House panel hears bill to give Missouri National Guard a cybersecurity mission, update veteran recognitions and fix tuition sequencing

Representative Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 25 93 to the Missouri House Committee on Veterans and Armed Forces as a package to "modernize our state's defenses" and update statutes affecting veterans and the Missouri National Guard. "House Bill 25 93 has a lot of provisions that affect veterans in the state of Missouri," Hardwick said, outlining changes that range from new state ribbons to a statutory cybersecurity mission for the Guard.

Hardwick described the cybersecurity element as a central piece of the bill: it authorizes the Missouri National Guard, "upon request of the director of the Department of Public Safety or his or her designee," to enter agreements to provide preventive assessments, defensive assistance, incident response and recovery support for state agencies, public colleges, law enforcement, utilities and other critical infrastructure. He said the Guard would operate "in support" of civilian entities and that the bill includes safeguards to ensure civilian consent and protection of civil liberties.

The bill also adds three state ribbons — for counterdrug, Homeland Response Force (HEERF), and explosive ordnance clearance (EOCA) service — and aligns recognition language in chapter 42 so veterans of later conflicts such as Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn and Operation Allies Refuge are included in state recognition programs. Hardwick said the Missouri Veterans Commission would be empowered to design and promulgate criteria for awards, subject to the commission's discretion.

On education benefits, Hardwick described a technical correction to prior legislation so that federal tuition assistance, scholarships and reduced‑tuition state programs are applied before a state waiver; "the GI Bill goes to the soldier last," he said, adding that federal living‑allowance benefits are intended for the service member's living expenses rather than tuition. He told members this is a correction to align state practice with the intent of federal benefits.

Committee members pressed for fiscal clarity and operational detail. Multiple members questioned why the fiscal note was listed as $0; an unnamed representative said, "I mean, we're talking about money here, so I'm not sure how we ended up with a 0." Hardwick acknowledged that some components — such as university waivers tied to GI Bill sequencing — could create costs and said the committee should pursue an accurate fiscal analysis. He also described the bill's cybersecurity revolving fund as supported by legislative appropriations, reimbursements for services rendered, and charges for expenses incurred.

Agency witnesses voiced support and described safeguards. Charlie Hausman, Adjutant General of the Missouri National Guard, testified the bill "modernizes our statutes relating to military affairs" and said operations under the cybersecurity mission act would comply with state and federal laws to protect constitutional rights. He said the Guard's cyber protection team would support prevention and recovery and that a revolving fund would make the work sustainable without creating permanent state salary lines.

Supporters at the hearing emphasized the bill largely cleans up language while adding new authorities: retired Major General Will Blaylock of the Missouri National Guard Association called it "a great way to recognize" service members and Nick Humphrey with the National Guard said the veterans recognition changes are mainly statutory cleanup that does not change existing commission budgets.

The committee did not take formal action during the hearing. Members signaled they wanted clearer fiscal estimates and some technical clarifications (for example, whether the panel vacancy language should read that the senior enlisted leader "can include" rather than "must include"). The hearing concluded with the chair thanking witnesses and noting testimony was recorded and saved.

Next steps: the committee closed the hearing without a vote; additional fiscal analysis and possible drafting adjustments were discussed as follow‑up before further committee consideration.