Jay Barnes

Two House Republicans’ letter seeks to sway Nixon on transfer legislation

May 20, 2014 By Mike Lear

Two Republicans who have crossed party lines to work on Medicaid expansion say Governor Jay Nixon (D) needs to heed his own advice and work across lines to not veto the proposed transfer bill. They have written a letter to Nixon on the issue.

Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) and Representative Noel Torpey (R-Independence) say Nixon has in more than one State of the State Address called for working across political, geographical and other lines to solve problems. Barnes says that’s what they’re asking him to do with the transfer bill.

“That’s exactly what happened with Senate Bill 493,” says Barnes. “You saw a bill that the Senate passed 29-3, the House passed it with a bipartisan majority of 89 votes – obviously a little bit closer – but this is a bill which required a lot of work, a lot of compromises all around.”

See Barnes’ and Torpey’s letter to Gov. Nixon

Torpey says the bill isn’t perfect, but he wants to work with Nixon in the interim and next session to address the problems the governor has with the bill rather than see it vetoed.

“Education is such a complicated issue like Medicaid. I think it’s important to work together and to go forward,” says Torpey, “but to simply just blow a bill up, I don’t think that’s the right approach.”

Nixon says he can’t support a bill that would allow tax dollars to go to private schools. Barnes says that would make him like “legislative absolutists,” who make progress on key issues impossible.

The pair write, “Instead of insisting on a bill which is “perfect” to you, we ask that you read the bill as a whole. If you do, we believe you will find that the private option is only a small portion of the bill – a portion we believe is vital and necessary, but a small one nonetheless.”

Barnes says Medicaid and the transfer bill are similar in that both will require compromise, but he and Torpey both say their letter is not to suggest that they won’t work with Nixon on Medicaid if he doesn’t do what they want on the student transfer bill.

Bill to triple abortion waiting period sent to Gov. Nixon

May 15, 2014 By Mike Lear

Missouri could become the third state in the nation to require a 72-hour wait for a woman wanting to have an abortion, under legislation that has been sent to Governor Jay Nixon (D). The bill, HB 1307, would triple the current 24-hour waiting period in Missouri.

The House voted 111-39 for the proposal, a strong enough vote to override a veto, but the Senate vote fell one short of the two-thirds majority.

Nixon has not said whether he would support the 72-hour waiting period, saying only that he has been consistent on such issues. In the past he has let other bills placing restrictions on abortion become law without his signature.

Proponents say the legislation isn’t about whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, but whether she gets all the information available and has time to consider that information.

“Lets get off the issue of whether there’s going to be an abortion or not,” argues Representative Jeanie Riddle (R-Mokane). “What we’re trying to do is get information to these women, we’re trying to give them healthy choices and we’re trying to lessen the suicide rate of women that are in turmoil.”

Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) argues 72-hours is not too long to wait before having a serious procedure.

“There is no more serious medical procedure than this,” says Barnes. “The last time we debated this bill we heard somebody get up and talk about how it took 6-months for her husband to decide whether he would get a knee surgery. A knee surgery, Mr. Speaker, and we’re talking about the ending of a human life.”

Opponents say the legislation is an attack on women’s ability to have an abortion led primarily by Republicans.

“The idea that a woman would not have taken this time already to take the time and have discussions with her doctor is insulting,” argues Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis). “You give them 72-this year … you’re going to be back for another day or two next year.”

The passage of the measure in the Senate came on a deal that saw that chamber’s Democrats end a filibuster of the bill in exchange for Republicans agreeing not to bring up bills on so-called “paycheck protection” and photo-ID.

State legislature asks voters to consider stronger gun rights

May 7, 2014 By Mike Lear

The state legislature is asking Missouri voters whether the Constitution should be changed to provide a stronger right to bear arms.

The legislature has sent to the November ballot a proposal to define the right to bear arms in Missouri as “unalienable” and to require the state to defend any infringement of that right. It would also guarantee a constitutional right to defend one’s family with a firearm.

The proposal cleared the state Senate 23-8 on Wednesday after the House passed it 122-31 the day before.

Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) says he’s opposed past proposals that he thought would have put gun rights above other rights, but this is different.

“It ensures that Second Amendment rights, by subjecting government regulations impacting them to strict scrutiny,” says Barnes, referring to a form of judicial review used by courts to determine the constitutionality of certain laws, “is given the same protection afforded every other fundamental right in the United States’ and the Missouri Constitution.”

The ballot issue would also remove wording in the Missouri Constitution that say the right to bear arms does not justify wearing concealed weapons. Representative Linda Black (D-Desloge) says that brings to the Constitution up to date.

“Several years ago we passed that conceal and carry law, that we have the right to carry after completing sufficient course,” says Black. “So, it is something that needs to be changed. It’s inaccurate in our Constitution. It’s an error at this point in time that needs to be fixed.”

Representative Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis) thinks the changes would hinder the prosecution of criminals that use guns.

“Current law allows those city prosecutors to file criminal charges for those who ignore the law,” says Newman, “and yet this resolution takes that tool away.”

The language for the November ballots reads, “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?”

House passes student transfer fix with scaled back private school option

May 1, 2014 By Mike Lear

The state House has approved a plan to change a 21-year-old law that lets students transfer out of failing schools into better ones. House Republicans pared back significantly a provision that would make private schools one of the places those students could go.

Representative Rick Stream (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Rick Stream carried the student transfer fix legislation in the House. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Transfers have been occurring this year in two suburban St. Louis Districts and the cost of paying to transfer their students prompted lawmakers to try to change the law.

Under the bill, students who have been in an unaccredited school in an unaccredited district for at least one semester could first go to a better-performing school in that district. If no space is available, those students could then transfer to a neighboring district or to a charter school or nonreligious private school in the same or an adjoining county.

The changes to the private school portion would limit it to Jackson County, St. Louis County and St. Louis City. Private schools accepting transfer students would have to follow state laws regarding safety and student performance. Local voters would have to approve such transfers.

“We have taken away every argument usually used by the folks I would call the ‘education establishment’ against the private option,” says Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City).

Some Democrats were not satisfied. Representative Margo McNeil (D-Florissant) says she spent much of the session working on the bill and now can’t support it.

“This is the purpose of this entire bill,” says McNeil. “Really it has not been about fixing the transfer problem, which was a very simple problem. It has been, ‘How do we get passed in the State of Missouri … a bill that puts public money in the hands of private schools?”

The House proposes having sending districts pay 70 percent of their own tuition costs for students who transfer, plus additional money to cover transportation. Receiving districts could also set class size standards to avoid overcrowding.

The House passage means the bill goes back to the Senate. It is expected to wind up in a conference between the two chambers.

See how House members voted on the transfer proposal

House sends $26.6-billion budget to Senate (VIDEO)

March 27, 2014 By Mike Lear

The state House has approved a $26.6-billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The House’s proposal now goes to the Senate.

Because legislative budget makers disagreed with Governor Jay Nixon (D) on an estimate of how much revenue Missouri will receive in the next fiscal year, House budget makers propose spending up to their projection, then propose appropriations out of a new surplus revenue fund any amounts higher.

The spending plan includes a $122-million increase for K-12 education out of general revenue, with another $156-million possible out of the surplus revenue fund.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) outlines some key items in the House’s proposed budget (courtesy; Jonathan Lorenz, Missouri House Communications):

During Thursday’s discussion in the chamber, House Democrats offered their strongest criticism of the two-tiered approach.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“Underestimating revenue means that the $156-million recommended by the Governor for the foundation formula will not be distributed to local school districts until everything else in the state budget is funded this year,” said Representative Margo McNeil (D-Florissant). “It means that money will not be available for this school you. You cannot budget for something you don’t know that you will receive. Underestimating means that Missouri school districts will plan less and will achieve less.”

McNeil was critical of the House budget having a 1-percent decrease in the number of state employees and the change from a 3-percent raise in state employee pay partway through the year recommended by the Governor to a 1-percent increase.

Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) says the revenue projections used by House budget makers are more realistic.

“The Governor brought us a budget based on pixie dust predictions and long shot legislation.”

The proposal does not include federal money for the expansion of Medicaid. Republicans saying accepting that federal money would increase the national debt and continue to put money into an inefficient program. Democrats say expansion would extend health care to hundreds of thousands of Missourians and would free up more money in the budget for other needs such as education.

Hearings continue on proposed Medicaid reform, expansion plan

March 24, 2014 By Mike Lear

A House Committee will continue its hearings on a Republican proposal for reform and expansion of Medicaid Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning.

The Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability will hear Monday at 2 p.m. the portions of the legislation dealing with health care homes, managed care, and managed care requirements. In a hearing Tuesday beginning at 8 a.m. the committee will discuss the “Show-Me Healthy Babies program,” proposed to provide medical coverage to unborn children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), increases in eligibility, and coverage for high-cost Medicaid recipients with complex medical conditions who would fall under a new category of “medically frail.”

The hearings will take place in Hearing Room 3 in the basement of the State Capitol.

The proposal is HB 1901, sponsored by Representative Noel Torpey (R-Independence).

Earlier stories:

Hearing highlights work requirement, premium in House Republican Medicaid plan

House Republican files Medicaid expansion, reform proposal

Hearing highlights work requirement, premium in House Republican Medicaid plan

March 11, 2014 By Mike Lear

A House Committee has held the first hearing of a Republican proposal for reform and expansion of Medicaid.

Representative Noel Torpey (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The first of three planned hearings to pick apart the bill has focused on reform components. Drawing the most criticism on the day are the proposals of a requirement that Medicaid recipients have a job, be looking for one or be a student, and that participants pay a premium of 1-percent of their income.

Saint Louis University law professor Sidney Watson tells the committee those might not be legal, and says there is a question of whether the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to grant waivers to allow them to become policy.

“The Secretary has never approved a straight premium charge that results in ineligibility for nonpayment,” says Watson of the premium proposal, “because of concerns that people earning below or near the poverty line can in any given month have problems coming up with those payment charges.”

The bill is written so that if those waivers aren’t both granted, the legislation as a whole would fail. Joel Ferber with Legal Services of Eastern Missouri urges the committee to remove that contingency.

“It just seems like a very potentially not very productive endeavor. I think the key is to either modify these two provisions or to loosen up the waiver provision so if you get 99.9-percent of the waivers you want you can still go forward.”

Committee Chairman Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) says he isn’t convinced those provisions would not be approved for waivers, and says they are key to the bill.

“I think it’s only fair that we require an able-bodied person to actually work before they qualify for Medicaid,” Barnes says. “I think Missourians are willing to help those who are willing to help themselves.”

Barnes hopes to have the next hearing on the Monday after next week’s Spring Break, with a focus on more reform components.

The legislation is HB 1901.

See our earlier story on the legislation.

House Republican files medicaid expansion, reform proposal

February 19, 2014 By Mike Lear

A Republican plan for expansion and reform of Medicaid has been filed.

Representatives Jay Barnes (left) and Noel Torpey (right) were announced as the chairs of 2 House Interim Committees on Medicaid last summer by House Speaker Tim Jones (center). (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.

Representative Noel Torpey (R-Independence) has filed the bill after chairing one of two House interim committees on Medicaid last summer. Torpey’s proposal takes a different approach from past legislation in that it would require Medicaid recipients old enough to work to have jobs.

It would extend Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes below the federal poverty level and, Torpey says, it would help people making between the poverty level and 138 percent of the poverty level buy private insurance on the federal exchange.

“Why not help people who are trying to help themselves?” Torpey asks. “From a state’s perspective it’s fiscally responsible.”

Torpey says another key component of the bill is transparency for hospitals.

“We should know what non-life-threatening procedures cost … time after time after time, they don’t want to share that information and that’s unfortunate,” says Torpey. “I think that in itself will help some of the costs in healthcare.”

The lead co-sponsor on the bill is Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City), who chaired the other of those interim committees and has filed Medicaid reform legislation in the past.

He says another chief difference between those bills and this one is the requirement of at least one-percent of a recipient’s annual income to be paid in a premium for a coverage plan.

“We need recipients to take the responsibility to pay some of their own money for their health insurance,” says Barnes. “Because they make lower incomes that’s going to be a lower amount of money, but I think it’s important that they pay what they can into the system in order to get their own health insurance.”

Legislative staff are still preparing an estimate of the impact Torpey’s bill will have on state revenue, and he believes it will save the state money.
“I’m eager to see how positive it is,” Torpey tells Missourinet.

Torpey’s legislation is HB 1901.

State officials testify to House Committee about execution procedures (AUDIO)

February 10, 2014 By Mike Lear

The Director of the Department of Corrections has for the first time spoken publicly about the questions and controversy raised in recent months over the carrying out of executions.

Director of the Department of Corrections George Lombardi testifies to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

George Lombardi has told the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability it is a statutory requirement that his Department conduct executions, and it is working within the statutory framework in place to do so.

“Keeping in mind, please,” Lombardi asks of the Committee, “Statute mandates the Department of Corrections to carry out executions. It doesn’t say, ‘Try your best.'”

He says it is because of that mandate that the Department looked “all over the country” for a way to acquire a drug to use in lethal injections when it became clear it could no longer use propofol.

“We found that there was a compounding pharmacy that was willing to [provide the drugs], and that’s what moved us forward to change the protocol accordingly.”

Lombardi did not confirm or dispute the identity of the pharmacy, reported to be located in Oklahoma and only now seeking a license in Missouri. He did confirm that the drugs are paid for in cash, something that he says has been true since the administration of Governor John Ashcroft.

Lombardi says all those involved in the execution protocol who must be paid are paid in cash. He says that is because those participants have made clear that they would not be involved if they were paid any other way. He says it was part of maintaining anonymity for those participants.

Lombardi tells the Committee that to pay those individuals in any other way would be “the de-factor abolishment of the death penalty.”

Listen to the testimony of Corrections Department Director George Lombardi, 28:30

His testimony was challenged by Attorney Joe Luby with the Death Penalty Litigation Center, who says Lombardi is “abusing” the state statute that requires the identities of members of an execution team to be kept secret.

“The same statute defines ‘execution team’ very narrowly,” says Luby. He quotes, “The execution team those persons who administer lethal chemicals and those persons such as medical personnel who provide direct support for the administration of lethal chemicals.”

That shouldn’t include the pharmacy, says Luby, who says then that the pharmacy’s identity should not be kept secret and it should therefore not be paid in cash.

Luby also accuses Corrections of moving too quickly in carrying out executions.

“It is absolutely unacceptable for the state to execute prisoners before the courts can resolve their claims. That has been the case with the last three prisoners who were executed in this state. This is a uniquely Missourian pattern of behavior.”

A federal judge has also been critical of the timing o the execution of Allen Nicklasson in December.

Assistant Missouri Attorney General David Hansen tells the Committee Missouri has acted within the law.

“The law is clear that the pendency of litigation is an insufficient reason to stop an execution,” Hansen says. “On January 29th, the date of [Herbert] Smulls’ execution, the State of Missouri directly went to the United States Supreme Court and asked if the execution should happen. The Court said no, the execution should not be stopped. They said that three different times on that day.”

The Chairman of the Committee, Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City), says he is satisfied that Missouri has not executed while a stay was in place that should have halted it.

As for what action, if any, he thinks the legislature needs to take based on what it learned on Monday, Barnes says, “I don’t think there’s any chance of any moratorium being put in place. I also think … the legislature out to take a close look at the procedures, especially how pharmaceuticals are procured.”

Barnes refers to legislation offered by Representative John Rizzo (D-Kansas City), that proposes a moratorium while an 11-member panel reviews death penalty and execution protocol. His legislation (HB 1409) has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee but a hearing has not been scheduled.

“I really feel like this process is being spitballed together in an aspect to carry out the law,” says Rizzo, “but in the process maybe does violate law.”

Rizzo says the legislature needs to have some oversight into the execution process.

“The policy invariably forces illegalities,” Rizzo says he learned on Monday. “The Director (of corrections) has to carry out an execution, but there are no pharmaceuticals available to do that. Then he has to go above and beyond to actually go to a pharmacy that’s not regulated by the State of Missouri that, in essence, violates FDA regulations.”

Barnes noted legislation filed last week by Representative Eric Burlison (R-Springfield), HB 1737, that would make the execution protocol subject to review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules as being one avenue for increasing oversight. That bill has not been referred to a committee. Rizzo is one of its co-signers.

Missouri is scheduled to carry out another execution on February 26; that of Michael Taylor, who pled guilty in the abduction and murder of 15-year-old Ann Harrison girl in Kansas City 1989.

Department of Corrections will not testify Tuesday about executions

January 21, 2014 By Mike Lear

There will be no revelations in a legislative committee hearing today about how Missouri carries out executions.

Jay Barnes (left) was asked by House Speaker Tim Jones (right) to hold hearings of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability on the execution process used by the Corrections Department. (Photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.)

Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) says the Department of Corrections’ Director George Lombardi is not going to testify before the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability, which Barnes chairs. The Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing to take testimony regarding the death penalty from the Department today.

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) asked Barnes to hold hearings on the issue in light of questions regarding the Department’s procurement of execution drugs and how it determines whether a condemned man has exhausted all of his appeals.

See our earlier story on the call for the Oversight Committee investigation.

Barnes says he had a lengthy telephone discussion Monday with someone “above Corrections,” who informed him that Lombardi would not testify on Tuesday. The reason for the refusal is not being stated publicly.

Without Lombardi, Barnes says he won’t take testimony.

“Every investigation this committee has done has involved testimony from both sides of an issue or occurrence. I want to keep it that way and want to ensure that when there’s a hearing that the Department of Corrections testifies as well as, potentially, people on the other side of the issue.”

Barnes says he has been assured that Lombardi will testify to the Committee at another time, but says it’s disappointing that it won’t be happening today.

“Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, everyone should agree that it ought to be carried out with respect for our Constitution and the rule of law. These issues are not going away and the Committee is looking forward to exploring them at a future date.”

Barnes says as long as he believes an agreement can be reached to have Lombardi testify at a later date he won’t attempt to use a subpoena to make that happen, but says if the director continues to refuse to appear it would be appropriate to consider a subpoena.

He says the Committee will still meet Tuesday but it will be an organizational meeting only. No testimony will be taken.