Texas Bill

Introduction In this paper, I have selected a bill that is interesting to discuss. Not only does the welfare of families in poverty need assistance, but there should be some regulation to reduce the abuse of applying for the assistance for unhealthy reasons. I am fortunate enough to observe both sides of the families that receive assistance in my career field. The bill I carefully chose is about the welfare that exists in Texas. In this bill, it focuses on performing drug screening to be eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
A brief overview of the bill According to (King, 2014), the provision of the bill states the eligibility for drug screening and testing. The policies are influenced by the commission of Health and Human Services. A marihuana and controlled substance screening is the initial part the application process for the benefit. In fact, if the applicant for TANF is positive for drug use, the individual is ineligible for a year and possibly 36 months. Depending on the offenses, it will determine the ineligibility of TANF. After three denials because of drugs or controlled substances, the applicant will permanently be ineligible for TANF. Because the main caregiver cannot apply for the benefit, a protective payee can apply for TANF to support a child or children that are in need of the assistance. If there are no eligible payee, the commission will appoint one.
The sponsors of the bill and any committees that was in the legislature Unfortunately, there were no sponsors on this bill. The only representation the bill received was the support of the Health and Human Services that were associated with the bill (King, 2014).

Any public opinion on the bill According to (Lindell, 2013) it was reported that in May 2013 that the bill was killed, it was on the debate floor for about two hours. Because in the house the bills die after midnight, it caused the bill to die with other bills that were ready to be approved.
An opinion of the bill was by Rep. Chris Turner from Grand Prairie who stated “We believe, simply that this bill is wrong” and “this bill singles out some of the least fortunate in our state for what essentially is a stigmatizing test.” Other opinions had some support of the bill, a statement that supported the bill stated “I think incentives provided in this bill will lead every applicant to find help or receive drug treatment.”
(Ura, 2015) states this bill was making another round in the legislation. In this case, the proposal would face opposition with the Democrats, who view the drug testing may be unconstitutional. A statement was said to involve tax payers by stating “Taxpayer dollars should not be used to support a person’s drug habit.” On the other hand, another perspective was mentioned by stating “Our concerns are that the legislation doesn’t so much address the issue as punish families that are already going through a crisis of their own.”

The bill made into law or did not pass The bill was filed in November 2014 and read in February 2015. On the same day of the read in February, it was referred to Human Services. As the process continued through the protocol of approval, it was read in the 84th legislation by K. King to the Human Services. After the read and referral, the bill was scheduled for public hearing in April 2015 and left for pending with in the committee. The support of topics that were represented by members invloved included subjects that were critical for approval of the the bill. The key subjects that were crucial involved to the bill included; Alcoholism and drug abuse, crimes/drugs, drug & alcohol testing, TANF, and Health and Human Services (King, 2014).
The bill has not been passed yet because it is in the first stage out of seven stages. As of now, the bill is pending with a committee. The bill will need to go through the house, senate, and then the governor before it becomes a bill.
The student’s own opinion on the ball After reading the bill and researching other sources of information about the it, I was able to lean to support the bill. I feel that a drug screening seems favorable to assist families that are in true need of TANF. Although it may cost tax dollars or a non-profit organization may be able to support this cause, it can be effective to facilitate this type effort across Texas. The disadvantages of this bill may require more assets to fund this with TANF. The history of this bill has been in both the supportive or unsupportive platform by influences of the seats within the Texas political parties, which have leaned unfavorable in the beginning. As more support emerged from the representatives, a second push was made to propose the bill. After reading about the challenges about the bill, it seemed there was a motivation to raise this issue because of benefits given to caregivers that use illegal substances. In my opinion, I do feel that there are other families that are in need of the assistance. In fact, families or the caregiver should provide for their family. I would hope they had positive intention for assistance to support their children, rather than the habit of using harmful substances that can create a dysfunction and impairment in a family. This bill can reduce and deter issues, but not eliminate the problem. That is a progress that support because it portrays a healthier environment for the family that compliments a need for those that are unfortunate.

Reference
King, K., (2014). Relating to the drug testing of certain persons seeking benefits under the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program. Retrieved from http:// http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/
Lindell, C., (2013). House democrat kill welfare drug testing bill, and about 50 others. Retrieved from http:// http://www.statesman.com/news/news/house-approves-drug-tests-for-jobless-benefits/nXyjy/
Ura, A., (2015). Drug testing for welfare benefits back on the table. Retrieved from http://
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/05/drug-testing-welfare-benefits-back-table/