Journal of the Senate

NINETY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE

STATE OF MISSOURI

FIRST REGULAR SESSION


VETO SESSION


FIRST DAY--WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2003

The Senate was called to order in Veto Session by Lieutenant Governor Joe Maxwell.

The Reverend Carl Gauck offered the following prayer:

Gracious God, we are called here, in this time, for a required adversarial session. We would ask that during our discussions You lead us and help us to remain amicable and understanding of each other's position as debate and passions increase. Bless that our final actions reflect Your guidance and that You bless the fruits of our decisions. In Your Holy Name, we pray. Amen.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited.

Photographers from the Associated Press, KYTV, KTVI, St. Louis and KPLR were given permission to take pictures in the Senate Chamber today.

The following Senators were present during the day's proceedings:

Present--Senators
Bartle Bland Bray Caskey
Cauthorn Champion Childers Clemens
Coleman Days Dougherty Foster
Gibbons Goode Griesheimer Gross
Jacob Kennedy Kinder Klindt
Loudon Mathewson Nodler Quick
Russell Scott Shields Steelman
Stoll Vogel Wheeler Yeckel--32
Absent with leave--Senator Dolan--1
Vacancies--1
The Lieutenant Governor was present.

RESOLUTIONS

Senator Gibbons offered the following resolution, which was read and adopted:

SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 1

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate that the Secretary of Senate inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is duly convened and is now in session as provided by Section 32, Article III of the Constitution and is ready for the consideration of its business.

Senator Gibbons offered the following resolution, which was read and adopted:

SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 2

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate that the rules of the Senate, as adopted by the Ninety-Second General Assembly, First Regular Session, be declared to be the rules of the Veto Session of the Ninety-Second General Assembly.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNOR

The following communications, regarding vetoed Senate bills, were received by the Secretary of State, reading of which was waived:

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 285.300, 288.036, 288.038, 288.040, 288.050, 288.060, 288.110, 288.128, 288.270, 288.310, and 288.330, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof thirteen new sections relating to employees, with penalty provisions.

I disapprove of said Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2's attempt to modify the employment security system in Missouri is inadequate. First and foremost, this bill fails to remedy the insolvency of the employment security system (which ran a shortfall of approximately $230 million last year). To the contrary, this bill gives advantages to certain special interests at the expense of unemployed workers without making any of the common-sense reforms needed to return the employment security system to solvency. Furthermore, by attempting to enable the state to issue hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to fund the employment security deficit, the bill, if signed, would actually jeopardize the state's AAA bond rating and facilitate continued employment security deficits. Indeed, this bill is likely to prevent any increase in unemployment benefits before the year 2009.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 7 entitled:

AN ACT

To authorize the governor to convey land owned by the state in the county of Pettis.

I disapprove of said House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 7. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 7 designates the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as the agency to conduct the sale of property referenced in Section 1, yet the Office of Administration handles land conveyances for the State.

There is an error in the legal description within Section 1 of House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 7.

Section 2 of the bill attempts to convey a tract of land acquired by the State pursuant to the National Trails System Act to the Sedalia School District No. 200 for the purpose of erecting a building upon this tract of land. This conveyance may run afoul of the National Trails System Act and may subject the State to subsequent legal claims, and is contrary to public policy regarding the Katy Trail.

Finally, even assuming such a conveyance of a tract of Katy Trail land were to be appropriate, the bill improperly designates the Governor's Office, rather than the Department of Natural Resources, to convey this particular tract of land.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 7.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 29, entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 115.359 and 115.363, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to deadlines for elections.

I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 29. My reason for disapproval is as follows:

Senate Bill No. 29 emphatically violates the principal of separation of powers set out in Article II, section 1, of the Missouri Constitution. Since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, it has been a bedrock legal principle of the republic that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This bill, by attempting to determine for the courts of this state that a section of law cannot be "altered" or "set aside" for any reason, presumably including the reason, should it be so found, that the section is unconstitutional or conflicts with another section of statute, attempts to relieve the courts of this state of their primary duty. Expressions of legislative intent do not violate the Constitution and in some cases may be welcome, but the general assembly is not allowed to do the job of the judicial branch.

For the above-stated reason for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 29 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor

Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 69 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 536.010 and 536.050, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof eight new sections relating to small businesses.

I disapprove of Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 69. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 69 suborns an unconstitutional delegation of power from the Executive Branch to a quasi-legislative body -- the bill's Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board (Board). According to the terms of this bill, the majority of the Board is to be comprised of individuals appointed by the legislature. Regardless, the Board is given extraordinary powers over executive agencies, including, but not limited to, the power to stymie all executive rulemaking authority by subjecting each executive agency to almost 50 public hearings each year. In addition, the Board may require each executive agency, to respond in writing, in a matter of days, to hundreds of Board petitions and complaints each year regarding any rule any such agency has promulgated at any time, including rules in effect before the effective date of this bill. Such a delegation of power is in violation of Article II, Section I of the Missouri Constitution.

The costs for agencies and small businesses to comply with this bill's bureaucratic mandates will be heavy as well. In addition, this bill subjects executive agencies, and ultimately the taxpayers, to costly and duplicative litigation by creating a cause of action -- the ability to file a lawsuit against any agency -- for any business with up to 100 employees regarding any rule, even one which has merely been proposed.

Furthermore, the bill requires executive agencies to provide certain corporate citizens special and unequal treatment by requiring those executive agencies to reconsider any previously-administered fine or penalty for the violation of a state statute, including those imposed against long-term care facilities pursuant to the nursing home bill I recently signed into law.

Finally, contemporaneously with this veto, I am working with small business leaders on an executive order which provides small business the input into the administrative rulemaking process that they deserve, without running afoul of basic constitutional tenets or imposing unreasonable and exorbitant costs and burdens upon the state's agencies and taxpayers.

For the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 69 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 84 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 148.330, 348.430, and 348.432, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof three new sections relating to tax credits.

I disapprove of House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 84. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 84 creates a new, preferential tax system for domestic insurance companies that pay state premium taxes into the County Stock Insurance Fund. The new bill's quarterly payment system for insurance companies will cost the state to reprogram accounting systems and will shift the interest earning potential from the state to the corporate taxpayer, thereby reducing state general revenue. In essence, House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 84 creates a tax loophole for domestic insurance companies at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.

In addition, the Commissioner of Administration is directed to apportion funds in the County Stock Insurance Fund to the school district, county government and general revenue based upon the ratio of which the rates of levy for the same year for state purposes, for county purposes, and for all school district purposes, bear to each other. The bill states that when the credits are used, only the general revenue portion of the apportionment will be reduced. Historically, however, all funds from the County Stock Insurance Fund, but for a small distribution to the Blind Pension Fund, have been sent to either the school district or the county government in which the insurance company was domiciled. There has been no apportionment to general revenue from the County Stock Insurance Fund. If there is no general revenue apportionment from the county stock fund, and therefore no revenue to offset when credits are used, then the increased quarterly use of credits against the taxes paid into the fund will come at the expense of local schools.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning without my approval House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 84.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor





Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you Senate Bill No. 203, entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal section 536.077, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to administrative subpoenas.

I disapprove of Senate Bill No. 203. My reason for disapproval is as follows:

The language contained in this bill is similar to the language contained in House Bill No. 141, which was also truly agreed and finally passed during the 2003 regular session and which I signed into law on June 9, 2003. The two bills language do not contain identical language, however. I have been informed by the revisor of statutes that if both bills are signed into law, formal rules of statutory revision will operate such that the similar language from both bills is merged with the result that the word "agency" is deleted from the amended section of law. The result of that deletion is sometimes to relieve executive agencies of the authority to enforce a subpoena in contested cases, and that was not the intent of either bill. I can effectuate the intent of both bills by signing House Bill No. 141 into law, which I have done, and vetoing this bill on technical grounds.

For the above-stated reason for disapproval, I am returning Senate Bill No. 203 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor

Also,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

May 15, 2003TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

92nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 224, entitled:

AN ACT

To authorize the conveyance of property owned by the state in the County of Callaway to the City of Fulton, with an emergency clause.

I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 224. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

The legal description in the bill of the easement to be conveyed is flawed. The correct legal description is included in House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 93, which was also approved by the General Assembly during the 2003 session and which I signed into law on May 15, 2003.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 224 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

May 15, 2003TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

92nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Bill No. 250 entitled:

AN ACT

To amend chapter 67, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to a law enforcement sales tax, with an emergency clause.I disapprove of Senate Bill No. 250. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Language in this bill conflicts with language in House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 97, which was also approved by the General Assembly during the 2003 session. Both bills aim to authorize certain counties to consider approving a sales tax to generate revenue for certain county law enforcement services. This bill, however, fails to restrict the use of those funds to public law enforcement services only.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Bill No. 250 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor





Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 358, entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal section 115.073, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to general expenses of elections paid by certain political subdivisions.

I disapprove of House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 358. My reason for disapproval is as follows:

The intent of this bill is clearly to subject only election expenditures to the budgetary approval of the governing body of Platte county. The broad language used in the bill, however, which refers to all "annual general operating expenditures from the general revenue funds" of the county, cities within the county, and Kansas City, appears to allow for budgetary approval of all expenditures, whether related to elections or not. I believe it is best not to introduce such an ambiguity into the statute books.

For the above-stated reason for disapproval, I am returning House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 358 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 401 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 595.010 and 595.045, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to crime victim compensation, with penalty provisions.

I disapprove of said House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 401. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

It would not be in the best interest of the citizens of this State to modify our current statutes in order to divert an additional $250,000 away from the state's Crime Victims Compensation Fund. Due to the currently precarious financial condition of the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, any diversion of funds currently intended for that Fund -- regardless of the meritorious nature of the programs to which these funds would be diverted -- would be inappropriate and irresponsible.

I would encourage the General Assembly to evaluate the fiscal health of the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, as well as the state forensic crime laboratories, and to consider taking the steps necessary to appropriate sufficient funds for such worthy and essential state programs and services. We have made one such step with the signing of SB 39, this month, which will increase funding for state forensic crime laboratories.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 401 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Bill No. 425 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal section 58.451, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to reporting and investigating of death by a coroner.

I disapprove of Senate Bill No. 425. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Bill No. 425 makes a good faith attempt, yet fails, to clarify the rules for determining the place of death and designating responsibility for death investigations under Missouri law. For example, if an individual is transported from our sister state Illinois into Missouri and subsequently expires, neither state, according to the language of this bill, would have jurisdiction to investigate that death or to issue a death certificate.

In addition, Senate Bill No. 425 could generate unforeseen and burdensome costs to the counties as it requires small rural counties to both assume the responsibility for death investigations, and to pay for a medical examiner to conduct an autopsy if needed pursuant to an investigation. Currently, these costs are frequently assumed by larger counties in which major trauma centers reside.

Finally, Senate Bill No. 425 is silent, and may likely create complications and delays, regarding organ donor programs.

For all of the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Bill No. 425 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor

Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you Senate Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 280, entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 105.711, 258.100, 307.178, 355.176, 408.040, 430.225, 508.010, 508.040, 508.120, 509.290, 510.263, 512.020, 537.046, 537.067, 538.205, 538.210, and 538.225, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof thirty-two new sections relating to tort reform.

I disapprove of Senate Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 280. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

If signed into law, SB 280 would represent a fundamental shift in the manner in which the burdens and procedural decisions regarding litigation are distributed between an injured party and a defendant. While presented as an answer to rising medical malpractice insurance rates, the bill is unlikely to achieve that goal. Instead, the bill would have produced wholesale revisions designed to shift civil procedure burdens from defendants to the injured party. In the end, passage of this bill would make it more difficult for aggrieved parties to seek redress for civil breaches and even simple justice.

While SB 280 appears to give an injured party a choice in the selection of venue, the venue provisions are actually weighted toward providing the defendant increased influence in the selection of venue. SB 280 would ensure that the defendant could control the residency element to ensure a "friendly" venue. The venue provisions in SB 280 would allow a defendant to live and work anywhere in the state and still establish "residence" in counties where they had no business contacts. No informed business would bother to register their agent unless they were to do so in a county perceived as less friendly to litigation than Cole County. Therefore, a company in Jackson County could register an agent in New Madrid County despite having no business contacts there if it found that county to be "friendlier" to defendants.

The change of venue provisions would also put the defendant in a persuasive position to move venue out of the injured party's home county. This influence is created in separate ways: first, the elements to be considered in the convenient forum calculation tilt toward the defendant. There is an onus to move if the defendant is not a resident of the forum. There is also an onus to move if witnesses and evidence are located in a county other than the plaintiff's home. Second, under the system presented by SB 280, the injured party would select venue and then bear the burden of demonstrating why the venue should not be changed if the action is filed in a county where the action did not accrue. As the injured party now becomes the party with the burden of persuasion, the defendant gains an advantage. This revision represents a fundamental shift in Missouri civil litigation. Historically, it has been viewed as the right of the injured party to choose the venue in which to have a claim heard. Defendants then have the ability to make challenges to the site of venue.

I recently signed into law SB 556, the Senior Care & Protection Act, which provides greater protections for seniors residing in long-term care facilities and holds nursing home executives and employees accountable for neglect and abuse. SB 280 would begin to reverse these gains and provide unwarranted legal protections for long-term care providers who negligently injure their residents. SB 280 would prohibit a provider's quality assessment committee records, written proceedings, or documents produced by or through the activities of any state or federal agency from being subject to release by subpoena or other means of compulsion or from being admissible in certain civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings. SB 280 would also prohibit an injured party from compelling persons related to such committees to provide testimony about records and documents or actions taken by the committee.

The provisions of SB 280 that place caps on damages would jeopardize federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dollars received by the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations' Human Rights Commission. The Department received a letter dated March 11, 2003, clearly indicating that any caps on damages in housing complaints would lead to a loss of federal funds from HUD. It appears that Section 510.263 caps punitive damages in tort cases and would likely apply to cases brought under Chapter 213, the Missouri Human Rights Act, as the Missouri Supreme Court has defined causes of action under Chapter 213 as torts. See State ex rel. Diehl v. O'Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). The loss of federal funds from HUD would be approximately $339,714.

For almost a year, my administration has been taking extraordinary steps to help physicians obtain necessary coverage at the most affordable rates available and we will continue to do so. The Missouri Department of Insurance (MDI) is expediting the licensing of qualified new insurers. Missouri has admitted seven new carriers to write coverage for physicians and surgeons -- an unusual influx of insurers into this market. Today, at least nine companies are accepting applicants for new coverage, up from five in January.

MDI will hold a public hearing July 11 on whether medical malpractice coverage is "reasonably available" to all health-care providers and whether a state-sponsored insurance program is necessary to help resolve Missouri's capacity problem.

MDI is completing an unprecedented financial and market conduct examination of the medical malpractice industry in Missouri that should provide further insights into how our problems developed and how they can be solved.

Finally, much of physicians' consternation about medical malpractice rates involves the crunch they encounter between rising costs and flat or declining income, particularly because they have agreed to steep HMO discounts. Many HMOs and other insurers -- despite those discounts -- still fail to pay on a timely basis. To address this problem, MDI has been implementing a new "prompt pay" law that I signed into law last year. This month, MDI fined the first HMO found to be in violation by more than $100,000 and other cases await, with pending fines up to more than $300,000 each. These fines will not only deter those companies from late payments, but also serve as a warning to other insurers and HMOs that the state will act unless they pay physicians promptly as required by Missouri law.

For all of the above-stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 280 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor



Also,



OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 13, entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal section 21.750, RSMo, relating to rights of political subdivisions, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the same subject.

I disapprove of Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 13. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

There is a court case pending in the City of St. Louis that accuses the gun industry of manufacturing defective guns and of negligence in their distribution. The case is similar to lawsuits brought against the tobacco industry that exposed industry practices to public scrutiny and led to the $368 billion tobacco settlement. This bill intends to end prematurely the St. Louis court case without a full examination of the issues and before the liability of the gun industry is determined and to preclude similar lawsuits by any subdivision in the future. Both intentions are misguided. It is poor public policy to change the legal landscape while a case is pending in the courts; in the interests of justice the St. Louis City court case must be allowed to proceed so long as the courts determine that the case has merit. It is similarly poor policy to dictate that political subdivisions cannot file a case at any time. The proper forum for determining the merits of causes of action and liability of the gun and ammunition industries is in our state's impartial courts, not the political forum of the legislature.

Perhaps more importantly, although the stated intent of this bill was to affect only litigation filed by political subdivisions, this bill also affects the legal rights of individual citizens of the state. The bill takes away the ability of any citizen to sue the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, or seller of firearms based on a legal theory alleging an abnormally dangerous activity or a public or private nuisance. The effect of this language is to eliminate the existing right of a private citizen to sue a firearm or ammunition manufacturer under a theory of strict liability. Once again, this bill attempts to grant a special favor to the gun and ammunition industries - this time at the expense of the existing rights of private citizens. Causes of action that have not yet been considered in a state court should not be deleted by legislative fiat.

For the above-stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 13 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor

Also,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

State of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

July 9, 2003

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI:

Herewith I return to you Conference Committee Substitute for House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 199, entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 48.020, 48.030, 50.550, 50.740, 56.640, 67.1775, 135.207, 304.010, 473.730, 558.019, and 559.021, RSMo, and section 67.399, RSMo, as enacted by senate committee substitute for house substitute for house committee substitute for house bills nos. 977 & 1608, eighty-ninth general assembly, second regular session, and section 67.399, RSMo, as enacted by senate committee substitute for house bill no. 1352, eighty-ninth general assembly, second regular session, and to enact in lieu thereof twenty-two new sections relating to counties, with penalty provisions.

I disapprove of Conference Committee Substitute for House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 199. My reason for disapproval is as follows:

Article IX, section 7, of the Missouri constitution requires that "All forfeitures and fines collected hereafter for any breach of the penal laws of the state shall be distributed annually to the schools of the several counties according to law." This bill, by attempting to set aside fines collected for the breach of the penal laws of this state for purposes other than funding public schools, violates the state constitution. Particularly at a time when the funding provided to the free public schools of this state is inadequate, the constitutional provision guarding against the use of such funding for other purposes must be stringently adhered to.

For the above-stated reason for disapproval, I am returning Conference Committee Substitute for House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 199 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Holden

Governor

Senator Gibbons moved that the Senate proceed to the order of business, Vetoed Bills, and that the calendar be called, which motion prevailed.

President Pro Tem Kinder assumed the Chair.

Senator Shields assumed the Chair.

Senator Russell moved that SS No. 2 for SS for SCS for SB 2 be passed, the objections of the Governor thereto notwithstanding, which motion failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority by the following vote:

YEAS--Senators
Bartle Cauthorn Champion Childers
Clemens Foster Gibbons Griesheimer
Gross Kinder Klindt Loudon
Nodler Russell Scott Shields
Steelman Vogel Yeckel--19
NAYS--Senators
Bland Bray Caskey Coleman
Days Dougherty Goode Jacob
Kennedy Mathewson Quick Stoll
Wheeler--13
Absent--Senators--None
Absent with leave--Senator Dolan--1
Vacancies--1

HCS for SCS for SB 7 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

SCS for SB 29 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

Senator Yeckel moved that CCS for HCS for SCS for SB 69 be passed, the objections of the Governor thereto notwithstanding, which motion failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority by the following vote:

YEAS--Senators
Bartle Cauthorn Champion Childers
Clemens Foster Gibbons Griesheimer
Gross Kinder Klindt Loudon
Nodler Russell Scott Shields
Steelman Vogel Yeckel--19
NAYS--Senators
Bland Bray Caskey Coleman
Days Dougherty Goode Jacob
Mathewson Quick Stoll Wheeler--12
Absent--Senator Kennedy--1
Absent with leave--Senator Dolan--1
Vacancies--1

Senator Cauthorn moved that HCS for SCS for SB 84 be passed, the objections of the Governor thereto notwithstanding, which motion failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority by the following vote:

YEAS--Senators
Bartle Cauthorn Champion Childers
Clemens Foster Gibbons Griesheimer
Gross Kinder Klindt Loudon
Nodler Russell Scott Shields
Steelman Vogel Yeckel--19
NAYS--Senators
Bland Bray Caskey Coleman
Days Dougherty Goode Jacob
Kennedy Mathewson Quick Stoll
Wheeler--13
Absent--Senators--None
Absent with leave--Senator Dolan--1
Vacancies--1

SB 203 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

SCS No. 2 for SB 224 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

SB 250 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

HCS for SCS for SB 358 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

HCS for SB 401 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

SB 425 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

The following message was received from the House of Representatives through its Chief Clerk:

Mr. President: I am instructed by the House of Representatives to inform the Senate that the House has taken up and passed HR 1.

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 1

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-second General Assembly First Regular Session, inform the Governor and the Senate that the House is duly convened and is now in session in the 2003 Constitutional Veto Session and ready for consideration of business.

INTRODUCTIONS OF GUESTS

Senator Kinder introduced to the Senate, John Jordan, Cape Girardeau; former State Senator, Sheriff Jim Murphy, St. Louis; and sheriffs and deputies from around the state.

Senator Kinder introduced to the Senate, Jim Gulliford, Fred Schuster and Thomas Lenz, Kansas City.

On motion of Senator Gibbons, the Senate adjourned under the rules.

SENATE CALENDAR

______



SECOND DAY-THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003

______



FORMAL CALENDAR



VETOED BILLS



SS for SS for SCS for SB 280-Scott

SS for SB 13-Kinder



CCS for HS for HCS for

SCS for SB 199-Childers