Ward Parkway Shooting

Today the Senate recognized a moment of silence for all of the victims of yesterday afternoon's horrible tragedy that occurred in South Kansas City and Ward Parkway Center.

The moment of silence took place after I made the following statement during a point of personal privilege.

Today we mourn the lives that were lost yesterday at the Ward Parkway Center in Kansas City. A second mass shooting within 2 weeks. This time here at home. This time where we gather as families to shop, get a cup of coffee or see a movie.

One police officer was shot and injured. Two shoppers were shot and killed. Scores of others terrorized by flying bullets and exploding glass. Today we mourn our sense of security.

From tragedy we as legislators are forced to ask “could I have done anything?” -- “what can we do to make sure this never happens again?” Because next time it may be your district. It may be your family. Today we mourn our lost innocence.

Guns ARE a part of our nation’s heritage. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. And yet, gun violence affects us all in the most basic and primitive of ways. Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.

Reports reveal that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. Dept. of Justice data reveals that only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted.

Faulty records enable criminals to purchase guns. Over a 2 ½ year period nearly 10,000 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. Criminals purchase firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification.

We must try to stem this flow of violence in our culture.

Today we mourn. But tomorrow, together, it is my wish that we can work across party lines, with hunting groups, 2nd amendment organizations, gun manufacturers, law enforcement, safety groups and victims’ rights groups – I hope that we can find some way to prevent another senseless shooting.

Mr. President, I ask for a moment of silence for the victims and their families.

UPDATE! Wanna Meet for Coffee in Grandview?

Tomorrow (Saturday) morning, April 28th, I will be a guest at the Hard Bean Cafe, 801 Main Street, in Grandview. From 9:30-11:00 Mike Ferguson, local politico and newly elected member of the Jackson County Public Water District, is hosting a meet and greet. Please stop by, have a cup of coffee, and tell me what's on your mind.

We have three weeks of session left and things are starting to move very fast. I'll be able to give you a quick rundown on the legislation moving this year and I can't wait to talk to you about your ideas for Grandview, Greater KC and Missouri.

Thanks to Mike Ferguson for organizing and sponsoring the event and thanks to the Hard Bean for hosting. See you in the morning!

UPDATE -- The coffee this morning was great. Thanks to Mike Ferguson for organizing, hosting and placing an ad in the Jackson County Advocate to advertise the event. Thanks to the folks from Ozanam, the Grandview School District and Andrea Wood, Editor of the Jackson County Advocate for stopping by. Finally, it was wonderful to finally meet you Janet! Thanks so much for your enthusiasm and commitment to the process!

Chicken Little

Well maybe the sky is not falling after all. I just got confirmation that the $15 million that was stripped from UMKC in "retribution" for me standing up to Governor Blunt's shortsighted MOHELA plan, will not result in a lengthy set back for the Schools of Pharmacy and Nursing in Kansas City.

Turns out the building is still scheduled to open this September with or without MOHELA money. The building is at least 90% complete and was part of UMKC's plan before MOHELA money was ever on the table. After the anti-stem cell crowd got a hold of the MOHELA project list and $12 million was stripped from a proposed UMKC business incubator (because of the perception that stem cell research would take place there), UMKC opted to move the $12 million to the pharmacy/nursing school. The additional $12 million would allow the school to complete 2 floors that were not budgeted in the original building project.

Don't get me wrong -- we want and need that money. The Republicans should NOT have stripped the money from the project list. It was petty partisan politics and undermines the purpose of the Senate.

At the same time, I am glad to know that UMKC pharmacy and nursing students will still be able to move in to their new building as scheduled and I know that I did the right thing by standing up against extremely bad public policy.

Deja Vu All Over Again

We are several hours in to another Senator Bartle led-filibuster. This time it is a gambling bill.

This is the same bill that was filibustered earlier this session by Senator Bartle. This is at least the third filibuster led by Senator Bartle this session. No talk of the PQ in the halls. No talk of punishing Senator Bartle by stripping money from a project in his district. Instead the majority is simply letting the Senator exercise his Senatorial right to a free and fair discussion.

HPV Vaccine Update

The HPV bill I sponsored was voted unanimously out of committee last week. I am working with the committee chair, Senator Champion (R-Springfield), to have the bill reported to the Senate floor for debate by the entire body.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the revised version of this bill would not mandate the vaccine, instead it would provide information about HPV, cervical cancer and the vaccine, to the parents of girls entering the sixth grade. Insurance coverage for the vaccine is available under this version of the bill.

My staff worked with the Missouri Catholic Conference and the Missouri Family Values Network to draft language that is respectful of original issues raised about a vaccine mandate. I am pleased with the result and hope my Senate colleagues vote in favor of this important legislation.

Free & Fair Discussion . . .

If you've never been to Jefferson City to see the our Capitol, you're really missing something. It is a beautiful place.

Each morning I enter the Senate chamber and I am always floored by its beauty. It is truly something every Missourian should experience. Please consider this an invitation to come down and take a tour of the Capitol. You won't be disappointed.

Carved in the marble on the walls to the left and right of the dais are two sentences that I read every morning before we start session for the day. One side says: "Nothing is politically right that is morally wrong." The other side says: "Free and fair discussion will ever be found the firmest friend to truth." Words can't explain how honored I am to serve you in a legislative body with these two noble goals.

On Friday night I opened up the blog to a discussion about the MOHELA proposal. 44 comments later, I want to thank you for your input. I assure you that I have read every post and I will consider all your opinions as I weigh the important decision I have to make on this issue.

As I mentioned, I have three options when the MOHELA bill comes back to the floor -- vote yes, vote no, or participate in a filibuster in an attempt to prevent the bill from coming to a vote. In addition to soliciting your opinions in this forum, my staff and I have done mountains of research on the topic and I have discussed the issue with as many people as humanly possible -- my colleagues (R & D), my staff, community leaders, business leaders, university officials, lobbyists, elected officials, students, professors, my family, my friends -- basically anyone who will listen. I am not taking this decision lightly.

There is a very good chance the bill will come to the Senate floor tomorrow, and I am still carefully weighing all the factors involved. In the end, I must do what I determine to be the best thing for all 165,000 constituents of the 10th District, while staying ever-mindful of our great state's motto -- The Welfare of the People Shall be the Supreme Law.

In essence, my job is to see to it that the laws we pass in Jefferson City are in the best interests of the people of the 10th District and the state of Missouri as a whole. I will continue to keep you posted on our progress and whatever eventually happens, I will do my best to explain to you how and why decisions are made.

Thanks for staying involved and in touch.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"[G]o forth in love and peace — be kind to dogs — and vote Democratic." -- Senator Thomas Eagleton, 1929-2007

Just Don't Do It

This just in from the "Annals of Duh" -- "abstinence-only" education does nothing to prevent teen sex. In a report issued this week, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. provides an exhaustive look at the ineffective policy that costs our federal government over $50 million a year.

Calling all Wonks -- MOHELA's Back

MOHELA is rearing its ugly head again and I am soliciting your opinion regarding the latest version of the controversial proposal. I've never tried this before, but consider this an impromptu virtual town hall meeting. Whether you consider yourself a policy wonk, or simply a concerned citizen with an opinion about MOHELA, please read on. Otherwise, I would encourage you to do something more fun like scooping dog poop or going to the License Bureau.

In a nutshell, the legislation at issue would allow for the sale of Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority assets and the money would be used for building projects around the state. MOHELA's mission, according to its web site, is to "eliminate barriers for students so they can access higher education." The selling-off of MOHELA is the centerpiece of Governor Blunt's agenda and was originally heralded as an incredible economic development tool to jumpstart life science research in the state of Missouri. After a huge outcry from the anti-stem cell folks, the original plan has now been gutted and cancer research centers have been turned in to swine containment facilities in Callaway County. Last month I had several posts about MOHELA. You can refer to all the posts in the March archives section of this blog. The best summary I've seen is from Terry Ganey at the Columbia Tribune. Over the last year and a half, every major newspaper in the state has run opinion pieces on the issue. If you still want more info, just Google "MOHELA" and you'll have enough info to keep you busy for days.

We are currently on version #27 (this year -- there were proposals in 2006 that failed). As you may remember, the last time we debated the issue on the Senate floor, it led to marathon filibuster. The filibuster is a procedural tool available only in the Senate. It is used sparingly to prevent an issue from coming to a vote. The only way a filibuster can be stopped is if the participants wear out and give up, or with a rare procedural tool called the PQ (previous question). The PQ is basically known around the Missouri Senate as the "nuclear option." It has only been used 3 or 4 times in the history of the Missouri Senate and is considered very taboo. If the PQ is utilized (as it was by the Republicans during the Voter ID debate last year), the Senate will come to a grinding halt and nothing will get done for the rest of the session.

The only way to call for the previous question is to make a motion in writing, signed by five Senators. Then at least 18 Senators must vote for the PQ. If it passes, all debate stops and the issue immediately goes to a vote. And thus we have the formation of a cold war of sorts in the Senate. Do they have enough votes to PQ a MOHELA filibuster? It would take 18 Senators to agree to the drastic measure and there are many people in the Capitol who say MOHELA supporters do not have enough votes for the PQ. Some Senators are in favor of the bill, but will not vote for a PQ. This isn't partisan either, because Missouri Right to Life and the Catholic Conference are still adamantly opposed to the proposal because it would give $15 million to the Missouri Technology Corporation (who might use the money for stem cell research).

What does KC have at stake? Originally it was $3 million for completion of a building at UMKC, $3 million for the UMKC Dental School and $12 million for a life science business incubator to be located at UMKC. After the governor realized he couldn't get enough votes to pass the bill because of the anti-stem cell crowd, the incubator was scrapped (as were any other facilities across the state that were deemed to be "research" facilities) and the $12 million was transferred to the completion of the pharmacy/nursing schools building (originally called the Health Sciences Pavilion, but changed to the School of Pharmacy and Nursing for fear that the anti-stem cell crowd would protest any building with the words "health sciences" in its title). After all the research facilities were scrapped from the plan the University of Missouri system voted to accept the money, regardless of any restrictions on what was allowed to take place in the buildings (academic freedom be damned). Similar projects were stripped from the project list all across the state. A cancer research center was taken from Columbia and the balance of the money was passed out to anti-stem cell and rural Senators, in exchange for their votes.

I have been lobbied heavily on this subject by the governor, his staff and the bill's handler, Senator Gary Nodler (R-Jasper County). The threats I have received are incredible. First it was "support this or UMKC will probably not stay on the project list." Next it was -- "vote no and UMKC won't be on the project list." Now it's -- don't exercise your right as a Senator to filibuster or UMKC will lose $18 million.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know my opinion on the issue. It's bad policy and the worst case of political prostitution I have ever seen. Recent polling suggests that 70% of Missourians are opposed to the legislation. Republican and Democrat lawyers across the state have declared the plan unconstitutional, illegal and warned of mass lawsuits if the sale goes forward. The MOHELA board has refused to endorse the plan and the current bill includes an immunity provision for board members if they are ever sued over the issue. Financial analysts around the country have issued negative opinions regarding the financial feasibility of the plan. Missouri State Auditor Susan Montee had to file suit this week because of MOHELA's refusal to turn over documents in a governor-approved audit of the institution.

So now I want to hear from you, gentle readers. Do your own research on the issue, then you make the call. This is your chance to play armchair senator -- there are five weeks left in session, Medicaid is not fixed, Missouri's child care subsidies are 50th in the nation, hundreds of thousands of Missourians are without health insurance, education is underfunded, working families are losing their rights, homelessness is on the rise, there is no funding for public transportation, you can't get your Earned Income Tax Credit or Low-income Housing Trust Fund bills heard in committee because the chair is mad that you oppose the escalation of troops in Iraq, gas is nearly $3/gallon and we're about to be flooded by melting glaciers because of global warming -- DO YOU:

A) Vote yes for a risky plan that puts low-interest loans for Missouri students at risk, in exchange for fancy new digs at UMKC and some stellar Agriculture Extension Buildings in the Bootheel;

B) Vote no, but the bill passes anyway resulting in massive lawsuits against the state and no guarantee that the UMKC projects will ever even receive the funding, because they are still subject to appropriation (and the budget is controlled by a Republican General Assembly who has not passed a capital-improvement project for higher education in over 6 years); OR

C) Kill the bill with the filibuster, but save the state from massive liability and preserve one of the most successful low-interest loan programs in the country. This option, of course, comes with the risk that the majority party will push the button and go nuclear with a PQ motion and all the baggage that comes with that.

I realize that these options are laced with a tiny bit of subjective rhetoric, but you get the general picture and are capable of drawing your own conclusions.

Time is of the essence -- MOHELA will be back on the Senate floor as early as Monday and I would love to have the benefit of your opinion before I make my final decision.

One final note, if you are still reading, I commend you -- this stuff is truly Insider Baseball and not many people have the stomach for it. Now go open a cold one and I'll keep you posted about what happens next week.

HJR1 Followup

My Civics 101 post linked to the Senate site for HJR1, but apparently it is not updated as quickly as the House site.

I received some questions regarding exactly how this resolution would mess with the judiciary.

First things first, here is a link to the current language. You'll want to look at Sections 2 & 3.

In the current version, the language would be placed in Article II, under the separation of powers. It is two sentences:

"Under no circumstances shall a court of this state order the general assembly or executive to increase taxes or create new taxes."

"The appropriation of state revenues is the exclusive province of the general assembly."

For some really good examples of how this thing would work, I would suggest that you check out the comments section of my original Civics 101 post.

This week all the lawyers in the Senate received a letter from a bipartisan group of former Missouri Supreme Court Justices. The group is comprised of retired justices who are all currently practicing lawyers in the state of Missouri. The letter is lengthy and I won't repost the entire thing here, but the letter has a laundry list of potential consequences should HJR1 pass. Here are a few of the excerpts:

If the General Assembly failed to appropriate sufficient funds to pay the state's bonded indebtedness, would the bondholders have recourse to the courts for payment? How would this provision, if approved by voters, affect the state's credit rating? Would the world's credit markets consider Missouri bonds repayable only by the grace of the General Assembly and unenforceable in the courts?

If the General Assembly appropriated money for religious institutions, would there be recourse in the courts? Would article I, section 7, which forbids appropriations for religion, and article IX, section 8, which forbids appropriation of aid to religious schools, be unenforceable?

If the General Assembly appropriated less than 25 percent of state revenues to support public schools, as required by article IX, section 3(b), would there be a legal remedy?

If a contractor provides services to the state, and the state refuses to pay, would his suit for payment be uncollectible if the General Assembly refuses to appropriate the money owed as suggested in V.S. DiCarlo Construction Co., Inc. v. State, 485 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. 1972).

Would specific constitutional requirements for appropriations for state parks and for soil and water conservation, in article IV, section 47(a) and article III, section 47, be unenforceable if the General Assembly fails to make them?

In addition to these legal consequences, there are calls to enact HJR1 for short term political reasons. Some legislators are quoted as saying that it is necessary to "send a message" to the Cole County judge hearing the school finance case and that this HJR has a "political purpose." A newspaper reported last week: "Republicans privately predict that the proposed amendment could boost turnout in November 2008 among fiscal conservatives. That could help GOP candidates sharing the ticket."

When you are no longer members of the General Assembly, do you want to be responsible for establishing the precedent that the General Assembly should send messages to judges in the cases you are trying? Should you establish the precedent that allegations that the courts will not be faithful to the constitution is a legitimate means for securing a debatable short term political advantage?

Please consider the damage to our institutions of government that will be done in the campaign to put those words into our state Constitution.

In the nearly two hundred year history of our state, the three branches of government have co-existed well without the kind of drastic constitutional change proposed in these proposals. There is no reason to believe such radical action is needed now. While such a change may seem beneficial in the short urn, in the long run it could weaken our republican form of government, with its checks and balances, which as served our state for so well for so long.

Civics 101

Does anyone remember when we learned about separation of powers and the carefully-crafted system of checks and balances that prevents one branch of our government from overpowering the others? Fourth grade? Ninth grade? I don't remember when we learned it, but it's pretty obvious that our governor and many of my colleagues in the general assembly have forgotten Civics 101.

Last week in the senate judiciary committee, we voted on HJR1, an ill-conceived and dangerous resolution that would strip the Missouri judiciary of jurisdiction over certain cases.

The version we voted on last week is supposed to be less-restrictive than the original resolution, but it is still an unnecessary attack on the judiciary and a bad idea.

The resolution would send yet another constitutional amendment to the voters. This time the Republicans want voters to prevent courts from raising taxes, creating new taxes or appropriating money (fancy word for messing with the state budget). At first blush it sounds like a pretty good idea. We don't want courts messing around with taxes or sticking their noses into the budget, right? Of course we don't. That is why the state constitution ALREADY prevents courts from tinkering in these areas. It's called separation powers -- remember?

The problem with this resolution is that it amends the constitution to specifically restrict the courts in ways that will be extraordinarily harmful to Missourians. Let's set aside for the moment the fundamental issue of checks and balances and the fact that this resolution gives more power to the general assembly and puts a huge hole in the concept of an independent judiciary. This resolution is much worse than that.

HJR1 would prevent courts from even ruling on issues related to taxation. Upset with your property tax assessment or the "fair market value" assigned to your property during an eminent domain proceeding? Don't go looking to the courts for help. They can't instruct on these issues anymore. Thinking about a court challenge under the almighty Hancock Amendment? Nope -- the doors of justice are closed.

Oh yeah -- it's also going to open the door for private and parochial school vouchers (the legislature can appropriate funds for vouchers and the resolution would prevent courts from ruling on the issue); eliminate the line-item veto (only the legislature can appropriate, not the governor); and prevent political subdivisions from issuing bonds for silly things like schools and sewers (the courts won't be able to rule on disputes, making it virtually impossible to find $$$ for the bonds -- it's not worth the risk).

This is partisan politics at its worst. Worried about more electoral losses, the Republicans want to fire up their base by putting this flag-waving amendment on the ballot in the November 2008 election. Just scream "activist judges" and they'll be able to pack the polling places with busloads of right-wing reactionaries.

But there are no "activist" judges in Missouri. No Missouri judge has ever raised taxes, created a new tax or appropriated money. This is just another example of the politics of fear. "We've got to fix this now, or it's just a matter of time before . . . ."

The opposition to this resolution is one sign that it is bad policy -- it is opposed by trial lawyers (plaintiff's lawyers) and the defense lawyers. Those two groups never agree about ANYTHING. That's why I was completely disgusted by the judiciary committee vote -- 5 yes (all Republicans) and 3 no (all Democrats). So what's the big deal about that? 4 of the yes votes are lawyers and the fifth has some sort of internet law degree. Essentially, the Republicans on the committee decided to stick with their party rather than do the right thing. I hope it wasn't an easy vote for them. It goes against everything we hold dear as officers of the court.

I hope you never have to vote on this issue. I hope it never gets debated on the senate floor and if it is debated, I hope it doesn't pass. If it does pass and you see it on the ballot someday -- please vote no. It's your duty as a citizen of this great state and it will make Mr. Garner, your ninth grade civics teacher, very proud.

PROMO Equality Day

We've been so busy I forgot to post the great pictures from PROMO Equality Day. On Wednesday, March 28 (the day after our all-night gambling debate), over 200 people came to the capitol to lobby their legislators about the Missouri Non-Discrimination Act (MONA), Comprehensive Safe Schools Legislation and LGBT parenting.

By all accounts the day was a big success. One group got into a minor disagreement with a senate staffer who insisted LGBT people already have protection under federal law (not true), but the majority of the reports were positive and many of the participants found their legislators to be supportive and encouraging.

It was nice to have friends in town for the day. Especially after the past few weeks which have been pretty tense. A bunch of folks stopped by the office to sign the guest book and say hi. Here are a few of the pictures from their visits:

HPV

This week my HPV vaccine bill was heard in the Seniors, Families & Public Health Committee. The legislation would require schools to provide information about HPV vaccines to schoolgirls and allow them to receive the vaccine if their parents agree. HPV is a known cause of cervical cancer and it is thought that the vaccine, coupled with regular paps, could virtually eliminate the cancer in a generation.

It's been an extraordinarily controversial issue because of the young age of the recipients, but since these vaccines are 100% effective if received prior to exposure to HPV (which is transferred through sexual activity), it is recommended that young women receive the vaccine when they enter the sixth grade.

My original bill made the vaccine mandatory, similar to mumps or measles, but after talking to my colleagues and watching the political situation nationally, I opted for an "inform and provide" model. In essence, all girls and parents of girls entering the sixth grade will be given medical information about HPV, its link to cervical cancer, and the availability of the vaccine. The parent would then decide whether the child would receive the vaccine.

Opponents who spoke against the bill included Concerned Women for America, Missouri First, and the Missouri Family Network. There was a disagreement regarding whether the bill creates an "opt-in" or "opt-out" vaccine. I argue that it is drafted to require an "opt-in" by parents. The hearing got a little heated when one of the opponents insinuated that I had been "bought-off" by the pharmaceutical industry and stated that the hearing was a "waste of time."

I am sensitive to the concern regarding "opt-in" v. "opt-out" and my staff is working to make sure the language is explicit on the issue. We've requested input from the witness from the Missouri Family Network. I take exception, however, with the witness from "Missouri First." His attack was more personal in nature and really pissed me off. He apologized after the hearing. I acknowledged the apology, but informed him that the hearing was not a "waste of time." I have listened to him testify for and against several bills since I arrived in Jefferson City and although I don't agree with any of his anti-woman, pro-gun rhetoric, I always listen and never tell him that his testimony is a waste of time.

My staff and I will revise the language and continue to push for passage of the legislation. It is good for women and the right thing to do.

A big shout out to our Jefferson City intern, Anna, who researched this issue early in session and pitched the idea for the legislation.

Welcome Sophie

A big shout out to my niece Sophie Anne. Born at 5:17 this morning. All is good with mom, baby, dad and brother Andy!

Lincoln Days in Branson

My mom called me from the bathroom to ask me to get her out of there. I think she may be a closeted Democrat. Then again, I don't think most of the folks wanted to be there, Republican or otherwise. I asked her to find Senator Goodman. He can be particularly good in these situations -- especially if you are trapped by the Senator from Jasper.

Check out the picture of my parents with Senate President Pro tem Michael Gibbons (R-St. Louis County). Don't they look like they're having a rockin time! We'll have to get them up to Truman Days to show them how the Ds do it.

Update -- President Pro tem Michael Gibbons brought me an autographed copy of the photo on the floor today.

Back in Town

We spent a few hours on Medicaid tonight, followed by hearings in the judiciary committee. After the majority party removed the checks and balances from our state government and unseparated the powers of the judicial, exec & legislative branch (I voted no along with 2 other Democrats), we decided to call it an early night.

I have a hearing on the HPV legislation in the morning. This will probably be one of my last hearings for one of my bills this year.

Gonna hang with Laika, the commie dog, and try to get some reading done tonight.

I hear we are going to CAFOs in the morning. Put on your boots -- there's gonna be a lot sh*t in that chamber tomorrow.