BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 669 By: Gutierrez 2-22-95 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND Currently, the law states that a veterinarian may quarantine an animal that he or she suspects to be rabid only if that animal has already exposed an individual to rabies. In a recent event in Edinburg, Texas, a veterinarian who suspected an animal of having rabies had no legal recourse to impound that animal. The owners, who had insisted on taking the animal home with them, were both eventually infected with rabies. PURPOSE This bill would allow a veterinarian legal recourse to impound an animal he or she suspects of having rabies before anyone is infected. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly delegate rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 826.042, Health and Safety Code, QUARANTINE OF ANIMALS, as follows: (b) The local health authority shall quarantine any animal that the authority has probable cause to believe may be rabid, and not just those which are believed to have exposed a person to rabies. (c) An owner must submit for quarantine an animal that the owner knows or suspects is rabid or has exposed an individual to rabies. (d) Adds the requirement that a veterinarian shall submit for quarantine an animal that: (1) is in the possession of the veterinarian; and (2) the veterinarian knows or suspects is rabid or has exposed an individual to rabies. (e) Requires the veterinarian or the owner, instead of just the owner, to submit the suspected animal to the local health authority. SECTION 2. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE Unlike the original bill, the committee substitute does not add the stipulation that the Board of Health establish a quarantine period between 15 to 30 days in duration. Therefore, the substitute does not alter existing rulemaking authority granted to the Texas Board of Health, as did the original bill. The substitute also requires the bill to go into effect upon passage, instead of September 1, 1995, as stipulated in the original bill. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B. 669 was considered in public hearing February 14, 1995. Testifying for the bill was A. Brent Branham, Deputy City Manager of McAllen, Texas. No one testified against the bill. Other witnesses testifying on the bill were Dr. Keith Clark, Texas Department of Health, and John Herron, Texas Parks and Wildlife. The Chair laid out a committee substitute for H.B. 669, and it was approved without objection. H.B. 669 was referred to subcommittee, which held a formal meeting on February 20, 1995. A motion that H.B. 669 as substituted be reported back to the full committee with the recommendation that it do pass and be sent to Calendars was approved without objection. The full committee met in a formal meeting February 22, 1995, and recalled H.B. 669 from subcommittee. The bill was then pending before the committee with the substitute adopted on February 14, 1995. A motion to report H.B. 669 to the full House as substituted with the recommendation that it do pass was approved with 8 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 PNV, and 1 Absent.