Complete College Texas,” in which is recommended that Texas initiate the sort of "outcomes-based funding" that H.B 25 envisions. The report calls for colleges to help students to graduate on time by holding them to a 15 credit hour semester, to allow students to take remedial courses as co-requisites rather than as pre-requisites, and to counsel students more regularly to limit the number of superfluous courses a student enrolls in (Hamilton). Authored by Dan Branch, H.B. 25 was first filed with the Texas House of Representatives on November 12, 2012. It was not read for the first time until February 4, 2013, when it was referred to the Higher Education Committee. Ralph Sheffield signed on as co-author on March 14, 2013. The bill was considered in hearing by the committee, but then was left pending in committee until April, when the committee’s findings were filed in a Compte report, and those in attendance voted favorably on the bill. On May 7, 2013, the vote was reconsidered in committee, and then on May 9, 2013, the bill was placed on the general state calendar, where it has remained since (Texas Legislature Online). Opponents of the bill claim that forcing institutions to push out graduates as a condition of funding could cause certain institutions to unethically lower their standards in order make it easier for students to graduate. Supporters of the bill refute these claims, citing the fact that colleges cannot lower their standards without being at risk of losing their accreditation granted by the independent accrediting boards. Other opponents assert that some institutions are known for and pride themselves on their record of taking in at-risk students which would not be accepted elsewhere. They have filled a niche within the education system offering higher level education for all, but if they were at risk to lose funding based upon their graduation rates, they may opt to bar the least likely to graduate students from attending their institution (House Research Organization). Supporters of the bill argue that the concept of “outcomes-based funding” is nothing new, as ten other states have already implemented similar policies, and six others are in the process of enacting legislation (Hamilton). It is my belief that a compromise must be reached. Institutions of higher learning must work more with their students to ensure a successful college career. They cannot simply collect the students’ tuitions for a few years, then let them slip through the cracks. However, many students cannot graduate in just four years. Many already have other responsibilities when they begin college, including family, work, and mortgage. The institution should not be unfairly penalized with decreased funding because its students are simultaneously juggling multiple full-time workloads. For this reason, I would have voted against H.B. 25. Students deserved the chance to complete school at their own pace, and institutions deserve the funding necessary to support them.

Works Cited
Hamilton, Reeve. Texas Colleges Should Graduate Students Faster. 18 April 2013. Web. 19 March 2014. <http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/18/new-report-calls-more-college-graduates-texas/>.
House Research Organization. "Focus Report on the Major Issues of the 83rd Legislature." 2013. Web. 18 March 2014. <http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/focus/major83.pdf>.
Rocha, Alana. State Awaits Guidance to Drug Test Jobless Texans. 3 August 2013. Web. 18 March 2014. <http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/03/state-awaits-guidance-drug-test-jobless-texans/>.
Texas Legislature Online. n.d. State of Texas. Web. 18 March 2014. <http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Home.aspx>.