The Missouri House has again endorsed getting the state into the industrial hemp industry.
Representative Paul Curtman (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The House voted 141-4 on Thursday in favor of House Bill 2034, which would exempt hemp from state law governing controlled substances and create a pilot program for hemp production.
HB 2034 would also allow Missouri manufacturers to import hemp from other states where it can be grown. Currently they must get it from other nations because of laws that prohibit transport across state lines.
The bill would allow the cultivation of hemp with less than .3-percent THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis.
That earned the bill support from legislators with a law enforcement background, including Galen Higdon (R-St. Joseph), who is a retired Buchanon County deputy sheriff. He said it has no value as an illegal drug.
During debate several lawmakers raised the question of whether Curtman’s legislation should be tied to legalization of marijuana. Others, including St. Louis Democrat Deb Lavender, said the topics should be kept separate.
Grant City Republican Allen Andrews was one of the four “no” votes on HB 2034. He said the state Highway Patrol opposes it and said other law enforcement consider hemp as a first step toward legalization of marijuana.
Curtman said the Patrol is neutral on his legislation.
Farm groups have said that adding industrial hemp to a crop rotation can lead to an increase in yields. Hemp also grows well in poor soil, including land not suitable for more typical crops such as corn or soybeans.
The bill goes to the Senate where in past years similar legislation has been passed out of a committee but has not been passed by the full chamber.
The Missouri House has proposed easing state law to allow organizations to give clean needles to users of illegal intravenous drugs. Backers say the bill will help combat a potential outbreak in diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C caused by the sharing of used needles, and will get more people into drug treatment, but not all lawmakers are convinced.
Representative Holly Rehder (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Needle exchange or syringe access programs already exist in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas. Representative Holly Rehder (R-Sikeston) said those programs are operating in violation of state law regarding drug paraphernalia, but local jurisdictions allow them to operate because of the impact they have.
Legislation sponsored by Rehder, House Bill 1620, would relax state law to allow those programs to operate and to expand to other regions in the state.
Rehder said people who use those programs to get needles are 5-times more likely to get into drug treatment because the programs put them in contact with medical professionals.
Lake St. Louis Republican Justin Hill said as a former police officer and drug task force detective he supports the legislation. He said law enforcement officers are always conscious, when dealing with individuals abusing intravenous drugs, to look out for needles.
Some Republicans who are former law enforcement officers oppose Rehder’s bill. Cedar Hill representative Shane Roden, a reserve deputy sheriff, called the idea “stupid.”
Backers also say the bill will save the state money in costs to Medicaid of treating people who contract conditions like HIV and Hepatitis C by sharing needles.
The House voted 135-13 to send the legislation to the Senate. In previous years one similar proposal was voted out of one House committee but moved no further through the process.
A state House representative says his review of the Department of Revenue uncovered ways the state could save up to $36-million dollars.
Representative David Gregory (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
St. Louis Republican David Gregory presented to the House Budget Committee what he called a, “Fiscal Opportunity Audit” of the Department. He explained that he spent 160 hours over several months studying the department, meeting with its staff, and comparing it to counterparts in other states. He said he found a number of ways the state could save money or generate revenue.
At least one of his findings has come up in other reviews of Missouri tax policy including Governor Eric Greitens’ (R) tax cut plan, and that concerns the state’s business sales tax discount. Missouri businesses that remit to the state in a timely manner the sales tax they collect get a 2-percent discount. Gregory said of neighboring states three have no such discount and four cap how much money businesses can retain. Missouri’s discount is the second highest among all states.
Gregory said he also found that capping the state’s withholding tax discount – a discount that among the states is unique to Missouri – the state could save up to $13-million a year.
As for revenue generation, Gregory said for the Department to hire three more people to investigate notices of auto sales could generate more than $3-million a year. Hiring two more people to investigate the paying of sales taxes on vehicle purchases might result in $700,000 a year more revenue.
Gregory also looked at what the Department is spending on supplies and that led him to Missouri Vocational Enterprises. People incarcerated in state prisons work for MVE making products including furniture, clothing, notepads, and a variety of other products. All state agencies are required by law to purchase any product they need from MVE if it’s made there.
In looking at size, Gregory found that Indiana’s Department of Revenue covers about half-a-million more residents over about the same land size with 822 employees compared to 1,145 in Missouri’s Department. Gregory said he has identified 283 employees he believes the Department could cut without falling behind in its operations.
Gregory emphasized to the committee that his findings were just that; not recommendations or proposals. The budget subcommittee that deals with the Department will consider whether to explore them further or act upon them.
Gregory said any changes the Department does experience could take years and some could require legislation. At some point he hopes to see a similar review done with other state agencies.
The Missouri House has defeated a bill to increase penalties for assaulting or killing a law enforcement animal amid emotional debate led by black Democrats, who emphasized what they say those dogs represent to their communities.
Representative Robert Cornejo (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
House Bill 1649 would increase those penalties as high as a class-C felony, which carries up to ten years in prison, for killing a police dog or injuring it to the extent it cannot continue to be used as a police dog.
Some Republicans also talked about issues they had with the legislation. Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) said under HB 1649 the penalties for killing or disabling a police dog would be greater than those for second degree rape or assaulting a person in a nursing home. He also said the bill leaves no room for self-defense against a police dog and does not account for incidents in which a dog might be used improperly by police.
Some Republicans said the issues that were raised caused them to change from favoring the bill in last week’s vote to opposing it. Rolla Republican Keith Frederick told Beatty the legislation needs to be reconsidered.
Representative Shamed Dogan (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications
The vote on the bill was 73-68, short of the 82 needed to send it to the Senate. Cornejo noted that there were 14 members absent for that vote and said the bill could be brought up again for consideration, or that the issue should still receive attention.
A Missouri representative is proposing that high school students learn about sexual harassment, violence, and consent as part of sexual education. Her legislation will be heard Tuesday night by the House Committee on Children and Families.
Representative Holly Rehder (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Sikeston Republican Holly Rehder said the idea behind House Bill 2234 was brought to her by students at the University of Missouri who said they wish they had received such an education. They believe teaching high school students about those subjects could prevent situations that can cause life-changing harm, and Rehder agrees.
Numerous cases have put sexual harassment, sexual violence, and consent in the public spotlight. One of those is the case of long-time USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar. He was sentenced late last month to up to 175 years in prison for abusing young female gymnasts. At least one of the women who gave a victim impact statement before his sentencing has written a letter in support of HB 2234.
Amanda Thomashow tells lawmakers she realized many of those Nassar assaulted didn’t know they were being abused, at least not at first, and trusted the doctor.
She writes, “more than anything I keep coming back to one particular question: How can we prevent such a tragedy from happening ever again? I have repeated this question in my head, over and over, searching for a way to save others from similar evils. I know there are many answers and I know there is no easy solution when it comes to sexual assault. However, I also know one thing with absolute certainty; we must add consent and sexual violence to basic sexual education curriculum. We need to equip young people with knowledge to protect and empower them, and House Bill 2234 does just that.”
HB 2234 would expand Missouri law on what must be included in sex education materials so that they cover sexual harassment, sexual violence, and consent. It would also seek to define those terms in relation to sex education.
It would define “consent” as, “a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.”
HB 2234 defines “sexual harassment” as, “uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate,” and defines “sexual violence” as, “causing or attempting to cause another to engage involuntarily in any sexual act by force, threat of force, duress, or without that person’s consent.”
Missouri school districts are not required to have sexual education as part of their curriculum. The bill would require that these new areas be included for those that do.
Rehder said she looks at the issue not just as a legislator but as a mother of three.
A bill that would give some sex offenders an opportunity to be removed from the sex offender registry is being considered by the Missouri House.
The legislation would mirror the federal system which classifies offenders into three tiers based on their offenses: less-serious offenses result in an offender being on the first tier, with those on the third tier having committed the most serious offenses. Those on the first tier could petition the courts to be removed from the registry ten years after being placed on it. Those on the second tier could petition after 25 years; those on tier three would remain on the registry for life. Those who commit additional sex crimes or felonies while on the registry also cannot be removed.
Supporters of the legislation include the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Litigation Darrell Moore told the House Committee on the Judiciary that creating this petition process would ensure that the Highway Patrol and the Attorney General’s Office know when someone is trying to get off the registry.
He said with no mechanism in place for getting off the registry offenders who haven’t reached the federal 10- or 25-year thresholds are suing to be removed. When that happens the Patrol and Attorney General’s Office aren’t notified until cases have been resolved, at which time the Attorney General must file motions to re-litigate the case.
Representative Kurt Bahr (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Bahr said he became familiar with the issue and filed the legislation because he has a family member who is on the registry for what would be considered a tier one offense.
Another provision of the bill creates a second trial stage to determine whether an individual convicted of a sex crime should be considered a predatory sexual offender. The bill specifies that such offenders would be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The process laid out by HB 2042 specifies that the family of any victim of an offender would be notified when that offender petitions for removal from the registry. That family would have an opportunity to respond to the petition. The bill is also written so that people who committed crimes outside the state could not petition in Missouri to be removed from the registry.
Attempts in past years to make changes to Missouri’s registry include one that reached the desk of then-governor Nixon, who vetoed it. Bahr notes his bill is substantially different from that one.
The committee is expected to vote next week on HB 2042. From there it faces another committee who could vote to send it to the full House for debate.
Additional audio:
Bahr said learning that he knows someone who is on the sex offender registry gave him a new perspective.
People who sue makers of cars and their components after sustaining injuries related to those products could be awarded less money if they weren’t properly using a seat belt, under a bill being considered in the Missouri House.
Representative Nick Schroer (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Right now a person filing such a suit could see damages reduced up to 1-percent, but only if expert evidence is presented showing that failing to properly use a seat belt could have contributed to his or her injuries. Representative Nick Schroer (R-O’Fallon), the sponsor of House Bill 1264, said such evidence is almost never presented if only because experts typically cost more to hire than the 1-percent mitigation would amount to.
HB 1264 would remove that 1-percent limit and the requirement for expert evidence, and leave to a jury the decision of whether the seat belt could have made a difference. The jury would also have the option of whether to adjust damages by any amount. The bill is going to be amended so that it will deal only with products liability cases.
Schroer presented his bill to the House Special Committee on Litigation Reform. Liberty Democrat Mark Ellebracht, who sits on that committee, said the legislation “speaks to fairness.”
Representative Mark Ellebracht (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Ellebracht favors an earlier version of the bill that would increase the cap on the mitigation of damages from 1-percent to 25-percent rather than remove it entirely. Schroer plans to amend that version of the bill to match language the Senate is considering, which removes the cap entirely.
Both representatives hope the legislation will have the added effect of compelling more Missourians to wear their seat belts.
The Committee on Litigation Reform is expected to vote on HB 1264 next week.
Again this year the Missouri House has heard testimony on whether the state should legalize marijuana for limited medicinal use.
Representative Jim Neely (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Cameron doctor and state representative Jim Neely (R) has proposed allowing the use of marijuana to treat terminal conditions. Neely said his House Bill 1554 would expand on legislation that became law in 2014 that allows the use of a cannabis extract, cannabidiol (CBD) oil, to treat intractable epilepsy. It would also expand on Missouri’s “right to try” law that allows doctors and patients to use drugs that haven’t completed the approval process of the federal Food and Drug Administration.
The House Committee on General Laws heard from people who said marijuana did help or could have helped their loved ones. Jane Suozzi said her daughter Kim was diagnosed with brain cancer shortly before she graduated with two degrees from Truman State University in 2011.
After studying and pursuing multiple experimental treatments Kim turned to marijuana shortly after her diagnosis.
The committee also heard from a number of veterans and organizations that represent them. Kyle Kisner served in the Missouri National Guard for seven years and spent tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said for years he was treated with opioids for pain and benzodiazepines for depression, during which time he said his personality was altered and he twice attempted suicide.
The Missouri Prosecutor’s Association spoke against the proposal. Its lobbyist, Woody Cozad, said for Missouri to pass legislation legalizing marijuana at any level would fly in the face of federal statute.
Legislators noted that Missouri already has laws that conflict with federal laws, and questioned whether prosecuting people like those who testified for the bill – veterans and those with serious medical conditions – would be a priority for any prosecutors.
The committee has not voted on Neely’s bill. Last year he filed the same language in House Bill 437 and it was voted out of two committees but was not debated in the full House.
The Chair of the House subcommittee that deals with education funding says he will recommend the legislature put off a performance-based funding mechanism for state-supported colleges and universities.
University of Missouri System President Mun Choi testifies to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Education on January 31, 2018. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Cedarcreek Republican Lyle Rowland’s subcommittee heard from those institutions’ presidents over the course of two days and said many of them wanted the same things: a delay in implementation of that plan, and a restoration of their core funding.
The state budget proposed last month by Governor Eric Greitens (R) would cut higher education funding by 10-percent, or roughly $100-million, from its Fiscal Year 2018 level. Also in early January, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approved linking 10-percent of funding for publicly-backed colleges and universities to performance factors such as students’ job placement, degree completion, and budgetary practices. The model would look back at institutions’ performance over the past three years.
The combination means it is possible, though unlikely, that any given institution could see a decrease of as much as 20-percent in year-to-year state support.
Rowland said he agrees with the institution presidents who told him implementing performance-based funding now puts them at a disadvantage.
Rowland’s panel on Wednesday heard from University of Missouri System President Mun Choi, who touted to lawmakers the system’s accomplishments but coupled that with words of caution.
He said 90-percent of Mizzou’s students found a job within six months or moved on to graduate school; research is yielding advancements in the agriculture and medical fields; and Missouri S&T last summer beat out other universities from around the world in a competition to design a Mars rover.
As for the proposed cut to core funding, Rowland said the governor’s proposal is not likely to stand, but given the state’s overall economic picture some reduction is probable.
The ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Kip Kendrick (Columbia), has been one of several lawmakers expressing concern about the timing of performance-based funding. He thinks most legislators will agree it should be pushed back.
Rowland will submit his recommendation to the full budget committee. That committee will develop its own state budget proposal to be considered by the full House. Eventually the House and Senate will have to agree on a state spending plan to be sent to the governor.
State lawmakers have heard passionate testimony while being asked to decide what steps should be taken before life-sustaining treatment of a child is ended.
Representative Bill Kidd (photo; Chris Moreland, Missouri House Communications)
Some are telling state lawmakers state law should require parents’ consent before such treatments can end. Others are urging the opposite. Both say the humane, compassionate, and complete care of children hangs in the balance.
House Bill 1361, known as Simon’s Law, would require written permission from a parent or legal guardian of a patient under 18 years old before a do-not-resuscitate order can be issued for that patient.
The House Committee on Children and Families heard from the parents of Simon Crosier that he died at three months old in a hospital that had a “futility policy,” and after doctors put a DNR order on him without their knowledge.
The committee also heard from Kim and Paul Kosednar, whose 2-year-old son Elias died of interstitial lung disease. They say they were involved with doctors in every decision about the care for their son, and they oppose Simon’s law.
Younger said requiring a parent’s written permission for a cessation of their child’s life-sustaining care would take away her ability to ease parents’ burden of making such a decision.
Alissa Johnson with Concerned Women for America told lawmakers about children with mental and physical disabilities who were adopted by her husband’s parents. She said doctors told her in-laws life-sustaining care shouldn’t be given to those children, but those children are now in their teens and twenties.
The sponsor of HB 1361, Independence Republican Bill Kidd, told the committee what happened to Simon and his family was not a unique case. He said Simon’s Law is written to give a voice to children who are not terminally ill.
Under HB 1361, in cases in which parents do not agree on whether to give permission for a termination of care one parent can petition a court to consider the matter. HB 1361’s requirements would not apply if life-sustaining care is deemed “medically inappropriate.”
The committee has not voted on HB 1361. Last year the House voted 117-22 to amend Simon’s Law to Senate Bill 50, but the language was removed by the Senate.
