Saturdays at 3:00pm on RealTalk 93.3 FM, you can join my chief of staff and I on The Senator's Office where we share updates on legislation and what's going on inside the Capitol. You can catch the replays here on the website if you aren't able to listen live.
This week, we discussed:
- Philipeans 1
- Senator Nicola's first filibuster
- SB 10 - removing sunsets on several bills
- SB 35 - tax credit for historical buildings
We hope you find it valuable and informative. Let us know what you'd like to hear about!
Thank you to Pete Mundo for having me on his show to discuss large corporations buying up residential properties across Missouri, how it's affecting our ability to own homes and what I'm trying to do about it.
the truth about the bills
One of my greatest hopes here in The Digest is to be as transparent as possible and to educate Missouri citizens regarding policy that effects the lives of all Missourians. There are two bills this session, SB 14 & HB 544, that have gotten a lot of attention with our citizens due to the millions of dollars being spent in advertising. Unfortunately, the advertising has been very deceptive, which is so often the case. I'd like to clarify what this legislation actually does and why I oppose it.
These bills are referred to around the Capitol as "The Bayer Bills," because they are mainly written for the benefit of the company who produces a pesticide product called glyphosate, which you probably know as RoundUp. Monsanto is the company that created this product and you are likely familiar with that name as well. However, Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 for nearly 60 BILLION dollars.
Monsanto was an agricultural company based in St. Louis. Bayer is a German chemical and pharmaceutical company. Bayer kept RoundUp and the glyphosate products but dropped the Monsanto name. There have been over 150,000 claims made against Bayer, mostly alleging that RoundUp caused cancer. These court cases have cost the company millions of dollars and they'd love to put a stop to that by prohibiting their product users from filing winnable lawsuits.
WHAT THE BILLS SAY
SB 14 & HB 544 are identical bills. They both add one paragraph of new language to our statutes in chapter 281 on Pesticides. The new paragraph would be added to section 281.260, on Registration of Pesticides. Below, you'll see screen shots of the new language in both bills. The first photo is page 5 lines 122 through 130 of SB 14. The second photo is page 3 lines 79 through 84 of HB 544.
WHAT THIS NEW LANGUAGE MEANS
As you can see, the language underlined in red states the EPA label shall satisfy any requirements for warning labels regarding cancer. The practical effect is that a victim of cancer has no ability to hold the company responsible. You can see an example of a label below.
If this bill should pass, a simple label such as this would remove ANY possibility of ANY Missourian to file a winnable liability suit against Bayer (or any other pesticide company) if it could be proven RoundUp (or any other pesticide product) was a cause for a cancer diagnosis. In essence, this bill would give blanket immunity to Bayer and all other pesticide companies.
The only winnable liability case regarding glyphosate is a "failure to warn" case. This is the underlying cause of action in these cases. If passed, these bills would make it so that the current label is correct and no suit could be brought for this purpose.
I believe every Missourian deserves to have their day in court when their rights have been infringed upon.
I believe no company should ever have immunity from wrongs they might have caused.
When you lose your right to have your day in a court of law in front of a jury of your peers when you've been harmed or your rights infringed, I believe you cease to have those rights. It's the government's purpose to protect the rights of the people and it's the duty I swore an oath to do. For this reason, I will work to defeat this legislation in every way possible in my seat as a Missouri senator.
killing these bills will not...
- force Bayer to quit producing RoundUp.
- force farmers to quit using RoundUp or glyphosate products.
- force farmers to buy Chinese or other foreign products.
- mean that Bayer will lose every suit brought against them.
if these bills pass
If passed, these bills would...
- give blanket immunity to Bayer and other pesticide companies when their glyphosate products cause harm.
- put Missouri citizens at risk of great loss without a path to recoup their losses
my thoughts
for more info
If you'd like even more information or if you have any questions, please reach out to our office.
As we wrap up another busy week in the Missouri Senate, I want to take a moment to provide an overview of the progress we’ve made. Several important bills moved forward, and I had the opportunity to present my first piece of legislation on the Senate floor.
Bills Passed in the Senate last Week:
- SB 38 sponsored by Senator Barbara Washington creates "Missouri CROWN Act" which prohibits discriminatory practices as they relate to hairstyles in elementary and secondary education.
- SB 43 sponsored by Senator Travis Fitzwater relating to child protections.
- SB 66 sponsored by Senator Tracy McCreery raises the legal age of marriage to 18.
- SB 82 sponsored by Senator Jamie Burger creates provisions to permit & regulate the exportation of water.
- SB 160 sponsored by Senator Brad Hudson creates provisions relating to higher education discrimination.
- SB 221 sponsored by Senator Nick Schroer modifies the standard of review for statutes, rules and regulations.
- SB 466 sponsored by Senator Kurtis Gregory repeals the sunset provisions on several agricultural tax credits.
- HB 495 sponsored by Representative Brad Christ modifies several sections of statute regarding public safety, including the control of the City of St. Louis Police Dept. being moved to a statutorily created Board of Police Commissioners.
My First Bill on the Senate Floor – SB 87
A significant moment for me this week was presenting my first bill, SB 87, on the Senate floor. This legislation would allow counties the option to cap the increase in real property tax liability to 5% every assessment year. This is a balanced approach that provides tax relief without forcing counties to participate. Below is a video of my explanation on the floor.
While the bill does not mandate any county’s participation and still allows for a reasonable increase, some Democrat senators voiced concerns about potential funding implications for local services and schools. As a result, SB 87 was laid over to the informal calendar. Over the coming weeks, I will work diligently to address these concerns and find a balanced solution that offers relief to property owners while maintaining necessary funding for public services. I am hopeful that we can move this bill forward and pass it in the House.
my thoughts on real property taxes & local services
SJR 62 is sponsored by Senator Mike Cierpiot and had a public hearing in our Local Government committee this week. Funding for schools is a recurring conversation and criticism we hear when we attempt to bring relief to our property owners through reducing their property tax bills. I shared my feelings about it in the hearing this week, which you can watch below.
other things we're working on
protecting your freedom of speech
SB 84 is a bill that encroaches on your freedom of speech, instead opting for the protection of election workers over citizens. I am opposed to treating groups of people differently, including elected officials or election workers. Everyone needs to be protected from harm. With that in mind, I have stood and continue to stand in opposition to this bill and any other that would carry this language. Currently, the bill is laid over on the informal calendar and the sponsor has agreed to leave it lie there. Another local government bill originally included this language as well, SB 182, and I've also been told by that sponsor the language will be removed. My staff and I will be watching to see what happens, but we are hopeful this issue has been taken care of. If we see this language reappear in these or any other pieces of legislation, rest assured we will be doing everything in our power to kill it.
foreign ownership of missouri agricultural land
SB 217 is a bill having to do with the foreign ownership of Missouri's farm land. Originally, this bill makes it legal for foreign entities to own unlimited amounts of farm land for the purposes of doing any type of research.
Currently, Missouri law allows for foreign entities to purchase all types of land in Missouri. There is a current limit on the purchase of agricultural land by foreign entities, however, of 1% IF that farm land is being used for agricultural purposes. Foreign entities ARE currently allowed to purchase an unlimited amount ag land if they are NOT using it for ag purposes.
The original form of SB 217 would ban all foreign entities from owning ag land EXCEPT for land used for research. Purchasing would be unlimited if the land was being used for research.
I am in agreement that no foreign companies should own ag land. However, I believe to allow for unlimited ownership for the purpose of research is unwise & dangerous. I'm thankful to be on the committee that heard this bill and I was able to add a restriction on all foreign adversaries purchasing farm land for any purpose. I'd love to also see a limit on these purchases and I'm going to work toward that end.
The topic of foreign land ownership has been a heated one for quite some time and unfortunately, the details often get conflated and campaign ads are spun for marketing purposes. I hope this information and the following links are helpful.
Missouri Statutes on Foreign Ownership of Land
- Definitions
- Limitations on Foreign Ownership of Farm Land
- Court Ordered Divestiture - When
- Lease Deemed Ownership
- Failure to Divest
- Exceptions to the 1% Limit for Nonfarming Purposes
Missouri Department of Agriculture Foreign Owned Ag Land (FOAL) Reports
exciting announcement: new radio show!
I am thrilled to announce that this Saturday, March 8, 2025, marks the launch of our new radio show, "The Senator’s Office," where I will be joined by my Chief of Staff, Jodi Grace. This show will air every Saturday at 3:00 PM on Real Talk 93.3 FM.
You can listen live via their app or website at Real Talk 93.3, and you can find the replays here on our website. We look forward to discussing legislative updates, answering your questions, and engaging with you on the issues that matter most to Missouri.
Thank you for your continued support, and as always, please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns.
A Costly Burden on Missouri Families and Businesses
This past week, the Missouri Senate passed SB 4, an omnibus utility bill. While this legislation addresses various utility policies—including gas, electricity, sewer, and water—two of its most concerning provisions will have a direct and costly impact on Missouri citizens: Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) and future test years. I stood in opposition to SB 4, recognizing the financial burden it will place on hard-working families and businesses across the state.
What is CWIP?
CWIP is a utility policy that allows utility companies to charge customers for the costs of new power plant construction before the plant is completed and operational. This means that ratepayers are forced to finance these projects in advance, bearing the financial risk that traditionally falls on the utility companies and their investors. Missouri voters prohibited CWIP in a statutory ballot initiative in the 1970s, rejecting the idea that consumers should pay for something they are not yet receiving. This piece of legislation would overturn the will of the people. This was reason enough for me to vote no on this bill.
future test years
SB 4 also included provisions for future test years, which is policy allowing rates to be determined by future expense projections vs. historical expenses which can easily be proven. Projecting expenses to justify rate increases isn't what the people deserve.
impacting real people & real businesses
I opposed SB 4 because it will drive up utility rates for Missouri families, both large and small businesses, and manufacturers. At a time when citizens are already grappling with rising costs, this bill forces them to shoulder even more financial strain.
There is great potential for economic damage caused by significant utility rate increases, particularly for the manufacturing sector where commercial rates are already high and the electricity usage is more than the average citizen can imagine. When utility costs rise, businesses have fewer resources to invest in growth, hiring, and wages. Many companies, especially in manufacturing, have been operating on thin margins due to the current state of our economy. I'm very concerned these increases in cost could lead to widespread job losses across Missouri.
Even if several jobs aren't lost, the increased overhead due to enormous rate increases will be passed on to the customers, giving the average citizen not only increased utility bills but increased prices on their purchases.
A Departure from trump policies
The policies within SB 4 are in direct contradiction to the pro-growth, pro-tax relief agenda championed by President Trump. Instead of cutting costs for citizens and reducing government intervention, this bill increases financial burdens, expands government oversight, and shifts financial risks from utility companies to Missouri consumers. This is precisely the kind of legislation that stifles economic opportunity rather than promoting it.
A July 17, 2024, article by Politico quotes President Trump as saying,
“We’re going to get energy prices reduced within the first year to less than half of what they are right now, and that’s going to bring down inflation.” - President Trump.
Every county in Missouri chose President Trump over his competitor. What in the world are we doing in the Missouri legislature by enacting policy that is the opposite of President Trump's agenda and raising costs for the people?
The videos below explain more about my thoughts on this bill.
