Kelley: Two Bills Discussed Before Crowded Committees

This week the Missouri House of Representatives heard several controversial bills in committees. I have been pleased with our leadership team’s willingness to move forward with legislation which will spark some intense discussion.

One is a bill [HB73] to drug test certain welfare recipients. Personally, I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to such a concept. In the real world, employees are often required to submit to background checks, including drug testing, as a condition of employment. Why should anyone receiving taxpayers’ dollars be given favored status over a gainfully employed citizen?

The hearing was crowded to the point of overflowing. Most were there to testify against the requirement. Issues such as privacy and costs were raised during the discussion. I would submit if a person is living off the generosity of taxpayers, certain behaviors should be avoided, especially if those behaviors happen to be illegal. As to the cost, any upfront expense of the drug testing itself would be more than offset by reductions in payments as well as limiting costs to society by deterring illegal behavior. Following a committee vote, the entire House will further debate the issue.

Also considered this week by a House committee was a bill [HB131] to make changes to some of the provisions of Proposition B. We are attempting to find a way to honor the integrity of a statewide vote while still keeping our legitimate dog breeders from having to go out of business as a result of the new law. There have been several similar bills filed in both the House and Senate to accomplish this. At the hearing, many people showed up to testify on both sides of the issue. We heard many heart wrenching stories about abused animals, but this only justified what we are attempting to accomplish. Most of the bad operators are not licensed and would be unaffected by Proposition B. The most harm would be done to breeders who have been following the law and abiding by current regulations.

I expect the committee will look favorably on sending a bill of some kind to the full House for debate. Since several bills have been introduced, there is a good chance the final version will include ideas from each. We must act quickly on this issue to save an important segment of our agriculture industry.