May 16, 2005

House Conferees See Gay Foster Home
Prohibition Ban as Key Bargaining Tool

By Mike Hailey
Capitol Inside Editor

Texas House negotiators on legislation to overhaul the state's protective services system seem to believe that they have a lucrative bargaining chip with an amendment that's sparked a debate on what God might think about gays and lesbians.

While conferees on both sides are keeping their cards close to their chests on strategy, sources say that the House team's members have discovered that the controversial amendment that would ban gay foster parents gives them leverage that's improved their negotiating position in conference committee talks with the Senate.

The conference committee, which has been at work on a compromise plan since late April, has resolved a number of differences between the House and Senate protective services bills but has yet to reach a deal on the privatization of case management, the structure of adult protective services and new funding for caseworkers and other needs. The House could ostensibly win more concessions in those areas if it's willing to give up the gay foster parent amendment or to modify it in return.

The House triggered a firestorm when it added the amendment by State Rep. Robert Talton to Senate Bill 6 before approving the child and adult protective services measure last month. The bill's author - Republican State Senator Jane Nelson - voiced immediate opposition to the Talton amendment because she said it could sink the emergency legislation. But State Rep. Suzanna Hupp, the House sponsor, has pointed to the 81-58 vote for the amendment as a clear sign that the House views it as an important part of the bill. Hupp, a Lampasas Republican, spoke against the amendment on the floor, suggesting that it would be major financial drain on the bill, before casting a vote for it along with 70 other Republicans and 10 House Democrats.

There have been no indications that the the gay foster home ban was conceived in premeditated fashion as a tool to use in conference committee negotiations on SB 6. Talton, a Pasadena Republican, attempted to prohibit homosexual and bisexual foster parents in a bill that never received a hearing in the Juvenile Justice and Family Issues Committee two years ago. A separate Talton bill in 2003 would have prevented the state from placing children with unmarried foster parents. But that measure was left pending without a vote in the State Affairs Committee. Talton couldn't get a hearing on a similar measure in 1999.

The House sponsors of the protective services measure this year were not surprised when Talton introduced the push to ban gay foster parents in an amendment to SB 6. But none apparently realized the potential leverage the amendment could give them in a conference committee until after it was attached with a significant show of bipartisan support.

Talton, however, knew what to expect in terms of reaction to his amendment, which has spawned critical calls and email messages and protests by gay rights advocates in his office at the Capitol. Two years ago the DPS was called to help with security in and around Talton's office - and the state police agency has been summoned there again this year for the same reason amid publicity over the amendment to the protective services bill.

The Dallas Morning News reported last week that Talton had sent a letter to Nelson attributing his support for the gay foster parents ban to a divine calling. Senators who'd seen the letter said Talton quoted from the Bible to justify his support for the prohibition.

The gay foster home amendment has pit Republicans who favor such a ban against other Republicans who also would vote for it if considered on its own. The vote in favor of the amendment reportedly prompted House Speaker Tom Craddick to make a last-minute switch in plans and appoint Talton to the conference committee on SB 6. State Rep. Elliott Naishtat, an Austin Democrat who played a key role in the protective services reform effort, had apparently been in line for a slot on the negotiating panel until that time. The House conferees include State Reps. John Davis of Houston, Toby Goodman of Arlington and Carlos Uresti of San Antonio. Uresti is the only Democratic negotiator on the House side.

Senate members on the conference committee include Houston Republican State Senators Kyle Janek and Jon Lindsay and Democratic State Senators Eliot Shapleigh of El Paso and Judith Zaffrini of Laredo.

In contrast to the fight on school finance, the House has been pushing for more funding for protective services reforms than the Senate. The House voted to turn case management services over to private agencies - a move rejected by the Senate. Differences of agreement between the House and Senate on APS reforms also must be worked out. And then there's the question of the Talton amendment that could be instrumental in the bill's ultimate fate.