Local rehab centers would benefit from proposed new tax credit

      A proposed new tax credit would give a boost to community-based drug treatment programs throughout the state.  The plan’s sponsor says these programs do a lot of good and give back to their communities but some are facing financial challenges and she wants to see them get more support.

Representative Cheri Toalson Reisch (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Under House Bill 2527 a taxpayer who makes a donation to a faith-based organization, peer- or community-based organization, or recovery or community center or outreach that offers addiction recovery services could claim a tax credit for an amount equal to half of that donation.  Up to $2.5-million in tax credits could be awarded in one year, subject to the legislature appropriating the money for them.

      Sponsor Cheri Toalson Reisch (R-Hallsville) says she has such rehab organizations in her district and she’s seen how they benefit individuals and the overall community. 

      “I see what [program participants] do on a daily basis.  They get jobs.  They help their communities out.  We don’t want people to recidivate.  We want them to be able to pay their child support, to pay their bills, and support themselves, so it’s a win-win.”

      “I have Primrose Hill, which is part of Team Challenge, in my district.  It helps women with babies and children to get over addictions.  I also have In2Action that helps people with addiction and recovery and felons coming out of prison,” said Toalson Reisch.  “If you’d have heard the testimony [from program participants] from a year ago, I was bawling my eyes out.  This is that important to people.”

      Toalson Reisch said some of these programs are struggling, and others are looking to expand.  She said in either case, this legislation could give them the help they need and thereby help more Missourians.

      “Especially, I think, during COVID and a lot of stressful times in their lives [some Missourians] need this help and to know that a resource is there for them locally that they can utilize and be put into a program and help them overcome their addictions.”

Mission Gate Prison Ministry works with more than 300 men, women, and families each hear.  Program Director Stephen Hunt told the House Committee on Ways and Means this bill would encourage more contributions to his organization.

      “We support this bill because two-thirds of our annual budget is funded by private donations,” said Hunt.

Stan Archie, the Clinical Director of Footprints, Inc. in Kansas City said this bill would also give every Missourian the chance to be a part of someone’s recovery.

“It invites people who can’t get out on the street to be a prat of the solution, and at the same time it also encourages dollars to come into the places where we can demonstrate an effective program,” said Archie.

      David Stoecker, Executive Director of the Springfield Recovery Community Center, told lawmakers these recovery programs save the state money. 

      “It’s over a $20 return for every dollar spent on recovery support, so that $2.5-million equates to the state saving $50-million a year, which to me is a complete no-brainer,” said Stoecker.   

      Toalson Reisch filed this proposal last year but late in the session, so it only cleared one committee.  With it getting traction earlier this year she is optimistic it can become law.  The Ways and Means committee approved HB 2527, sending it on to another committee.

      She proposes that these tax credits be offered for six years, at which time they would expire unless renewed by the legislature.

Missouri House condemns attack on Ukraine in unanimous vote

      The Missouri House voted unanimously today to condemn the Russian attack on Ukraine and to urge the federal government to respond prudently. 

Representative Mike Haffner (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      It approved House Resolution 3658 which says the members of the House, “Stand alongside Ukraine, its people, and its leaders during this horrific and unnecessary war and vow to support Ukraine and hold Russia fully accountable for its catastrophic decision to invade.”

      It was carried by Representative Mike Haffner (R-Pleasant Hill), a decorated combat veteran who retired from the U.S. Navy as a Commander. 

“This invasion is not about land.  It’s not about oil.  It’s not about natural resources.  It’s about freedom.  Ukraine has embraced the definition of American freedom as it is defined very clearly in the Declaration of Independence because that freedom results in unprecedented opportunity for all people,” Haffner said.

      Representative Michael O’Donnell (R-St. Louis) is a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve.  He said he’s been watching the coverage of Russian forces entering Ukraine equipped not to destroy military targets or equipment, but to kill people.  He’s marveled at the response of the Ukrainian people.

      “We have to look at the bravery of these people.  Would we have behaved any differently?  Would any of us have acted any differently?  Most of us aren’t capable of serving in the military anymore but we would’ve done something.  We would’ve done anything to protect our friends and our families,” said O’Donnell.

      Lee’s Summit representative Keri Ingle (D) said the people of Ukraine are much like the people of Missouri in what they want for themselves and their loved ones.

      “We must support democracy across the world or it will be lost here as well,” said Ingle.

(Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Some representatives said the House’s action today isn’t just about what’s happened in the last week, but what will come if Russia doesn’t stop or isn’t stopped.  Representative David Tyson Smith (D-Columbia) said, “We need to take a stand against oppression and tyranny and we all know that if Russia takes Ukraine it’s not going to stop with Ukraine.” 

      St. Charles Republican and member of the National Guard Adam Schnelting added, “It’s very important that we stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine not just for Ukraine but also so that Europe does not digress into centuries of darkness.”

      The House voted 143-0 to support the resolution which states, as Rep. Haffner read, “we proudly stand alongside Ukraine, its people, and its leaders during this horrific and unnecessary war and vow to support Ukraine and hold Russia fully accountable for its catastrophic decision to invade this sovereign nation.

      “We condemn Vladimir Putin’s violent attack on the people of Ukraine and we have introduced this legislation to implore the President of the United States and the United States Congress to reaffirm our country’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s freedom and sovereignty.” 

VIDEO: House members urge Missouri response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine

      Missouri House members want to respond to Russia’s Attack on the Ukraine. 

      On Tuesday House Majority Floor Leader Dean Plocher (R-St. Louis) filed House Bill 2913 which would bar all public entities or private entities which receive public funds from contracting with Russia.  The prohibition would extend to any country which occupies or attacks Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Georgia, or a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member.

      Tuesday night a House committee advanced House Concurrent Resolution 75 filed by Representative Mike Haffner (R-Pleasant Hill). It would urge President Joe Biden (D) to take certain actions in response to the Russian invasion. This resolution could soon be debated by the full House.

      On Wednesday Representatives Plocher and Haffner participated in a media conference with Lieutenant Governor Mike Kehoe (R) and legislative assistant Igor Shalai, a native of Ukraine, who spoke about what his family is experiencing.

House considers further reduction in vehicle safety inspection requirements

      A state representative who several years ago championed an easing of Missouri’s vehicle safety inspection law says it’s time to make more vehicles exempt.

Representative J. Eggleston (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Senate Bill 89, passed in 2019, rolled back that law.  Since it was enacted, safety inspections have not been required on vehicles that have fewer than 150,000 miles and are up to ten years old.  That portion of SB 89 was proposed by Representative J. Eggleston (R-Maysville). 

      He says in the time since that law passed Missouri’s roads have been no less safe.

      “[SB 89] got rid of about half of the cars that needed to be inspected from being inspected … here we are, two or three years later, I’ve looked, I have not found any sudden burst of cars falling apart and causing accidents so I think we’re ready to get rid of [vehicle inspections],” Eggleston told the House Committee on Downsizing State Government.

      Eggleston’s proposal, however, wouldn’t completely eliminate inspections in Missouri.  Under House Bill 2499, all vehicles made since 2012 and having fewer than 150,000 miles would be exempt.

      “I toyed with just doing an all-out, getting rid of it all at once … but because of some of the consternation [about the 2019 proposal], I thought we’ll just ease out of it,” said Eggleston.  “So I basically said, ‘Any car that’s not being inspected today is not ever going to have to be inspected.  Any of them that are inspected today will continue’ … so over time this will just naturally phase itself out.”

      Eggleston’s idea has some support, including from O’Fallon representative Tony Lovasco (R). 

      “I do think that ultimately, as technology increases, we’re going to see more and more construction improvements made and what not where [inspections are] really going to be completely superfluous very soon, and I think it does makes sense to have it just drop off naturally rather than us revisiting this every few years,” said Lovasco.

      Representative Michael Burton (D-Lakeshire) doesn’t support extending the 2019 legislation.  He said for him it’s an issue of safety.

      “Let’s talk about a cracked windshield.  That’s something that’s inspected whenever the car goes through an inspection, and I know we have laws where you can’t drive around with a cracked windshield but we also know that police officers right now are generally not pulling people over for that, but I think that can be a safety issue … same thing with seatbelts.  Whenever you get a car inspection they’re checking to make sure all the seatbelts work and what not.  That’s a safety concern of mine.”

      Eggleston said there are 35 states which have no vehicle inspection requirements, and that includes all the states that border Missouri.  He said that hasn’t made their roads less safe than those states who have such a requirement.

      “Their statistics on accidents and deaths are no different than ours.  There’s no correlation between states that have inspection programs and safety at all,” said Eggleston.  “The safety issue you were talking about, it’s perceived but I don’t think it’s actual. There’s no data to back that up.”

      The committee’s top Democrat, Gretchen Bangert (Florrisant), opposed the 2019 legislation and has reservations about taking it further.  She also dislikes that the 2019 law allows vehicles to be sold without an inspection, and wishes this bill would reverse that.

      “So I could have a car that’s a junker and has some sort of issue, and if you don’t know because you don’t get an inspection yourself and just trust me, then the car hasn’t been inspected.  That’s one loophole that I wish we could look at is if you were selling a car to another person that it would have to be inspected regardless of the miles,” said Bangert. 

      Eggleston said it is up to a potential buyer to decide whether to get an inspection on a vehicle they’re considering purchasing.

      His 2019 legislation, as a stand-alone before it was amended onto SB 89, passed out of the House 102-45.

      The committee has not voted on HB 2499.

Previous stories:

Bill rolling back vehicle inspection requirement signed into law

House votes to roll back, rather than eliminate, vehicle inspection requirements

House bill would require ignition interlocks after first DUI

      Missourians would have to have their vehicles equipped with ignition interlock devices after their first drunk driving conviction, under a bill under consideration in the House.

Representative Mark Sharp (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Ignition interlock devices prevent a vehicle from starting if they register too great of an alcohol content in a breath test.  Current law requires a person to have a previous conviction for driving while intoxicated before restricting them to driving only vehicles equipped with such a device.  Under House Bill 1680 a court must prohibit anyone convicted of an intoxicated driving offense from driving unequipped vehicles for at least six months.

      Kansas City representative Mark Sharp (D) sponsors it.

      “It’s really about saving lives,” said Sharp.  “If you’ve had too many drinks when you’re leaving the bar and you can’t pass the test, you can’t drive.  That forces people to look at other options as far as Uber or having a friend come and pick them up, but it stops that person who is intoxicated from getting behind the wheel.”

      Sharp believes his bill would be a deterrent, not just by keeping people from driving drunk but by making them want to avoid a situation in which they could.

      “This should stop some folks from wanting to go out and getting drunk and driving too, because after your first offense you would be required to have [an ignition interlock device] instead of after your second or third,” said Sharp.  “I do think this will stop some folks.  If this gets promoted the right way hopefully we can get folks to not want to do it as much.”

      Sharp’s bill has had a hearing before the House Committee on Crime Prevention, which is chaired by former Police Chief and Department of Public Safety Director Lane Roberts (R-Joplin).  He expressed support for the idea.

      “I began my police career in 1971.  At that time the presumptive [blood alcohol content] level was .15 – nearly twice what it is today.  Even then we were killing about 25,000 people a year, nationally, due to drunk driving,” said Roberts.  “Anything that makes that activity more difficult certainly has my support and I appreciate [Representative Sharp] putting this forward.”

      Mothers Against Drunk Driving told the Committee that between 2006 and 2020, interlocks stopped 128,196 attempts to drive drunk in Missouri, with more than 11,000 of those incidents in 2020.  DUI deaths reportedly decreased by 15% in states that enacted laws such as HB 1680.

      The committee has not voted on Sharp’s legislation.

Bill would make cost to apply for law enforcement jobs more manageable

      A bill aimed at addressing a shortage of law enforcement officers has advanced through a House committee.

Representative Lane Roberts (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      House Bill 1703 is sponsored by Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), who was a chief of police in multiple communities including Joplin and is a past director of the Department of Public Safety.  He said before a person can apply for employment as a law enforcement officer in Missouri they must first have their license. 

      “What that means is the officer is going to invest somewhere around $6,000 and, depending on whether they attend the day academy or night academy, four to six months of their lives with no guarantee of a job.  The result, in some cases, is they merely have a $6,000 debt,” said Roberts. 

      Roberts’ bill would create the “Peace Officer Basic Training Tuition Reimbursement Program.”  This would pay back individuals for that training over a period of four years if they find a law enforcement job and retain it for four years. 

      Roberts told the Committee on Crime Prevention his bill aims to make the potential cost of training less of a barrier, particular for two groups of people he hopes to incent toward pursuing law enforcement careers.

      “I’m interested in attracting some of those people who are 27, 28, 29 years old, who have a little life experience, have some idea of what they’re getting into.  Unfortunately many of those people will have mortgages, they’ll be married, have children, and the cost of burdening their family with a $6,000 debt with no guarantee of getting a job certainly would give them pause before they would apply,” said Roberts.

      “Many of the minority categories – people that we have worked very hard to attract – find that $6,000 up-front fee to be an absolute barrier, not just an inhibitor.  This would give them the opportunity to have a law enforcement career.”

      HB 1703 would also require that law enforcement instructors and their curriculum be approved by the Department of Public Safety.  This stemmed from an amendment offered by Representative Kevin Windham (D-Hillsdale) to last year’s version of the legislation.  Windham said it was in answer to something that happened in St. Louis County.

Representative Kevin Windham (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “We had a police trainer that used some racially-charged language, and as our law stands right now that person would be able to go to any other law enforcement training facility throughout the state.  The amendment to Representative Roberts’ bill will make it where a person that participates in behavior that is less than what we would expect, they won’t be able to bounce around from law enforcement training facility to law enforcement training facility.”

      The bill carries a potential cost to the state of more than $5.5-million. 

      “While I don’t pretend that that’s not a substantial amount of money I would submit to you that at a time when we are having trouble recruiting officers, we’re having trouble finding minority officers, we’re having trouble retaining officers, that (nearly) $6-million is a fairly insignificant amount to be able to correct that in a significant way.”

      Last year’s version the legislation was approved by the House 152-1 but it stalled in the Senate.  HB 1703 has been approved by the Crime Prevention committee and needs one more committee’s action before going to the full House.

House panel advances restitution for all Missouri exonerees

      Anyone exonerated of a crime in Missouri would be eligible for restitution under a plan that has been advanced by a House committee.

Representatives Ron Hicks (left) and Shamed Dogan (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Missouri law allows anyone freed from prison based on DNA evidence to receive restitution.  House Bills 2412 and 2474 would allow those exonerated by any other proof to receive up to $100 a day, up to $36,500 per fiscal year. 

      The bills are sponsored by Representatives Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) and Ron Hicks (R-Defiance). 

      “The bottom line to legislation like this is correcting what we’ve done wrong.  As a society, we put people away.  We’ve incarcerated them for years … and then we release them with nothing,” said Hicks.  “We’re not returning them to the way they were when we incarcerated them.  We’re not making them whole again … and when I mean ‘whole again,’ that’s vaguely used because you’ll never make someone whole again once you’ve taken their life away from them and then you hand it back.”

      Missouri’s restitution statute drew attention following the release late last year of Kevin Strickland, who spent 42 years in prison for a crime of which he was cleared but not by DNA evidence.

      “Under Missouri law he is not eligible for compensation from the state of Missouri, so thankfully he was able to get a lot of national attention to his case.  He had a GoFundMe.  They’ve raised over $1-million to this point.  My belief … is that folks like him … should get compensation from the state because … they were done wrong,” said Dogan.

      Many members expressed support for the proposal, but brought up things they’d like to see added.

      Kansas City Democrat Ashley Aune said she wants to see an addition to the bill to ensure exonerees are provided with assistance upon release, in areas like housing and healthcare.

      “There’s a program now for someone that is released and has committed a crime,” Hicks noted.

      “Exactly,” Aune agreed.  “Missouri cannot be a state that treats its parolees better than its exonerees.  It cannot.”

      Columbia representative David Smith (D) was the only vote against the bill.  He opposed it because it would prohibit exonerees from taking the state to court if they receive restitution under this plan.

      “If you’re in prison for five years, under this plan you can get maybe $180,000 restitution but from a lawsuit provision that could be $1-million, plus.”

      Smith suggested allowing exonerees to sue the state and subtracting any resulting settlement from the amount they receive in restitution.

      Supporters of the bill include the Missouri Chapter of the NAACP, whose president, Nimrod Chapel, enthusiastically said the bill, “may not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than where we have been.”

      Another organization offering support is the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.  Cole County prosecutor Locke Thompson said, “As prosecutors we work with people daily, usually victims of crimes, trying to make them whole after they’ve been victimized.  It seems only right that when something as awful as a wrongful conviction happens and we have an actually innocent person in that we make amends to try and make those individuals whole as well.”

      The bills, which have identical language, would also require that an exoneree automatically receive an order of expungement.

      “I would like to see it go back to the person before they were arrested.  Whatever their record showed at that time is exactly what it should show when … we release them,” said Hicks.

      “This, I believe, this year can be the most single, positive piece of legislation that we push out of this body,” said Hicks.

      The committee voted 13-1 to send HB 2474 to another committee.  From there it could go to the full House.

Committee advances honor for atomic veterans

      U.S. veterans who were part of the military’s nuclear testing programs or the follow-up to the use of nuclear weapons would be honored by a bill moving through the House.

Representative Bob Bromley (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Representative Bob Bromley (R-Carl Junction) says as many as 400,000 American military personnel were exposed in one way or another to nuclear radiation, but for decades they couldn’t talk about it.

      “This was a very classified operation, and the people involved … had to swear an oath of secrecy.  They would’ve been charged with treason if they would’ve even mentioned this because it was so secretive,” Bromley told the House Veterans Committee.

      Consequently many of these veterans were not compensated for treatments for diseases they developed likely as a result of those nuclear operations.

      “A lot of them had developed illnesses.  I think 23 different types of cancers have been associated with this,” said Bromley. 

      He said it’s perhaps difficult to believe now what these military members were expected to do.

      “They would go in as early as four hours after a nuclear test to go in and observe the result of that bomb and to actually write up reports and just doing research on this.  At that point in time, if you go back through the historical records, a lot of these military personnel, they didn’t wear goggles, they didn’t wear gloves, they didn’t wear respirators,” said Bromley. 

      House Bill 1652 would designate part of Highway 171 the “Atomic Veterans Memorial Highway.”  Bromley said many other states have so honored this group of veterans and its important that Missouri follow suit, especially as so many of them are elderly or have already passed on.

      “It’s just a way to remember these veterans and make the rest of us … understand the sacrifices and all of the contributions that these members made to our society and to the United States of America,” said Bromley. 

      The Veterans committee voted 12-0 to advance the measure.  It must go before one more committee and then could be considered by the full House.