Republican Weekly Radio Address -- "Are you better off or worse off under new healthcare law?"

The weekly Republican radio address delivered by Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming:

“I’m John Barrasso, a doctor and a United States Senator for Wyoming.

“I’m pleased to talk with you today from my hometown of Casper.

“Across our country, Americans remain shocked and saddened by the recent violence in Arizona.

“As we return to work in Washington, our hearts go out to Congresswoman Giffords, the other victims and their families.

“They remain in our thoughts and in our prayers.

“Earlier this week, the newly elected House of Representatives immediately kept its promise to you, the American people. It did so by voting to repeal the President’s health care spending law.

“Now it’s the Senate’s turn.

“The President’s party has wasted millions of your taxpayer dollars trying to persuade you to support this law.

“Well, in spite of the mailings and the misleading television ads, they have failed.

“A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans still want this law repealed.

“And the reasons are clear.

“Ask yourself – are you better off or worse off now that the healthcare law has been on the books for almost a year?

“Has the cost of your own health insurance gone down?

“Remember the President promised that the law would significantly reduce your costs.

“If you get health insurance through your job, are you confident that you can keep it?

“We’ve already heard how the new law forces many employers to choose between keeping workers and paying for insurance coverage.

“How about the availability of your care?

“As most Americans know, coverage does not equal good care.

“According to the government's own experts, it could get a lot harder for many Americans to find a doctor or a hospital to go to.

“Now, for seniors, the reason is because the law cuts 500 billion dollars from Medicare - not to save Medicare, but to start a whole new Washington program.

“And seniors are not the only Americans targeted by the President’s new law.

“Small-business owners now have to file burdensome tax forms for basic business expenses such as phone and Internet service, shipping costs, office supplies.

“This absurd provision only increases the costs of owning and operating a small business.

“Each and every day, more people pay the price of Obamacare’s mountain of mandates.

“As I travel across the country, I continue to hear from Americans who want Washington to take its hands off of their health care.

“Interestingly, the only way to get out of this law, is to have friends in high places – like in the President’s own administration.

“While the Administration is forcing most Americans to accept the new law, over one and a half million Americans now get a free pass.

“These people have been given special Washington waivers.

“Many of these waivers have gone to labor unions who supported the law in the first place, but now don’t want to live under it.

“Well, if you don’t have a lawyer or a lobbyist connected to this Administration, you’re out of luck.

“This isn’t fair and it’s not the American way.

“As a doctor, I have taken care of families for over a quarter of a century.

“I know that this law is bad for patients, it’s bad for providers – the nurses and the doctors who care for those patients – and it’s bad for taxpayers.

“As a doctor, I’m disturbed that the law will require more IRS agents to investigate you. To make sure you actually buy insurance – but it fails to deal in any meaningful way with the shortage of nurses and doctors to actually take care of you.

“Your health care decisions should be decided in your doctor’s office – not a Washington office.

“Nothing should come between you and your doctor.

“Not a government bureaucrat.

“Not an insurance company bureaucrat. Nothing.

“Republicans will fight to repeal this job-destroying law and replace it with patient centered reforms.

“Reforms like making it legal for Americans to buy health insurance from companies in other states.

“Ending junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of everyone’s care.

“And restoring Americans’ freedom over their own health care decisions.

“Thanks to the vote in the House of Representatives, we are now one step closer to victory in the fight for a health care policy that puts Americans first – not Washington.

“Our job won’t be done until we repeal and replace this bad law.

“Thanks for listening.”

Senators Pledge Not to Place Secret Holds on Legislation or Nominees

Following several days of heated floor debate on the issue, U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and a group of senators are sending a letter to Senate leadership pushing to change the way the Senate does business by putting an end to rules that allow members to secretly block legislation and nominations.

Watch Claire speaking on the floor about the letter

McCaskill, Warner and Whitehouse, along with at least 18 of their colleagues, are pledging to not place ‘secret holds’ and are calling upon Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to end the practice and force senators to give a public explanation of why they are blocking a certain piece of legislation or a nomination. Despite measures passed as part of sweeping ethics reform legislation in 2007 to require senators who want to place a hold on bills and nominations to be transparent about their objections, senators continue to circumvent the rules and file anonymous holds.

“While we deeply respect and appreciate the importance of tradition in this institution, we believe the practice of the secret hold has no rightful place in the Senate or in an open and transparent democracy. When a member of the Senate wishes to hold legislation or a nomination, that Senator owes to this body and, more importantly, to the American public a full explanation,” the letter reads.

They are now asking their colleagues to join them in their pledge by opening up the letter to all Democratic and Republican senators for signature.

The discussion of secret holds arose because approximately 80 nominations are being blocked anonymously and without explanation. These nominees are largely non-controversial and were voted out of committee without opposition. On Tuesday of this week, McCaskill and Whitehouse called up dozens of nominees for consideration; Republicans objected repeatedly. Today’s letter reaffirms the senators’ commitment to ending the practice of secret holds and encourages colleagues to follow the spirit of ethics reform.

The full text of the letter is below.

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell,

We the undersigned Senators hereby pledge that we will not place secret holds on legislation or nominations.

We further call upon you to bring an end to the practice of permitting secret “holds” on legislation and nominations for those Senators who are unprepared to make the same pledge. While we deeply respect and appreciate the importance of tradition in this institution, we believe the practice of the secret hold has no rightful place in the Senate or in an open and transparent democracy. When a member of the Senate wishes to hold legislation or a nomination, that Senator owes to this body and, more importantly, to the American public a full explanation. The Senate endorsed this principle in Section 512 of S.1, passed by a vote of 96-2 on January 18, 2007.

As you know, S.1 has failed in practice to end the use of secret holds. We, therefore, urge you to promptly consider further changes to the Senate rules in order to bring a clear and definitive end to secret holds on legislation or a nomination. We stand ready to work with you on such a rule change, as long advocated for by Senators Wyden and Grassley, the leaders of a decade-long effort to eliminate secret holds in the Senate. We applaud their work and believe it must now be pursued to its conclusion.

Again, in making this request, we pledge that we will not place secret holds on legislation or a nomination.


Sincerely,

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD)

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA)

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO)

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Senator Mark Begich (D-AK)

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL)

Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE)

Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Senator Al Franken (D-MN)

Cc: Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules
Senator Robert Bennett, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Rules
Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Charles Grassley

McCaskill: Consumers are Desperate for Help with Mounting Debt

As thousands of hard-working Missourians face ongoing financial struggles and mounting debt resulting from the economic crisis, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill yesterday took to task representatives from debt settlement organizations that prey on consumers and often leave them with more debt despite promising to resolve their financial issues. In a Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing, McCaskill criticized debt settlement companies for taking advantage of worried consumers with misleading advertising and undocumented promises of 100% success rates.

“You are preying upon the fears of people. You’re making a lot of money and you’re delivering a substandard product. Many times you’re engaging in fraud to get the customers by promising them something that you know is not true,” McCaskill said. She continued “If you can prove what you say then you should just get to proving it.”

Watch McCaskill question the representative from a debt settlement trade association

Numerous complaints and lawsuits have been filed against debt settlement companies for misrepresenting the services they offer and charging large fees for customers who are already deep in debt. Companies often charge substantial fees up-front, before they even begin seeking to reduce a customer’s debt, a practice which McCaskill said should be banned. Further, the companies frequently fail to actually reduce customers' debt at all. Additionally, the settlement companies are notoriously secret about their practices and documentation. Trade associations won’t even reveal which companies are members.

Currently, the Missouri Attorney General’s Consumer Bureau is embroiled in a lawsuit against Credit Solutions of America in St. Louis for misrepresenting the services that the company could provide. The Missouri Attorney General, along with numerous other Attorneys General and consumer protection groups nationwide, has repeatedly found that debt settlement companies are not forthcoming with documentation to substantiate claims that they have successfully helped customers.

“When people are in debt and worried [they] are more easily persuaded that someone can help them because they’re desperate for help…What’s hard for me to understand is how your association thinks you can stop the inevitable march of regulation, lawsuits, and enforcement actions, because I don’t think you can produce statistics that show you’re helping anyone,” McCaskill said.

McCaskill Supports Bill to Ban Congressional Pay Raise

Yesterday, the Senate passed legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill to prevent Congress from getting a raise in 2011. The bill, introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), prohibits the yearly Congressional cost-of-living adjustment pay raise that is automatically scheduled to take effect for 2011. Congress already passed legislation ensuring there would be no increase in 2010.

“Over 200,000 Missourians are out of work, and those who are employed aren’t getting a pay raise this year. It is certainly not the time for Congress to be giving itself a pay raise,” McCaskill said.

The bill passed yesterday unanimously and will go to the House of Representatives for consideration. Since arriving in Washington, McCaskill has worked to rein in federal spending and consistently voted against pay increases for members of Congress.

MCCASKILL CRITICIZES COLLEAGUES FOR BLOCKING NOMINEES UNDER CLOAK OF SECRECY

Frustrated with the secrecy that surrounds the way the Senate does business, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill took to the Senate floor to demand her colleagues make public their objections to non-controversial nominations on the floor. Despite requirements passed in sweeping ethics reform legislation in 2007 to force transparency when senators try to put secret “holds” on bills and nominations, senators continue to file anonymous objections. Around 80 nominees are currently being blocked without explanation.

“If you have an objection to a nominee, you should tell the public you have that objection, and, frankly, you owe the public an explanation why,” McCaskill said. “We're here working for them. We're doing the people's business here. We're not doing some back room deal. We're doing the people's business.”

Watch video of McCaskill’s floor speech here.

The secrecy allows members to indefinitely block the Senate confirmation of government appointees without being held accountable or having to explain their concerns to the public. These nominees are non-controversial and were passed out of committee without opposition.

Following her speech, McCaskill proceeded to ask for agreement to vote on many of the nominees in question. She called up 17 nominees for a vote and Republicans objected repeatedly. McCaskill plans to return to the floor throughout the week to ask for a vote on the remaining 59 nominees who are being held in secret.

The list of nominees called up for a vote by McCaskill is below.


- Stuart Gordon Nash, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Without objection, the nomination was confirmed.

- Warren F. Miller, Jr, of New Mexico, to be Director of the office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy.

Republicans objected.

- Julie A. Reiskin, of Colorado, to be Member of the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation.

Republicans objected.

- Gloria Valencia-Weber, of New Mexico, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation.

Republicans objected.

- Benjamin B. Tucker, of New York, to be Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Republicans objected.

- John H. Laub, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the National Institute of Justice.

Republicans objected.

- Anthony R. Coscia, of New Jersey, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors.

Republicans objected.

- Albert DiClemente, of Delaware, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors.

Republicans objected.

- Mark R. Rosekind, of California, to be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Republicans objected.

- P. David, Lopez, of Arizona, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Republicans objected.

- Victoria A. Lipnic, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Republicans objected.

- Jill Long Thompson, of Indiana, to be a Member of the Farm Credit Administration Board.

Republicans objected.

- Eric L. Hirschhorn, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration.

Republicans objected.

- Steven L. Jacques, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Republicans objected.

- Jim R. Esque, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Republicans objected.

- Michael W. Punk, of Montana, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative.

Republicans objected.

- Islam A. Siddiqui, of Virginia, to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Republicans objected.

Opinion: Getting Financial Reform Right

Op ed submission from Max Cook, president and CEO, Missouri Bankers Association

A year and a half after the country came perilously close to economic collapse, average Americans are sitting up and taking notice of the debate in Washington over financial reform. No one wants another financial crisis, and one thing that consumers, the White House, Congress, regulators and bankers of all stripes agree on is that financial reform is needed.

There is also broad agreement on the primary issues that reform effort must focus on, including ending the concept that any one institution is too big to fail and closing regulatory gaps that allowed securities firms and other non-banks to create huge problems for the economy. The legislation pending in Congress takes some positive steps toward addressing these matters. But it also stops short in several areas and goes overboard in others.

Traditional banks didn’t bring about the financial crisis. Their mission is, as it has always been, to serve their local community and make credit available to consumers and small businesses. The bill before the Senate unfortunately contains provisions that would hinder their ability to do this effectively and to provide the credit the local economy so badly needs to get back on track.

Consider, for example, the proposal to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It sounds great in theory, and bankers strongly support improving consumer protections. But in practice, creating another new bureaucracy will produce more problems than it will solve by putting the government in the business of deciding what products are right for bank customers. Community banks could reasonably conclude that it is not worth offering checking accounts, savings programs, home equity loans or other products that are specifically designed for their local markets because they don’t have the bureau’s stamp of approval. This kind of invasive oversight undermines the essence and strength of community banks – namely, the relationships we have with our customers. How can we adhere to our mission if we can’t tailor products to meet the specific needs of our customers?

Then there is the issue of uneven enforcement of the rules. The new consumer rules would apply to both banks and non-banks, but enforcement against these non-banks, many of whom contributed greatly to the economic crisis, would be weak or nonexistent in many cases. Unlike the banking industry, a strong infrastructure for examination and enforcement of rules does not exist for non-banks. How does that protect consumers from mortgage brokers or other financial entities outside of the traditional banking industry that made a disproportionate share of toxic loans?

There are other concerns. Ending too-big-to-fail is critical, yet the Senate bill falls short in this regard. The bill also contains provisions that will make credit less available for consumers and small businesses, and it doesn’t provide adequate oversight of accounting rules that greatly worsened the crisis.

Bankers support financial reform, but it needs to be done well—and it especially needs to be done with an eye toward the impact on communities like ours. These issues are important, and vigorous debate should be encouraged. The consequences of getting reform wrong are too great to be treated lightly.

Opinion:: Blunt Believes Women Should Have Less Pay for Equal Work

By the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee

With today being Equal Pay Day, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee would like to remind Congressman Roy Blunt of his vote last year to deny equal pay for equal work for Missourians regardless of gender. Last January, Blunt joined with many of his Republican colleagues in voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for Missourians to get the pay they deserve, regardless of their gender, race, or age. Despite Blunt’s attempts to derail this bill, the bill passed, and was signed into law. On Equal Pay Day, does Blunt stand by his vote to deny equal pay for equal work for Missourians, or would he vote differently today?

“On the day that Americans recognize the importance of equal pay for equal work, Missourians should remember that Roy Blunt voted against this commonsense legislation just last year,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “By opposing equal pay for women, Blunt gave Missourians more evidence that he is out of touch with the economic realities of his own state.”

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 passed both chambers of Congress on a bipartisan basis and was signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2009. The bill restored the ability of workers to effectively seek legal redress for pay discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, age, or disability. The legislation amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to say that the 6 month statute of limitations on filing lawsuits for pay discrimination reset with each discriminatory paycheck. Based on the court case filed by Lilly Ledbetter against Goodyear, this legislation was critical, as in some circumstances, like Ms. Ledbetter’s, awareness of the pay disparity did not come to light until the previous statute of limitations had expired.

AARP Launches Initiative to End Abuse By Financial Industry

AARP today launched a multi-faceted initiative to pass financial reforms necessary to safeguard the pocketbooks of Americans. The initiative includes targeted local TV, radio and print ads in states; grassroots engagement; national and local research; and social media outreach.

“We know now that older Americans lost billions of hard earned dollars due to the failure of an outdated and compromised financial regulatory system,” said Nancy LeaMond, Executive Vice President at AARP. “We strongly believe that any bill the Senate passes should protect the rights of consumers first and foremost.”

AARP is calling on the Senate to put consumers first, not the financial institutions that caused the economic crisis that hurt millions of older Americans. The ad campaign highlights the consequences of the financial industry’s reckless behavior, using a jingle with lyrics including:

“Oh big banks how you’ve used us
Mistreated and abused us
Mortgage lenders too
We gave you our trust
Then you almost went bust
Turned our taxes into bonuses too
Now you want to forget
We paid off your debt
You act like you’re free of blame
But your profits they grew
While you broke every rule
We’re tired of playing your game
Stop the fat cats from putting your money at risk – tell your senators to pass financial reform now.”

Recent AARP polling has shown that Democrats, Republicans and Independents age 50-plus overwhelmingly say they want reform. More than 9 in 10 people believe financial institutions should use plain language to describe their products, be transparent about fees on accounts, disclose the costs and benefits of all products they market and that consumers should be able to know more about the financial professionals they are consulting for advice.

“AARP is calling on Senators to pass a strong bill that includes, among other protections, a strong and independent consumer watchdog, rules that forbid the financial industry from selling products they know their customers can’t afford or don’t understand, and greater transparency in an industry that has historically operated behind closed doors,” said LeaMond.

To view the ad and learn more about the initiative visit:
action.aarp.org/yourmoney or watch the ad on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpX7cui-Fl4.

For more information about AARP’s financial reform surveys visit:
http://www.aarp.org/research/surveys/money/consumers/fraud/articles/finprotect_10.html.

For more activity on financial reform, check out AARP on Twitter: @AARP and Facebook: facebook.com/aarp

McCaskill: We Must Continue to Help Keep Food on the Table for Thousands of Missouri Families

During one of the worst economic recessions in decades, thousands of hard-working Missourians have lost their jobs at no fault of their own, but must continue to find ways to provide for their families. That’s why U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill yesterday voted to extend unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance aid, lending a helping hand to many families struggling to make ends meet.

“We were able to pass a crucial emergency extension of programs that are helping keep food on the table for thousands of middle class Missouri families fighting to stay afloat during these tough economic times,” Senator McCaskill said. “For those who haven’t been able to find new employment during this recession, this help could mean the difference between barely making ends meet and foreclosure.”

After a series of objections from Senate Republicans, Democrats were successful in paving the way for a vote on an emergency extension through the end of May of the two programs. The programs expired at the end of March. The 60-day extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA passed with a bipartisan vote of 59-38.

Petition to Repeal Nonpartisan Court Plan gets Cool Local Reception

An initiative petition circulating around the state that would repeal the current Nonpartisan Court Plan has met with a cool local reception. The petition would place a measure on the ballot that, if approved, would replace the current nonpartisan system for selecting judges with a partisan system in which judges would be elected by party similar to other statewide officeholders. Judges of the Supreme Court and the district Courts of Appeals would serve eight years instead of the current 12.

The measure would also change the way in which judges are appointed. Currently, the statewide Nonpartisan Judicial Commission submits three nominees to the governor, who will choose one of the three. Should the governor fail to do so within sixty days, the commission would appoint one of the nominees to serve on the bench. The ballot initiative would have the governor appoint judicial nominees to fill vacancies with the advise and consent of the Senate. Confirmed nominees would fill positions until December 31st following the next general election after the expiration of twelve months in the office. Governors would be able to make recess appointments, but these appointments would terminate if the advise and consent of the Senate is not given within thirty days after the senate has convened in regular or special session.

Beginning after November 2, 2010, judges of the supreme court whose terms expire shall be replaced by individuals elected by the voters eligible to vote within the state. Each such duly elected individual shall be entitled to serve for the term prescribed. Nothing shall prevent judges of the supreme court who were appointed under a previous method of judicial selection or appointed to fill a vacancy from seeking election to the supreme court. Currently, judges are appointed and then retained by a yes or no vote of the people.

The petition relaxes the restrictions on political activities by judges. Under the initiative, a judge or judicial candidate may announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues provided that the judge or judicial candidate does not make pledges or promises to render specific rulings or decisions on pending litigation. Judicial candidates and judges who are judicial candidates shall be allowed to solicit, receive and make campaign contributions, and make and receive the benefit of campaign expenditures, as may be provided by law.

The petition is being pushed by a group called "Better Courts for Missouri." On the front page of their website, they describe themselves as "...a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected. The judges on our highest courts make decisions that profoundly affect every Missourian. Everything from jobs and wages to health care and family values are affected by the powerful judges on those courts. That is why we are dedicated to ensuring that openness, accountability, independence, and excellence are represented in the Missouri Court Plan for selecting judges." They charge that "our highest courts have been under the influence of legal industry special interest groups for years," accusing "these groups" of "wanting nothing more than to take down our tort reform laws." Better Courts for Missouri accuses personal injury attorneys of encouraging courts to "strike down laws for their own financial benefit."

But the petition has met with a cool local reception. County Clerk Lisa Hargrave said that if judicial elections were to become partisan elections, it would lead to greatly increased costs for her office to count ballots, print paper, and advertise the election. "The system is not broken now, so why fix it," she asked. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert said that it would not improve the judicial system and that it would simply bring the level of judges down to political parties and popularity contests. Presiding Commissioner Kevin Austin noted that the State of Missouri just ended the political patronage system that had been used to select Department of Revenue offices for many years and that it wouldn't make sense to go to a partisan system. "We'll all pay more," added Commissioner Rob Ruckman.

Jerry Drake, who would be affected by the judges that he would argue before as a lawyer, said that he was not a fan of the current system, but that he was not convinced that the petition was any answer. The problem he saw with the current selection process was what he called the substitution of the power of a few for the electorate. Having dealt with elected judges on the local level, Drake said that "the judges you elect are no less motivated than that ones that you appoint." But he said that didn't mean that he was going to sign the petition. He said that his main concern was what he called the secrecy behind who was funding the petition. He added that he was concerned that the judiciary would become a tool of special interests who would simply taylor the courts to suit their agendas like they did the legislature. A former legislator, Drake said that the legislature was dominated by special interests and that he didn't want to see the judiciary go the same way.

State Senator Brad Lager, in e-mailed comments to the Sheridan Express, said that he thought the state didn't need to eliminate the court plan, but that some changes were needed that he said would make the court system actually non-partisan. First of all, Lager said that he wanted more common people on the commission than lawyers. He said that as things stood right now, the lawyers on the commission or their firms would end up practicing in front of the judges whom they help pick. He compared it to allowing the CEO's of all the energy companies to pick members of the Public Service Commission. "It is bad public policy and simply not good government," he said.

Other ideas for reform Lager said were needed included increasing the number of people on the panel sent to the Governor. He said that the Governor should be given power to reject a panel of nominees he didn't like, meaning that the commission would have to put forward a new slate. He also said that there needed to be more transparency in the process. "There is no reason that only select lawyers are allowed to know the nominees and learn about them in private closed-door sessions," said Lager in his comments.

Lager said that the state should open up the entire process, saying that all documents, lists, and interviews should be open to the press and public. And instead of letting the Missouri Bar Association pick the members of the Commission, Lager said that everyone nominated to the commission should stand for Senate confirmation, like other boards and commissions appointed by the governor.

Lager meets with NWMSU Students

Student government leaders from Northwest Missouri State University spent the afternoon in Jefferson City with State Senator Brad Lager this past Tuesday. The students discussed current issues in government and the complex workings of the legislative process. The Senator also gave them an in-depth lesson on the history of the capitol and the daily life of a legislator.


“As a Northwest Alumni, I always appreciate the opportunity to visit with students from the university,” said the Senator. “Visiting the Capitol and seeing government in action is a very important step in becoming educated about the role of government. I hope they continue being active in government and get further involved in the legislative process.”