The Senate was called to order in Veto Session by President Pro Tem McKenna.

     The Reverend G. Dale Norfolk offered the following prayer:

     Our Heavenly Father, we are thankful for our form of government. To some it seems slow and tedious; to others it appears inefficient. At times it seems to offer discouragement instead of hope, and words instead of action. Use those gathered here today to restore the faith of the people in our form of government and as instruments for good. In Jesus' Name we pray. Amen.

     The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited.

     Senator Quick announced that photographers from KFVS-TV, KTVI-TV, KOMU- TV, KPLR-TV, KY-3-TV, KMOV-TV, KSDK-TV, the Senate, KCTV-TV, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and WDAF-TV, had been given permission to take pictures in the Senate Chamber today.

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

Present--Senators

Banks Bentley Caskey Childers

Clay Curls DePasco Ehlmann

Flotron Goode Graves House

Howard Jacob Johnson Kenney

Kinder Klarich Lybyer Mathewson

Maxwell McKenna Mueller Quick

Rohrbach Russell Schneider Scott

Sims Singleton Staples Westfall

Wiggins Yeckel--34

Absent with leave--Senators--None

The Lieutenant Governor was present.

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

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 275 entitled:

To repeal sections 188.015, 188.030, 188.035 and 188.075, RSMo 1994, relating to abortions, and to enact in lieu thereof five new sections relating to the same subject, with a penalty provision.

     I cannot approve Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 275 (hereinafter referred to as "SB 275") and must return it unsigned with the following reasons for my disapproval. As set out below, SB 275 does not protect women who are faced with serious threats to their health as a result of tragic complications to late term pregnancies. The lack of that basic and fundamental protection also violates the United States Constitution. Existing Missouri law provides that protection and should not be altered.

BACKGROUND

     In 1974, in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, Governor Bond signed House Bill 1211. Among other things, HB 1211 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bond Ban") outlawed late term abortions, except where the mother's life or health is at risk. Its Senate handler claimed the bill was "as restrictive as guidelines of the Supreme Court permit." ("Abortion Regulation Bill Passes," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 1, 1974) The bill's advocates praised and embraced its late term abortion ban. ("Right to Life Reaction Told on Abortion Bill," Jefferson City News Tribune, June 16, 1974.)

     Twenty-two years passed. On March 28, 1996, the United States Congress passed a bill banning certain late term abortions. President Clinton vetoed the bill on April 10, 1996. Congress waited until late September, just prior to the 1996 general election, to attempt to override the President's veto. That effort failed 57-41 in the United States Senate.1

     In 1997, motivated by a base political desire to replicate the divisiveness of the federal debate in Missouri, anti-choice leaders filed and passed a late-term abortion bill in the Missouri legislature Senate Bill 275.

     Although SB 275 is motivated by a political agenda, I, as governor, must evaluate the bill for signing or veto based on its public policy merits or deficiencies. In the case of SB 275, that involves a comparative analysis of the late-term abortion ban contained in SB 275 (hereinafter referred to as the "1997 Ban"), with the Bond Ban and its successor provisions. This analysis focuses on women's and public health considerations and constitutionality considerations.

WOMEN'S AND PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS

     As outlined below, the Bond Ban and its successor provisions take a strong public policy position against late term abortions, allow them only where a physician has documented in writing the life or health threat to the mother, and mandate that alternative procedures be used, so long as they do not place the mother's life or health at greater risk.

     The Bond Ban, as it exists in current law, provides that "[n]o abortion of a viable unborn child shall be performed unless necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman." This provision, while outlawing late term abortions, also protects women who are faced with serious threats to their life or health as a result of tragic late term pregnancy complications. Placing these critical decisions in the hands of medical professionals, current law goes on to require that the physician certify to the state the "medical indications for such abortion and the probable health consequences." Section 188.030(l) RSMo.

     Continuing this theme, current law requires the attending physician to utilize other medical procedures, unless their use increases the threat to the life or health of the mother:

"Any physician who performs an abortion upon a woman carrying a viable unborn child shall utilize the available method or technique of abortion most likely to preserve the life and health of the unborn child. In cases where the method or technique of abortion which would most likely preserve the life and health of the unborn child would present a greater risk to the life and health of the woman than another available method or technique, the physician may utilize such other method or technique. In all cases where the physician performs an abortion upon a viable unborn child, the physician shall certify in writing the available method or techniques considered and the reasons for choosing the method or technique employed." Section 188.030(2) RSMo (emphasis added).

     Unlike the comprehensive approach of the Bond Ban and its successor provisions, the 1997 Ban deals with only one vaguely defined late term procedure and builds in absolutely no safeguards for serious health threats to the mother.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

     The Bond Ban and its successor provisions have undergone rigorous lower court and United States Supreme Court review in the 1976 Danforth case, 1983 Ashcroft case and 1989 Webster case. As it exists today, the Bond Ban has passed full constitutional scrutiny.

     The 1997 Ban has a number of constitutional defects. In the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, the court required that state late term abortion bans contain provisions protecting against life and health threats to the mother. This principal was specifically reaffirmed in the 1992 Casey decision.

     Proponents of the Bond Ban respected that legal requirement and, as noted above, included an exception for threats to the mother's life or health. (Section 188.030, RSMo; "House Advances Bill to Restrict Abortion," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 21, 1974; "Right to Life Reaction Told on Abortion Bill", Jefferson City News Tribune, June 16, 1974.)

     The 1997 ban, as noted above, would not protect against serious health threats to the mother. Consequently, it violates the United States Constitution. Its enactment would require the state to defend a costly constitutional challenge, subject the state to an injunction and require the payment of thousands of dollars of attorneys' fees to the plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

     The Bond Ban and its successor provisions takes a strong public policy position against late term abortions, while protecting against serious threats to the mother's life or health. It is an approach that I support. These provisions have also passed intense lower court and Supreme Court scrutiny.

     The 1997 Ban makes no provision for serious health threats to the mother as a result of tragic complications to late term pregnancies. The lack of such safeguards makes it bad public health policy and also renders it unconstitutional.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, SB 275 is returned and not approved. Notwithstanding my veto, I am supportive of our existing law. If the bill's proponents desire to explicitly codify that the present, across-the-board late term abortion ban (along with its safeguards against life and health threats) includes the specific procedure intended to be covered in SB 275, I will call a special session contemporaneous with the September veto session to allow them to pass and present for my signature such a bill which will pass the constitutional approval of the courts.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

1Congress is on the verge of sending the President another bill. While suffering from many of the same flaws as SB 275, the new federal bill utilizes a less vague definition of the procedure covered and allows physicians to have a state health board review their patient care before facing a criminal prosecution. These provisions were considered and rejected by the legislature and are not present in SB 275.

     Also,

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 165 entitled:

To repeal sections 30.750, 30.753, 30.756, 30.758, 30.760, 30.765, 64.930, 64.950, 70.385, 70.390, 99.340, 99.805, 99.810, 99.820, 99.825, 99.830, 99.835, 99.845, 99.865, 100.255, 100.264, 100.275, 100.297, 135.208, 143.805, 178.896, 253.401, 327.031, 386.025, 393.295, 393.705, 393.710, 393.715, 393.725, 393.730, 393.760, 393.770, 620.1072 and 620.1078, RSMo 1994, and sections 100.296, 100.840, 135.100, 135.200, 135.225, 135.230, 135.247, 135.352, 135.400, 135.403, 135.405, 135.460, 135.500, 135.503, 135.508, 135.516, 143.451, 178.895, 447.710 and 620.1039, RSMo Supp. 1996, relating to the department of economic development and economic development incentive programs, and to enact in lieu thereof one hundred twenty-nine new sections relating to the same subject, with an effective date and a termination date for certain sections.

     I disapprove of Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 165. My reasons for disapproval are as follows: First the bill automatically diverts general revenue to the Missouri Tax Increment Financing Fund prior to and without the control of the budget and appropriations process. Only disbursements are subject to appropriation and state approval. This bill would destabilize the entire budget by diverting an unknown amount of general revenue, an amount that cannot be estimated, throughout the fiscal year.

     Second, this bill contains over 42 initiatives which will almost certainly bring challenges pursuant to the rulings issued in Hammerschmidt, Carmack and the Petroleum Marketers case which is still pending. Economic development is one of the most important initiatives to the future of this state. However, the linchpin of economic development is certainty and stability. Litigation creates uncertainty and instability in the planning process.

     There are many good initiatives contained in this bill, however, collateral legal attacks by opponents to the measures will cause delay in the implementation of those provisions. The legislature should revisit the provisions of this bill and separate those provisions in such a manner as to discourage collateral legal attacks so that our counties, cities and towns can address their economic development in a more certain fashion.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 165 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     Also,

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you Senate Bill No. 353 entitled:

To repeal section 67.1000, RSMo Supp. 1996, relating to tourism tax, and to enact in lieu thereof four new sections relating to the same subject, with an emergency clause.

     I disapprove of Senate Bill No. 353. My reasons for disapproval are as follows: After Senate Bill No. 353 was Truly Agreed and Finally Passed, new clarification and guidance were given in regard to classification description of political subdivisions. Geographical classifications were discussed at length. Senate Bill No. 353 contains a geographical classification which I believe may be in conflict with the recent Missouri Supreme Court decision. Because of the adverse consequences of a finding by the court that this classification would be unconstitutional, I believe the legislature should revisit this classification to avoid the uncertainty political subdivisions would face in the planning efforts.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, Senate Bill No. 353 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     Also,

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you House Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 97 entitled:

To repeal sections 337.636, 337.639 and 610.105, RSMo 1994, and sections 630.155, 630.167 and 630.710, RSMo Supp. 1996, relating to the confidentiality of mental health reports, and to enact in lieu thereof six new sections relating to the same subject.

     The primary purpose of this bill is to protect patients receiving treatment in the state mental health system by requiring the Department of Mental Health to obtain a criminal record report on staff hired to provide direct client care. While I agree with the concept of the bill, language in the bill fails to provide the state and its employees the appropriate level of immunity when the state provides access to employees' background information. Without the appropriate level of immunity, there may be significant increase in lawsuits resulting in an increase in claims against the Legal Expense Fund. Additionally, expanding the disclosure of the identity of witnesses in abuse and neglect investigations may impede the investigation process by deterring such witnesses from contributing information to investigators.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, House Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 97 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     Also,

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 402 entitled:

To repeal section 197.400, RSMo 1994, and section 197.445, RSMo Supp. 1996, relating to home health agencies, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to the same subject.

     The primary purpose of this bill is to provide clarification that podiatrists are authorized to approve and sign plans for persons needing home health care. While I am supportive of this concept, there is an additional provision in the bill that repeals the Department of Health's authority to implement home health agency licensing procedures. In addition, the provision repeals the requirement that the rules and standards adopted by the Department of Health are no less than the minimum standards established by the federal government for home health agencies under Title XVIII of the Federal Social Security Act. This provision in the bill would reduce the overall quality of home health services in Missouri.

     The clarification that podiatrists may approve and sign plans for home care was addressed in House Bill No. 642 which I signed into law on June 25, 1997.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 402 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     Also,

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you Senate Bill No. 128 entitled:

To repeal sections 408.100, 408.200, 408.232, 408.233 and 408.500, RSMo 1994, and section 408.140, RSMo Supp. 1996, relating to financial transactions, and to enact seven new sections relating to the same subject.

     I disapprove Senate Bill 128. My reasons for disapproval are as follows: This bill would eliminate the statutory cap on the amount of interest charged on a small loan or home equity loan. This bill also doubles the origination fee for home equity loans and certain small loans. The changes in this bill are not justified by the current economic conditions. I vetoed similar legislation in 1995 and can see no justification as to how circumstances have changed to eliminate the cap on interest rates.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, Senate Bill No.128 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     Also,

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 Bill No. 142 entitled:

To repeal sections 367.044, 367.045, 367.047, 367.048, 367.050, RSMo 1994, relating to pawnbroker regulations, and to enact in lieu thereof seven new sections relating to the same subject, with penalty provisions.

     The primary purpose of this bill is to clarify and strengthen the regulation of the pawnbroker industry. While I agree with the intent of the bill, it contains a provision relating to titles that fails to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of Missouri's consumers. A pawnbroker loan requires that the pawnbroker take physical possession of the tangible personal property. House Substitute for Senate Bill No. 142 permits a title loan without taking possession of the personal property. According to the laws of the State of Missouri, this is not a pawn transaction. Title lenders should act in compliance with the small loan laws of Missouri to ensure violations of the Consumer Protection Act and Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code are prevented and if they occur are enforced.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, Conference Committee Substitute for House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 142 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     Also,

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

     Herewith I return to you House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills Nos. 386 and 372 entitled:

To repeal sections 37.010, 103.059, 536.021, 536.022, 536.023 and 536.041, RSMo 1994, and sections 8.710, 29.100, 33.090, 34.050, 36.060, 36.070, 41.948, 43.509, 66.380, 160.272, 161.102, 173.081, 192.006, 207.021, 260.225, 262.470, 276.406, 287.650, 326.110, 333.111, 337.050, 361.105, 374.045, 454.400, 536.024, 536.025, 536.050, 620.010, 620.125, 630.050, 633.190, 640.010, 640.755, 643.050, 644.026, 650.005 and 660.017, RSMo Supp. 1996, and section 32.125, as both versions of such section appear in RSMo Supp. 1996, and sections 376.1399 and 536.028 from senate substitute for senate committee substitute for house substitute for house committee substitute for house bill no. 335 as truly agreed to and finally passed by the first regular session of the eighty-ninth general assembly and section 14 from senate amendment no. 26 to senate substitute for senate committee substitute for house substitute for house committee substitute for house bill no. 335 as truly agreed to and finally passed by the first regular session of the eighty-ninth general assembly, relating to rulemaking, and to enact in lieu thereof fifty new sections relating to the same subject, with an emergency clause for certain sections.

     I disapprove of House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills Nos. 386 and 372. My reasons for disapproval are as follows: House Bill 850 represented the culmination of negotiation with both the House and the Senate to reach a consensus on how to address the issue of rulemaking procedure. That bill was passed with an emergency clause similar to the emergency clause in this bill which states, "Because of the immediate need for consistency of rulemaking procedures this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety...". This bill would create inconsistency, ambiguity and uncertainty in the rulemaking process and in rules previously promulgated and implemented by various departments, agencies, boards and commissions. Because I agree with the General Assembly that there is an immediate need for consistency in rulemaking procedures I disapprove of this bill.

     For the above and foregoing reasons, House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills Nos. 386 and 372 is returned and not approved.

               Respectfully submitted,

               /s/Mel Carnahan

     President Wilson assumed the Chair.

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

     BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate that the Secretary of the 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 Quick offered the following resolution, which was read and adopted:

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

     Senator Quick moved that the Senate proceed to the order of business, vetoed bills, and that the calendar be called, which motion prevailed.

     Senator Kinder moved that SS for SB 275 be passed, the Governor's objections thereto notwithstanding, which motion failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority by the following vote:

YEAS--Senators

Bentley Childers Curls DePasco

Ehlmann Flotron Graves House

Johnson Kenney Kinder Klarich

McKenna Mueller Rohrbach Russell

Schneider Scott Singleton Westfall

Wiggins Yeckel--22

NAYS--Senators

Banks Caskey Clay Goode

Howard Jacob Lybyer Mathewson

Maxwell Quick Sims Staples--12

Absent--Senators--None

Absent with leave--Senators--None

     CCS for HCS for SS for SCS for SB 165 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

     SB 353 was called thereafter and no motion was taken thereon.

     Senator Quick moved that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes.

     The time of recess having expired, the Senate was called to order by Senator Staples.

     The following messages were 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 offered into and adopted HR 1.

     BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives inform the Governor and the Senate that the House is duly convened and is now in session in the 1997 Constitutional Veto Session and ready for consideration of business.

     Also,

     Mr. President: I am instructed by the House of Representatives to inform the Senate that the House has offered into and adopted HR 2.

     BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives, that the Chief Clerk of the House inform the Senate that the House, having been duly convened as provided by Section 32, Article III of the Constitution, made no motions to override the Governor's vetoes on CCS for SCS for HCS for HB 6, CCS for SCS for HCS for HB 7, CCS for SCS for HCS for HB 8, CCS for SCS for HCS for HB 9, CCS for SCS for HCS for HB 11, SCS for HB 13, HB 17, SCS for HCS for HB 18, SCS for HCS for HB 214, CCS for SS for SCS for HB 259, HB 301 and HB 327 when the bills were called by the Speaker.

     Senator Rohrbach introduced to the Senate, Dr. David Henson and Keith Fuller, Jefferson City.

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

HS for SS for SB 97- Schneider

SCS for SB 402-Lybyer

SB 128-Mathewson and Scott

CCS for HS for HCS for SB 142-DePasco and

McKenna

HS for HCS for SS for SCS

for SBs 386 & 372- Schneider