Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

2009 Federal Budget Senate


2009 Federal Budget Senate document sample

More Info
									                                          March 28, 2009

                  Missouri’s Stimulus Dollars get Priority Attention
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), popularly know as the ―federal economic
stimulus package‖ makes no specific references to substance abuse or addiction, but it is a major
factor in Missouri FY2010 budget development this year. The Senate Select Committee on
Oversight of Federal Stimulus is chaired by Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) and vice chair is Sen.
Rita Heard Days (D-St. Louis). Members are Sens. Purgason, Schmitt, Pearce, Schaefer, Ridgeway,
Dempsey, Goodman, Callahan, Justus, Stouffer and Crowell. The committee is charged with
analyzing strategies for securing the maximum amount of federal dollars for Missouri from the ARRA.

Some legislators would like to spend State General Revenue dollars and then supplant those funds
with federal dollars, so that the money could then be used for one-time expenditures. Governor
Nixon‘s policy director, Jeff Harris, cautioned the committee that Missouri should ―proceed carefully
and conservatively and not attempt to play any games or appear to be appropriating money in
ways contrary to the spirit and letter of the law of this act (ARRA).‖

                  The Missouri Department of Mental Teleconference Sessions for
                             Department of Mental Health Providers

                      American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
                             Maximizing Opportunities

      Session 1     April 6       8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (FULL)
      Session 2     April 6       3:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. (FULL)
      Session 3     April 10      9:00 a.m-10:30 a.m.
      Session 4     April 10      2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

      With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a number of federal
      funding streams have opened up for state government, including some that may advance
      mental health supports and services for Missourians. The Department of Mental Health strongly
      encourages consideration of opportunities for state-level funding as well as opportunities for
      local partnerships supported by funding through local entities (such as school districts,
      workforce investment boards, caring communities, etc.)
      NOTE: Registration for this event is required. Space is limited and will be allocated on a first-
      come, first-served basis. You may register by sending your name, organization, address,
      telephone number, preferred time and email address to Please
      make every effort to only use on line per organization. Telephones with mute capability must
      be used for this teleconference. Calls from cell phones will not be accepted. Q and A session
      will be held at the end of the teleconference. Additional information will be sent to confirmed
      attendees prior to the teleconference. For questions, call (573) 751-7033.

                           Registration Deadline is 12:00 Noon on April 8, 2009.

Governor Nixon created by executive order a council to review and make recommendations on ARRA.
The Economic Stimulus Coordination Council was tasked with review and providing a
framework for the Governor‘s Office, General Assembly, and various political subdivisions, but will not
be involved in any specific project recommendations or funding decisions. The Council‘s February 27
report to the Governor makes no mention of DMH or its programs, which are apparently not in the
purview of the ARRA. The Council identified 10 ―points and recommendations:‖

      1.    Time is of the essence.
      2.    A cooperative effort is needed.
      3.    Missouri should have one application for competitive dollars.
      4.    A specific state agency must be assigned to each appropriation resource.
      5.    A statewide focus is required (urban, suburban, rural)
      6.    Twinning (coupling programs that are interactive) increases the impact.
      7.    Recommendations by individual Council members are submitted.
      8.    Sustainable jobs and programs should be created.
      9.    An opportunity exists for long term planning.
      10.   Accountability and transparency are required.

The Council foresees that a large number of notices, rules, RFQs and RFPs will be issued by the
federal government, and that state agencies will need to remain alert and be able to respond quickly.
It emphasizes that Missouri must ―get its fair share of these dollars or else Missourians will be
subsidizing other states.‖ It also notes that the ARRA ―delegates to the Governor the leadership
role and statutory duties, and still more duties to the Executive Branch for implementation.‖
Specifically, the report recommends that, ―given the complexity of this implementation, it is critical
that Missouri establish a temporary Washington D.C. presence focused on Missouri‘s interests
and issues under the ARRA and work closely with the Missouri Congressional Delegation.‖

or many years, Missouri did have an office and staff in the nation’s capital. This in effect
served as the state‘s lobbying presence there. The position, and the office, were closed as a cost-
cutting move during the Holden administration, after legislators argued that the state already had 11
lobbyists, i.e. nine U.S. House members and two members of the U.S. Senate. Gov. Nixon has not
yet responded to the Council‘s recommendation in this regard.

Missouri has received almost $269 million in the first three rounds of federal ARRA dollars. Also
received are additional unemployment benefits, but these are deposited into the Unemployment
Trust Fund.      The total projected amount is $4 billion to $6+ billion, when all of the other
aspects of the ARRA are taken into account.

The money will be separated into two funds: the Federal Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, and the
Federal Stimulus Fund. These funds were opened by executive order in late February, and the two
funds were codified in law on March 26, when Gov. Nixon signed SB 313, which had bi-partisan
support. ―The funds we receive under the federal recovery act are intended to create jobs and
transform Missouri‘s economy, and I am committed to ensuring that each and every recovery dollar is
used in an open and accountable manner to accomplishments,‖ Nixon said in a news release. ―These
funds will be an important tool to help state officials, government agencies and all Missourians ensure
that our recovery funds are put to the best use possible to help turn our economy around.‖

Governor Nixon has established a website where citizens can submit their ideas about how to best
use of the ARRA money: The “Transparency” section of that website
intends to provide current information on amounts received, federal source, where deposited, and
―items for which those funds were spent.‖ Missourians are also encouraged to share their
proposals and their ideas. More than 3,300 ideas and proposals have been submitted. On the
federal level,, is the portal for information on ARRA, including a link to
the full text of the legislation.

              Senate Passes DUI Roadside Memorial Sign Legislation
Senate Bill 84, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Purgason (R-Caulfield), was passed by the Senate on
March 4, by a vote of 32-0, and sent to the House. The bill originally designated a bridge in
Laclede County as the Specialist James M. Findley Memorial Bride. It was amended on the Senate
floor by Sen. Tim Green (D-St. Louis), who sponsored SB 93, which contains the ―Drunk Driving
Risk Reduction Awareness Program.” SB 93 itself has been given first-round approval and is on
the calendar for a final vote.

      The legislation was inspired by Hazelwood resident Gail Rehme, whose 19-year old brother,
      David Louis Poenicke, was killed in 1984, in a DUI crash, when Gail was 10. Gail went to her
      mayor with her idea several years ago, and the mayor directed her to her Senator and
      Representative. This is the third year for the legislation. It was passed by the House last year
      but failed in the Senate. You can read Gail‘s story, and the nonprofit organization she has
      established to help other families cover the MoDOT cost of the signs, at the Internet site she
      has created: This is an example of what can be accomplished with
      initiative taken by a citizen activist, and legislators who are responsive.

SB 84 requires the MoDOT to establish and administer a drunk driving risk reduction awareness
program, in the form of memorial signs, to be know as "David's Law." Signs are to be placed at or
near the scene of the accident, attached to an existing highway sign, street light, or guard rail. The
bill requires MoDOT to adopt, by rules and regulations, guidelines for implementation of the program.

Any person may apply to MoDOT to sponsor a drunk driving victim memorial sign in memory of an
immediate family member who died as a result of a crash caused by a person who was shown to
have been operating a vehicle in violation of an DUI law at the time of the crash.. On request of an
immediate family member of the deceased victim involved in a drunk driving crash, MoDOT shall
place a sign. A person not a member of the victim's immediate family may also submit a request, if
that person provides written consent of a victim's immediate family member. MoDOT shall charge the
sponsoring party a fee to cover the cost in designing, constructing, placing, and maintaining the sign.
Signs remain in place for ten years, and may be renewed for another 10 years after payment of
appropriate maintenance fees.
The signs developed by the department shall resemble a Missouri license plate and feature the words
"Drunk Driving Victim!", the initials of the deceased victim, the month and year in which the victim of
the drunk driving accident was killed, and the phrase "Who's Next?" All private roadside memorials
or markers commemorating the death of a drunk driving victim are prohibited. No person, other than
a MoDOT employee or the department's designee, may erect a drunk driving victim memorial sign.

Meanwhile, in the House, Representative Bill Deeken‘s HB 213, which contains identical language,
received a ―do pass‖ recommendation from the House Committee on Transportation on March 3. We
can expect SB 84 to be referred to that committee by the Speaker.

           Drug Testing of TANF Families Approved by House Committee
Drug testing proposals are popular this year. A dozen bills propose required drug testing under
certain conditions. Five of them target applicants and for and recipients of Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF). Two Senate bills, SB 73 (Stouffer) and SB 86 (Crowell) were heard by
the Senate Committee on Progress and Development on February 11, but no action has been taken
since then. SB 183 (Bartle) has not been scheduled for a hearing. HB 949 (Gatschenberger),
introduced recently, has 44 co-sponsors. However, the lead bill in the House, HB 30 (Brandom),
was given a “do pass” recommend-ation by the House Committee on Children & Families
on March 12, reported out and referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has
scheduled a hearing on the bill for March 30.

The committee vote was 7-4, along party lines, with one absentee. Voting ―aye‖ were Reps. Cynthia
Davis (R-O‘Fallon), the Chair; Ervin, (R-Kearney) the Vice Chair; Wayne Cooper (R-Osage Beach), Ed
Emery (R-Lamar), Jeff Grisamore (R-Lee‘s Summit), Mike McGhee (R-Odessa), and Therese Sander
(R-Moberly). Voting ―no‖ were Reps. Tom McDonald (D-Independence), Margo McNeil (D-Florissant),
Jill Schupp (D-Creve Coeur), and Steve Webb (D-Florissant). The committee clerk, Rep. Davis‘
legislative assistant, reports that the committee did not look at the Fiscal Note on the bill
before the vote was taken.

In the Fiscal Note, both the Office of the Attorney General and the DSS Division of Legal Services
suggest that lawsuits may be filed in state and federal courts challenging the law on
constitutional grounds. The AGO reports that ―aside from the costs of making changes to the
implementation of the program, AGO assumes that this proposal has the potential to be the subject
of state and federal litigation. Potential costs for such defense is unknown.‖

The Fiscal Note on HB 30 shows an Estimated Net Effect for FY2012 on the General Revenue Fund of
“Unknown but Greater than $5,098,715.‖ The DSS Family Support Division estimates that the
average yearly cost to do drug testing of ALL recipients and applicants, using ―a private vendor‖ to
administer its program, with data provided by the private contractor for DOC, would be $4,392,900.
      Ed. Note: The text of the bill makes a distinction between ―screening and testing‖ and that
      testing is to be based on screening: ―… The department of social services shall develop a
      program to screen and test each work-eligible applicant or work-eligible recipient who is
      otherwise eligible for (TANF) and who the department has reasonable cause to believe,
      based on screening, engages in illegal use of controlled substances.‖

The Oversight Division, which issues fiscal notes, ―assumes per phone conversation with DSS that a
savings might be realized. The average TANF grant is $292 for a family of three (a parent and
two children). If the parent tested positive and was declared ineligible for TANF benefits the grant
would decrease to $234 and a $58 savings would be realized. Based on the 7.9% statistic
used by DMH in 2008, Oversight believes the DSS could have a saving of $0 to $1,869,456 ($58 X
2,686 X 12).‖

The bill requires DSS to refer applicants who test positive for drug use to appropriate treatment
approved by DMH. DMH reports: “DMH is currently utilizing all current treatment capacity.
A significant cost would be incurred if DMH were to be required to treat all referred
applicants/recipients. The division (ADA) does not know the number of TANF clients that will test
positive for drugs or the number of those that test positive for drugs nor the number of those that
test positive that will present for treatment. Treatment costs per person (based on FY07 data) in a
Primary Recovery (General Revenue) program is $1,070. Treatment costs person in a CSTAR
program is $2,511 …. If only an additional 100 persons were treated, it would cost
between $96,400 and $107,000.”

Interestingly, the Fiscal Note on SB 73 and SB 86 (filed by Oversight 6 days later) shows a Total
Esti-mated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund of ―Unknown but Greater Than $21,101,074 for
FY2012. Again, DSS/FSD states that it is ―responsible for testing all applicants,‖ but adds that each
application has an average of three (3) people (total of 231,192 annually) and ―it may be necessary
to test recipients on an annual basis,‖ so the average yearly cost is calculated at $17,339,400.
Oversight estimates a saving of $0 to $5,603,496, created by ineligibility of 8,051 persons. The
text of the Fiscal Note is at

          Opposition to Drug Testing of TANF Applicants and Recipients
Mandatory testing of welfare recipients is opposed by the American Public Health Association,
National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Council on Alcoholism and
Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project,
National Association on Alcohol, Drugs & Disability, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National
Black Women‘s Health Project, Legal Action Center, National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center,
Juvenile Law Center, National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, and the American Civil Liberties
Union (list accessed on April 8, 2008).

An ACLU summary,, makes the
follow-ing points in opposition:

      Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically,
       fiscally and constitutionally unsound.

      Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population (NIAAA).

      Seventy percent of all illicit drug users age 18-49 are employed full-time.

      Resources could be allocated toward better training for workers to detect signs of substance
       abuse and mental disorders and to greater assistance and treatment for those who need help.

      Drug testing is expensive, and the cost to ―catch‖ drug users is not warranted, based on
       findings reported by private employers.

      Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse, the most commonly abused substance
       among Americans (none of the Missouri bills include alcohol in drugs for which to be screened
       or tested).
      Many states have rejected random drug testing as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.

      A Michigan drug testing law was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. U. S. District Court
       Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state‘s rationale ―could be used for testing of parents of
       all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public
       education or any other benefit from that State.‖ (Marchwinski v. Howard)

For a more comprehensive review of these issues, see ―Addressing Substance Abuse Problems
Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators – Final Report” (Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., July 19, 2000):

                         Missouri Budgeting: A “Flawed Process”??
At a time when access to information, accountability and ―transparency‖ are watchwords, both inside
and outside government, it is not surprising that Missouri‘s budget-building process should come
under greater scrutiny than ever. The blogosphere contains frequent commentary that calls into
question public confidence in the processes and procedures that create confusion, and are either
partly understood or misunderstood. Even veteran Capitol-watchers often shake their heads. For
example, the nonprofit advocacy organization Missouri Budget Project ( writes
of the March 11 Budget Committee marathon:

                                    NOTE: Relevant Missouri blogrolls
                    (compilations of lists of links to other blogs or websites) can be found at

       ―During the mark-up, Committee members offered 107 amendments. Most were
       defeated. If a Committee member proposes to increase funding for a specific program
       or service, the Budget Chair‘s rules require a member to first identify a line item to
       decrease, and get Committee approval for that. Since there are a small number of
       programs that can realistically be decreased, several areas took big hits. For example,
       26 amendments were proposed that used information technology in the
       Office of Administration as the source for their funding. Ten of these
       amendments passed, and Chair Icet said that he probably would have to revisit these
       cuts because they appear to be too deep.‖

       “This zero-sum approach is a flawed process. It allows for no way to prioritize
       the importance of the proposed amendments. Amendments that are offered first have
       the best chance of passing, even though later amendments may address a much more
       pressing need.‖

      ―The most frustrating aspect of the deep cuts is that they are not only cruel, but also
      unnecessary. The federal stimulus money was approved, in part, to prevent states
      from cutting services at a time when more individuals and families are vulnerable
      because of the economic downturn. The Budget Chair‘s refusal to use this money as
      intended will harm vulnerable Missourians, will create more unemployment in both the
      public and private sectors, and will harm the state‘s economy.‖

The Missouri Budget Project reports that the proposed cuts in mental health services in House Bill 10
were partially restored: ―The House Budget Committee partially restored funding for Comprehensive
Psychiatric Services, Services for Alcohol and Drug Addiction, and cost to continue Medicaid services
in its Committee Substitute. Overall, the proposal would continue to cut funding for Mental Health
services by $48.7 million in general revenue, resulting in the loss millions in federal funding.
Several thousand Missouri children and adults with severe mental illness, or developmental disabilities
could still lose services. In addition, nearly 400 jobs could be at risk as a result of these cuts.
[Source cited: Missouri Department of Mental Health, “Impact of Proposed House Budget
Committee Funding Cuts on Missourians with Developmental Disabilities, Mental Illness
and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Disorders,‖ March 2009]

―[The HCS] reduces funding by $1 million for treatment of low-income Missourians facing drug
and alcohol addiction. The cut could result in a loss of treatment for an estimated 1,000
Missourians. The funding currently supports services such as the CSTAR programs. The CSTAR
programs cover multi-tiered drug and alcohol abuse treatment and include centers that serve
pregnant women and their children.‖

The process is complicated this year due to the potential availability of federal “stimulus” money,
but access to those funds may be blocked by limitations on use. The KC Star reported (March 12)
that Budget Chair Allen Icet (R-Wildwood) conceded that the budget would use funds in ways his
party argued against, but said that it was necessary to comply with federal guidelines to ensure that
Missouri received its share. ‗I‘m trying to cover every base possible,‘ Icet said.‖

Reporting by the media doesn‘t always provide readers, viewers and listeners with the kind of
information they are looking for. That may be because details worked out in committee are not
posted online and are only accessible to those who attend hearings or have access to staff record-
keeping. So we read generalizations like those in the Star (March 12): ―The introduced House
budget also cut millions from existing social programs and services, including alcohol and drug-
addicted treatment, meals for seniors, county health centers and public health centers. On
Wednesday, lawmakers from both parties restored a few of the cuts, including those affecting county
health centers, smoking-cessation programs for young Missourians and a portion of those that pay
for meals for seniors.‖

      News Analysis: Budget Chair “Amasses Power, Limits Deliberation”
In an analysis published in the March 14 edition of the Jefferson City News-Tribune, AP‘s Capitol
correspondent David Lieb comments on the way budgets are developed in the Missouri House of
Representatives. Lieb, who has covered state government and politics since 1995, writes: ―Twenty-
nine members of the House Budget Committee met in a morning-to-midnight marathon in Hearing
Room 3 to hash out the details of Missouri‘s $22.8 billion budget. But the real work already had
been done behind closed doors of State Capitol Room 306. That‘s the office of House Budget
Committee Chairman Allen Icet, whose power over Missouri‘s money has grown stronger because of
an evolution of House rules and tradition.‖

Lieb points out that as recently as a decade ago, the budget chairs introduced the Governor’s
budget plan as legislation. In 2002, when Republicans took control, they stopped introducing the
Governor‘s budget as legislation and started using the Chairman‘s (Carl Bearden) own proposal.
Bearden has said that he did so because he disagreed philosophically with the budget sent to them
by then-Democratic Gov. Bob Holden. He is also quoted as saying that the appropriations
committees had ―at tendency over time to become advocates instead of appropriators.‖ This year,
Icet did not introduce the last of ―his‖ budget bills (HB 10) until March 5 – six days before the House
Budget Committee began its deliberations, debate, amendment and approval in one long day of
work.. .

      ―When you give a legislative body hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to vital programs
      literally hours before they have to vote on them, they cannot reasonably be expected to make
      decisions, and the public does not have an opportunity for input,‖ said Rep. Chris Kelly, D-
      Columbia, who served as House budget chairman in 1990‘s left office and then returned this
      year to the House….. . Icet adds: ―Why do you put something that you philosophically
      disagree with into your budget bill, and then you change your own budget bills? It really
      makes no sense to start that way.‖

   Ed. Note: Advocates point out that the Governor‘s budget is based on needs identified by the
various executive agencies, though tempered by fiscal constraints, and that the money is not ―his‖
money, the Budget chair‘s money or the party‘s money but the taxpayer‘s money being appropriated.

                          TABOR Bill Narrowly Passed by House
The House on March 12 voted 82-78 in favor of HJR 23 (Icet), a proposed constitutional
amendment that would limit annual increases in state spending to rate of inflation plus
population growth. The bill goes to the Senate, which has failed to act on similar proposals in
recent years. If it were to clear the Senate, it would be put on the November 2010 statewide ballot
for action by voters. The bill also creates a Cash Operating Fund, a Budget Reserve Fund, and a
Taxpayer Protection Stabilization Fund, and spells out the conditions under which money can be
transferred between the various funds. The limit may only be exceeded if the Governor declares an
emergency and the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority, approves budget bills to meet the

HJR 23 is known as ―the TABOR bill,‖ or ―a TABOR-like bill,‖ and some analyses do not bother to
define the acronym, assuming that the reader will know what a TABOR is. TABOR was the acronym
for the original Taxpayer Bill of Rights adopted by the state of Colorado in 1992, which was hailed
as a major achievement at the time. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, TABOR
has resulted in a significant decline in that state‘s public services, has been amended substantially
(―TABOR Reform‖), and is now viewed as deeply flawed by business and community leaders. For
background on the Colorado experience, see “A Formula for Decline: Lessons Learned from
Colorado for States Considering TABOR” at Arguments advanced by both
proponents and opponents of TABOR are included in a Wikipedia entry:
House Amends, Passes and Sends the DMH Appropriations Bill to the Senate

After two days of intense debate, most of it highly partisan, the Missouri House of Representatives
voted 88-66 to pass HB 10, the 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Mental Health
and Health & Senior Services. The bill is one of a package of 13 bills that constitute the $23 billion
operating budget for Missouri state government.. Other votes were 145-11 on HB 8, Dept. of Public
Safety; 98-56 on HB 9, Dept. of Corrections, and 88-66 on HB 11, Dept. of Social Services. At issue
were adequacy of funding for vulnerable populations, the majority party‘s refusal to use federal
stimulus funding for budget stabilization, and the process by which budgeting is done. Several
Democratic House Members raised arguments reviewed in Weekly Legislative Report #7, including
the fact that the budget bills were not introduced until the first week in March, and reflected the
majority‘s proposals rather than the Governor‘s recommendation as a starting point for discussion by
the various appropriations committees.

At one point in the debate, House Budget Chair Allen Icet (R-Wildwood) called on Rep. David
Sater (R-Cassville) the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee to describe the
process and opportunities for input by the public as well as legislators. Rep. Sater noted that his
committee started with public hearings in December, heard 65 public testimonies, heard from
departmental staff, and conducted about 25 meetings. He suggested that House members take more
initiative, consult sources of information, including the World Wide Web, and ask questions along the
way. Democrats responded by saying that they appreciated all the work done by the committees and
their chairpersons, but pointed out that people coming to hearings in December, January and
February could not respond to specific numbers, since they had no idea what the bills would say
until the bills were posted on the website (March 5 for HB 10). The process was described as
―absurd,‖ ―irresponsible,‖ ―undemocratic‖ and ―lacking in transparency.‖

Rep. Rebecca McClanahan (D-Kirksville) quoted Dr. Keith Schafer, DMH Director, telling the
Appropriations Committee—Health & Mental Health that “the Department lives in perpetual
crisis,” one day at a time, trying to make the best of a very difficult situation. She maintained that
―we haven‘t done enough‖ for the state‘s most vulnerable people and also noted, among other
things, that some, but not all, of the substance abuse treatment cuts had been restored by the
Budget Committee.

   The final House version of HB 10, FY2010 does not make changes in the sections that appropriate
funds to the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse:

   Division of ADA Sections of    FY2009 (HB 2010)       FY2010 (HB 10)    FY2010 (HB 10)    FY2010 (HB
             DMH                 CCS – Truly Agreed to    As Introduced   House Committee        10)
       Appropriations Bill        and Finally Passed          3/4/09         Substitute     As Passed by
                                                                                             the House

  Administration                       2,402,820             2,341,133      2,341,133         2,341,133
  Prevention & Education              12,178,994             12,178,994     12,178,994       12,178,994

  Treatment                           95,541,537             97,620,723     100,832,378     100,832,378
  Compulsive Gambling                    499,745                  0           499,745         499,745
  SATOP Program                        4,600,981             4,600,981       4,600,981       4,600,981

  Total                          115,224,077          116,741,831    120,453,231     120,453,231

The Department total in the House-approved bill is $1,182,130,965, or $13.9 million more than
the Committee Substitute. The DMH Director‘s Office line item was reduced by $52,000, and the
authorized number of F.T.E. reduced from 9.52 to 8.52. This was the result of a series of
amendments by freshman Rep. Denny Hoskins (R-Warrensburg) and other Republicans to strip the
budget of the salaries of departmental (i.e. Nixon Administration) Legislative Liaisons,
who were called ―lobbyists paid with taxpayer money‖ for being advocates for their agencies‘ special
interests. They wanted to divert the money for salaries of those Legislative Liaisons to the Areas
Agency on Aging‘s Meals on Wheels program, which had been reduced by the Budget Committee.
This tactic prompted House Minority Leader Paul LeVota (D-Independence) to charge Hoskins with ―a
cheap political stunt,‖ since Hoskins, a member of the Budget Committee, had voted for the reduction
in Meals on Wheels. The charge was heard again several times, by members of both parties.

The budget battle now moves to the Senate and its Appropriations Committee, which has already
conducted public hearings and met with departmental staff. Only seven weeks remain in the session,
and only six weeks until the deadline for budget bills, which must, by law, be Truly Agreed to &
Finally Passed and sent to the Governor by May 8, 2009.

    Supplemental Appropriations Bill is Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed
Senate changes to HB 14, supplemental appropriations for FY2009, were agreed to by the House
and the bill was Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed by a vote of 91-67 on March 24. Debate in the
House centered on health care, which Democrats had hoped to expand. The bill now goes to the
Governor for his signature. Gov. Nixon could exercise his power of line-item (amendatory) veto.
Total amounts appropriated is $312,313,714, of which $28,463,438 comes from the General
Revenue Fund, $157,863,090 from Federal Funds, and $125,987,186 is from ―Other Funds.‖ The bill
includes the following amounts for the Department of Mental Health:
         Overtime for state employees or other expenditures in lieu of overtime: $4,243,854 (G.R.F.)
         For MO HealthNet treatment services department-wide: $5,871,009
              o G.R.F. -- $2,188,618
              o Fed. -- $3,682,391E
         For Shelter Plus Care grants $1,696,475 (G.R.F)
         For MH services and support services to other agencies: $895,350 (MH Interagency Payments
         To pay the state ICF/MR provider tax: $227,276E (G.R.F.)
         For services for children who are clients of DSS: $2,000,000E (MH Interagency Payments Fund)

Added to the bill in the Senate was an appropriation placeholder of $1E (estimated) to the OA
Division of Budget and Planning ―for the purpose of accessing, maximizing and/or leveraging
federal funds, when such funds become available, for projects throughout the state as
identified, prioritized and supervised by the Commissioner of Administration, with notice to the
General Assembly.‖ Included is $1 for the Dept. of Mental Health.

                            One Legislator’s View of the Battle
From Rep. Jim Viebrock (R-Republic), in his March 12 Weekly Report, emailed to constituents and
interested persons:

      ―We are rapidly approaching the deadline for the new 2010 budget in the Missouri
      House. The appropriations committees are (Ed. Note: earlier, but no longer on March
      12) working late into the night stretching every last dollar into the state funded
      programs. Protestors, activists and bureaucrats line the hall and attempt to get a
      moment with the legislators trying to navigate their way to and from meetings.‖

      ―The feeling in the air is a growing tension as rumors of funding reductions circulate the
      masses. In the final hours of the budget committee hearings, over 250 (!) amendments
      were discussed and voted on. Long hours, a tired staff and frustrated legislators labor
      toward the goal of unveiling the proposed 2010 budget. Its debut will no doubt be met
      with great skepticism and outcries of injustice. When we return from our spring break,
      the proposed budget will be printed and available for all to see.‖

      ―‖Just like many of you who are changing the way you balance your checkbook each
      month, we have to do the same. This year‘s budget will not have lavish new spending
      attached to it. It will not have dramatically expanded programs, and we will not grow a
      government that cannot be sustained without new revenues or taxes. If we choose
      to accept the federal money, it will be used for one time projects and not for
      ongoing obligations. Washington D.C. may be out of control, but we have our hands
      firmly on the financial reigns (sic) in the Missouri State Capitol.‖

                 Threats of Filibuster Cloud Controversial Crime Bill

Sen. Luann Ridgeway (R-Smithville) has promised colleagues that she will filibuster SB 261
(Bartle), an omnibus crime bill, if they support a plan allowing Kansas City police officers to make
political contributions or use yard signs or bumper stickers supporting candidates for public office.
She believes that the current language in the bill, which does prohibit soliciting votes, while on duty
or in uniform, does not go far enough to keep police from being involved in political activity. For Sen,
Ridgeway, it is a matter of public safety. The bill has been amended numerous times, and
remains on the Informal Senate Calendar of Bills for Perfection.

SB 261 proposed changes in law covering a wide variety of crimes and law enforcement
issues, including use of false or misleading diplomas, university police officer jurisdiction, imminent
danger from a dog, convicted felons as candidates for public office, stealing of livestock, sexual
exploitation of a minor, resisting arrest for a warrant issued by a probation or parole officer, dog
fighting events, and payments for forensic examinations. Four of the sections deal with alcohol
or other drugs: (1) banning of alcoholic beverage vaporizers (AWOL), (2) continuous
alcohol monitoring as an alternative to serving a lengthier sentence, (3) banning alcohol-related
activities such as possession of beer bongs and other devices for rapid consumption of alcohol
on the state’s rivers; and (4) knowledge of one‘s location not necessary to commit crimes such as
drug distribution near a school, park or public housing. Each of these is the subject of a separate
bill included in the Status Report (below, pp. 4-7.
         Senate Approves Further Liberalization of Alcohol Control Laws

SB 188 (Dempsey) started out as a simple measure dealing with relationships between wholesalers
and retailers - thus not covered in previous Weekly Reports. It is customary for such legislation to
pick up amendments along the way to passage, and this one was no exception. As passed by the
Senate, 34-0, on March 26, SB 188 includes a provision that any person or business would be limited
to five liquor licenses, rather than the current three. It would also allow employees with felony
convictions to participate directly in retail sales, and a license could not be denied, suspended or
revoked based solely on the fact that employee has a felony conviction. Liberalization rarely comes
in broad, sweeping measures; rather it has occurred incrementally but steadily since 1939 (see item
on Page 20, with implications for stigma).

       Senate Passes Transportation Bill with Alcohol-Related Measures

By a vote of 34-0, the Senate passed SB 58 (Stouffer) and sent it to the House on March 26. The
bill contains David’s Law, the MoDOT program of DUI memorial roadside signs (also passed
in a free-standing bill, SB 93). It disqualifies a person from driving a commercial motor vehicle for a
period of not less than a year if convicted for the first violation of an alcohol-related enforcement
contact, and prohibits the expungement of a minor in possession (MIP) charge for holders of
commercial drivers licenses of persons operating commercial motor vehicles at the time of the
violation, or if the person was found guilty with a BAC of 0.04 or greater if the person is holding a
commercial driver‘s license at the time.

The media have covered extensively other parts of the bill, such as the prohibition of sending,
reading or writing text messages or electronic messages while driving (with exception for
emergency situations). A violation of this law would be an infraction (subject to fine) and would be
considered a moving violation. It would supercede local laws dealing with this subject. Also, the bill
revises the motor vehicle safety inspection law by exempting vehicles for a ten-year period
following the model year of manufacture.

                    Education Bill includes New Incentive Program
                       for People Who Work With At-Risk Kids

Among the more than 33 amendments offered (most of them adopted) in a mammoth Senate
education bill, SB 291 (Shields) was an amendment by Sen. Yvonne Wilson (D-Kansas City)
which includes the “Volunteer and Parents Incentive Program”                    This program, to be
administered by DESE, will provide reimbursement to parents or volunteers who donate time at
certain schools. To be eligible, individuals must donate time at a school in a district that is
unaccredited or provisionally accredited or has a population of at least 50% at-risk students. Among
the criteria to be considered an ―at risk student:‖ “… (having) been the victim of personal or
family abuse, including substance abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse.”                     For
every 100 hours donated by a volunteer or parent, DESE will provide him or her with a

reimbursement for the cost of 3 credit hours at a Missouri college or university, with a limit of $500
every two years. SB 291 was given first-round approval on March 25.

              Status Report of Pending Legislation in Senate and House
Presented below is the status of ―bills of interest‖ as of March 29, 2009. Following this grid is a
grid that displays status in the second chamber, once a bill has been approved by the first chamber
(House or Senate).

                                     1 – Introduction, first and second readings
                                     2 – Referred to committee
                                     3 – Committee hearing scheduled
                                     4 – Committee hearing completed
                                     5 – Committee vote taken (exec)
                                     6 – Committee reported to the floor
                                     7 – Posted on calendar for floor debate
                                     8 – Taken up for perfection
                                     9 – Perfected (first-round approval)*
                                    10 – Third read and passed

                      Senate / House Bill                             1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SB 2 (Scott) – Alcohol-related activities on rivers (included in SB   X   X   X   X
SB 8 (Champion) – Crime lab review commission                         X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 9 (Champion) – MH professional to HealthNet Oversight              X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 18 (Bray) – Universal health assurance                             X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 26 (Ridgeway) – Ban on alcohol vaporizers (AWOL)                   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 33 (Wilson) – Drop-out prevention                                  X
SB 34 (Wilson) – Food stamps for felons in recovery                   X
SB 44 (Pearce) – Regulations for private jails                        X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 46 (Schaefer) – Min. prison terms unless treatment is              X   X   X   X
SB 58 (Stouffer) – Amendment of commercial driver license law         X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 61 (Wilson) – Youth smoking prevention                             X   X   X   X   X
SB 73 (Stouffer) – Drug testing of TANF applicants, recipients        X   X   X   X
SB 84 (Purgason) – Includes SB 93 (DWI signs) by amendment            X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 86 (Crowell) – Drug testing of TANF applicants, recipients         X   X   X   X
SB 93 (Green) – DWI risk reduction – memorial road signs              X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 116 (Bray) – Dropout prevention                                    X   X   X   X
SB 120 (Bray) – Expansion of medical coverage                         X   X   X   X
SB 135 (Dempsey) – School nurse salaries                              X
SB 140 (Smith) – Criminal non-support case disposition                X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 147 (Dempsey) – Workplace prevention program recognition           X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 160 (Crowell) – Meth-related product scheduling                    X   X   X   X
SB 170 (Shoemyer) – Additions to HealthNet Oversight Comm.            X   X
SB 183 (Bartle) – Drug testing of TANF applicants, recipients         X   X
SB 188 (Dempsey) – Revisions (liberalization) of alcohol control      X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 192 (Shoemyer) – Re-definition of intoxication-related     X   X
SB 204 (Goodman) – Prescribing psychologist licensing         X   X   X   X   X
SB 219 (Ridgeway) – Continuous alcohol monitoring as option   X   X   X   X
SB 250 (Smith) – DOC comprehensive HIV/AIDS prison program    X   X
SB 258 (Schaefer) – MH duties of county counselors            X   X   X

                      Senate / House Bill                               1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
SB 261 (Bartle) – Drug-related offenses near schools, parks,            X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 291 (Shields) – Omnibus education bill, including at-risk            X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 295 (Scott) – Diagnoses by professional counselors                   X   X
SB 309 (Bray) – Statewide ban on smoking in public places               X   X
SB 322 (Barnitz) – Drug court commissioners in family courts            X   X   X
SB 346 (Schaefer) – Self-service displays of tobacco products           X   X
SB 396 (Justus) – Denial, suspension, revocation of liquor              X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 406 (Scott) – Prescribing of drugs by physician assistants           X   X   X   X   X   X   X
SB 418 (Goodman) – Faith-based community health centers                 X   X
SB 426 (Griesheimer) – Repeals most of ―nonintoxicating beer‖           X   X   X   X
SB 459 (Lager) – Criminalizes prenatal drug use                         X   X   X   X
SB 463 (Days) – Mandated ins. coverage of tx for eating                 X   X   X   X
SB 529 (Goodman) – Criminalizes prenatal drug use                       X   X
SB 534 (Rupp) – Suicide investigations, reporting of drug               X   X
SB 551 (Crowell) – Drug offenses and long-term drug abuse               X   X   X   X

HB 8 (Icet) – FY2010 Appropriations for Dept. of Public Safety          X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 9 (Icet) – FY2010 Appropriations for Dept. of Corrections            X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 10 (Icet) – FY2010 Appropriations for DMH and DHSS                   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 11 (Icet) – FY2010 Appropriations for Dept of Social Services        X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 14 (Icet) – FY2009 Supplemental appropriations for state             X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 30 (Brandom) – Drug testing of TANF applicants, recipients           X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 33 (Sater) – Meth offender registry                                  X   X   X   X
HB 34 (Sater) – Smoking cessation grants                                X
HB 38 (Sater) – Tobacco use prevention and cessation                    X
HB 62 (Lipke) – Omnibus crime bill, including AWOL                      X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 96 (Wallace) – School discipline, liability, safety, and reporting   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 117 (Storch) – Scholarship program requirements                      X
HB 123 (Komo) – Expansion of medical coverage                           X
HB 132 (Fallert) – Expansion of hours of sale of alcohol on             X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 137 (Hughes) – No DOC intervention fees charged to parolees          X
HB 143 (Hughes) – Universal health insurance                            X
HB 146 (Hughes) – Expungement of records, drug offenses                 X
HB 159 (Nance) – Liquor license action re employees who are             X   X   X   X
HB 160 (McGhee) – Child endangerment via drugs                          X   X   X   X
HB 188 (Flook) – Use of school funds for alcohol prohibited             X
HB 212 (Deeken) – Fund for the reduction of alcohol-related             X
HB 213 (Deeken) -- DWI roadside memorial signs                          X   X   X   X   X
                       Senate / House Bill                           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
HB 221 (Lampe) – Restrictions on lobbying by former legislators      X
HB 275 (Sater) – Prescribing by physician assistants                 X   X   X   X   X
HB 277 (Meiners) – Decriminalization of marijuana                    X
HB 290 (Wells) – Drug testing of teachers and school personnel       X   X   X   X
HB 291 (Wells) – Drug testing of drivers who hit pedestrians         X   X   X   X
HB 293 (Nance) – School info on SCHIP to parents                     X   X   X   X   X
HB 308 (Nasheed) – Replace sales tax revenue with alcohol tax        X
HB 326 (Sutherland) – Cleanup of Clinical Social Work definition     X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 330 (Bruns) – Continuous alcohol monitoring as option             X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 339 (El-Amin) – HIV/AIDS comprehensive program in prisons         X   X   X   X   F   A   I   L   E   D
HB 344 (Nolte) – Ban on alcohol vaporizers (AWOL)                    X   X
HB 351 (Parkinson) – 85% of sentence unless treatment is             X   X   X   X
HB 364 (Silvey) – Bans under-21 from entering drinking               X
HB 375 (Hobbs) – Payments to country counselors for MH               X   X
HB 384 (Lipke) – Admin. Hearings, alcohol-related traffic offenses   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 388 (Cooper) – Diagnoses by Professional Counselors               X   X   X   X
HB 394 (Skaggs) – Banning booze from the Capitol                     X
HB 414 (Low) -- Drug testing of rape victims                         X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 437 (Roorda) – Tax on illicit drugs and moonshine                 X
HB 446 (Roorda) – Falsification of drug test results                 X
HB 456 (Allen) – School nurse pay                                    X   X   X   X
HB 464 (Zimmerman) – No lobbying by elected official for one         X
HB 494 (Nasheed) – Increases tobacco tax from 17 to 33 cents         X   X   X   X
per pack
HB 496 (Lipke) – Changes classification of meth precursor drugs      X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 502 (Scharnhorst) – Self-service tobacco displays                 X   X
HB 529 (Grisamore) – MH professional to HealthNet Oversight          X
HB 536 (Dixon) – Licensure of prescribing psychologists              X   X   X   X
HB 546 (J. Smith) – Drug court commissioners in family courts        X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 615 (Tracy) – Change in classification of meth precursors         X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 623 (Roorda) – Change in classification of meth precursors        X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 624 (Dusenberg) – DWI-related search warrants                     X
HB 635 (Holsman) – SCHIP to all children regardless of income        X
HB 636 (Holsman) – Grants to schools for reduction of drop-outs      X
HB 640 (Holsman) – Tobacco products behind checkout counters         X   X
HB 685 (K. Jones) – DWI-related search warrants                      X   X   X   X
HB 691 (Schaaf) – Impaired physician program                         X   X   X   X   X
HB 756 (Grill) – Increases penalty for tobacco sale to underage      X   X
HB 757 (Grill) – Coordinated school health program                   X
HB 791 (Yates ) – Community service added to marijuana               X
HB 796 (Lampe) – Consolidates MH/ADA insurance laws                  X   X
HB 818 (Aull) – School safety and violence prevention fund           X
                      Senate / House Bill                           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
HB 864 (T. Jones) – Modifies definition of intoxicating beverages   X   X   X   X
HB 885 (Stevenson) – Requires tobacco retail sale license           X   X
HB 910 (Schupp) – Surcharge to be paid by businesses not            X
HB 912 (Deeken) -- Ignition interlock following DUI court           X   X
HB 925 (Burnett) – Adds DOR points if injury/death occurs from      X   X
HB 936 (Wildberger) – Drug tests for rape victims                   X
HB 943 (Chapelle-Nadal) – Sale of 32-oz. beer by some licensees     X
HB 949 (Gatschenberger) – Drug testing of TANF applicants           X
HB 950 (Oxford) – Caseload standards for DMH and DHSS               X
HB 953 (Ruestman) – Providers of TCM added to DMH admin.            X   X   X
HB 990 (Kratky) – Possessing drugs and firearms together is a       X
HB 994 (J. Smith) – Criminalizes maternal drug use                  X
HB 995 (Zerr) – Workplace prevention program recognition            X
HB 1042 (Gatschenberger) – Requires ignition interlock for first    X
HB 1066 (Morris) – Drug pushing causing death is invol.             X
HB 1079 (Funderburk) – Drug testing of contractors in public        X
HJR 5 (Fallert) – Ban on smoking in public places                   X
HJR 23 (Icet) – TABOR – constitutional limit on appropriations      X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X

                 Status of Senate Bills Passed and Sent to the House/
                      House Bills Passed and Sent to the Senate
                                    1 – Reported to House/Senate
                                    2 – Referred to committee
                                    3 – Committee hearing scheduled
                                    4 – Committee hearing completed
                                    5 – Committee vote taken (exec)
                                    6 – Committee reported to the floor
                                    7 – Taken up for debate
                                    8 – Passed - Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed OR
                                    9 – Returned to Senate/House for concurrence
                                   10 – Concurrence or Conference* (see report narrative)

                     Senate / House Bill                            1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9                 10
SB 8 (Champion) – Crime lab review commission                       X
SB 9 (Champion) – MH professional to HealthNet Oversight            X
SB 26 (Ridgeway) – Ban on alcohol vaporizers (AWOL)                 X
SB 44 (Pearce) – Regulations for private jails                      X
SB 58 (Stouffer) – Amendment of commercial driver license law       X
SB 84 (Purgason) – Includes SB 93 (DWI signs) by amendment          X
                     Senate / House Bill                                1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
SB 93 (Green) – DWI risk reduction – memorial road signs                X
SB 140 (Smith) – Criminal non-support case disposition                  X
SB 147 (Dempsey) – Workplace prevention program recognition             X
SB 188 (Dempsey) – Revisions (liberalization) of alcohol control        X
SB 396 (Justus) – Denial, suspension, revocation of liquor              X
HB 8 (Icet) – 2010 Appropriations for Dept.. of Public Safety           X
HB 9 (Icet) – 2010 Appropriations for Dept. of Corrections              X
HB 10 (Icet) – 2010 Appropriations for DMH and DHSS                     X
HB 11 (Icet) – 2010 Appropriations for Dept. of Social Services         X
HB 14 (Icet) – FY2009 Supplemental appropriations for state             X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
HB 96 (Wallace) – School discipline, liability, safety, and reporting   X
HJR 23 (Icet) – TABOR – constitutional limit on appropriations          X

              “Stop HIV/AIDS in Prison Act of 2009” Fails in Committee
HB 339 (El-Amin), which required the Department of Corrections (DOC) in consultation with the
Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS), to develop “a comprehensive policy to
provide HIV testing, treatment and prevention for inmates within the state correctional setting
and upon re-entry‖ failed to get the necessary votes on a ―do pass‖ motion by the House
Committee on Corrections and Public Institutions, chaired by Rep. Mike McGhee (R-Odessa). The
action was taken in a March 11 exec session. Committee staff could not be reached for detailed
information due to Spring Break. Committee actions are not posted online but records are kept by the
committee clerk.

The bill includes prevention education on transmission through intravenous drug use and
encouragement to request testing if the inmate used intravenous drugs. The Fiscal Note analysis by
DOC: “Current law requires HIV testing without right of refusal for all individuals delivered
to DOC and all individuals released from DOC prior to said release. The only exception to this is not
testing an incoming offender when a similar HIV test has been done subsequent to trial and DOC can
obtain the results. Presently, … all inmates are tested no sooner than 120 days prior to release and,
if the offender is released prior to the receipt of test results, medical staff make a referral to the
Bureau of HIV/STD Prevention. The proposed legislation is less strict with regard to the testing
required before release as it requires inmates by HIV tested no more than three months prior to
release… The bill requires certain activities of medical and pharmacy personnel, whose services are
currently provided by contract employees. In summary, the fiscal impact due to requirements in
this proposal is unknown.” DOC does not mention current prevention efforts.

        Bray Amendment on SB 264 Included Alcohol and Drug Education

Senator Joan Bray (D-St. Louis) attempted to amend SB 264 (Mayer), which deals with informed
consent for abortion and creates several categories of crime involving coercing a woman to seek
or obtain an abortion. Her amendment would revise state law on sex education in various ways,
including required course materials and instruction that would (among other things): ―Help young
people gain knowledge about the physical, biological and hormonal changes of adolescence and
subsequent states of human maturation and the skills to make responsible decisions about sexuality,
including how alcohol and drug use can affect decision making.” The amendment was
ruled out of order after being challenged by the sponsor for going beyond the scope of the bill. The
action was taken during floor debate on March 23.

          Federal Stimulus Money Rescues Missouri’s Drug Task Forces
According to a report in the Jefferson City News-Tribune (March 9, 2009) Missouri‘s drug task forces
will remain operational after all: ―Drug task forces in Missouri, facing a 60 percent cut in federal
funding, received good news with President Barrack (sic) Obama‘s American Recovery and
Investment Act of 2009. The act, signed by the president in February, restored Byrne Grant
Funding cut drastically in 2008. Restoring the grant will guarantee $20 million for Missouri,
which will be split between the 27 existing task forces and qualifying treatment programs throughout
the state.‖

 ―Funds trickling down to the Mid-Missouri area will ensure that Mid-MO Drug Task Force and several
Highway Patrol-operated task forces will not have to cut officers and will be able to remain intact.
According to investigators with the Mid-MO Drug Task Force, the federal funding could mean even
more officers. ‗I would like to see us back to the level we were in 2006,‘ said Capt. Don Isaac. ‗We
had 12 officers at that time covering six counties. Now we have six but I think it‘s safe to think the
grant money from the Byrne Grant could be enough we can hire at least one additional

 ―‘It didn‘t look good,‘ Isaac said. ‗Had this money not come through, we were facing some very
serious concerns. The number of drug busts is not on the decline and losing officers who are
solely dedicated to drug investigations was not a benefit for anyone.‘‖

House Budget Chairman Allen Icet has said that he considered it irresponsible to start expanding
programs in legislation designed to fill fiscal gaps. ―I‘m reluctant to create new programs or expand
programs because then it‘s game on – you have a whole new budget.‖

   [Ed. Note: It remains to be seen whether the effects on employment will be reported as a
benefit of the stimulus legislation. As we have seen, it is common for critics of Congress and the
Obama Administration to express appreciation for money to fund their projects while continuing to
oppose the outlays of federal dollars in general.]

           Senate Bill Would Repeal an Entire Chapter of Missouri Law
The official summary for Senate Bill 426, sponsored by Sen. John Griesheimer (R-Washington),
doesn‘t sound all that interesting, but it would actually repeal all of Title II, ―Alcoholic Beverages,‖
Chapter 312, ―Nonintoxicating Beer‖ of the Missouri Revised Statutes. That chapter, consisting of 54
sections, and 17 pages of revised editions of Missouri‘s law books, was enacted in 1939 and has
been amended many times over 69 years. Its heading, ―Nonintoxicating Beer,‖ is actually a great
misnomer, since it refers to ―(beer) having an alcoholic content of more than one-half of one
percent by volume and not exceeding three and two-tenths percent by weight.‖ In other words, so-
called “3.2 beer.” It most certainly is intoxicating, as this analyst noted in a 1990 message to
the Legislative Research office, recommending that the Chapter be eliminated. Veteran Capitol-

watchers suggest that August A. Busch thought the confusing term might help position beer as ―the
beverage of moderation.‖

The 66-page bill removes all of the references to ―nonintoxicating beer‖ in Chapter 311 (―Liquor
Control‖) and repeals all of Chapter 312. A House bill, HB 864 (T. Jones), would accomplish the same
thing, by changing the definition, but would not repeal Chapter 311. The Division of Alcohol and
Tobacco Control reports that this would eliminate the need for separate licensing, reporting
and taxing of 3.2 beer, and it would benefit the industry, especially producers and wholesalers,
when new products are introduced. The industry expressed support for the bill at a March 11
hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and Local Government.
Only a few states still have separate 3.2 beer laws and regulations.

     Private Jail Regulations Include Delivery of Alcohol and Illegal Drugs
SB 44 (Pearce), which establishes new regulations for privately operated jails, includes a regulation
that prohibits bringing into the jail various items, including controlled substances and alcohol.
Bringing in a controlled substance is a class A felony; bringing in alcohol is a class D felony. The bill
passed the Senate on a 31-1 vote and was sent to the House on March 12.

                               Rep. McClanahan Praises MYAA
In her March 16 e-newsletter to constituents, ―Rebecca‘s Rounds,‖ Rep. Rebecca McClanahan (D-
Kirksville) writes: ―I was honored to receive the Missouri Youth/Adult Alliance‘s Outstanding
Leadership Award on March 10th from First Lady Georganne Nixon (photo included). The MYAA
works to combat underage drinking across our state. I have worked to support the important
prevention efforts of the coalitions in Adair, Putnam and Sullivan counties. I am very proud of their
work and will continue to provide my support to them. Underage drinking has been identified as a
significant problem affecting Missouri‘s youth. Alcohol use during the teenage years can irreparably
damage the brain and is more likely to lead to an addiction than in adults. I am proud so stand
with an organization that does such fine work in the state of Missouri! You can learn more
about them here (‖ Administration for the MYAA project is provided by ACT

              Federal Cigarette Tax Increases Affect State Legislation
The new federal cigarette tax increase (from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack) is expected to reduce sales
of the product, and with it will come reductions in revenue to the states. Missouri is one of at
least 16 states which have used revenue from the Master Settlement Agreement to fill
budget gaps and fund a variety or programs – few of which are in the area of health care or
tobacco control. The new federal tax rate goes into effect on April 1, but price increases are already
a reality, as manufacturers, distributors and retailers try to shore up profits in anticipation of the
predicted sales decline. Local media have reported that consumers who wanted to stock up before
April have been hit by ―sticker shock.‖ (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 12, 2009). Some states,
including Illinois, are considering their own cigarette tax increases, which are likely to increase
disparities with rates in bordering states. Illinois‘ current rate is 98 cents per pack, compared with
Missouri’s 17 cents, the second-lowest in the nation, and far below the current $1.19
national average.

On the other hand, a Feb. 10 Join Together news summary reports that, ―although higher prices
reduce cigarette consumption – a 10-percent price increase per pack equals an approximate
4 percent drop in consumption – tobacco- tax revenue has continued to rise in nearly every state
that has imposed significant tax increases, said Frank Chaloupka, an economist and tobacco-tax
expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago.‖ The summary also reports that in Mississippi, where
competing tax versions are being debated, the federal tax increase “throws the state’s proposals
up in the air,” according to a spokesman for Republican Governor Haley Barbour. Nevertheless, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky has doubled the state cigarette tax, from 30 cents per pack to 60 cents
per pack

                    Effects of the Economy on the Booze Business
Worsening economic conditions are testing the old adage that the beverage alcohol business is
―recession-proof‖ or at least ―recession- resistant.‖ The effects of less discretionary income for
Americans is up against time-honored observations that people will drink more in response to stress,
just as they drink to celebrate when times are good. It is too early to make definitive statements
about recent developments, but beer, wine and spirits sales were generally down in 2008. Industry
sources have reported shifts to lower-priced products and from purchasing in restaurants and bars to
take-home products. The Distilled Spirits Council of the U. S. (DISCUS) reported in January that on-
premise volume in 2008 fell 2.2 percent from 2007, while business in liquor stores increased by
2.9 percent. [Source: AP via Join Together, Feb. 2, 2009].

                    Local Press Covers MYAA “Speak Hard” Event

MYAA‘s ―Speak Hard‖ rally and training on March 10 drew 261 participants and was reported as ―a
great success‖ by MYAA staff. The Jefferson City News-Tribune‘s March 11 edition contained a story,
along with a photo of people gathered in the Capitol Rotunda. Reporter Angie Hutschreider
interviewed project director Alicia Ozenberger and several youth from local Calvary Lutheran High
School students. Quoting Ozenberger: ―We know they (teens) have the information, we just want to
give it to them accurately and help them realize the overall importance of advocacy ….
Ultimately, we would like to them to have them meet with their elected officials and talk about
all of the issues that are important to them.‖

Kelsey Ousley, a Calvary student who was recognized for her advocacy, said: ―I was unsure of the
idea at first, but did some research and joined the Council for Drug Free Youth and testified before
a Senate committee about the need for funding programs to fight drugs and underage
drinking…. Doing something about underage drinking is up to us and to adults. We need to realize
that we can help our friends, and when we can not we need to go and ask for help for them.‖

The News-Tribune followed up with a March 12 editorial, titled ―Substance-free youth lead by
example,‖ which commends Calvary students for ―making, and modeling, wise choices.‖
Characteristically, the editorial focused on individual decision-making rather than policy issues: ―We
commend the coalition members for their dedication and perseverance as they continue to wage an
uphill fight against underage drinking. We want to focus, however, not on the ongoing policy
battles, but on the individual engagement teens are winning by example.‖ [Ed. Note: The
News-Tribune has editorialized in opposition to alcohol excise tax increase legislation sponsored by
local Republican State Representative Bill Deeken.]

                 Faith Community Urges FDA Regulation of Tobacco
Twenty-eight national faith leaders recently sent a letter to every member of the U.S. Congress
urging them to support legislation authorizing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate
tobacco products. The letter was sent under the auspices of Faith United Against Tobacco, which
is chaired by Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist General Board of Church & Society.
―We have worked to gain FDA regulation of tobacco for nine years, said the Rev. Cynthia Abrams,
director of GBCS‘ work area on Alcohol, Other Addictions and Health Care. ―We expect our efforts
this year to offer a real chance at passage.” The letter points to the ―ravages of tobacco use in
our communities,‖ and describes the situation as a tragedy that must end. The nation‘s leaders have
a moral obligation to do all they can to protect Americans, especially children, from tobacco addiction
and related disease, the letter declares.

FDA has come under attack as a result of recent product safety crises. Some legislators say that
it is broken. An AP story (March 4) quotes Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich) as saying ―You‘ve got an
agency that quite frankly is either nonfunctional, or dysfunctional, or maybe all of the above.‖
Problems range from lack of adequate funding to shortages in inspections, absence of legal authority
to order recalls, and outdated technology. Opponents to the legislation that would require FDA
legislation of tobacco contend that the agency is not up to the job. ―I believe it‘s going to gut the
agency‘s resources and distract it from its core mission, said Dr. Scott Gottlieb, policy expert at the
American Enterprise Institute and a deputy FDA commissioner during the Bush administration. The
bill that passed the House last year, and stalled in the Senate in anticipation of a Bush veto, was a
compromise between major tobacco control groups and Philip Morris USA, the nation‘s largest
tobacco company.

   Fiscal conservatives who support an effective FDA role in tobacco control find themselves having
to support either increases in funding or arguing that the agency can expand its role without
additional funding, one of the major sources of FDA‘s current woes.

      Girl Scouts Ad Includes “Thanks for Drinking Responsibly” Message
      Just a coincidence, or is there a message in the placement? The Jefferson City News-Tribune‘s
March 9 full-page tribute to the Girl Scouts (―It‘s a Girl‘s Life … Lead It!‖) includes an advertisement
for N. H. Scheppers Distributing Co, a local beer distributor. In bold print under the name of the beer
distributor is the message: ―Thanks for Drinking Responsibly – We All Make a Difference.‖ The ad is
placed near the top of the page, and is bordered on two sides by color photos of cute little girls.
Readers who make little or no distinction between promotion of soda and intoxicating beverages
probably didn‘t notice at all, or perhaps applauded the distributor for its ―public service‖ message. In
either case, it represents one of many ways the alcohol industry advances its agenda.

The industry’s agenda, based on more than three decades of alcohol-related public policy review
and legislative analysis, including testimony at hearings and statements by industry insiders in trade

          Normalize consumption by any available means,
          Emphasize personal responsibility (without definition of terms).
          Expand the number of venues that encourage consumption.
          Minimize regulation and penalties for violations.
          Obscure the pharmacological and toxicological evidence.
          Limit the resources available for enforcement of alcohol control laws.
          Minimize excise taxes and avoid discussions of its public health implications.
          Pre-empt local regulatory efforts by state law.
          Distance the industry from problems associated with the product.
          Resist restrictions on advertising – emphasize voluntary code, self-policing.
          Push the limits on marketing to young people, new customers
          Misrepresent and/or marginalize the opposition.
          Emphasize ―moderation‖ (subjective standard) and resist definition.

Numerous examples can be given of each of the above items. For example, a popular way to
―marginalize‖ advocates of pro-health alcohol policies is to refer to them as ―Neo-Prohibitionists,‖ thus
raising the specter of universal prohibition (the Volstead Act), the nation‘s ―failed social experiment.‖
An example of limiting resources available for enforcement is the budget for Missouri‘s Division of
Alcohol and Tobacco Control: $2.7 million (49 full-time equivalent staff), to process more than
22,000 license applications, collect license fees and excise taxes, conduct investigations of illegal
business practices, and enforce a wide range of laws and regulations (

                      Why Should the Alcohol Industry’s Agenda
                   Interest Advocates for Treatment and Recovery?
    Some advocates for recovery recognize the roles that access, promotion and pricing play in
attempts to reduce the incidence and prevalence of alcohol abuse and addiction. Less widely
recognized is effect of the industry’s agenda on the stigma attached to addiction,
treatment and recovery. The implication of ―drink responsibly‖ messages is that there are two
kinds of people: those who drink responsibly, and those who drink irresponsibly. The problem is thus
framed as one of personal decision-making, without reference to context, rather than a conceptual
framework of disorder, disease, or disability. Similarly, people in recovery following treatment go
back to a community in which the stigma persists and serves as a barrier to needed treatment and
further recovery. From a public policy standpoint, policymakers who accept the industry‘s terms – in
other words the vast majority -- will be more inclined to think in terms of personal responsibility vs.
lack of such responsibility. It could be argued that advocates for treatment and recovery who accept
or ignore the industry‘s agenda (or consider it ―inevitable‖) actually contribute to the stigma which
they claim to deplore, or at least fail to consider ways to reduce that stigma.

        California Legislature Deep-Sixes Alcohol Tax Increase Proposal
              Illinois and Maryland Next to Consider Nickel-A-Drink

When California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a proposal to increase his state‘s
alcohol excise tax rates by 5 cents per drink, it made the national news. When California‘s legislature
pulled an all-nighter to resolve an impasse over a bill which would deal with a huge budget deficit, it
made the national news. But the elimination of the Governator‘s nickel-a-drink proposal hardly
received a mention. Instead of including that proposal, which was supported by 85% of California
voters in an opinion poll, the final deal increased the state‘s sales tax from 7.25 to 8.25,
increased the gasoline tax by 12 cents, and increased use taxes on a variety of activities – none
of them related to drinking (at least not directly) and none of them with anything close to the public
support for the alcohol tax proposal.

The Marin Institute, California‘s ―alcohol industry watchdog,‖ was furious, as evidenced in this blog
posting: ―… our self-serving, so-called leaders put their personal interests and the special interests of
Big Alcohol ahead of the public interest when they left over $800 million on the table during the
recent California budget process. This is money that could have been used to shore-up the state and
county programs that address the problems alcohol cause …. problems that cause the state and the
citizens over $38 billion a year.‖

Now our legislative neighbors across the river are getting ready to do battle over their Nickel-A-Drink
proposal. The Illinois Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Association informs us that there is
substantial support among legislators, including support in the House and Senate leadership.
The Governor hasn‘t weighed in on the measure yet. Bills have been drafted and should be
announced this week. Nickel-A-Drink is also being considered in Maryland legislative committees this
week, and other alcohol tax increase legislation is pending in the states of New Mexico, Arkansas,
New York, and Wisconsin, according to the New York Times (January 17, 2009). The NYT reported
that Peter Cressy, CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, expected the idea to
spread to as many as 30 other states.

       Since publication of that story, Kentucky has imposed a new 6% sales tax on the sale of
       beer, wine and spirits, (in addition to their per-gallon excise taxes) and, at the same time,
       doubled its cigarette tax rate from 30 cents to 60 cents per pack. The governor signed
       the bill on February 12. The new rates go into effect on April 1. The new alcohol rates are
       expected to generate $98 million a year, and the cigarette tax $82 million a year. The action
       was taken by legislators in response to a projected shortfall of $456 million in state revenue.
       Proposals have also appeared in New Jersey and Montana.

Meanwhile, three bills dealing with alcohol excise taxes are pending in the Missouri legislature
languish in the Missouri legislature. HB 212 (Deeken) would transfer the proceeds from General
Revenue to a special Fund for the Reduction of Alcohol-Related Problems. HB 308 (Nasheed)
would replace the sales tax on food with alcohol taxes. HB 437 (Roorda) would tax ―illicit alcoholic
beverages‖ i.e. moonshine, at $31.70 if sold by the drink, $12.80 if not sold by the drink.
(Compare with the current rate on beer of $0.06 per gallon). None of these bills have been
referred to committee and they are not likely to be referred until the end of the session, when it is
too late to convene public hearings in a purposeful way. In other words, the public will have no
opportunity for meaningful, on-the-record input.

                                                                                 Gerrit L. DenHartog
                                                                                     March 28, 2009


To top