House Journal - January 11, 1996
Second Regular Session, 88th General Assembly
SIXTH DAY, Thursday, January 11, 1996
Speaker Gaw in the Chair.
Prayer by Rev. Cheryl L. Tatham.
This is a new day, Gracious God of Life, full of promises and possibilities. As we reflect on
days past, we ask your forgiveness for words spoken in anger and frustration. We give thanks
for Representatives Griffin and Barnes who served their offices with fortitude in the face of
good days and bad. Bless them in their service completed. We thank you for Representatives Gaw
and Daniels who bring to this House new enthusiasm and experienced wisdom. Give them strength
and guidance for the journey through the days ahead.
Protect and direct these servants of the people, O Lord, as they look toward the future with
anticipation of great accomplishment. Reassure them that you are a great and loving God, ever
watchful over your creation. Bless them as they return to their homes and their families this
weekend and give them rest and refreshment for their bodies and their spirits, and may they
return to this place with renewed commitment and courage.
We lift our prayers to you for those struggling with illness or grief, especially for Logan
Crump, 4 month old son of Rep. Wayne Crump, as he fights respiratory problems. Support him and
his parents, Wayne and Tiffany, with your healing touch.
Hear our prayers, O Lord. Amen.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was recited.
The Journal of the fifth day was approved as printed by the following vote:
Akin Alter Auer Backer Ballard
Barnett 4 Bartelsmeyer Bennett 15 Bland Boatright
Bonner Boucher Bray Broach Brown
Burton Canuteson Carter Champion Childers
Chrismer Cierpiot Clayton Cooper Crum 112
Daniel 42 Daniels 41 Davis Days Donovan
Dougherty Edwards Enz Evans Farmer
Farnen Fiebelman Fitzwater Foley Foster
Franklin Froelker Garnett Gaskill Gibbons
Goward Graham Gratz Green Griesheimer
Griffin Gross Gunn Hagan-Harrell Hall
Hand Harlan Hartzler 123 Hartzler 124 Heckemeyer
Hegeman Hendrickson Hickey Hoppe Hosmer
Howerton Jacob Kasten Kauffman Keeven
Kelley 47 Kelly 27 Kissell Klumb Koller
Lakin Leake Legan Levin Liese
Linton Lograsso Long Luetkenhaus Marble
Marshall 26 Marshall 133 May 108 Mays 50 McBride
McClelland McLuckie Mitchell Montgomery Morgan
Murphy Murray 69 Murray 135 Naeger Nordwald
O'Connor O'Toole Oetting Ostmann Overschmidt
Pauley Pouche Prost Pryor Reynolds
Ribaudo Richardson Ridgeway Rizzo Robirds
Ross Sallee Schilling Schwab Scott
Sears 1 Secrest Shear 83 Sheldon 104 Shelton 57
Shields Skaggs Smith Sombart Stokan
Stoll Summers Surface Tate Thomason 163
Thompson 37 Treadway Troupe Van Zandt Vogel
Wannenmacher Ward Whiteside Wieland Wiggins
Williams 121 Williams 159 Witt Wooten Mr. Speaker
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 012
Barnes Copeland Crump 152 Elliott Ford
Hohulin Kreider Loudon Lumpe O'Neill
Representative McClelland offered House Resolution No. 83, which was referred
to the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative McClelland offered House Resolution No. 84, which was referred
to the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative Cierpiot offered House Resolution No. 85, which was referred to
the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative Bonner offered House Resolution Nos. 86 through 90 , which were
referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative Harlan offered House Resolution No. 91, which was referred to
the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative Harlan offered House Resolution No. 92, which was referred to
the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative Mitchell offered House Resolution No. 93, which was referred to
the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
Representative Gaw offered House Resolution No. 94, which was referred to the
Committee on Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions.
SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILLS
HB 1052 through HB 1079 were read the second time.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker: I am instructed by the Senate to inform the House of
Representatives that the Senate has taken up and adopted HCR 1.
The President Pro Tem has appointed the following committee to act with a like
committee from the House pursuant to HCR 1: Senators House, Caskey, Ehlmann,
Kinder, Klarich, Maxwell, Melton, Moseley, Schneider and Wiggins.
The Speaker appointed the following committee to meet with a like committee
from the Senate to wait upon Chief Justice John C. Holstein of the Missouri
Supreme Court: Representatives Witt, Harlan, Hosmer, Smith, Days, May (108),
Murray (135), Ridgeway, Gibbons, Richardson and Naeger.
The hour of the Joint Session having arrived, the Senate in a body was
admitted and Lieutenant Governor Wilson, presiding, called the Joint Assembly
The Secretary of the Senate called the roll, which showed a majority of the
Banks Bentley Caskey Clay Curls
DePasco Ehlmann Flotron Graves House
Howard Johnson Kenney Kinder Klarich
Lybyer Mathewson Maxwell McKenna Moseley
Mueller Rohrbach Schneider Sims Singleton
Staples Treppler Westfall Wiggins
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 004
Goode Melton Russell Scott
The Chief Clerk of the House called the roll, which showed a majority of the
Akin Alter Auer Backer Ballard
Barnett 4 Bartelsmeyer Bennett 15 Boatright Bonner
Boucher Bray Broach Brown Burton
Canuteson Carter Champion Chrismer Cierpiot
Clayton Cooper Crum 112 Daniels 41 Davis
Days Donovan Dougherty Edwards Enz
Evans Farmer Farnen Fiebelman Fitzwater
Ford Foster Froelker Garnett Gaskill
Gibbons Graham Gratz Green Griesheimer
Griffin Gross Hall Hand Harlan
Hartzler 123 Hartzler 124 Heckemeyer Hegeman Hendrickson
Hickey Hohulin Hoppe Hosmer Howerton
Jacob Kasten Kauffman Keeven Kelley 47
Kelly 27 Kissell Klumb Lakin Legan
Levin Liese Linton Lograsso Long
Loudon Luetkenhaus Marshall 26 Marshall 133 May 108
Mays 50 McBride McClelland McLuckie Mitchell
Montgomery Morgan Murray 69 Murray 135 Naeger
Nordwald O'Connor Oetting Ostmann Overschmidt
Pauley Pouche Pryor Reynolds Richardson
Ridgeway Robirds Ross Sallee Schilling
Schwab Scott Sears 1 Secrest Shear 83
Shelton 57 Shields Skaggs Smith Sombart
Steen Stokan Stoll Summers Tate
Thompson 37 Treadway Troupe Van Zandt Vogel
Wannenmacher Whiteside Wieland Williams 121 Williams 159
Witt Mr. Speaker
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 029
Barnes Bland Childers Copeland Crump 152
Daniel 42 Elliott Foley Franklin Goward
Gunn Hagan-Harrell Koller Kreider Leake
Lumpe Marble Murphy O'Neill O'Toole
Prost Ribaudo Rizzo Scheve Sheldon 104
Surface Thomason 163 Ward Wooten
The Doorkeeper announced the approach of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, Honorable John C. Holstein. The Chief Justice was duly escorted to the
House Chamber and the Speaker's dais, where he delivered the following message
to the assembly in the Joint Session.
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS
by John C. Holstein, Chief Justice
to Joint Session of the General Assembly
January 11, 1996
Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Speaker, members of the General Assembly, colleagues, and fellow
It is a great honor to be the twelfth chief justice since the tradition began in 1974 to be
invited to speak to the General Assembly. Both you and I, as public servants, are privileged
to stand here today on the broad shoulders of earlier chief justices, senators,
representatives, and members of the executive branch. Their foresight in designing and
implementing our state system of justice reflects immense wisdom. They were progressive when
progress was called for. They exercised restraint when restraint was appropriate.
In recent years the General Assembly has upheld that great tradition. You have continued to
provide the tools necessary to make the delivery of justice to Missouri citizens better,
faster and more efficient than ever before. The backlogs and delays that exist in other states
do not exist in Missouri. The General Assembly has been most helpful in two particular areas.
First, in order to meet the challenge presented by an unprecedented growth rate in caseloads,
prior chief justices have come to the legislature to seek funding for judicial transfer
programs, and for the broader use of our senior judges. The General Assembly and the Governor
have responded favorably to those requests in the past. As a result, tens of thousands of
cases have been disposed of by judges on transfer and by senior judges. We are grateful to the
other two branches of government for assisting the courts. All Missourians should be
enormously grateful to the senior judges and to the judges who have been transferred, often at
considerable inconvenience and, in the case of senior judges, without receiving full
compensation. Last year alone, the number of days our senior judges worked were equivalent to
more than 10 full-time sitting judges.
The second area in which the General Assembly in recent years has been most helpful is in
providing the courts with ability to automate. Beginning in 1994, the legislature provided for
a funding mechanism to develop a statewide computerized court system. The General Assembly has
challenged us to create a court system that is more accessible and more effective than ever
Meetings are being held around the state with those who will use electronic courts --
appellate judges, trial judges, clerks, attorneys, and state agencies, who routinely need
access to court information. We are now beginning to see the first fruit of the court
automation project. Through arrangements made with the Court Automation Committee, Missouri
statutes and Missouri cases going back to 1950 are now available on compact disk to all trial
judges in the state who want them. We hope to put more of our Supreme Court publications,
Approved Instructions and judicial bench books on computer disk in the near future. A judge
traveling a circuit may carry a complete Missouri law library in a briefcase. In the future,
we may be able to have such a library on line. Plans are being made for the Missouri Bar and
the Missouri State Courts Administrator to have a home page on the internet so that lawyers
and citizens alike may access information about the courts. Lawyers will be able to register
for continuing legal education programs, and information regarding selecting a lawyer, small
claims court, or recent court decisions may be located by citizens.
A more important and certainly the more costly aspect of the project is the contract entered
into this fall to design an architecture which will provide a statewide judicial information
system that will take us well into the next century. Ultimately, that system will allow us the
option of electronic filings of pleading, giving of notices, and archiving of court records
for retrieval on a 24-hour-a-day basis. Video conferencing will be included in the plan so
that some court proceedings may be conducted from remote locations. The contract will give us
an architecture for a computer system which will not become obsolete before the system is
As originally conceived, our court automation project required ten years of funding. As you
know, the court automation bill as it finally passed only provided for five years of funding.
I again commend to you the need to consider extending that funding for the five additional
years necessary to complete the project.
As we enter into court automation, we are making every effort not to computerize merely for
the sake of computerization. Now is the time to eliminate bad practices and procedure. Every
aspect of our judicial process must be open to thorough examination.
The story is told about a young wife who baked a ham every Sunday. Every Sunday she cut the
ends of the ham off before she baked it. After watching her do this for a few weeks, her young
husband asked her why she did it. She said, "I do it because my mother did it." She then
called her mother and asked her why she cut the ends off the ham. Her mother said, "My mother
did it." So grandma was called. She asked grandma why she cut the ends off the ham. Grandma
replied, "Simple. My pan was too small."
We are trying to be careful as we computerize not to perpetuate a senseless practice merely
because "that's how grandma did it." We should not become so steeped in tradition that we are
incapable of change.
To obtain the full benefit of computerization will undoubtedly require some statutory changes.
We will be coming to you to assist us in making the necessary changes so that we do not
continue to cut the ends off the ham.
This brings me to legislation which we are going to ask you to consider and, hopefully, pass
during this session of the legislature. It has to do with our present system of court costs.
As most of you are aware, that system is extremely complex. Court costs have been used and, in
the view of some, overused as a revenue enhancement device. Court costs and fees have
historically been a method for offsetting some of the public cost of operating the court
system from the users of that system. To ask those who most directly benefit from operation of
the court to share in the costs of its operation is not inherently wrong.
At the same time, for the court to fulfill its role and to provide citizens their
constitutional rights to due process, access must not be prevented or unduly restricted by the
amount of court costs or by the proliferation of costs unrelated to court operations that are
charged. The costs for filing circuit civil cases has risen from $60 in 1982 to over $100 in
1995. These costs, surcharges and fees may occur within the case due to service of process,
payment of jury fees, copying fees, court reporter transcript fees, etc. These must be sorted
out and billed by the clerks of the court. Then the costs must be distributed to the proper
agency. Each of you have been provided with a diagram of our court costs system. Larger
versions of that same diagram have been set up in the front of each of the two galleries.
The diagram graphically illustrates the present system and why court costs are a prime target
for reengineering as we enter the electronic age. The current court costs system is scattered
through more than seventy sections of the statutes, beginning in chapter 14 and concluding in
chapter 595 of the Revised Statutes. Under the current billing system, the billing may be
quite late. It is not at all unusual that the responsible party is dead or that an attorney
has lost contact with his or her client who is the responsible party. The billing system is
unnecessarily complex. In one associate circuit court, I was shown a receipt form that was
more than eighteen inches wide merely so that it could have a box to be filled in for each of
the separate court costs involved.
Auditing is quite difficult. There is no system of immediate electronic audit that follows a
case from filing through the judge's entry of orders, including assessment of fines and costs,
and on to the clerk, who collects the costs, and then to the state or county agencies that
receive the funds. Much of this is done manually. Naturally, it must await a manual audit. As
you know, those audits often occur only every two or three years.
The final problem and, perhaps, the most important problem, is the public's perception that
costs are too high and too complicated. We have regularly heard complaints from people that
costs and fines in one county are significantly different for the same type case a few
Here are the basic solutions which the legislation proposes:
First, to the maximum extent possible, all court costs should be placed in one chapter. In
that chapter should be found not only provisions for the amount but the procedures for
collection and distribution of the funds. By doing that, it is less likely that some fee or
cost required to be collected by law will be missed or will not reach the proper account. In
addition, terminology used in all statutes relating to various costs, fees and surcharges will
be defined and made uniform.
Second, to the maximum extent possible, funds will be distributed more rapidly to the
appropriate state and local government agencies. Provision should be made for electronic
transfers of funds to the appropriate agencies at the state and county level.
Third, we hope to provide courts with the same flexibility accorded executive agencies for
establishing charges that are directly related to the costs of services provided, such as
mileage, copying papers, jury fees, and the like. To the maximum extent possible, these fees
should be uniform. Costs charged in one type case in St. Charles County should not vary
significantly from costs charged for the same type case in Clay County. Just like executive
fees, these charges should always be subject to legislative review but, like executive
agencies, the Supreme Court should have the ability to adopt uniform rules regarding the
amount of costs which should properly be recovered from the parties.
Fourth, as part of court automation, a clear trail of what money is collected and where it
goes that is capable of electronic audit must be established. If all the fines and costs in a
particular case are not collected, that case should be flagged immediately in the system so
that at least two people, perhaps the judge who assessed the fine and costs, and clerk
responsible for collecting them, will be aware of the shortfall. Court automation, coupled
with simplification in court costs in a unified code using uniform terminology and uniform fee
schedules, should result in accurate and timely billing, collection and disbursement of court
There may be some immediate costs related to this legislation. I would hope that in the long
term, collections would in fact be enhanced. As you can guess from the diagram, there may be
some holes in the bucket. If we can make court costs simpler, uniform, understandable and
efficient, that will be a major step in earning the confidence of the people we all serve.
I wish I could say that legislation to simplify and clarify court costs is simple and clear.
As you can see from the diagram, you are being asked to untie a gordian knot of court costs
that has developed over many, many years and to do so without reducing revenues. As we
undertake this task, I am reminded that sometimes the hardest things we do can be the most
Returning for a moment to the subject of court automation, I wish to point out we have placed
a high priority on the planning phase of court automation. We have demanded from our
consultants an organized, well thought out approach to automation which sidesteps waste and
false starts made by other states who fell into the temptation of quick solutions and
wholesale purchases of hardware and off-the-shelf software. As we bring forward the plan, and
as you see the complexity of what is required to create the statewide system that is
envisioned, we hope that the system will earn your trust, confidence and support.
In this regard, we are hopeful that you will ask questions and closely follow the court
automation project as well as our efforts to simplify, clarify and make more efficient the
billing, collection and distribution of court costs.
There are other less costly but nonetheless important matters that we have placed before the
legislature this year for consideration. One such matter is court security. I would not want
to see our courthouses turned into fortresses. But insuring the safety of court staff, lawyers
and litigants is essential. Court security in our circuit courts around the state is largely
the responsibility of county government. Most county governments have taken that
responsibility quite seriously, particularly in view of the events that occurred in Oklahoma
City last year. Currently, our Supreme Court security staff is very small. Security equipment
that is standard in most urban courthouses, most federal courthouses and some of the courts of
appeals is not available for the Supreme Court. A committee appointed last year by the Supreme
Court is working on overall recommendations for court security in the state. One of their
immediate recommendations is that we strengthen the security of our own building across the
street. While we have been fortunate to not have any serious incidents, we would not want to
wait until something actually occurs to take action.
The Governor's Commission on the Judiciary recently made nineteen specific recommendations
regarding the judicial system. While neither the Judicial Conference nor the Supreme Court has
taken a position on the recommendations, I can assure you that members of the judiciary have
closely observed the Governor's Commission in its deliberations. The Commission's report is
thoughtful and thorough. I commend them for their work. I commend their report to you for your
careful consideration. If we in the judiciary can be of any assistance to you, we will gladly
make ourselves available for discussing specific topics included in the Commission's report
and how those topics will affect court operations.
As previously noted, daunting caseloads are facing the courts in Missouri. In the last ten
years, excluding traffic and municipal cases, the overall caseload has grown 25%. In two
specific areas, domestic relations and felonies, the growth rate has been even more startling.
In domestic relations, the annual number of cases filed has increased 59%. Seventy-four
percent more felony cases were filed in 1995 than in 1985.
One way the trial judges have met the challenge is by moving cases faster. The Supreme Court
has established case disposition guidelines. Basically, those guidelines provide a framework
within which trial judges can measure whether the cases are moving through a particular
judge's court within a reasonable time. By proper use of the guidelines, judges are in a
better position to track their own efficiency. However, I have always been cautious to remind
everyone that the quality of justice cannot be measured by how fast we dispose of cases.
Every case and every court's docket is unique. Every case involves the life, liberty or
property of some real person. The delivery of quality justice remains the primary focus of our
Educational programs have assisted in handling caseloads. In the early 1980's, a program was
established to ensure that Missouri's trial judges had an opportunity at least once annually
to receive an update on changes in the statutes, new caselaw, and the most current information
regarding procedures. This year, for the first time, we are asking for a significant increase
in our training budget to provide regional in-service training programs for the clerical
staff. Just as it is important that judges keep up to date on new law and innovations in court
administration, it is also critical that our clerks be given similar opportunities for
continuing education, particularly in view of constantly increasing caseloads. Included in our
budget for this year is additional funding to provide training to the clerks of our courts in
various locations in the state. We are seeking approval of that important program.
It would be wrong for me to leave you with the impression that transfer programs, continuing
education programs, and case disposition guidelines imposed by the Supreme Court were entirely
responsible for this state's ability to deal with what appears to be an overwhelming caseload.
In point of fact, our trial judges and court clerks simply work harder, longer, and smarter
than before. That has given us the ability to meet the challenge of the last ten years.
Excluding traffic cases, on average, every judge in Missouri today must dispose of 250 more
cases per year than a judge did ten years ago. Ten years ago, the clerks of our state courts
were handling $93 million in child support collections. This past year, those collections had
rocketed to over $300 million. We should all take great pride in what our trial judges and
court clerks have accomplished.
The one fact that remains clear is that this growth pattern in caseloads is almost certain to
continue into the future. As we face new challenges, there will be an ever greater necessity
to give trial courts and clerks the additional tools necessary to help meet the growing demand
At the beginning of my comments, I spoke of the great debt we owe to the members of the
General Assembly who, over the course of many years, designed our system of justice. One
significant piece of legislation was Missouri's civil code which became effective ten days
before I was born. The civil code formed the basis for the Missouri Supreme Court Rules. The
Code contained a remarkably simple phrase that established the vision for the Missouri justice
system. The statute said that all the laws relating to practices of the courts should be
"construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Those
same words were incorporated into Missouri's Supreme Court rules in 1972. I look forward to
working with you as we continue to make a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
case a reality for the citizens of Missouri.
The Joint Session was dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor.
The Speaker resumed the Chair.
REFERRAL OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following House Joint Resolutions were referred to the Committee
HJR 39 - Ways and Means
HJR 40 - Social Services, Medicaid and the Elderly
REFERRAL OF HOUSE BILLS
The following House Bills were referred to the Committee indicated:
HB 765 - Workers Compensation and Employment Security
HB 766 - Retirement
HB 767 - Local Government and Related Matters
HB 768 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 769 - Social Services, Medicaid and the Elderly
HB 770 - Public Health and Safety
HB 771 - Children, Youth and Families
HB 772 - Governmental Organization and Review
HB 773 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 774 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 775 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 776 - Correctional and State Institutions
HB 777 - State Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
HB 778 - Elections
HB 779 - Local Government and Related Matters
HB 780 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 781 - Public Health and Safety
HB 782 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 783 - Insurance
HB 784 - Insurance
HB 785 - Professional Registration and Licensing
HB 786 - Consumer Protection
HB 787 - Professional Registration and Licensing
HB 788 - Children, Youth and Families
HB 789 - Consumer Protection
HB 791 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 792 - Children, Youth and Families
HB 794 - Children, Youth and Families
HB 795 - Labor
HB 796 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 797 - Agriculture
HB 798 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 799 - Ways and Means
HB 800 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 801 - Budget
HB 802 - Public Health and Safety
HB 803 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 805 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 806 - Public Health and Safety
HB 807 - Children, Youth and Families
HB 808 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 809 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 810 - Agriculture
HB 811 - Science, Technology and Critical Issues
HB 812 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 814 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 815 - Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions
HB 816 - Consumer Protection
HB 817 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 818 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 819 - Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions
HB 820 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 821 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 822 - Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions
HB 823 - Correctional and State Institutions
HB 824 - Local Government and Related Matters
HB 825 - Local Government and Related Matters
HB 826 - Municipal Corporations
HB 827 - Local Government and Related Matters
HB 828 - Consumer Protection
HB 829 - Science, Technology and Critical Issues
HB 830 - Correctional and State Institutions
HB 831 - Public Health and Safety
HB 832 - Federal-State Relations and Veterans Affairs
HB 833 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 834 - Ways and Means
HB 835 - Governmental Organization and Review
HB 836 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 837 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 838 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 839 - Labor
HB 840 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 841 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 842 - Ways and Means
HB 843 - Consumer Protection
HB 844 - Insurance
HB 845 - Elections
HB 846 - Elections
HB 847 - Insurance
HB 848 - Insurance
HB 849 - Commerce
HB 850 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 851 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 852 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 853 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 854 - Public Health and Safety
HB 855 - Children, Youth and Families
HB 856 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 857 - Education - Higher
HB 858 - Commerce
HB 859 - Public Health and Safety
HB 860 - Education - Higher
HB 861 - Public Health and Safety
HB 862 - Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions
HB 863 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 864 - Insurance
HB 865 - Commerce
HB 866 - Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs
HB 867 - Elections
HB 868 - Governmental Organization and Review
HB 869 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 870 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 871 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 872 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 873 - Science, Technology and Critical Issues
HB 874 - Labor
HB 875 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 876 - Transportation
HB 877 - Ways and Means
HB 878 - Governmental Organization and Review
HB 879 - Labor
HB 880 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 881 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 882 - Civil and Criminal law
HB 883 - State Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
HB 884 - Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs
HB 885 - Public Health and Safety
HB 886 - Judiciary and Ethics
HB 887 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 888 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 889 - Professional Registration and Licensing
HB 890 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 891 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 892 - Consumer Protection
HB 893 - Elections
HB 894 - Civil and Criminal Law
HB 895 - Education - Elementary and Secondary
HB 896 - Professional Registration and Licensing
HB 897 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 898 - Local Government and Related Matters
HB 899 - Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations
HB 900 - Science, Technology and Critical Issues
INTRODUCTION OF HOUSE BILLS
The following House Bills were read the first time and 1,000 copies ordered
HB 1080, introduced by Representative Troupe, relating to the licensing and
regulation of physicians and surgeons.
HB 1081, introduced by Representative Carter, relating to the department of
HB 1082, introduced by Representative Carter, relating to the boarding of
HB 1083, introduced by Representatives Wiggins and Overschmidt, relating to
HB 1084, introduced by Representative Schilling, et al, relating to certain
HB 1085, introduced by Representative Liese, relating to rights and duties of
mines and mine owners.
HB 1086, introduced by Representative Fiebelman, relating to crimes and
HB 1087, introduced by Representative Liese, relating to the department of
HB 1088, introduced by Representative Sears, relating to establish a local
sales tax for economic development purposes.
HB 1089, introduced by Representative Canuteson, relating to domestic and
HB 1090, introduced by Representatives Legan and Hosmer, et al, relating to
HB 1091, introduced by Representatives Legan and Ballard, relating to official
HB 1092, introduced by Representative Foley, relating to certain fire
HB 1093, introduced by Representative Foley, relating to certain fire
HB 1094, introduced by Representative Hartzler, et al, relating to sexual
misconduct involving children.
HB 1095, introduced by Representatives Robirds and Marble, et al, relating to
HB 1096, introduced by Representative Edwards-Pavia, relating to crime.
HB 1097, introduced by Representative Hosmer, et al, relating to the
provisions of emergency response services.
HB 1098, introduced by Representative Goward, relating to taxation.
HB 1099, introduced by Representative Williams (159), relating to the
commercial feed law.
HB 1100, introduced by Representative Lakin, relating to pharmacies.
HB 1101, introduced by Representative Franklin, relating to watercraft.
HB 1102, introduced by Representative Smith, relating to real property.
HB 1103, introduced by Representatives Smith, Garnett, Gratz, Ridgeway and
Akin relating to hazardous waste generators.
HB 1104, introduced by Representative Smith, relating to domestic relations.
HB 1105, introduced by Representative Crum (112), relating to driving while
HB 1106, introduced by Representative Dougherty, relating to forcible entry
and unlawful detainer actions.
HB 1107, introduced by Representative Dougherty, relating to health insurance
HB 1108, introduced by Representative Luetkenhaus, relating to certain
HB 1109, introduced by Representatives O'Connor, Ridgeway and Treadway,
relating to the licensing and regulation of certain health care professionals.
HB 1110, introduced by Representative Treadway, relating to the licensing of
HB 1111, introduced by Representative Daniels (41), relating to rights and
remedies with respect to wrongful discharge from employment.
WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSE BILLS
January 11, 1996
The Honorable Steve Gaw, Speaker
Missouri House of Representatives
State Capitol Building
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Mr. Speaker:
This letter is to inform you that I wish to withdraw House Bills 880, 881, 882 and 897. Thank
you for your assistance with this matter.
/s/ Bill Alter
The following members' presence were noted: Copeland and Kreider.
On motion of Representative Backer, the House adjourned until 12:00 noon,
Friday, January 12, 1996 for a technical session..
CORRECTIONS TO THE HOUSE JOURNAL
Correct House Journal, First Day, Wednesday, January 3, 1996, page 10, line
42, by inserting after the name "Thomason (163)," the names "Ross and Murray,
Correct House Journal, Second Day, Thursday, January 4, 1996, page 3, line 21,
by inserting after the name "Franklin," the names "Lakin and Ross".
Wednesday, January 17, 1996, 2:00 pm. Hearing Room 9. Caring Communities.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
Wednesday, January 17, 1996, 5:00 pm. Senate Lounge.
Missouri Association of Veterans organizations.
SEVENTH DAY, FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 1996
HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING
HB 1080 through HB 1111