[0:13] The state affairs will come to order and clerk will call the roll. Here. Getting credit for our

[0:23] garen, gian, king, mire, aloe vera, smith, patty, for briggas, smithy.

[0:37] I want to remind everyone that only those with capital media credentials will be allowed

[0:46] to fill them or record this hearing.

[0:48] This hearing is streamed live and is archived for later viewing.

[0:53] Article 3, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution authorizes a House that determines the rules

[0:59] of its own proceedings, including the rules of committee proceedings.

[1:04] The House rules also explain that our states and I quote, shall be deemed the only requirement

[1:10] binding on the House's representatives under Article 11 Section 3 of Texas Constitution,

[1:17] notwithstanding any other requirement expressed in statute.

[1:21] Statuary requirements including the government code authorization for individuals to record

[1:27] meetings that conflict with the House rules are not binding on the legislature.

[1:31] This committee appreciates everyone respecting the rule requirements for maintaining decorum in this committee.

[1:41] Members, before we get started on hearing new bills, we're going to take a few votes.

[1:48] So the chair is going to lay out House Bill 29 as pending business.

[1:54] Members, if everybody will remember, this is the bill from Chairman Thompson relating to

[2:01] a prostitution and trafficking of persons, I remember that bill.

[2:07] The chair moves at House Bill 29 be reported favorably to the full house with a recommendation

[2:12] that it do pass and be printed and the clerk will call the roll.

[2:17] Cook.

[2:19] Yes.

[2:20] Getings.

[2:21] Cratics.

[2:25] So represent Rodriguez here.

[2:40] Getings.

[2:41] Cratics.

[2:43] Cratics.

[2:44] Carrar.

[2:46] Yes.

[2:47] Garen.

[2:48] Yes.

[2:48] Gian.

[2:50] King.

[2:51] Hi.

[2:52] Kempel.

[2:53] Yes.

[2:54] Meyer.

[2:55] Olivera.

[2:56] Patty.

[2:58] Hi.

[2:58] Rodriguez.

[3:00] Smithie.

[3:01] 10

[3:09] out of three absent, the motion prevails.

[3:17] Chair ladies out, House Bill 89.

[3:21] Chair ladies out, House Bill 89 is pending business.

[3:26] Members, this bill relates to state contracts and investments and companies that boycott Israel.

[3:32] Representative Garen offers up a committee substitute to House Bill 89.

[3:38] Reims and Garen moves that the substitute to House Bill 89 be adopted.

[3:43] Is there objection?

[3:45] There being no object and the substitute is adopted.

[3:48] Reims and Garen moves the House Bill 89 S substitute to be reported favorit as a full house with recommendation that do pass.

[3:54] Clerk will call the roll.

[3:56] I'm.

[3:57] Getting, credit, for our, Garen, Gian, King, Kempel, Myer,

[4:09] Alvera, Patty, Rodriguez, Smithy.

[4:17] Ten eyes, three absent, the motion prevails.

[4:22] No,

[4:31] the chair, the chair lays out House Bill 582 as pending business.

[4:36] Members, this bill related driver's license and personal identification certificates used

[4:43] for refugees and asylumees, lawfully admitted into the United States.

[4:48] Representative Smithy offers up a committee substitute to House Bill 582.

[4:54] Representative Smithy moves the substitute to House Bill 582 be adopted.

[5:00] Is there objection? There being no objection, the substitute is adopted. Representative Smithing moves that House Bill 582 has substitute to be favorited to the full House with recommendation that it do pass and be printed. Clerk will call the roll.

[5:14] Good, getings,

[5:17] fratig, barar,

[5:19] garen,

[5:23] gian,

[5:24] king,

[5:26] campals,

[5:28] mire,

[5:29] alvera,

[5:30] caddy,

[5:32] Rodriguez,

[5:34] smithy,

[5:44] eight eyes, two nays,

[5:46] three absent motion prevails.

[5:48] Chair

[5:54] Lee's out house bill, 1048 is pending business.

[5:59] Members, this is the bill that relates to the announcement of management of risk identified in state information security plans by Monaris.

[6:14] Okay, representative for our moves, that house bill 1048 be adopted, be reported favorably to the full house for recommendations that do pass, be printed in place on the local consent, consent calendar.

[6:25] Clerk will call the roll.

[6:26] So, cook, aye.

[6:28] Getings,

[6:29] Cratic,

[6:31] Ferrar,

[6:32] Garen,

[6:34] Gian,

[6:36] King,

[6:37] Kempel,

[6:38] Meyer,

[6:40] Oliveira,

[6:41] Patty,

[6:42] Rodriguez,

[6:44] Smithy,

[6:45] tenice,

[6:46] yes.

[6:48] Tenice, three absent motion prevails.

[6:52] Chair lays out House Bill 1142 as pending business.

[6:57] Members, this bill relating to prohibiting government contracts with a company doing business, with Iran, Sudan, and other foreign terrorist organization.

[7:07] Representative Patty moves at House Bill 1142, be reported favorably to the full House of Recommendations, and it do pass me, printed, clerk will call the roll.

[7:15] So, could I get in credit for our Garen, Gian, King, Kempel, Chair, Chair, getting present.

[7:34] Myr, Olivera, Patty, Rodriguez, Smithy, getting, is this present or is this a bill?

[7:46] This is the bill.

[7:47] This is relating the prohibition government contracts with companies doing business with Iran, Sudan, and other foreign tariffs.

[7:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[7:54] You're welcome.

[7:55] I'd be in here.

[7:57] We need to show Gian.

[7:58] Oh, show represent Gian here.

[8:00] Okay.

[8:00] Does he want to vote on this?

[8:01] Do you want to?

[8:04] This is the bill.

[8:06] He showed him voting on it.

[8:18] There being 12 eyes, one absent motion prevails.

[8:22] Because

[8:24] the chair lays out House Bill 1450 as pending business.

[8:31] Members, this is the bill laid to state collaboration with federally organized Indian tribes.

[8:38] Representative Gittings offers up a committee substitute to House Bill 1450.

[8:44] Representative Gittings moves that the substitute to House Bill 1450 be adopted as their objection.

[8:50] There be no objection, the substance is adopted, represent.

[8:53] Giddings moves at House Bill 1450, as substance to be afforded.

[8:57] Fable is the full house or recommendation that do pass me printed clerk will call the row.

[9:01] Cook, aye.

[9:02] Getting, aye.

[9:04] Pratic, Thorar, Garen, Gian, King, Kempel, Mayer, Oliveira, Smithy, excuse me.

[9:19] Patty, Rodriguez, Smithy.

[9:27] There being 12 eyes, one absent the motion prevails.

[9:31] Members, that's all that we're going to vote out today, so thank you.

[9:38] Please thank you, I get to go to the district council.

[9:40] I mean, about 72, the House Bill please, they call it House Bill 172.

[9:44] Okay, this time the chair calls up House Bill 2572 and recognize the chairman of the district

[9:50] council to explain his bill.

[9:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

[9:56] House bill 2572.

[10:00] As follows, allow the advance meters and meet information that works, which have been deployed across

[10:06] Texas outside within AirCOT to also be used by inter-G Texas. It allows them to follow the

[10:14] PUC rules that were established for these particular meters, the surcharge in an applicable

[10:20] customer protection adopted by the PUC for the AirCOT smart meter system will be applied

[10:28] to the energy smart meter system.

[10:31] We have a committee substitute that's not quite ready, but it just clarifies that the

[10:36] deployment applies to the distribution system and not to the transmission system.

[10:40] And I ask any questions.

[10:42] I think we have resource witness if you have.

[10:45] Okay.

[10:45] Members, are there any questions?

[10:48] If not, we'll ask you to reserve the right to close.

[10:50] I do.

[10:55] Okay, a chair called Cyrus Reed.

[11:00] Is Cyrus Reed here?

[11:01] here. Okay,

[11:07] what is the restoration? Here it comes.

[11:11] I want to let me in.

[11:14] Let them in.

[11:15] It's probably good reason, sir.

[11:17] Cyrus Reed, Lonestar, Chapters, Sierra Club, support the bill because it maintains the

[11:22] provisions that say when we roll out these advance meters, we want to make sure they can

[11:29] be used by the public for demand response purposes which are going to help us in terms of using

[11:36] using new technology to reduce emissions, so I think it's a good bill and are in support.

[11:41] Happy to answer any questions.

[11:43] Members, any questions for SARS?

[11:45] Thank you, as well as for being here for SARS.

[11:59] Stephanie Simpson, Texas Association of Manufacturers.

[12:09] Stephanie Simpson, I'm a Vice President of the Texas Association of Manufacturers.

[12:13] Thank you, Chairman and members for allowing me today.

[12:16] As you know, Tam represents the largest customers in the energy service area.

[12:19] Stephanie, if you would, I'll have you a neutral on the bill.

[12:23] We are neutral on the bill.

[12:24] Okay, go ahead.

[12:25] Yeah.

[12:26] We have already paid, our members have already paid to install sophisticated meters that record their electricity usage in real time.

[12:34] These are integral data, recorders or IDRs.

[12:36] House bill 2572 proposes to install similar meters for smaller customers and put the costs in regulated rates.

[12:43] Since TM members have already invested their own money for

[12:47] with advance capabilities, they should not have to buy new meters to pay these costs.

[12:52] Tam has been working with the Entry G on Language, that would exclude our members from this bill.

[12:57] I believe we have agreed upon language, but again, as Representative said, that is not yet available, so we are on the bill.

[13:03] Okay, very good, thank you.

[13:04] Members, any questions?

[13:07] Thank you.

[13:12] Okay, is there anyone else that's signed up to speak on for, or against House Bill 2572?

[13:19] There'll be a nun calling Chairman Desselta to close on the bill.

[13:23] I close, Mr. Chair.

[13:24] Thank you very much.

[13:26] This time's the Chair's intent to leave House Bill 2572 pending.

[13:30] Chair lays out House Bill 1373 and calls on Chairman Davis to explain her bill.

[13:39] Hopefully this will be just as smooth as that one, get afternoon.

[13:43] I'm here to lay out House Bill 1373.

[13:47] Texas has the fifth highest teen birth rate in the United States and

[13:51] and leads the nation in repeat pregnancies.

[13:53] In 2010 alone, teen births cost Texas taxpayers over $1.1 billion in both direct healthcare

[14:01] costs and indirect economic costs, such as loss wages and economic output and increased

[14:06] dependence on social services.

[14:08] For example, Texas Medicaid paid for over 250,000 deliveries by teen mothers at the cost

[14:15] of over $731 million to taxpayers between 2009 and 2015 because teen moms are more likely

[14:24] to live in poverty. Texas Medicaid often pays for additional

[14:28] births when they become pregnant again. In fact, 60% of teen moms ultimately drop out

[14:34] of high school and only 2% go on to obtain a college degree by age 30. This reduces economic

[14:40] opportunity for teen moms who often lack resources to need to provide a good life for themselves and their children.

[14:49] Given the increased poverty often leads to increased teen pregnancy and teen pregnancy rates often lead to increased poverty, repeat teen pregnancies,

[14:57] Doom, both team moms and their-

[15:01] This economic reality means that children of teen moms are three times more likely to become teen parents than cells. Despite these breathtaking statistics, current law perpetuates the repeat teen pregnancy cycle because it deprives teen moms of the ability to make a responsible health care decision. HB 1373 will reduce the state's astronomical repeat teen pregnancy rate by empowering teen moms

[15:29] to obtain preventative medication.

[15:32] First, HB 1373 is common sense.

[15:36] Allowing teen moms to obtain birth control

[15:39] enables them to make responsible preventative medical decisions,

[15:42] giving teen moms the ability to consent to birth control

[15:45] and powers them to break the cycle of repeat teen pregnancy.

[15:49] This bill would also save tax dollars.

[15:52] Decreasing the number of repeat teen pregnancies

[15:54] will reduce the cost of these pregnancies

[15:56] to the Medicaid program.

[15:57] The decrease in teen pregnancies will save taxpayer dollars in decreased child welfare and criminal justice and public health spending.

[16:06] Lastly, 1373 takes a forward-thinking approach to reducing the repeat teen pregnancy rate.

[16:13] It ensures that teen moms have the necessary resources to provide the best lives for themselves and for their children.

[16:20] As a result, it improves the odds that teen moms and their children will go on to lead happy and productive lives.

[16:26] In conclusion, House Bill 1373 takes a thoughtful measure set to reduce the teen pregnancy rate

[16:33] and improving health outcomes for teen moms and their children all about saving taxpayer

[16:38] dollars. We have four witnesses that will be called up to answer any questions and let's

[16:48] leave French, the Associate Commissioner for Health and Independent Services for HHSC is here

[16:54] And I just want to remind the committee that teens have access to emergency contraception.

[17:01] But they do not have access to birth control that would prevent the need for such contraception.

[17:09] So I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[17:13] Thank you, your greetings, Heather, question.

[17:15] Yes, thank you very much, Representative Davis seems like a very, very thoughtful bill.

[17:21] Basically, your bill is geared toward teens who are already mom, so they already have a child.

[17:30] And basically, what you are trying to do through this bill is to stop that cycle so

[17:36] that they don't have additional babies because in most cases, when we look at the statistics

[17:44] for teens, the highest majority, I think about 82% are like unplanned pregnancies.

[17:51] So this your bill sort of gives the mother, the teen mother, the ability to take some personal responsibility

[18:01] and thereby hopefully lift herself and her family out of poverty.

[18:09] Yes.

[18:09] And this bill is strictly contraceptive.

[18:12] It has nothing to do with abortion or anything like that.

[18:15] It's strictly preventive.

[18:17] That allows the teen mom to do family planning.

[18:23] Right.

[18:23] And the bill is very specific on line 16 of page two is unmarried, is the mother of a child

[18:32] and consents to examination or medical treatment, comma, other than abortion, comma, related to contraception.

[18:39] So the bill is very explicit that it is for a teen mother who's already had one child

[18:46] and this will not give access to abortion.

[18:50] Thank you.

[18:51] Seems very thoughtful.

[18:52] Thank you.

[18:53] Can the members any other questions?

[18:55] We're going to call.

[18:56] We go ahead.

[18:57] Jess, I'm sorry.

[18:58] I can't see.

[18:59] No, I'm sorry.

[19:00] I'm sorry.

[19:01] I can't be overweight in that.

[19:02] Just, you mentioned some numbers that I'm actually quite,

[19:06] I'm astonished that they were that high,

[19:08] dollar-wise, the cost of the state.

[19:10] Do you have any facts about children?

[19:13] I mean, the next step is how many children of teen moms end up in the CPS system?

[19:20] And what that cost is?

[19:22] As I stand here, I do not, but the witnesses that are here will be able to provide you all of that information.

[19:29] All right, thank you.

[19:31] Members, any other questions?

[19:32] Not we'll call witnesses.

[19:34] And just so folks, we have basically two identical bills that's going to be laid out after this one.

[19:40] And so for the witnesses, you know, try to, you know, give us, you know, your position

[19:52] in a timely manner understanding that there's going to be very identical bill here in

[19:56] a minute.

[19:57] But anyway, Kelly MacBeya takes...

[20:00] Justice campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and self here to speak for the bill.

[20:08] Kelly Macbeth will show Kelly Macbeth for the bill not testifying. Dr. Amber Davis, Texas campaign to rent teen pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy.

[20:22] Show her for the bill not testifying.

[20:31] Mora Mora Montoya, Texas campaign to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancy.

[20:41] third one to charm. Come on up.

[20:50] My name is Myra Montoya and I am for Bill 1373

[20:55] and I'm here basically just to kind of tell you guys about my personal story.

[21:00] And for the record, I have you registered for Texas Campaign Entertainment,

[21:05] teen pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy and yourself correct.

[21:08] Yes sir.

[21:08] Okay go ahead.

[21:09] Okay, I'm just here to tell you guys my personal story on how this bill would have helped me

[21:15] in my story. So at 13 years old I became pregnant and had my daughter at 14

[21:24] years old. So there I was 14-year-old not being able to get a job not being

[21:31] able to you know get my driver's license my mother had to do everything for me.

[21:37] At that point I you know decided you know birth control would probably be a good

[21:42] ideal for me. So I asked my mother if I could get on birth control and she told me no.

[21:47] Six weeks later, I found myself in another situation, pregnant. Again, my daughter was

[21:55] through and sold and at that point I was six weeks pregnant. Now, if I would have had

[22:02] any type of education at school, anything like that, my second pregnancy would not have happened,

[22:10] and along with birth control being the biggest thing.

[22:14] So, you know, at that point, you know, pregnant, I'm, you know, I tell my parents, and

[22:20] luckily I was able to have my parents support.

[22:23] A lot of teenagers don't have that support.

[22:25] So not being able to get on birth control, you know, I had no choice but, you know, I had

[22:31] my son and so I was 15 years old with two kids and I did not learn about sexual education

[22:39] or birth control until I was a parent in a parenting classroom.

[22:44] Now, if this bill would have been passed already, I would have been able to get on birth control.

[22:49] And actually have the opportunity to plan out how and when I wanted to have another child.

[22:57] Eight years later down the road, I'm married, I used birth control and I was able to plan a pregnancy with my husband.

[23:05] So on top of that, at 14, 15 years old, I had no idea that you could get pregnant again so quickly.

[23:12] I had no idea, you know, what came with it.

[23:15] I knew if you had sex, you had a child, but I did not know anything else besides that.

[23:22] So if this bill would have been passed, it would have changed our lives tremendously.

[23:28] And, you know, given me an opportunity, not only to make decisions for my child,

[23:32] but also to make decisions for myself, because even though my mother had her best intentions,

[23:39] I would have liked to get on breast control and decide when that would have happened.

[23:46] Yes, go ahead to your getting.

[23:49] I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to say to you thank you for your courage

[23:56] and coming and telling your story because I know it's probably very difficult, but it will have a positive impact on the lives of other people.

[24:12] Members, any other questions? Yes, Mr. Fraud.

[24:15] And one of the reasons I'm so passionate about this work is because I mean, I come from the same culture.

[24:21] And so I totally understand, my mom was similarly opposed, it's our faith, and that kind of thing in it.

[24:29] And anyway, we had some, the results in our family were that we had some births that were probably for people that were too young to have them.

[24:40] And the children, ultimately, are who suffered.

[24:42] I mean, they ended up going to multiple elementary schools because of the poverty and those issues and such.

[24:49] But so anyway, I just want to piggyback onto what Chair Giddings was saying, but thank you for coming.

[24:55] Members, any other questions?

[24:57] Ms. Montaulio, thank you for being here for the testimony.

[25:00] I'm going to call back up, Kelly McBeth.

[25:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Vice Chairman Giddings. My name is Kelly McBeth, and I'm testifying in favor of HB 1373 by Chairman Davis. I'm usually here to drop cards on energy-related bills. I don't usually testify, but today I'm representing the Texas campaign to prevent teen pregnancy as their ward chair. At the campaign, we have one goal, one solid goal, and that is

[25:37] to eliminate unplanned teen pregnancy in the state of Texas.

[25:42] Here's what concerns us.

[25:45] Texas ranks number five in unintended teen pregnancies.

[25:50] And nationally, Texas ranks number one in repeat teen births.

[25:55] This is costing our great state $1.1 billion each year

[25:59] in increased public health care, child welfare,

[26:03] and criminal justice costs.

[26:06] HB 1373 will begin to address this costly problem.

[26:11] Texas is only one of two states that requires unmarried teen mothers to secure parental consent for their own reproductive health care.

[26:20] To be clear, we are talking about young women, young unmarried mothers, who've chosen to parent their children.

[26:29] Interestingly, if they were married, these young girls, it wouldn't matter if they were

[26:35] 15 or 21 simply by marriage, the law gives them the authority over their reproductive

[26:40] health care.

[26:42] But these young women acknowledged legally as adults by the state when it comes to medical

[26:47] care for their babies are still treated as children by the state when it comes to their own

[26:52] reproductive health.

[26:53] We are still requiring them to obtain consent from a parent for their own birth control.

[27:00] The truth is teen child bearing is usually both a cause and consequence of poverty.

[27:07] We know that 60% of teen moms drop out of high school when they become parents and fewer

[27:13] than 2% of them will earn a college degree by their 30th birthday.

[27:17] Children of teen moms are three times more likely to become teen parents themselves,

[27:24] growing a system of generational poverty, the cost of which Texas taxpayers bear.

[27:30] Last year, Texas Medicaid paid for just under 5,000 repeat teen births, where babies were

[27:38] born to teen mothers who already had one or more children.

[27:42] Medical best practice is to provide adolescent mothers with a long-acting reversible contraceptive

[27:48] before they leave the hospital.

[27:51] This bill makes this possible for teen moms to take advantage of this best practice.

[27:57] Last fall, the Texas campaign and partnership with the Houston Endowment commissioned a

[28:01] Baselese poll to determine the level of interest in this issue.

[28:06] And what we found was that 60 percent of respondents favored allowing females under the age of 18 to have a child and are able to make health care decisions for that child to make their own decision about contraception without having to get the consent of their parents.

[28:23] 78% of those respondents agree that the state should do more to prevent teenage pregnancies

[28:30] and to reduce these costs since pregnancies and births among young people under the age

[28:35] of 20 cost taxes over $1 billion.

[28:39] Members of the solution where you're proposing an HB 1373 is preemptive.

[28:44] It would allow an unmarried teen mom to consent to her own reproductive health care without

[28:50] out obtaining parental consent.

[28:53] The law would affect a fairly small population of young women but could have significant impact

[28:59] on the lives of these young women and could reduce our distinction of being the state that

[29:03] is number one in repeat unplanned pregnancies.

[29:07] It is about preventing more birds to young mothers, many of whom who have dropped out of school,

[29:13] have no source of income and no support system.

[29:17] and are not likely to effectively parent multiple children.

[29:22] But not only that, these are young women who with the chance to educate themselves

[29:26] could become great contributors to our state economy as teachers and researchers

[29:31] and engineers and designers and writers.

[29:35] Many of us make mistakes as teens from which we are lucky to escape unharmed.

[29:40] Let's give these moms who aren't as lucky as some of us

[29:43] a chance to turn their lives in a better, healthier direction for themselves and their children.

[29:49] Thank you for your testimony, members, any questions?

[29:52] Once again, I have you test on it on behalf of Texas Campaigns for preventing

[29:56] pregnancy in yourself test upon fall of the bill.

[29:59] Yes, sir.

[30:00] Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nicole Hudgens.

[30:05] Nicole Hudgens here.

[30:09] I'm showing her Nicole Hudgens. Did not testify against the bill. Taxes values themselves. Okay. Is it her? Is this you? Okay. Well, come on up.

[30:44] Thank you. Hello. My name is Nicole Hudgens. I'm the policy analyst for Texas values. And I'm speaking

[30:50] today in opposition of 1373.

[30:54] Taking contraceptives involves medical risks and minors should not be taking these risks

[31:01] without parental supervision.

[31:03] What's interesting about HB1373 is that it specifically includes any FDA-approved method

[31:10] of contraception.

[31:12] According to the FDA's website, the first listed method of birth control is sterilization.

[31:19] There are many risks again that come with contraception, including heart attack, stroke, pelvic

[31:25] inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, severe infection, ovarian cysts, and others.

[31:32] In addition, this bill allows for minors of any age to use methods of abortion and emergency

[31:38] contraception.

[31:40] But even more importantly, I'd like to share with you a story of a young woman named Erica

[31:45] Hawaiian Heart in the words of her mother Karen. I cannot describe how much my husband and I were looking forward to our daughter Erica's home trip home for Thanksgiving.

[31:56] When I saw her name come up on my phone on the Monday before I answered with joy, but it was instead her boyfriend, Sean, and this is how our nightmare began.

[32:06] We never had a chance to talk to Erica again.

[32:09] Our beautiful caring full of life daughter, only 24, had collapsed in her apartment and

[32:15] had two heart attacks in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

[32:19] We arrived by our side Tuesday morning, but she was still in a coma.

[32:23] One of the first things the doctors asked was whether Erica had been using hormonal contraceptives.

[32:29] And when they found out she was using the Nuver ring, they removed it immediately.

[32:32] We were shown scans of her lungs which were full of massive blood clots and we were told

[32:37] the newver ring was the cause of pulmonary embolisms, heart attacks, and the subsequent

[32:43] irreversible brain swelling.

[32:45] On Thursday, Thanksgiving, they told us the Erica wasn't coming back.

[32:49] She died that day and it absolutely broke our hearts.

[32:53] We considered ourselves well-informed people but we didn't know about the newver ring's

[32:58] risks.

[32:58] And we later found out many doctors are not aware of the potential dangers or even the symptoms to look out for.

[33:05] As we tried to make sense of Eric's death, we learned that the Food and Drug Administration hearings to discuss the concerns about new ring and

[33:12] Yaz were scheduled two weeks from that Thanksgiving.

[33:17] Unfortunately, the attorneys involved in that class action lawsuit against Merck did end up settling out of court.

[33:22] These cases included 3,800 women, 83 of whom had died.

[33:30] We never got the jury trial we were promised.

[33:33] We refused to opt out of the $100 million settlement agreement.

[33:38] The only thing that has ever mattered to us is the pursuit of truth in honor and memory

[33:44] of our beloved Erica.

[33:46] And so for these reasons, I urge this committee to not put our Texas girls at risk to be able

[33:52] to put themselves in this situation without parental supervision.

[33:57] So I urge this committee to oppose 1373.

[34:00] Members, questions?

[34:02] Chair, getting to?

[34:04] Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Huggins.

[34:08] There are risks associated with contraceptives just as there are risks associated with almost any

[34:17] drug that you take, including eye drops.

[34:19] And generally, when our physicians prescribe these medications for us, according to the

[34:27] literature that we get, they believe that the benefits are greater than the risk.

[34:34] In terms of contraceptives and the risk that they present, I think you would agree that

[34:44] that childbirth has its own set of risk associated.

[34:50] It's rare, though, that I think that doing all of this, again, like I said, what this bill

[34:57] does, it says, any FDA-approved method.

[35:00] A minor can go get without any parental supervision. So anything that a child would go through medically, we would encourage that the parent would be involved in these decisions. And just like in the case of Erica, the doctor looked at her, gave her the maneuvering four months before she died, before months, assuming she didn't have any complications. But then she did. So if we're going to be looking at the public policy for the state, we need to look at getting parents involved before allowing minors to take these risks with

[35:30] not knowing. Well, we do think that parents already, that parents should always be involved

[35:37] with minus, but in this case, we are talking about a young person, unwed, who already had

[35:47] one child, and their parents probably did not participate in that decision to have that

[35:55] child. So that person is already acting outside of their parents' authority and acting on

[36:06] their own. And what we know today, and particularly when we look at women of color, although this

[36:13] bill is not about women of color, this is about everybody, is that the mortality rate for

[36:20] or African-American women is that of a third-world country.

[36:27] It's very, very high in terms of people who actually die in childbirth.

[36:33] So I think that probably your point is that the risks are always there,

[36:39] but you're suggesting that perhaps the parent ought to be involved in the risk-taking decision.

[36:44] Well, by enacting this bill, we're increasing the risks.

[36:47] and you just said, you know, you cited childbirth as a risk, certainly it's a risk,

[36:52] but then you're saying we're going to take something of risk that you're based on your hypothetical

[36:58] situation the parent wasn't involved with. You're saying that's even more risky, but then you're

[37:03] saying, oh, but other risky behavior, our parent should be involved with. And our argument is that

[37:08] regardless, parent should be involved. And as I said in the story of Erica and the many women who

[37:14] have died, let's not put those minors at risk for that and let's let those parents be involved,

[37:20] take them since the FDA approved method of sterilization where someone's put under anesthesia.

[37:25] What if the mom knows something about that child being put under anesthesia that the child's

[37:30] not aware of? That's going to put that child in a dangerous situation. And again, we don't believe

[37:36] that this is in the best interest of minors and that parents should be involved, but this legislation

[37:41] takes parents out completely.

[37:43] But generally speaking in terms of contraceptives, I understand what you're saying about Anastasia.

[37:49] And I'm happy to pass, I have some information from the FDA on the risks of these as well.

[37:57] So I'm happy to pass along that information.

[38:00] And so just to finish my statement, obviously, when we're talking about contraceptives,

[38:06] We're generally not talking about, um, and it's easier.

[38:11] No, not under this bill, not under this bill because this says any FDA-approved

[38:17] method and sterilization is the first method that is listed on the birth control,

[38:21] um, birth control list of the FDA, and that's on the handout.

[38:26] So your objection is it just limited to sterilization?

[38:30] Absolutely not.

[38:31] And that includes the new bearing in the instance that I told of Erica's story.

[38:34] It includes Yaz, which is still on Bayer's website as a drug, so in that case even more

[38:41] women died.

[38:42] I believe it was 100 women died, and 6,800 women were seriously injured in that class

[38:48] action lawsuit as well.

[38:49] And finally, do you have the statistics on women and females who die in childbirth as well

[38:59] as you have the ones that I'd be happy to look at that information.

[39:03] But childbirth versus we're allowing our child to take the risk without parental supervision is what we're looking at in this specific legislation.

[39:13] And again, we would have to urge that you oppose this legislation, it completely takes the parents out and does put minors at risk.

[39:19] Thank you for your testimony.

[39:22] Is your organization against birth control period?

[39:27] We don't have a position on birth control, but we do have a major problem with the legislature allowing minors to be able to make these decisions with risks like this without any parental supervision.

[39:39] You know, some of these girls really don't have access to that, and that's one of the challenges that there's not a parent engaged as your group against traditional birth control pills.

[39:50] you seem to be very against some of these procedures that may require an

[39:56] the season of the things, but both control peels that

[40:00] As a lot of teenage girls take for acne, are you opposed, are you opposed to that? I'm saying that our main point is that parents should be involved when miners are making a stir. I love for your group to bring some positive solutions to how we take care of these girls. Because what I see session after session, I've never seen y'all advance positive solutions for these kids that are in these terrible situations. Bring us something. It's actually positive. You're good at bringing us what's

[40:29] you're against. Come and tell us how we're going to help these young ladies. That's what

[40:33] I'd like to hear. And I'm happy to do that. You haven't done it since I've been here.

[40:38] Since we've promoted, since we've promoted protecting pregnancy resource centers, since we've

[40:43] promoted a stay on this bill. Okay, but I'd love to see you bring us positive solutions

[40:48] which have been shortcoming. Okay. And in the meantime, the government goes, I want to call

[40:54] the next witness and I appreciate you being here. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you

[40:57] Very much.

[40:58] Ted Hale?

[41:07] Hi, thank you, Representative Cook, and committee members, for giving me an opportunity to speak.

[41:15] I'll try to be brief, and just for the record, we need to know who you are.

[41:20] Are you representing your position on the bill, okay?

[41:22] Yes, sir.

[41:23] Yeah, so I'll try to be brief.

[41:24] My name is Dr. Ted Hale, I'm a practicing obstetrician gynecologist and

[41:30] also have my master's in public health.

[41:32] I'm the Director of Reproductive Health for People's Community Clinic.

[41:36] I founded a teen pregnancy clinic there in 1996.

[41:42] So we've seen tens of thousands of pregnancies over the past couple of decades.

[41:47] I'm here to voice my vigorous support for this bill on behalf of the Texas campaign to prevent teen pregnancy.

[41:55] I have you testify on behalf of yourself.

[41:59] And on behalf of myself.

[42:01] No.

[42:01] You can only testify on behalf of yourself,

[42:04] because that's how you restored for.

[42:05] Oh, I'm sorry, I must have misread you, sir.

[42:07] Happy to testify on behalf of myself.

[42:10] Okay, so I'll be as brief as possible,

[42:14] and I'm really happy to answer questions.

[42:19] First, to Representative Giddings Point.

[42:22] Pregnancy has been shown to be about eight times more lethal than the birth control pill.

[42:29] As you mentioned, this has been well studied in the third world, not debatable from a

[42:35] scientific point of view, contraception absolutely much safer than childbirth, no question.

[42:42] As far as your statement about, or the previous speaker statement about sterilization, the

[42:51] The state of Texas does not allow women under the age of 21 to be sterilized with federal funds.

[42:57] So this bill, as you know, is about teenagers who have already given birth,

[43:04] who want to do the right thing and not become pregnant again so they can get on with their lives.

[43:09] Sterilizations are red herring, the state doesn't pay for that under the age of 21.

[43:13] I appreciated

[43:20] what you said Representative Cook about bringing something positive rather than something negative.

[43:25] I've seen probably 7,000 pregnant teens over the course of my career.

[43:33] And was it MIRA? Yeah.

[43:37] MIRA, I didn't take care of MIRA but she's representative of one of those thousands of unique stories.

[43:43] in each story is unique of course but there are common threads and the common threads are often

[43:51] exactly what you said. Poverty, sometimes lack of good parental support to help with a good

[43:57] decision that the child really might want to make and a general cluelessness about what their

[44:04] options might be to have a better life for themselves.

[44:09] I talked to Maira briefly.

[44:12] She had two kids as a teenager.

[44:17] She told me, tearfully, it was incredibly hard for her with a second kid, but with the

[44:22] support of her husband and the support of her family, she was able to go to nursing school

[44:27] and is now a nurse employed, has a great stable relationship and she did that through the

[44:34] support of our family and community, of course, but also some social service programs out there and job training programs and access to contraception.

[44:42] As y'all have noted, this is a milieu and we need to attack this problem from a bunch of different angles and this is one very important angle.

[44:50] So I know I've been rambling, I'll be quiet, happy to entertain any questions.

[44:53] Any questions?

[44:55] Yes.

[44:56] Representative Patty.

[44:58] Thank you, Dr. For being here.

[45:00] So in your expert opinion, if we were to talk about medical best practices, and based on the clientele that you see, and particularly related to this system, what do you recommend to those who find themselves in a situation? Okay, you know, I'm a doctor. Sometimes that can be long-winded. I'll try to be as brief as possible. First, I would say the best would be not to get in this situation because as we know, 82% of teen pregnant

[45:34] So if we can give contraception to that population of people, we will reduce the abortion rate significantly.

[45:43] It's been shown that for every 100 contraceptive devices that the state provides, one abortion is prevented.

[45:51] So the best way in my mind, from a medical practice point, and that was your question,

[45:56] and the best way to decrease the abortion rate

[45:59] is to provide contraception.

[46:01] Now, your question was, what do we do

[46:03] when someone's already unfortunately faced with a pregnancy?

[46:06] As a previous speaker mentioned,

[46:08] the, by and large, no question,

[46:11] most effective form of contraception

[46:15] is long-acting reversible contraception,

[46:18] which is called LARC.

[46:20] These are IUDs or implants,

[46:23] neither of which, by the way, have estrogen in them

[46:25] so they wouldn't cause blood clots and the other horrors that Erica's family went through.

[46:32] Incredibly safe devices and long-acting.

[46:35] LARC has been shown to decrease the repeat teen pregnancy rate by something like 80%.

[46:41] LARC is largely available in Colorado. The state had an initiative to provide it.

[46:48] Almost free of cost to all of their residents and it had all of the expected consequences.

[46:53] is huge drops in the abortion rate, huge drops in unplanned pregnancy rates and especially unplanned teen pregnancy rates.

[47:04] So my answer to your question would be effective counseling about LARC tied with all of the effective job training, social service and

[47:17] other supports that I think Representative Cook was referring to earlier.

[47:21] And also, again, being an expert, there's been discussion about risk associated, so what

[47:29] that particular option can you speak to risk?

[47:35] So in regards to long-acting contraception, yeah.

[47:41] So there are two forms of long-acting contraception, IUDs, which, of course, go into the uterus

[47:46] and implants, which are called an x-planon,

[47:49] that usually go into the forearm.

[47:52] The implants don't contain estrogen,

[47:56] which is the chemical that causes the pulmonary embolism

[48:00] and blood clots that the previous speaker mentioned.

[48:03] So implants incredibly safe.

[48:05] Like any medicine, there are side effects,

[48:08] such as bleeding, or spotting, menstrual cramps sometimes.

[48:12] So irritating side effects, for sure, for some women,

[48:15] but no deaths, period, incredibly safe compared to childbirth.

[48:21] IUDs, also incredibly safe.

[48:23] There is a little bit of stigma still in this day about the effects of old generation

[48:31] IUDs from 30 or 40 years ago which did have an infection risk.

[48:36] These days, that risk is minimal with modern intrauterine devices.

[48:41] All right.

[48:41] Thank you, Dr.

[48:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[48:46] Dr. How many patients have you had that were teens that could not talk to a parent

[48:57] because the parent was unavailable?

[48:59] Oh, the parents were hostile to the child.

[49:05] What do you see there?

[49:08] Yeah.

[49:09] So I guess, so I work in a federally qualified center.

[49:13] So, I have a skewed sample. All of my patients are poor and would you agree with the misgivings assertion that the majority of these children are going to be from and with previous witnesses from poor backgrounds?

[49:29] Yes, and again, I don't want to take up too much time but think about it. We're talking in general terms, we're talking about very young women who are having sex.

[49:42] most I've got a 12 year old daughter so this affects me too. I don't think it's

[49:48] healthy for my 12 year old to be having sex at age 12. I really hope she doesn't

[49:53] do that and I hope that I can be a good parent and kind of help her avoid making

[50:00] I'm not saying those choices for herself, not for any religious reason. I just don't think it's usually good for a very young woman to have sex. It's not enjoyable. It's not good for emotionally and other reasons.

[50:12] So, the fact that someone is pregnant in their young teens is a red flag, we know that on

[50:23] a population basis, I'm not, I'm not implying that any individual fits this profile, but

[50:31] on a population basis, yeah, over 70% come from a single parent home.

[50:38] As you heard earlier, 40% of teen pregnancies are the product of a previous teen pregnancy.

[50:46] So there is this intergenerational transmission of imperfect decision-making.

[50:51] So yes, I would say the vast majority of women who find themselves confronted within

[50:56] this situation are in an extremely challenging social and economic situation where they're

[51:04] We're not necessarily going to get the benefit of the traditional two-parent upper middle-class household.

[51:15] There was any other questions.

[51:18] So once again, your testimony would be that some of these young ladies find themselves in a situation

[51:24] where they do not have parental guidance or parental participation.

[51:31] Yes, right there.

[51:32] It was taken for granted that exists.

[51:34] And these young ladies don't have that.

[51:35] Right. Exactly. And they're put in the position of having to make that decision, the best decision for themselves.

[51:42] Incidentally, I should point out that they are legally able to make decisions for their children.

[51:49] So they've had their child. They are the legal gardening of that child.

[51:55] They can decide whether that child gets cancer treatment, vaccines, all sorts of things.

[52:01] So they're allowed to make decisions for their child.

[52:03] Well, we're just asking that they be allowed to make decisions for themselves as well.

[52:07] Okay, thank you very much for your testimony.

[52:10] Is there anyone else that signed up for or against House Bill 1373?

[52:17] If not, we're calling Chairman Davis to close on a bill.

[52:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[52:25] I feel like this committee really understands this issue.

[52:30] I want to, you know, to remind everyone again like you've heard that this is a young woman that has already had a child and all this bill is doing is to allow her to have access to birth control.

[52:46] And when you hear words like sterilization, I know that that seems, you know, like an awful option for, let's say, a 13-year-old.

[52:57] And in fact, it is, it is such an awful option that it is not legal as you have heard.

[53:05] You could Medicaid funds will not pay for a sterilization of a young woman under the age of 21.

[53:12] And why that matters is because these young women are on Medicaid.

[53:16] So sterilization is not going to be an option.

[53:19] And this bill does not in any way change the standard of care.

[53:24] I cannot imagine that any physician working within the standard of care would seek sterilization as an option of birth control for a young teen mom.

[53:38] I just, I don't think that that is even something that I can take seriously.

[53:43] And you've heard about the argument that, well, we need to keep the parents involved.

[53:49] We're way past that point when you've got a 14-year-old pregnant.

[53:53] And so with that, I feel like this committee knows what the right thing to do is and I think that by the fact that my colleague Mary Gonzales has a similar bill that this is not a partisan issue, this is an issue that both Republicans and Democrats can support, it is just good policy and a common sense, so I would ask for your favorable consideration.

[54:21] Just by the way, the one witness that testified against, have they come to you and tried to work with you on this at all?

[54:28] Absolutely not.

[54:29] Okay.

[54:30] Thank you very much.

[54:31] This time to Chair's intent to leave House Bill 1378 pending.

[54:35] The chair is going to take up House Bill 330 and call on Reption Consultants to explain

[54:44] her bill.

[54:44] And just a reminder, folks, if you're wanting to testify, you need to go sign up with

[54:51] our witness affirmation program, those docs are available throughout the Capitol.

[54:57] So, once again, this time, if you want to, if you're ready to lay down,

[55:00] Thank you, Chairman. Stayjavu and State Affairs. H. Bill 330, which I'm proud is really nearly similar to the previous bill. But I'm not going to repeat a lot of what Chairman Davis already said. But this bill is about health care women and children, because it has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. It impacts educational and positive health incomes. It's a common sense solution, as previously mentioned. These young women have the ability, or have the right to make decisions about their children.

[55:29] and brain surgery, cancer treatment, but they can't make

[55:31] decisions about their own body, and their own body also impacts

[55:34] the health of their children.

[55:36] We know that when a woman has a teen mom,

[55:39] has a repeat teen pregnancy, it impacts the educational outcomes

[55:44] of their child and the health outcomes of their child.

[55:46] So with that, I'm going to let some witnesses testify

[55:49] and see if you have any questions.

[55:50] There's any questions?

[55:52] Any questions?

[55:52] I reserve the right to close.

[55:55] Catherine Miller, President Texas Freedom Network,

[55:58] here to speak for the bill.

[56:03] Good afternoon.

[56:05] I am Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network.

[56:09] And the Texas Freedom Network is also the member of the Trust Respect Access Coalition,

[56:14] which is a broad coalition of diverse organizations working to support policies.

[56:18] Just his reminder.

[56:19] Testifying on behalf.

[56:21] Texas Freedom Network.

[56:23] That's all I got.

[56:23] Okay.

[56:24] But I can tell you what I'm a part of, right?

[56:26] Okay.

[56:27] I won't.

[56:29] I'm happy not to.

[56:30] We support House Bill 330 because it allows young parents to make the reproductive decisions

[56:37] that they feel are best for them and because it represents common sense legislation to help

[56:43] lower the high number of unintended teen pregnancies in Texas and honestly it represents

[56:48] the kind of positive solution that you were asking about, Chairman Cook, where I believe all

[56:55] of us can agree on something that makes this much sense. It actually seems a little bit

[57:01] crazy that a mother, whether a teen or not who is trusted with making healthcare decisions

[57:07] for her child or children, would not be trusted to make her own healthcare decisions when

[57:13] it comes to reproductive healthcare and using contraception. This just allows her to plan and

[57:19] space, her family, right?

[57:22] The legislation shouldn't be controversial.

[57:25] We should all be able to agree that we want to reduce unintended pregnancy.

[57:29] And we want to allow teens who are already mothers to consent to their own health care.

[57:35] It's worth noting that our state consistently has one of the nation's highest teen pregnancy

[57:40] rates, the highest repeat teen birth rate.

[57:43] The teen births cost the taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars annually in health

[57:48] care, foster care, and lost tax revenue and loss of health and life of young women.

[57:54] I am the parent of two daughters. One just made it out of this bill's coverage. She just

[57:59] turned 18. But I've raised teenagers. And as much as I would like to believe that they would

[58:05] come to me and talk to me about contraception and about their own reproductive health care,

[58:10] I've been a teenage girl. And I know how hard that was for me with my parents. And we have an

[58:16] open relationship and we talked about these things, I had all the benefits you could possibly

[58:20] imagine growing up. So any complications might make it very difficult. Just think of how uncomfortable

[58:27] many of you are when we're talking about sex education or contraception in your committee room.

[58:32] Multiply that by about a thousand when you're a teenage girl trying to talk to your mother or your

[58:36] father about something like this. We haven't heard on the previous bill much about the future of

[58:45] these young women, being able to plan and space your family, being able to use contraception

[58:51] to not have more than one child as a teenager, improves a woman's prospects for graduating

[58:57] from high school, for getting a further education, for having a job, for earning an income,

[59:02] and for supporting her family in her future.

[59:04] This bill represents a positive solution for the potential of young teen mothers in the

[59:11] state of Texas.

[59:13] We trust teen parents to make their own health care decisions when it comes to addiction.

[59:19] We trust incarcerated teenagers to make their own health care decisions.

[59:23] We trust married teen mothers to consent to their own contraception.

[59:27] It is only common sense to trust unmarried teen mothers to consent to their own contraception.

[59:35] By passing HB 330, this committee can take an important first step in addressing

[59:39] unintended pregnancy, I strongly urge you to support this bill.

[59:43] Members, any questions?

[59:44] No, and Catherine, what's going on just for the record?

[59:48] Texas Freedom Network.

[59:49] No, but you identified yourself as Kathy Mill, when you came up, but your own is Catherine Miller.

[59:55] I am Catherine Miller.

[59:56] You got it, okay, you just have to do all this for exactly right.

[1:00:00] Thank you so much. You're welcome. Susan Hayes.

[1:00:08] Been a while, Susan. Yeah, good to see you again, Mr. Chairman. And I'll be brief, because I know you'll got a full house tonight. My name is Susan Hayes. I have for the last 15 years represented teenagers who are facing unintended pregnancies. And I urge you to pass this bill precisely for the reasons Ms. Miller just said. It is logically absurd. It is bad health care policy to let teenagers who are already mothers not access contraception.

[1:00:35] And I'll just give you a brief idea about the kinds of real lives some of these girls live.

[1:00:41] I had a client just early last January who had a child who wanted that first child when

[1:00:47] she became pregnant as a teenager.

[1:00:49] She became pregnant again, not because she didn't want, you know, take responsibility, because

[1:00:54] she lived out in the middle of a country where she had no access to a title 10 clinic where

[1:00:58] she could get effective contraception.

[1:01:01] She had no transportation.

[1:01:03] She had already graduated high school with the 4.0 because she was sharp as she could be.

[1:01:09] And there she was pregnant again.

[1:01:10] That could have been prevented and abortion could have been prevented.

[1:01:14] And also say what makes me very sad for some of these kids is how much the state has failed

[1:01:18] them.

[1:01:18] I know Mr. Chairman, you've heard me say before we set them up to fail by not giving them

[1:01:22] access to medically-based sex ed and not giving them access to effective contraception.

[1:01:27] And then be surprised that we have such high-team pregnancy rates.

[1:01:30] with this young woman she had while she was pregnant with her first child was living with her father who was dealing drugs and she testified in court she had called CPS six times on her own father because she wanted a safe place to live and she got nothing and she was still managing to make it on her own and for the lack of access to good contraception there she was had another barrier to her goal of spacing her children living a better life going to college, getting education.

[1:02:00] where, if you look at this economically, should be a taxpayer instead of someone who's having to access state services for the rest of her and her child's life.

[1:02:09] And with that, there's any questions? That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

[1:02:12] There is any question? Yes, sir.

[1:02:16] Basically, I think what we have heard, and as hard as it might be for some of us to understand,

[1:02:26] and a lot of these women know nothing about reproduction.

[1:02:33] We just heard earlier somebody tell their own heart-breaking story, and it's a wonder

[1:02:41] that they didn't become a statistics because basically only about 2% of these people who

[1:02:47] get caught up in these circumstances go on to be able to earn a college degree.

[1:02:52] You know, some I'm sure do other things, but that's a startling statistic.

[1:02:58] But I think the most revealing thing about that for some of us is that it really isn't

[1:03:08] all about Aussie and Harriet anymore, that there are students or young people out there

[1:03:15] that don't have anybody to really advise them on these kinds of matters.

[1:03:23] A witness said if they had had some advice on these kinds of matters,

[1:03:28] probably the second pregnancy would not have occurred.

[1:03:33] And as much as we encourage parental involvement,

[1:03:37] I think at some point, Susan, we have to come with the reality,

[1:03:42] to the reality that as much as we want it,

[1:03:46] it's not always available to these young people

[1:03:48] and can you just speak to that?

[1:03:50] Just, the parents aren't there.

[1:03:52] It's hard to get parental consent when your mother's dead

[1:03:54] or is strung out on drugs on the streets somewhere

[1:03:58] and your father's in jail.

[1:04:00] And that's a very common pattern in the client I represent.

[1:04:05] The particular client I just mentioned

[1:04:06] to shore up her judicial bypass to abortion case.

[1:04:09] I stopped by the courthouse and checked full the files

[1:04:12] on her family, strong for my case, but sad for her, her father had just been indicted

[1:04:16] for cocaine possession and wouldn't get down anytime soon.

[1:04:20] So she had no place to go.

[1:04:23] And the same goes for our kids who are in the foster care system.

[1:04:27] The foster care system terrifies me for adolescent girls because I've represented them after

[1:04:32] they've been in and out of the system and after they've been sexually assaulted in care,

[1:04:36] become pregnant from that, or become pregnant because no one's paying attention to them

[1:04:39] or engaging with them.

[1:04:41] And I imagine the members of this committee are painfully aware that our CPS system is basically

[1:04:45] in federal receivership right now with the court and court was Chrissy.

[1:04:49] And the judge's findings and the opinion she released last summer had a pretty startling

[1:04:53] statistic about those foster care girls, 50% of them, and I may be off the pointer to

[1:04:57] on that number so I'm doing this from memory.

[1:05:00] Are pregnant by the time they were 19. Of the children from those resulting pregnancies, 70% 70 end up in foster care in short order. And if those mothers, if those teenagers had access to effective contraception, we wouldn't be seeing that kind of perpetuation of human misery because of parents who have failed in a state who's failed them. So a bill like this is intended. And I think will stop some of that human misery. And I think that ought to be

[1:05:29] first and foremost, but then secondarily, it reduces the burden on our state in terms

[1:05:37] of cost, Medicaid births, and ultimately reduces abortion.

[1:05:47] Absolutely.

[1:05:48] I'm sure.

[1:05:49] It shouldn't surprise you that I could make a lot more money as a lawyer not representing

[1:05:53] pregnant teenage girls.

[1:05:54] And I'd like to do that.

[1:05:56] I'd like to not have as clients.

[1:05:59] But there are a lot of kids out there who need help because others have failed them.

[1:06:04] And a lot who will take responsibility for themselves will do the right thing by their health care once they're given access to information to education and to consenting to their own reproductive health care.

[1:06:15] Thank you so much.

[1:06:16] Any other questions?

[1:06:17] Thank you. And once again, Susan, I know you never said for, but I'm here on my individual capacity today and it's season haze for the bill for the bill.

[1:06:26] Thank you, city.

[1:06:29] Reverend Amelia Fulbright.

[1:06:39] Thank you, chairman.

[1:06:41] Committee, I am here testifying on behalf of myself.

[1:06:46] I have been an ordained minister for about 10 years.

[1:06:51] In that time, I have worked closely with teenage girls and college students.

[1:06:57] Can you go ahead and state for the record your position on behalf of the panel?

[1:06:59] I am for the panel.

[1:07:00] Thank you very much.

[1:07:01] Thank you.

[1:07:02] you.

[1:07:04] During my ministry, I have made it a priority to include comprehensive sex education

[1:07:11] as part of my pastoral care for young people. That may seem like a strange thing for a religious

[1:07:19] leader to do, but I have been committed to that in large part because I've learned that

[1:07:27] young people, teenagers, don't get the same standard of information about sexuality,

[1:07:36] either from their schools or from their parents. And I believe that we as adults

[1:07:44] have a moral, ethical, and spiritual responsibility to give young people, including

[1:07:51] mothers access to the information and resources they need to make the best possible choices for themselves and their children.

[1:08:02] Now, as part of offering comprehensive education to the young people that I've worked with,

[1:08:10] I've tried to work with parents as well to empower them to have conversations about sexuality and

[1:08:19] birth control with their children. But when parents have not been willing or able to

[1:08:26] have those conversations, I myself have talked with young women about their options for

[1:08:32] contraception. And as Ms. Miller mentioned, even for teen girls who have good relationships

[1:08:42] with their parents, those conversations are often awkward and finding other adults that

[1:08:48] they can trust to have those conversations can be really important.

[1:08:55] It would be almost redundant for me to mention again how we know that contraception is the

[1:09:01] best way to lower teen pregnancy rates and rates of unintended pregnancy in general.

[1:09:08] But that really is why we're here today.

[1:09:14] And we also know that without access to contraception women are more likely to be trapped

[1:09:20] in cycles of poverty that are devastating for them and their children.

[1:09:24] To me, that's also a moral, ethical, and spiritual concern.

[1:09:32] What I've learned from ten years of working with teenagers and young adults is, try as

[1:09:39] we might, we cannot, through legislation or religious instruction, control the reproductive

[1:09:46] choices that young people make.

[1:09:48] We just can't. Their bodies and their lives are their own, and it is their birth

[1:09:55] right as children of God and as American citizens.

[1:10:00] To make those decisions for themselves. What we can do in this case through a good bill like this is give them everything they need to make healthy choices. And so I fully support this bill from my vantage point as a Texan, as a clergywoman, and as a mother of a young girl myself. Thank you. Members, questions? It's all right, thank you. Thank you.

[1:10:30] The Chair now calls Nicole Hedgens,

[1:10:37] did not testify against.

[1:10:43] Chair now calls Ted Held,

[1:10:49] which show Mr. Held not testified for the bill.

[1:10:54] I don't know, Nicole.

[1:10:57] Okay, Miss Hedgens,

[1:11:01] and we just reiterate that it's the same subject matter, so.

[1:11:05] Yes, Sarah, I'll try and keep it a little short of that.

[1:11:08] Thank you, perfect, thank you.

[1:11:12] Again, my name is Nicole Hedgens, I'm the policy analyst for

[1:11:15] Texas values and I'm speaking today in opposition to HB 330.

[1:11:20] First, again, this bill as well as a violation of parental rights.

[1:11:24] A 15-year-old under state law is still a minor and

[1:11:29] parents have the right to know what their child is taking because it can prevent them from injury or even death.

[1:11:36] Just because a minor has a child doesn't mean that they should take the place of their own parents.

[1:11:41] And parents still have the freedom and the right to be involved in these situations and not be cut off.

[1:11:49] In regards to sex ed that's being taught in our schools, we're actually seeing that team birth rates are lowering.

[1:11:54] And much of that is due to abstinence education.

[1:11:57] And we understand that minors may take contraceptives, but

[1:12:01] again, it's a terrible idea to let minors make these medical decisions without parental involvement.

[1:12:08] And again, I'll list those risks again that are on the handouts that you'll have that include but not limited to heart attack, stroke, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, severe infection, ovarian cysts, and others.

[1:12:26] It's not a good idea to let our minors put themselves at risk without parental involvement.

[1:12:31] And, again, just to cite a few more statistics, and then I'll be done.

[1:12:36] When you look at the incidence of just what happened with Yaz, an FDA-approved contraceptive

[1:12:41] method, 6,800 women were injured, and over 100 women died.

[1:12:48] And just the new ring, one of many other methods of contraception, 3,000 women were seriously

[1:12:55] we injured, and 83 women died.

[1:12:58] If we're going to talk about child birth rates, people dying from child birth,

[1:13:03] just those two contraceptives cause enough injury that go beyond the mortality rate at its peak in the state.

[1:13:11] So for these reasons, I urge this committee to oppose HB330.

[1:13:15] Ms. Huggins, thank you, and just to get the record correct, you are also representing yourself.

[1:13:21] Yes, sir.

[1:13:21] Thank you.

[1:13:22] Thank you.

[1:13:23] Okay, I don't think we have any more witnesses, members, any more questions.

[1:13:26] Thank you, Ms. Hudge.

[1:13:28] Chair recognizes Ms. Gonzalez to close.

[1:13:32] Thank you, Chairman and committee members.

[1:13:35] Our job as legislators is to set up a next generation for the success.

[1:13:40] Our job is to protect the most vulnerable.

[1:13:43] Our jobs to be thoughtful, brave, and use common sense.

[1:13:47] The reality is, is that these teenagers are already sexually active.

[1:13:51] The reality is, if we're talking about parental rights, then these young teen moms have

[1:13:56] the right to make sure that they have access to reproductive contraception because that

[1:14:01] impacts the lives of their children.

[1:14:03] If they say, I'm not going to get pregnant again because I know it will impact my child,

[1:14:08] that is a parental right.

[1:14:09] And I think that even though these are death-difficult and sensitive decisions, these are the decisions

[1:14:14] that we need to make to do our job as legislators, to be brave and thoughtful, considerate, and

[1:14:19] We can use common sense.

[1:14:21] So thank you so much for the hearing and with that, I respectfully request favorable consideration.

[1:14:26] Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez.

[1:14:28] Does anyone else wish to speak on four against HB 330, between none?

[1:14:32] Chair-

[1:14:35] We have a case.

[1:14:38] We're going to withdraw HB 330 and leave it pending.

[1:14:42] Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.

[1:14:43] Thank you.

[1:14:45] Okay, the chair lays out HB 2370 and recognizes Mr. Patti.

[1:14:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for allowing me to lay out H.B.

[1:15:00] 2370 this afternoon, 2370 is a straightforward bill that removes the obligation for deregulated telecommunications companies to participate in the Lifeline Program. To be clear, this bill does not end the Lifeline Program, and there will still be many companies providing discounted services through the program. This bill only affects the landline part of the program. It's worth noting that the number of customers receiving the discount for landlines has dropped by over 90% since 2008.

[1:15:28] That's consumers cut the cord and switched to wireless service.

[1:15:32] With that, I believe there are some folks who will be testifying they can answer any technical questions and much better than I.

[1:15:39] So unless there are any questions for me, I reserve the right to close.

[1:15:42] Here, thank you, Mr. Petty.

[1:15:54] Chair now calls Bob DiGnaio.

[1:16:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:16:05] Bob DiGnaio with AT&T, Assistant Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

[1:16:10] Here in support of House Bill 2370, I'd like to explain a little bit about what

[1:16:15] What the bill does and the impact on customers and then finally a little bit about what would happen with this bill was to be approved and implemented.

[1:16:26] For the last 22 years or so, the Texas legislature has done a very good job of reducing the level of regulation in the telecommunications business as competition has grown.

[1:16:37] House bill 2370 is the next logical step in that.

[1:16:40] That.

[1:16:41] What the bill does very simply is to allow AT&T to discontinue offering the state lifeline

[1:16:48] discount of $6.42 per month for eligible residential customers for their landline service.

[1:16:55] This is all about landline service.

[1:16:58] The reason is that customers generally have been moving away from landline phones as we all

[1:17:03] all know to wireless, in fact AT&T's residential landline base today is 10 percent of what

[1:17:12] it was in 2002. That many people have moved away from landlines. Customers who are eligible

[1:17:18] for the lifeline service have also moved away to wireless services. And as Representative

[1:17:25] Paddy said, the number of customers that are still getting the lifeline discount from AT&T

[1:17:31] is about 7% of the number that we had as recently as 2008.

[1:17:37] So the world has moved in large part to wireless,

[1:17:40] and that's the reason for this legislation.

[1:17:44] But I do want to talk about the impact on customers.

[1:17:48] Should this be passed?

[1:17:49] They would have a number of options.

[1:17:51] Those lifeline customers of AT&T could do a couple of things.

[1:17:56] They could stay with AT&T.

[1:17:58] The service would still be there for them.

[1:18:00] They would pay $6.42 more per month.

[1:18:04] 90% of the customers that have lifeline discount today spend more than $30 on average with AT&T.

[1:18:12] So they're good customers.

[1:18:13] We'd like to keep them, and certainly that's one option.

[1:18:16] But they also would have a couple of other options.

[1:18:19] They could take that $6.42 discount and

[1:18:22] use it with another landline phone company in their area that offers the discount or

[1:18:28] accepts that discount, there's a number of those.

[1:18:30] They could also move to wireless.

[1:18:33] And others, as Representative Patty mentioned,

[1:18:36] there's a federal discount for wireless of $9.25.

[1:18:40] They could use that against their wireless bill,

[1:18:43] and now the federal lifeline program is changing,

[1:18:46] so that could be applied to broadband.

[1:18:48] Real quickly, Mr. Chairman, what we would do,

[1:18:51] if this were to be passed,

[1:18:53] any TNT would definitely give our lifeline customers

[1:18:56] There's plenty of notice that there would be some changes being made through a customer

[1:19:01] notice process.

[1:19:02] And then we'd be glad to work with your offices or with other interested parties to help

[1:19:08] those customers who are on the lifeline program from AT&T, the state lifeline, identify options

[1:19:14] for them to move to other carriers who provide a lifeline discount.

[1:19:19] So that's in and a nutshell.

[1:19:21] This is the next logical step in a whole series of steps the legislature has taken over

[1:19:26] for the last two decades in telecommunications.

[1:19:28] Thank you very much for your time.

[1:19:29] Thank you, members.

[1:19:30] Yes, sir.

[1:19:31] Two questions.

[1:19:32] Mr. Perry.

[1:19:32] Just one.

[1:19:33] All right, sir.

[1:19:34] Quick questions here.

[1:19:35] Again, just to reiterate, it's important for folks to know

[1:19:38] that the service is not going away.

[1:19:41] That's correct.

[1:19:42] And by my count in doing some research,

[1:19:45] there's an excess of 15 other providers

[1:19:48] who would still continue to offer this.

[1:19:51] And so there could be a situation where you lose a customer

[1:19:55] to a competitor because they want to keep this, particularly this count.

[1:20:00] Yes sir. So, you know, from a competitive standpoint, it may be an opportunity for your, your competitors. Right. That's correct. There are a landline companies and wireless companies and all of the AT&T service area that offer the discount. And as you said, customers could move to those, to those carriers, absolutely. Thank you, thank you sir. Okay. Thank you very much sir. I believe that wraps up testimony. Chair recognizes Mr. Patti to close on his bill. Thank you Mr. Chair.

[1:20:29] Chairman, if there are no other questions,

[1:20:32] ask respectfully, ask for favorable consideration,

[1:20:34] and I close.

[1:20:34] Mr. Petty, Chair removes HB 2370 and will leave it pending.

[1:20:39] Chair now calls HB 1527 and recognizes Mr. Simmons.

[1:20:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you members.

[1:20:48] House Bill 1527 is a bill that you all passed out last session,

[1:20:52] and actually ended up on the very next page of the calendar before we

[1:20:57] As some of you have had that happen before, but I appreciate being able to lay out House Bill 27.

[1:21:02] What this bill would do is simply allows people with disabilities.

[1:21:06] Rebeck up and say 23, excuse me.

[1:21:08] 15, 27, the right number, I'm sorry, one, five, two, seven.

[1:21:13] This bill would simply allow people with disabilities, both physical and intellectual, to utilize the existing historically underutilized business program.

[1:21:21] For a little background, the hub program is run by the comptroller's office to aid state agencies to make good faith efforts to utilize the hubs and contracts for construction services and commodity HB 1527 adds person with disabilities as an economically disadvantaged class.

[1:21:39] Yes.

[1:21:40] Interesting to know that person with disabilities have about an 80% unemployment rate, so this

[1:21:46] will be very helpful to them, and it enables businesses operated by disabled individuals

[1:21:50] to be eligible for benefits as a hub.

[1:21:53] It adds language to required Texas comptroller to adopt rules to provide goals for increasing

[1:21:57] contract awards for hubs that are qualified by disabled persons, and it requires certification

[1:22:02] of disability by submission of an affidavit from the physician of each owner claimant verifying

[1:22:08] the claimant's disability.

[1:22:10] What it does not do is it does not remove any current group from the program.

[1:22:14] It does not establish any new program.

[1:22:16] It simply adds this group of people to the existing program.

[1:22:20] And it does not place disabled people in priority above any of the currently existing economically disadvantaged groups.

[1:22:27] So remember, again, this bill simply allows those who have difficulty providing for

[1:22:31] themselves because of their disability to be a part of an existing program.

[1:22:36] The number of certified hubs in Texas is actually decreased by 5% in the last four years, and it was down about 1,000 businesses.

[1:22:46] Increased participation would give the state more options for contracting this program.

[1:22:51] And I respectfully ask for your support of this bill, Mr. Chairman, if there's a happy to ask any questions, not to reserve the right to close.

[1:23:00] Thank you, Mr. Simmons.

[1:23:01] We'll call you back up.

[1:23:02] Okay, thank you.

[1:23:19] Chair now called Jason Shaw, and he has an interpreter as well.

[1:23:40] Go ahead.

[1:23:42] Mr. Chair, could you give me a little bit more than three minutes possibly?

[1:23:47] Is that okay, that way?

[1:23:48] That's fine.

[1:23:50] Okay, thank you.

[1:23:53] Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for hearing me this morning this afternoon.

[1:23:59] My name is Jason Shaw, and a little bit about my background.

[1:24:03] I'm a native of Texan, profoundly deaf since the age of two.

[1:24:07] In a master electrician in a BCP certified solar,

[1:24:12] photovoltaic electrician in solar.

[1:24:15] And the first deaf individual in the nation to be certified.

[1:24:25] And I'm president and founder of Blue Paul Energy Services, LSE.

[1:24:28] I establish a business in 2012 with the model of the power of choice through innovation,

[1:24:34] energy solutions.

[1:24:35] It's my personal goal of mind to hire and train disabled individuals, especially those.

[1:24:40] Let me interrupt real quick.

[1:24:42] Just have Mr. Shawl say he's testifying in favor,

[1:24:48] if he is.

[1:24:50] Yes, I am in favor.

[1:24:51] Okay, thank you.

[1:24:52] Please continue.

[1:24:58] So it's my personal goal.

[1:25:00] Council to mind a hire and train disabled individuals, especially to get them in the electrical trade, which there is a demand for skilled workers. Since there is a 68 to 72% under employed or unemployment for that group of workers. For that effort, I was awarded two awards with the Austin Mayors and the other one from the Texas Governor's Committee with People on Disabilities. I'm here to provide my comment on

[1:25:29] House Bill 1527 as a disabled business owner who will be potentially impacted by this bill.

[1:25:36] I have met other disabled individual owners with over 30 years, with over 30 of them being

[1:25:42] deaf in the Alston area alone, who all face similar challenges as well.

[1:25:54] In my case, it is more of a challenge in the construction industry due to the misconceptions,

[1:26:00] especially with me, and my cruise deafness with one example is how did you get here?

[1:26:05] Deaf people can't drive, which is not impact my ability of the performance of safely providing services other than not being able to install musical sound systems.

[1:26:18] And I've been doing it for the last 20 years in this industry.

[1:26:23] The purpose of the historically underutilized businesses is to provide an equal playing field for disadvantaged business owners.

[1:26:32] like women in the construction industry dominated by men is forbidding for state contracts.

[1:26:37] I was surprised to find that the hub program in Texas does not extend to the disabled business owners,

[1:26:43] who demonstrate the economically and socially disadvantaged just like other states, such as North Carolina.

[1:26:49] Who overwhelmingly hire other disabled people as employees.

[1:26:54] It is my interest to bid on electrical projects as a subcontractor.

[1:27:01] with 1.1 billion of work in the pipeline in the state of Texas.

[1:27:14] I'm finding that many agencies and prime contractors have preferences to work with hub certified contractors.

[1:27:22] Which puts me at a disadvantage.

[1:27:24] For that reason, I have discussed with the Governor's Committee with people on disabilities about current policies pertaining to business owners which resulted in policy recommendation for the 85th legislative session.

[1:27:38] which I've shared with you.

[1:27:42] If House Bill 1527 passes and becomes law,

[1:27:46] this will enable me, as well as other disabled business owners,

[1:27:49] to bid on projects on an equal playing field,

[1:27:52] which in turn enables us to hire more disabled people.

[1:27:56] And that way there are taxpayers and they are not burdened

[1:27:59] by being on such a security disability income.

[1:28:05] And that way it would reduce the unemployment rate

[1:28:08] of disabled Texans.

[1:28:09] Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide my testimony, and I'm available to answer any questions with you.

[1:28:15] Members, questions?

[1:28:17] None, Mr. Schell, thank you.

[1:28:19] Good, thank you.

[1:28:21] Chair now calls Ken Brown, and he has an interpreter as well.

[1:28:35] Hello, good afternoon.

[1:28:37] My name is Ken Brown, and I own a company called Scan mailboxes, and it's a mail scanning services for

[1:28:45] or everyone who uses our services, and they tend to travel the world, or work from home for added security purposes.

[1:28:53] So I'm here to support of House Bill 1527.

[1:28:57] And the reason why is because with my experiences, when I go and business meetings and

[1:29:02] booths and talk with other females who own businesses, women own businesses.

[1:29:07] And we get together and we talk about the document scanning services.

[1:29:13] And when they brought up about the HUB opportunities and they asked me and I said,

[1:29:18] no, I'm not qualified under that program, they said, really, and they were shocked.

[1:29:23] And they said, well, why don't you, you know, you have your wife owned 51% of the business.

[1:29:29] And I said, I'm not interested in that kind of thing.

[1:29:32] I want to represent myself as a deaf owned business.

[1:29:36] And that's why I'm here in support of this bill.

[1:29:39] Thank you, and make it happen.

[1:29:40] And thank you, thank you very much.

[1:29:44] Chair now calls James Parker.

[1:29:47] Mr.

[1:29:49] Parker?

[1:29:50] Mr. Parker?

[1:29:51] Oh, okay.

[1:30:31] Thank you for being here. Thank

[1:31:57] you very much, Mr. Parker, and just to make sure you're testifying and support for the bill.

[1:32:13] Thank you very much. And my name is Renee. The Chair now calls Renee Parker. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. My name is Renee Parker and I am James Parker's mother and also the business manager for shredding on the go. And I am in favor of this bill, 1527. Thank you. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak about

[1:32:36] about something that we have been fighting for for a long time, disability owned businesses

[1:32:41] becoming a hub in Texas.

[1:32:44] We started shredding on the go with the desire to help James be out in the community and

[1:32:52] to be employed by doing something he loves.

[1:32:56] And we believe that all people have enormous value and God given purpose for their lives.

[1:33:03] Three-state agencies helped us create shredding on the go.

[1:33:10] First, the school district helped teach James how to shred and how to market his business through classes in school.

[1:33:18] Secondly, the state Medicaid waiver class program provides supported employment specialist to support James while he's working.

[1:33:28] The third agency that helped shredding on the go was DARS now under TWC, but it was the Department of

[1:33:37] Assistive and Rehabilitative Services. DARS provided the funding that shredding on the

[1:33:43] go needed to start the business and to make the business sustainable.

[1:33:50] Shredding on the go is a beautiful example of how the support from state programs

[1:33:57] can create a successful tailor-made self-employment business.

[1:34:04] Now, shredding on the go is fully sustainable.

[1:34:08] It pays taxes.

[1:34:10] It has hired now 17, not 13, individuals with disabilities

[1:34:16] to work for it, who have never had a job before

[1:34:19] earning minimum wage or higher.

[1:34:22] And also, some of shredding on the go workers

[1:34:25] will see a decrease in their government assistance.

[1:34:31] One story I want to share with you is the story about Troy.

[1:34:35] On December 1, 2013, we hired Troy who had several palsy

[1:34:40] and was 51 years old then.

[1:34:44] I gave him his paycheck on December 15 and he looked at me

[1:34:48] and he looked at his check and then he looked back at me and said,

[1:34:52] Ms. Parker, this is the first time in my life I am going to be able to go by Christmas

[1:35:04] It was one of the proudest days of his life and mine too. In 2015, shredding on the go was certified as a disability-owned business enterprise by the U.S.D.s business leadership and that been able to use this certificate limited access.

[1:35:27] Intellectual developmental disability's unemployment rate is 80 and individuals that have unemployment rate is 90.

[1:35:36] If Texas passes bill 1527, here are some benefits that would take place.

[1:35:46] State contractors could hire disability-owned business workers to meet their minority-owned

[1:35:53] business contracting requirements, the abilities to work as a whole.

[1:36:01] It would also give disability-owned businesses the opportunity for networking with other

[1:36:07] companies.

[1:36:08] And I think this is want to work.

[1:36:11] Not just washing tables at McDonald's or Waterburger, but truly having a seat at the table with other minority owned businesses, owned businesses.

[1:36:25] King Nye's disability owned businesses as a valuable asset to the work force.

[1:36:33] In closing, why does this group, the Disability Own Business Group, continue to be a hub program?

[1:36:44] Thank you for listening to me and James today.

[1:36:49] Any questions?

[1:36:50] The speaker, thank you very much to meet my questions and thank you all for being here.

[1:36:54] Okay.

[1:37:09] I'll call Chase Bearden.

[1:37:29] I'm doing good.

[1:37:30] Thank you for being here.

[1:37:30] Chairman.

[1:37:31] Chase, first of all, thank you.

[1:37:32] We are further in session and I think you just saw three great examples.

[1:37:38] So go ahead and say you're representing yourself as well.

[1:37:40] And myself as well.

[1:37:41] Thank you very much.

[1:37:44] What you've seen is three great examples of entrepreneurship.

[1:37:47] And disability community is actually, usually it's twice as much in entrepreneurship.

[1:37:53] They find they're able to get around barriers that they would have trying to get a job at different places.

[1:37:58] And the one thing we've always noticed, and it's kind of like with veteran-owned businesses.

[1:38:02] is they tend to hire veterans.

[1:38:04] They's trying to lower the unemployment rate.

[1:38:06] And what we found is that when people have control

[1:38:08] of their own destiny, they can do that more often than not.

[1:38:12] Something else that we see, the younger generation

[1:38:16] that's coming up that's had the ADA now for 25 years

[1:38:20] really has new expectations.

[1:38:22] They want to work and live independently.

[1:38:25] Not have others constantly doing everything for them.

[1:38:28] And I think this is that next step,

[1:38:29] that opportunity and have a fair playing field to do that and I want to thank Representative Simmons and all of you.

[1:38:36] Thank you. Mr. Bearden, thank you for being here. Members, questions? No, thank you.

[1:38:39] Thank you.

[1:38:40] Is there, I think that's everybody, first turning, anybody else wishing to speak on for against HB1527?

[1:40:00] Mr. Chairman? Seeing none, Chair recognizes Mr. Simmons to close. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, for listening. This is one of those opportunities, and we can all come together and do something right by the people we serve. And I just hope that you'll give this favorable consideration. Mr. Chairman, with that I close. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Simmons. Chair, which are all of this, it should be 1527, and leaves it pending.

[1:40:28] Chair Lay's House bills, 1633, and calls on reps and Rodriguez to explain his bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:40:36] Good afternoon, committee members, I will try to be brief.

[1:40:40] This is House Bill 1633, I appreciate the opportunity to lay this out before the Honourable State Affairs Committee.

[1:40:47] This is a local bill, local initiative that affects only the menacically owned energy and water utilities serving San Antonio and seeks to streamline effectiveness and efficiency of the affordability discount program.

[1:41:03] That program was authorized by the legislature over 10 years ago.

[1:41:06] It is specifically available for cities that have municipally owned energy and water utilities with a population of more than 1 million but less than 2 million thereby bracketing it to San Antonio.

[1:41:18] This program allows customers struggling to pay their bill to apply for receiving a small discount.

[1:41:25] I don't know.

[1:41:25] Remember, thank you.

[1:41:26] Go ahead.

[1:41:27] To receive a small discount towards their bill, HB-1633 simply seeks to, again, streamline

[1:41:35] the process between CPS energy and San Antonio water system and create some operational

[1:41:41] efficiencies.

[1:41:42] It would clarify the triggering statutory criteria so that a customer is deemed low-income by

[1:41:49] the utility and they would not also have to be threatened with disconnection.

[1:41:55] I believe there are some resource witnesses available.

[1:41:58] If there are questions, and Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the right to close.

[1:42:03] Okay, members, any questions?

[1:42:05] Members, does anybody need a resource, are we having by resource, team, by need a resource witness?

[1:42:12] I don't think we, okay, let you reserve the right to close, we'll call it, we've got some witnesses.

[1:42:33] Okay. Chair calls Hope Wales.

[1:42:40] She's going to allow me to testify in the Chair.

[1:42:44] Just one second.

[1:42:46] Wait, wait, wait.

[1:42:47] We're waiting to see if she did not testify in.

[1:42:53] Okay.

[1:42:53] We'll show Hope Wales not testifying.

[1:42:57] But for the bill, then we'll call up.

[1:43:00] Robert went to come up and testify.

[1:43:04] Okay.

[1:43:04] Now that was embarrassing.

[1:43:06] Representative Rodriguez said that was broken in the state.

[1:43:07] We've done this drill before, hadn't you?

[1:43:09] Yes.

[1:43:11] Well, off to a bad start, but Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Robert Puente.

[1:43:17] I am the President's CEO of the Santonio Water System.

[1:43:19] We are utility owned by the City of Santonio.

[1:43:21] We provide water, wastewater, recycled water to over 1.7 million people in four different counties.

[1:43:28] We are in support of this bill.

[1:43:29] That essentially allows our customers that can lease the Ford to pay a bill to have some help.

[1:43:38] And actually, this helps those individuals, but actually this is a good business decision on the part of the solid.

[1:43:43] If we are able to get these people onto our programs or affordability programs prior to the notice of them being the link went, it actually saves us money.

[1:43:53] There's a lot of money in collection, there's a lot of money that we have to send out an individual to turn off their water.

[1:43:59] And invariably you go more than one, two, three, four hours without water, you find money, you find your resources to pay the bill.

[1:44:05] We have to send somebody back out there to turn on the water.

[1:44:09] So I ask this committee to look favorably upon this bill, and recognize that you're helping not only the individuals that need that help, but it's also a good business decision.

[1:44:18] Thank you, any questions that you have?

[1:44:21] Mr. Garen, how are you?

[1:44:23] Oh, you are.

[1:44:24] I don't believe we have any questions for you, so thank you very much.

[1:44:32] Maria Garcia, Vice President of Community Engagement, CPS Energy, here to speak for the bill.

[1:44:44] Good afternoon, Chairman Cook, members of the committee.

[1:44:46] I am Maria Garcia on behalf of CPS Energy in San Antonio, Texas, and I am here for House Bill 1633.

[1:44:54] My comments are duplicative of our representative Justin Rodriguez, but I am here to answer any questions.

[1:45:00] Committee may have. I don't believe we have any questions. Okay, so thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you.

[1:45:07] Is anyone else wish week? It's registered on for Organ's House Bill 1633. If not, we'll call on

[1:45:15] Representative Rodriguez to close on his bill. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the consideration of the committee.

[1:45:21] Certainly would ask a favorable consideration to go to the local and consent calendar, sir. And with that, I close.

[1:45:26] All right, and at this time, it's Chair's intent to leave House Bill 1633 pending.

[1:45:31] Thank you.

[1:45:33] The Chair lays out House Bill 997 and calls on Mrippton Cripprigley on to explain his bill.

[1:45:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

[1:45:49] By the way, thank you for letting a couple of folks in front of you.

[1:45:53] We had a few folks we needed to clear out and so appreciate your patience.

[1:45:57] I don't know, no problem.

[1:45:59] Today I'm here to speak to you about House Bill 997, which addresses concerns about political subdivisions,

[1:46:06] circumventing state oversight and authority in land transfers and sales of the federal government.

[1:46:10] In the past, the state of Texas has not been notified of the transfer of certain municipal land to the federal government.

[1:46:17] House Bill 997 would require political subdivisions to provide an advance notice and

[1:46:21] a formal request for approval to the governor's office no later than a 30th day before

[1:46:25] a proposed land conveyance. An exemption to the advance notice in formal request

[1:46:29] requirements would be permitted for federal post offices.

[1:46:34] We have a committee substitute and another one on its way.

[1:46:38] There's one in front of you. The current committee substitute talks about the fact

[1:46:41] that there's, is there not a committee substitute?

[1:46:49] So there is a committee substitute now that would provide an exemption also for the Department

[1:46:57] of Defense because we have heard from certain military installations and facilities that

[1:47:01] sometimes they want to create a buffer zone around those areas.

[1:47:05] And that committee substitute would also allow the GLO with the authority to collect information

[1:47:13] related to those public land conveyances.

[1:47:15] Quite frankly, we're going to be eventually getting you another substitute that takes out the GLO entirely.

[1:47:21] But here's basically the point of this bill, and I do appreciate and support local control.

[1:47:28] I try and look at it as if it's not wanting to micromanage local cities and so on.

[1:47:33] However, I also think about it from a corporate perspective, which is you have these subsidiaries or subdivisions or what have you.

[1:47:39] And those cities, municipalities, and others should have the right to get into certain transactions and get involved in certain responsibilities.

[1:47:49] But when it comes to selling assets or real property, I think the state does have an obvious interest in making sure that they at least have some say in the transfer of those assets or real property outside the state.

[1:48:04] So that's essentially my bill.

[1:48:06] I know that members at this time will be happy to answer any questions.

[1:48:09] We have some questions.

[1:48:10] Representative Myers over here.

[1:48:11] I'm really getting over here.

[1:48:13] Do you have any idea about the volume that we're talking here?

[1:48:16] I can't even.

[1:48:16] Yeah.

[1:48:17] That's a good question.

[1:48:18] What we did is we looked at the largest counties.

[1:48:22] I think the five largest counties in Texas.

[1:48:26] Most of the transfers deal with US post offices.

[1:48:30] Most of the times what a city is doing is giving some property for US post office.

[1:48:35] There are the second biggest is military installations, that sort of stuff buffers.

[1:48:41] So those two are exempted, however, in a recent case, in 2015 with the city of Waco's

[1:48:48] conveyance of Waco, Manuth Park to the federal government.

[1:48:51] So it's not a large amount, it's not a high volume, but one of the issues, in my opinion,

[1:48:57] is just a fundamental issue of whether or not subdivision should be able to go in deep

[1:49:03] property to the federal government, without at least the state being part of that, there's this old act, it's called the Antiquities Act, the Congressional Antiquities Act, and what will happen is, and what has happened in Texas is that a city, maybe for good purposes, but what they do is they say, hey, we want to provide this as part of the National Park Association, National Historic, or what have you, and then this property then is deeded and maintained and completely under the

[1:49:33] control of the federal government for 99 years or more.

[1:49:37] So it's not a high volume, and with these two exemptions it really does limit it.

[1:49:43] And are any thoughts to the size of the transaction?

[1:49:45] I mean, maybe there are some smaller transactions which don't need to be, and I just don't know

[1:49:50] if you can give any thought to that.

[1:49:52] We've looked at both the types of property, so there's also considered mineral leases, for

[1:49:58] for instance, is one that happens.

[1:50:00] A little bit, but most, we, the size of them have not been, like, insignificant other than the postal, postal service ones. So in my opinion, anything above that, which is what we found would should be listed under, or should at least be positively affirmed by the state. And the way we've set this up is the state doesn't, if the state doesn't respond within 30 days, then it would go through as it is anyway.

[1:50:29] All right, so the state wouldn't necessarily slow down any of these transactions.

[1:50:33] But if they do have a significant concern over state property, our city property that is being sent to the federal government, they could proactively get involved.

[1:50:43] Very good, thank you, Representative.

[1:50:44] All right, thank you.

[1:50:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:50:47] Proactively get involved, does that mean does the state have the ability to block the city from sale?

[1:50:54] With this bill, that's what would be able to happen.

[1:50:56] And so that if the city wanted to do that, and again, I look at this from a kind of a holding company subsidiary, right?

[1:51:04] I mean, I think the holding company should absolutely give a lot of difference to the holding companies or

[1:51:09] to the subdivision, in that case to manage their own affairs.

[1:51:13] However, I think when it comes to selling property, which is under the state's really a jurisdiction,

[1:51:21] then I think the state should have the ability to go say iron A on that.

[1:51:24] So if the city is in negotiations with the federal government, let's say, and this is what this bill really is about, right?

[1:51:32] I mean, can they even start negotiations without talking to the governor or talking to some of the state first?

[1:51:37] Is that what you're trying to get at?

[1:51:38] So they can.

[1:51:41] My bill does not talk about the negotiation phase or so on.

[1:51:44] what it says is that you have to get, you know, you have to get the status sign off on it within 30 days and within 30 days of that request.

[1:51:55] If the state does not give any advice at all or says yes within 30 days, then it can go obviously as it was intended.

[1:52:03] It's only if the state effectively goes in and tries to stop it.

[1:52:08] Okay. Thank you.

[1:52:13] Chair, could you give me an instance where you believe that the city immunosuppality of political

[1:52:22] subdivision has sold a piece of its property and somehow the state was affected?

[1:52:28] So, the biggest example is when the city of Waco conveyed essentially Waco mammoth park to the federal

[1:52:35] government. And I think in that case, again, I'm not going into the conversation about whether

[1:52:41] should or should not have done that. What I believe is that the state should have been,

[1:52:48] I guess, consulted before a piece of its property gets ceded to the federal government for 99 plus years.

[1:52:54] A piece of the state's property or a piece of the municipality's property?

[1:52:59] Well, I would point out, I guess my position is that all property within the state is effectively the state's responsibility and make sure that it's managed and so on, so it has an interest in that.

[1:53:16] I mean, on the appraisal district during the assessors, it would put, in that case it was a private, now on the history of it, it was a private land that was given to the city.

[1:53:26] and then so under the preysole district that's listed as the city, and then the city essentially gave that to the federal government.

[1:53:36] And again, that happens often, usually when it comes to post offices and so on.

[1:53:42] So in the case of the city of Dallas, for instance, I guess we have 15 people on the city council, 14 city council members and the mayor.

[1:53:51] And so if those 15 people make a decision that they're going to dispose of a piece of property that belongs to the city of Dallas, then we are going to give one person at the state of Texas the ability to overrule those 15 people who represent the citizens of the state.

[1:54:14] I think, you know, from my perspective, I'm not really sure when it comes to, again, seating state property, which is effectively what that is, that they should have that authority to begin with, because otherwise what would prevent any local municipality from seating large portions of either its land or associated land to the federal government, and my biggest concern with that is that the lease that's usually associated with that or the

[1:54:44] deed or is usually is 99 years or 100 years or longer, and so that's my real concern.

[1:54:52] And so, you cited an incident or a situation in Waco.

[1:55:00] Which I'm not familiar with, but I suppose that there were people or organizations or somebody that has said this was a bad deal. You cited that as a time when perhaps the state should have been consulted. I can't speak to. I believe that since it took a long time, and there was a lot of conversation about that particular piece of land that there were probably people opposed to it.

[1:55:29] But again, I'm not really trying to get into whether that particular item was or was not

[1:55:37] or other items should or should not be, you know, people should be opposed to it or

[1:55:42] not.

[1:55:43] I mean, what I really want to get at is, should a local subdivision give seed property to

[1:55:51] the federal government without the state's involvement?

[1:55:54] Okay. And I guess my final question is if, in fact, you believe that is the governor

[1:56:04] of the proper person to make that decision?

[1:56:08] Well, I mean, I think that's a good question. I think just because we only meet for

[1:56:14] every two years, it was the authority that makes the most sense to be able to relatively

[1:56:20] quickly respond to a request because what I imagine is that these transactions also,

[1:56:26] although the volume is low, they probably don't happen exactly when we're in session.

[1:56:31] Otherwise, I would, but obviously, for that we get involved.

[1:56:34] But given the nature of how those asset sales or those D transfers might happen,

[1:56:42] that it would have to be someone who is both one statewide officer,

[1:56:48] but also someone who is available throughout the year.

[1:56:53] And you say that you think that these situations or infrequent define infrequent?

[1:57:04] Well, so I looked at this, so this is a static picture, but I looked at a static picture

[1:57:09] of, again, the largest counties and we looked through, and I helped look through, the appraisal

[1:57:16] districts for those largest counties to see who are the owners of those properties.

[1:57:21] And then what I did is I looked at, for instance, and I focused only on the ones that were

[1:57:26] owned by the United States of America.

[1:57:29] And after subtracting postal services and military bases, I, there were a few of them.

[1:57:37] And so given, even though that was a static picture, it is probably something that only comes

[1:57:42] up a handful of times each year.

[1:57:44] and full times a year.

[1:57:46] That's my guess at the maximum.

[1:57:47] Again, and now that was before I had done the Department of Defense Exemptions.

[1:57:52] That was something that I didn't have in the original bill.

[1:57:55] And I think that part is the part that happens probably more.

[1:57:58] Okay.

[1:58:00] Well, this is going to sound like a nutty question.

[1:58:02] And it may be, but I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to do

[1:58:05] and the vehicle that you're using to do what you're trying to do.

[1:58:10] So is this sort of what on the other hand, this is the kind of silly question, but I need

[1:58:18] to have you answer this silly question on the other hand, if we came to the state of Texas,

[1:58:26] do we also have the ability to transfer properties to the United States?

[1:58:33] Can I ask you that again?

[1:58:35] I'm not sure.

[1:58:35] Okay. You say cities have municipalities and political subdivision in certain situations have the ability to convey properties to do today.

[1:58:45] Yes. And it would even under my bill. Yes. Yes. Okay. So just because I haven't researched this, I'm asking you to do states also have the ability to convey properties to.

[1:58:58] The state had the ability to do that.

[1:59:03] I would imagine so, right?

[1:59:04] I mean, because the state could, obviously,

[1:59:08] now we had gone through, obviously,

[1:59:10] when Texas was found there was a negotiated agreement back then,

[1:59:15] but I believe there probably is a method to do that.

[1:59:18] And so what this does is it provides a municipality,

[1:59:23] be the current authority to at least be checked by the executive branch.

[1:59:30] Okay, thank you.

[1:59:32] Yes.

[1:59:33] Mr. Chairman.

[1:59:36] I know the city of Austin and Travis County have looked into doing long-term leases to private,

[1:59:41] maybe potentially private developers or private entities.

[1:59:45] And I know this wouldn't affect, I don't think it will affect that, right, the private.

[1:59:50] But what's the difference between doing a long term, maybe even a 50, 99-year lease to

[1:59:56] the private sector versus to the federal government?

[1:59:58] What do you see a difference?

[2:00:00] I think the real reason is when I started doing research on the Intiquities Act and so on, it does provide, there are certain rules that will still remain on private land. When there's a lease of someone, the city and the state still under current law have a lot of not only responsibility, but also a lot of actions they can take on that private property, whether in terms of there's ordinances or on the city level, there's actually state law. It's obviously still part of that physical piece of land.

[2:00:29] However, when you look at, in the case of the Federal Government, it comes in, and then

[2:00:33] is now the effective owner of a piece of land, sometimes the state's rights are surrogated

[2:00:40] to what the Federal Government's laws are, and those, like take, for instance, a national

[2:00:45] park versus state law, take a difference between the Federal and the U.S. post office service,

[2:00:50] for instance, and the rules that they have, under a variety of different things, including,

[2:00:54] let's say, handguns and so on.

[2:00:56] the state's laws don't apply effectively, they're preempted by what is on that property.

[2:01:02] I think that's the fundamental difference between federal land and that's at least for a long time, and private land, that's at least for a long time.

[2:01:09] Thank you.

[2:01:12] Members, any other questions?

[2:01:15] I have a high regard for you, I'm struggling with this one, I'm really going to have to thank through this.

[2:01:21] And even for do this, who should have authority, I'm concerned when a person can make

[2:01:28] make a decision not to do something like this.

[2:01:33] We've got to thank about this one.

[2:01:36] Members, any other questions?

[2:01:38] If not, we'll go ahead and start calling your witnesses.

[2:01:41] Donnelly, Executive Director of Texas Conference of Urban Counties, here to speak against the bill.

[2:01:50] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[2:01:51] My name is Donnelly, Executive Director of the Texas Conference of Urban Counties.

[2:01:55] And I want to first thank Representative Giovanni Staff for spending time with me to discuss

[2:02:01] us this previous to today.

[2:02:05] We have one general objection, and we'd like to bring up two specific situations that

[2:02:10] we think would warrant addressing.

[2:02:13] A general objection, and we agree that this is not a often thing.

[2:02:19] This is not something that happens much.

[2:02:22] In fact, I kind of struggled to go back and find some examples, but I found one, and it was

[2:02:27] was actually one that really brought up one of our specific issues.

[2:02:30] And that was, if you go back into the 1930s when Houston was struggling with significant

[2:02:36] flooding problems along Buffalo Bayou, there was work where the Corps of Engineers came in

[2:02:42] and worked with Harris County to build the Attics Reservoir, Barker Attics Reservoir out

[2:02:49] in the West Harris County.

[2:02:50] There has been so important to controlling flooding in that town.

[2:02:53] And it was a controversial project and there was some NIMBY opposition to what was going on and there was a component of it that involved Harris County had to provide matching resources to the core of engineers and some of those matching resources was providing the core of engineers land.

[2:03:10] And the prospect, this is the more general that our membership is concerned about, is that when something comes up like that,

[2:03:19] And it's a divisive and controversial type project and they go through the process

[2:03:24] of making a difficult decision with public hearings and newspaper editorials and all

[2:03:29] the things that go into big capital projects.

[2:03:32] And they make a decision and then it goes up and it's next.

[2:03:38] And so they've made the decision without, you know, made the decision and, frankly, made

[2:03:44] enemies, right?

[2:03:44] And maybe some friends in the process and yet the whole project now cannot go forward because then and the whole political fight gets fought off in a different level.

[2:03:54] We don't think that makes sense.

[2:03:57] And so we do think if you were going to move forward this bill, you would want to exempt situations where the local government is providing land as part of the matching project together.

[2:04:08] other situation we think of is we dispose of land and often it's through a competitive

[2:04:13] sealed bid process. And if the federal government was to win that process, we wouldn't be

[2:04:18] able to complete it. And we think that ought to be exempted as well when we're putting up

[2:04:25] the land up for a competitive bid, a competitive auction type situation.

[2:04:30] Well, Representative Capricolione said he's working on a substitute, so I assume that you

[2:04:35] and he and other interests as stakeholders can get together and work on these valid.

[2:04:41] Well, they've been most gracious with their time with us before today and we look forward to that conversation.

[2:04:46] Well, they'll continue to be that way.

[2:04:49] Members, any other questions?

[2:04:51] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[2:04:53] Thank you.

[2:04:55] Is anyone else's rest or speak on for against House Bill 999?

[2:05:00] Section 7. Not we'll call on, represent, completely on, to close on, to be all.

[2:05:06] Okay. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for considering House Bill 997 and I close.

[2:05:13] We look forward to working with you. I know what you're trying to accomplish here, so we're going to continue to.

[2:05:20] Because I think there's been, you're probably, we're already aware, but I think there's some really valid issues that are being brought up, and we need to really think through it.

[2:05:29] I'd be happy to work with all the members and the other witnesses.

[2:05:33] Thank you very much.

[2:05:34] This time, Chair's intent to leave House Bill 997 pending.

[2:05:38] Chair ladies out, House Bill 2962, and calls on Representative Capricoli to explain his bill.

[2:05:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.

[2:05:46] Now for something completely different.

[2:05:48] Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

[2:05:51] Today, I'm here to speak to you about House Bill 2962, which is my Medical Transparency Bill,

[2:05:57] which provide more accurate disclosure of abortion complication reporting.

[2:06:01] House bill 2962 would require hospitals, emergency care facilities, and abortion clinics to report quarterly any complication or injury resulting from an abortion as a specific complication of abortion, rather than a general complication of maternal health, which has been the typical practice.

[2:06:19] Current reporting laws apply only to abortion providers and facilities, which then directs patients with complications to report to the emergency room.

[2:06:27] Separating abortion complications from maternal health statistics provides a more accurate

[2:06:31] picture of both maternal health and the after-effects of abortion in Texas.

[2:06:36] This bill would require the Department of State Health Services to develop a form for

[2:06:40] reporting any abortion complication by January 1, 2018 and publish the form on its website.

[2:06:46] Each report must include, if known, the date of abortion, the type of abortion, the gestational

[2:06:52] age of the fetus, the name and type of facility in which the abortion was performed, the date

[2:06:56] the complication was treated, the treating facility, the description of the complication,

[2:07:01] and the number of previous live births and abortions of the patient.

[2:07:04] The information is confidential and may not be released except for statistical purposes,

[2:07:09] providing that a physician, patient, or facility is not identified.

[2:07:13] The Department of State Health Services will publish annually on its website.

[2:07:17] The complication is described on a statewide basis.

[2:07:21] Data-driven medicine is the key to protecting the health and safety of women.

[2:07:25] by accurately identifying and attributing abortion complications to abortion and not maternal health.

[2:07:32] We can determine the strengths and weaknesses in our abortion law,

[2:07:35] responding with appropriate legislation if and when necessary to protect the health and safety of women.

[2:07:41] Legislation that can with the end judicial scrutiny.

[2:07:44] Members, there's a committee substitute to remove doctors and individual health practitioners from the reporting requirement.

[2:07:51] Some health care facilities unlikely to treat-

[2:07:55] Yeah, can I lay that committee substitute?

[2:08:00] Okay, and so I'll talk about the committee substitute.

[2:08:03] And what it does is it removes doctors and

[2:08:05] individual health practitioners from the reporting requirement.

[2:08:08] Some health care facilities unlikely to treat abortion complications have also been removed from the bill.

[2:08:14] And there are no longer any criminal penalties instead of civil violation resulting in a fine of $500 with a possible license revocation on the third strike.

[2:08:22] Last summer, the Supreme Court struck down portions of HB2 saying that we lacked the data demonstrating the need for these regulations.

[2:08:31] We had anecdotal data but lacked empirical data because hospitals and other facilities were not required to report abortion complications apart from maternal health.

[2:08:40] This bill will ensure that in the future we do have the data to support any future legislative or regulatory responses, the state finds necessary to protect the health and safety of women.

[2:08:50] I know I'm talking about the committee's substitute, but I do plan, if we get this on the floor that also have a floor amendment that would address the concerns that some have by allowing the Commissioner Rulemaking Authority to streamline the reports and ensure that we don't have duplication.

[2:09:08] Members, this bill is about transparency, it's about getting information, it's about getting

[2:09:13] information related to a very important topic that does help safety and health of women.

[2:09:18] And we do want to point out that some of these data is already collected, it's by a rule

[2:09:23] this would go and essentially make the law, which would get us the data that we do want, it

[2:09:30] would have more compliance, it would also protect the privacy of the patients, the doctors

[2:09:36] was in the facilities. So, anyway, ready to answer any questions if there are any.

[2:09:45] Thank you, Jim's Chairman. Do you know if a some kind of reporting is currently required

[2:09:52] in current law? So, there's current rule, and it's a rule by DSHS and

[2:10:00] I've gone and I've looked at that form. I don't think a lot of people know that that information has to be filled out. And so what we're doing is it this will hopefully, given the guidance that we would have in a floor amendment that's not here today, we would say, hey, get rid of any duplicate reporting. So that other one, that's not really being filled out replaced with this one. And it is right now. It's a rule within. Okay. And this would put it in statute. It would go and put it into statute.

[2:10:29] And this is about reporting correctly, and they would report this quarterly, there's a difference, right?

[2:10:36] So just the main difference is there's a facility that would report to dishes quarterly, and

[2:10:41] dishes would publish their statewide report on their website annually.

[2:10:44] The latest international classification of diseases, billing codes already have the specific codes.

[2:10:50] You need to identify abortion complications, but they aren't all in compliance because it isn't required by statute.

[2:10:55] There is a rule, not a law,

[2:10:57] according to the hospital's report complications,

[2:10:59] but if you know about it or do it,

[2:11:02] and we do have a resource witness

[2:11:03] from dishes that can probably serve more to them.

[2:11:05] They're really trying to codify what there's a rule

[2:11:07] that you're trying to codify.

[2:11:07] And to try and get that data, because the issue is,

[2:11:10] if you don't have all of the data,

[2:11:11] then it's hard to make a statistical inference

[2:11:13] in terms of what this happened.

[2:11:14] I mean, if you go back and we do want to find out,

[2:11:17] I think we all want to find out if there are complications

[2:11:19] from any procedure that we have the data

[2:11:22] that we'll be able to go and address them.

[2:11:23] Thank you.

[2:11:26] Any other questions?

[2:11:27] No, we'll go ahead and start calling witnesses.

[2:11:29] Kylie Wright, Texas for life and South here to testify for the bill.

[2:11:37] Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair.

[2:11:41] I'm Kylie Wright, the President of Texans for life, and I'm testifying half of Texans for life and myself in favor of the bill.

[2:11:48] Current law requiring abortion complication recording is currently all on the abortion clinics.

[2:11:55] but as Representative Capricleon said that the abortion clinics advise their patients to go straight to the emergency room if there's a complication and said they don't report it and we had two doctors testified during the 83rd session when we were debating hospital-emitting privileges and ASC requirements that testified they were not aware of this dishes rule had no mechanism or form.

[2:12:22] But now we have it in the ICD codes, the billing codes that doctors use, this kind of specificity.

[2:12:31] And so we're able to require this kind of reporting and get the data that we need without being overly burdensome on facilities.

[2:12:41] Dr. Fine, the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast testified also in federal court in 2013 about a higher rate of complications that we're seeing.

[2:12:51] I believe that according to a representative from dishes the average number of complication reports on the form that they currently receive annually is about 30 and we know that from Dr.

[2:13:04] Fein's testimony that it's much higher and also we know from a we in 2013 there was just a dearth of current studies about abortion complications, but there was one released in 2014 that

[2:13:20] that tracked, California's Medicaid abortion patients, and because it paid for the abortions as well as the aftercare, they were able to track complications.

[2:13:33] And that's great, that subset that they tracked was similar in number to the number of abortions we had in the year that we have the most current numbers for.

[2:13:45] their numbers were a little over 54,000, and we had, for instance, in 2014, a little over 53,000.

[2:13:54] And what they found is almost a 2% rate of complications from these women in 2009 and 2010.

[2:14:05] 126 of those were major complications requiring surgery or blood transfusions,

[2:14:10] and a little over a thousand were minor complications.

[2:14:14] We don't know because we don't have that kind of data.

[2:14:18] We can't compare.

[2:14:19] We don't have any way of knowing if abortions are safer or more at risk.

[2:14:25] It's more difficult without the data to even track the hot pockets of your problems

[2:14:30] and for dishes to respond.

[2:14:33] So this would be important data.

[2:14:35] It would better inform our state's legislative approaches as well as our policy and help

[2:14:45] us to defend it if necessary judiciously or otherwise.

[2:14:53] You know, several years ago, someone in my family was diagnosed with a serious and chronic

[2:15:00] And what my mother told me then was good advice for us now, and she said, get all the information before you make any decisions go out and get all the information. And so that's what we're asking for here is that we have a mechanism, a better mechanism for getting all of the information so that we can make better decisions and ensure that we are protecting the health and safety of women who seek abortions in Texas.

[2:15:26] Any questions?

[2:15:28] No questions?

[2:15:30] Thank you.

[2:15:33] Blake Rokap.

[2:15:48] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

[2:15:50] Members of the committee.

[2:15:50] My name is Blake Rokap.

[2:15:51] I'm a legislative council for an area of pro-choice

[2:15:54] Texas and I'm testifying against House Bill 2962.

[2:15:58] We don't have any opposition to reporting requirements generally and better reporting.

[2:16:04] We agree with Representative Capricoli that better reporting and better data can lead to better health outcomes.

[2:16:10] Unfortunately, this bill makes the reporting mechanism worse by defining what is to be reported and who is to report it in ways that are not helpful.

[2:16:23] I was surprised to learn that people believe that there's no obligation for hospitals to report abortion complications.

[2:16:31] DSHS has a form, certainly the members of the Hospital Association and I speak to are well aware of that requirement.

[2:16:38] And if that's not being done, that's a different problem.

[2:16:43] So I'll note a couple of technical issues that I have with the bill, and suggestions

[2:16:48] for ways it could be improved to really get at greater transparency in the data.

[2:16:54] The new definition of abortion complication no longer includes abortions that are self-induced.

[2:17:02] And with the closure of more than half of the licensed clinics in the state of Texas,

[2:17:07] We expect that those complications would be more prevalent and we shouldn't just be capturing the complications that are related to an abortion where a patient actually made it to the clinic, but should capture the whole public health issue,

[2:17:23] to a home maternal public health issue that also involves self-induced abortions.

[2:17:28] And this bill, specific, seems to exclude that, where the current rule does not.

[2:17:33] The current rule includes reporting complications on all abortions.

[2:17:40] The narrowing from the, and the definition of the facilities who are required to make the report an exclusion of medical doctors,

[2:17:49] that while the incidents may not be high in Representative Capricoli and may have a good reason to do that in his substitute,

[2:17:58] that doesn't give us the best data, right?

[2:18:00] If you have your maternal fetal health specialist,

[2:18:05] refers you to a clinic and you have your procedure by a skilled surgeon in that clinic,

[2:18:11] and then you have a complication and you call your original referring physician,

[2:18:16] well, now that physician doesn't have to report the complication.

[2:18:18] So we should be capturing all that data, and I know the TMA doesn't like that because it puts an obligation on their members, but if we're truly going to capture the data, let's do it.

[2:18:27] I mean, let's capture all the data we can.

[2:18:31] So let's not exclude physicians or urgent care facilities where people might seek care from these reporting requirements.

[2:18:40] There is no, I don't quite understand this in the bill, but there's no requirement that the facility that makes the report, that the type of facility making the report is included, it seems to me another important data point would be, where do people go for care if they have a complication?

[2:18:59] That's something that I think the state would want to know, you would want to know as policymakers and the folks who in research would also want to know.

[2:19:05] So

[2:19:07] the quarterly reports and what is reported to the Department of State Health Services also does not require the, or perhaps specifically excludes reporting the name of the physician and says we should only be reporting the name of the licensed facility where the abortion took place.

[2:19:29] If there's a bad doctor out there who's performing unsafe abortions, we all want to know about that.

[2:19:36] We should be reporting that and the Department of State Health Services can refer them to TMB if we see a high rate of complication incidents.

[2:19:45] We shouldn't be hiding that and no one is in favor of that and this bill specifically excludes that and I think it could be better if we were reporting not just the facilities but the physicians as well in our complications reporting.

[2:20:03] There's no limit in this bill to time or geography of the original procedure, which may not be much of a big deal, but if you see a patient, and they say, oh, I had this procedure many years ago, but they have damaged the reproductive organs, it's unclear. Does that get reported? And then also, how is that going to be aggregated in what the Department of State Health Services publishes? You have some duplication in the definition, such that a single complication could be

[2:20:33] be reported multiple times.

[2:20:34] I'll give you an example in the bill, in the first paragraph, and I'm reading from the substitute here,

[2:20:39] which I'm also opposed to intensifying against.

[2:20:42] Number two is uterine perforation, and number ten is damaged to the uterus.

[2:20:47] And I don't know if those have different ICD-9 codes, but if they were both reported,

[2:20:52] you'd have reported two incidents of complication, but it would truly be a single incident.

[2:20:57] So you have a problem where this could lead to inaccurate and inflated reporting.

[2:21:06] I think there are some good things in the substitute.

[2:21:09] Obviously, the removal of criminal penalties for a paperwork issue, we're in favor of doing that.

[2:21:14] It's a good idea to mandate that the agency published this data.

[2:21:18] Some of you may recall we've in the past had difficulty getting data.

[2:21:22] Researchers have difficulty getting data about women's health and

[2:21:26] the access to healthcare because it makes the center and also look bad.

[2:21:30] So it's good that we make the agency publish those numbers.

[2:21:37] I believe that's all the comments I have.

[2:21:39] Thank you for your time.

[2:21:40] Members, any questions?

[2:21:42] Thank you for being here, and thank you for your testimony.

[2:21:44] We'll call Joe Poyman, Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life here to speak for the bill.

[2:21:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members.

[2:21:59] My name is Dr. Joe Poyman, I'm Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life.

[2:22:03] I'm here representing that organization to speak in favor of the bill.

[2:22:07] We believe that the public and the legislature has a right to accurate information about induced abortions in Texas, including complications.

[2:22:16] The Department of State Health Services makes available the report of complications and I have for you the latest report from the Department of State Health Services and if you flip to the back, it has complications that are reported to them, so these are from their website.

[2:22:33] Like, latest year 2015, if you add up the complications, it comes to a total of 25 out of nearly

[2:22:45] 53,000 abortions. So that corresponds to a rate of 0.047 percent. That kind of strikes

[2:22:57] us as possibly low. So we compared that to a very reputable study. I've been told

[2:23:07] it's a gold standard study of complications of abortion, and it was published in 2009,

[2:23:13] obstetrics and gynecology. I have a copy of that for you. It was a study in Finland,

[2:23:23] and

[2:23:27] the American College of Obstetricians and Kind of Colleges. So that study did

[2:23:31] complications in Finland, which is an interesting place to study because for

[2:23:36] several reasons, one, abortions paid for by the state, all abortions there are

[2:23:41] done in hospitals, all abortions in hospitals, and the women are tracked in the

[2:23:47] system so that if they present later in a hospital, they're going to show up in

[2:23:53] the health registry. So the complications rate of abortions in this study, the way it breaks

[2:24:02] down is for medical, in other words drug induced abortions, a 20% complication rate, and for surgical

[2:24:10] abortions, 5.7% complication rate. So in their study of about 22,000 drug induced abortions,

[2:24:19] is that corresponds to 4,400 some complications.

[2:24:25] And for surgical abortions, that was more than 20,000 abortions.

[2:24:28] That corresponds to more than 1,000 complications from the surgical abortions.

[2:24:33] Again, you compare that what the Department of State Health Services has reported,

[2:24:37] because this is reported to them by the abortion providers, only 25.

[2:24:43] So I think this indicates that there's a need for a better mechanism for getting data.

[2:24:49] I think this bill will accomplish that to a very large extent, and we strongly support this bill.

[2:24:54] All members,

[2:24:58] any questions?

[2:25:00] No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:25:06] Julie Chicoigne,

[2:25:09] come on to Senior General Counsel, Texas Hospital Association. Yes.

[2:25:20] Go ahead. My name is Julie Shaquan. I'm the General Counsel. Very close. On behalf of the Texas Hospital Association, which is neutral regarding House Bill 2962, but seeks to offer testimony regarding House Bill 2962. As you know, we represent more than

[2:25:38] And 450 Texas hospitals around the state, and in evaluating this bill, we are concerned that it creates unnecessary regulatory burden.

[2:25:48] We've looked at the fact that there are currently four other reforms that require the same or similar information.

[2:25:56] And so being practical folks, and mindful of the fact that this information is already needing to be collected,

[2:26:04] that there might be an opportunity to simplify things.

[2:26:09] And so we appreciate the amendment recommended or suggested by the representative.

[2:26:15] Towards that end, we would also suggest and

[2:26:18] welcome the opportunity for the Department of State Health Services to convene a work group that would include hospitals and physicians and the Department of State Health Services to simplify all of these forms and consolidate them in a metric that meets everybody's needs.

[2:26:34] Okay, remember any questions?

[2:26:36] No questions, thank you for being here for your testimony.

[2:26:39] Jennifer Olamin,

[2:26:42] Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, here to speak for the bill.

[2:26:49] Sorry, I've got a throat issue today.

[2:26:52] I'm Jennifer Olamin and I'm the executive director of a Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops.

[2:26:55] And we do support the bill.

[2:26:57] As you've heard from other witnesses, the intention and goal of the bill is to gather accurate and transparent data.

[2:27:02] There have been a couple of comments making questions about why is this needed if there's already reporting going on.

[2:27:07] And we think that there's kind of a loophole in the current reporting because it doesn't require the greatest level of specificity.

[2:27:13] So while they might be reporting that there's a uterine perforation, we don't necessarily know that the uterine perforation is connected to an abortion and where that abortion took place.

[2:27:24] And so this reporting gets that specificity using the new ICD-10 codes which helps us to have more accurate data.

[2:27:31] And so we appreciate Representative Capricoli-owned filing the bill and working with hospitals and others involved to get accurate data without adding extra burdens and extra reporting systems.

[2:27:41] We support the idea of streamlining the reporting to use existing mechanisms and systems, but to get the accurate code and

[2:27:48] complication data in the existing reporting mechanisms.

[2:27:52] Members, any questions?

[2:27:54] Thank you, Jennifer.

[2:27:55] Thank you.

[2:27:59] Is there anybody else here that we speak on for against House Bill 2962?

[2:28:05] Not we'll call on the representative,

[2:28:08] completely on the close on his bill.

[2:28:10] Great.

[2:28:11] Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members.

[2:28:13] I just wanted to address maybe a couple of points that have come up from a previous witness.

[2:28:18] In terms of whether the facility type was included or the date and so on.

[2:28:24] And so I just wanted to and I know I speak quickly, so maybe I'll just go slower.

[2:28:29] The types of information that will be required is the date of the abortion.

[2:28:33] Obviously, you'll know the date that it is, so you'll be able to see how long ago that abortion occurred.

[2:28:38] The type of abortion, the gestational age of the fetus, the name and type of facility in which the abortion was performed, so that information would in fact be there.

[2:28:48] The date the complication was treated, the treating facility, the description of the complication, and the number of previous live births and abortions of the patients.

[2:28:57] The ultimate goal of this bill is quite frankly and just simply to go and get the information so that we can make positive policy decisions based upon that data.

[2:29:07] Sounds like everybody that came here was willing to give us good ideas on how we could improve the bill.

[2:29:12] Be more than happy to include additional items inside the bill.

[2:29:17] I know obviously some positions would not like to have that information probably disclosed, but it sounds like some facilities might.

[2:29:25] And so I would probably think about adding that option in there as an amendment that being said.

[2:29:32] I don't know if there are any other questions.

[2:29:33] Members, any questions?

[2:29:35] Bill Poisson.

[2:29:36] Thank you very much.

[2:29:37] Thank you Mr. Chair.

[2:29:37] I wish you this time of chair with your office committee substitute to House Bill 2962.

[2:29:42] It's a chair's intent to leave House Bill 2962 pending.

[2:29:46] Members, we have a couple of bills that just have one witness and guys have been here for quite some time.

[2:29:50] And then we got one with eight.

[2:29:52] So what we're going to do is go ahead and take up a House Bill.

[2:29:54] of 1522 by Representative White.

[2:29:57] General White.

[2:29:59] Thank you very much.

[2:30:00] Mr. Chairman, vice chairman and rest of the committee members. Just got a short bill here. Don't think it's very controversial, but I guess we'll see about that. Chairman and members House Bill 1522 seeks to create a task force that focuses on strengthening parent engagement with their children. The task force will bring together the commissioners from the Department of Family Services, Texas Education Agency, the directors of Texas Workforce Commission.

[2:30:30] TDCJ, TJJD, and the Attorney General's Child Support Division.

[2:30:34] A representative from the County Juvenile Board or probation, a representative from a faith-based organization and two parent stakeholders will also join the task force under the leadership of an executive director.

[2:30:46] The purpose of the task force, Mr. Chairman, is to coordinate between parents and agencies that provide services to our Texas youth.

[2:30:53] Group, the group will compile best practices and provide Texas, Texas parents and others,

[2:30:59] the resources they need to nurture the next generation of outstanding Texans.

[2:31:04] The difference, Mr. Chairman, between the original and the-

[2:31:10] Well, you have a different laid one.

[2:31:11] Okay, understand.

[2:31:13] So-

[2:31:14] You can talk about what it would do.

[2:31:16] Okay, yes, a sub would just do two minor things.

[2:31:21] Obviously, it adds in that A.G. child support division representative, and we want to make sure we have someone from the parent community that had some intersection with some of these issues on that committee, sir.

[2:31:35] And I respectfully preserve the right to close very quickly.

[2:31:43] Hello,

[2:31:54] my name is Kelly O'Quinn. I am here representing Children at Risk for Houseville

[2:31:59] 1522. Chairman Cook and committee members, thank you again for the opportunity to be

[2:32:03] here today and speak with you about this. It's very clear that the state of Texas values

[2:32:08] the important role of parenting. Through our research, we know that parents are vital to

[2:32:12] their children's well-being and long-term success. For this reason, I come in support of House

[2:32:18] which one to give a special thank you to Chairman White and Representative Allen for their support and dedication to this bill.

[2:32:25] Currently, there are six key agencies that invest public dollars in parents through either parent education programs or family engagement activities.

[2:32:33] The Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Education Agency, the Department of Family and Protective Services, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Texas Criminal Justice Department, and the OAG.

[2:32:44] These agencies work to support both mothers and fathers as they work to become better parents.

[2:32:51] However, there's little understanding about how parents are being engaged or educated when they interact with multiple agencies.

[2:32:57] For example, if a child is in the CPS system and a family is trying to keep that child in school, what a line supports are offered or if a parent is in jail,

[2:33:06] The other parent is receiving TWC Workforce and Child Care

[2:33:09] supports and another child is in a Title I school.

[2:33:14] What supports for those families are aligned or other

[2:33:17] opportunities that are being missed to best support those families?

[2:33:20] Or another example, if there's a non-custodial parent that is

[2:33:23] receiving a parent education program through the OAG funded

[2:33:26] programs and their child is in the justice system, what kind of

[2:33:30] supports are there to help that parent effectively engage in their

[2:33:32] child's rehabilitative process?

[2:33:34] Yes, currently there's little coordination and communication between these agencies with

[2:33:39] regards to parent education and family engagement.

[2:33:41] These questions cannot be easily answered.

[2:33:44] So for this reason, we come in support of creating a task force, composed of agency leadership.

[2:33:49] The task force would work to increase communication and alignment of resources, activities and strategies

[2:33:54] through which the state can maximize current investment and benefit more Texas families and children.

[2:33:59] Specifically, they would be tasked with identifying gaps in services, identifying opportunities

[2:34:03] for partnership and alignment, strategizing on how to best allocate dollars and resources,

[2:34:08] and developing clear recommendations for how they can coordinate their work to best support and engage parents.

[2:34:13] The task force and care is no fiscal note, would make valuable recommendations for

[2:34:17] the state and local communities and sunsets in 2019.

[2:34:20] Again, thank you, Chairman Cook, and committee, for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[2:34:24] Members, any questions?

[2:34:26] No questions?

[2:34:27] Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes?

[2:34:28] this restry to speak on for against House Bill 1522.

[2:34:33] I will call on Chairman White to close on his bill.

[2:34:36] Mr. Chairman, members, if you don't have anything else for me, I'll close.

[2:34:39] All right, this time's Chair's intent to leave House Bill 1522 pending.

[2:34:44] Chair, ladies out, House Bill 1554, and calls on Chairman Zono to leave House Bill.

[2:35:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I have a committee substitute. We'll just, we'll do that later. Okay. You got it, sir. Okay, House Bill 1554 members relates to the smuggling of persons. This purpose of this bill is to discuss a problem in South Texas that affects the safety of our communities. And to go after the human smugglers known as Goyotes, that largely prey on immigrants. This is not an immigration bill.

[2:35:34] So this is actually a humanitarian bill, our district attorney in my district will testify that document the problem that's going on in South Texas, where dead bodies are often found.

[2:35:51] And in 2012 alone in one of our neighboring counties, 134 bodies were found, we must empower our law enforcement to go after the royalties.

[2:36:01] This bill works by changing the requirements for seeking second and third degree felonies

[2:36:07] against these criminals.

[2:36:08] The first thing this bill does is to broaden the ability to seek a third degree felony

[2:36:13] by removing the requirement to prove a pecuniary benefit.

[2:36:18] And it adds trespassing on agricultural lands without the consent of landowners.

[2:36:23] The reason for this is so that our district attorneys can seek charges against the coyotes.

[2:36:28] is often times the victims are unable to be material witnesses.

[2:36:34] They are often immediately taken to detention center or federal facility by immigration,

[2:36:40] because many counties don't have the jail space or the funds to hold them.

[2:36:45] As a result, victims are not available to be witnesses.

[2:36:49] Almost impossible to prove pecuniary benefit.

[2:36:52] It is often the case that the coyotes have threatened the victims,

[2:36:55] or their families, or even promise them to bring them over a second time if they stay quiet.

[2:37:02] The second provision adds the trespassing clause, which is important because many instances

[2:37:06] of human smuggling occurs on large ranches in sub-Texas in the brush country.

[2:37:12] Additionally, this will change as a requirement to seek a second degree felony, if any of

[2:37:17] the above criteria are met and there is proof of pecuniary benefit and the coyote no only possesses

[2:37:23] of firearm. And so it allows the DAs if they can't prove a pecuniary benefit because there's no

[2:37:28] material witness to still go under after them under a third degree felony and that they can

[2:37:33] prove a pecuniary benefit they can go after them on the second degree felony.

[2:37:39] I believe I have our district attorney here to testify and maybe other witnesses but with that

[2:37:43] members I'm ready to answer questions. No questions. We'll go ahead and call your thank you

[2:37:49] Let's reserve the right to close.

[2:37:51] John Hewert, District Attorney, Cleaver, Kennedy counties, here to speak for the bill.

[2:37:57] Good afternoon, sir.

[2:37:59] Good afternoon, sir.

[2:38:00] I thank you very much for hearing me today.

[2:38:03] I share, of course, a representative of the Lozano and a representative of Giants, an area.

[2:38:10] This bill is yet another tool that will give us the ability to go after the coyotes.

[2:38:15] This, the coyotes are renowned for, I don't have a better word than others say, merciless

[2:38:23] and horrible behavior towards the people that they're transporting.

[2:38:29] In these areas, such as agricultural land, such as in Kennedy County, we have vast areas

[2:38:34] of land with no above ground water.

[2:38:37] The people that they transport often are not prepared for this long trek and if they fall behind

[2:38:41] they're left behind. Often they're all young women are victims of sexual assault. We know that

[2:38:48] for a fact, we've got confessions from several and we've even been able to prosecute one case

[2:38:53] that actually was very expensive for us to do but we were able to get our victim and bring her in

[2:38:59] and hold her in the United States. But all of these cases are extremely, extremely expensive to

[2:39:05] prosecute, expensive to keep our witnesses there, but something's got to be done because

[2:39:10] in these vast tracts of land, when they're left behind, there is no brown water, there

[2:39:15] is no route out, there is no help for the people in many areas, there's no, there's not

[2:39:19] even cell phone coverage, but no help is seek to them.

[2:39:23] What I brought with me today and I just made a duplicate of 18 files, these files are pictures

[2:39:31] and situations from Kennedy County where 18 bodies or pieces of bodies were found in the brush.

[2:39:39] These were human beings and we got to do something to prevent this type of behavior.

[2:39:45] The bill does not, again, it's not an immigration bill, that's not our job as a district attorney.

[2:39:52] Our job is to seek out bad people and try to prevent them from continuing to do bad things.

[2:39:57] This also protects landowners.

[2:40:00] Because what we have is we have people living in rural areas that will have a group of 10, 11 people come by their house, and it scares them. And if you're like me and you have two small kids and you're out there and you have a big group of people come by, they may be good, they may be bad, you don't know. But the problem is all you have is a class A misdemeanor for criminal trespassing. This way we can go after the coyote, after the guide, and if they carry a gun with them, that would, of course, increase our security to prevent them from carrying

[2:40:29] but if they do have a gun, then we can heighten the punishment.

[2:40:33] So I would strongly support this bill.

[2:40:35] I can answer any questions you may have at this time,

[2:40:37] but it's very important that we have yet another tool

[2:40:40] to go after these guys.

[2:40:43] So it's your testimony that this is going to be an effective tool?

[2:40:48] Yes or I believe it's yet, it won't be a silver bullet.

[2:40:51] There is no silver bullet.

[2:40:52] There is no one thing that's going to stop it.

[2:40:54] But right now we have a hard time,

[2:40:56] again, proving pecuniary benefit

[2:40:58] it because what happens is the victims, they don't want to talk about the guys that are

[2:41:02] so mean to them because they're afraid that they're going to hurt them because they will

[2:41:06] be held in custody by the U.S. for a while.

[2:41:09] They don't want to say anything bad about the bad guy because the bad guy has reached back

[2:41:14] into their own country and can take it out on their families.

[2:41:17] They don't want to say anything bad about that guy because they probably saved up for six

[2:41:21] months a year or two years to make this trip and they don't have the money to spend it back

[2:41:25] back to spend it again or to save up again and sometimes, sometimes not all the time,

[2:41:30] the guy will give them a cut rate deal on the second or third trip.

[2:41:34] There's all sorts of reasons for them not to want to testify against the guy.

[2:41:38] Even when they've been sexually assaulted or assaulted or intimidated, it's a problem.

[2:41:45] What you can do about, do you have financial resources to prosecute?

[2:41:51] That seems like that's a big challenge for you.

[2:41:53] It's a huge challenge, keeping the victims local is,

[2:42:00] it's a problem because what do we do?

[2:42:02] Do we take these victims and then we keep them at a jail cell for, you know, two months,

[2:42:07] three months, four months, five months, six months, while we have them waiting to testify,

[2:42:10] as opposed to a federal detention facility, do we have, who do we keep, do we keep everybody,

[2:42:16] do we just keep some, do we take a chance, it's a huge cost, it's a huge financial.

[2:42:21] So, what happens is, often by the time we get the case, the feds have already deported

[2:42:26] them or they're through another process or through another state.

[2:42:29] I know in one case, in this last case, with the sexual assault, we actually used my credit

[2:42:34] card to fly witness and the victim back into Texas from the Northeast.

[2:42:41] And I was reimbursed, but you always kind of worry about that.

[2:42:45] But it's that important to us.

[2:42:47] Representative Guyana, I'm sure, he wants his people to be secure and he doesn't want

[2:42:51] anybody hurt out there.

[2:42:53] I know that Representative Luzano, that's one of the key priorities that people live in

[2:43:01] those neighborhoods, or not, say neighborhoods, and those communities feel safe and secure

[2:43:06] and we don't have 18 files up here next year.

[2:43:11] Maybe we can cut it down to 10, if we can cut it down by 8 people.

[2:43:15] I'd be happy.

[2:43:17] Thank you, members, any questions?

[2:43:20] No questions?

[2:43:21] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[2:43:22] Does anybody else here that's a rest your speak on for against a House Bill 1554?

[2:43:28] If not, we'll call on Chairman Zonow to close on his bill.

[2:43:32] Thank you.

[2:43:33] Chairman, I close.

[2:43:34] Unless you have any questions.

[2:43:35] Mr. Chair, I intend to leave House Bill 1554 pending.

[2:43:38] Thank you very much.

[2:43:39] Thank you, Chairman.

[2:43:40] Chair lays out House bill 770 and calls on where Davis to lay out a bill.

[2:43:50] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, I appreciate an opportunity to lay on HV770.

[2:43:57] What I'd like to say is our jobs bill, we've tried to pass for the last few sessions,

[2:44:02] actually passed it a couple of times, and your committee is supporting the pass for some of the new members.

[2:44:07] Of course, this is a bill to help us create an environment where we take care of Americans

[2:44:13] first, make sure that we create as many jobs as we can, retain as many jobs as we can,

[2:44:20] and restore the American prominence that we'd like to buy America first.

[2:44:25] I will tell you that since this bill's been laid out, I've been contacted by a couple of

[2:44:31] folks in that it's going to increase cost to consider buying or using American products,

[2:44:39] buying American products, and we're going to review for their getting this information

[2:44:44] because it makes no sense to me that if you plan to do a project and you buy an American

[2:44:52] that it automatically increases the cost of a project to have the goods come from Americans.

[2:44:59] Today, there are many-

[2:45:00] The other states who have bi-americal preference provisions, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,

[2:45:08] Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,

[2:45:16] North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia, and West

[2:45:21] And I'm sure that this was something they did to help retain jobs in their states and try to make sure that they strengthen their dollar in their various communities.

[2:45:32] So, again, all for HB770 that allows us to give preference and consideration for buying products that are made in America.

[2:45:41] Now, it suggested their exceptions when we increase the cost of the project, or good that we're buying a Zata line.

[2:45:49] in order if there's a superior product that we don't have available here in the U.S.

[2:45:54] that we have exceptions so that we don't undermine the integrity of the original plans and products of what they're trying to do.

[2:46:01] But we see this as an opportunity to reinvest in our communities, reinvest in our state and reinvest in America.

[2:46:08] And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:46:11] Thank you very much. Members, we have any questions? No questions? We'll go ahead and start calling.

[2:46:16] Thank you.

[2:46:16] I appreciate it. I'd like to close if you got it.

[2:46:21] Steve Brezen, North Harris County Regional Water Authority, here's speak neutrally on the bill.

[2:46:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. My name's Steve Brezen, and I'm here representing the North Harris County Regional Water Authority.

[2:46:33] And we are neutral on the bill, but we do have some concerns.

[2:46:39] Just to orient you, the North Harris County Regional Water Authority has about 660,000 people in it.

[2:46:46] today's an extremely fast-growing area that runs from just on the west side of the city

[2:46:51] of Umball around to 90 across the northern area of Harris County. In combination with

[2:46:59] several other water authorities in the city of Houston, we're in the process of constructing

[2:47:03] a giant water system that will ultimately cost several billion dollars that's predominantly

[2:47:11] certainly almost overwhelmingly funded through the water financing programs at the Water

[2:47:17] Development Board.

[2:47:18] But all of those things, all of those loans are going to be paid back and they're going

[2:47:21] to be paid back through water rates and the costs that your local citizenry and business

[2:47:27] are going to pay in that area.

[2:47:30] The reason that we're neutral on the bill and the concern that we have is that it's not

[2:47:36] Not immediately clear that this particular chapter does or doesn't affect these water projects or projects that are financed through the water development board.

[2:47:47] My personal belief is the statute probably doesn't apply.

[2:47:52] But if you look at the relating clause on the bill, it talks about state-aided projects in there.

[2:48:00] And the underlined language in the bill is starting to use the word governmental entity where that's not used in the statute now.

[2:48:07] And if you look at the fiscal note, there's a reference to potential costs for local governments.

[2:48:12] So all of that's raising a concern as to whether this particular chapter only affects state projects where you're actually doing the spending rather than projects that might be funded through the programs of the Water Development Board.

[2:48:24] So we would request your consideration as the process goes on that that be clarified in this statute and this particular provision does not apply to the programs that are being financed through the water development board and that are really the projects of the government.

[2:48:42] I know we're well and we spoke about this earlier today.

[2:48:45] I think we could. I told her we had no intention of hurting her bill.

[2:48:49] Okay, okay, members any questions we know better. Okay, thank you all

[2:48:57] Derwin Royal

[2:49:01] United Steel workers and self here to

[2:49:05] Speak far the bill. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Derwin Royal

[2:49:11] I'm speak for United Steel workers and myself. I work at Longstarsdale. It's a plant in North East Texas

[2:49:19] back in the heyday in the 80s and my father worked there was about 8,000 people

[2:49:22] were meaning we weren't working that plant and I'm also the president of the local

[2:49:26] there and back in February I've Newton the USDA of auditors I should say in 2007

[2:49:32] and it was about 2,000 of us that year and in 2009 we had another little layoff and

[2:49:39] come back up as 956 of us and I just got through negotiating with the company

[2:49:43] at the end of this year we'll have 300 members left at the plant and the

[2:49:49] foreign steel as well as killing us you know that's why I'm right here back in

[2:49:53] this bill my little my plant's like the heart and soul was about eight little

[2:49:58] towns in the area linden

[2:50:00] New Springs, Naples, Omaha, Dangerfield, Avenger, all those towns, about 1500 people, but most of those people working that plan. And if you pull that plan out, just like pulling the heart out of the body, just kills that whole area. I can't see anything wrong with anybody want by America. You know, I was going to hurt us and do over help us. You know, I was in McDonald's the other morning pulling. We've got a layoff. We're starting to call back to people now. I got about 156 people back to the plant now. And the late McDonald's asked me, you guys,

[2:50:29] That's going to start back up.

[2:50:30] I said, yeah, we're going to ready to crank back up a little bit.

[2:50:32] She said, good, it's going to not business is dying.

[2:50:34] I need you guys back to work.

[2:50:38] So that's about all I got to say and questions for me.

[2:50:41] Anything?

[2:50:43] Oh, yes.

[2:50:44] Go ahead.

[2:50:44] Thank you for being here today.

[2:50:46] Where do you live?

[2:50:47] I live in Houston Springs.

[2:50:47] Houston Springs, all right.

[2:50:49] One of my constituents said.

[2:50:50] Yes, sir.

[2:50:50] Thanks for being here today.

[2:50:52] Yes, sir.

[2:50:52] My wife's grandfather worked there for many, many, many years.

[2:50:57] he died about going to the, you know, and blow every, you know,

[2:51:02] dynamite out to the deal. He did that. So anyway, I'm very

[2:51:06] familiar with that plan. It used to it back when they said,

[2:51:09] I can't even eight down here. It's on or plan. Did everything

[2:51:12] made on still did all that.

[2:51:14] The whole bit. You sure? Thanks for being here. Have a safe

[2:51:17] drive home. Yes, sir.

[2:51:19] 35. And he'll be a lot better off. So I'll appreciate your

[2:51:22] time. Rick Levy, Texas AFL CIO.

[2:51:27] Is Rick here?

[2:51:30] We'll show Rick for the bill not testifying

[2:51:34] Travis Josie

[2:51:41] USW and self

[2:51:42] For the bill. That is correct. I am for the bill. I USW and for myself

[2:51:48] I'm located in Deer Park, but I need you to tell me your name. Oh, Travis Josie. You got it. Thank you

[2:51:53] I actually was out at suburb of Houston, Deer Park. I work for Hexion

[2:51:58] where I previously worked was a Sun Edison MDMC. They actually last year laid off

[2:52:05] 180 people due to the fact of actually being ordered to get the 52% tariffs

[2:52:12] overseas was a cut. Actually more home where I'm at now my sister company just laid

[2:52:19] off 100 people. CEO come out with a letter basically stating it was due to the fact

[2:52:26] I like to think you get ECH oversees it a lot cheaper.

[2:52:29] What we make is actually resins so in this bill for government things and entities along

[2:52:36] those lines is this goes into the coding of piping paints, everything along those lines

[2:52:42] that we make.

[2:52:43] So for me and my family, keeping jobs and buying America is something that's very important

[2:52:48] to me.

[2:52:50] Do you have any questions?

[2:52:54] Members, any questions?

[2:52:56] Thank you very much for being here and for your testimony.

[2:52:59] David Beard.

[2:53:00] Thank you.

[2:53:01] Thank you.

[2:53:01] CLC President Texas, AFLCIO here to testify for the bill.

[2:53:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee.

[2:53:15] I'm from up there in North East Texas myself.

[2:53:17] I'm in Redwater, Texas.

[2:53:19] That's up near Texas, Canada, for some that may not know me.

[2:53:22] I got to have your name for the record.

[2:53:23] Oh, David Beard.

[2:53:25] Okay.

[2:53:26] Vice President of the Texas AFL-CO District I and President of the Central Labor Council in Texas, Canada.

[2:53:35] Well, we've got your Texas AFL-CIO District I,

[2:53:39] Vice President and South here, testifying for the bill.

[2:53:43] For the bill, as well as for myself.

[2:53:46] I work at a plant on the Arkansas side, it's Cooper Tyrum rubber company.

[2:53:50] The hires will over 700 Texans, so we've been fighting for years now trying to just keep

[2:54:00] that plan open.

[2:54:03] Back in old seven, we renegotiated a contract, and now we've got two tear wages, where

[2:54:09] if a guy gets hard off the street, he gets 70% starting out of what I'd be making.

[2:54:16] We've had to renegotiate a lot of the benefits in order to get this plant going because of trade from China, trade from India, and this is ongoing fight.

[2:54:29] In Tyler Texas, there used to be a plan, it's a good year plan, it employed about a thousand

[2:54:34] seventy four employees that planned shut down with this morning, I took the time to contact

[2:54:40] Jennifer Pittman to the city manager's office.

[2:54:43] Just curious about the economic impact of this plan there in Tyler Texas, and remember this

[2:54:50] is just Tyler Texas, we're not talking about all the other little towns in the area, a thousand

[2:54:57] 75 employees at Good Year Plant.

[2:55:00] The payroll per year is $70.1 million, $70.1 million, with medical and other benefits to the

[2:55:11] employees of this plant, it's $16.8 million. The local purchases of materials, like say,

[2:55:19] if you got, if we have a machinery in the plant and we just don't, we have to have it

[2:55:25] specially made. And we may have to get a machine shop in the area or somebody like that to

[2:55:30] fix it or or have a plumbing come out fix our plumbing electrical whatever the case may be

[2:55:37] the this company paid on a year on an average is $800,000 and water and electric alone is 14.9

[2:55:49] million dollars a year now remember this plant's closed this plant's closed in economic activities

[2:55:57] supporting the economy there. $948 million. $948 million. Remember, this is just

[2:56:07] Tyler Texas. We're not talking about any other towns around the area. This

[2:56:12] plant supported 202,498 jobs with a payroll of $161 million. Now when this plant

[2:56:20] shut down that's two hundred two thousand four hundred and ninety eight jobs

[2:56:25] gone. Tyler Texas alone. We're not talking about any other area. Now you put in

[2:56:31] long view and all the other areas that people actually drove to Tyler Texas go to

[2:56:35] work. There's a lot more at stake here but the one thing I want you to to

[2:56:40] concentrate on is nine hundred forty eight million dollars in support of the

[2:56:45] economy, $948 million that takes me back to my plan. If Cooper tire every shot down in

[2:56:54] Texas or Canada, we've got 1,500 early employees and that's not talking about the other 425

[2:57:02] support staff, supervisors, office workers, and what have you. You're not counting them

[2:57:08] either. It's a much bigger plan and now if it's $948 million in Tyler, Texas, imagine the

[2:57:15] the impact it's going to have in Texas, Redwater Texas, Atlanta Texas, all the surrounding

[2:57:23] areas.

[2:57:25] When you buy American, when you purchase American with American tax dollars, understand

[2:57:30] that's what this bill is about, American tax dollars.

[2:57:34] When you support a plant like lead medallys, when you bind that steel, when you bind that pipe,

[2:57:41] when it goes into water, when it's put in our oil, let me tell you what it's doing.

[2:57:45] It's keeping these plants open, it's keeping the tax dollars flowing.

[2:57:49] When we shut down a plan, good year plan, what you're doing is you're taking tax dollars

[2:57:56] out of this economy, you're taking tax dollars.

[2:58:00] You can't find enough jobs in small business to replace a thousand seventy four jobs that

[2:58:07] pay that kind of money, that gives that kind of benefits.

[2:58:11] We have to be thinking about what's best for Texas.

[2:58:15] Now we have a president ran.

[2:58:17] Let's make America great again.

[2:58:18] Bring jobs back.

[2:58:20] Well, look, guess what?

[2:58:21] Texas has a chance to leave that charge.

[2:58:24] And by gosh, let's do it.

[2:58:25] Thank you very much for your test.

[2:58:27] Thank you.

[2:58:27] Is there any more questions?

[2:58:29] Any questions?

[2:58:30] No questions.

[2:58:32] All right.

[2:58:32] Perry Fowler.

[2:58:33] Texas Water Infrastructure.

[2:58:35] It's networking staff here to speak against the bill.

[2:58:38] Thank

[2:58:42] you Mr. Chairman, committee members and appreciate your time here today.

[2:58:46] I'm Perry Feller on the executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network who represent contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, manufacturers, law firms, none of those that are involved in water construction projects here in the state of Texas.

[2:58:59] I'll try to be brief here, industry and public owners experience with these types of requirements have been that there are costly cumbersome and failed to acknowledge supply chains and manufacturing processes.

[2:59:10] We have particular issues with the application of these requirements and content tests as

[2:59:15] they apply to manufactured goods such as complex mechanical and electrical systems such

[2:59:20] as those incorporated into water and wastewater treatment plants.

[2:59:23] For example, current state laws as it applies to the Texas Water Development Board funded projects

[2:59:28] lacks the clarity and flexibility that we presently have under stated ministered federal assistance,

[2:59:34] which would be the EPS or F program.

[2:59:36] Federal long guidelines are very specific and you've evolved to provide flexibility and

[2:59:41] address any concerns that have been raised since the advent of the Recovery Act or stimulus

[2:59:45] legislation that was passed by Congress under the former administration.

[2:59:50] As these policies have persisted, we have seen improvements with regard to these federal

[2:59:54] programs which don't necessarily impact cost factors, but waivers have been available

[3:00:00] Local and certain exclusions and applicability has changed to improve processes and promote compliance. Again, over the years, rules for federal programs have become more clear and discretionary waiver authority, and more specific applications, certain goods has evolved to recognize concerns of industry, including domestic manufacturers who typically oppose these types of policies, with standing the iron steel and pipe industry. When you artificially impact the construction design and procurement process, there are associated costs, unintended consequences,

[3:00:29] and liability and supply chain issues that can be negative.

[3:00:33] And I want to be very clear that we understand many of the issues that are driving these types

[3:00:36] of policies.

[3:00:37] We don't begrudge the RN steel or pipe industry for supporting such measures.

[3:00:42] And the reasons for promoting such policies, we understand that.

[3:00:45] But we have had negative experience with some of these policies specifically as they apply

[3:00:49] to manufactured goods.

[3:00:51] We think that there is a financial benefit when all levels of the playing field are level

[3:00:55] and when competition is promoted,

[3:00:58] and we would not have strong objections to these requirements.

[3:01:00] If they were specifically limited to things

[3:01:02] such as pipe structural steel,

[3:01:04] and particularly if it was limited to carbon steel,

[3:01:07] we have very significant issues with specialty metal sometimes.

[3:01:10] We want to see healthy domestic industries,

[3:01:12] and right now the activity level in our industries is very high.

[3:01:15] And my member contractors, suppliers, manufacturers,

[3:01:17] and others want to be able to compete in a fair and reasonable

[3:01:20] and efficient environment.

[3:01:22] And if it's the will of the legislature

[3:01:23] And there's consensus by this committee in the body that, if there are potential costs associated with these policies,

[3:01:29] they're not significant, or the state approves of paying for that, then that's fine.

[3:01:34] But again, as these policies specifically relate to manufactured goods, specifically instrumentation systems and equipment that goes into water treatment plants, that's where we have an issue.

[3:01:44] Mr. Fowler, why don't you do this?

[3:01:46] Why don't you get with Representative Davis about this?

[3:01:49] Because I think she even referenced that there's some specially items that she knows she'd had to carve out.

[3:01:55] So I'd really encourage you, as I encourage Mr. Breslin, to sit down and let's go through the issues and see if we can't find some common grounds.

[3:02:05] Yes, sir. And I'd like to do that.

[3:02:06] And I think that part of the issue that we've had specifically with regard to the water board and the different federal and state requirements has been that there's a lack of process with regard to how the stated ministers things.

[3:02:16] there's a lack of specificity and flexibility there also and again over time to the EPA program

[3:02:23] the stated ministers become very clear what applies and what doesn't and there's a process

[3:02:28] to do that and we're happy to work with with with the representative or anyone for that

[3:02:32] matter. You know we've been dealing with these issues now for for some time and I feel like

[3:02:37] we have a legitimate reason to be concerned about them and we want to be able to work the

[3:02:40] legislature to do something reasonable.

[3:02:42] Bring a valid but very valid points it need to be thrown out so thank you

[3:02:47] And and just just as a reminder for the record make sure I got you

[3:02:51] That you so if you just go through state your name and who you're representing your position where I haven't missed

[3:02:58] Yes, sir Perry Fowler executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network and presently we are opposed to this legislation

[3:03:05] And you also represent yourself and I also represent myself as a construction industry expert

[3:03:08] I've dealt with this policy on the national level also

[3:03:11] Okay, I've got you down now. Thank you very much and I appreciate your time and we're not trying to set anybody here

[3:03:17] But we feel like we should know what because there's always you know unintended consequences. Yes, sir

[3:03:22] We need to think this through and we need to move we need to make sure people have water so absolutely

[3:03:27] It's very important if you'll get with representative Davis. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir

[3:03:31] We look forward to working with everyone in the committee. Thank you. Thornton Maddley United still workers

[3:03:37] Okay,

[3:03:46] thank you. Yes, sir. Go ahead. I'm leaving medley with you wait a second. You know, here's it. Here's the deal. We gotta do all this right

[3:03:54] So you're you're signed in as Thornton. So Thornton Lee, Medley, Jr. My dad was Thornton

[3:03:59] So okay, they asked for first name and that is my first name. Okay. So Thornton Lee, Medley, Jr.

[3:04:07] Thornton, Medley. Yeah, there you go. There we go. We have to do everything. Hey, I understand

[3:04:11] I'm going to rise everybody crazy, but this is what we've got to do here.

[3:04:14] I'm going to follow the rules.

[3:04:15] Okay.

[3:04:17] And you're representing United Steel workers.

[3:04:20] District Council.

[3:04:21] Okay.

[3:04:22] 13.

[3:04:22] Yes, sir.

[3:04:23] And myself as a pipe fitter.

[3:04:25] Yeah.

[3:04:26] Okay.

[3:04:26] And you're for the bill.

[3:04:27] Yes, sir.

[3:04:28] I am for the bill.

[3:04:29] I've been here with Miss Davis before.

[3:04:32] I have 37 years of working on the Gulf Coast and in the refineries.

[3:04:40] and using ship channel. I have seen us close facilities and I have seen the

[3:04:46] effects on the families. I'm gonna tell you I'm a pipe fitter and one of those

[3:04:52] guys out there looking for jobs don't have is a lobbyist to come in here and

[3:04:57] to make laws that allow for Chinese-

[3:05:18] I don't believe that's what we want. I don't believe that's what we saw in the last election.

[3:05:30] Now, there is cost.

[3:05:33] If your fabricating is still in this country, there is cost because we're not China.

[3:05:38] We don't manipulate our currency.

[3:05:41] We don't use slave labor.

[3:05:43] We do have standards.

[3:05:45] But a good company, a good strong American company cannot compete when you have another

[3:05:52] country subsidizing the tires they're making, flooding our market.

[3:05:56] those are those are Texas people they're not corporations they're not companies

[3:06:02] they're not contractors they're people looking for a job now I'm gonna tell you a

[3:06:07] lot of people talk about work ethic I learned my work ethic by watching my dad get

[3:06:12] up and go to work and my grandpa getting up to work probably just the same as

[3:06:17] everybody in this room but when there are no jobs and a man or a woman speaking

[3:06:24] from a man's point of view. It's not able to go out and see his children see him go to work.

[3:06:33] What does that teach in those kids? Why do we give preference? Now my age I come from the

[3:06:41] Cold War. I miss the memo that Vietnam and China had become our friends. I believe you see things

[3:06:50] pretty well, win energy. When we started win energy, those fans were built here in the

[3:06:57] United States. You go over the Houston Ship Channel, if you're traveling north and

[3:07:03] look to the right, and see those fans being brought in on ships. Our number one export

[3:07:09] is empty containers. We have jobs coming in. We have lost in my local, we've lost two

[3:07:17] U.S. still places, completely. Everybody gone. We had passing a paper, sheldon paper,

[3:07:28] love can paper. They are gone. We cannot compete with countries that do not compete on

[3:07:37] a fair playing field. You know, the other thing I want to talk about is we're getting

[3:07:41] graduate a bunch of children into the workforce. That vibe that we're talking about or that

[3:07:48] component that we're talking about, they should be going to apprenticeship programs and

[3:07:53] learning a trade, learning a skill. Let's put them to work. Instead of bringing in four

[3:07:59] and made products, let's put our kids to work. You can't tell me that a young man would

[3:08:05] rather spend his time getting in trouble if he had a good job. That's the American

[3:08:11] can dream that we've forgotten is to get a good job.

[3:08:16] Luckily you find my wife been 34 years.

[3:08:20] Raise some children.

[3:08:21] Go on vacation, but we're missing that

[3:08:24] because we have chosen to use foreign made materials.

[3:08:30] And they talk about components.

[3:08:32] Well, components come from working people also.

[3:08:36] I struggle as most folks do.

[3:08:38] If you go into a cafe or represent a camp on your hometown, most of the people in there would say

[3:08:45] we need to buy American products, not Chinese products. I'm pretty sure.

[3:08:51] You know, they say there's extra cost, but that cost should be viewed as investment.

[3:08:57] We're investing in our country, we're investing in young people, we're investing in jobs,

[3:09:02] and we're putting people back to work. We talk about a lot of issues and problems up here

[3:09:06] at this building. There's four letters, J-O-B-S, that would solve a ton of those problems because you have a good, you know, we have seen companies, good American companies pitted against foreign companies, and to be competitive.

[3:09:25] Mr. Mayor, they can come to you. I'll wrap it up. To be competitive though, they come after benefits.

[3:09:31] They don't want to come after our benefits.

[3:09:34] There's nobody out there saying, I want to take this away from a work in Manor 1.

[3:09:38] But if you're competing with a company, that's payroll is an eighth of what you're is because of their government.

[3:09:48] You're not going to win.

[3:09:50] We should be put our people first, and I don't think you'll for your time and your efforts.

[3:09:56] You bet, thank you.

[3:09:57] and your past support.

[3:09:59] You bet. Thank you.

[3:10:00] Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for being here. David Mitchell, USW-13 and

[3:10:07] South here to speak for the bill.

[3:10:13] Remember, sometimes, sometimes the most powerful testimony

[3:10:16] that didn't take very long.

[3:10:20] Thank you, Representative Cook and the committee for allowing me to come

[3:10:25] before you and stand in support of House Bill 770. My name is David Mitchell Jr.

[3:10:33] Mr. Mitchell, we're just going to have you as David Mitchell.

[3:10:37] David Mitchell.

[3:10:37] Because that's how you're on here, and I got to keep it all clean, and I have you

[3:10:42] representing USW 13 and yourself for the bill.

[3:10:48] Yes.

[3:10:48] Okay.

[3:10:49] Now we've got everything right.

[3:10:50] All right.

[3:10:51] I worked at that paper mill in Sheldon, Texas, that shut down.

[3:10:57] The manufacturing from that mill was moved to Asia, to the Pan-Asian paper company in China.

[3:11:06] There was approximately 1200 people working on the manufacturing floor there,

[3:11:12] with an additional 800 people in management positions and support positions there.

[3:11:18] Most of those people, when that facility was shut down, weren't able to find comparable

[3:11:26] jobs that allowed them to continue the lifestyle that they had.

[3:11:33] Because of that, the community suffered many local businesses shut down.

[3:11:40] I personally believe that had we had more involvement, more places that were building facilities,

[3:11:50] that were building American that those folks would have had additional places to go.

[3:11:53] The whole purpose of this bill is to generate a working work for the American people and

[3:12:01] the Texans that live here.

[3:12:04] When we were told that we were shutting down, we received a warrant act, and we received

[3:12:12] retraining from the federal government,

[3:12:19] and the

[3:12:23] funding for the training from the

[3:12:26] federal government was extremely difficult to get.

[3:12:29] It was approved for retraining, but it was never allocated any funds for it.

[3:12:35] So we had a very long and difficult fight that probably lasted almost a year to get that refraining funds to get some of our folks re-skilled so that they could go into in a different form of employment.

[3:12:53] You'll find that the USW-13-1 represents many manufacturing businesses, the people that work there.

[3:13:02] We need to support workers in Texas and America by buying products manufactured here and when we buy American, we build American and we all prosper.

[3:13:16] I'll close with that and I'll say, Representative Cook, thank you and the committee for allowing me to come before you to address you on behalf of this House Bill 770, thank you, sir.

[3:13:28] We appreciate your testimony in being here today.

[3:13:31] Thank you very much.

[3:13:33] Thank you.

[3:13:35] Is there anyone else that's registered to speak on for against House Bill 770?

[3:13:40] Not what we'll call on resident Davis to close on the bill.

[3:13:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members for allowing us to bring this back to you.

[3:13:50] I will commit to work with those who have concerns to make sure that we've provided the proper

[3:13:57] We're not trying to create an additional cost.

[3:14:01] We want to just hold jobs in Texas, and you can't have jobs if you don't have the manufacturing to offer the jobs.

[3:14:07] So it's kind of a balance in act for us to make sure that we do everything we can to keep our economy strong.

[3:14:15] And I will leave you with this.

[3:14:17] Remembering to that, and from 2000 to 2016, we lost 225,000 jobs.

[3:14:24] Those are manufacturing jobs in other communities.

[3:14:26] These are other countries.

[3:14:28] And we just can't afford to be quiet on this issue.

[3:14:32] So thank you again for allowing us to do that.

[3:14:33] Now we'll commit to work with those entities that are

[3:14:36] trying to protect.

[3:14:38] Thank you.

[3:14:38] And I close.

[3:14:38] There's any questions?

[3:14:40] Our chair is intent to leave House Bill 770 pending.

[3:14:44] Chair lays out House Bill 3859 and calls on

[3:14:48] Representative Frank to explain his bill.

[3:14:58] Go ahead.

[3:14:59] Thank you, Chairman Cook.

[3:15:00] And committee members, thank you for allowing me to lay out the committee substitute for House Bill 3859.

[3:15:06] Just a second. I just a minute here. Do I have a committee substitute? I think what you've got to lay out here.

[3:15:16] I think it's strictly to be over. I don't have to substitute.

[3:15:19] You can talk about it. Yeah, it's allowed to be over. Then you can talk about what would be in it.

[3:15:24] Okay, very good within I correct myself.

[3:15:26] I will lay out House Bill 3859 while I will not insult the committee by telling you it's a simple bill.

[3:15:34] I can assure you it is significantly less complicated and does less things than someone have you believe.

[3:15:39] I actually wanted to make sure that the legislative intent of the bill was crystal clear.

[3:15:44] And so I included it at the beginning and I won't read all the bill to you but I would like to read the legislative intent because I believe what the bill does is exactly what the intent says.

[3:15:53] says it is the intent of the legislature to maintain a diverse network of service providers that offer a range of foster capacity options and that can accommodate children from various backgrounds, various cultural backgrounds, to that end, the legislature expects reasonable accommodations to be made by the state to allow people who diverse backgrounds in beliefs to be a part of meeting the needs of children in the child welfare system.

[3:16:16] And then it ends by saying decisions regarding the placement of children shall continue to be made in the best interest of the child, including which person is best able to provide for the child's physical, physiological and emotional needs and developments.

[3:16:29] So to be clear the intent and I believe the result of passing this bill will be to allow current foster care homes in Texas to remain open and to grow the number of high quality foster homes for the at risk children of the state.

[3:16:40] The specific purpose of this bill is to protect a group that is tremendously important to taking care of the most vulnerable children in this state.

[3:16:48] Currently, many in the faith-based communities are being targeted with litigation and discrimination because of their beliefs.

[3:16:55] A group that is currently providing approximately 25% of child welfare services in the state.

[3:17:01] And that's what this bill seeks to protect.

[3:17:03] It is critical that we retain and grow this group of providers as well as everyone else.

[3:17:07] And this is important, as well as everyone else who is willing to step into the foster care arena and help.

[3:17:14] The reason I filed this bill is simple.

[3:17:16] I've spent time, many of y'all know, since I've been in the legislature working with CPS, and

[3:17:19] I've filed bills and more importantly, it's spent a lot of time getting to know the inner workings of CPS in an effort to improve it.

[3:17:26] I, along with Representative Rodriguez and others, were on the speaker's work group addressing CPS and foster care.

[3:17:33] But when addressing the foster care shortage, there were a number of issues that were important to address.

[3:17:36] And we are addressing some of those with other issues.

[3:17:39] Unfortunately, this is also a bill that needs to be done in order to protect and even grow our foster care capacities.

[3:17:46] Members, I truly wish this bill weren't necessary, however.

[3:17:50] Increasingly, there are organizations wholly unconnected, and this is an important point.

[3:17:55] Holy, unconnected to the child welfare services that are suing quality foster care service providers out of business for nothing more than the Audacity to act on the beliefs that are different than the popular culture.

[3:18:04] In Texas, organizations have suspended services because of legal suits and litigation threats

[3:18:11] and others are considering shutting their doors and you will hear from some of them.

[3:18:15] It is critical to understand that the lawsuits that we are trying to protect again have absolutely

[3:18:18] nothing to do with the quality of the care that these foster care homes are providing, nothing

[3:18:24] to do with their training, verification services, or their willingness to take child placements

[3:18:29] of any kind.

[3:18:30] And I'd like to just repeat, we are protecting foster care providers who are being targeted

[3:18:34] for lawsuits by organizations that are not a part of the fix.

[3:18:41] Members, I believe we must do all that we can to allow everyone to provide diverse, high

[3:18:46] quality foster homes in every community in the state of Texas.

[3:18:49] So what does this bill do?

[3:18:51] Specifically, it allows foster care providers to decline to provide certain services.

[3:18:57] It does not allow the provider to do anything they want but it, rather it allows them to say no in very specific limited circumstances.

[3:19:06] The bill is written simply protects against the lawsuits that are being filed for things that religious organizations are getting sued for not providing.

[3:19:14] I'll be happy to talk more about those.

[3:19:17] Let me tell you a couple of things that the bill does not do because that seems to be in some ways as important as what it does.

[3:19:23] Let me first, I don't believe the bill does any discrimination.

[3:19:26] This is not about restricting the rights of Texans.

[3:19:29] It is intended to continue the long-held protection of rights for everyone, even when those rights appear to be in conflict.

[3:19:36] It is not a license to discriminate, it is actually, I believe, a license to participate in the foster care system.

[3:19:42] Everyone is allowed to participate who can bring safe, loving foster care homes to the table.

[3:19:47] But you will not be discriminated against because you're acting on your belief.

[3:19:52] Some will say this bill will prevent same-sex couples from adopting or fostering that is absolutely not the case.

[3:19:57] In fact, I would like to personally think...

[3:20:00] Some of the people that I'm sure will be here, I'd like to personally thank many of the same sex foster care parents and members of the LGBT community for some of the amazing work that they have done and will continue to do in the area of foster care and child welfare. Their positive contributions to the life of at-risk childrens of this state are appreciated and do not go unnoticed. I know that many of the people that will testify today feel they're being targeted by this bill today, and while I don't expect them to believe me, that is not the purpose of this bill.

[3:20:29] In fact, there is protections in this bill while it is overlooked in many of the articles that have been written.

[3:20:36] This bill actually requires the FPS to make sure that services are available to all.

[3:20:41] It actually wants sure that all types of service providers can live side-by-side and

[3:20:45] continue to offer services to everyone.

[3:20:47] The purpose is not to exclude or deny services.

[3:20:50] It is to help as many people as possible to participate in the services in a way that respects all points of view.

[3:20:56] This bill does not restrict the ability of LGBT couples to adopt, as it does not impose religious conscious but allows it.

[3:21:04] It simply protects the ability of those for whom those services may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs to decline to do so safely.

[3:21:14] One more thing it does not do, it does not affect placements in any way, shape, or form.

[3:21:19] Placements are made by CPS or by what's called single source continuum providers, SSCCs.

[3:21:26] It is clear from the wording of the bills, these organizations are not given any type of religious protection, so they will continue to work with everybody.

[3:21:35] In fact, if you think about it, what this bill also means is that religious providers who want protection will not be able to be single source continuum providers in our system or will not have that protection.

[3:21:49] I'm getting close to the end.

[3:21:51] CPS and SSCCs are obligated to find placements that best fit the child, which I believe further

[3:21:58] illustrates why we need to make sure to expand a diverse network or foster care options.

[3:22:03] We need all types of providers.

[3:22:05] We need religious.

[3:22:06] We need secular.

[3:22:07] We need LGBT, et cetera, to provide enough good fits for all types of children from diverse

[3:22:11] background, regardless of whether it's Muslim, Christian, LGBT, et cetera, to serve the

[3:22:16] best interest of the child.

[3:22:18] Last but not least in the bill, we've made very clear that the best interest of the child is almost always foremost.

[3:22:26] It is in the bill, that is, you said I could talk about the committee substitute.

[3:22:30] That's really the main thing that has been added in the committee substitute is an abundance of caution.

[3:22:34] We have put the best interest of the child and made sure that's paramount, while nothing in the bill before denied that.

[3:22:40] We've made sure that that is first and foremost.

[3:22:42] First, the committee sub-ads that language, basically if people are more concerned about

[3:22:48] children than a political agenda, then we would not need to be stopping the targeted

[3:22:53] anti-religious lawsuits that are hurting our foster care providers.

[3:22:56] Again, the lawsuits are being brought by people not involved in the system against people

[3:23:00] who are providing homes for kids.

[3:23:03] Members, the committee, I'm sorry, HB3859 is a license for faith-based adoption in foster

[3:23:09] of care providers that have served disadvantaged children in Texas for decades.

[3:23:13] And it asks them to continue to participate in the child welfare system.

[3:23:17] And with that, Chairman, I'd like to reserve the right to close.

[3:23:21] Members, any questions?

[3:23:24] Yes, we've got a number of questions.

[3:23:26] And I just want to appreciate you taking this issue on.

[3:23:31] I doubt very seriously if a couple of years ago you'd ever find yourself.

[3:23:37] I did not start thinking that this is something I needed to be involved in but have gotten involved in the foster care system and I think unfortunately this is something that needs to be done to make sure we have enough homes out there.

[3:23:49] And you know as well as I do, we are really challenged to have enough good homes for these kids and it's a tragedy that kids find themselves in a situation but I commend you for your efforts in trying to address this where we can give kids a chance.

[3:24:05] to have normal, decent lives that our kids took for granted, and these kids don't have that opportunity, so.

[3:24:12] Thank you, Chairman, and I just reiterate, really, I do believe, and I think that the bill really allows an all-skate.

[3:24:19] I may be dating myself by saying that, but we need all hands on deck, and I don't believe there's anything in this bill that precludes that.

[3:24:25] In fact, there's some things that protect it, so thank you.

[3:24:29] Thank you. We got a number of questions here. Go ahead, President Padden and Representative Rodriguez.

[3:24:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Frank, thank you. I also want to thank you for doing this.

[3:24:40] I think doing this is a stand-alone bill like you're doing here is we should thank you for that as well,

[3:24:46] because this is a conversation we would have had at some point in this session,

[3:24:50] either on the floor most likely, or something else.

[3:24:53] And to me, this is a better way to go about it.

[3:24:56] And I know you've been very thoughtful in trying to work with folks on this.

[3:25:00] I want to ask you, and you've mentioned this in your layout, and I think that was important. What I have heard, you know, the concerns seem to be around issues of potential discrimination. And so if we could let's start there, and if you could just kind of expand on that a little bit and tell us how you would respond to concerns about this in some way would lead to discrimination. Yeah, I mean, I think at the end of the day this allows everyone to participate. It doesn't force everybody to participate. And I look at my own

[3:25:30] experience in the foster care system.

[3:25:32] My wife and I, as you know, adopted out of the foster care system.

[3:25:36] Well, one of the things we did when we trained, we gave a list of what type of child we

[3:25:42] were looking for.

[3:25:42] We had four boys of our own.

[3:25:45] And so when we said what kind of boys we wanted, or what kind of kids we wanted, we said

[3:25:50] we wanted boys.

[3:25:51] It wasn't that we were discriminating against girls.

[3:25:54] I just, A, wouldn't know what to do with them and B, we don't have, you know, we just, that was our choice.

[3:26:00] Now, if that is discriminating because when I chose to participate, I said we wanted, we said we wanted boys.

[3:26:08] And the same, I would say, we also said we wanted over six or seven or eight years old because I'm 50 years old and

[3:26:14] didn't want a newborn, you know, but that's not discriminating, that allows me to participate.

[3:26:19] And so I would say that's the case with all these foster care providers.

[3:26:22] I think if we can have, you know, the fact that we could have a Muslim foster care group working with that, we could have LGBT groups working with that, Christian groups working with that, we don't, not everybody has to train everybody.

[3:26:35] I don't believe that's, that is not in my definition of discrimination, the fact that you can participate is what we're, what we're allowing.

[3:26:43] One.

[3:26:43] All right.

[3:26:44] All right.

[3:26:44] Thank you.

[3:26:45] Go ahead.

[3:26:46] Go ahead, Rick.

[3:26:46] Thank you.

[3:26:48] We're representative.

[3:26:49] As you mentioned, we served that bipartisan working group.

[3:26:53] Absolutely.

[3:26:54] And I know you're coming from a good place.

[3:26:56] I mean, you have a good heart.

[3:26:58] And we talked about this.

[3:26:58] And we share a lot of our concerns and values.

[3:27:01] As particularly as it pertains to allowing people of faith to be able to be part of the foster care system in terms of fostering children.

[3:27:09] and we are in total agreement on that, so let's just be clear there.

[3:27:15] But this does raise a lot of questions, this is an easy bill, really it's complicated bill, so I want to ask you just a couple of questions about it.

[3:27:26] On the, this would be page 4 where we're going to get to the meat of it that 4, line 6, and 9, we're talking about.

[3:27:36] This government entity may not discriminate against or take adverse action against a child or welfare services provider on the basis of holy or partly that the provider, and this is the meat of it I think, has declined or will declined to provide facilitated referred a person for child welfare services.

[3:27:54] that conflict or under circumstances that conflict with the provider sincerely held religious beliefs.

[3:28:02] So do you foresee any kind of limitation to that?

[3:28:05] In other words, you might have someone who has a very sincerely held religious belief

[3:28:12] that we shouldn't see a doctor or a blood transfusion is something that we

[3:28:17] That's a great answer, or is it a very good number?

[3:28:19] Any number?

[3:28:19] Sure.

[3:28:20] To some degree, depending, you could have a sincere, sincere, religious belief that the girls

[3:28:26] shouldn't get educated, shouldn't go to school.

[3:28:28] So how does this, how does this work within those?

[3:28:31] Well, this only gives you, this only gives you, and we do have some experts that will test

[3:28:37] to find some on some of this in terms of exactly what it is.

[3:28:40] But let me just tell you, my understanding and belief of what it does.

[3:28:44] It only gives you the ability to not do something.

[3:28:49] So for instance, one of the cases in a tragedy, let's say you have a 16-year-old, you're

[3:28:55] fostering.

[3:28:55] They need an abortion, or they want an abortion.

[3:28:59] Okay?

[3:28:59] Obviously that could put a foster parent who doesn't believe that that is something they want

[3:29:04] to participate in in a bad situation.

[3:29:06] They would have the ability to call CPS and then CPS would handle it as the state agency

[3:29:10] who is exempt from this and they wouldn't be their organization and themselves as a foster parent

[3:29:16] wouldn't be put in a position of being sued for not providing that service. All of this is

[3:29:24] superseded by the best interest of the child. You have to do that. But if somebody, for instance,

[3:29:28] was, let's say they didn't believe in vaccinations as long, they still have to communicate that with

[3:29:34] CPS. If you've been a foster parent, you communicate everything with CPS and CPS can still step in and

[3:29:40] provide that service and make reasonable accommodations for that, but it, you know, there's, it doesn't

[3:29:46] allow anything beyond that.

[3:29:48] So, if you mentioned vaccination, that's a good example.

[3:29:52] Right, yeah.

[3:29:52] I thought you would kind of sort of mention on that or that quite yet, but, or transfusions, I'm sorry, you mentioned

[3:29:57] information that you have people that I don't know.

[3:30:00] It's a necessarily religious belief, but they do have a strong belief. That's why it was important that we, there was nothing that changed the best interest of the child. That's why we were saying the best interest of the child supersedes that. I mean, that has to be done. And that's why also the SSCC's are included as the government entity as well for that. So you have that overarching protection. Okay, so let's go back to vaccination. So I have a sincere religious belief that that is it's against my religion, right? And I just sincerely believe that. Sure.

[3:30:29] And I foster a child, and so CPS could make me provide the vaccines or not?

[3:30:36] Well, I mean, the way that would anticipate working in, by the way, we'll have, you know,

[3:30:40] DFPS is here and you can ask that specific question because, you know, this is a bill

[3:30:45] that's not in force yet, so how it's going to be implemented in the field will be up to them.

[3:30:48] But the way I would assume it would work, you would call and say, this is something that the doctor is saying

[3:30:53] that we need to do, but I'm not comfortable doing it for whatever reason.

[3:30:56] would you do that?

[3:30:58] Because CPS does that all the time.

[3:30:59] I mean, there are accommodations made for foster parents, whether they're working

[3:31:03] get sick.

[3:31:04] I mean, there's accommodations made all the time.

[3:31:06] All we're asking is for reasonable accommodations.

[3:31:09] Well, I need to have that answer your question.

[3:31:11] I think it does.

[3:31:12] I think it leaves a lot open to how the agency might do this, which I think with a bill

[3:31:18] like this, there's a lot of scenarios that aren't just hypothetical that really could

[3:31:22] that would happen that I think maybe could be addressed here.

[3:31:28] And really the main thing that we're trying to address at the end of the day,

[3:31:33] to keep foster care providers out there, is we're trying to give some protections to lawsuits

[3:31:40] that have nothing to do with the questions that you're asking about the safety of the child.

[3:31:44] They have to do with organizations being targeted for not agreeing with certain things.

[3:31:49] They are being targeted and sued by people who are not providing foster care.

[3:31:52] That's really what we're trying to do.

[3:31:54] We're not trying to open.

[3:31:56] Well, we're not trying to open to the OVC for.

[3:31:58] Well, I mean, the two that have been the biggest issues are the abortion issue.

[3:32:02] And some of that is sued for damages.

[3:32:04] Some is just not included in government programs if you're not willing to do that.

[3:32:09] And the second is same-sex couples is you go in and ask, you know,

[3:32:14] So, Catholic Charities, Buckners, any of the number of places that are out there, and you ask for training, now the reality is I'm not sure why they would, because it's about 25% of the places do training, there's plenty of places that LGBT couples can go, but basically if, let's say you go to Catholic Charities to target them and then you sue them for not training.

[3:32:38] The same-sex couple, which, by the way, they also don't train.

[3:32:41] And each one has their own guidelines.

[3:32:43] They also don't train unmarried couples.

[3:32:44] So theoretically, you could have an unmarried couple sue for them not training.

[3:32:48] That just doesn't, it's not happening, but that would be one of the protections

[3:32:52] that I believe would exist in the bill.

[3:32:55] So how would this work, let's say that the child is gay, right?

[3:33:02] And say, you mentioned Catholic charities, and that's why I'm just going to say that.

[3:33:05] I'm sure there are some charities as well, you know.

[3:33:07] We don't want to place a gay child.

[3:33:10] Is that so?

[3:33:11] Well, that's not, hey, that's not happening because almost all these are, they are willing to take any child, okay?

[3:33:17] And again, and it's a great question that my layout was already long enough.

[3:33:22] I was going to kind of lay out the way foster care works.

[3:33:26] But the CPS, when they place a child, they are supposed to place them taking into consideration a litany of things.

[3:33:32] but all of it under the heading of the best interest of the child.

[3:33:36] So you wouldn't likely place an LGBT kid in the home of a devout Baptist Catholic, whatever,

[3:33:46] if that wasn't something you discussed with them.

[3:33:49] Nor would you, if you happen to have a child coming out of a devout Catholic, place them

[3:33:53] in the home of somebody who didn't go to church.

[3:33:57] That's not discrimination.

[3:33:58] that's the responsibility of CPS to place the child in an area that they are going to be best suited for,

[3:34:05] which is why we need providers of all stripes.

[3:34:08] You know, we need Catholic homes, we need LGBT homes, we need all those homes.

[3:34:12] We actually need to work together, but we don't all have to think the same.

[3:34:16] Yeah, and I think there's a lot of witnesses and so that's fine.

[3:34:20] So let me show.

[3:34:21] No, no, no, no, no, I didn't mean that.

[3:34:23] But I'm saying, I know you and I agree completely, and I think everybody on that, the

[3:34:29] 10 member bipartisan working group agree that people, that people of face shouldn't feel

[3:34:35] like they can't be part of this.

[3:34:37] I mean, the more the better is we all agree on that, I guess.

[3:34:41] Right.

[3:34:41] And I think it's the, I'm sorry, I'll cut you off.

[3:34:43] No, it's okay.

[3:34:44] But one thing I was going to say, I think the only real, the only difference is I think if

[3:34:49] If you have certain providers, if they want to be part of the process, they want to be

[3:34:56] You know, a place foster kids would be fostered.

[3:35:01] I just don't understand why we have to do a car about why they just play by the rules, like everybody else, because I know there's willing people of faith that want to do this. And so I don't know if the fear of getting sued, if that's going to be the deal. Well, it's not just the fear of getting sued. It's the very real, it's the very real getting sued. I mean, it's the, it's the getting sued. And again, you know, the most frustrating thing, this is not sued by people who are trying to get in the foster care system and want to. But how many lawsuits are we talking about? Well, I'll, I'll, we'll have some of the providers

[3:35:29] Let's talk about the lawsuits and the dollars and the number of people that are no longer being able to foster because of it.

[3:35:35] And it's really, again, but it's people who are not in the business of foster care suing those that are over something that has nothing to do with the kid.

[3:35:44] And that's what we're trying to prevent, I believe.

[3:35:48] All right, thank you.

[3:35:50] Representative Barr.

[3:35:51] Thank you, Representative Frank.

[3:35:52] echoing what the Chairman and Representative Patty said, I want to thank you for doing this.

[3:35:57] I also want to break a confidence, if you don't mind, that I have to say that everything

[3:36:01] that you are saying here today, in front of the cameras in front of the audience on the

[3:36:06] mic, is exactly what you told me in my office, just the two of us, what your intent of this

[3:36:11] bill was, what the purpose of it was, the fact that it is supposed to be inclusionary

[3:36:15] in nature and not discriminatory, and the fact that what we are trying to do is broaden

[3:36:20] the base for foster kids, and I just want to commend you for that, because oftentimes we know there

[3:36:24] might be conversations that go on elsewhere in this building, and then the true intent of the bill may not

[3:36:28] be found or be known. I have to commend you that this is exactly what you told me what the bill is

[3:36:33] supposed to do, and so thank you for bringing this bill. I think it's an important legislation.

[3:36:38] And I want to get back to a point that you and I discussed as well, and I know Representative Rodriguez has

[3:36:42] asked you about this is one of the most compelling points to me about needing the faith-based

[3:36:50] folks included in our process.

[3:36:52] You explained to me, and maybe you can expand a little bit, but if you want to defer to

[3:36:55] another witness, that's fine.

[3:36:57] As to the number of faith-based folks who are actually exiting the foster care, can you

[3:37:03] expand on that a little bit?

[3:37:04] Because I believe there's somebody maybe in South Texas that you and I discussed it, if

[3:37:08] you don't mind, just kind of a minute or two on that, it was very compelling to me that

[3:37:11] But what we're trying to do is the best interest of the children and the best way to do that

[3:37:14] is have many folks willing to serve.

[3:37:17] Yeah, and again, many folks of all types because the point is to meet the best interest

[3:37:21] of the child.

[3:37:22] The point really isn't about all of the political stuff.

[3:37:25] It's to have as many quality homes as possible, some that will take boys, some that will take

[3:37:29] girls, some that will take LGBT, some that will take to out Catholics.

[3:37:32] We need to have, going back to my old fashioned, it's an all-skate.

[3:37:37] I don't have great numbers.

[3:37:39] I do know, I mean, a lot of states literally have lost where they've allowed these lawsuits to continue, have lost all of their faith-based providers, which right now makes up about 25% of the state.

[3:37:50] There have been parts of, and I will let them expound on their numbers if we can.

[3:37:56] But there have been a number of, I know, Catholic Charities has had to close down some.

[3:38:00] There's a number that are not expanding because of, you know, people say, well, it's all about the money.

[3:38:04] Well, at the end of the day, when you're trying to serve people, at some point do you want your money going to lawyers or do you want your money going to serve kids or if you have to move over into another arena over there is not all about the money but we're all supposed to be stewards and

[3:38:20] again, I just I don't think that we should allow people who are not in the system and not helping the system to be pushing out any of the providers.

[3:38:28] So, I know there is an expand on that as much as possible, but if they can't, I'd like

[3:38:32] to leave the numbers to the bottom.

[3:38:33] The final point, I mean, to the extent that one of the questions, well, why don't

[3:38:39] we have them play by the same rules?

[3:38:41] Is it your opinion in working on this bill?

[3:38:43] It's because the rules that are currently in place are not working, correct?

[3:38:46] Well, I think, yeah, there is not other groups are not being targeted with lawsuits.

[3:38:51] I mean, at the end of the day, this is not an offensive move by faith-based providers

[3:38:57] saying we want to push anyone out of the system.

[3:39:01] This is a proactive move saying we want you to stop suing us out of the system.

[3:39:07] In the best interest of the child?

[3:39:09] Absolutely.

[3:39:10] In the best interest of the child.

[3:39:11] These are people who say, my faith compels me to do something, but I'm getting crushed and doing it.

[3:39:16] Well, thank you so much, Representative Frank.

[3:39:17] Appreciate it.

[3:39:17] Thank you.

[3:39:18] Frank.

[3:39:21] Oh, yes, sir.

[3:39:23] Chairman Garrett.

[3:39:23] James, I also want to thank you for the work you put into this and I want to echo Representative Myers comments because it's exactly what you told me to and I appreciate and reading it, I truly believe that that's where you're going.

[3:39:37] But help me understand who determines what's in the best interest of the child and that CPS.

[3:39:42] That is, that is CPS.

[3:39:45] And there's SSCC language in there, which is single source continuum care providers.

[3:39:51] And that's only in one region now, but it is something we're looking at.

[3:39:54] But essentially that organization gets a monopoly for an area.

[3:39:59] Right now there's-

[3:40:00] Just one, but we're looking at more. Those, and again, that organization is excluded because they are acting with essentially a government monopoly. And so that's why they are excluded because they have to be willing to deal with everybody in my opinion, and in the interest of getting the right number of homes. So they are the ones that make that decision because we are the ones who are the custodian of the child. They make that decision. They make that determination. They make the placement of where the home,

[3:40:28] where where where the child is placed, you know, once they are removed from the parent.

[3:40:35] Either that, whatever the Mitchell's on, or CPS determine what's in the best interest of the child.

[3:40:41] Yes, sir, and neither one of those are touched by this protection, if you will, because they and again,

[3:40:47] that's why many of these organizations will never ask to be an SSEC because they're not going to be given protection in that.

[3:40:54] But again, they have to deal with every kid in that organization, excuse me, in that area.

[3:40:59] And they have to deal with every person who wants to participate and is qualified to participate in the foster care system.

[3:41:05] So that's why they're excluded from this bill.

[3:41:07] Thank you very much.

[3:41:08] And again, thank you for your hard work on this.

[3:41:10] Thank you.

[3:41:11] And once again, in these children, there's not a lot of options.

[3:41:14] A lot of these children are not eligible to be adopted, are they?

[3:41:17] No, a lot of them are not.

[3:41:19] But all of the foster kids, you know, I mean, all the foster kids when they come in, most of them are not eligible.

[3:41:23] to be adopted until, until such time as the state and the judge makes the determination

[3:41:28] and then most of them, most of them will be eligible at some point, but they're not immediately eligible.

[3:41:33] But that's my point.

[3:41:34] I mean, they're coming from some bad situations.

[3:41:39] Extraordinary negative situations.

[3:41:42] And you, we need more folks that are willing to be part of the fostering system are not less.

[3:41:52] Yes.

[3:41:52] Absolutely.

[3:41:53] And again.

[3:41:54] No trend that we suggest we're going to have.

[3:41:56] There's no trend that we're going to need less.

[3:41:59] That's what I thought.

[3:42:01] Well, if you're ready, we'll...

[3:42:05] Do you have a choice?

[3:42:06] Do you have a choice?

[3:42:08] We'll let you...

[3:42:09] We'll let you as are the right to close.

[3:42:11] There are a lot of witnesses on this bill.

[3:42:15] So what we're going to do is we're going to ask you to come up

[3:42:19] and give three minutes for the test.

[3:42:21] one we may have questions in addition to that and once again try to give us something

[3:42:31] that adds to the discussion and if all you've got is to say I agree with the last person

[3:42:38] and that's well received too so anyway we'll go ahead and start with our first witness Randy

[3:42:47] Daniel's Vice President, Dr. Children and Family Services here to speak for the bill.

[3:42:53] And it just has a reminder for everybody you need to come up and give us your name,

[3:42:58] who you represent in your position on the bill, whether you're for or against or neutral.

[3:43:04] Thank you, Chairman.

[3:43:05] Good afternoon.

[3:43:06] For the record, my name is Randy Daniels.

[3:43:09] Vice President for program development at the Dr. Children and Family Services.

[3:43:13] I'm providing testimony on behalf of the Dr.

[3:43:15] non-profit community-based provider of child welfare and foster care services.

[3:43:20] Mr. Chairman and members, Buckner Children and Family Services fully supports House Bill 3859.

[3:43:27] Buckner and like-minded faith-based organizations are dedicated to providing care for

[3:43:31] Texas's most vulnerable children as non-profit community-based providers of child welfare foster care and adoption.

[3:43:39] Buckner was founded 136 years ago by Dr. Robert Buckner.

[3:43:44] after seeing the needs of hurting orphan children

[3:43:48] in post-civil war, Texas.

[3:43:50] In the first years, Buckner was filled with children

[3:43:53] left parentless due to disease and hardship.

[3:43:56] Buckner has faithfully cared for vulnerable children

[3:43:58] to this day, and will continue its faith

[3:44:00] and community-based mission.

[3:44:02] Working closely with the staff of Child Protective Services,

[3:44:06] Buckner had liked mind in faith-based child placement

[3:44:08] agencies in Texas, provide loving homes for children.

[3:44:11] last year a Buckner had an average of 408 children in foster care on any given day,

[3:44:18] placed in 223 families and we completed 103 adoptions.

[3:44:23] Simultaneously, other like-minded agencies cared for more than 3,000 children with

[3:44:29] over 2,000 foster homes, helping to alleviate the problem of capacity in the CPS system.

[3:44:37] Members, as you continue to deliberate House Bill 30A 59, ask you to adopt an act statutes that allow Buckner and other non-profit community-based providers to live out our faith.

[3:44:50] To say it another way, we believe there's room for all quality social service agencies who desire to care for the children of Texas to be at the top.

[3:45:00] The good work of this committee, by voting and passing the House Bill 3859, and the law of Unable Buckner to continue the mission that we have faithfully served since 1879. This legislation provides protections for faith-based providers and fulfilling our God-given calling to serve the most vulnerable children in Texas. We know that without these protections, many faith-based providers would feel forced out of the foster care space, causing even more harm to these children due to the capacity

[3:45:29] the shortage in the system that already exist.

[3:45:32] Members, you balance public policy every day.

[3:45:36] We know and represent each,

[3:45:38] represent to each of you that House Bill 3859

[3:45:41] accommodates the needs and desires

[3:45:44] of those individuals or couples,

[3:45:46] whose ideas differ from faith-based providers

[3:45:48] while ensuring inclusion of organizations

[3:45:51] like Buckner replace at the table,

[3:45:53] underscoring that point with respect

[3:45:56] to placing children with same-sex couples,

[3:45:58] we don't take a stand against it.

[3:46:00] We only ask that we also be allowed to live out our beliefs as we see them.

[3:46:05] The issue being discussed today is about the families we recruit as foster and adoptive families.

[3:46:10] And the compelling needs of children, their best interest.

[3:46:14] We would continue and desire to continue to care for children regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual identity.

[3:46:22] Mr. Chairman and members, thank you very much for hearing me today.

[3:46:25] That concludes my testimony, and I can answer any questions that you might have.

[3:46:30] Mr. Chairman.

[3:46:31] Okay, members, any questions?

[3:46:33] Once again, absent this, would you be able to continue to complete your mission with respect

[3:46:41] to fostering, to fulfill in our faith-based calling, let me say it in two ways.

[3:46:49] One is, right now, our board has told us that there's a moratorium on our expansion

[3:46:57] of foster care and adoption until this is resolved.

[3:47:01] I mean, we're not going to expand as represented to Frank explained.

[3:47:05] It's one thing.

[3:47:07] I can't speak on behalf of what the board might vote in the future, but a decision could

[3:47:16] be made that we're going to move our resource to other kinds of ministries if we don't get

[3:47:21] the protections.

[3:47:22] Okay.

[3:47:24] Thank you.

[3:47:25] Yes.

[3:47:25] Representative Mayer and Rodríguez.

[3:47:29] Okay.

[3:47:31] Thank you for being here.

[3:47:33] I just wanted to follow up on the question I had for Representative Frank.

[3:47:35] Are you familiar with the lawsuits that Representative Frank was referring to?

[3:47:39] You're talking about possibly having to move to other missions and please explain to us why

[3:47:43] you would have to do that.

[3:47:44] Well, yes, I am familiar with what he was talking about.

[3:47:47] Now, because we, in the States, we only practice in Texas.

[3:47:51] We've not faced lawsuits as of yet.

[3:47:54] We do have other sister organizations across the country

[3:47:57] that do this work that have faced lawsuits.

[3:48:01] Even though I'm not aware of any of those that have actually gone

[3:48:03] to court, there's been time and money resources spent

[3:48:07] on legal proceedings and that kind of thing.

[3:48:11] But that is one of our considerations moving forward.

[3:48:14] If we're facing and having to spend our donor dollars and money that we intend for ministry on lawsuits, lawyers, and court time, that's going to play a big part in our board's decision.

[3:48:29] And so that is an actual real deterrent to you continuing the decision to foster kids.

[3:48:34] Correct. That'd be fair.

[3:48:35] Yes, that's a fair statement.

[3:48:37] Thank you so much for your time.

[3:48:38] You're very welcome.

[3:48:39] Yes.

[3:48:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[3:48:41] Representative Meyer pretty much asked what I was going to ask, but I did want to say thank

[3:48:46] you for your ministry and what you all do.

[3:48:47] The services you provided.

[3:48:49] It's very important.

[3:48:49] I just want to commend you on that.

[3:48:50] Oh, thank you very much.

[3:48:52] Appreciate that.

[3:48:53] Thank you.

[3:48:54] Captain Pat, did you have it?

[3:48:55] Thank you very much for being here in your testimony.

[3:48:58] Joshua Houston General Counsel takes his impact here to speak against the bill.

[3:49:12] Thank you.

[3:49:13] I dropped my testimony.

[3:49:13] Forgive me.

[3:49:22] Good afternoon. My name is Joshua Houston. I'm General Counsel at Texas Impact and we're here respectfully opposed to House Bill 3859.

[3:49:30] Texas Impact is a membership organization. Our member denominations have long been committed to the provision of child welfare services in the state.

[3:49:40] We've also been deeply involved in the creation of Texas's faith and community based initiative over the last couple of decades.

[3:49:46] The struggles of our child welfare system have been on the hearts and minds of our membership.

[3:49:50] I've heard from Babdistan Tyler who want to know about reimbursement rates.

[3:49:53] I've heard from Methodist and Pasadena who want to know where the budgets are at.

[3:49:57] This session I've heard even from us.

[3:50:07] So, we're here in opposition, but we have a desire to help. We've been visiting with the author, and we very much appreciate his championing the foster care issues this session. We agree wholeheartedly with the intent, the legislative intent, as it's expressed on the first page of the bill. However, the devil on these bills is in the details, as they say. There are provisions in the actual text of the bill that we have.

[3:50:29] We fear open a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

[3:50:34] One, we have concerns about the scope of the bill that it's too broad.

[3:50:38] Two, we have concerns about creating ways to evade regulatory enforcement.

[3:50:43] And three, we have concerns that protecting the provider is overriding the religious liberty of other parties involved in these very complicated family law cases.

[3:50:52] Those particulars are provided in our written testimony, but I do want to use one as an example.

[3:50:57] that has to do with the physical disciplining of children, which can be a sincerely held religious belief for some groups.

[3:51:03] Back in the 1970s, there were faith-based ministries that argued that licensing of children's homes violated their religious freedom.

[3:51:11] Our member denominations strongly supported the Child Care Licensing Act back in 1975 because of a minister named Lester Rolloff in the People's Baptist Church.

[3:51:20] He claimed that the Child Care Licensing Act didn't apply to him because of religious freedom.

[3:51:26] After two interim studies by the legislature, 12 years of litigation, the state finally shut him down in 1985.

[3:51:33] But some of you may remember that name because Rolloff Evangelistic Enterprises reopened in 1997.

[3:51:39] The legislature has twice dealt with Lester Rolloff because the legislature didn't get the balance exactly right between religiously motivated conduct and protecting that and protecting the health and safety of children.

[3:51:51] We need to be 100% certain that the health and safety of children prevails, and that's why the language is so important in these bills.

[3:51:58] We have three principles that we think if applied, strike this balance.

[3:52:02] We have handed out written testimony, and I'm referring to stuff that we have written on page 34.

[3:52:06] But those three principles are this, that first government must not prefer or

[3:52:10] disadvantage one faith relative to another, and that includes no faith at all.

[3:52:15] Two, government must not force any person to act against their conscience unless there's a state interest that compels it.

[3:52:22] And three, government must not permit adherence of one faith to harm non-adherence as an expression of faith.

[3:52:28] The provision of child welfare is very fax-specific.

[3:52:31] We think of bill negotiation with all the stakeholders as necessary to fully understand the implications of the language.

[3:52:37] If this were a bill about electric utilities or copper recycling, that's what we would do.

[3:52:42] The Texas Referee, which we passed in 99 in this very committee, very good example of this process of unreferencing.

[3:52:48] We would urge this committee to follow the same process of having all the stakeholders negotiate the language out and not pass the bill until at least all the faith groups evolve, the faiths in Texas get to neutral in the bill.

[3:52:58] We appreciate your work and we look forward to working with you.

[3:53:00] Okay, members, any questions?

[3:53:05] Yes, I wrote to you a brief read.

[3:53:06] Briefly, thank you for being here at Testify.

[3:53:08] Do you see any on the language that on page 4 that talks about, you know, the, you know,

[3:53:14] the sincerely, sincerely held religious beliefs, any, for lack of a better word,

[3:53:19] like, limitation on that other than, I guess, the best interest of the child?

[3:53:24] I'm not that the standard.

[3:53:26] I mean, I've not seen a committee sub.

[3:53:28] I'm not seeing where the best interest of the child would prevail.

[3:53:32] And with regard to discrimination, I'd refer to page 6.

[3:53:35] These are some of the things that are trying to exempt out.

[3:53:41] So some of the limitations, like on page six, you've got the area about not discriminating

[3:53:45] based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, but it doesn't say religion, which is part

[3:53:50] of the Civil Rights Act.

[3:53:51] You could presumably have a provider discriminate against somebody of a different faith.

[3:53:57] With regard to law enforcement or above it, it says law enforcement duties aren't inhibited,

[3:54:02] but that requires probable cause.

[3:54:04] We also have concerns that maybe D.F.P.S. couldn't get in in certain situations.

[3:54:10] We want to make sure that that's not handled.

[3:54:11] Part of the advantage of licensing is you don't require a probable cause.

[3:54:14] You just get right in.

[3:54:15] So when that was you're talking about on page 6, if you added religion or if you added sexual orientation

[3:54:19] with that, could that solve some of this or?

[3:54:22] Well, that's hard to say.

[3:54:24] It's hard to say what all the different providers concerns are because faith is so diverse in Texas.

[3:54:27] And we think figure out how to create that balance like we did with Texas Riffer.

[3:54:31] or were 50 different faith groups all agreed it was a good bill is to get them all in a room and just really hammer out the it's very fact specific in these cases are so many different competing in parents and biological parents foster parents different providers secondary provider complicated thing. Thank you.

[3:54:47] Members, any other questions?

[3:54:49] We're going to take our next witness.

[3:55:00] Lynn Harms.

[3:55:08] Have you passed, president, children's home of Lubbock and South here to speak for the bill? Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Lynn Harms. I'm the past president of the Children's Home of Lubbock, and stick here on behalf of the testimony on behalf of the children's home and on myself as well. In operation, since 1954, the Children's Home of Lubbock is a non-profit. I am for the bill, yes, sir.

[3:55:37] Non-profit multi-service campus that provides foster care and adoption services as well, serving children in Region 1.

[3:55:44] The children's home of Lubbock fully supports HB 3859.

[3:55:49] We believe that HB 3859 promotes diversity in the delivery of adoption and foster care services.

[3:55:55] State of Texas has significant backlog of children available for adoption and a serious lack of foster parent resources with which to meet the needs of the children who are available.

[3:56:05] and who are in desperate need.

[3:56:07] This is a time Texas needs every available service delivery

[3:56:11] organization providing quality services for children.

[3:56:15] Children's home of Lubbock and agencies like ours need to bill

[3:56:17] to ensure the ongoing delivery of service to children and families.

[3:56:23] Today the Children's Home of Lubbock

[3:56:24] consummates an average of 24 adoptions each year

[3:56:29] and our sister agency there in Lubbock, Texas,

[3:56:31] as voice ranch consummates an average of 18 adoptions annually.

[3:56:35] Our collective success in placement is extremely high even when working with very high needs

[3:56:41] children.

[3:56:42] As a faith-based agency, the Children's Home of Lubbock has provided foster care and adoption

[3:56:46] services since 1955, the year after we opened, and since 1990, the strong majority of the

[3:56:54] children we have placed have been children in the Texas foster care system.

[3:56:59] Not only is the Children's Home of Lubbock fully licensed by the Department of Family

[3:57:03] and Protective Services, we are accredited through the Council on Accreditation, and in

[3:57:09] the next three months we'll be certified as a trauma informed program with certification

[3:57:15] through the Sanctuary Institute, one of the premier trauma informed organizations in the

[3:57:21] country.

[3:57:22] Faith-based agencies providing care and services for children have been the backbone of

[3:57:27] the foster care system in Texas for more than 100 years. Our agencies have done an excellent

[3:57:32] job of blending biblical-based core values with evidence-based practices of the highest

[3:57:37] caliber. In fact, we believe that the principle of good stewardship learned as a biblical

[3:57:42] value compels us to provide the best services possible for the children and care. Children's

[3:57:49] home of Lubbock has earned great success in adoption services, especially in placing

[3:57:54] sibling groups together in adoption and with children exhibiting more extreme emotional

[3:57:59] and behavioral challenges.

[3:58:01] We are committed to finding families willing to adopt sibling groups and recruit specifically

[3:58:06] for such families.

[3:58:09] When it comes to working with kids with more extreme or emotional issues, we work with the

[3:58:13] families who plan to adopt by training them with the same techniques our campus care employees

[3:58:19] are taught and engage our on-staff therapists to train and assist families in quality

[3:58:24] quality bonding and parenting skills.

[3:58:27] We use our campus care providers often as mentors for those adoptive families who will

[3:58:33] need increased skills to meet the demands of an adopted child with special behavioral

[3:58:38] or emotional characteristics.

[3:58:41] Opponents of HV 3859 will assert multiple forms of arguments.

[3:58:45] However, this bill is narrowly tailored to protect a compelling government interest, protecting

[3:58:50] vulnerable children.

[3:58:52] This bill simply accommodates the sincerely held but

[3:58:55] religious beliefs of foster and adoption service providers so that we can continue to deliver services for the children in need.

[3:59:05] At a time when Speaker Strauss, Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Patrick have publicly called for more churches and church members to become involved with foster care and adoption.

[3:59:14] The faith-based foster care and adoption agencies are the ones these people will turn to.

[3:59:19] and very often these churches are supporters and encourages of the ministries of

[3:59:24] function programs. Mr. Chairman and committee members, HB 3859, will ensure

[3:59:32] services to children while expanding the potential for placement for thousands of

[3:59:36] Texas children waiting for a permanent home. That concludes my testimony and I'm

[3:59:42] happy to answer any questions.

[3:59:43] the chairman garen has a question anybody else have y'all been

[3:59:48] suffocated these lawsuits we have not our board of directors has

[3:59:53] wrestled with some of the issues coming up and and are religiously closely

[3:59:58] held religious

[4:00:00] We just believe of prime concern with our Board of Directors has been being forced to select families that we do not feel meet our values. And our Board has determined that if that push comes to Chauvin, we're required to do so. We will eliminate our foster care and adoption services. Thank you very much. And thank you for being here today. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Catherine Miller, President Texas Freedom Work, Freedom Network.

[4:00:29] We're here to testify against the bill.

[4:00:37] Good afternoon.

[4:00:38] I'm Catherine Miller, President of the Texas Freedom Network.

[4:00:43] The Texas Freedom Network represents more than 130,000 religious and community leaders from across the state who support religious freedom and individual liberties.

[4:00:51] I'm here to testify in opposition to House Bill 3859.

[4:00:55] There are some very serious potential problems with the bill and many have been mentioned today.

[4:01:00] I want to start with an observation, and I haven't seen the committee substitute.

[4:01:06] So, reference to child welfare being central is something that if it's changed, it certainly isn't in the original bill, because the entire child welfare system in Texas is predicated on the assumption that everyone involved at every level has as their first and overriding concern, doing what is in the best interest of the child period.

[4:01:27] everything else is secondary and this bill represents a dangerous term because it makes the

[4:01:34] religious beliefs and convictions of providers, the primary concern, and says that where

[4:01:40] the welfare of a child conflicts with the religious dogma of an institution, the provider's

[4:01:45] interests trump the child's interests. That's wrong and it's dangerous because it displaces

[4:01:51] concern for the child at the center of child welfare. There are some serious problems. The

[4:01:56] The primary point of this bill seems to be allowing individuals and organizations to use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination against LGBT children and families.

[4:02:07] Child welfare agencies that receive taxpayer dollars or are acting on behalf of the state would be able to discriminate against responsible loving families that want to help those children.

[4:02:18] Even more alarming, the expansive language in the bill might prevent child welfare organizations,

[4:02:24] might permit child welfare organizations to encourage harmful and discredited

[4:02:28] reparative therapy for minors, who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

[4:02:34] Even if LGBT families are the primary target of the legislation, they're not the only

[4:02:39] people who could face discrimination.

[4:02:41] The broad language in this bill would allow private agencies to discriminate

[4:02:44] against single or divorced people, interfaith couples, as well as people of different religious

[4:02:50] faiths or denominations than the agencies themselves, even if they are relatives of

[4:02:55] the child. Put simply this bill would allow individuals and organizations to use religion

[4:03:00] to discriminate and harm others. Finally, I want to remind this committee what you've heard

[4:03:06] before. Texas has a tragic history of partnering with child welfare organizations that use religious

[4:03:12] just doctrine to mask child abuse.

[4:03:14] Some of you remember roll-off homes,

[4:03:16] you've been reminded about Leicester Roll-off already today.

[4:03:20] I fear that passage of this bill would signal

[4:03:22] to organizations like that,

[4:03:25] that they might be welcome back in Texas.

[4:03:27] I think before we pass sweeping new language

[4:03:30] that could permit bad actors,

[4:03:33] like roll-off homes to gain a foothold in Texas,

[4:03:35] we should think very carefully

[4:03:36] about the consequences of this bill.

[4:03:39] Thank you very much.

[4:03:40] Mr. Miller, a couple things number one, you've registered twice.

[4:03:44] So I need to show you one time, I was Catherine Miller, Texas Freedom Network, and then you

[4:03:51] registered separately as Catherine Miller representing yourself, both against the bill.

[4:03:58] Oh, I only pushed one.

[4:04:00] Okay, well.

[4:04:01] Okay.

[4:04:02] That's the way you're in, so we need to-

[4:04:05] Okay.

[4:04:05] Yeah.

[4:04:06] So what do you need me to say?

[4:04:07] No, I've got it in the record now, so I'm just fine.

[4:04:11] I'm disappointed in your position, because it's obvious that what's being done here is

[4:04:18] trying to make sure we have more folks that are doing this, and you're advocating for

[4:04:24] less, and the reference to roll-off, I'm kind of struggling with that.

[4:04:30] But this was an unlicensed facility, quite different from what we're talking about here.

[4:04:39] And so your suggestion that we're going back to that is disappointing.

[4:04:45] But if we, I'll give you the same thing I've said to you.

[4:04:49] If you care about the kids, then you can figure out how to work with everybody and not be against.

[4:04:54] It's easy to come in here and be against.

[4:04:56] It's a lot harder to give solutions.

[4:04:59] And we have care.

[4:05:00] That are suffering while we're trying to figure this out. So I do, we need to try to do that, okay? I do agree that it's easier to be, to offer, to be opposed, than to offer solutions. However. And I want to let, I'm on, let Mr. Reption admire. I ask you a question. Okay. Hi. And I appreciate your intent. Like all of ours here is in the best interest of the child. You specifically referenced, however, in your testimony, you said that specifically contained in this legislation.

[4:05:29] It's a provision that allows for religious beliefs to trump the welfare of the child.

[4:05:34] Please point me to that language, specifically where it says that I can, I guess,

[4:05:38] your point would be harm a child because my religion says it's okay.

[4:05:41] I want to see that language like that.

[4:05:42] It says that, so I'm reading from the bill.

[4:05:46] Please read from the bill.

[4:05:48] And let me know which section, because I want to, if we need to correct or address this.

[4:05:51] No adverse action can be taken.

[4:05:54] Okay, I'm sorry, I've got it on the computer.

[4:05:57] So it says that no adverse action, where are we?

[4:06:02] I have the wrong, or I don't have a page number in front of me.

[4:06:08] So it's section,

[4:06:14] correct.

[4:06:18] Here we go.

[4:06:19] Here's my printed copy.

[4:06:20] I'm very sorry.

[4:06:22] Yes, yes.

[4:06:27] So actually, this happens here, a child welfare service provider may assert an actual

[4:06:32] or threatened violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

[4:06:39] They successfully assert a claim if, no, I'm so sorry.

[4:06:53] Okay, here we go.

[4:06:55] I'm on page four.

[4:06:57] Line six, actually four, right?

[4:07:00] A child welfare services provider on the basis, wholly or partly, that the provider.

[4:07:04] So we cannot take any detrimental government action.

[4:07:07] A government entity or any person that contracts with this state or operates under

[4:07:12] governmental authority to refer a place children for welfare services may not

[4:07:15] discriminate or take any adverse action against a child welfare services

[4:07:19] provider on the basis wholly or partly that the provider has declined or will

[4:07:23] decline to provide facilitated refer a person for child welfare services that

[4:07:26] conflict with or under circumstances that conflict with the providers sincerely

[4:07:30] held religious beliefs. That places the providers religious beliefs ahead of the

[4:07:37] the interest of the child in making that determination.

[4:07:39] Absolutely.

[4:07:40] We can't.

[4:07:40] But we're not.

[4:07:41] Not even close.

[4:07:42] It does not say that.

[4:07:43] There's no way, no.

[4:07:44] Your statement in your testimony was, I can abuse a kid and be

[4:07:47] protected by my religion.

[4:07:48] That's what your testimony was.

[4:07:50] I'm just going off of that, but that is not what this provision

[4:07:52] states.

[4:07:53] So when, if you license an entity that believes in spare of the

[4:07:59] rods, spoil the child in a biblical way, and then you determine

[4:08:04] Again, that entity is behaving inappropriately.

[4:08:09] It is unclear what kind of adverse action could be taken under this legislation.

[4:08:16] Certainly, it would be litigated in a way that's different now.

[4:08:20] Secondly, you're asking for a kind of supervision of providers that we can't even provide today,

[4:08:31] right?

[4:08:31] So you're saying the providers get to kind of the secondary providers get to pick and choose based on their religious beliefs what they will or will not enforce, and CPS will intervene when they find something out, when they detect a problem, which right now they're not even able to do that with respect to the children in their care.

[4:08:52] Finally, a lot of the conversation today has been only about adoptive and foster care services.

[4:08:59] But the bill is specific in outlining a number of child welfare services that are covered in this legislation.

[4:09:08] And it isn't only adoption and foster care, it involves counseling of parents and families and children.

[4:09:15] It involves group homes, it involves home evaluations, licensing, recruiting.

[4:09:22] So all of these factors open the door to folks being able to assert, right?

[4:09:29] Agencies being able to assert a sincerely held religious belief that trumps the interests

[4:09:34] of the child in that moment.

[4:09:36] Okay, so let's talk about reality.

[4:09:38] Let's not talk about theoretical because I feel like you're reading this completely wrong.

[4:09:42] I believe like you are reading into it an intent that does not even get close to existing.

[4:09:47] So under what you're saying the way that this legislation is written, that if I want to

[4:09:51] because of my religious beliefs, be to child, right?

[4:09:55] That police officers can come and take a look

[4:09:57] and investigate and I say, whoa, it's my

[4:10:00] Or religious belief to be able to do that. And what you were saying is that this says, no, no, that's exactly what you said. No, it isn't. Yes, ma'am, it is. And that this legislation

[4:10:08] would somehow protect me because I have blanketed myself with my religious belief. That is what your testimony, at least as I understand it has been. So correct me, how I'm wrong.

[4:10:16] You said the spare the rod and all that kind of good stuff. Absolutely. Absolutely. That's exactly where that was my point. That's where you went.

[4:10:23] I went to a place where child protective services, if they were able to investigate

[4:10:29] every claim, might be very, very concerned about the behavior of a foster parent, a group home.

[4:10:34] So now you're talking about child protective services not having adequate staff and

[4:10:38] resources, which we've already addressed this session.

[4:10:40] You're not talking about this legislatively.

[4:10:41] Because we have asserted a privilege to the religious beliefs of the secondary agency

[4:10:48] over the interests of the child.

[4:10:51] I believe if you heard Representative Frank, the best interest of the child trumps all, correct?

[4:10:55] So, I am not attributing intent to Representative Frank.

[4:11:01] I am-

[4:11:02] I'm saying intent, I'm saying legislation.

[4:11:04] Best interest of the child trumps all the above.

[4:11:07] That's the way I understand the legislation.

[4:11:09] This legislation does not assert that the best interest of the child trump everything else.

[4:11:16] Are you sure that not other statutes would address the best interest of the child as it relates to providers?

[4:11:20] This legislation, not the sub, does not assert that the best interest of the child

[4:11:28] outweigh the religious, the sincerely held religious beliefs of the secondary provider.

[4:11:33] Okay, so if we could get, if there could be information shown to you, whether it's a corresponding

[4:11:37] statute or as a committee sub, says best interest of the child, which is the way I understand

[4:11:41] the legislation or related legislation, then you'd be okay with this bill.

[4:11:45] No.

[4:11:46] Okay.

[4:11:47] But I was answering your questions.

[4:11:49] Correct.

[4:11:49] I think it's always wrong to use religion to allow discrimination on behalf of the state

[4:11:59] that I live in.

[4:12:00] And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.

[4:12:02] Thank you, ma'am.

[4:12:05] I have kind of Rodriguez.

[4:12:06] Thank you.

[4:12:08] I think if you're looking at that section you're talking about, I mean, there's no doubt

[4:12:14] that there is, to some degree, a carve-out, right, for religious, anything, you know,

[4:12:21] when it comes to religious, strongly, religiously-health beliefs, that's essentially,

[4:12:24] I think, is what you're saying, right?

[4:12:26] So, it's not that the best interest of the child, and I hope we get somebody from the state

[4:12:30] up here pretty soon, because I want to, and I know that that Representative Frank and

[4:12:33] I had talked about this and others about what that is.

[4:12:36] Good, good, but it seems to me that, basically, there's a carve-out on the lawsuit

[4:12:42] suit side, right, for religious strongly, strong, what is it?

[4:12:48] Sincerely held religious beliefs.

[4:12:50] And I think that's what you're getting at.

[4:12:51] Yes, well, and in that regard, whether it trumps the best center of the child or not,

[4:12:57] at least there's a different category, right, for organizations that have these.

[4:13:03] Absolutely, and I think that's what you were getting at.

[4:13:05] Well, and I mean, the bill is pretty specific, again, I will try and find the exact line,

[4:13:10] But it's near the end of the bill where it says this does not, Trump, or this would not

[4:13:19] allow religion to be used to discriminate based on race, national origin, or ethnicity.

[4:13:23] But it doesn't talk about sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.

[4:13:29] I mean, it's clear that it's recognizing that, sincerely held religious beliefs

[4:13:34] could be interpreted as trumping certain civil liberties, and it carves out special

[4:13:40] I'm going back to what Chairman had said before, I think if we can try to figure out a way to make this better, I want to try to do that, obviously try to fix it as possible because I do believe we don't want, we want more or not less, and whatever we can do to help that along, I'd like to get there and work with the author of the bill, but do you think if we did add sexual orientation or religion to that list on page six that you were just mentioning,

[4:14:07] with that help?

[4:14:08] Certainly.

[4:14:09] Okay.

[4:14:10] I mean, I think the idea of recognizing

[4:14:14] that the state needs religious providers

[4:14:18] of child welfare services is totally right.

[4:14:23] I do not disagree that the state needs those providers

[4:14:25] and I absolutely do not take exception to being

[4:14:30] accused of wanting less providers.

[4:14:31] That is not what I am saying.

[4:14:33] But I think it does a disservice to the state that I love, and it does a disservice to the children we're trying to serve, and it does a disservice to faith, to use religion or to allow religion to justify discrimination in the way that I believe it could be used if this bill were to pass.

[4:14:53] Thank you.

[4:14:54] Mr. Miller, the zero-organization-provied foster

[4:15:00] No. So you're not, you're not provided. No. So, okay. You understand why that? I do. I understand why you ask the question. It's, it's, you know, we're trying to add, we're figuring out we need to figure out how to take care of kids who are in terrible situations. And you're not coming in here with any solutions for me. And then you're not providing the service. So I'm just saying. We're a civil liberties organization. I can't change that.

[4:15:29] I do understand why you asked.

[4:15:32] I'm trying to find positive solutions.

[4:15:33] I tell you what we should do is we've got a,

[4:15:36] we've got Bradley Star here from the Attorney General's Office.

[4:15:39] Maybe we should have him come up.

[4:15:40] Thank you, Ms. Miller, for your time.

[4:15:41] Thank you very much.

[4:15:42] Thank you very much.

[4:15:43] Bradley Star, Deputy First Assistant Attorney General,

[4:15:47] Attorney General's Office of Texas here is a neutral resource witness

[4:15:52] and maybe Representative Meyer,

[4:15:56] you may want to ask him some of the specific questions

[4:15:59] that you just were asking men to go because he can give us a very fitting here.

[4:16:05] Brownlee, so our attorney general's office here is a resource.

[4:16:07] And

[4:16:11] I'll ask you my question.

[4:16:12] The best interest of the child, you just heard the exchange and the testimony in my response.

[4:16:17] Can you walk me through that and how that would, what the status is over this legislation and

[4:16:21] corresponding legislation as well?

[4:16:23] Sure, two quick points.

[4:16:24] It appears in two places, first in the preamble of the bill, and then at the back of the bill.

[4:16:28] saying that nothing in this bill would affect the best interest of the child in work.

[4:16:32] Is that 45.09H?

[4:16:34] I believe that's right.

[4:16:35] Maybe G, line page 6, line 21.

[4:16:38] That's correct.

[4:16:38] Okay, so that is in the statute, correct?

[4:16:41] That's currently right.

[4:16:42] It's already in the statute.

[4:16:43] It would be in the new statute and two places if this bill becomes law.

[4:16:48] Seconding is-

[4:16:48] I don't know how ambiguity on that.

[4:16:50] I don't believe so.

[4:16:51] And I didn't read best interest of child to be displaced by the original layout of the

[4:16:56] bill. But in the event that there's some question of interpretation, that should

[4:16:59] be laid to rest with the two occurrences in the bill, where it's expressed now.

[4:17:02] And I think we all would agree with that as well. I don't think you would see any disagree.

[4:17:05] The best interest of the child should be the first and foremost fact.

[4:17:08] And Texas Supreme Court has said that even in statutes in the family code where it's not

[4:17:12] expressly in there, they've said the touchstone is the best interest of the child,

[4:17:15] even in mediated settlement agreement statutes and things like that.

[4:17:17] It's in here expressly in two different places.

[4:17:19] Right, so the scenario that I laid out for the witness about, you know, clothing,

[4:17:23] I mean, you know, liking myself and religious beliefs as I, you know, abuse a child that can't happen, correct?

[4:17:29] It shouldn't happen, and this bill doesn't affect that.

[4:17:31] But let's say that someone actually does abuse a child in the name of religion.

[4:17:35] Nothing would stop CPS from coming in and taking custody of that child back.

[4:17:39] Even in the very first establishment clause case that the U.S. Supreme Court had,

[4:17:43] they said that free exercise and establishment clause doesn't allow a person to be cloaked

[4:17:48] in this first amendment defense when they're harming another person.

[4:17:51] And so the establishment clause for exercise calls have never gone that far.

[4:17:55] This bill wouldn't go that far, otherwise it would be unconstitutional.

[4:17:58] It simply doesn't prevent the department from stepping in if there's harm to somebody.

[4:18:03] And really, what this is about is less about the, in the moment kind of situation of what's happening.

[4:18:08] And really about a license to participate in the process, so to speak.

[4:18:13] The example that you had earlier represented Rodriguez of vaccines.

[4:18:16] We know that the department is the joint managing, well, is the managing conservator of the child.

[4:18:20] The foster family helps, so the foster family won't actually drive the kid to get the vaccines.

[4:18:26] The department is tasked with that duty.

[4:18:27] This bill, what it would do is to prevent the department afterwards from saying we really didn't enjoy driving to the doctor's office for those vaccines.

[4:18:34] You're out of the foster care program family.

[4:18:37] That's what this bill really does.

[4:18:38] It doesn't affect the department's freestanding existing obligation to provide medically necessary treatment for that child.

[4:18:45] It just prevents the department from removing that family from participation in the program afterwards.

[4:18:50] That makes sense.

[4:18:51] Thank you very much.

[4:18:51] Thank you.

[4:18:52] And I also want to just clear up to, you know, you're speaking a sub has not been laid out.

[4:18:58] So you're speaking on the subject of what would what it would look like.

[4:19:03] Correct.

[4:19:03] Understood.

[4:19:04] And the Texas Supreme Court has read in best interest, even in statutes, where it's not expressed.

[4:19:09] Okay.

[4:19:10] Yes.

[4:19:10] Go ahead.

[4:19:11] I'm sorry if you said this.

[4:19:12] I'm sorry.

[4:19:12] I missed it.

[4:19:13] But in statute where not in this bill, but somewhere in statute is best interest defined,

[4:19:18] Even roughly, or is it defined in any specific way?

[4:19:22] It's usually defined in the case law, not in the family case law, okay.

[4:19:27] Okay, and then I hate to just keep bringing up this kind of subject, but say in the instance

[4:19:31] of an abortion scenario, CPS is not obligated.

[4:19:35] What's the situation there if you have a underage, I mean, to someone who's a 16 year old girl,

[4:19:40] 15 year old girl, whatever the case may be, and say it's medically necessary or deemed

[4:19:45] to be medically necessary, let's not get into the other stuff.

[4:19:47] So what's the, what's the course of action that you're, are you aware of?

[4:19:51] It's CPS might, how would that work?

[4:19:52] So the department, legally speaking, since the department is the Managing

[4:19:55] Conservator of the Child, they are duty bound to provide medically necessary

[4:19:59] retreatment.

[4:20:00] If the family they're placed with cannot provide that treatment. And so if it's an elective abortion, and they big, they don't touch that or do that. I'm not sure how elective works. I'll have to defer to the department on that. So even if you had a situation where it was against a strongly held, sincerely held religious belief, if it's in the best interest of the child in the sense that it's medically necessary, then CPS would be obligated to. As the managing conservative, they would be obligated. Great. Thank you, sir.

[4:20:29] This star, some have said that this bill is a license to discriminate, would you speak to that issue?

[4:20:36] Legally, I view it as a status quo bill, those that are participating now can still continue to do so.

[4:20:41] I would view it as having two tweaks to the current status quo.

[4:20:45] One, it's a shield from lawsuits that may happen in the future.

[4:20:48] But that shield is only given because of something that faith-based entities are now giving up that they don't currently have.

[4:20:53] And that is the duty to have some sort of recuse and refer process.

[4:20:58] And so they can't just say, no, we won't help you and hang up the phone.

[4:21:01] The statute would record me to say, well, the DFPS can help you.

[4:21:05] Or we know of another organization that can.

[4:21:07] And so they get that benefit of protection from lawsuits in exchange for no longer just hanging up the phone and

[4:21:12] saying, no, they have some obligation to help.

[4:21:15] Okay.

[4:21:16] Yes.

[4:21:17] Thank you for being here. It's kind of going back to the protection.

[4:21:21] Speak to the Religious Freedom Information Act, and does it, do we have protection

[4:21:26] in there? Does that cover it? What is?

[4:21:29] There is some vague protection in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[4:21:32] That came about because it was sort of the one sentence that the U.S. Supreme Court used

[4:21:35] to refer to its constitutional standard. They departed from it, and then the U.S. Congress

[4:21:40] said, we're going back to the old standard, we like it better.

[4:21:42] It has to determine three different things, whether government interest is compelling,

[4:21:48] whether it's the least restrictive means and whether it substantially burdens religion.

[4:21:52] That's a pretty fact intensive inquiry.

[4:21:54] And so we see these refer cases take one, two years to resolve in the trial court.

[4:21:59] For a judge to really understand what all those three factors mean given a particular case.

[4:22:04] And at the end, parties can have substantial legal costs after a refer case is played out.

[4:22:08] And there's little certainty in predicting how those cases will result.

[4:22:11] This is a clear statute, sort of like the Pastor Protection Act from last session, where this body said we know there's a clear case, so in this situation there shouldn't be a lawsuit, and then the lawsuit should last 30 to 60 days rather than a year or two.

[4:22:27] Members, do we have any other questions?

[4:22:29] Or star? Okay, thank you.

[4:22:30] Thank you, Chair.

[4:22:31] Thank you for your testimony.

[4:22:39] Members, we're handing out a copy of this, so we can see what it looks like that we're not going to lay it out.

[4:22:48] Okay, who's next?

[4:22:55] Gus Reyes, Christian Live Commission, Texas Baptist here representing Anne himself.

[4:23:03] Here's Speak Poe the Bill,

[4:23:11] Dr. Gus, how are you?

[4:23:12] Good to see you, Mr. Chair.

[4:23:15] My name is Gus Reyes, and I do represent the Christian Live Commission, and I am speaking in support of HB 3859, I also represent myself.

[4:23:24] The Christian Live Commission is the Ethics and Justice Ministry of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

[4:23:29] Established in 1950, we work with Texas Baptists to bring a biblical perspective of current cultural and public policy issues.

[4:23:38] I am also, my wife and I also went through the Texas Foster program to foster two sons and that we eventually adopt it.

[4:23:49] So they want to point out that I do speak from some experience in the subject.

[4:23:54] In Texas, faith based child placing agencies account for about 25% of our state capacity place children with loving families.

[4:24:02] We place in care for foster children and orphans out of the biblical commandment of James 127 to look after orphans.

[4:24:10] Governor Abbott, First Lady Abbott and Commissioner Hank Whitman have made working with churches and

[4:24:14] faith-based groups to recruit foster families a central piece of their efforts to improve capacity.

[4:24:20] This bill maximizes the number of homes available for fostered children and we're very thankful for that.

[4:24:27] It's a license to participate for faith-based adoption and foster care providers that have served the disadvantaged children of Texas for decades and have a proven track record of serving the best interest of children.

[4:24:40] The state legislature, legislative intent of the bill is to ensure that there is a diverse and

[4:24:45] broad range of foster care providers.

[4:24:48] To be clear, HB 3859 would not apply to those who receive contracts of service single source continuum.

[4:24:55] Contractors, I believe, has been referenced.

[4:24:57] We believe it is possible to respect since-

[4:25:04] Section 405.009 makes it absolutely clear that providers may not deprive a minor of the rights guaranteed in that children's bill of rights set by the Texas Framie Code. The best interest of the child, legal standard, already includes religious matching, placing Baptist kids with Baptist parents were possible. Nothing in this bill prohibits DFPS or the SSCC from prioritizing the best interest of the child

[4:25:28] in making placement decisions.

[4:25:30] This would include selecting placement in which a religious identity of the child is respected.

[4:25:35] Section 45.009G, paragraph G, addresses this issue by requiring compliance with medical care,

[4:25:43] vaccines, and preventing the use of corporal punishment.

[4:25:47] It is possible for those who do not wish to work with faith-based agencies to find other providers

[4:25:53] or work directly with the state.

[4:25:54] This means no one who meets the date qualifications will be denied the opportunity to foster or adopt children.

[4:26:01] Texas Department of Family Predictive Services is managing conservator and foster cases with a continuing obligation to serve the best interest of the child.

[4:26:10] HB 30, A59 ensures a diversity of providers to ensure that all children have every chance to end up in permanent loving families.

[4:26:19] We thank you for the work that you're doing here and we commit our prayers to you.

[4:26:23] That God will give you wisdom and guidance as you make further decisions as you move forward.

[4:26:28] Thank you.

[4:26:29] Thank you.

[4:26:29] We appreciate it.

[4:26:30] Members, do we have any questions?

[4:26:33] Thank you very much for being here and to test for me.

[4:26:36] Jennifer Almond, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops here to speak for the bill.

[4:26:46] Good afternoon, chairman and members.

[4:26:48] My name is Jennifer Almond and I'm the executive director of a Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops.

[4:26:51] testifying in support of HB 3859 as an essential component to foster care reform.

[4:26:57] Since 1727, Catholic religious orders and charities have provided orphaned ministries in the United States.

[4:27:03] Shortly after the Louisiana Purchase Thomas Jefferson sent the Urson Sisters of New Orleans a donation to continue their charitable mission,

[4:27:11] serving orphans as Catholic sisters, assuring them in a handwritten letter of their protection of religious liberty to serve orphans,

[4:27:18] despite the fact that they were no longer in Catholic France, but in the new United States.

[4:27:24] Public support and appreciation for religiously-based charities has continued to this day.

[4:27:29] The Sisters of Charity, the Incarnate Word, began serving orphans in San Antonio and Galveston in 1866.

[4:27:36] For over 150 years, our adoption and foster care services have been an integral part of the child welfare system in Texas.

[4:27:43] Yet in recent years, public-private partnerships have eroded significantly because of

[4:27:47] of conflicts between the perceived rights of individuals and the church's conscientious

[4:27:51] choice to provide services only in accord with church teaching.

[4:27:54] We have experienced a slow motion weakening of our First Amendment right to freedom of

[4:27:58] religion that seeks to reduce religious freedom to the freedom to attend mass and pray rather

[4:28:03] than the freedom to act on our gospel command to serve Christ, present in the refugee, or

[4:28:08] the foster child.

[4:28:09] Strategies that rely on faith-based recruitment of foster families leverage our deep community

[4:28:13] relationships and mission-based commitment to the care of children.

[4:28:17] Catholic charities and the Catholic bishops are the best equipped to recruit families

[4:28:21] from the 8.4 million Catholic Texans who sit in our parish puse weekly.

[4:28:26] This is why we have been strong partners in foster parent recruitment.

[4:28:30] However, based on our experiences as targets of litigation for faithful

[4:28:34] adherents to religious beliefs, we know that the public-private partnership

[4:28:38] will not be successful without conscience protections provided by this bill.

[4:28:42] It would be tragic if the reform sought this session did not ensure that we can provide

[4:28:46] foster services in accordance with the very values that make our assistance so essential

[4:28:51] to the success of reform.

[4:28:53] The bishops believe that it does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious

[4:28:57] believers and the church as if they are a threat to our common life and the common good.

[4:29:02] To the contrary, our good works are a contribute to the proper functioning of society.

[4:29:07] The Catholic Church is responsible for an impressive array of hospitals, clinics,

[4:29:11] universities, schools, adoption agencies, development projects, and charities that provide

[4:29:16] assistance to the poor, the hungry, immigrants, and those faced with crisis pregnancies.

[4:29:20] We do the work that the gospel mandates that we do, yet too often today we are forced to

[4:29:25] choose between the good works we do by faith and fidelity to that faith itself.

[4:29:30] The children in Texas and the child welfare system deserve the very best we have to offer,

[4:29:35] Yet, without conscience protection, it is the children and families in crisis who suffer.

[4:29:41] You've had witnesses talk about an idea of bringing together all the religious groups to

[4:29:44] have a grand discussion and negotiation to agree on sincerely held religious beliefs.

[4:29:49] And I would submit to you that that's probably not possible.

[4:29:52] That's why we have diverse religious groups in Texas.

[4:29:55] This bill seeks to allow each of us to do our role in what we do best.

[4:30:00] Without stopping other people from being at the table with us, doing what they do best. And that's why we so strongly support the bill. I'm happy to answer any questions. I've been a couple that have come up about litigation. We have been the target of litigation repeatedly on this topic. That was. Go ahead, you answered my question before I asked it. So how many times will have you in fact been? Yes, Catholic charity has been sued through and I throughout the United States, multiple times and here in Texas,

[4:30:29] as well. Primarily, we are sued by civil liberties groups who are, as Chairman Cook pointed out, not involved in providing social justice.

[4:30:36] As it pertains to foster care specifically, and we have been, had grants where we scored a 98 out of 100 point scale, and the next provider scored a 56.

[4:30:47] The grant was given to the next provider because of our refusal to facilitate access to abortion.

[4:30:53] And so we have, we have those adverse actions and why it's so broad relates to our real experiences.

[4:30:59] is Catholic Charities in Texas is currently closed or suspended almost all of our foster

[4:31:04] care programs.

[4:31:05] And let me tell you members, you see me in this committee a lot, a lot of issues, but

[4:31:09] it breaks my heart and it breaks the heart of the Catholic bishops of Texas to end 166 years

[4:31:16] of orphan ministry because of continued litigation on the issue.

[4:31:21] And the very painful and difficult decision our Catholic Charities CEOs make on a regular

[4:31:25] basis to assess our stewardship of our resources and say, rather than spending money defending this litigation, we can instead provide more services to immigrants where we're not sued.

[4:31:36] We continue the foster care programs and Catholic cherries that will continue to remain open in Texas today are primarily refugee-based because refugees don't sue us.

[4:31:45] Are you able to provide this committee with some information or data on lawsuits?

[4:31:51] Yeah, I mean, you can do a Google search of ACLU soos the Catholic bishops, and there will be two or three pages worth of data and information about them.

[4:31:58] Would you be able to help us with that?

[4:31:59] Yeah, I can provide you a specific lawsuit that's currently going on for our refusal to provide access to abortion to trafficked children.

[4:32:08] Thank you.

[4:32:09] So Buckner was, I had like 400 kids currently in the hospital.

[4:32:14] What's your sense of snack, as I'm hearing that your sense is going.

[4:32:19] Let me ask you a question, if we pass this legislation that gives you protection,

[4:32:26] do you think the Catholic conference would accelerate this program, bring more kids in?

[4:32:38] What do you think will happen?

[4:32:39] Yeah, I think that's exactly why this legislation is so essential.

[4:32:41] The programs that we have operated for so long have closed over the span of the last four years.

[4:32:46] And so some of them closed as recently as July.

[4:32:49] And so the staff are still around and we could reopen that program.

[4:32:53] And the program I'm seeking specifically is Catholic Charities Bearch Diocese of San Antonio.

[4:32:58] They would like to reopen their DFPS based foster care program, but

[4:33:01] they chose to close it in July because of a lack of conscience protections.

[4:33:05] Their CEO has assured me with the passage of this bill he will look to reopen that program and

[4:33:10] reinstitute the program if protections are in place.

[4:33:13] You'll hear from a witness later from Catholic Charities in Central Texas, who will speak to the very same issues.

[4:33:18] So this is a very real and critical issue for the ministry we have historically provided because it is gospel mandated.

[4:33:26] It's kind of like in the prison system, we have a gospel mandate to care for the prisoner.

[4:33:29] If TDCJ won't let us in the door, we can't fulfill our gospel mandate.

[4:33:33] It's the same in the foster care system.

[4:33:34] We have a gospel mandate to care for the orphan.

[4:33:37] You heard it in James 127.

[4:33:38] But if the state of Texas won't allow us to fulfill that mandate within the confines of our faith,

[4:33:44] then our free exercise of religion is upheld, is not upheld.

[4:33:48] And that's why this bill is so critically important for us.

[4:33:51] And we're not theoretically talking about this.

[4:33:54] This is the very real and lived experience of Catholic ministries throughout the state of Texas.

[4:33:58] How are you good?

[4:33:59] Yes,感谢 Madam.

[4:34:01] Thank you for being here, Jennifer, as always, and maybe the other witness.

[4:34:05] Yes, but in terms of number and scope of the mission and the work you were doing in San Antonio prior to closure, can you give us a, I don't know if you have that information.

[4:34:14] I don't have it with me today, but I'll give you a rough example from some of our Catholic Church.

[4:34:17] There's about 12 or 13 Catholic Church's locations throughout the state of Texas.

[4:34:21] Their budgets range in size from $4 million to $40 million. Their services range in size to 30,000 people annually to 200,000 people annually.

[4:34:31] And so when the Catholic Church engages in a ministry,

[4:34:34] it's particularly one like this that is so

[4:34:36] missional for us and so foundational,

[4:34:38] we reach large numbers.

[4:34:39] I referenced in my testimony, there's 8.4 million Catholics in Texas.

[4:34:43] So when you're looking at a lack of families involved in the system,

[4:34:46] we are excellent at recruiting those families.

[4:34:49] And in the Human Services Committee on a similar topic,

[4:34:53] a witness shared that there were children in the Fort Worth area

[4:34:55] continuing to sleep in offices until Catholic Charities Fortworth found out about it

[4:34:59] and immediately...

[4:35:00] We recently got all of those children placed in homes. When we see a crisis, we have the capacity to act swiftly to be a part of a solution. We simply ask that we be able to remain who we are and faithful in being a part of that solution. And we don't seek to do it in isolation. We work in partnership with interfaith ministries throughout the state of Texas, whether people are Christian, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, Lutheran, I mean, you name it. We are not trying to exclude anybody from being engaged, simply asking for the respect that we play the role

[4:35:29] that we seek to play.

[4:35:31] And quickly, just one other question, Mr. Chairman,

[4:35:33] just falling up on the Chairman's question.

[4:35:34] This is not, again, using a word of use,

[4:35:36] or it's not theoretical.

[4:35:37] You will, in fact, if this legislation becomes law

[4:35:40] and the governor signs it, you believe,

[4:35:44] and we'll hopefully get factually

[4:35:45] that Texas Catholic Conference of Bishop's will,

[4:35:47] again, open up more, broaden your services,

[4:35:50] broaden your mission, take more kids.

[4:35:52] I mean, that is your testimony here today.

[4:35:54] The intention of the Catholic Bishop's

[4:35:56] is to reassess the ability of our agencies

[4:35:58] agencies to reopen programs.

[4:35:59] There are 13 programs across the state, so what each individual program does, I can't

[4:36:04] speak to, except for I know San Antonio is very interested in reopening.

[4:36:08] I know Austin is going to speak in a little bit.

[4:36:10] Each program will look at the local community and assess their role.

[4:36:13] A good example is Bishop Michael Siss, the Bishop of the San Angelo diocese, which includes

[4:36:16] Midland Odessa, Abelian, a very wide area.

[4:36:19] Has been issuing letters encouraging people to engage.

[4:36:22] People are coming to us from foster care agencies in the Midland area saying, how can you help

[4:36:28] and Bishop's responses, I want to help, I want to engage.

[4:36:32] And so we really, we are here asking to continue to be a part of the solution as we have since 1727.

[4:36:40] Very good, thank you, too.

[4:36:41] Thank you, members, any other questions?

[4:36:43] Okay, thank you, gentlemen.

[4:36:45] Sarah Ramirez, Catholic Dice of Austin, here to speak for the bill.

[4:36:55] Chairman Cook, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the truth about the impact of

[4:37:01] House Bill 3859.

[4:37:03] I'm Sarah Ramirez.

[4:37:05] I represent the diocese of Austin,

[4:37:07] and I'm here in favor of House Bill 39.

[4:37:09] Thank you.

[4:37:10] I also have the privilege to serve as the executive director

[4:37:13] for Catholic Charities of Central Texas.

[4:37:16] Prior to being hired in Austin,

[4:37:18] I served as the director of child welfare services

[4:37:21] for Catholic Charities in Fort Worth, Texas.

[4:37:24] Oversing both emergency shelter and foster care services.

[4:37:28] Catholic Charity's essential Texas is a $4 million faith-based nonprofit with five innovative programs designed to combat poverty, and we work to keep families together and safe.

[4:37:40] Annually, we serve over 14,000 individuals, yes, sir.

[4:37:45] Thank you, reference the wrong bill number you're supporting is 3859.

[4:37:50] Yes, sir.

[4:37:50] Yes, sir, sorry about that.

[4:37:52] But we serve over 14,000 individuals annually throughout our 25 county service region, most

[4:38:00] of whom are the working poor, and some are even Catholic.

[4:38:04] Today, I am here to ask for your support in passing of the Freedom to Serve Children

[4:38:09] Act so that the faith-based organizations can continue to serve or re-engage in the opportunity

[4:38:15] to serve children who otherwise have little hope for a brighter future without compromising

[4:38:20] the values of faith-based nonprofits.

[4:38:23] I believe that House Bill 3859 is a both-and, not an either-or, opportunity to address the

[4:38:31] current foster care crisis.

[4:38:33] By allowing faith-based nonprofits the opportunity to live out our faith and service delivery, this

[4:38:39] bill will ensure that there is a diverse and wide range of foster care providers, ultimately

[4:38:44] maximizing the number of homes available to foster care children.

[4:38:49] Catholic Charities of Central Texas has been in the foster care and adoption provider in

[4:38:56] the past, and we are willing to reengage in assessing how we can help in the current

[4:39:01] crisis, but only if we are assured the passage of House Bill 3859 in accordance so that

[4:39:10] we can act in accordance with our sincerely held religious belief, the very beliefs that

[4:39:14] create a sense of trust in our work. When I commit to this, I know exactly what that

[4:39:19] entails based on my previous work in Fort Worth and I'm committed to seeing it through.

[4:39:25] If this bill passes, Catholic Charities Essential Texas stands ready to encourage our parishioners

[4:39:31] and over 144 parishes of the diocese of Austin to discern becoming foster parents. Just

[4:39:38] Just imagine if we could recruit three foster families from each parish every single year,

[4:39:44] what kind of impact that would make in our global community.

[4:39:48] Thank you and I'm happy to take any questions.

[4:39:51] Members, any questions?

[4:39:53] No questions, thank you for getting your testimony.

[4:39:56] Chuck Smith, a quality text is here to-

[4:40:00] We speak against the bill.

[4:40:03] We show Mr. Smith against the bill not testifying.

[4:40:12] Aaron Smith, adoption advocates and self here to speak against the bill.

[4:40:21] Hi, my name is Aaron Smith. I am speaking on behalf of adoption advocates and myself, and I oppose House Bill 3859.

[4:40:30] I'm the Director of Adoption Services at Adoption Advocates, the Private Domestic Infant Adoption Agency here in Austin.

[4:40:35] I've worked in the field of adoption for eight years primarily with birth parents.

[4:40:39] I'm also an adoptee.

[4:40:40] I was adopted from an orphanage in Carola, India when I was 20 months old.

[4:40:44] At adoption advocates, we promote open adoption.

[4:40:46] This means the birth parents are encouraged to choose the adoptive families with whom they

[4:40:49] place, can get to know the families during the pregnancy, and maintain in-person contact

[4:40:53] with families and their child after placement.

[4:40:55] We have placed with same-sex couples for over a decade.

[4:40:58] We prepare all of our families for the adoption process and supervise all our families' placements

[4:41:04] because regardless of sexual orientation, our families are equal in our eyes.

[4:41:08] Some of the birth parents, however, see an added benefit in placing with LGBTQ families.

[4:41:12] We often have birth parents contact the agency specifically because they have heard that we place the same sex couples.

[4:41:17] Don't take it from me. I took the liberty of reaching out to a few of the birth parents I have worked with who have chosen to place their children in the home of an LGBTQ family.

[4:41:24] Here's what they've had to say.

[4:41:26] We had a few reasons.

[4:41:27] The first that really hit my heart was that same-sex couples were very much discriminated against in the adoption process.

[4:41:33] Another factor was that we knew that almost by default they would have faced adversity and

[4:41:37] at least to some extent triumphed over it.

[4:41:40] The final thing that weighed into our thought process is that my husband and I both identify as somewhere on the LGBT spectrum.

[4:41:45] And most of us have a tendency to seek out those who are somewhat like us to parent our children.

[4:41:49] We know LGBT families are at least as good as parenting as their heterosis counterparts.

[4:41:53] parts. Another birth mom said, I feel that being a part of the LGBT community that a

[4:41:58] same-sex couple would better understand a possible gay or bisexual child. I feel confident

[4:42:02] that the adoptive fathers of my son will raise him with love and an open mind. And

[4:42:06] a third birth mother said, I did not choose the same-sex couple because they were both women.

[4:42:10] I chose a same-sex couple to raise my child because they have endless love to give her.

[4:42:14] I chose them because I knew they would protect her heart, nourish her spirit and raise her

[4:42:18] to be kind. This bill does not serve the best interests of children. It further puts them

[4:42:22] I'm not a disadvantage by limiting the number of potential loving and support of homes and to which they could be placed.

[4:42:27] I can never support a bill that would legalize this discrimination.

[4:42:33] There's nothing in this bill that states that.

[4:42:37] So I hope-

[4:42:37] They can't, they can refuse to train families.

[4:42:41] I mean, you are, you are just reading this bill, you know, what this bill does is allow for

[4:42:48] faith-based groups to also be part of the process.

[4:42:51] It doesn't exclude the community that you're concerned about.

[4:42:54] It was my understanding that it allowed them to not train LGBT families.

[4:43:01] Is that not correct?

[4:43:05] You know, I'm more than glad to pull somebody up there that can answer that question.

[4:43:10] Okay.

[4:43:13] Matter of fact,

[4:43:15] Bradley, will you come back up here, please?

[4:43:19] You should have left when you had the chance, you've been a whole lot better all.

[4:43:27] Randomly star the first assistant attorney general from Attorney General's Office.

[4:43:33] Can you answer that question for me?

[4:43:34] The question is, can someone refuse on their sincere help?

[4:43:37] Well, first of all, let's go ahead and get your name right.

[4:43:38] Randomly star, Deputy First Assistant, AG's office here as a resource witness on the bill.

[4:43:43] Yes.

[4:43:45] So, mentioning earlier testimony, it goes back and locks in the status quo.

[4:43:48] So, if there's someone who has a sincerely held religious belief, and they can't refuse to accommodate that belief in the department, this bill clarifies that they can't be kicked out a participation in the program, but there's always a backup.

[4:44:01] There's always a backup that the department makes sure is in place if the organization who's had those sincerely held religious beliefs doesn't know the backup already.

[4:44:11] So there's always a backup in place.

[4:44:13] So it does nothing more than log the status quo in and prevent these 25% of our agencies

[4:44:18] who are faith-based from getting kicked out of the program by the department.

[4:44:24] So if say that one of the faith-based groups wouldn't accept a placement, then what do they

[4:44:34] have to do?

[4:44:35] There's an obligation on the part of the department or the faith-based group to determine who the

[4:44:40] back up his who will.

[4:44:41] There's always someone who will do that placement under the structure of his bill.

[4:44:45] So once again, that child would be placed.

[4:44:47] The child would be placed under the current law.

[4:44:50] There's no obligation on the part of that faith-based provider to do anything.

[4:44:54] And so this bill goes beyond the current law and puts on them an obligation to connect to DPS.

[4:44:59] Yes.

[4:45:00] Or make them aware of who the backup provider could be for them. And Ms. Smith had issues that her community would be excluded from this bill. It's my understanding that there are 75% of providers who are currently willing to serve any community. And that the 25% that have religious objections on different grounds wouldn't be excluded from the program, but would now be tasked with having some sort of referral to the department.

[4:45:29] or for all to another organization who can serve them.

[4:45:32] So once again, communities wouldn't be excluded, correct?

[4:45:37] Correct.

[4:45:37] That's what I want to make sure for the record that no community would be excluded in this bill.

[4:45:43] That's correct.

[4:45:44] This is a religious accommodation bill, not an exclusion on anyone.

[4:45:47] If you will, this is an added value, added enhancement.

[4:45:52] We are making available more groups, we're not excluding groups.

[4:45:57] That's why I'm scratching my head with some of the folks against.

[4:46:01] I've become frustrated when the mission should be to take care of the kids.

[4:46:06] And it seems like we've got groups that are deviating from what that mission should be.

[4:46:11] I don't understand it, but anyway, members, do we have any other questions?

[4:46:16] Yes.

[4:46:16] Thank you.

[4:46:17] I'm glad you're back up.

[4:46:18] And you may have asked questions already, but you said, best interest of the child, you'll find that in case law.

[4:46:24] Is there a way you can provide, I don't want to stack a case and trust me, I don't want to read through all that.

[4:46:29] But like, some kind of summary of what the case law has said about what that's going to be.

[4:46:33] I'm really happy to work with the department on that.

[4:46:35] We have deputized them to represent themselves in court and I'll work with their general counsel on collecting some sort of summer.

[4:46:41] Yeah, they can page or two that just kind of talks about some specifics that are that we can look at pointing.

[4:46:46] I'm happy to work with them on that. Thank you.

[4:46:48] Thank you.

[4:46:49] Okay. Members, any other questions from the staff?

[4:46:51] Thank you.

[4:46:51] We'll probably have you up again so don't go too far and I'm going to bring a miss myth back up

[4:46:58] I just let her finish up. Okay, so we'll do this all over again. You need to

[4:47:04] Tell me who you represent. Do I need my paper? No, because all you're going to do is come back up and you're going to tell me who you

[4:47:10] Rep. My name is Aaron Smith. I'm representing adoption advocates and myself and I impose HB 3859

[4:47:16] Okay, and did you have any closing comment?

[4:47:19] And then my comment to you was, I hope that your group will make yourselves available

[4:47:27] for fostering these kids, because you can be part of the solutions, and the solution

[4:47:31] would be great, because once again we don't have enough people that are willing to do

[4:47:37] this.

[4:47:39] And so thank you, thank you for being here.

[4:47:42] Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers,

[4:47:49] Texas Chapter, here to speak against the bill.

[4:47:56] Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Chairman Cook.

[4:47:58] I don't think you're in a position, but it is something I sincerely believe that this bill.

[4:48:03] My name is Will Francis, the government relations director for the National Association of Social Workers, Texas Chapter.

[4:48:07] And I represent around 6,000 social workers around the state.

[4:48:10] I'm here to testify in opposition to it.

[4:48:12] NASW Texas applauded Representative Frank's efforts to transform the child welfare system

[4:48:16] and he's been a strong and passionate advocate for change this session.

[4:48:19] We believe he does sincerely believe this bill to be inclusionary, but HB3859 creates

[4:48:24] the untenable situation of stripping the child's voice from the process.

[4:48:27] The opening language of the bill describes providers helping to accommodate children from various

[4:48:31] cultural backgrounds, and yet the wording that follows does not once mention the child's

[4:48:35] culture as a mitigating factor.

[4:48:37] No wherewithin his legislation is a child able to bring their own identity, experiences,

[4:48:40] wishes or feelings into a discussion about the choices the placement will make for them.

[4:48:45] It allows anyone paid by the state who is to provide child welfare services,

[4:48:48] the ability to decline any service to a child or person based upon their religious beliefs.

[4:48:53] Our child protection system is set up to accept every child exactly as they are based on the abuse and neglect that they've suffered.

[4:48:59] And by removing that acceptance, we are doing a disservice to children in a situation beyond their control.

[4:49:04] These children entered care because of what was done to them and in some instances because of who they are.

[4:49:08] And subjecting that to a provider's determination of how they will or will not support the child is contrary to the state-of-the-DFPS value of involving clients, families, and communities in decision-making.

[4:49:18] Secondly, this bill allows a placement to enroll any child in the religious school of their choice without any input from the child.

[4:49:23] This means that a child from one religious background could be placed in a school that is modeled upon a completely different religion.

[4:49:28] By giving the provider the ability to be the sole arbiter of the child's education without any consideration, for their history experiences or desires, this bill once again raises the child from the equation.

[4:49:37] Currently, children under five are able to attend a private school, the departmental permission, and those over five can attend a school accredited by the Texas private school accreditation commission.

[4:49:46] Departmental approval is needed for any other circumstance.

[4:49:49] Lastly, this bill allows anyone connected to the child welfare system to refuse to work with a child or family when abortions or contraceptives are part of the discussion.

[4:49:56] Texas allows teens to buy non-prescription over the counter-birth control.

[4:50:00] This is their right. To refuse to work with a child who is exercising their rights, to not attempt conversations that educate you, educate you about sexual activity, rather than just, rather than dictate to them a set of personal beliefs, is another indicator of how this bill rejects the very children it purports to support. This bill wants to allow contractors engage with the state to select what types of clients they will and won't work with based on religious preferences. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in 1999, or he does this, and HB 389, 3059, cast such a wide net, that it completely shifts the perspective of the entire system away

[4:50:29] from the child and towards the provider.

[4:50:31] A child is placed in a foster home because of documented abuse and neglect.

[4:50:35] They did not ask for this situation and they often reject it.

[4:50:38] They need as much acceptance, support, and care as possible.

[4:50:42] This bill removes the child's voice, strength, and history from the equation.

[4:50:45] This is a disservice to everyone involved in the child welfare system.

[4:50:48] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

[4:50:50] Yes, from questions over here, sir.

[4:50:52] Mr. Francis, I just have a couple of quick questions.

[4:50:54] And I'm going off of previous testimony in what Representative Frank said, so please

[4:50:59] bear with me.

[4:51:01] Your testimony here was that the interest of the child are not taken into consideration,

[4:51:05] correct?

[4:51:05] I believe you testified that it's not taken into consideration, the religion of the child,

[4:51:09] et cetera.

[4:51:10] Is that not your testimony?

[4:51:11] Correct.

[4:51:11] You mentioned best interest, but I have not seen the committee sub, so I do not know if

[4:51:14] that change.

[4:51:15] No, and not even the best interest, but as I understand it, and do you work with CPS?

[4:51:18] Do you?

[4:51:19] I used to work with CPS for two and a half years.

[4:51:20] Okay.

[4:51:21] So you're intimately familiar with foster care process and what CPS does and does not do correct?

[4:51:25] Correct. Okay. So as I understand it, CPS does take that into consideration when determining

[4:51:30] where to place a child already. Correct. In the current theft. Correct. That they say,

[4:51:36] hey, look, I mean, if you, as I believe Representative Frank used, if you're a Baptist child,

[4:51:42] you're probably not going to get placed with an atheist. And you let me know, you've got the experience.

[4:51:46] I would say I would disagree in areas where capacity is low and that some of the challenges with CPS

[4:51:50] is that we do not have placements all over the state, the current mission of the

[4:51:53] Department is to place kids within 50 miles of their home, but if we don't have

[4:51:55] capacities, or if we don't have situations where we have similar type homes based

[4:51:59] on the child's background, then we can't place those kids in those.

[4:52:02] Right, and so do you have any empirical, and that's what we're all talking about here today, right?

[4:52:05] Capacity, and what we want to do is increase the capacity, so do you have any empirical

[4:52:09] data or evidence or testimony that's going to say that this bill will in fact not increase

[4:52:13] the capacity which evidently is an issue?

[4:52:15] No, I do have data which I do believe shows that our capacity had an increasing

[4:52:19] We are still recruiting, the department is very, I think asking the department what their capacity is like.

[4:52:24] We know that we need more homes, but that we have been increasing homes.

[4:52:27] The idea from my perspective and my concern having worked with kids is that you're going to have a child potentially come out.

[4:52:32] You're going to have a child ask specific services, you're going to have a child say something about their own rights, and then be rejected by a placement based on this bill.

[4:52:38] So it's not necessarily even saying we bring more people into the situation, it's saying do we have kids in the care who are going to be pushed out of getting access to services that they should have access to because of this bill.

[4:52:47] But we can all agree, increasing doesn't mean meeting needs, right?

[4:52:52] I don't understand the question.

[4:52:53] You're saying that capacity is increasing, correct?

[4:52:56] I'm saying that we, yes, I'm saying that the department is currently out there looking

[4:52:58] for more foster homes right now.

[4:53:00] Currently out there looking for more foster homes.

[4:53:01] But would you disagree with the basic point that we still need additional capacity?

[4:53:05] Correct, I agree.

[4:53:06] So although increasing doesn't mean we're meeting needs as of yet, correct?

[4:53:09] No, but I would say that we should be recruiting homes that are willing to follow the laws

[4:53:13] of the, of the, of the, of the land, and I think that we should, we should, once again,

[4:53:16] respect the fact that all laws are out there, be it be they laws on same-sex

[4:53:19] marriage, laws on access to contraceptions and abortion, these are laws.

[4:53:23] And so saying that you would like to disregard certain laws simply because of certain

[4:53:26] beliefs, I think it's concerning when you're talking about other people's rights

[4:53:29] to the access to those laws as well.

[4:53:31] Right, and respectfully I would put out to you that this bill in no way at all contradicts

[4:53:36] any other laws.

[4:53:36] And in fact, as you've heard the testimony from the Attorney General's Office,

[4:53:39] and we can bring the start where you're hiding.

[4:53:42] Okay, and there you are, I was trying to back up, I mean, I believe, I don't know.

[4:53:45] I believe the Attorney General's testimony is, in fact, what this does is it includes not excludes it, you know, and it does not discriminate.

[4:53:51] So I'm trying to understand from the Attorney General's office and quite frankly, as an attorney myself, reading the statute.

[4:53:57] Because that's what I'm trying to do here and trying to come to grips with, as is the chairman that when you actually read the statute, and maybe not the one page that are out there on it, it doesn't, I think quite do what some folks believe it does.

[4:54:09] So I would encourage you to look back at the statute and look at the capacity issue which you yourself have said is an issue in how this will hopefully address the capacity issue.

[4:54:18] Thank you, sir, for your time.

[4:54:19] I appreciate it.

[4:54:20] Thank you.

[4:54:21] All right.

[4:54:21] Members, any other questions?

[4:54:23] All right.

[4:54:23] I'll call Kate Murphy, senior child welfare policy associate, Texas care for children against the bill.

[4:54:40] Good afternoon.

[4:54:41] My name is Kate Murphy.

[4:54:42] I'm the senior child welfare associate at Texans care for children.

[4:54:45] and I am testifying against House Bill 3859.

[4:54:51] I want to start out by thanking Representative Frank for what he's trying to do with this bill.

[4:54:55] I really truly believe that Representative Frank is trying to include more homes.

[4:54:59] you

[4:55:00] And trying to include as many people to participate in this as possible, I do not believe that this bill effectuates that intent.

[4:55:10] First, I'd like to clarify something, in my reading of the bill, this bill creates a right for providers to sue the state, it does not prevent providers from being sued.

[4:55:21] Second, all of the lawsuits that I'm currently familiar with, that providers have faced on this area of religious liberty on this conscious rights issue, have been in federal court, not state court.

[4:55:35] So they will still be able to be sued in federal court regardless of whether this legislation passes.

[4:55:43] I think there are some important protections included in this bill that are not included in some of the other similar bills that have been filed on this.

[4:55:52] There's one area that I really think needs additional protection and additional

[4:55:57] clarification, and that is on the issue of whether SSEC's are excluded.

[4:56:02] The author definitely intended to exclude SSEC's, but I believe given a liberal

[4:56:07] construction of the bill, a court could interpret or a lawyer could interpret this to mean

[4:56:15] that the SSEC could potentially sue the state for violating its conscience rights.

[4:56:21] And that is not acceptable.

[4:56:23] It's particularly not acceptable as we move toward a system where more and

[4:56:27] more private providers will be having the primary responsibility for foster and

[4:56:32] adoptive services in their respective regions.

[4:56:34] We echo the concerns that many have raised about this bill potentially being

[4:56:39] are construed by a court or a judge or an attorney to hurt the rights of children.

[4:56:47] It's very broad language, I think we need to make sure that in the construction section,

[4:56:53] we include language that specifies exactly which rights of children should be protected.

[4:57:01] And which rights this bill cannot be meant to impune.

[4:57:06] So I'm open to questions.

[4:57:12] Members, yes, go ahead.

[4:57:15] Mr. Murphy, thank you for being here.

[4:57:17] You've mentioned a couple of different areas in which you believe I guess the bill could be tightened up a little bit to address some concerns.

[4:57:22] Which, quite frankly, I don't think we're all disputing.

[4:57:25] Have you addressed those with Representative Frank?

[4:57:27] Have you spoken with his office? Have you been working on the language?

[4:57:29] I know they've been open to it.

[4:57:31] Yes, sir.

[4:57:31] Okay. And what has come of that, are you still talking to them about these issues?

[4:57:36] Yes, I spoke with their office yesterday, in fact, and emailed with them this morning.

[4:57:42] On the SSEC issue, Ledge Council believes that the language that is in there is sufficient,

[4:57:48] I disagree.

[4:57:49] I think because of the direction the state is moving in terms of privatization, we need

[4:57:53] to be extra clear in statute that we intend to exclude SSECs, and I think that's very important.

[4:57:59] I don't want there to be any room for error in that.

[4:58:02] On the issue of including best interests of the child staying paramount, I believe

[4:58:08] you've already heard from Representative Frank that that's their goal, and they have

[4:58:11] been open to discussions about making sure that children's rights are protected.

[4:58:16] Very good.

[4:58:16] Thank you.

[4:58:17] Yes, good.

[4:58:18] I don't know if you have the bill in front of you or not, but it's okay.

[4:58:21] The section says this tap may not be construed to allow a child welfare service provider to

[4:58:26] the decline, basically the non-discrimination clause, would it help the bill in your

[4:58:31] view if we added religion, sexual orientation, and several other things?

[4:58:36] Would that help the bill or?

[4:58:38] Absolutely, and if you turn to the last page of my testimony, I listed out what I think

[4:58:42] should be included under that provision.

[4:58:44] Great, and I know that there's a foster kid's bill of rights, that's that I think

[4:58:51] CPS kind of has internally, I'm wondering if you get some of that language and put that in

[4:58:55] And this bill, do you think that would make this a better bill?

[4:58:57] I do.

[4:58:58] Thank you.

[4:59:00] Now, does your group provide foster service?

[4:59:05] We do not provide foster services.

[4:59:07] We advocate for a myriad of different children's issues ranging from health care to mental health to juvenile justice issues.

[4:59:15] I focus on our child welfare issues.

[4:59:17] Well, let's hope we do something about this issue because we got kids that are suffering, right?

[4:59:22] That's totally agree.

[4:59:24] Okay, Sherry Stattler, here representing herself,

[4:59:33] speak for the bill.

[4:59:35] Yes, sir, good afternoon, Chairman.

[4:59:37] Good afternoon.

[4:59:38] My name is Sherry Stattler, and I'm employed by Christian Homes and Family Services.

[4:59:44] We've been known for decades as either Christian Homes of Abilene or Christian Services.

[4:59:47] I've got you.

[4:59:48] Sherry, did you just representing yourself, okay, for the bill?

[4:59:53] Is it all right for me to share with you my, what I do for a living?

[4:59:55] You can do that, but we can't represent anybody other than yourself, okay sure

[5:00:00] Sure. So I'm president, basically, of an adoption agency. And I support Bill 3859, and I want to also thank Chairman Frank for his work on this bill. And I appreciate y'all hearing us out today.

[5:00:17] What did I say?

[5:00:17] Oh, sorry.

[5:00:20] Christian Hums and Family Services encourages young women to choose life for their babies and win best, also adoption by loving Christian couples anxious to be parents.

[5:00:29] We also work with Christian families who love and care for children who have been abused or abandoned and are in the managing conservatorship of the state as foster children.

[5:00:39] We have placed almost 2,000 children for adoption.

[5:00:43] We cared for about 1,800 foster children and we provide care and services for more than 2,800 women with unplanned pregnancies.

[5:00:51] I think the high turnover rate of child protective services staff and the large caseload

[5:00:58] that created a crisis at CPS would be even worse without faith-based organizations providing

[5:01:03] substantial services.

[5:01:05] And with more than 15,000 children in foster care, it's critical that the state continue

[5:01:10] to allow faith-based providers to work for the best interests of our children and that you

[5:01:15] do everything you can to protect and strengthen our work.

[5:01:19] As you've heard today, the faith-based providers believe that we serve a vital function.

[5:01:24] I also believe that faith-based providers, such as the one where I'm employed, relieve

[5:01:30] the state of financial costs, allowing more children to receive the support they need

[5:01:35] and deserve.

[5:01:35] We basically make the dollars that are provided by the legislature.

[5:01:39] We help them go further.

[5:01:41] In fact, for every state dollar that Christian Homes receives for the foster care provides as far as reimbursement goes,

[5:01:49] Christian Homes matches that by a dollar or more.

[5:01:53] Working with state agencies, we also believe we provide children with their best chance at being placed in a permanent and loving home.

[5:02:00] In fact, nine out of the ten couples who choose to establish a foster home through Christian Homes do so in hopes of

[5:02:09] we're ultimately adopting the children they foster.

[5:02:13] We believe that the adoption results permanently remove the state's children from the state's role in foster care roles.

[5:02:21] We believe that Texas shall allow faith-based child placing agencies to live out our deeply held and

[5:02:27] sincerely held religious convictions regarding the family.

[5:02:31] We see this bill as a bold move, move in the right direction, and it represents a significant improvement in Texas public policy.

[5:02:39] As you move forward to strengthen the protections you give our foster children,

[5:02:44] we would ask that you also strengthen the protections afforded to faith-based organizations,

[5:02:49] such as the one where I work.

[5:02:51] We seek to be true providers with the state, true partners with the state,

[5:02:56] and caring for children and want to continue in an even more significant capacity.

[5:03:00] And we believe that with this protection, we can increase our capacity.

[5:03:05] Thank you very much for hearing me out on this, I appreciate it.

[5:03:08] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[5:03:15] Dr. Catherine Burellis, okay, Director of Child Welfare Policy, one voice Texas here to speak against the bill.

[5:03:30] Good afternoon members, my name is Dr. Catherine Burellis and I'm Director of Child Welfare Policy, one voice Texas here today to testify with respectful opposition to 3859.

[5:03:41] The mission of the Department of Family and Protective Services is to protect children.

[5:03:46] and that in great part involves the provision of services.

[5:03:48] The primary way that DFPS does this is through contracts with private entities that agree

[5:03:54] to deliver a particular set of services for a set amount of money.

[5:03:57] If the needs of children cannot be met or a provider does not like the terms of the agreement,

[5:04:02] then during the contract negotiation process either of both parties can refuse to move forward

[5:04:06] or can determine points of compromise.

[5:04:08] However, if HB3859 is passed, DFPS will no longer be able to prudently and fairly enter

[5:04:14] into, negotiate, or manage contracts with providers, thereby hindering the ability of the department

[5:04:20] to secure appropriate services for children and conservatorship.

[5:04:23] In addition, providers will be obliged to certain contract provisions that they then cannot

[5:04:27] meet due to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

[5:04:30] The legislation allows a provider to decline among other things, housing, counseling, and

[5:04:35] the general category of assisting abused or neglected children if it conflicts with a sincerely

[5:04:39] held religious belief.

[5:04:40] The ability to provide purchase services such as these should be fully outlined before

[5:04:45] a contract is finalized.

[5:04:48] Religious protections after the fact are already included in chapter 110 of the Civil Practice

[5:04:52] and Remedies Code and should not allow a provider to reneg on an already agreed upon service.

[5:04:56] Although unintentional, HB3850N sets...

[5:05:00] Providers up for contractual failure and holds the state hostage by prohibiting them from taking any action in their own best interests or those of the children they serve. Inability to meet contractual obligations needs to be determined prior to entering into a contract or the state should have some ability to protect its interests and the interests of the children in its custody. If a provider has a sincerely held religious belief that would prevent them, for example, from transporting youth for an abortion or to a support group for gay teens, then that provider should raise these issues before

[5:05:29] We're obligating themselves in a contract with the state.

[5:05:32] Thank you very much, and I'll take any questions you may have.

[5:05:37] Yes, go ahead, Rep.

[5:05:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[5:05:40] So, let's just use the example you just mentioned.

[5:05:43] So, how would CPS know that someone maybe wants mental health treatment or

[5:05:48] whatever else if the foster family is not, doesn't believe in it.

[5:05:54] If it's an Scientology, doesn't believe in mental health services, I guess, as an example.

[5:06:00] So, how would that, how would CPS ever come into play for the best interest of the child,

[5:06:05] right, if they're going to go in there and say, hey, I know that's your, since your religious

[5:06:09] belief, but that's not in the best interest of the child, how would CPS know that it's happening?

[5:06:14] Well, according to the testimony of providers today, these are, sincerely held religious

[5:06:19] beliefs, which they've had the opportunity, sometimes unfortunately, through lawsuits

[5:06:23] to defend.

[5:06:25] It's a part of their, their practice as an institution or their history as a religious

[5:06:29] organization, and I think those discussions can certainly be had during the contract negotiation process.

[5:06:36] So for example, if you will not be providing any facilitation, a service, or another contract

[5:06:43] and provision that would lead to a youth having an abortion, I think that's a discussion

[5:06:49] that can be had ahead of time and included in the contract.

[5:06:52] There are obviously scenarios that are going to arise that no one could have possibly imagined.

[5:06:57] And I'm assuming CPS can also ask every single question before they approve of someone

[5:07:03] maybe fostering a child.

[5:07:04] So, and a child may not have mental health issues or whatever the case may be at the time

[5:07:09] and CPS may not ask at the front end how do you feel about mental health care.

[5:07:16] Right.

[5:07:16] So, those things coming up, is it up to the child then to report this to CPS or how will

[5:07:22] Does the CPS know to interact, I mean, to engage, I guess, in that situation?

[5:07:27] If the child couldn't receive a particular service that's really nice.

[5:07:29] Does the CPS have the child to contact CPS, or is it, how does it work?

[5:07:33] I don't know anything about that.

[5:07:34] Well, the child certainly has the option of contacting their case worker, although with high case loads they're not always available.

[5:07:41] There's also an OMS Budsman office at HHSC that's particularly for youth and children in foster care.

[5:07:46] It sounds like Representative Frank's intention is that the department would ensure there are secondary services in an area how they would know how to do that

[5:07:55] I'm not sure and that the provider would be responsible for contacting the department and letting them know that this is a service that they can't provide

[5:08:04] that then needs to be found someplace else which as the LBB said in the description of the fiscal note really raises contractual issues for both parties at that point.

[5:08:14] Okay, thank you.

[5:08:19] Any other questions?

[5:08:21] And the kids lose while we're doing this stuff.

[5:08:23] So, anyway, Bethany Reece, Texas Bastard's home and herself here to speak for the bill.

[5:08:51] Good afternoon, Chairman and members.

[5:08:53] My name is Bethany Reece, and I'm representing the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention,

[5:08:57] the Baptist Missionary Association, and Texas Baptist Home, where I am the failing development supervisor.

[5:09:03] I am testifying in support of House Bill 3859.

[5:09:08] Our children's home has been in operation since 1910 and has provided care for approximately 10,000 children.

[5:09:14] We have had, we have also completed over 300 adoptions since 2001.

[5:09:18] We have the capacity to care for 170 plus foster children.

[5:09:23] But since the group home ruling, we have only been able to provide care for about 120.

[5:09:27] We value being able to implement our religious beliefs into our drug practice.

[5:09:31] I want to make clear there is absolutely no forcing religion onto anyone in our care.

[5:09:36] We seek to protect and promote family in our clients and we want to be able to work

[5:09:41] in partnership with secular providers to maximize the number of homes while giving children

[5:09:45] a voice.

[5:09:46] Texas Baptist Home has a statement of faith that foster parents are aware of before being

[5:09:50] licensed and many of our families choose to go with our agency based on our beliefs and statement

[5:09:54] of faith.

[5:09:56] Foster Pants are also trained on children's rights and know they cannot

[5:10:00] 4-star beliefs on children. Texas Baptist Home has personally had growing concerns where staff and foster parents have faced situations where there was a concern in having to compromise their religious views instead of beliefs. For example, during the summertime, a Christian camp specifically for children in foster care is put on in the DFW area. Texas Baptist Home notifies all of our foster families who have children who are eligible since we think it would be a great opportunity for children to be able to go and relate with children all over the DFW.

[5:10:29] Metroplex have been through similar experiences.

[5:10:32] Two of our children expressed interest in wanting to go, even though their biological

[5:10:36] parent did not want them to attend, but we had to go through a series of steps with

[5:10:40] DFS and the court for them to be able to attend the camp just because of the Christian camp.

[5:10:44] We had to go through the protocol of sending a description and agenda of the camp to the

[5:10:48] judge in order to obtain approval and all the while the children wanted to go to camp and

[5:10:53] not miss out.

[5:10:54] Our same in the faith requires our families to consist of a married mother and father, a single man or woman, someone who's divorced or widowed.

[5:11:06] When someone calls asking if we place children with same-sex couples or an unmarried couple, we face the fear of one day being in a lawsuit due to our religious pleas.

[5:11:15] There is a concern that one day we will be sued or forced to allow this.

[5:11:18] Each time we tell someone, we do not place the same sex couples and in a married couple,

[5:11:23] we make it a point to refer them to another agency who does, so that we are still working

[5:11:28] in partnership with non-religious providers.

[5:11:32] Texas Baptist Home Requires Family Slice and Thrust to attend a church.

[5:11:36] We believe that there is a lot of support in a church, and the foster parents can benefit

[5:11:39] from being in a community during this journey of fostering adoption.

[5:11:43] Many churches in the DFW area provide good resources for foster families and children.

[5:11:48] Most of our children care and joy going to church and it gives them the opportunity to be a part of the community.

[5:11:54] Although there have been situations where children placed in foster home needed to go to the foster

[5:11:59] panel because they were not able to stay home by themselves, it has turned more into a supervision issue.

[5:12:04] Our agency has already been greatly affected by the federal court order and we pray that nothing else threatens our operations.

[5:12:09] We want to continue to be able to do our job protecting and administering to vulnerable children, which is why we support HB 3859.

[5:12:56] Good afternoon, Chairman.

[5:12:58] Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[5:13:00] I would like to say on behalf of the, excuse me, my name is Rebecca Robertson.

[5:13:05] I'm the legal and policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and I'm offering this testimony on behalf of our members in opposition to the bill.

[5:13:13] I would like to say that, for almost 100 years, the ACLU has fought for religious liberty.

[5:13:19] And so it is very heartening to hear that the committee and the Bill's author, representative

[5:13:26] Frank, are working to find ways to, as he said, reasonably accommodate people of faith.

[5:13:33] However, given you written testimony that outlines the reasons that we think the bill goes

[5:13:38] much further, I feel like I'd like to use the rest of my time to address.

[5:13:42] a concern that was raised by some of the providers that our organization is bringing

[5:13:46] lawsuits all over the country that somehow impede their ability to do their jobs.

[5:13:50] I want to be very clear, the lawsuit that I know about was brought by the American Civil

[5:13:54] Liberty Union against the Obama Administration, not against Catholic Charities or the Conference

[5:14:00] of Vichips.

[5:14:01] Catholic Charities and the Conference of Vichips intervened in the lawsuit voluntarily in order

[5:14:07] to be able to participate and offer their point of view as is their right to do, but make

[5:14:13] no mistake, we did not file a lawsuit against them. And that's because the claim that we brought

[5:14:17] was an establishment clause claim. It said that the U.S. government was oversepping what was

[5:14:23] permitted under the First Amendment in its administration of certain programs. That claim only lies

[5:14:27] against the U.S. government, so we could not have sued the Catholic Conference of Bishops for that.

[5:14:31] So to the extent that folks are here today worried about lawsuits, I just want to be clear that 38-50

[5:14:37] Does not insulate anybody from an establishment clause lawsuit because that's not the kind of claim anybody could bring against them

[5:14:44] That's the kind of claim that people who participate in the foster care system that children who are affected the family who are affected

[5:14:51] Might bring against the state of Texas if it uses taxpayer dollars to preference one religion over another, but it's not the kind of claim that could be brought again

[5:15:17] Hi, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Lara Razzle. I represent adoption advocates and myself, and I oppose House Bill 3859. I am a licensed clinical social worker with over a decade of experience, primarily working with youth services, foster care, and adoption. LGBT kids are overrepresented in the foster care system. The incidence of LGBT orientation in the foster care system is more than twice that believed to exist in the general population.

[5:15:46] LGBT youth are 30% more likely to be removed from their homes by CPS than non-LGBT youth.

[5:15:52] I have worked as a house parent and as a psychotherapist in residential treatment centers

[5:15:56] with kids removed from their homes after enduring severe abuse and neglect.

[5:16:01] About three of every ten kids I worked with told me that they identified as LGBT.

[5:16:06] When those kids believe that they had a place to go after completing treatment, they were

[5:16:10] motivated to get better.

[5:16:11] House bill 3859 would mean that those kids would be deemed unfit for certain taxpayer funded programs that felt religiously moved to reject them.

[5:16:21] There is a shortage of foster and adoptive homes, tax dollars should not be wasted on programs that are prepared to turn away the very kids who need their help the most.

[5:16:30] I want the second piece of this bill that causes me professional concern is the suggestion that LGBT foster and

[5:16:38] adopted families could be rejected by taxpayer-funded foster and adoption agencies solely on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.

[5:16:45] There are around a half a million kids in foster care in this country.

[5:16:49] According to the Columbia School of Law Policy, research portal 75 reputable studies have found that children adopted by same-sex couples

[5:16:56] fair no worse than children adopted by heterosexual couples.

[5:17:00] In fact, a report released by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reviewed three decades of research

[5:17:05] on the children of gay and lesbian couples,

[5:17:08] shows that those children showed resilience

[5:17:09] with regard to social and psychological

[5:17:11] and sexual health despite the economic

[5:17:14] and legal disparities in social stigma.

[5:17:17] I want to share two stories about two kids

[5:17:20] I worked with in treatment.

[5:17:21] The first I'll call Dominique.

[5:17:24] When she came to us, she had been horribly abused

[5:17:26] by the people she should have been able to trust,

[5:17:29] to say that she struggled in her relationships

[5:17:31] with peers and caregivers would be an understatement.

[5:17:33] She was prone to violence, depression, and self-harm, and had disrupted from multiple foster homes.

[5:17:40] And I'd like to add that we did not know when Dominique came to us at 13 that she was a lesbian.

[5:17:45] I'm not sure that she knew that.

[5:17:47] When 16-year-old Dominique identified as a lesbian and asked to be endating a school friend, she was supported.

[5:17:54] Over time, Dominique's relationship with her girlfriend developed into a loving, emotionally positive relationship.

[5:17:59] relationship. In my work, we call this a corrective emotional experience. These kinds of positive

[5:18:04] relational experiences are sometimes the keys that allow kids to begin to trust again. House

[5:18:09] bill 3859 could have denied dominating the opportunity to experience this very healing

[5:18:15] connection by requiring her to deny a part of her identity in order to remain in a taxpayer

[5:18:20] funded foster home. The second story has a more unfortunate outcome. Joe was born Josephine

[5:18:26] but identified as a boy.

[5:18:28] When he came to the treatment center,

[5:18:30] he had been rejected by 52 placements.

[5:18:33] Despite years of rejection, Joe had a sense of humor,

[5:18:35] and he was popular with the other kids.

[5:18:37] Beneath that, however, Joe was seriously emotionally hurting.

[5:18:41] He frequently acknowledged that he hated himself

[5:18:43] and made multiple serious suicide attempts.

[5:18:46] Consider being rejected by 52 different groups of people

[5:18:50] who were supposed to support you and love you

[5:18:53] like you were their own.

[5:18:55] House bill 3859 says it is okay for a taxpayer funded organization to say, sorry Doe, we have a certain moral standard for how a person should dress.

[5:19:06] You don't look quite right to us, we can't help you find a place to call home.

[5:19:11] I don't think that anyone would suggest that it would be worth it to allow programs to discriminate on a person on the base of color because we all need all hands on deck.

[5:19:21] All right, but I don't think that you would have to look far to find religious groups who would love to justify racial discrimination.

[5:19:32] Thank you.

[5:19:33] I don't believe that's what this bill is about at all, but I thank you for your testimony.

[5:19:40] Mark, so, so do the interview here represent himself, speak against the bill.

[5:19:46] Good

[5:19:49] afternoon, everyone. My name is Mark Sutherland-Travillo. I'm a former foster parent and I'm here representing myself today to speak against House Bill 38-59.

[5:20:00] Hopefully I got that right. I have a personal story for you. Approximately year 2001, my husband and I have now 30 years were rejected by a San Antonio foster agency after four months of classes because of their deeply held religious beliefs. So luckily for the 30 foster children that came through our home in the following years and the seven children that we eventually adopted, we did not give up and found another agency that would help us.

[5:20:29] I think that personally we are steadfast in that, and we wanted that, I'm afraid that

[5:20:37] other foster families would have given up, potential foster parents would have given

[5:20:41] up.

[5:20:42] We've heard several people today, several witnesses come to the podium and testify

[5:20:48] that they have a sincere desire to help more children if only, if only their religious

[5:20:53] beliefs are respected.

[5:20:55] I have, I'm seriously confused about how this constitutes what's in the best interest

[5:21:00] of a child.

[5:21:01] These abuse children don't care what we believe or what I believe, they only want love

[5:21:06] and safety.

[5:21:07] When we put people in boxes, we divide ourselves instead of working together for this somewhat

[5:21:13] gray concept of what the best interest of the child is.

[5:21:17] Having a foster care provider for over 12 years, I have always put my personal agenda aside

[5:21:22] And holy acted in the best interest of the child, whether I agreed with it or not.

[5:21:27] There are times when if my 12-year-old foster daughter needed an abortion, and I didn't

[5:21:33] believe an abortion, that there was always someone else there to handle that for me.

[5:21:37] If they needed to go to a church that I didn't go to, I was contractually obligated to take

[5:21:42] them to that church, and make sure that that service was provided for them, even though

[5:21:46] I may not agree with that service for them.

[5:21:47] Therefore, I urge you to, I strongly urge you to vote no for this bill when the opportunity comes to you.

[5:21:54] Thank you.

[5:21:55] Any questions?

[5:21:57] There was any questions.

[5:21:59] Thank you for your testimony, thank you for being here.

[5:22:02] Whitney Peake, Whitney Peake, I have representing herself.

[5:22:10] She'll Whitney Peake, represent herself not testifying against the bill.

[5:22:16] Vickie Vogel, Vickie Vogel, I'd be representing yourself against the bill.

[5:22:26] Thank you.

[5:22:27] My name is Vickie Vogel, I'm speaking for myself, and I'm against Bill 3859.

[5:22:34] I'm old enough to remember when bathrooms and drinking fountains had signs on them white and colored.

[5:22:43] And in 1957, in the mid-60s, we started legislating against discrimination.

[5:22:50] And for reasons I don't understand, we seem to be walking backwards and now trying

[5:22:55] to institutionalize discrimination.

[5:22:59] I'm a retired attorney.

[5:23:01] I've dealt with children who were caught up in the legal system.

[5:23:06] And our guiding principle was always the best interest of the child, not the interest

[5:23:11] and beliefs of a state contractor.

[5:23:15] We have watched while children have suffered abuse, neglect, and even death because child

[5:23:21] protective services was underfunded and overworked.

[5:23:27] If we are unwilling to provide them adequate funding, can we at least not arbitrarily restrict

[5:23:34] the number of loving families who could provide a safe haven for these at-risk children?

[5:23:41] Many of the discriminatory bills filed this session do so under the guise of religion.

[5:23:48] I'm a Jew.

[5:23:50] My religion teaches that all religions are equally valid, and it's not my place to impose

[5:23:57] my religious views on others, nor is it the place of the legislature to impose views on others.

[5:24:06] This is not a theocracy.

[5:24:08] When religion is used as a weapon to discriminate against others, it's morally wrong, it's economically

[5:24:16] unsound and ultimately destructive of our freedom. It's a perversion of the purpose of religion.

[5:24:25] One cannot pick and choose which laws to obey and say it's for religious reasons. That's a road to chaos.

[5:24:34] I urge you to reject House Bill 3859.

[5:24:39] Thank you.

[5:24:40] Thank you for your testimony.

[5:24:44] Alfred Bleecker, I have Alfred Bleecker representing himself show them for the bill not testifying.

[5:24:55] Mary Harris, Mary Harris.

[5:25:00] Mary Harris representing TFN and sale against the bill. We sure against the bill not testifying. Chuck Freeman. Chuck Freeman takes his unitarian universalist, justice, ministry, and sale. I recognize that you from last week against the bill. I'm wearing the same thing, are you? No.

[5:25:28] I didn't wash it though, I did wash it.

[5:25:31] Okay, great to see you again.

[5:25:35] Reverend Chuck Freeman, I am the executive director of the Texas Unitarian Universalist

[5:25:40] Justice Minister, representing 34 congregations and 5,000 Unitarian Universalists I am speaking

[5:25:48] against this bill.

[5:25:53] I'm speaking for on behalf of yourself as well.

[5:25:57] Is that permissible?

[5:25:59] I didn't know what to check, I just-

[5:26:00] Yeah, you're fine.

[5:26:01] Okay.

[5:26:06] Would any of you vote for this bill if it allowed religious institution to

[5:26:13] refuse services on the basis of race?

[5:26:19] Anybody?

[5:26:22] We ask the question here, okay.

[5:26:25] All right, that's rhetorical, that's a preacher thing.

[5:26:27] That's a mature. That's a preacher pause. Okay.

[5:26:35] Are you aware that before 1964 that was the

[5:26:40] deeply held religious belief of the majority of America?

[5:26:49] So what we're asking now is

[5:26:53] for people

[5:26:53] that have deeply held religious beliefs that violate the laws of our land. They can have a car about

[5:27:03] under that auspices.

[5:27:12] So we're going to have a two tiered system

[5:27:15] where some people under the guise of religion can say

[5:27:18] I can do something because it violates my beliefs.

[5:27:25] I don't think there's any coincidence

[5:27:28] that these bills are coming up now

[5:27:31] after the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage

[5:27:34] is now permissible in the law of the land.

[5:27:38] I knew, I told myself and all of my people, you watch it in the next legislature, they're

[5:27:47] going to start putting bills forward that can carve this stuff out.

[5:27:53] So if in fact it's not designed for that, you have a simple remedy.

[5:27:59] Put in the legislation, sexual orientation, and then we'll know for sure, that's your

[5:28:09] intent. Your intent is for no one to be discriminated against.

[5:28:18] I urge you to vote against this bill

[5:28:23] unless you're willing to put that into it. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any questions?

[5:28:29] No questions? Carissa Baldwin McGinnis? Yes,

[5:28:38] I have a

[5:28:41] reverend Carissa Baldwin McGinnis,

[5:28:45] Reptile herself, and is this Episcopal Church?

[5:28:50] Okay, yes, go ahead.

[5:28:52] Thank you.

[5:28:53] I am Carissa Baldwin McGinnis, I am a constituent from the Houston area.

[5:28:58] Speaking on behalf of myself, I didn't rent this get up.

[5:29:03] I happen to be a priest in the Episcopal Church.

[5:29:05] My family is also part of the fabric of the foster and

[5:29:09] adoptive community here in the state of Texas.

[5:29:12] I am speaking in opposition to the bill for a number of reasons, but I will lift up to chiefly.

[5:29:19] I first want to appreciate and agree with the sponsor that as a foster parent and

[5:29:26] an adoptive parent we need as many on ramps for people to become foster and adoptive parents as possible.

[5:29:33] A chief concern that I have as a clergywoman and a foster parent is that I don't see an

[5:29:41] apparent alignment in this legislation with a separation of church and state, which is

[5:29:46] to say that it's my understanding that any private agency that wishes to serve only a

[5:29:53] certain population may do so if they are doing only private adoptions or doing

[5:30:00] Private foster care. But if, in fact, they are stewarding cases of the state, words of the state, and money of the state, to me, that is a different, that is a separate category of services, and that agencies who are sort of functioning as the state in that way, shall not discriminate in the services they provide, or the potential parents they work with, in any way that differs from what CPS is allowed to do. So for me,

[5:30:29] That's as clergywoman, that separation is really important, and I don't see it in this bill.

[5:30:35] My second primary concern is that while I very much appreciate the stated intent and

[5:30:43] the point to mechanisms, we're trying to guarantee an ensure lack of discrimination.

[5:30:50] I find them to be incomplete and somewhat inconsistent.

[5:30:52] So the proposals that you've heard to extend the list of sub-populations and classes that

[5:31:00] can't be discriminated against should include, for me, sexual orientation that would make

[5:31:06] this more acceptable to me.

[5:31:08] And I would simply lift up to the sponsor that observing that in an area where there's

[5:31:14] only one service provider does not provide, does not guarantee that all people can participate

[5:31:20] in the foster system.

[5:31:21] We make a mistake to assume that in an area where there were two or three service providers that we suddenly have somehow a complete set of on-ramps.

[5:31:29] I think that that's an oversight.

[5:31:30] I think that that's not necessarily a dependable assumption and I would invite the authors to consider that problem.

[5:31:39] Thank you.

[5:31:40] I just want to make sure for the records, you're representing yourself.

[5:31:45] All right.

[5:31:45] Okay.

[5:31:46] Thank you.

[5:31:48] Stephanie Cooper.

[5:31:50] Reverend Stephanie Cooper.

[5:31:55] Okay.

[5:31:56] We'll show her.

[5:31:57] Did not testify against the bill.

[5:32:00] Karen Darby.

[5:32:03] Karen Darby.

[5:32:06] We'll show her.

[5:32:08] Did not testify against the bill.

[5:32:11] Chessie human.

[5:32:16] First Liberty Institute.

[5:32:18] Far the bill.

[5:32:19] Mr.

[5:32:22] Chair and members of the committee, my name is Chelsea Yeoman, and I'm an attorney with First Liberty Institute out of Plano, Texas.

[5:32:29] I'm here to testify on behalf of our faith-based child welfare provider, Clients, whose religious liberty rights would be affected by HB3859.

[5:32:39] Faith-based child welfare providers represent approximately 25% of child welfare providers.

[5:32:45] Can I excuse you for a minute?

[5:32:46] I've got you testifying for First Liberty Institute, okay?

[5:32:51] That's great.

[5:32:51] So that's who we have to test for.

[5:32:53] I have.

[5:32:55] Every year, thousands of single mothers and displaced children seek refuge in faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.

[5:33:02] And every year, First Liberty Institute receives emails and telephone calls from these welfare providers seeking legal help.

[5:33:09] At an exponentially increasing rate, we are contacted by faith-based providers across the country who face not only

[5:33:16] threats of legal liability, but loss of licensure, loss of funding, and loss of government

[5:33:21] contracts because of their longstanding religious beliefs.

[5:33:25] When faced with these obstacles and risks, and without protections like HB3859 affords,

[5:33:31] many faith-based providers are forced to close their doors.

[5:33:34] Large-scale faith-based providers were forced to cease all adoption foster operations in

[5:33:39] Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and the District of Columbia.

[5:33:42] While these are a few of the public examples of large-scale faith-based organization ceasing

[5:33:48] to perform these critical services, First Liberty knows of numerous small-scale providers

[5:33:53] who have quietly had to exit the field.

[5:33:55] Simply put, the aforementioned legal risk fall hardest on smaller agencies who rely on

[5:34:01] donations and government contract work.

[5:34:03] The results are devastating, not just because these well-meaning providers face retribution

[5:34:08] for their beliefs, but because children are becoming the silent victims of a culture battle.

[5:34:14] A brief note on the law, it is customary in American history to protect

[5:34:18] conscientious dissenters. As noticed in First Liberty Institute's recent Amicus brief,

[5:34:23] signed by 43 members of Congress, federal, state, and territorial governments have enacted

[5:34:28] over 180 conscientious exemptions for religious dissenters who cannot in good conscience

[5:34:36] participants participate in things like military service, capital punishment, abortion,

[5:34:41] euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

[5:34:44] In short, exceptions are not the exception in American experience.

[5:34:49] As an example, for 30 years following Roe v. Wade, legislators established an equilibrium

[5:34:54] between protecting the fundamental right to abortion and religious liberty rights of conscientious

[5:34:59] subject.

[5:35:00] And in response, the Supreme Court repeatedly held that the substantive due process right to abortion does not include the right to force taxpayers or conscience objectors to participate in abortion related services. See, bill, mayor, polgar, Harris and Webster. Like Rovers' way, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell will not change the fact that religious adherence will continue to exercise their sincere religious beliefs. Just as Kennedy specifically recognized this when he held

[5:35:29] The first amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives.

[5:35:41] Our longstanding history and jurisprudence continually affirms exemptions like HB 3859 for conscientious objectors.

[5:35:49] Thank you very much, members, any questions, no questions.

[5:35:53] Frank Rand,

[5:35:58] is it Ryan?

[5:36:04] Okay, for the bill not testifying, mandy moody, mandy moody against the bill not testifying,

[5:36:17] ash hall, quality Texas itself against the bill.

[5:36:27] Thank you, chairman and committee.

[5:36:29] My name is ash hall.

[5:36:30] I represent equality, Texas, and myself, and I am testifying against House Bill 3859.

[5:36:39] So, this bill allows faith-based agencies or employees and agencies to refuse service

[5:36:43] based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

[5:36:48] My belief is that the only consideration of a child welfare agency should be the best interest

[5:36:53] of the child, not necessarily the religious beliefs of a child welfare service provider.

[5:36:59] and by allowing providers to refuse service to potentially fit and loving parents,

[5:37:07] if those parents happen to be LGBT for example, or single or divorced or you name it,

[5:37:14] that kind of automatically goes against the best interest of the child

[5:37:18] because that keeps that child in the system for longer.

[5:37:21] If Caldwell being and permanency are the goals of child welfare service providers,

[5:37:25] then those providers have an obligation to make sure children are placed with competent, loving parents as soon as possible,

[5:37:32] rather than waiting for parents of the same quality that also happen to agree with their religious beliefs.

[5:37:38] So, this bill automatically kind of undermines the Texas legislature's priority of fixing our CPS system, which we can all agree is in crisis,

[5:37:48] because what we're doing when we allow for these refuses is we're keeping kids in these systems for longer,

[5:37:53] because they have to wait that much longer for parents that the child welfare service providers

[5:37:59] agree with on terms of religious values and not necessarily whether or not those parents

[5:38:05] could actually care for and love those children regardless of what their sexual orientation,

[5:38:11] gender identity, or religion happens to be. And I do think it's really interesting that within

[5:38:18] In this bill, there are carvots in this saying that we should not be using these refusals

[5:38:24] to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity or national origin.

[5:38:29] If this bill is indeed not about discrimination, then I don't see what the problem is in adding

[5:38:34] language that says we can't discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender

[5:38:39] identity, and religion as well.

[5:38:41] After all, if we really are prioritizing the best interests of the child over anything else,

[5:38:45] We would need to keep those protections in there because that's going to keep our pool

[5:38:49] of parents that can help get these kids out of the system in there and that gets them

[5:38:55] out of the system faster.

[5:38:57] It's also worth mentioning that research is showing that LGBT parents are actually more

[5:39:03] likely than heterosexual or non-transgender parents to adopt older special needs and minority

[5:39:09] children who are also known as priority or hard to place children by folks that work

[5:39:14] in the system. So you've talked a little bit about wanting positive solutions to the problems

[5:39:20] that this legislator faces. My solution is going to always be to keep your heart and

[5:39:27] mind open and include LGBT people in any solutions that you have for problems that are facing

[5:39:32] our kids.

[5:39:34] You know what's interesting? I appreciate you being here. We actually did that in 2003.

[5:39:39] In 2003, I was on this committee in my first term, and we made the determination when a bill came up to ban a same-sex adoption, we did not pass that bill.

[5:39:52] You know the reason we didn't pass that bill was that we this committee didn't act on it as we found that it...

[5:40:00] These same-sex couples were adopting children with special needs, by racial handicaps, and so we recognize

[5:40:14] that. So we've actually been very thoughtful on this. And once again, if you think about this bill,

[5:40:20] what you're doing is you're adding to the pool of folks that can actually provide the foster

[5:40:29] or service, which is why I've kind of scratched my head on some of the statements against it.

[5:40:35] But anyway, I appreciate you being here and I appreciate your testimony.

[5:40:39] And I think this committee has always been very thoughtful on these issues.

[5:40:42] So thank you very much.

[5:40:43] I agree.

[5:40:44] I just hope.

[5:40:46] I mean, I think there's something to be said about the fact that folks are saying that if they can't refuse to serve certain people,

[5:40:55] that they're just going to drop serving children all together.

[5:40:59] I think that's problematic, sir.

[5:41:03] Once again, I think there's been some struggling with what this bill does.

[5:41:11] But I appreciate you being here and for your testimony, and I'm going to go ahead and call the next witness, okay?

[5:41:16] Appreciate you, too.

[5:41:17] Yes.

[5:41:17] Thank you.

[5:41:18] Justin, Benavides.

[5:41:19] Justine Benavides, justine Benavides, we'll show her against the bill not testifying

[5:41:30] Larry Bathoon, Larry Bathoon, she'll Larry against the bill not testifying Vanessa McDougall.

[5:41:45] She didn't give me a chance.

[5:41:48] So, her against the bill not testifying Candace Aelor, if

[5:42:04] you rest your self and against the bill, but if you'll go ahead and.

[5:42:11] Thank you, my name is Candace Aelor and I'm testifying against House Bill 3859, representing yourself.

[5:42:18] representing myself.

[5:42:21] There's been a lot of testimony today that I agree with.

[5:42:26] Pretty much all of the testimony against the bill I 100% agree with.

[5:42:33] I am a children's mental health advocate and I've worked with parents trying to get placement for

[5:42:39] their children with high needs for mental health care. I've worked with a parent whose daughter

[5:42:47] was actually murdered by a foster parent due to lack of oversight of the foster placement

[5:42:55] agencies, Texas Mentor, and as a result Cheryl Small was allowed to murder Alex Hill several

[5:43:02] years ago.

[5:43:03] So I have some experience not necessarily placing children but in understanding how the system

[5:43:10] works to some extent.

[5:43:12] It's my understanding there's over 10,000 children that are placed currently with LGBT

[5:43:17] families.

[5:43:19] There's a lot to talk about capacity, but if placing agencies are allowed to discriminate

[5:43:27] against LGBT families based on their closely held religious belief that the LGBT parent

[5:43:35] shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or foster children, then we are excluding the

[5:43:40] the 10,000 plus that are currently in the care of LGBT families.

[5:43:47] I have to take extreme exception to the testimony of one of the people, I don't remember his

[5:43:54] name, but he was, I believe, a previous president of the board for boys, ranchers, and

[5:43:58] like that.

[5:43:58] He was talking about that organization being trauma informed and following evidence-based

[5:44:03] practices and then followed up with, they would stop serving kids if this bill wasn't passed.

[5:44:08] This is, I am one of the most trauma-informed parents in the state, I'm the co-chair of

[5:44:14] the National Child Traumatic Stress Networks Partnering with Youth and Family Collaborative

[5:44:18] Group.

[5:44:19] I've been working on understanding trauma-informed system transformation and trauma-informed

[5:44:23] care for several years, and I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing trauma-informed

[5:44:29] or evidence-based about allowing an organization to prevent placement solely based on a religious

[5:44:37] belief.

[5:44:37] Those agencies should only be concerned with empowering the youth and helping them understand their beliefs and helping support them in the beliefs or existence that they have.

[5:44:57] They should not be able to impose.

[5:45:00] Their own beliefs by preventing placement, because they don't believe that it's okay to be gay. There's nothing evidence-based about that. So, that is my testimony, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mary, Christine Reid,

[5:45:29] have you representing yourself against the bill?

[5:45:34] I'm here on my personal capacity. My name is Mary Christine Reid.

[5:45:40] I am an attorney who works with current and HL foster youth and am very familiar with

[5:45:46] their experiences in foster care, both from the information they have provided me and

[5:45:50] from reviewing their Child Protective Services records, something I help many young adult

[5:45:54] former foster youth obtain.

[5:45:56] I've seen that some foster youth place in a traditional foster home, choose to join the

[5:46:02] family and the religious activity, and they are happy to participate, but you have to keep

[5:46:07] Keep in mind, these are homes that leave it up to the youth to decide if they want to

[5:46:10] participate in the religion.

[5:46:12] I've also seen many youth who have been punished and mistreated because they are unhappy

[5:46:16] about forced participation in their home or foster care facilities, religious activities that

[5:46:23] they've been denied the right to practice their religion and rejected and removed from their

[5:46:27] home because their placement is unhappy that the youth does not embrace their religious beliefs,

[5:46:32] including one client who just contacted my office two days ago.

[5:46:37] While much of this is considered to be a violation of the rights in a CPS licensing regulations,

[5:46:42] the reality is that generally no action is taken against foster care providers,

[5:46:46] and the usual solution is to just remove the use from the placement,

[5:46:50] often at the insistence of the provider.

[5:46:53] This legislation will provide further grounds for the already overwhelmed agency

[5:46:57] to disregard the mistreatment of youth in the nominal name of the religious rights

[5:47:01] of the child welfare service provider.

[5:47:03] Youth and foster care have essentially no control

[5:47:06] over their lives, where they live,

[5:47:08] if they have contacts with siblings and families,

[5:47:10] if they can participate in activities at school

[5:47:12] or with a friend.

[5:47:13] Most live in many different placements

[5:47:15] during their time in foster care,

[5:47:17] including facilities and large groups homes

[5:47:19] with people they never knew before

[5:47:21] and likely won't have contact with in six months.

[5:47:24] This law was to jump them to even less autonomy

[5:47:27] and lead to the violation of their religious rights.

[5:47:29] I'm opposed to further harming this already vulnerable population.

[5:47:33] Thank you.

[5:47:34] Thank you for your testimony.

[5:47:36] Susan Hayes.

[5:47:39] How are you here representing herself against the bill?

[5:47:44] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[5:47:45] Susan Hayes against the bill representing myself, and I'm going to explain to you why, because I fear that may disappoint you.

[5:47:53] I have represented kids in foster care.

[5:47:57] As recently as last year, I represented a teenager in foster care.

[5:48:01] I also represented a two-year-old who was taken into the foster care system from the

[5:48:05] FLDS compound in West Texas if some of you remember that incident.

[5:48:10] I read this bill when I heard about it and looked at the language and had some deep concern

[5:48:14] from how broadly it was written, particularly given my experience with the realities of

[5:48:20] kids in our foster care system and their lack of access to any means to vindicate their

[5:48:25] best interest and their lack of access to legal counsel because how isolating foster

[5:48:31] care can be, we should be very careful how big and thick of a shield you construct around

[5:48:37] foster care providers because we do know there's pretty wide scale abuse within the system whether

[5:48:43] whether it's a secular placement or a religious placement and we do know religious organizations

[5:48:50] are often too often the location of sex abuse of children.

[5:48:55] I'm worried about when legislation like this is put in place and we already have a system

[5:49:02] that is over tax to say the least employees of the state who are very skittish to say or

[5:49:10] do anything that might upset the state's leaders or might cause controversy,

[5:49:17] particularly when that comes to pregnant girls that are in the system and there's a significant

[5:49:21] number of those. I have to say, I found it extremely disheartened to hear the representative

[5:49:28] of the Catholic Bishop say they take care of refugees because they don't sue us, because I know

[5:49:33] what's happened to the refugees who are coming across the border from Central America,

[5:49:37] who have been subject to systematic rape at the hands of Gallaudetis or sucks trafficking

[5:49:42] and arrive here pregnant and taken into what is essentially custody, whether it's in

[5:49:48] a private care provider or with the federal government or put into foster care.

[5:49:52] If they don't have access to a doctor to reproductive health care, they're forced to continue the

[5:49:58] pregnancy and bear a rape.

[5:50:11] I would like to read bill's very carefully and think about how they fit into the overall legislative scheme within our CPS statutes or our other child care statutes.

[5:50:27] CPS currently by its own policies will not help someone in their care access abortion.

[5:50:35] There was originally in chapter 33 of the family code some language that required CPS to

[5:50:42] help adolescent girls who wanted to have abortions access the court system to get a judicial bypass.

[5:50:49] This legislature removed that language last session in HB3994.

[5:50:55] And I really wish I could see the committee substitute of this bill.

[5:50:59] I'd like to look at the language.

[5:51:01] I did notice in the current draft of the bill as introduced on page six of Section G,

[5:51:08] there's some nice language.

[5:51:10] This would not allow the child welfare services to deprive a minor of the rights, including the rights to medical care,

[5:51:15] provided by chapters 33, 263, and 266, you left out chapter 33. I have a

[5:51:22] whole lot more to say about this. I understand that. I will, like, you know,

[5:51:29] any question, you came out again. Yeah, did you feel it? You feel it? And it's

[5:51:34] also someone who's sat and talked to these kids and listened to what's happened

[5:51:39] to them and listened to talk to a girl who was raped repeatedly in foster care

[5:51:44] And no one helped.

[5:51:45] And that's why we're here today.

[5:51:46] And I really want to make that not happen again.

[5:51:49] And that's why we put so much effort into this session.

[5:51:53] Thank you, Susan.

[5:51:54] Yeah, go ahead.

[5:51:55] Now that we've been here a long time.

[5:51:57] On the on CPS and their ability to come in, do you know in your experience then the process

[5:52:06] if they were to come in in a case where sexual assault or whatever, is it up to the child to

[5:52:12] call contact CPS, or do they do they come in pretty regularly?

[5:52:18] I don't know the process, you know.

[5:52:19] Well, in that case, the child has very little access to help, and I know you don't believe

[5:52:24] me, Mr. Chairman, but I do see some middle ground in here with this bill and what we're

[5:52:28] trying to accomplish and trying to shore up the weaknesses of the CPS system.

[5:52:35] Children in the CPS system have a caseworker.

[5:52:37] they have a guardian ad light, I'm usually from CASA, and they have an attorney ad light

[5:52:42] I'm appointed by the courts. Case work return over is extremely high. As you know, probably

[5:52:47] painfully aware from being on the joint committee, ad lightems can be a more consistent force, but

[5:52:53] their access to the ad lightem may be limited. Can they get to a telephone? Where are they?

[5:53:00] Are they in a place where they have access? I mean, I had a client who's in CPS care

[5:53:05] who was a runaway, and she messaged me over social media and surfaced, but we don't

[5:53:15] have safeguards built in. This bill might be a beautiful vehicle for safeguards, for

[5:53:21] foster kids to have a way to reach out and ask for help, or have a way to reach out and

[5:53:26] say I'm not comfortable here. And one other thing you have to remember about kids, the worst,

[5:53:32] the abuse, the less likely it is they're going to speak up.

[5:53:36] So the best interest of the child, don't we be keep talking about that?

[5:53:39] So that's all seems to be just through case law and not so much that.

[5:53:43] Well, it's two problems with it.

[5:53:46] It's a right without a remedy from the point of view of the child.

[5:53:49] And one thing that disturbed me about this bill is written and it can be written

[5:53:52] rewritten beautifully.

[5:53:55] It's all about the provider's rights and not the child's rights.

[5:53:59] Yes, that's there.

[5:54:00] But and here's another gap in our laws because again, I'm a nerd, I like to read them together

[5:54:07] Parents have a duty to support their children until they're 18

[5:54:11] But and I forget if it's 15 or 16 right in that age length and that's right about the time

[5:54:16] LBGT kids may be getting kicked out of their homes

[5:54:19] The child doesn't have a right to go force their parents to support them at all parents can throw out a children

[5:54:25] They can be criminally prosecuted

[5:54:27] but only until the child is in the middle of adolescence.

[5:54:32] It's okay to kick your 17-year-old out in this state.

[5:54:35] That's allowed, and CPS doesn't have any bandwidth for them.

[5:54:39] So they end up on the streets, or they end up in a care situation where they're subject to sex abuse.

[5:54:44] Thank you.

[5:54:45] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[5:54:46] Cecilia Wood, Center for Preservation American Ideal, here to speak for the bill.

[5:54:53] Good evening chairman and committee my name is Cecilia Wood and I'm here

[5:55:00] We're testifying today on behalf of the Center for the Preservation of American Ideals, and I believe myself as well, in favor of House Bill 3859. I've testified many times in this and other committees. As you know, I'm board certified in family law. I've practiced in that area for 30 years. And specifically, I've done many, many CPS cases representing foster parents, parents, and children. But I didn't come today with my big family code because I think

[5:55:29] that everyone understands that you don't have to be an expert to know we need more foster

[5:55:34] care homes and we need a variety of foster care homes for these children. Didn't bring

[5:55:39] my calculator today because if you've got less than 100%, you take away 25%, then you're

[5:55:45] going to have a whole lot less than 100%. And Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be a foster

[5:55:51] parent. I'm 60 years old. I have 14 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren and they just keep

[5:55:57] come in, and I just put together a little bed last night. We probably couldn't fit another

[5:56:01] child in our home most nights, but I will tell you I've raised it. I've been responsible

[5:56:06] for helping to raise at least one grand child or building into her life who intends to adopt

[5:56:11] most of her children. So our family is very sincere in this, and what I wanted to talk to you and

[5:56:17] to the people here today about is that for many, many people, I hope for myself, but for many here

[5:56:23] in the committee and this capital that I know, our faith is who we are.

[5:56:29] And you come to us and you come to people and you come to the faith community.

[5:56:34] You ask us to open our homes and by limiting the ability to exercise our faith in doing that,

[5:56:41] you are asking us to treat these children far less better than we would treat our own children

[5:56:46] because that is how we learn to love and that is how we share.

[5:56:50] and I wanted to share with you a personal experience

[5:56:53] from the opposite side.

[5:56:55] When my daughter was 15 years old, she was pregnant.

[5:56:59] We went together.

[5:57:00] We met families for an open adoption.

[5:57:03] I was divorced at that time.

[5:57:06] We were looking for a loving home for this child.

[5:57:09] We found one accidentally through some friends.

[5:57:13] And when my granddaughter was born, who incidentally happened to text me

[5:57:18] While I was in this, and she knows I'm testifying about this, she's my oldest granddaughter,

[5:57:23] she turned 27 yesterday, she changed her mind and told these people that she was going

[5:57:30] to keep the baby.

[5:57:31] We brought her home.

[5:57:33] My youngest child was three and a half at that time and really didn't understand who

[5:57:37] was mom or managing conservator and it was just another little baby in our home.

[5:57:44] After six months, she came to me and she said, I've made a mistake.

[5:57:47] I want to go to college. I'm not ready to be a mom. I said fine. I will, I'm

[5:57:54] the managing conservator. I'll raise this child and she said, mom, I want my

[5:57:59] baby to have a mom and a dad. Not because for any other reason, but that was

[5:58:05] her sincere belief that that's what was best for this child. And although we

[5:58:10] love this baby very much, we, I believe that was best too. So we contacted the

[5:58:15] family and in less than a week we had the adoption consummated and we love that child

[5:58:22] it's an open adoption she's a wonderful young woman but please know we come at this

[5:58:27] very sincerely and not out of ill-willed towards any group. Thank you.

[5:58:56] My name is Lauren Ferris. I'm with the Green Gender Education Network of Texas and myself and

[5:59:02] and I am here in opposition to HB 3859.

[5:59:07] I'd first like to start with a very friendly,

[5:59:11] very soft reminder to representative Rodriguez.

[5:59:15] And when we talk about adding sexual orientation,

[5:59:18] we always include gender identity as well.

[5:59:22] And secondly, we've talked about more

[5:59:26] and the transgender education network of Texas

[5:59:28] is working very hard to recruit parents.

[5:59:31] We've recruited a number of transgender parents across the state of Texas even this month to ensure that we are well represented in the pool for adoptive parents.

[5:59:44] And secondarily, on behalf of myself, I speak as a parent, both biological and adoptive as a mentor with the FBI.

[6:00:00] And TJJD, as well as a child advocate. Because I think it's important that whenever we have a bill like this one, that we think not only about what it does, because we're all about having more in a very number of foster homes and foster agencies. We want to increase the number. But secondarily, we need to think about the secondary

[6:00:29] of, secondarily, what happens.

[6:00:32] The attorney general mentioned that if someone refused to do a particular kind of training,

[6:00:37] then someone, I believe, he used the statistics 75% of agencies would cover anyone.

[6:00:45] What about when those kids who are very young and they start coming out, then what happens?

[6:00:52] If they're not trained on that coming out, one of the things we always talk about in the

[6:00:59] happens to those kids when a kid comes out at home. And I want to talk a little bit about

[6:01:04] my own daughter, who's now very healthy, wonderful, transgender woman, the age of 19, seeking

[6:01:12] a higher education, that thankfully the people of the state will help before because she was

[6:01:19] in foster care for so long. But what about her? When she came out to her parents, they wouldn't

[6:01:25] sent her to school and they abused her, so she was removed from the home, but once

[6:01:31] she got into foster care, then what happened?

[6:01:34] In her case, it got worse.

[6:01:37] She wound up on the streets.

[6:01:38] My daughter spent at least nine months when she was 14 on the streets of San Antonio.

[6:01:45] What's going to happen to these kids when they decide they need to come out and they're

[6:01:50] in a place that rejects them?

[6:01:52] I deal with so many runaways, I work with homeless youth as well, I'm a former assistant

[6:02:00] director of the Thrive Youth Center in San Antonio.

[6:02:04] What about those kids?

[6:02:05] We have a very major trafficking problem in Texas.

[6:02:10] Are we sensing some of these kids to the trafficking industry?

[6:02:32] Everybody wants to put an end in my name.

[6:02:36] That's no problem.

[6:02:37] My name is Denise Brogan-Cater.

[6:02:39] I am the State Policy Director for the Family Quality Council, and I'm here speaking on behalf of myself and

[6:02:46] the Family Quality Council in opposition to 3859.

[6:02:50] The Family Quality Council is strongly opposed to HB 3859 for some very good reasons.

[6:02:57] There are reasons why so few states have passed such legislation around the country, it's just bad public policy.

[6:03:04] This bill hides under two great lies.

[6:03:07] The first lie is that it protects religious freedom.

[6:03:11] But despite the protestations to the contrary,

[6:03:13] the real effect of this bill is, in fact,

[6:03:15] to protect discrimination against LGBT-headed families.

[6:03:18] And it will drive them from the system.

[6:03:21] Or else, what's the grounds for these lawsuits?

[6:03:24] The second great lie is much more pernicious.

[6:03:27] That is the lie that more children will be served

[6:03:29] if we allow these agencies to discriminate.

[6:03:32] Our experience and the data from around the nation

[6:03:35] say that the opposite is actually true. The truth is that the reason we have 30,000 youth

[6:03:40] in care and nearly 13,000 still awaiting adoption is because of a lack of families willing

[6:03:45] to take on the amazing and loving task of fostering and adopting, not because of a lack of

[6:03:51] agencies. In some states it is true that some non-discriminating agencies, some discriminating

[6:03:57] agencies have left the marketplace, but they've always been replaced by agencies who do not

[6:04:01] discriminate against anyone of any religion or belief system or sexual orientation.

[6:04:09] In fact, Vanillanoi canceled its contract with Catholic Charities in 2012.

[6:04:13] The percentage of adoptions performed by public welfare agencies in the state went up 4%.

[6:04:20] The reasons are unclear, but the data argue against the idea that shuttering discriminatory

[6:04:24] agencies reduces the number of placements.

[6:04:27] LGBT couples adopt at a rate four times that of opposite sex couples and foster at a

[6:04:33] rate of six times that of opposite sex couples.

[6:04:37] We should try to recruit these families and not shut them out.

[6:04:41] Doing so will leave these children subject to an increased risk of aging out of the system

[6:04:45] and all the harms and costs to the state that associated therewith.

[6:04:51] I urge you to vote against this bill and stand for the children of Texas.

[6:04:54] Testimony.

[6:05:12] We are.

[6:05:30] Is there anyone else? It's registered to testify on four against the registered.

[6:05:44] You've been here all day, so I suspect that's probably true. Richard Bates, retired clergy, and I'm testifying for myself against the bill.

[6:05:55] So, I listened to the reading of the bill and it seemed very fair and open and I thought, wow, I may need to change my testimony.

[6:06:06] I'm sorry, make sure we heard your name clearly so if you stay again, please for the right.

[6:06:13] We're not showing you registered.

[6:06:16] We need to get you registered, even if it's re-registered.

[6:06:29] I have a bit of laryngitis. I hope you can hear me. I'm here representing myself. I'm an independent consultant for the Degree in Public Administration. I've been working in the field of child welfare for 18 years.

[6:06:42] And have you testifying against the bill, is that correct?

[6:06:46] Again, yes, against the bill, thank you.

[6:06:50] I've worked with literally hundreds of agencies, including faith-based agencies all over the country, here in Texas and in other states.

[6:06:58] I have specific areas of expertise in three areas.

[6:07:02] One is the recruitment of foster and adoptive families.

[6:07:06] The other is finding permanent homes for teens and adolescents in foster care.

[6:07:10] And the third is working with agencies on the intersection of child welfare services

[6:07:16] and LGBTQ population.

[6:07:19] Most recently I've authored an 18-hour training curriculum for child welfare agencies

[6:07:25] on how to work competently with the LGBT community.

[6:07:29] And so part of my work is actually going in and working with social workers to train them

[6:07:34] on LGBT competencies.

[6:07:36] And so, I come face-to-face all the time with people whose religious beliefs are sometimes

[6:07:42] in conflict with their professional responsibilities as a child welfare professional.

[6:07:48] I believe that there is good intent behind this bill, but there is a very big difference

[6:07:54] between intent and impact, and what I see in this kind of religious exemption and legislation

[6:08:00] only hurts children.

[6:08:02] At the heart of child welfare services, the commitment of each agency staff member to the safety permanency and well-being of every child and care, and I believe that they face agencies to allowing faith-based agencies to refuse services based on deep religious beliefs, creates an environment for these agencies to avoid facing things like sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression.

[6:08:30] And sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression are things that we all have, all

[6:08:36] of us, and even if they decide to refuse service to, for example, same-sex couples,

[6:08:44] they cannot refuse service to children who identify as LGBTQ.

[6:08:50] Those children make up over 20% of the foster care population and are at risk of experiencing

[6:08:57] including bullying, harassment, and rejection at high levels, including eight times

[6:09:03] the level of attempted suicide, six times the level of its severe depression,

[6:09:08] and three times the level of illegal drug use and risk of HIV.

[6:09:12] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[6:09:14] Thank you.

[6:09:15] Richard Bait.

[6:09:22] Thank you.

[6:09:23] Richard Bait, speaking on behalf of myself against the bill.

[6:09:29] Go ahead.

[6:09:30] As I was saying earlier, on first hearing of the bill, I thought I was going to have to

[6:09:34] change my testimony because it comes across as a very fair and open bill.

[6:09:39] But then when I heard about Plan B that you a couple might go and be refused but be referred,

[6:09:45] that's open and overt discrimination.

[6:09:48] It's sort of like the equivalent of same-sex couple A going to shop at HEB and believe

[6:09:53] me, I love my HEB, but I'm just using it as an example.

[6:09:57] and being told, perhaps you should shop.

[6:10:00] At Whole Foods. That's discrimination. One of the other hats that I wear besides minister is sex therapist. I graduated from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, founded by United Methodist clergy because they realized that people went to two professional groups for counseling, doctors and ministers, and neither were equipped to talk about human sexuality. One of the things I learned from the institute is that

[6:10:29] our sexuality is a good gift from God, and to say otherwise is to negate that gift.

[6:10:37] It's almost like saying brown eyes are better than blue or hazel, or right-handed people,

[6:10:43] or more superior to left-handed people.

[6:10:46] I come from a congregation that's very inclusive and who views everyone as equal.

[6:10:53] Something that hasn't been said, and I will leave you with this today, and I got this from

[6:10:58] an institute. Children accept what they see, and what they see is either disruptive,

[6:11:07] quibbling, argumentative parents, or stable, loving parents.

[6:11:11] What they see is love. They do not see male and female, male, male and female, female,

[6:11:18] they see someone who loves them. And that's where I'd like to end today.

[6:11:24] Thank you very much for your question.

[6:11:26] Chuck Smith, quality Texas,

[6:11:32] here's speaking against the bill.

[6:11:34] Thank you, I'm sorry I wasn't in the room when you called my name the first time.

[6:11:36] My name is Chuck Smith, I'm the CEO of a quality Texas speaking in opposition to House Bill 3859.

[6:11:42] We fully support the efforts by the state legislature, including Representative Frank's House Bill 6, which we're not debating here today, but efforts to improve child protective services system.

[6:11:53] But we oppose-

[6:11:54] As a reminder, we don't call it out of the bill, okay?

[6:11:57] Okay, so we approved all efforts to improve the child protective services system,

[6:12:01] including efforts by Representative Frank.

[6:12:03] But we strongly oppose any legislation that does not align with best practices in child-centered care.

[6:12:09] While you've heard today from many provider, faith-based provider organizations that have been supportive of this bill,

[6:12:15] overwhelmingly the child advocate organizations are opposed to this bill.

[6:12:19] The number one reason that children remain in state care is the lack of qualified perspective foster an adoptive families.

[6:12:25] It's a lack of parents, not a lack of providers.

[6:12:29] And we fear that House Bill 3859 would decrease the chances of youth placement.

[6:12:34] And by turning away prospective families who are otherwise qualified to give children a home.

[6:12:40] Turning away qualified parents, we risk keeping children in need of a home and in foster care for a longer period of time.

[6:12:45] There was discussion earlier about practical consequences.

[6:12:49] I'm concerned that this bill will allow a provider to refuse to work with LGBT kids.

[6:12:54] I'm concerned that this bill would allow a provider to force an LGBT child into conversion therapy,

[6:13:00] a process that has been denounced by every major child welfare organization.

[6:13:05] There's been talk of a committee sub, if that's the case, we would welcome the opportunity to work with Representative Frank to ensure that the best interests of the child remains paramount.

[6:13:14] And that LGBT kids and that LGBT parents are not shut out of the process of the system.

[6:13:19] Thank you very much.

[6:13:20] Thank you.

[6:13:21] Jessica Turner, Tucker.

[6:13:23] Excuse me.

[6:13:23] Jessica Tucker.

[6:13:25] I'm sorry I missed my turn.

[6:13:26] I had to work today.

[6:13:28] Thank you for allowing me to testify.

[6:13:29] My name is Jessica Tucker.

[6:13:31] And I am absolutely and unequivocally testifying against HP 3859.

[6:13:36] Are you representing yourself too?

[6:13:37] Yes, I am representing myself.

[6:13:38] Okay.

[6:13:40] I was part of a foster family that fostered for 11 years.

[6:13:44] In that time, over 157 children passed through our home,

[6:13:49] I have four adopted siblings, all of which were adopted through CPS.

[6:13:54] I know the foster care system inside and out, and I'm going to tell you,

[6:13:57] I don't want to talk about adults today.

[6:13:59] I really have strong feelings about that, but I'm not going to talk about that.

[6:14:03] The children is what's important here, the welfare of the children.

[6:14:08] Children do not come to the state voluntarily.

[6:14:11] Nobody comes to the state voluntarily.

[6:14:13] children need all the help that they can get.

[6:14:17] As one of the witnesses said, we need all hands on deck.

[6:14:21] I greatly admire those of different religious beliefs who wish to foster.

[6:14:25] However, there are private adoption agencies such as Christian Social Services, the Lutheran Social Services,

[6:14:31] that these families may foster with and I encourage them to do so.

[6:14:35] However, allowing the children to stay in the homes that they are in longer,

[6:14:40] while they look for a secondary provider, keeps a child in an abusive situation for longer,

[6:14:46] an abusive situation that could be fatal to the child.

[6:14:50] One of my sisters came into care in a full-body cast.

[6:14:53] Another of my sisters came into care with her tongue turned from the bottom of her mouth.

[6:14:57] any minute that we leave a child in an

[6:15:00] The use of situation is a minute that is harming that child. The welfare of the child is permanent. The state of Texas needs all hands on deck. Children are sleeping in the offices of CPS workers because they are not enough homes. We were called it two in the morning to take children because they were not enough homes. We were called to take children from neighboring counties because they were not enough homes. We were called to take children at variance of four children.

[6:15:26] We already had, times we had four children in our home and we were asked to take variances

[6:15:31] because there were not enough homes.

[6:15:33] I am begging you, as someone who has seen many, many children passed through the state

[6:15:38] of Texas, do not do anything to limit the number of homes.

[6:15:43] Please allow children to be raised in loving LVGT, Muslim, Hindu, any family that can provide

[6:15:52] a loving and stable environment is better than an abusive, neglectful, and potentially fatal home that the child is left in.

[6:16:03] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[6:16:05] Is there anyone else here that has a registered test found for against House Bill 3859?

[6:16:13] Now we're going to ask herbs in the Frank to close on the bill.

[6:16:18] I

[6:16:22] remember thank y'all for being here, I guess, one of the advantages of getting to listen to what your bill does or doesn't do is you get at least the last word and I just had just a few quick things that I appreciate the passion of the lady really that just testified she almost did my clothes for me although I think we can obviously disagree on what the bill does because I think this really does what she's talking about is get all hands on deck and allow everyone to participate there are a few things that I wanted to mention again, it just reminds you the placements where it's all goes

[6:16:51] is not covered, okay?

[6:16:54] So it, this gives us the ability to get as many homes out there, the LGBT couples that are already,

[6:16:59] I mean, there's already folks out in the LGBT community that are doing a great job.

[6:17:02] We need as many of those homes, we need as many religious homes.

[6:17:05] So that, when CPS makes that hard decision of where do I place this child?

[6:17:09] There are as many options as possible, I believe this bill serves that purpose.

[6:17:14] And it absolutely does not in any way keep anyone from placing with an LGBT couple.

[6:17:19] That's just critical to understand we've been, I mean, people have been talking about it, but no matter what, we don't understand the CPS or the SSCC or not covered.

[6:17:27] In fact, one of the folks, I guess they said they weren't sure if the SSCC was covered despite the fact that the Attorney General's Office said it is and

[6:17:35] Ledge Council said it is, if there's a way to make sure it is in the bill, it's already there.

[6:17:41] I also thought it was ironic one of the other witnesses said something about, you know, this will give these agencies a chance to sue the state.

[6:17:49] There is no monetary damage in this.

[6:17:51] They have the ability to sue the state to get back in the game.

[6:17:55] So we have on one hand, we have a group that are suing to try to get a chance to work

[6:17:59] with the kids, and on other hands, we have people that are suing to try to get these organizations

[6:18:04] out of it.

[6:18:05] That's not very difficult.

[6:18:08] Last thing we've kept talking about the best interest of the kid, and I would be glad to

[6:18:12] provide you guys with that list.

[6:18:14] that is something that CPS is supposed to be doing, making the decision of where to place that child in the best interest it's already in statute it's in it the best interest for the child legal standard already applies and includes allowances to match children with homes that are close to them and respects the desires of the child actually is the number one and I can give you the I'll provide you all with more that list again we've talked a lot about the discrimination I really believe this gives everybody a chance to participate and I'm going to close with this final thought

[6:18:44] We, as we had a lot of different views here, but we are a country founded on freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

[6:18:51] These fundamental rights are enshrined in the First Amendment, that are enshrined in the First Amendment are what enable individuals to live in peace side by side.

[6:19:00] We may not all agree, but we don't have to all agree.

[6:19:05] However, when it comes to helping those most vulnerable in society, we should cast aside our differences and

[6:19:09] We can reach agreements on things that will create a stronger and more diverse support system for children.

[6:19:14] I believe this will do it and with that I would entertain any questions and if there are no questions.

[6:19:19] Any questions, Vemma?

[6:19:21] Thank you very much.

[6:19:21] Then I would respectfully close.

[6:19:23] Thank you all very much.

[6:19:24] This time is the chair, good job.

[6:19:26] This time chair is intentfully House Bill 3859 pending.

[6:19:32] Chair lays out, HJR 29 and calls on Ripper soon.

[6:19:37] Munoz to explain how to

[6:19:51] call you up earlier if I didn't know that's what I was saying maybe should have called this earlier

[6:20:00] Oh, gosh, no. Thank you for your energy to represent our campus.

[6:20:06] Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.

[6:20:11] HCR 29 seeks to amend the Constitution to assist in the governor and making appointments to state boards, commissions, or other governing bodies of a state agency to ensure to the extent possible that these governing boards reflect the gender composition of the board that is reflective of the composition of Texas. Currently,

[6:20:30] currently only an estimated 34% of all appointees consist of women making Texas at times one of the lowest states when it comes to categories of workplace environment, education and political empowerment.

[6:20:44] This despite women constituting approximately half of the state's population.

[6:20:49] Members HCR 29 would allow for a more diverse representation of our state's demographics in these positions.

[6:20:55] The joint resolution would allow for a transition for those currently serving and does not expressly prohibit a current member from being reappointed as provided by law.

[6:21:04] On average during a four-year term, a governor could make up to several thousand appointments according to the governor's office.

[6:21:12] We all know that there are more than 200 state boards, commissions and agencies whose members are appointed by the governor.

[6:21:18] As you can see in the bill, the language states that in making these appointments, the governor shall to the extent possible

[6:21:24] ensure that the composition reflects that of the state.

[6:21:27] This proposal is not a quota favoring one group at the expense of another and nobody would

[6:21:32] lose out to a minority and I don't think the governor will have any problem finding

[6:21:35] qualified women ready to serve this great state.

[6:21:38] Up to today, I have not been contacted by any apparent opposition although things could

[6:21:44] always change but I will be glad to answer any questions at this time and I reserve the

[6:21:48] right to close.

[6:21:50] any questions? Any question, remember? I don't think so.

[6:21:55] Is there anybody here this

[6:21:58] register to speak on for against HAR 2029? No, so you can go ahead and close.

[6:22:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, for your time and attention, and I respectfully close.

[6:22:11] Thank you. At this time, Mr. Chair's intent to leave HAR 29 pending. There being no other

[6:22:16] a business for the Committee on State Affairs,

[6:22:18] stands adjourned, subject call, chair.

85 Session Committees — State Affairs - Mar 29th, 2017

Transcript