State-Affairs-Committee-Interim-Report-2016

Interim Report
to the 85th
Texas Legislature
House Committee on
State Affairs
January 2017

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE AFFAIRS
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
INTERIM REPORT 2016
A REPORT TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
85TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE
BYRON COOK
CHAIRMAN
TONI BARCELLONA
CHIEF COMMITTEE CLERK
JULIA CONNER
ASSISTANT COMMITTEE CLERK

Helen Giddings
Vice-Chair
Members: Tom Craddick, Marsha Farney, Jessica Farrar, Charlie Geren, Patricia Harless, Dan Huberty, Jarvis Johnson, John Kuempel, Ina
Minjarez, René Oliveira, and John Smithee
Committee On
State Affairs
January 6, 2017
Byron Cook P.O. Box 2910
Chairman Austin, Texas 78768-2910
The Honorable Joe Straus
Speaker, Texas House of Representatives
Members of the Texas House of Representatives
Texas State Capitol, Rm. 2W.13
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Speaker and Fellow Members:
The Committee on State Affairs of the 84th Legislature hereby submits its interim report including
recommendations and drafted legislation for consideration by the 85th Legislature.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________ ______________________
Byron Cook, Chairman Helen Giddings, Vice Chair
_______________________ ________________________ ______________________
Tom Craddick Marsha Farney Jessica Farrar
_______________________ ________________________ ______________________
Charlie Geren Patricia Harless Dan Huberty
_______________________ ________________________ ______________________
Jarvis Johnson John Kuempel Ina Minjarez
_______________________ ______________________
René Oliveira John Smithee
January 4, 2017

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATE AFFAIRS........................................................................................................................... 6
INTERIM CHARGES .................................................................................................................... 8
NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS................................................................................ 10
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 10
Background............................................................................................................................... 10
State Office of Risk Management (SORM).......................................................................... 11
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).................................................................... 11
Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) ......................................................................... 11
Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).................................................................... 11
Department of Information Resources (DIR) ....................................................................... 12
Texas General Land Office (GLO)....................................................................................... 12
Texas American Water Works Association (Texas AWWA) .............................................. 12
Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 13
STATE CONTRACT MONITORING......................................................................................... 14
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 14
Background............................................................................................................................... 14
Texas Ethics Commission (TEC).......................................................................................... 14
Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) .............................................................. 15
State Auditor’s Office (SAO) ............................................................................................... 15
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts................................................................................. 16
Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute ................................................................. 16
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) ........................................................................... 17
Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR)............................................................. 18
IT Alliance for Public Sector................................................................................................ 18
CompTIA.............................................................................................................................. 18

4
ECONOMIC DISASTER PREPAREDNESS.............................................................................. 20
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 20
Background............................................................................................................................... 20
Cybersecurity........................................................................................................................ 20
Banking................................................................................................................................. 21
The Texas Banking System .................................................................................................. 21
Effects of the Oil and Gas Industry....................................................................................... 22
BIOETHICS OF FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH.......................................................................... 26
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 26
Background............................................................................................................................... 27
Bioethics ............................................................................................................................... 27
Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS)............................................................ 28
Researchers ........................................................................................................................... 28
Enclosure: Consent Form.......................................................................................................... 30
Enclosure: OIG October 2015 Letter........................................................................................ 31
Enclosure: OIG December 2016 Letter .................................................................................... 36
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND .................................................................................................. 42
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 42
Background............................................................................................................................... 42
UTILITY RATEMAKING PROCESS......................................................................................... 44
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 44
Background............................................................................................................................... 44
UTILITY METERING AND BILLING ...................................................................................... 46

5
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 46
Background............................................................................................................................... 46
IMMIGRATION REFORM ......................................................................................................... 48
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 48
Background............................................................................................................................... 48
State Legislation.................................................................................................................... 50
Border Security..................................................................................................................... 50
Texas Department of Public Safety Records ........................................................................ 51
Federal Jurisdiction............................................................................................................... 51
UNION DUES .............................................................................................................................. 53
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 53
Background............................................................................................................................... 53
Legislative Arguments.......................................................................................................... 54
Enclosure: Written Testimony.................................................................................................. 55
DISCLOSURE.............................................................................................................................. 68
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 68
Background............................................................................................................................... 68
Enclosure: TFRW's Resolution................................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX A -- DISSENTING LETTER................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX B -- DISSENTING LETTER................................................................................... 73
ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................................. 75

6
STATE AFFAIRS
Under House Rule 3, Section 35, the House Committee on State Affairs (the Committee) shall
have 13 members, with jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to:
1) questions and matters of state policy;
2) the administration of state government;
3) the organization, operation, powers, regulation, and management of state departments,
agencies, and institutions;
4) the operation and regulation of public lands and state buildings;
5) the duties and conduct of officers and employees of the state government;
6) the operation of state government and its agencies and departments; all of above except
where jurisdiction is specifically granted to some other standing committee;
7) access of the state agencies to scientific and technological information;
8) the regulation and deregulation of electric utilities and the electric industry;
9) the regulation and deregulation of telecommunications utilities and the
telecommunications industry;
10) electric utility regulation as it relates to energy production and consumption;
11) pipelines, pipeline companies, and all others operating as common carriers in the state;
12) the regulation and deregulation of other industries jurisdiction of which is not
specifically assigned to another committee under these rules; and
13) the following organizations and state agencies: the Council of State Governments, the
National Conference of State Legislatures, the Office of the Governor, the Texas
Facilities Commission, the Department of Information Resources, the Inaugural
Endowment Fund Committee, the Sunset Advisory Commission, the Public Utility
Commission of Texas, and the Office of Public Utility Counsel.1
On November 4, 2015, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus released interim charges, which list
specific topics for the Committee to study prior to the start of the 85th Legislative Session. The
Committee held three public hearings during the interim to give experts the opportunity to
provide the Committee with information related to the charges.
The first interim hearing, on Charge #8, relating to immigration reform, was held on December
15, 2015. Eleven expert witnesses with experience related to immigration law offered the
committee insight on the effects of current immigration laws on Texas communities.
On April 28, 2016, the Committee held an interim hearing to address the following interim
charges: Charge #1 studying the State's ability to continue operation during an economic
collapse, Charge #3 evaluating the preparedness of the State to respond to a disaster whether
natural or manmade and Charge #4 focusing on the bioethics of using fetal tissue for research.
The Committee held a third interim hearing on August 15, 2016, to address the following three
interim charges: Charge #2 examining the efficiency of state contracting procedures, Charge #6

7
evaluating the utility ratemaking process and Charge #7 regarding utility metering and billing.
The three interim hearings can be found at the following links:
December 15, 2015: http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=11657
April 28, 2016: http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=11932
August 15, 2016: http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=12085
Having completed its study on the interim charges assigned by Speaker Straus, the Committee
has adopted the following report.

8
INTERIM CHARGES
Charge #1 Study if the state's infrastructure is adequately prepared for disasters, whether
man-made or natural. Include preparedness assessments of the maintenance and
recovery of vital infrastructure such as transportation and utility systems.
Charge #2 Examine procedures regarding contract monitoring, compliance, performance
evaluation and notification requirements for state contracting procedures. Include
recommendations to determine a "best value" for the state and prevent conflicts of
interests. Evaluate guidelines regarding the state's participation in contracts
funded by grants and suggest methods to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds.
Charge #3 Determine if the state has sufficient authority and the tools to ensure continued
operation of the state's government and economy under existing budgetary and
statutory authority. Make contingency recommendations to prevent collapse in
the event of an economic disaster.
Charge #4 Study the policies used by research and medical entities to adhere to the highest
ethical standards for acquiring human fetal tissue for medical and scientific
purposes. Specifically, review compliance to ensure informed consent and that
all state and federal laws sufficiently respect the dignity of the human body.
Study criteria for which persons have standing when giving consent for the use of
fetal remains and to investigate potential violations of state laws regulating
organ/tissue donation. Determine whether additional disclosure and reporting
requirements are necessary to ensure moral and ethical research practices. Review
practices and statutes in other states regarding fetal tissue harvesting.
Charge #5 Study support mechanisms for the Small and Rural Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier - Universal Service Fund. Consider alternative funding mechanisms as
well as necessary statutory changes to ensure reasonable cost of basic local phone
service in high cost, rural areas without expanding the size of the Texas Universal
Service Fund.
Charge #6 Evaluate the administrative process used to determine utility rates. Consider if
sufficient opportunities exist to ensure customer representation. Also determine if
additional legislative guidance is needed to ensure public notification and
participation.
Charge #7 Examine how the Public Utility Commission of Texas, when applicable, and
utility providers, whether vertically integrated, privately owned, or municipally
owned, can ensure consumer protection regarding metering devices for water,
gas, and electricity service. Review recent examples of inaccurate or confusing
billings and offer recommendations on appropriate consumer recourse and appeal.
In addition, assess utility procedures regarding meter installation.

9
Charge #8 Examine state and local laws applicable to undocumented immigrants throughout
the State of Texas and analyze the effects of those laws in conjunction with
federal immigration laws and the policies and practices followed by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Charge #9 Examine payroll deductions from state or political subdivision employees for the
purpose of labor organization membership dues or fees as well as charitable
organization and nonprofit contributions. Determine if this process is an
appropriate use of public funds.
Charge #10 Monitor the impact of major State Affairs legislation passed by the 84th
Legislature, including updates regarding recent contracting reforms. Conduct
legislative oversight and monitoring of the agencies and programs under the
committee's jurisdiction and the implementing of relevant legislation passed by
the 84th Legislature. In conducting this oversight, the committee should:
a. consider any reforms to state agencies to make them more responsive to
Texas taxpayers and citizens;
b. identify issues regarding the agency or its governance that may be
appropriate to investigate, improve, remedy, or eliminate;
c. determine whether an agency is operating in a transparent and efficient
manner; and
d. identify opportunities to streamline programs and services while
maintaining the mission of the agency and its programs.

10
NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Interim Charge #1: Study if the state's infrastructure is adequately prepared for disasters,
whether man-made or natural. Include preparedness assessments of the maintenance and
recovery of vital infrastructure such as transportation and utility systems.
Public Hearing
The House Committee on State Affairs held a public hearing on April 28, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in
Austin, Texas in the extension, room E2.028, to address the above interim charge. The
Committee heard testimony from invited witnesses with experience in disaster response. The
following invited individuals testified:
Witnesses are listed in alphabetical order
Nim Kidd, Chief, Texas Division of Emergency Management
Brian Lloyd, Executive Director, Public Utility Commission of Texas
Bill Magness, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Reliability Council of
Texas
Mark Marek, Director of Engineering Operations, Texas Department of Transportation
Dale Richardson, Chief Operations Officer, Department of Information Resources
Stephen Vollbrecht, Executive Director, State Office of Risk Management
Ken Wisian, Senior Director, Coastal Protection and Community Development, Texas
General Land Office
Introduction
Disasters require a well-organized, collaborative response from many different agencies to
ensure the best protection for Texas citizens and infrastructure. It is the responsibility of the
Texas Division of Emergency Management to orchestrate all necessary agencies to deliver the
support and response needed by Texas mayors and county judges to aid their communities during
times of disasters.
Background
The Texas Division of Emergency Management testified that Texas has more major disasters and
more presidentially-declared disasters than any other state. Presidential declarations give states
federal funds to assist with natural disasters and are issued based upon a state's population size
and the amount of incurred loss of uninsured public property; therefore, Texas has to suffer
substantially more loss than neighboring states before qualifying for one presidential declaration.
State Amount of Loss for Declaration
Texas $34.5 mil.
Louisiana $6.5 mil.
Oklahoma $6 mil.
Arkansas $5 mil.
New Mexico $2.9 mil.
Amount of uninsured public loss the state needs for federal assistance.ii

11
State Office of Risk Management (SORM)
SORM's Executive Director discussed the requirement for state agencies to have a Continuity of
Operations Plan (COOP) for dealing with unexpected disasters, which allows the agency to
continue its essential functions during a disaster.iii
These COOPs must encompass actions to:
prevent problems before they arise, prepare to respond to unexpected circumstances, respond to
the situation in a way that continues the agencies essential functions and recover from any
damages. Additionally, agencies should test, train and exercise their COOPs regularly to ensure
their effectiveness and preparedness.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
TxDOT maintains staff in every Texas County in order to respond to disasters statewide. The
TxDOT Emergency Operations Center oversees TxDOT's response to disasters such as:
hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, winter weather and flooding.iv
A key element of TxDOT's
COOP is the ability to communicate with Texans during a disaster, which they accomplish
through their network of offices, equipment, personnel and partnerships with the state and local
governments.
Due to the continuous flooding of certain Houston areas in 2016, TxDOT is looking into
enhancing the warning systems by implementing a physical barrier where there are flood-prone
areas.v
Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC)
The PUC oversees electricity, telecommunication and water utilities functions and provides
emergency management roles for electricity utilities in conjunction with the Energy Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT), among other partners.vi
In the event of a disaster, the PUC serves as
the interface between state government and electric utilities to:
convey outage and service restoration information;
convey service restoration priorities, such as hospitals, water treatment facilities, etc.; and
facilitate the clearance of downed power lines and the entry of electric utilities.
Under PUC rules, electricity utility providers are required to have, maintain, update and test
emergency response plans.vii
Additionally, in the event of a disaster, the providers must
prioritize service for civil defense, emergency service entities and vulnerable customers.
The electricity sector is the backbone of the state and the nation, as everything else is connected
to and relies on electricity.viii
Technology is rapidly changing and therefore it is crucial that the
COOP is continuously tested and updated and that the electric industry and government
collaborate on these efforts. Threats to the electric grid include: terrorism, cybersecurity,
physical attacks, copper theft, weather and animals.
Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
ERCOT delivers 90% of the Texas electric load, supplying electric services to the vast majority
of Texans. ERCOT operations rely on matching the supply to the demand of electricity at all
times, as there is no way to store excess electricity. As the PUC requires an emergency plan for
all electricity providers, ERCOT implements a plan that focuses heavily on prevention,

12
preparedness, response and recovery.
Texas has never experienced a system wide blackout, but to ensure full preparedness, ERCOT
annually practices the "black start" procedure using operators with realistic simulators.
Additionally, ERCOT implements a layered cyber and physical security defense system that is
tested regularly and practiced frequently.ix
Department of Information Resources (DIR)
The Data Center Services (DCS) provides a statewide IT infrastructure overseen by DIR that
increases the overall security and disaster recovery capability.x
The program operates a self-
insured disaster recovery model that utilizes two separate data centers: one center hosts
production servers, while the other has test and development servers. Agencies that participate
in DIR's Disaster Recovery Service can back up their data to a cloud shared with the two data
centers daily.
xi
In the event of a disaster, DCS has the ability to lose a data center and quickly recover and
restore information and services to the other data center. Annually, participating agencies are
provided a disaster simulation to practice the recovery process and ensure effectiveness.
Texas General Land Office (GLO)
The Coastal Protection Division of the GLO is responsible for oil spill response, coastal
protection and community development and revitalization.xii
There are five field offices along
the coast, which are prepared to assist with certain emergency response functions, including
search and rescue and extra power back up using 600 generators. The main focus of the GLO
disaster response is long-term resilience when rebuilding post-disaster. Currently, GLO is
developing a Texas Coastal Master Plan to ensure durable ecologic and economic management
of the Texas coast.xiii
Additionally, GLO is working in a national effort to propose construction
projects that provide robust protection to the weakest areas of the state.
Texas American Water Works Association (Texas AWWA)
Through submitted written testimony, Texas AWWA provided the Committee the following
information: The mission of the Texas AWWA is to support and promote statewide emergency

13
preparedness, disaster response, and mutual aid assistance for public and private water and
wastewater utilities through the TXWARN website.xiv
The TXWARN website provides
members with emergency planning, response and recovers information before, during and after a
disaster; as well as an emergency equipment database that assists members with locating
emergency equipment and trained personnel.xv
Conclusion
Each state agency is required to have an emergency response plan that delivers the necessary
assistance to local authorities in the event of a disaster. State agencies disclosed that their
emergency plans addressed: prevention, preparation, response and restoration. Moreover, many
agencies provided frequent emergency simulations to test their disaster plans.
Recommendations
Lawmakers should continuously review and monitor agency plans through the Department
of Public Safety's lead disaster preparedness division, the Texas Division of Emergency
Management. All agencies involved should continue working collaboratively to ensure the
state's safety.

14
STATE CONTRACT MONITORING
Interim Charge #2: Examine procedures regarding contract monitoring, compliance,
performance evaluation and notification requirements for state contracting procedures.
Include recommendations to determine a "best value" for the state and prevent conflicts of
interests. Evaluate guidelines regarding the state's participation in contracts funded by
grants and suggest methods to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds.
Public Hearing
The House Committee on State Affairs held a public hearing on August 15, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in
Austin, Texas in the John H. Reagan Building, room 140, to address the above interim charge.
The Committee heard testimony from numerous state agencies, several which utilize state
contracting procedures. The following invited individuals testified:
Amanda Arriaga, Chief Administrative Officer, Texas Department of Public Safety
Jim Clancy, Commissioner, Texas Ethics Commission
Lisa Collier, First Assistant State Auditor, State Auditor's Office
John Colyandro, Executive Director, Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute
Todd Kimbriel, Deputy Executive Director and State Chief Information Officer,
Department of Information Resources
Audrey O'Neill, Audit Manager, State Auditor's Office
Ron Pigott, Deputy Executive Commissioner for Procurement and Contracting Services,
Health and Human Services Commission
Bobby Pounds, Assistant Director, Statewide Procurement Division, Texas Comptroller
of Public Accounts
Charles Smith, Executive Commissioner, Health and Human Services Commission
Introduction
In response to allegations of impropriety in the award of contracts at a state agency, and also as
part of broader efforts to improve the process of state contract procurement, deliver the best
value to procuring agencies and increase transparency of state government, the 84th Legislature
passed Senate Bill (SB) 20, House Bill (HB) 1295 and certain
provisions in Article IX of the General Appropriations Act. This
series of reforms augmented processes and monitoring methods
of state agency contracting.xvi
Background
Texas Ethics Commission (TEC)
According to the testimony of Texas Ethics Commissioner Jim
Clancy, the TEC has effectively and efficiently implemented HB
1295 by forming an electronic filing application, which requires
HB 1295 requires a disclosure
of interested parties, or list of
those benefitting financially
from a contract, to be signed
and filed with the TEC. This
applies to agencies that vote on
contracts, or contracts that are
valued at $1 million or greater.

15
agencies to submit the disclosure of party forms electronically. Sixty Thousand
disclosure forms have already been published on the TEC website, and an additional
20,000 are predicted to be published by the end of the year.
Likely recommendations TEC will propose to the next legislature are: xvii
1. Changes to requirements of a signed contract
2. Changes to the time of submission to the Commission
3. Requiring a monetary threshold above $50,000 for contracts voted on by the
governing bodyof a state agency or governmental body
Senate Bill 20
The 84th Legislature passed SB 20, a comprehensive bill that alters state agency contracting
procedures to increase transparency, improve efficiency and ensure best practices are utilized in
contract procurement. The Committee heard from a number of state agencies, which are
highlighted below.
Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC)
According to the HHSC testimony, the Procurement and Contracting Services (PCS) makes
administrative and client service purchases for all of the Health and Human Services agencies.
As of October 1, 2015, HHSC had consolidated contracting services and PCS is working to find
long-term, efficient contracting solutions that fully comply with the recent requirement changes
by streamlining the procurement process and focusing on contract management. HHSC is
developing a new contract management system that will have real time links to Centralized
Accounting and Payroll/Personnel System (CAPPS) to increase oversight.xviii
SB 20 requires HHSC to consolidate five agencies into three and the agency's testimony stated
that a large-scale data warehouse is needed for the entirety of HHSC and their long term data
needs are being reevaluated to find the best value solution. This testimony was HHSC's
explanation for the cancellation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) process with a particular
vendor, even though $10 million had already been spent, mostly on consultants.
State Auditor’s Office (SAO)
SAO issued reports between January 2015 and July 2016 examining state contracting for any
issues and then rated the degree of risk for these issues. The findings revealed significant
weaknesses in state agencies' monitoring and oversight of contractors.xix
Auditors identified the
following key issues:xx
Incomplete Planning Documentation, including not assessing potential contract risks or
developing a reasonable cost estimate
Errors in Scoring or Contractor Selection
Lack of Consideration of Conflicts of Interest
Inadequate Contract Amendment Process, including not evaluating any price increases
associate with the amendments
Inadequate or Incomplete Performance Monitoring
Inadequate Fiscal Monitoring or Payment Process

16
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
SB 20 required the Comptroller's Office to conduct a study that examines the feasibility and
practicality of consolidating state purchasing functions.xxi
Preliminary findings for the statewide purchasing study include:xxii
• Smaller agencies purchase disproportionately little through TxSmartBuy
• Survey feedback from the vendor community indicates frustration amongst vendors and
possible confusion amongst state agencies in the procurement process
– Points to a need for better education and guidance for state agencies
• Study results indicate that purchasing and contract spend is somewhat consolidated.
– 91.4% ($10.2B) of statewide spend is consolidated into 10 state agencies
– 80% of TxSmartBuy expenditures come from 2 of those 10 (Texas Department of
Transportation & Texas Department of Criminal Justice)
– 99.2% of statewide spend is consolidated within 31 state agencies
• Improved training/guidance for agencies may do more to improve the process over time
Agencies are also required to use the best value standard when procuring contracts.xxiii
The
Comptroller of Public Accounts' Statewide Procurement Division procures common goods and
services to be placed on contract for statewide purchase by Texas agencies. Best value for
statewide contracts is more general due to the varying needs of individual agencies. To ensure
best value is obtained, all purchasers are required to consider the information reported by
agencies in the comptroller’s Vendor Performance Tracking System.xxiv
Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute
Overview of Recommendations:xxv
1) The Legislature should take a long-term review of procurement, as Sunset advised in 2013,
as the best course of action rather than pursuing another major legislative change in the 85th
Session.
2) The state should attempt to incentivize agencies to pursue well-trained and compensated
procurement and contract professionals.
Allowing skilled procurement professionals to do their job and procure the best possible
contracts for state government is a superior approach to a compliance-based model that
emphasizes box-checking and arbitrary measures. This requires a comprehensive approach
that includes offering competitive compensation to procurement professionals so that the
state can attract the caliber of personnel that it needs, as opposed to larger numbers of
employees whose jobs are more administrative and process oriented. Part of this incentive,
of course, would need to be in the form of reducing process requirements on state agencies.
3) Repeal the requirement that governing bodies or agency heads must sign any contract
exceeding $1 million.
This requirement is a tremendous bureaucratic burden on agency executives that distracts
from their core duty of managing complex state agencies. Agency heads must be trusted to
delegate contracting authority to the people they have hired for that purpose.
4) Evaluate the impact of the $1 million cap on DIR Deliverables-Based Cooperative Contracts.

17
This cap – established in SB 20 (84R) – has resulted in some agencies bidding individual
contracts that could be obtained more easily and more reliably through DIR cooperative
contracts, which exist to remove much of the burden of contracting away from state agencies
and to deliver more value to the state.
5) End Legislative Budget Board Involvement in the Procurement Process
Contract monitoring is far removed from the core capabilities of the LBB and simply inserts
another level of uncertainty into the procurement process. Adequate monitoring is already
provided by the Comptroller, DIR, and the Office of the State Auditor. LBB should be
permitted to focus on its core competencies related to state budget execution and fiscal
monitoring.
6) Establish a New Framework for Collaboration between the Public and Private Sector
Recognizing that the vendor community provides great value to the state in terms of both
provisions of services to constituents and innovative approaches to service delivery across a
broad spectrum of government activities, the state should ensure that lines of communication
with vendors and would-be vendors remain open. Fostering competition and openness
between the state and its vendor community is an important to way to improve service
delivery and find best value for the state.
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
According to the testimony of the DPS, the Public Safety Commission established a Contract
Review Board to analyze and ensure transparency of contracts exceeding $1 million. It is the
policy of DPS that only the Director and Deputy Directors are authorized to sign contracts over
$50,000.xxvi
In 2014, the Administration Division issued a series of contract related process guides, Standard
Operating Procedures and trainings to DPS staff involved in the contract process including:xxvii
Contract Monitoring
Developing Statements of Work
Internal Repair and Emergencies
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Process
Non-Compliant Purchases
Price Request Process
Proprietary Procurement Process
Release Process Overview
Request for Qualifications
RFP-RFO Process
IT Staff Augmentation Process
Request for Information Process
Vendor Performance Reporting
DPS has implemented all aspects of SB 20, including publishing their Procurement and Contract
Management guide publicly.xxviii

18
Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR)
Testimony from the DIR outlined three challenges with the passage of SB 20 and their
recommendations to the legislature.xxix
Challenge Recommendation
1. The $1 million purchase cap. In 2014
DIR conducted bulk purchasing and
achieved a savings of $5.4 million.
Explore whether an exemption to the $1
million cap for bulk purchases would save tax
payer money.
2. The $1 million cap on commodity
purchases presents an issue for larger
agencies, particularly for technology
purchases.
Evaluate the impact of a high threshold for
technology commodity purchases in larger
agencies.
3. The Contract Advisory Team (CAT)
reviews contracts and solicitations
before they are released to the market
for contacts valued at $10 million or
more. The current Cooperative
Contracts limit is $1 million. This
creates a gap for solicitations between
$1 million and $10 million where
limited third party contractual
oversight exists.
Consider the impact of a higher threshold for
technology commodity purchases and
aligning the threshold for CAT review.
*Information in chart taken from DIR testimony
The following companies submitted written testimony to the Committee, addressing this
interim charge:
IT Alliance for Public Sector
Written testimony from IT Alliance for Public Sector addressed issues raised from the
implementation of SB 20.
1. SB 20 has made the procurement process more expensive and complex. The low bidding
threshold of $1 million and varying interpretations of the law has required the agencies to
do more work and hire more staff while also delaying the procurement process.
2. Many agencies feel deterred from meeting with vendors, due to SB 20, making agencies
more likely to continue using familiar vendors instead of exploring multiple options,
which may offer better value.
It is the belief of IT Alliance for Public Sector that more flexibility should be afforded to
agencies when procuring contracts to ensure a robust competitive process.xxx
CompTIA
CompTIA outlined the following seven recommendations regarding state contract procurement
for the 85th Legislature: xxxi

19
1. Ensure a highly competitive contract procurement process.
2. Implement a best overall value approach.
3. Require full disclosure and encourage two way discussions between vendors and
agencies.
4. Allow the agencies to exercise a certain amount of discretions.
5. Employ commercial best practices.
6. Avoid contracting with vendors solely on the basis of where the vendor is located.
7. Appoint IT executives in state and local government.
Conclusion
In order for agencies to operate efficiently and effectively, they need qualified employees with
greater compensation, rather than numerous administrative employees. While SB 20 addresses
many of the previous concerns regarding contracting procurement, current contracting laws need
further change and clarification.
Recommendations
Although comprehensive changes were made through legislation in 2015 that enhanced
transparency, accountability and fair competitive processes of state agency contracting,
purchasing and accounting procedures; the 85th Legislature should continue to review
contracting laws to increase consistency of operations and collaborations between state
agencies.

20
ECONOMIC DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Interim Charge #3: Determine if the state has sufficient authority and the tools to ensure
continued operation of the state's government and economy under existing budgetary and
statutory authority. Make contingency recommendations to prevent collapse in the event
of an economic disaster.
Public Hearing
Committee heard testimony from three invited witnesses with experience related to finance,
banking and risk management. The following invited individuals testified:
Charles Cooper, Commissioner, Texas Department of Banking, and Executive Director,
Finance Commission of Texas
Keith Phillips, Assistant Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Stephen Vollbrecht, Executive Director, State Office of Risk Management
Introduction
Since 2015, Texas has been experiencing a substantial drop in job growth due to the decline of
oil and gas prices. According to testimony of expert witnesses, although Texas financial
institutions are encountering the ramifications of the weakened energy sector, there has been
moderate growth in both jobs and the economy because of the state's economic diversity.
Experts are predicting this trend to continue if there is no further decline in the energy sector.
Cyber issues present an increasing and evolving threat to the economy and must be addressed on
a long term basis. The strong Texas economy makes the state a target for cyber criminals,
according to the testimony from the State Office of Risk Management (SORM). This is an
extremely critical issue that if left unaddressed, could have disastrous consequences.
Background
Cybersecurity
As critical societal infrastructure systems rely increasingly on technology, the number and
sophistication of cyber threats are also increasing, creating an essential need for robust
cybersecurity. According to the SORM testimony, cyber issues are the number one threat to the
U.S. and should be a priority concern. The Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR)
and Homeland Security (Office of the Governor) have direct jurisdiction over cybersecurity.
Current efforts are focusing on how to address the liability of cyber intrusions, especially if the
intrusions cannot be prevented.xxxii
Cyber criminals target a number of institutions, including government agencies and banks,

21
compromising the economy and security of individuals. Texas Department of Banking
Commissioner Charles Cooper's testimony noted that the Texas Department of Banking is an
industry leader in cybersecurity, having hosted the first Executive Leadership on Cybersecurity
event in the nation.xxxiii
As of December 31, 2015, all Texas banks are required to assess their
cyber risk and cybersecurity preparedness.xxxiv
The 84th Legislature passed a provision in the budget that allocated funds for research at The
University of Texas at Austin Center for Identity (UT CID); however it was vetoed. This center
is dedicated to researching current and future cyber threats and how to mitigate the risk, and
partners with many government agencies, including: the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
U.S. Secret Service, Texas Department of Public Safety and DIR. Because identity has become
a new method of currency, it is critical that protections are in place. Texas state agencies collect
and store sensitive information for millions of citizens, which taxpayers expect to be handled
responsibly and securely. The UT CID's overall mission is to 1) help people and organizations
understand how to best manage and protect their identity information assets, 2) prevent and
mitigate identity theft, fraud and abuse, and to 3) protect privacy.
Additionally, as a parallel to UT CID but focusing on different missions, The University of
Texas at San Antonio has a cybersecurity facility and is at the forefront of cybersecurity research
and innovation; providing innovative research, tools and education.
Banking
There are two types of bank charters, state and national, which determine how much a bank pays
in assessment fees and the regulations a bank must abide by. State-chartered banks have low
cost assessment fees, typically less than half a national bank fee; however, banks with a state
charter are subject to both the state and federal regulations and are supervised by the state and
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the Federal Reserve.xxxv
The Texas Banking System
As of December 31, 2015, there are 480 banks in Texas with almost $452 billion in total
assets.xxxvi
The Texas Department of Banking oversees 252 state-chartered banks, in addition to
a number of financial entities, with almost $250 billion in total assets.
The Texas Department of Banking, in conjunction with the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, evaluates the state-chartered banks on a scale of 1 to 5, to determine their safety and
compliance with state and federal laws.xxxvii
A rating of 3, 4 or 5 by the Texas Department of
Banking is considered to be a problem bank, or a bank with elevated levels of risk of non-
compliance with state and federal standards for safety and soundness. In most cases,
enforcement actions are taken at this point.xxxviii
Through a bank's formal enforcement actions, the commissioner has the authority to enact
several orders, including placing a supervisor into a problem bank. This supervisor monitors the
problem entity's operation to ensure that safe practices are being carried out.xxxix
Under extreme
circumstances, where the financial institution is threatening harm to depositors, creditors or
shareholders, the commissioner may issue an Order of Conservatorship. Through the order, the
appointed conservator takes charge of the entity and proceeds with operation under the direction

22
of the commissioner.xl
According to the testimony of Commissioner Cooper, the Texas
Department of Banking has the necessary power to monitor the state banks sufficiently during an
economic disaster.
The number of problem banks in Texas has declined significantly since 2011. However, due to
the strained oil and gas industry, problem banks are projected to increase to over 20 total;
although, according to testimony, there are no bank failures predicted for 2017.
The main challenges facing Texas banks are:xli
Increased federal regulatory burden
Cybersecurity
The economic impact of the oil and gas industry
Narrowing net interest margin in a low rate environment
Revenue diversification through noninterest income sources
As a result, there has been an increase in bank mergers, decreasing the total number of banks.
This has been a trend throughout the country, largely because the smaller community banks
cannot afford the federal regulatory burden and are consolidating with other banks.
Effects of the Oil and Gas Industry
In 2015, major energy states experienced a considerable decline in job growth due to the drop in
oil and gas prices, which five years prior had surged.

23
The above graphs, provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, indicate the percentage of
job growth in the U.S. and each state in 2014 and 2015, highlighting the energy states.
Demonstrating the plummeting job growth in these states, the graph also shows that Texas,
although declining, has remained positive in job growth and leading the other energy states.
According to the testimony by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in addition to low cost of
living, low cost of doing business and low regulation burdens in Texas, the diversity in the Texas
economy has cushioned the blow of the shaken oil and gas industry.

24
From the figure above, jobs in industries other than oil and gas, manufacturing and construction,
have mostly stayed positive in growth, with health care and leisure and hospitality even seeing an
increase. This diversity in employment demand along with the tight real estate market have kept
the Texas economy from sinking to negative percentages, like the majority of other energy states
have experienced after the oil price collapse.
The Assistant Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas stated at the hearing that the
greatest risk to job growth is further declining oil and gas prices. If the average barrel price
remains above $30, as predicted, then Texas should experience a job increase rate of up to 1.5%
in this next year, nearly 180,000 jobsxlii
, remaining above the national average.
Conclusion
Testimony from expert witnesses revealed the challenges facing the Texas economy include the
oil and gas industry decline and cybersecurity. While the effects of lower oil and gas prices are
still affecting the Texas economy, the state maintains moderate positive growth due to the
diverse nature of the economy. The hearing revealed that identity management and identity
security continuously pose significant challenges for the nation and the State of Texas.
Recommendations
As the risks of cyber intrusions are increasing, the state needs a dedicated and
collaborative cybersecurity initiative to reduce vulnerability from what may be the biggest
threat to the state's economy. As identity thefts soar and hackers continually become more
sophisticated with the complexity of attacks, cybersecurity is an ongoing issue of concern
that needs a clear legislative directive; and the 85th Legislature should bolster the state's
cybersecurity initiatives. It is extremely imperative that policymakers direct agencies and

25
cybersecurity facilities to collaborate efforts. It is essential for Texas to have a central
repository for its security program, and also to invest in cybersecurity defense to ensure
that people and businesses are protected from identity theft.

26
BIOETHICS OF FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH
Interim Charge #4: Study the policies used by research and medical entities to adhere to
the highest ethical standards for acquiring human fetal tissue for medical and scientific
purposes. Specifically, review compliance to ensure informed consent and that all state and
federal laws sufficiently respect the dignity of the human body. Study criteria for which
persons have standing when giving consent for the use of fetal remains and to investigate
potential violations of state laws regulating organ/tissue donation. Determine whether
additional disclosure and reporting requirements are necessary to ensure moral and ethical
research practices. Review practices and statutes in other states regarding fetal tissue
harvesting.
Public Hearing
Committee heard testimony from the following invited witnesses:
Jennifer Carr Allmon, Associate Director, Texas Catholic Conference, and Bioethicist
Catherine Glenn Foster, CEO and General Counsel, Sound Legal, and Associate Scholar,
Charlotte Lozier Institute
Raymond Greenberg, Executive Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs, The University of
Texas System
John Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services
Kathy Perkins, Assistant Commissioner, Division for Regulatory Services, Texas
Department of State Health Services
Peter Rotwein, Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University Health Services
Center at El Paso
Introduction
The primary goal of this interim charge is to ensure that researchers who are funded by public
money can be held accountable to the public for ethical norms such as: adhering to necessary
federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest and human subjects protections.
Currently, there are no laws in Texas restricting the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions for
research purposes. Recent controversies have raised questions regarding the methods used to
obtain fetal tissue for the purpose of research, and if those methods respect the dignity of the
human body, as it would for adult human tissue used for research. Some researchers argue that
tissue from unborn children is necessary and crucial to certain studies focused on curing
diseases, and that there are no other viable methods. Alternatively, some bioethicists and
researchers maintain that adult stem cell research has proven to be vastly more effective in
producing cures than fetal tissue research. Moreover, some scientists argue that fetal cell lines
from aborted fetuses already exist; therefore, the practice is unnecessary, as well as unethical.

27
Background
Bioethics
Bioethicist Jennifer Allmon contends that a primary function of research ethics is to ensure the
protection of vulnerable or "voiceless" persons and the need to prevent them from being taken
advantage of by researchers. The testimony emphasizes the need to ensure that research on fetal
tissue is treated with the same high standards as any other tissue donated for research, regardless
of the stage of human life. Using fetal tissues for research never excuses us of our humanity or
ethical and moral obligation to others.xliii
Key Bioethical Concerns
Consent
The requirement to obtain voluntary informed consent from individuals before research is
a fundamental principle of research ethics. The use of fetal tissue from an induced
abortion raises serious ethical problems. For example, does an abortive mother have the
capacity to consent on behalf of her child, whose life she is choosing to end?xliv
The premise of voluntary participation requires that people not be coerced into
participating in research. However, consent forms from one abortion facility obtained by
the Committee, which is included in this report, contradicts this requirement. It begins
with the following: "Research using the blood from pregnant women and tissue that has
been aborted has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and AIDS." Some believe that this
statement coerces a woman into feeling that she is doing something good for mankind,
during very vulnerable moments of filling out paperwork before an abortion. In addition
to be coercive, this statement is patently false, as there are currently no cures for diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or AIDS.
The lack of a consistent and voluntary consent form is tantamount to using human beings
and their tissue as a means to the ends of others -- without their knowledge or freely
granted permission, which constitutes exploitation and is unethical. In her testimony, Ms.
Allmon states that history has revealed where scientists had previously relied on "captive
audiences" for their subjects, often in prisons; pointing out the ways some scientists had
used captive human beings as subjects in abhorrent experiments, which was exposed
during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial following World War II.
According to written testimony provided by the Texas Hospital Association, current law
gives parents the option of consenting to donation of fetal remains for medical research.
The process is similar to that used for donating a deceased patient's body or organs for
medical research, or donating organs for transplant.
Infection Control
The core of the "scientific method" is knowing and controlling variables and verifying
the source of the sample; therefore, it is particularly concerning that reports from the
Department of State Health Services (DSHS) show repeated findings in abortion facilities

28
of poor infection control, rusty equipment, and staff that was either not trained or failed
to comply with infection control precautions when handling human remains. Attorney
Catherine Foster testified that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) determined that
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast staff was not trained in or failed to comply with infection
control and barrier precautions. Although the OIG did not testify at the hearing, as there
was an ongoing investigation, the Committee obtained the public document, which is
enclosed in this report -- an October 2015 OIG Notice of Termination letter addressed to
the Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast abortion facility, citing three specific violations. On
December 20, 2016, the OIG issued a Notice of Final Termination letter, which
terminated the enrollment of all Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates from the enrollment
in the Texas Medicaid program. The letter enclosed in this report states that the provider
violated state and federal law.
Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS)
DSHS has regulatory authority over Texas abortion facility infection control, patient rights and
licensing. In exercising its regulatory authority, DSHS performs annual inspections of each
abortion facility every 10-14 months, in addition to conducting complaint-based investigations.
DSHS testified that the predictability of annual inspections was problematic, as abortion
facilities often learned of the inspection date in advance. DSHS noted that it is currently
amending these practices to decrease the predictability of annual inspections.
The agency's records indicated that in 2015, there were three complaint-based investigations in
abortion facilities. The facilities that are found to be non-compliant are given DSHS correctional
plans and deadlines for the remediation. If the problem persists, DSHS can enforce
administrative penalties, emergency license suspension or revocations; and in certain
circumstances, civil and criminal penalties may be enforced.
Researchers
Testimony at the April 28, 2016 hearing asserted that scientists conduct research using human
remains, including fetal tissue, to save lives and improve quality of life for patients afflicted with
medical conditions. Witnesses from The University of Texas System and Texas Tech University
Health Services testified that they only use fetal tissue for research on a small number of studies,
because it is currently the only viable option for those studies. For example, The University of
Texas System cites using fetal tissue to research in utero conditions to find solutions to lower
mortality rates.
Although neither researcher at the April 28, 2016 hearing testified about the ethics of using fetal
tissue from induced abortions, the Committee acquired public testimony from the March 2, 2016
hearing of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel "Bioethics and
Fetal Tissue". One of the witnesses, Dr. Kathleen M. Schmainda, who argues that the use of
such tissue is both unethical and unnecessary, stated the following reasons:xlv
1) "…no medical treatments exist that have required using fetal tissues for their discovery or
development."
2) "I refute the claim that without continued access to fetal tissue, the discovery of new therapies
will be prevented."
3) "The repeated assurances that 'proper ethical guidelines are in place' to avoid the connection

29
between abortion and subsequent research are entirely inadequate."
Dr. Schmainda's testimony also included that scientists can unknowingly become entrenched in
using cell lines from aborted fetuses and that only upon specific request are alternatives
provided. She claims, "This lack of transparency is devastating for scientists who have ethical
objections to use of this tissue and amounts to moral coercion."
Both Texas university witnesses testified that they procure fetal tissue from third party vendors,
such as Advanced Bioscience Research (ABR), in California, which uses fetal tissue obtained
through induced abortions. Dr. Greenberg testified that researchers rely on the third party vendor
for oversight of infection control and consent. Current practice does not require the researcher to
obtain or review the consent form for the fetal tissue. Dr. Greenberg declared that in the future,
The University of Texas System would ask for consent forms. This practice may prove to be
problematic, as ABR's formal application for the acquisition of human fetal tissue for research
states:
IV. DONOR INFORMATION CONSENT VERIFICATION: Consent for tissue donation is
obtained prior to specimen procurement. The consent is extremely confidential in nature
and shall not be communicated to the researcher or facility.
Conclusion
Recent investigations exposing unsanitary environments and improper informed consent at
certain abortion facilities have evoked concerns that human remains obtained from induced
abortions are not held to the same bioethical standard as other human remains. Typically, the
fetal remains acquired at abortion facilities go to a third party vendor before going to researchers.
Because researchers are depending upon the third party for oversight, the accountability for
proper informed consent and infection control is lost. This practice potentially jeopardizes the
dignity and respect owed to human remains, as well as the validity of research performed on fetal
remains.
Dr. Greenberg and Dr. Rotwein disclosed that studies utilizing fetal tissue are funded by federal
grants and are reviewed by the appropriate review boards to ensure compliance with all laws,
standards and guidelines. However, the aforementioned consent form obtained from a Texas
abortion facility does not meet these rigorous standards. Moreover, even if the forms did
actually meet the rigorous standards, obtaining them appears challenging. With these findings,
the question becomes, what entity does the State of Texas hold accountable?
Recommendations
The 85th Legislature should ban research on fetal remains obtained from an induced
abortion, but provide the resources and support necessary to assist scientists or
biopharmaceutical companies to make transitions to ethical tissue sources. Policymakers
should strengthen laws and agency rules that ensure proper infection controls are utilized
at abortion facilities.

30
Enclosure: Consent Form
xlvi

31
Enclosure: OIG October 2015 Letter

36
Enclosure: OIG December 2016 Letter

42
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND
Interim Charge #5: Study support mechanisms for the Small and Rural Incumbent Local
Exchange Carrier - Universal Service Fund. Consider alternative funding mechanisms as
well as necessary statutory changes to ensure reasonable cost of basic local phone service in
high cost, rural areas without expanding the size of the Texas Universal Service Fund.
Introduction
The purpose of the Small and Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Company Universal Service
Plan (Small ILEC High-Cost Program), which is part of the Texas Universal Service Fund
(TUSF), is to assist telecommunications providers in providing local telephone service at
reasonable rates in high-cost rural areas of the state.xlvii
During fiscal year 2016, the TUSF
disbursed $235,698,418.99 in program expenditures to support providers, of which
$92,013,828.82 was disbursed as part of the Small ILEC High-Cost Program.xlviii
Background
In 2000, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) implemented the Small ILEC High-Cost
Program and established the support mechanisms for small and rural incumbent local exchange
companies (Small ILECs) and competitive providers in certain high-cost rural areas of Texas.xlix
Supported providers would receive specified support amounts for each eligible line listed in
monthly reports to the Commission. Small ILECs continued to receive support on a per-line
basis until 2011, when the PUC implemented statutory changes that allowed Small ILECs to
receive support from the Small Company program in fixed monthly disbursements.
Specifically, House Bill 2603, passed by the 82nd Legislature, amended Tex. Util. Code
§56.032(d) to allow certain ILECs to elect to receive fixed monthly support amounts.l
These
fixed monthly support amounts were to be determined by calculating the support that the electing
Small ILEC was eligible to receive pursuant to the original implementation of the Small ILEC
High-Cost Program in 2000 and increasing that sum by the change in inflation since 2000, as
measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).li
Through 2016, electing Small ILECs have
continued to receive annual increases in their fixed monthly support amount based on the annual
change in CPI.lii
On September 1, 2017, the authorization for these annually adjusted fixed
monthly support amounts, as well as any monthly support amounts approved under that
authorization, expire.liii
Effective September 1, 2017, electing Small ILECs will immediately return to the monthly per-
line support amounts established in 2000 and will no longer receive support that is increased
based on the annual change in CPI since 2000.liv
Depending on the number of eligible lines
served in the future by each Small ILEC, most or all of these Small ILECs will experience a
decrease in the level of support they receive from the Small ILEC High-Cost Program.
Also beginning on September 1, 2017, the PUC will have the authority to revise the monthly
support amounts to be made available from the Small ILEC High-Cost Program to these Small

43
ILECs by any mechanism.lv
However, such a revision, if any, will occur after the PUC conducts
a rulemaking and then a contested case proceeding to implement any adopted rule.
Conclusion
If no legislative change is adopted, effective September 1, 2017, electing Small ILECs will
return to the monthly per-line support amounts originally approved by the PUC in 2000. The
Committee acknowledges that an immediate reduction in support from the Small ILEC High-
Cost Program may not be consistent with the goals of universal service. Instead, a period of
transition may permit the PUC an opportunity to determine whether it is appropriate to revise the
support amounts to be made available to these Small ILECs.
Recommendations
The legislature should extend the expiration date set out in Tex. Util. Code § 56.032(h) until
December 1, 2018 and direct the PUC to conduct a project to determine the appropriate
level of support for electing Small ILECs to receive in the future. In doing so, the
legislature may direct the PUC to evaluate whether rate increases are an appropriate
source of revenues for Small ILECs as an alternative to maintaining or increasing the
current level of support provided by the Small ILEC High-Cost Program.

44
UTILITY RATEMAKING PROCESS
Interim Charge #6: Evaluate the administrative process used to determine utility rates.
Consider if sufficient opportunities exist to ensure customer representation. Also
determine if additional legislative guidance is needed to ensure public notification and
participation.
Public Hearing
Austin, Texas in the John H. Reagan Building, room 140, to address the above interim charge.
The Committee heard testimony from the following invited witnesses:
Tonya Baer, Public Counsel, Office of Public Utility Counsel
Mark Caskey, President, Sharyland Utilities, L.P.
Introduction
Vertically-integrated utilities and transmission and distribution utilities are regulated
monopolies; they are obligated to serve all existing and new customers in their service territories.
In exchange for exclusive jurisdiction, utilities are allowed to recover a specific rate of return,
determined by a regulatory body. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) oversees the
rates of investor-owned utilities, while municipally-owned utilities and electric cooperatives are
overseen by the cities they serve.
Customers are expected to have the opportunity to provide input on utility service, and to be
made aware of that opportunity.
Background
There are several existing processes for the determination of utility rates, depending on the
structure of the utility. The PUC reported that it has jurisdiction over the rates of investor-owned
utilities providing electric and water service, as well as local phone service. Once again, the
PUC does not have jurisdiction over municipally-owned utilities or electric cooperatives.lvi
Rate cases are conducted under the Administrative Procedures Act, which entitles parties to an
opportunity for hearing, an opportunity to respond to rate cases and an established procedure for
the rate case. Electric and telecom utilities are required to provide four weeks of notice in
newspapers and by mail, while water utilities require notification by mail.
As an example, Sharyland Utilities filed an unbundling rate case in 2013 to enter retail
competition, separating transmission and distribution charges from other parts of the electric bill.
The utility embarked on an extensive outreach effort to explain retail competition, through

45
newspaper advertisements and town hall events. A subsequent rate filing in 2016 also met PUC
requirements, as well as outreach to municipal leadership in the Sharyland service territory.lvii
The Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC) participates in rate cases for investor-owned
utilities, representing the interests of residential and small commercial customers before the
PUC.lviii
Conclusion
Customers are represented before the PUC by the OPUC, as well as interested parties prompted
to take part in rate proceedings by communications required by the Administrative Procedures
Act.
The PUC plans to submit a report on alternative ratemaking mechanisms in January 2017, in
compliance with Senate Bill 774 (84 R).
Recommendations
PUC rules appear to invite participation by customers in ratemaking proceedings, with the
OPUC serving as the representative for residential and small commercial customers. The
legislature should continue to monitor the oversight of these functions.

46
UTILITY METERING AND BILLING
Interim Charge #7: Examine how the Public Utility Commission of Texas, when applicable,
and utility providers, whether vertically integrated, privately owned, or municipally
owned, can ensure consumer protection regarding metering devices for water, gas, and
electricity service. Review recent examples of inaccurate or confusing billings and offer
recommendations on appropriate consumer recourse and appeal. In addition, assess utility
procedures regarding meter installation.
Public Hearing
Austin, Texas, in the John H. Reagan Building, room 140, to address the above interim charge.
The Committee heard testimony from the following invited witnesses:
Witness are listed in alphabetical order
Rudy Garza, Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy, CPS
Energy
Sheila Hemphill, Texas Right to Know
Introduction
Many electric, water and gas utilities have installed advanced meters to provide improved service
to consumers. The chief improvements have included remote reading and, in the case of electric
service, improved outage restoration.
Because advanced metering systems rely on digital communications, the interim charge was
focused on the need to protect consumer information, and maintaining consumer rights when
protesting inaccurate bills or other service concerns.
Background
Regulators appear to have extensive rules to address concerns related to billing and service,
especially for utilities overseen by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). The PUC
reported that electric meters must meet compliance standards set by the American National
Standards Institute, while water meters must meet American Water Works Association
standards.lix
Use of advanced metering is extensive. Legislation passed in 2005 and 2007 allowed utilities
under the jurisdiction of the PUC to deploy advanced meters. As of 2016, 7 million advanced
electric meters had been installed in ERCOT. It is important to note that utilities collect no
personal information; they only record the usage of electricity, and the consumer’s Electric
Service Identifier (ESI) number.

47
Additionally, the PUC does not have jurisdiction over advanced metering deployment of
municipally owned utilities or the electric cooperatives.
When meters were initially installed, the PUC engaged the company, Navigant to evaluate
complaints that advanced meters had raised electric bills; Navigant found no statistically
significant difference between the measurements of advanced meters and mechanical meters.lx
In 2013, the PUC adopted a rule to allow customers to opt-out of advanced electric meters by
paying a one-time fee for removal of the meter, plus a monthly fee. According to the PUC, 561
customers have opted out of the electric advanced metering program.lxi
CPS Energy, the
municipal utility of San Antonio, noted that 700 of its 600,000 customers have opted out.lxii
CPS
Energy is the largest municipally owned gas and electric utility in the country.
The PUC also reported its effective complaint resolution procedures, noting that refunds are
typically resolved in 19 days or less.lxiii
Conclusion
Advanced metering systems are designed to facilitate easier interactions between consumers and
utilities. The systems have significant oversight and established processes to resolve consumer
complaints.
Recommendations
Advanced meters have become the norm in most of Texas. As consumers grow more
accustomed to the benefits meters can offer, there will be continued increases in the
amount of consumer usage information transmitted from these devices. Moving forward,
the focus should be on continuing to monitor and address complaints and request periodic
updates from the PUC to ensure compliance.

48
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Interim Charge #8: Examine state and local laws applicable to undocumented immigrants
throughout the State of Texas and analyze the effects of those laws in conjunction with
federal immigration laws and the policies and practices followed by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
Public Hearing
The House Committee on State Affairs held a public hearing on December 10, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.
in Austin, Texas in the extension, room E1.014, to address the above interim charge. The
Committee heard testimony from eleven invited witnesses that included law enforcement and
relevant state agencies. The following expert witnesses testified:
Dee Anderson, Tarrant County Sheriff
Michael Dirden, Executive Assistant Chief of Police, Houston Police Department
Faye Kolly, Senior Attorney, De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendariz
Don Lee, Executive Director, Texas Conference of Urban Counties
A. J. "Andy" Louderback, Former President, Sheriffs' Association of Texas, and Jackson
County Sheriff
Steven McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety
Clint McDonald, President, Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, and Terrell County Sheriff
Jerry McGinty, Chief Financial Officer, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Brantley Starr, Deputy Attorney for Legal Counsel, Office of the Attorney General
Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff
Jackie Watson, Chapter Chair, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Texas
Chapter
Introduction
The term "sanctuary city" refers to an entity that enacts policies limiting state or local law
enforcement communication or cooperation with the federal government regarding immigration
matters. The power to which criminal immigrants may enter or be removed resides solely with
the federal government, particularly Congress.lxiv
Federal law requires state and local authorities
to comply with federal immigration laws and enforcement; however, according to the testimony
from the Office of the Attorney General, there is no enforcement mechanism for this law,
therefore, "sanctuary city" policies can be implemented with no federal consequence.
Background
The controversy surrounding "sanctuary city" policies is the question of whether or not law
enforcement decides to honor each Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer
request. Testimony at the hearing revealed that to date, none of the 254 Texas County Sheriffs
have refused an ICE detainer request.lxv

49
In other states that have chosen not to honor ICE detainers
and have released criminal immigrants, additional crimes
have been committed. For example, in 2015, a young San
Francisco woman was shot and killed by a criminal
immigrant who was released from the San Francisco
authorities. The man accused of firing the deadly shot is an
undocumented criminal immigrant and repeat felon who
has been deported five times to Mexico, according to
immigration officials. It would have been six, but law
enforcement in San Francisco did not comply with an ICE
detainer request. This tragic shooting incident sparked
debate in Texas when Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez
announced a change to the Dallas County Sheriff's Office
policy, to determine ICE detainer requests on a case-by-
case basis.
The governor responded sharply to Sheriff Valdez's announcement, calling for state laws to be
passed that prohibit policies promoting sanctuary to people illegally in the state, and prohibit
sheriff's departments from not honoring all ICE detainers.
Figure 1. Representing refused ICE detainers in the U.S. associated with prior criminals and future criminals
*Data represents the 8,811 total declined detainers in the U. S. from January 1, 2014 through August 31, 2014lxvi
Prior Criminal History
Detainers for Individuals
with Previous Charges or
Convictions
with No Previous Criminal
History
Subsequent Criminality
Arrested for Subsequent
Crimes
With No Subsequent
Arrests
An ICE detainer is a written request
issued to state and local authorities,
asking:
For notification of the
identified illegal immigrant's
release date
Or, to detain the identified
illegal immigrant for an
addition 48 hours

50
Sheriff Valdez's testimony stated that her arguments for honoring ICE detainer requests on a
case-by-case basis are as follows:
Economic: fulfilling all ICE detainer requests further strains Dallas jails and its budget.
In order to fully comply, Dallas County needs additional jail facilities, estimated at $100
million, or to release other incarcerated individuals.
Community Trust: illegal immigrants in the community are less likely to report crimes in
fear of "show me your papers" policies. Because there are an estimated one million
undocumented immigrants in Dallas alone, the law enforcement needs to have
community trust and support.
Jackson County Sheriff A. J. "Andy" Louderback refuted Sheriff Valdez's assertions by stating
that the federal immigration policy change to the then Secure Communities deportation program,
in November 2014, has reduced the amount of ICE detainers so significantly that tens of
thousands of criminal immigrants are released back into Texas communities.
State Legislation
During the 84th Legislature, Senate Bill 185 was introduced; however, this bill did not make it
out of the Senate. The bill prohibited Texas law enforcement entities from enacting "sanctuary
city" policies, and created consequences for noncompliance that result in a loss of state funding
for that entity the following fiscal year.lxvii
In 2011, the Texas House was successful in passing House Bill (HB) 12, which also prohibited
"sanctuary city" policies and denied state grant funds to entities that do not comply. This bill
provided law enforcement officers with a uniform immigration policy that does not interfere with
their duty to enforce the law. The comprehensive legislation included a number of provisions,
including not prohibiting law enforcement from the following:lxviii
Communicating with ICE or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the
immigration status of a lawfully arrested or detained individual
Inquiring into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained or arrested
Assisting a federal immigration officer as reasonable and necessary, including with
enforcement assistance
This bill also died in the Senate in 2011.
Border Security
During the 84th Legislative Session, the Texas Legislature passed two bills, HB 11 and HB 12,
which enhanced Texas border security protection from criminal immigrants. This legislation not
only increased the number of troops stationed at our border, but also created a Border
Prosecution Unit and increased the consequences for human trafficking. With over 25,000
immigrants crossing into Texas every month, according to Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson, HB 11 and HB 12 were passed in effort to further protect Texans from
the dangers of those that cross the border and commit serious crimes, such as human trafficking.
According to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director McCraw, this program has
effectively reduced crime in Starr and Hidalgo counties, and expansion of this effort would
further protect border counties.lxix

51
Texas Department of Public Safety Records
As of January 1, 2016, the DPS was required through legislation, to erase the database of
fingerprint records. According to the testimony of Director McCraw, this put DPS at a
disadvantage for identifying detainable criminals, citing that name based identification is no
longer adequate with the increase of people moving to Texas and the increased ability of
criminals to produce fake identification. DPS contends that the ten-print fingerprints are
necessary to help ensure that someone who is detained or is applying for a Texas identification
card or license is not a criminal.
Federal Jurisdiction
According to federal law, unlawful presence in the country is a civil offense, which cannot be
enforced by state or local authorities. However, the process for removing dangerous criminal
immigrants relies on the willingness of state and local law enforcement to communicate and
comply with ICE requests for custody.
The Department of Homeland Security has a number of programs for identifying and removing
dangerous criminal immigrants. Two of those programs involve state or local law enforcement,
the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) and the 287(g) Program.
Priority Enforcement Program 287(g) Program
Replaced Secure Communities in 2014
Utilizes ICE detainers to obtain custody of
criminal immigrants subject to removal
proceedings, from state or local detention
facilities
Prioritizes detaining criminal immigrants
that have already been convicted of
enumerated crimes or pose a significant
threat to public, border or national
security.
A partnership between state or local law
enforcement and the DHS
State and local law officers can be federally
trained to exercise certain ICE duties in
detention facilities.
Does NOT allow trained officers to arrest
on basis of citizenship or deport individuals
Two Texas entities are part of the 287(g)
program: Carrollton Police Department
and Harris County Sheriff's Office
Conclusion
The hearing revealed that currently no Texas Sheriff has denied any ICE detainer requests.
However, statements from Sheriff Valdez about deciding to honor ICE requests on a case-by-
case basis demonstrate the potential for "sanctuary cities" to develop. Moreover, the newly
elected Travis County Sheriff, Sally Hernandez, has publicly stated that she will not hold inmates
for ICE when the federal agency seeks to remove them from the country. Such policies are a
violation of federal law and could be dangerous to Texas communities.

52
Recommendations
Although the power to which criminal immigrants may enter or be removed resides solely
with the federal government,lxx
the 85th Texas Legislature should work to ensure citizens
are protected from criminal immigrants through legislation. Enacting a law, which
provides an enforcement mechanism, as well as a uniform policy for state and local law
enforcement compliance with ICE, could assist law enforcement in keeping Texas streets
safe. The legislature could assess the potential outcomes of more Texas law enforcement
entities participating in the 287(g) program. The program could offer a more efficient
process for dealing with criminal immigrants, instead of using jail space and law
enforcement's time while waiting for ICE to determine whether to assume custody.
Policymakers should debate reinstating DPS's authority to collect fingerprints, as it is
counterproductive to remove an essential tool, which law enforcement needs to protect
Texas citizens from criminal immigrants.

53
UNION DUES
Interim Charge #9: Examine payroll deductions from state or political subdivision
employees for the purpose of labor organization membership dues or fees as well as
charitable organization and nonprofit contributions. Determine if this process is an
appropriate use of public funds.
Written Testimony
At the request of the House Committee on State Affairs, the following entities submitted
written testimony addressing the above interim charge, which is enclosed in this report:
Testimony authors are listed in alphabetical order
Jon Fisher, President, Association of Builders and Contractors
Jerome Greener, State Director, Americans for Prosperity
Ray Hunt, President, Houston Police Officers' Union
Rick Levy, Secretary-Treasurer, Texas AFL-CIO
Ed Martin, Public Affairs Director, Texas State Teachers Association
Bill Peacock, Vice President of Research, Texas Public Policy Foundation
John Riddle, President, Texas State Association of Firefighters
Annie Spillman, Texas Legislative Director, National Federation of Independent
Business/Texas
Introduction
On March 13, 2015, Senate Bill (SB) 1968 was filed in the Texas Senate. The Texas House of
Representatives received the bill on May 8, 2015, and it was referred to the House Committee on
State Affairs on May 15, 2015. Although the Committee had completed its public hearings for
the 84th Legislative Session, the House Rules were suspended and a public hearing took place on
May 21, 2015. Over 200 witnesses registered and 17 were in support of the legislation.
It is important to note that the bill was not drafted by the Texas Legislative Council and there
was strong evidence that it violated the constitutional two subject rule. Additionally, when
addressing complex policy matters that impact countless people, lawmakers require more time
than remained in the session to be necessarily thoughtful and deliberate. For these reasons, and
the reality that policymakers still had a state budget to pass, this initiative was left pending.
SB 1968, if passed, would have amended current law relating to organizations of public
employees.
Background
According to a report published by the Pacific Research Institute, dated October 26, 2015, Texas
ranked No. 3 in the nation for small business.lxxi
The report cites low taxes and limited
regulation for making Texas "a great place for small businesses to start and to grow."

54
Furthermore, the report states, "Texas took the top marks in categories such as minimum wage
regulations, energy regulations, telecommunications regulations and right-to-work status."lxxii
Legislative Arguments
Proponents of the bill maintain that the government should not be the collector of dues for
unions and that this practice gives unions an unfair political advantage. They maintain that this
is analogous to taxpayers subsidizing labor union membership dues collection. Moreover,
supporters of the legislation claim that these same unions back efforts that advocate against
businesses in Texas. The efforts that proponents cite include initiatives to increase the minimum
wage and mandate paid leave requirements. Supporters declare that unions attack businesses that
choose to remain union-free.
Opponents contend that both union membership for public employees and payroll deductions for
dues are completely voluntary. Unions emphasize that state law explicitly provides that
organizations receiving the deduction must pay the administrative costs associated; and
therefore, taxpayers are not subsidizing the deductions. Unions also oppose the legislation
because they claim that deductions allow for a convenient and secure way to make dues
payments. Opponents cite Texas Law that explicitly prohibits union dues, regardless if received
by payroll deduction or any other means, from being used for political contributions to
candidates and political action committees.
Conclusion
During the interim, the committee sought input from the proponents and opponents through
meetings and written testimony. Although some of the aforementioned arguments have been
established, one very essential question remains unanswered: What groups should be included in
the bill, or, alternatively, what groups should be excluded from the bill? Last session, in the bill
that the House received from the Senate, first responders were the only group exempt from the
bill. However, upon receipt of the bill, State Representatives quickly heard from countless
teachers and other law enforcement groups and individuals, who also wanted the exemption.
This left the committee, in the waning days of the session, to grapple with what groups should
this legislation affect and the rationale for doing so. Moreover, in dealing with complex and
divisive matters, it is a priority for the committee to address everything possible to withstand
constitutional challenges.
Recommendations
Those working to advance this legislation should use the short time left before committees
are named to thoroughly vet this proposed legislation. The legislature should seek input
about the policy rationale from both sides of the debate regarding the need for the law
change and most importantly, what groups the bill should address.

55
Enclosure: Written Testimony
Associated Builders
and Contractors, Inc.
of Texas
October 13, 2016
The Honorable Byron Cook
Chair, Committee on State Affairs Texas HouseofRepresentatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910
Dear Chairman Cook:
I appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony in letter form for Interim Charge #9 relating to
payrolldeductionsfor uniondues.
Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas (ABC of Texas) is the construction association that advocates
free enterprise and the merit shop philosophy. ABC of Texas iscomprised of 8 Local ABC Chapters-TEXO
(North and EastTexas), Central Texas (Austin),South Texas (San Antonio), Texas Mid Coast (Victoria),
Texas CoastalBend(CorpusChristi),Texas GulfCoast (Freeport),Southeast Texas (Golden Triangle) and
Greater Houston-and represents over 1750 members of those chapters.
ABC of Texas strongly supports ending the practice of government acting as the collector of dues for
unions. We believe that, on the local level, this can give unions an unfair political advantage. Many of
these same unions support groups that advocate against our industry making absolutely ridiculous claims.
It is unfair for government to collect dues for groups that use those dues to harass employers.
We understand that some groups might need to be exempted. We just urge that exemptions be held to a
minimum.
Again, thank you for the opportunity.
Sincerely,

56
P.O. Box 1891 • Austin, TX 78767-1891 • Phone: 512-470-5756 • www.abctexas.org
House State Affairs Committee
Written Testimony submitted by Americans for Prosperity -Texas
By Jerome Greener, State Director
Chairman Cook and members of the committee, thank you for your request for our perspective on
Paycheck Protection legislation.
We believe that the best policy position for our great state is to remove taxpayer dollars and
resources from the collection of labor union membership dues because 1) this responsibility
should not be the financial burden of taxpayers, and 2) a role of these unions includes political
activity.
Labor union members will still be able to personally submit payment for their normal
membership dues– similar to recurring payment such as a gym membership, Netflix subscription,
etc. - rather than having the State of Texas deduct it automatically for them from their paychecks.
We respect the rights of individuals to participate in the political process, and the role of unions
independent from government entities. However, we believe it is not an appropriate role of Texas
taxpayers to subsidize labor union membership due collection.
We were strong supporters of Senate Bill 1968 and were discouraged that it failed to be adopted.
We look forward to working with the committee to raise awareness of this issue, address any
questions that arise, and find a solution that removes government from the role of facilitating the
funding of political transactions. Please consider us as a resource, and we are willing to meet and
work with your members at your pleasure, in hopes that the committee will advance similar
legislation in the upcoming Session.
Thank you
Jerome Greener State Director
Americans for Prosperity – Texas 469-265-7768
jgreener@afphq.org

57
HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS' UNION
Texas' Largest Police Union
1600 State Street • Houston, Texas 77007 • 713-237-0282 • Fax 713-227-8450
TO: Chairman Byron Cook
FROM: Ray Hunt, President
REF: Texas House of Representatives, State Affairs Interim Study on Dues Deductions for Public
Employees
DATE: October 17, 2016
As stated last session, the Houston Police Officers' Union remains opposed to the State of Texas
prohibiting public employees at the local level from voluntarily contributing their money to
employee organizations, whose mission is to assist their members withavariety of benefits.
InTexas, itisentirely voluntary for an employee to join any employee organization. Last session
the primary reason given for prohibitingdeductions was the cost to local governments. Current
statute requires the employee organization that receives the contribution to reimburse the
processing costs tothe impacted local government if the government incurs any costs.
In our particular case, our organization provides services via dues to members that our city
cannot/does not provide, and the contract was unanimously passed by our city council. These
services include legal services for police officers while in the course and scope of duties as law
enforcement officers, disability insurance, an enhanced dental and vision program, and medical
reimbursement. None of our dues deductions are used for political contributions.
It puzzles us to understand why the Texas Legislature is seriously considering this legislation
based on the argument of costs to the city, which we believe there is none or is reimbursed.
Some supporters claimed last session that such organizations harm local businesses.I assure
you that our organization has absolutely nothing to do with harming private businesses and
wouldopposeanysuchactivity. Infact,weactuallyencourage and protect private businesses.
Houston police officers have a difficult and dangerous job in the largest city in Texas. Our
organization is a respected professional labor organization that looks out for the interests of
working police officers who protect people and businesses alike. We hope our elected officials
show their support to our officers by opposing any legislation that prohibits local governments
from allowing completely voluntary dues deductions.

58
My name is Rick Levy. I am Secretary-Treasurer of the Texas AFL-CIO, a state labor federation
consisting of approximately 237,000 affiliated union members who advocate for working families
in Texas on whose behalf I offer the following testimony as to Interim Charge Number 9.
We support of the liberty of state and local employees to deduct union dues, as well as any other
authorized deduction, from their paychecks. This should not be a partisan or an ideological
issue. It is an issue of economic liberty and freedom from government dictates regarding the
personal decisions public employees make on how to spend their earnings:
Payroll deduction is entirely voluntary. Union membership for public employees is entirely
voluntary in Texas and any decision to have dues deducted from their paycheck is completely
voluntarily as well. It is also a choice that the employee may terminate at any time.
No expense to taxpayers. State law explicitly provides for organizations receiving payroll
deduction to pay the administrative costs associated with those deductions. Taxpayers simply do
not foot the bill for these activities. Indeed, the proponents of the legislation conceded this point
in the recent Senate State Affairs Committee hearing.
Benefit to employees. Payroll deduction provides a safe and secure means of making
payments in timely fashion. The payroll deduction system works within existing capabilities of
state and local government, and diminishes the risk of ID theft and credit card fraud. Important
benefits, such as survivor benefits, insurance and training, are often provided through employee
associations. Access to those benefits could be compromised by the proposed legislation.
Local authority. Local authorities and school districts are in the best position to know what
works best for their jurisdiction and their employees. This state is too big and diverse for a one-
size-fits-all mandate from Austin on this matter.
Political Contributions Prohibited. Use of dues money for political purposes by labor unions
and corporations is strictly regulated by Texas law. Unions in Texas are explicitly prohibited
from using dues, whether received by payroll deduction or any other way, in making political
contributions to candidates and PACs. Texas Government Code 253.091-253.104. All political
contributions must be made through a PAC, and all contributions to the PAC must be made
voluntarily. Texas Government Code Section 253.102. A corporation or labor organization may
make one or more direct campaign expenditures from its own property for the purpose of
communicating directly with its stockholders or members, as applicable, or with the families of
its stockholders or members. Texas Government Code Section 253.098.
After Citizens United, labor unions, like corporations, can legally make independent expenditures
on behalf of or in opposition to candidates. Unlike corporations, union Independent expenditures
must be reported to the Texas Ethics Commission. This is because labor unions become
subject to taxation if money is spent on this political purpose. Therefore, unions must set up
separate, segregated accounts to make these expenditures, and the expenditures are reportable
to the Texas Ethics Commission. If the funds spend more than $100,000 in any given calendar
year, they must provide an accounting to the IRS as well. These funds are also prohibited from
receiving money from any outside source, or else the fund is deemed a PAC and subject to all
the reporting requirements and the restrictions of a PAC.

59
Payroll Deduction does not imply government endorsement. Payroll deduction is no more
an endorsement of organized labor than it is an endorsement of organizations like United Way,
the ACLU, Christian Legal Society, American Family Association, or Focus on the Family, which
also have access to payroll deduction for state employees. Allowing public employees the
freedom to spend their paycheck as they see fit does not mean the state has to like everything
that they spend it on, nor supersede the liberty of employees to make the decision.
Private labor disputes should not drive state policy as to the rights of public employees.
Much of the impetus of this proposed legislation stems from a private labor dispute between the
janitorial company PJS and the Service Employees International Union Local 5. Empower
Texans, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and National Federation of Independent Business
repeatedly cite this dispute as proof that this legislation is necessary. But this dispute is
completely irrelevant to the issue of whether teachers, fire fighters, and other public employees
should be able to voluntarily deduct their dues from their paycheck.
First, this matter is a private labor dispute between two private parties. It has resulted in federal
administrative complaints and state court litigation. While we reject the notion that the union has
engaged in any wrongdoing, the ultimate determination of that matter will be made in more
appropriate venues that have the authority and capacity to address the merits of the dispute.
Second, the Service Employees International Union does not represent a single state employee
in the state of Texas. Neither does it represent a single public school teacher, a single
f i r e f i g h t e r , police officer, or even a single public employee in Houston. Using the union’s
alleged conduct as the foundation for legislation affecting the rights of literally hundreds of
thousands or public employees who have nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute is ludicrous.
The proponents of this legislation are seeking to use this dispute and this issue to drive an
ideological and political agenda aimed at unions and at politicians that don’t readily bend to their
will, and they are using public employees as their pawn in this struggle.
Payroll dues deduction poses no threat to public welfare. It does not cost the government
anything at all. It is a ministerial process that is embedded in modern payroll practices. It makes
government a better employer, not a partner in any organization or ideology. Dues deduction is
requested voluntarily by dedicated, hard-working employees who make sacrifices to engage in
public service. Selective dues deduction bans that turn a ministerial system into one with winners
and losers should have no place in state or local government.
The state of Texas is facing many significant concerns in this upcoming legislative session, many
of which are of direct importance to millions of Texans. Spending more valuable time and
resources on this non-issue would be a disservice to Texas taxpayers.
Thank you for considering our views. Respectfully submitted,
Rick Levy
Secretary-Treasurer Texas AFL-CIO

60
October 2016
Testimony of Ed Martin, Texas State Teachers Association, presented to the House Committee on State
Affairs regarding dues collections by payroll deduction for public employee organizations
The Honorable Chairman Byron Cook and members of the State Affairs Committee,
For the reasons enumerated below, a prohibition on payroll deduction for public employee
organizations is another example of a “solution in search of a problem.” The state, municipalities and
school districts typically provide employees the option to use payroll deduction to contribute their own
money to any number of organizations. These public employees include TSTA members. A prohibition
on payroll deduction that targets only a select group of individuals would unfairly deny teachers and
other public school employees the opportunity to make voluntary payments to the employee or
professional organizations of their choice through the safest and most secure method possible.
When testifying before the Senate Committee on State Affairs last month, the supporters of a payroll
deduction ban alleged that payroll deduction is harmful to the business climate in Texas. However, none
of the “examples” of alleged “harm” they cited had anything to do with public employee organizations,
including public employee unions. Again, there is no problem in need of the proponents’ so called
“solution.” Instead of rhetoric, here are the facts.
In a right to work state like Texas, no one is forced to join a union or any employee organization, and
payroll deduction is entirely voluntary. Public employees in Texas do not have collective bargaining,
and mandatory union membership is illegal in Texas because we are a right to work state. Every school
district and public employee in Texas who chooses to direct a portion of earnings to an employee or
professional organization is doing so freely and voluntarily.
Safety and security for employees. Payroll deduction provides the safest and most secure means of
making payments in a timely fashion and removes virtually all risk of ID theft and credit card fraud.
Dues deduction has no expense to taxpayers. Even payroll deduction proponents admit that no state
or local funds are needed to operate a payroll deduction system. And, if there should be an expense
caused by deducting TSTA dues, the Texas Education Code, Section 22.001, says the organization
receiving dues (TSTA) would be responsible for paying any administrative cost.
Dues cannot be used for political expenditures, and TSTA members cannot be required to make PAC
contributions. Under the Election Code, employee organizations may not use dues dollars for political
contributions. TSTA has a political action committee that pays for anything related to political activity.
All income and expenditures from a PAC are reported in compliance with state law.

61
Given these facts, it should be clear to any fair minded observer that payroll deduction for public
employee organizations presents no problem to employers or taxpayers. In fact, many local school
board members have opposed proposed bans on payroll deduction because these school board
members work with TSTA and other employee organizations to address the needs of our students and
educators, and banning payroll deduction could impact the good work we do in Texas communities.
Professional development. TSTA regularly provides training to help teachers master their teaching skills,
often in cooperation with local school districts. Since the state adopted its new T TESS teacher
evaluation system, TSTA has trained more than 700 teachers, including many who are not dues paying
members.
Community involvement. Local TSTA organizations regularly participate in and sponsor programs and
community events, especially those that benefit our students and their families. This community
involvement is increasingly important in a state where 60 percent of our 5.2 million public school
students are considered economically disadvantaged.
Campus turnaround. In many school districts, TSTA and our fellow teacher organizations have worked
with local school districts and community leaders to implement the “community schools” model to
address poverty, inadequate health care and other problems our students “bring to school” with them.
This is a proven approach to turning around low performing campuses by building bonds among
educators, parents and community leaders.
TSTA members are educational employees who are dedicated to our communities and our students. The
proponents seeking to ban payroll deductions for our organization seek to brand us as something we are
not. Their attempt to deny our members the freedom to direct their dues to an organization that
supports public education and the communities we serve would not be in the best interest of our great
state.

62
Written Testimony of Bill Peacock
On House Committee on State Affairs Interim Charge #9
“Examine payroll deductions from state or political subdivision employees for the purpose of labor
organization membership dues or fees as well as charitable organization and nonprofit contributions.
Determine if this process is an appropriate use of public funds.”
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Bill Peacock. I am the Vice President of Research
at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony on
your interim charge #9.
Texas’ economic success over the last 15 years, i.e., the Texas Miracle, has been grounded in the Texas
Model: lower taxes and spending, less regulation, a sound civil justice system, and reduced reliance on
the federal government.
The results of the Texas Model speak for themselves. Texas has been a magnet for high skilled and low
skilled workers alike. For instance, from 2007 to 2013, the population of Texans aged 25 to 64 with at
least a bachelors’ degree increased by nearly 19 percent, almost 9 percent above the national average.
The growth in the Texas workforce has also been ethnically diverse.
Why is this the case? Jobs. Texas has led the nation in job creation for more than a decade now, and
Texas businesses have created both high paying and low paying jobs to meet the needs of workers and
boost the economy.
Another measure of Texas’ success is the performance of its public schools. Texas schools generally
outperform the national average on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in math
and reading scores. For instance, average 8th grade math scores for Texas whites, Hispanics, blacks, and
Asian/Pacific Islanders were all higher than the national averages for their groups.
What is the reason for these successes? What is the connection between a booming economy, good
jobs, and above average test scores?
One significant factor connecting all of these is that Texas is a Right to Work state in which Texans
cannot be forced to join a union to get a job. Unlike those states that don’t have this employee
protection, Texas employees and employers have not seen control of wages, work standards, and other
labor management policy shift almost entirely to unions. So both in the public and private sectors
employers have had more flexibility to innovate, generate better levels of production, and pay
productive employees more.

63
Yet, even though Texas’ Right to Work status has kept us from experiencing the labor problems like
those in the Midwest, the Northeast, and the West Coast, there are still problems that need to be
addressed.
For instance, unions like the Service Employees International Union, National Nurses United, the
Teamsters, and the Communications Workers of America have used federal law or pressure tactics, such
as “corporate campaigns,” to make significant inroads into Texas. One tactic often used is negative
publicity to push companies into “neutrality agreements” with a union under which companies might
provide personal contact information for employees, give unions access to employees in the workplace,
and not to allow employees to vote in secret ballot elections.
Often, because of the relatively small percentage of union members in Texas, these campaigns against
private sector businesses are subsidized by union revenue from other states. Another way to fund them
is when the state acts as the agent for the payment of employee dues by deducting them from
paychecks.
There is nothing wrong with private employers deducting union dues—or other things like charitable
contributions—from their employees’ paychecks. However, the government should not be in the
business of collecting dues/membership fees from public employees on behalf of a trade union, labor
union, employees’ association, or professional association, charitable organization, or other private
organization. In today’s world, technology has made it possible for employees to easily contribute to any
organization they choose. And public employees, because they work for the people, should avail
themselves of this technology.
The state of Texas should not allow government at any level to collect dues/membership fees from
public employees on behalf of a trade union, labor union, employees’ association, or professional
association, charitable organization, or other private organization.

64
TEXAS STATE ASSOCIATION of FIRE FIGHTERS
627 Radam Lane p: (512) 326-5050
Austin, Texas 78745 f: (512) 326-5040
www.tsaff.org
October 14th
, 2016
Re: John Riddle, President, Texas State Association of Fire Fighters Written Testimony on
House State Affairs Interim Charge #9:
My name is John Riddle and I am President of the Texas State Association of Fire Fighters and
am a retired fire fighter from Conroe, Texas. The Texas State Association of Fire Fighters
(TSAFF) has over 14,000 members that are all professional fire fighters affiliated with local fire
fighter associations from around Texas. The Association has been in existence since 1938. The
Association is comprised of adults that have made a conscious, legal decision to join and either
have their dues deducted or not.
We believe the main opponents of payroll deductions (according to testimony and written
endorsements, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the Texas Public
Policy Foundation (TPPF), and Empower Texans) are misleading legislators and the public in
several ways. First, opponents of payroll deduction insinuate that members of our association
are being forced to participate in payroll deductions and even go so far as to refer to this
legislation as “paycheck protection”. Texas is a right-to-work state, which determines that
membership in our organization is completely voluntary and those that choose not to join pay
nothing. Then, if they choose to have their dues taken out through payroll deductions, they must
fill out paperwork with the city authorizing the city to do so. This results in a two-step process,
both of which are completely voluntary and state law, Texas Local Government Code
141.008(b), mandates that participation is voluntary.
These opponents also imply that payroll deductions are using appreciable amounts of taxpayer
money. This is absolutely false. These deductions are handled no differently than insurance,
federal withholding or voluntary charitable contributions. The cost to process these payroll
deductions is microscopic if even existent and state law, Texas Local Government Code
141.008(d), explicitly provides that the organization receiving the dues is responsible for any
administrative costs incurred in processing the deduction. These opponents have attempted to
speak for local governments claiming that dues deduction is an imposition on those local
entities. Local officials are largely positive towards dues deduction, as has been testified to, and
there has been no local government outcry for this change.
Our affiliated associations use these dues to advocate for things such as better equipment,
better training, new fire stations and safe staffing levels, all of which can result in improved
Insurance Service Office (ISO) ratings that lower insurance costs to members of the
organizations that are attacking us now. Many of our local associations use these dues

65
deductions to provide extra benefits for fire fighter families such as supplemental insurance
policies that cities often do not offer. The attempts by these groups to confuse people and
contend that our dues are used for political purposes is dishonest in our opinion. Under the
election code, employee organizations may not use dues dollars for political contributions. Such
contributions require the formation of a political action committee and all income and
expenditures from a PAC must be reported in compliance with state law.
The recent genesis of this legislation appears to be a private labor conflict inside a janitorial
services company owned by Brent Southwell, Don Dyer and Rex Gore. We are confused as to
why they and the opposition groups they are affiliated with in this effort would want to push a bill
affecting public sector organizations. The bill they endorsed, SB1968-84R, would not have had
any effect on their private employee union dispute other than to gain some kind of misdirected
vengeance. One of the supporters of the legislation, Empower Texans, has made this one of
their scorecard issues and heap scurrilous attacks on those that are not in lockstep with their
distorted views. We don’t keep scorecards in an attempt to embarrass or extort our wants
because it is uncouth and without merit. Unfortunately, scorecards must be effective since
people continue to listen to these political groups even as they make daily attacks on police,
firefighters, teachers and for the most part Texans in general.
In closing, we would like to reiterate to NFIB, TPPF, Empower Texans and anyone else that is
pushing this legislation: Our association is made up of grown men and women who are
professional firefighters that make life and death decisions on a daily basis and put themselves
in harm’s way to protect life and property. They do not need the legislature or anyone else to
“protect” their paychecks. We certainly have no opposition to private sector employees being
able to utilize their paychecks in whatever way they deem necessary for their families and we
would appreciate the same freedom.
John Riddle
President

66
Testimony before the House Committee on State Affairs
On behalf of the small business community, we appreciate the opportunity to provide written
material to the House Committee on State Affairs relating to interim charge #9, an examination
of payroll deductions from state and political subdivisions.
1. Why Do Texas Businesses Care About Public Sector Unions? Few legislators
understand how national unions are using their exclusive relationships with our public sector
agencies to expand their private-sector interests in our state. Because Texas is a right-to-work
state and most Texans oppose institutions that limit their liberty, unions work with elected
officials to gain access to our public sector employees. Public sector unions then rely on our
government agencies to collect their dues for them. Funds raised by this government/union
partnership are sent out of state to then be selectively filtered back into Texas in the form of
anti-business policy campaigns, like “Fight for $15” for example, which mandates a minimum
wage increase on employers, whether they can afford it or not. Other labor union backed, anti-
business policy campaigns include increasing employee paid leave, or forcing an employer to
pay overtime to mid to upper-level managerial positions—DOL Overtime Rule—which places an
extreme burden on smaller businesses. Business community advocates lobby to fend off these
unmanageable mandates and because of labor union involvement in advocating against
employers in these cases, we believe it is not only not the role of the government to collect
dues for labor unions, but a conflict of interest.
From 2005 to 2015, our state comptroller’s office collected over $34 million for public sector
labor unions. We estimate the state’s political subdivisions collected at least $50 million more.
One-third of dues collected for AFSCME and SEIU are sent to Washington, D.C. and returned
to Texas in the form of funding for anti-business campaigns. (see 9/14/16 testimony by Brian
Olsen before the Senate Committee on State Affairs).
2. Unions Claim They Cannot Use Dues to Fund Political Causes—That’s Only Half-True.
It is true that unions may not use member dues to fund political candidates—this is not the
issue. The problem is that some public sector unions use funds collected for them by our
government to finance partisan non-candidate initiatives businesses oppose.
3. Claims Against Proposed Legislation to End Gov’t Dues Deduction Do Not Hold Up.
Union Member Support: Unions say state employees prefer government-managed payroll
deductions for union dues. In fact, a 2015 statewide survey by Keep Texas Working found that
67% of union members who are registered to vote said they support legislation to end
government withholding of union dues, and 57% of union members believe allowing government
to withhold union dues presents a conflict of interest. Public Support: Unions say Texans do not
care about legislation to end government withholding of union dues. In fact, according to the
KTW survey, 60% of registered Texas voters (70% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats)
believe it is a conflict of interest for government to collect dues for labor unions, and 62% of all
Texans (70% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats) support legislation to end the
practice. Most recently, Proposition 3, an initiative on the 2016 Republican primary ballot asking
legislators to end government withholding of union dues, won 83% of the vote. NFIB/TX
members who polled on the issue, and of those who responded 93% agreed the practice
should be prohibited. Employee Rights: Some argue that ending government involvement in

67
dues withholding will limit rights for government employees and poses constitutional issues.
These claims are false. Ending government’s role in this abusive process places no restrictions
on employees who wish to join, participate in, or fund unions or other employee organizations. It
only restricts government’s efforts to favor unions by offering to manage their dues programs.
This is why similar laws have been enacted in numerous states, including Alabama, Arizona,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and most recently,
Oklahoma. Unions also claim their members will be harmed by losing the "convenience" of
government services to collect their payments. In fact, employees may make the same
arrangements through their banks or credit cards—a one-time task that will produce the exact
results. Finally, unions claim legislation that allows payroll deductions for some purposes and
not others is not constitutional because it results in "viewpoint suppression" and lacks a "rational
basis." In fact, such legislation does not suppress the views of these groups (or of the
employees who belong to them) in any way, just as the current refusal by government to collect
dues for churches, health clubs, or our business organizations does not suppress the views of
these organizations. Data Breaches: Unions say government-managed payroll deductions are
safer than other methods. In fact, Texas agencies and municipalities have been responsible for
numerous data breaches that have exposed critical state employee information. For example, in
2011, the Comptroller’s office exposed 3.5 million Social Security numbers, names and address
and in 2012, the Texas Attorney General’s office exposed 6.5 million Social Security numbers
and names.
4. Payroll deductions for unions and charitable organizations are not the same. The State
Employee Charitable Campaign is strictly regulated and governed by committees, whose
members are appointed by the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Comptroller, and approved by the
Senate. Most importantly, law provides that none of the money collected for the SECC shall be
spent on lobbying. This is not the case relating to the money collected by our government for
labor unions. (see www.secctexas.org for more on the highly regulated charitable campaign in
Texas.)
5. Conclusion: Government has no business serving as a dues collector for labor unions.
Government dues programs for unions stack the deck against Texas business owners and their
employees who want to remain union-free. They also undermine important Texas values that
are widely supported by most Texans. Many other states have already banned this practice as
a conflict of interest for government. It is clear that our government has no business serving as
a dues collector for labor unions, and that maintaining this practice has a single purpose—to
serve national unions that are seeking a stronger financial footing in Texas from which to
undermine Texas businesses. Small businesses in Texas are drowning in a sea of anti-business
regulations and rules put in place by the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations
Board, and our federal and state government. The fact is that those movements are backed by
anti-business labor unions who are given access by our government to public employees to help
fund these efforts. We just ask that these groups collect their own membership dues, and fund
their own lobbying efforts, just as we do.
Respectfully,
Annie Spilman, Texas Legislative Director, National Federation of Independent Business/Texas.

68
DISCLOSURE
ELECTION TRANSPARENCY
Interim Charge #10: Monitor the impact of major State Affairs legislation passed by the
84th Legislature, including updates regarding recent contracting reforms. Conduct
legislative oversight and monitoring of the agencies and programs under the committee's
jurisdiction and the implementing of relevant legislation passed by the 84th Legislature. In
conducting this oversight, the committee should:
a) consider any reforms to state agencies to make them more responsive to Texas
taxpayers and citizens;
b) identify issues regarding the agency or its governance that may be appropriate to
investigate, improve, remedy, or eliminate;
c) determine whether an agency is operating in a transparent and efficient manner;
and
d) Identify opportunities to streamline programs and services while maintaining the
mission of the agency and its programs.
Introduction
Under the Texas House Rules, which allow the House Committee on State Affairs broad
jurisdiction over "questions and matters of state policy" and under the interim charge listed
above, the Committee continues to study the need for more disclosure of money spent on
political activity and increased transparency in our elections.
Money that is raised and spent to influence voting decisions should be completely transparent
and subject to public scrutiny. In Texas, where there are no limitations on contributions or
expenditures, disclosure is the only protection the public has to make an educated decision.
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court in numerous rulings, including the Citizens United
and McCutcheon cases, repeatedly held disclosure requirements to be constitutional.
Background
The Committee has addressed the issue of campaign finance disclosure since receipt of Senate
Bill (SB) 346, in 2013. The bill required a person or group of persons who do not meet the
definition of a political committee and spends more than $25,000 in a calendar year on political
expenditures, to disclose the identity of political donors whose contributions exceeded $1,000 in
a reporting period. According to the House Research Organization Bill Analysis of SB 346,
supporters of the bill said, "SB 346 would close a loophole in existing political contribution
reporting requirements and ensure that all entities spending money to influence elections were
treated the same." SB 346 passed the Senate on a vote of 24 to 5, and the House 95 to 52. The
bill was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry on May 25, 2013.
In 2015, the Texas House of Representatives once again passed the measure, but with several
improvements. The bill increased the reportable political donations threshold from $1,000 to
$2,000, in a reporting period. This change was made to ensure the reporting requirements would

69
not be overly burdensome and was intended only for larger political donors. This reporting
would have required only those political donors who know, or have a reason to know, that the
contributions would be used to make political expenditures. Moreover, it included an opt-out
provision for donors who do not want their donations to be used for political purposes. The
measure died in the waning days of the session, when the Senate would not agree to the
disclosure of these political donations.
The Committee continues the pursuit of important disclosure reforms because money raised and
spent to influence voting decisions and election results should be subject to public scrutiny.
Certain politically active entities should not be given a pass from disclosure, while ALL others
who receive political donations are required to disclose.
On October 22, 2016, the Texas Federation of Republican Women's (TFRW) 110 member board
unanimously passed a resolution supporting legislation requiring organizations engaged in
political advocacy to publicly disclose its political donors. TFRW is a formidable conservative
grassroots organization, comprised of approximately 10,000 influential women.
TFRW's support of disclosure legislation to ensure transparency in elections is a tremendous step
in allowing voters to better measure the authenticity and accuracy of political messages.
The TFRW resolution is enclosed in this interim report.
Conclusion
President Ronald Reagan remarked in a 1988 Legislative and Administrative Message to
Congress entitled: A Union of Individuals, "The right to free speech and the right to participate in
the democratic process are two of our most fundamental freedoms. In Buckley v. Valeo, the
Supreme Court held that limits on how individuals spend their own resources in the political
process can violate the First Amendment. This is a sound principle. We should make sure
'campaign reform' will not have the effect of reducing popular participation in the political
process or impairing constitutional rights. Today, there are proposals to restrict certain parts of
our electoral process. A more beneficial reform would be the requirement of full disclosure of all
campaign contributions, including in-kind contributions, and expenditures on behalf of any
electoral activities…."
Recommendations
President Reagan and the TFRW got it right. The Texas Legislature should enact these
principles as well, by passing legislation that requires those engaged in campaign activity to
disclose their contributions and expenditures. If we fail to act, we leave the opportunity for
loopholes for a growing number of entities to anonymously manipulate and control our
elections, which undermines the democratic process.

70
Enclosure: TFRW's Resolution
Promoting Free Speech and Transparency in Elections
Whereas, the ability of voters to evaluate issues and candidates and make informed decisions is
the cornerstone of our democracy; and
Whereas, a key part of making an informed decision is the ability to evaluate who is advocating
the ideas or endorsing candidates being considered; and
Whereas, Texas has a long history of requiring transparency and disclosure in the political
process; and
Whereas, Texas has chosen not to place limits on political spending to protect the rights of
individuals to freely give money and fully participate in the political process; and
Whereas, at the same time, voters have a right to know who is funding the political information
they receive so they can evaluate the information and possible motives of those who are
providing it; and
Whereas, knowing who is giving money to try to influence elections is the only way to ensure
transparency and allow voters to make fully informed choices; and
Whereas, an individual’s constitutional right of free speech can be threatened when his or her
voice is drowned out by outside sources who secretly aim to influence elections and legislation;
and
Whereas, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “Requiring people to stand up
in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”
And now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Texas Federation of Republican Women supports legislation to clarify that
organizations engaged in political advocacy must publicly disclose their donors just as
candidates and political action committees do. This legislation should not apply to religious
congregations or groups primarily engaged in providing charitable services, but specifically to
those organizations which primarily engage in formal political advocacy for candidates, causes
or legislation.

71
APPENDIX A -- DISSENTING LETTER

73
APPENDIX B -- DISSENTING LETTER

75
ENDNOTES
1
Texas House of Representatives. Rules and Precedents of the Texas House. Texas Legislative Council, 2015.
ii
Kidd, Nim. Texas Division of Emergency Management. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State
Affairs Public Hearing. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. 28 April 2016. Testimony.
iii
Vollbrecht, Stephen. State Office of Risk Management. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State
iv
Marek, Mark. Texas Department of Transportation. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs
Public Hearing. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. 28 April 2016. Testimony.
v
Id. In response to question by Representative Dan Huberty.
vi
According to the testimony of Brian Lloyd, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality manages emergency
response for water utilities.
vii
Lloyd, Brian. Public Utility Commission of Texas. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs
viii
Id.
ix
Magness, Bill. Energy Reliability Council of Texas. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs
x
Richardson, Dale. Department of Information Resources. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State
xi
Id.
xii
Wisian, Ken. Texas General Land Office. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public
Hearing. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. 28 April 2016. Testimony.
xiii
Id.
xiv
Howe, Mike. Texas American Water Works Association. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State
Affairs Public Hearing. 28 April 2016. Written Testimony.
xv
Id.
xvi
See: http://www.txccri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TCCRI-Best-Value-White-Paper-3.25.13.pdf and
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1681.
xvii
Letter to Chairman Byron Cook and the House Committee on State Affairs from Texas Ethics Commissioner Jim
Clancy. 2 September 2016.
xviii
Health and Human Services Commission. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public
Hearing. 15 August 2016. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
xix
Texas State Auditor's Office. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15
August 2016. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
xx
Id.
xxi
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public
xxii
Id.
xxiii
Texas Senate Bill 20 (84R, 2015).
xxiv
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public
xxv
Quoted from Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute. Texas House of Representatives Committee on
State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Written Testimony.
xxvi
Arriaga, Amanda. Texas Department of Public Safety. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State
Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
xxvii
Id.
xxviii
Id.
xxix
Kimbriel, Todd. Texas Department of Information Resources. Texas House of Representatives Committee on
State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
xxx
IT Alliance for Public Sector. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15
August 2016. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Written Testimony.
xxxi
CompTIA. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016. Texas
Capitol, Austin, Texas. Written Testimony.
xxxii
Vollbrecht, Stephen. Texas State Office of Risk Management. Texas House of Representatives Committee on
State Affairs Public Hearing. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. 28 April 2016. Testimony.

76
xxxiii
Cooper, Charles. Texas Department of Banking. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs
xxxiv
Texas Department of Banking and Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending. "Condition of the
Texas Banking System". March 2016.
xxxv
Blair, Christine; Kushmeider, Rose. "Challenges to the Dual Banking System: The Funding of Bank
Supervision". FDIC Banking Review. Vol. 18. No. 1. 2006.
xxxvi
xxxvii
Cooper, Charles. Texas Department of Banking. "Supervisory Memorandum - 1003 Examination Frequency for
State chartered Banks". Law and Guidance Manual. 15 March 2016.
xxxviii
Cooper, Charles. Texas Department of Banking. "Supervisory Memorandum - 1005 Policy on enforcement
Actions for State-Chartered Banks". 19 February 2013.
xxxix
Id.
xl
Id.
xli
xlii
Phillips, Keith. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas San Antonio Branch. Texas House of Representatives Committee
on State Affairs Public Hearing. Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. 28 April 2016. Testimony.
xliii
Allmon, Jennifer. Texas Catholic Conference. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs
xliv
Id.
xlv
Schmainda, Kathleen. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Bioethics and Fetal
Tissue Hearing. 2 March 2016. Testimony. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF04/20160302/104605/HHRG-114-
IF04-Wstate-SchmaindaK-20160302.pdf
xlvi
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Bioethics and Fetal Tissue Hearing. 2
March 2016. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF04/20160302/104605/HHRG-114-IF04-20160302-SD030.pdf
xlvii
Tex. Util. Code § 56.021(1) (West 2016).
xlviii
Quarterly reports of disbursements from the TUSF are available at http://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/
resources/reports/Default.aspx.
xlix
Compliance Proceeding for Implementation of the Small and Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
Universal Service Plan, PUC Docket No. 18516, Order (Jan. 14, 2000).
l
HB 2603, Act of June 17, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S (HB 2603).
li
Id.
lii
See Annual Adjustment to Support from the Small and Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Company Universal
Service Plan Pursuant to PURA § 56.032(d), PUC Docket No. 45809, Order (Aug. 25, 2016).
liii
Tex. Util. Code § 56.032(h).
liv
PUC Docket No. 45809, Order at 4 (Aug. 25, 2016).
lv
Tex. Util. Code § 56.032(b) and (h).
lvi
Lloyd, Brian. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016. Texas
Capitol. Austin, Texas. Testimony.
lvii
Caskey, Mark. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016.
Texas Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
lviii
Baer, Tonya. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016.
lix
Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
lx
Navigant. “Evaluation of Advanced Metering System (AMS) Deployment in Texas.” 30 July 2010. Presentation.
http://www.occeweb.com/pu/SMARTGRID/Navigant%20PUCT%20Final%20Report%207-30.pdf
lxi
Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
lxii
Garza, Rudy. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016.
lxiii
Lloyd, Brian. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public Hearing. 15 August 2016.

77
lxiv
Seghetti, Lisa, et al. "Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement".
Congressional Research Service. March 2009.
lxv
Valdez, Lupe. Dallas County Sheriff. Texas House of Representatives Committee on State Affairs Public
Hearing. 10 December 2015. Texas State Capitol, Austin, Texas. Testimony.
lxvi
lxvii
Texas Senate Bill 185 (84R, 2015).
lxviii
Texas House Research Organization Bill Report. 82nd Legislature, House Bill 12.
lxix
"Border Effect Like Whack-a-Mole". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 4 October 2016.
lxx
lxxi
Winegarden, Wayne. "Texas A Great Place For Small Business". Pacific Research Institute. 26 October 2015.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/article/texas-a-great-place-for-small-business/
lxxii
Id.

State-Affairs-Committee-Interim-Report-2016

More Related Content

Similar to State-Affairs-Committee-Interim-Report-2016

State-Affairs-Committee-Interim-Report-2016