What the Missouri General Assembly Finds Most Important

One of my responsibilities as a legislative intern for District 6 Representative Rachel L. Bringer (D-Palmyra) is to keep a running list of all Democratic Bills and a list of legislation that is announced, or soon to be announced.

Not many Missourians probably realize that they can easily find out what their legislator is doing and what issues the General Assembly find most crucial by looking at two documents. This document, called the Journal of the House, and this document of Legislation on the Calendar. For example, today, there are 11 new consent bills (a consent bill is one that cannot be debated on the floor of the House and is a non-controversial) added to the calendar. These bills range from naming a memorial highway, designating a day as some sort of "awareness day", and so on. These are pretty "to-the-point" bills, so hopefully the House does not spent much time debating them.

Another piece of legislation on the calendar, not yet announced, is Representative Maynard Wallace's (R-Thornfield) HB1543. This bill is in relation to elementary and secondary education, that also includes a penalty provision (a penalty provision is basically a part of the bill that states if the bill/law is not followed, there will be repercussions). The announcement of this bill, in my eyes, is great because I have a list of 24 democratic bills that can possibly be added as an amendment to Rep. Wallace's legislation. Typically, the only way the minority party (at least what it seems) will get a bill passed is an amendment to a majority party bill. If democrats are able to get even one amendment onto HB1543, it should be considered a win. The democrats have not held a majority in the House since 2002.

I had several criticisms for the House earlier on in the session because for the better part of the first 3 weeks of session, the legislators mainly dealt with debating non-binding resolutions that were going to be sent to the U.S. Congress. Non-binding, if you're unaware, means that if Congress decides to ignore the "plea of Missourians" there are no repercussions whatsoever. These resolutions included making it a constitutional amendment to submit a balanced budget to the people (which is great, in my opinion) and one that states that Missourians do not support the universal healthcare reform. The theory behind both of these resolutions is great, because I'm for both a balanced budget and I've explained my views on universal healthcare already here. However, spending the first 3 weeks debating these resolutions when Missouri has more important issues it is facing; perhaps looking for a solution for Missouri's $750 million deficit and 9 percent unemployment rate. On the other hand, we have finally moved passed the non-binding resolutions (for now) and the House are now focusing on actual Missouri problems.

One issue that I'm constantly talking to constituents about is the Parents as Teachers program, or PAT. This program enables parents to be heavily involved in the early stages of a child's education (pre-kindergarten). You can find more in-depth information about PAT here. This program is facing a budget cut of $4.1 million in Missouri as proposed by Governor Jay Nixon's FY2010-2011 budget.

The Missouri Access Grant, something that I used to receive, but no longer do, is currently being revised by Representative Michael Thomson (R-Maryville). The fundamental basis of this bill will change the grade point average (GPA) requirement from a 2.5 to a 2.0. This is a financially-based grant, not an academic grant. This is what Rep. Thomson argues when he has defended his bill. I understand that this is not academic based, but how hard is it to maintain a 2.5 GPA? On the other hand, this will provide those who are "average" grade receivers to still retain their grant if they fall below the oh-so-very-hard GPA requirement of 2.5.

Another issue relating to the Missouri Access Grant is legislation (not sure which piece) that will level the amount awarded to students who receive the grant. Currently, there is a difference between those students who attend a public, private, or two-year institution. Below is the amount levels awarded for the Grant.

Public 2 Year:
Maximum of $1,000 and Minimum of $300
Public 4 Year+Linn State Technical College:
Maximum of $2,150 and Minimum of $1,000
Private:
Maximum of $4,600 and Minimum of $2,000

This legislation will level the amounts awarded to a student, regardless of where they attend. I see this as a great opportunity and see no negative impacts towards this change. If you attend a private institution, YOU chose to attend that institution-you do not pay money to the state to attend that school, so you should really not receive any state funding in my opinion. This would allow more students to complete programs at two-year institutions if they did not have programs like "A+" available to them while in high school. In addition, it would allow students to have less debt after they complete their program at a public institution. For more information on this grant, click here.

These are some of the issues that the Missouri legislature is currently addressing. I will follow up on these as time progresses and as they move forward in the legislative process.

Over and out.