A concurrent resolution, introduced today by Representative Bill Rieboldt (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 35 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE REIBOLDT.

2292H.01I

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Commerce Clause, was designed to ensure free trade between the states by preventing any state from imposing a tariff or other restriction on goods from another state; and

WHEREAS, the Commerce Clause is an enumerated power granted to Congress and is also a restriction imposed on states from enacting legislation that places an undue burden on interstate commerce; and

WHEREAS, California voters adopted Proposition 2 to their state constitution in 2008, requiring the state’s egg producers to switch to “enriched cages” or nonconfinement operations in a campaign led and funded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS); and

WHEREAS, HSUS is a national animal rights group that has aggressively pursued an agenda intended to decrease and eventually eliminate the public’s consumption of animal protein; and

WHEREAS, forcing egg producers to switch to “enriched cages” or nonconfinement operations drove up the cost of eggs in the European Union while also leading to food shortages and the closure of countless farms; and

WHEREAS, forcing egg farmers in America to utilize “enriched cages” or nonconfinement operations will lead to the same impacts on the U.S. economy and food supply; and

WHEREAS, in 2010, at the behest of HSUS, the California legislature passed AB 1437, which was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, prohibiting the sale of eggs from other states that do not meet the requirements of Proposition 2 of 2008; and

WHEREAS, together, California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by preventing free trade among the states; and

WHEREAS, together, California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 have artificially increased egg prices and restricted the availability of affordable eggs and vital animal protein to Californians, especially low-income citizens:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-eighth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby condemn California’s anti-trade actions and call on the California legislature to repeal AB 1437 and urge the voters of California to reconsider and repeal Proposition 2.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for the majority and minority leaders of the California General Assembly, the Governor of California, and the Attorney General of California.

[emphasis in original]

“…California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by preventing free trade among the states…”

Uh, that would be determined by the federal courts if somebody actually bothered to pursue the issue. Oh, wait…

“…HSUS is a national animal rights group that has aggressively pursued an agenda intended to decrease and eventually eliminate the public’s consumption of animal protein…”

Left out the part about the “conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids”.

Irony impairment alert:

“…California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 have artificially increased egg prices and restricted the availability of affordable eggs and vital animal protein to Californians, especially low-income citizens…”

The concern for California’s low-income citizens from the Missouri General Assembly is touching. You know, unlike Missouri’s low-income citizens, they have better access to affordable health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, the priorities of our republican controlled Missouri General Assembly.

Previously:

HB 826: the wrath of grapes (February 4, 2015)

HB 826 : the wrath of grapes – part 2 (February 6, 2015)

Evidently Representative Joe Don McGaugh (r) reads Show Me Progress, but he doesn’t appear to understand how this Internets blog thing works. Last night he sent a follow up e-mail to the individual who made an inquiry about HB 826 (again, forwarded to us from the individual who it was addressed to):

Subject: Re: HB 826

Date: 2/6/15 7:02:50 PM

From: “JoeDon McGaugh” JoeDon.McGaugh@house.mo.gov

To: [….]

Next time you are going to publish our emails let me know and I will give you something good to drive traffic to your site.

Have a good weekend.

JDM

That seems to be a might testy.

Here’s the thing – Show Me Progress is not the blog or “site” of the individual who engaged Representative McGaugh (r). Show Me Progress does have registered users who can post (if they conform to our user guidelines) to this site – their posts usually appear in a column on the right. On rare occasions their posts may be promoted to the front page. If this occurs that still does not make it their site. Even then, in this particular instance, the individual who engaged Representative McGaugh (r) did not post the exchange here. This person did forward the e-mails to us and we in turn wrote a post (as we do) and posted it to our site.

The registered user model is quite common on the Internets. For example, the individual who engaged Representative McGaugh (r) did post the same e-mail exchange at the Great Orange Satan, a national blog:

Fri Feb 06, 2015 at 01:04 PM PST

A report from a Laboratory of Democracy: Missouri

by MoDem

[….]

My spouse of thirty-two years is not a “verified United States citizen.” I was interested in knowing why this representative wants to prevent my spouse from ever producing wine or harvesting grapes to produce wine.

I had to find out.

[….]

One might note that even though the individual actively posted as a registered user to that national blog it is still not their “site”.

Our Missouri elected representatives constantly engage with the people of this state. That’s as it should be. In this day and age an elected official who expects that any exchange with a citizen on a public matter will not become public is naive. Representative McGaugh tapped “send” more than once on e-mails  addressed to a citizen inquiring about a public issue. It’s the twenty-first century.

Finally, Representative McGaugh (r) still doesn’t appear too concerned about the effect of sloppy language in legislation. That inexact language in the bill was the point of the original post. The California egg stuff revealed by Representative McGaugh (r) in the e-mail exchanges was just a bonus.

Previously:

HB 826: the wrath of grapes (February 4, 2015)

….2. No domestic wine shall be sold at retail in the state unless it has been certified as having been produced by and with grapes harvested by verified United States citizens….

[emphasis in original]

At the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Citizenship

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

   Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR    

   had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

   Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents

   Apply for naturalization

Okay.

We received copies of the following e-mail conversation from the individual who initiated it:

On Feb 5, 2015, at 10:52 PM [….]

Dear Representative McGaugh,

Why do you want to make it impossible for my spouse, who lives in the US legally, to produce wine that can be sold in Missouri?

[….]

We wondered about that concept, too.

The first response from Representative McGaugh (r):

Subject: Re: HB 826

Date: 2/5/15 10:58:17 PM

From: “JoeDon McGaugh” JoeDon.McGaugh@house.mo.gov

To: [….]

If your spouse lives legally in the US I don’t see what the issue is. If you are using unverified workers to produce wine and pick grapes that will be another issue.

Thanks. JDM

A follow up of the inquiry:

On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:50 AM [….]

Representive McGaugh,

You have not read the language of your bill.  Reread it again and tell me how your bill excludes my spouse who is not a US citizen.

[….]

That’s what we read, too.

But wait, there’s more from Representative McGaugh:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:56 AM [JoeDon McGaugh]

If she is here legally she would be verified. That is my intention. Verified workers covers lawful permanent residents and if not we will change it.

If California can tell us how to humanely raise our livestock we can tell them how they must produce their wine.

I am sure Chris Koster will be supportive given his federal lawsuit challenging California’s actions.

Thanks again.

JDM

Wait a minute, the bill [pdf] language makes no reference to “lawful permanent residents”.

This is all about egg retaliation? Really?

And still more in the inquiry

On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:05 AM [….]

Here is the language in your legislation:

2. No domestic wine shall be sold at retail in the state unless it has been certified as having been produced by and with grapes harvested by verified United States citizens.

My spouse is in this country legally, but she is NOT a “verified United States citizen.”

With all due respect, do you understand what “citizen” means?  Do you understand there are people living and working in the US, legally, and are not citizens, verified or not verified?

I appreciate your responding to my inquiries.

[….]

And the final response from Representative McGaugh (r):

Subject: Re: HB 826

Date: 2/6/15 10:00:16 AM

From: “JoeDon McGaugh” JoeDon.McGaugh@house.mo.gov

To: [….]

http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

My idea was to have the Dept of Ag verify like the E-verify system.

Again my intent is to not disqualify any lawfully present citizens. Only those businesses who are bad actors.

JDM

What on earth is a “lawfully present citizen”? Anyone? Anyone?

Previously:

Once again, some Meta (August 23, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) – in Warrensburg – August 22, 2014 (August 23, 2014)

Campaign Finance: egg money (July 9, 2014)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at a campaign event in Warrensburg – August 22, 2014.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a campaign event in Warrensburg yesterday evening. Toward the end of the evening she addressed the seated crowd (about forty-five people) and then took a few questions. Early on in the question and answer period:

[…]

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): …You have any, any comments, insights, uh, questions or anything you might have. We’re not gonna spend a lot of time here, but, uh, we want to hear what you have to say.

Question; Why is that farm bill amendment [“right to farm”] a good thing? [inaudible] it’s not a good thing.

Representative Hartzler: Well, all it is, it’s very simple, it just, uh, says in the Constitution that farmers and [crosstalk] ranchers be able…

Question: From the state, right?

Representative Hartzler: …yeah, that they’ll be, be able to, to farm. And it was a lot of misinformation [crosstalk].

Question: They already have the Farm Act of nineteen seventy-five.  [crosstalk] So what, what has changed?

Representative Hartzler: Right. Well, there’s a group. [crosstalk]

Question: I didn’t understand any of that.

Representative Hartzler: I know,  I know. And there’s a lot of misinformation out there. People were confused and still are. Um, there is outside groups, uh, the, HSUS [Humane Society of the United States] is probably the main one, that has got a lot of money, and they’re going around and targeting different states to pay people to get, you know, signatures and put on their ballot different, uh, language that prohibits certain types of agriculture, basically prevents the farmers of those, at that state from farming in the way or ranching like they have in the past. And then they bankrolled these huge campaigns. And so there are places like in California, they did that so that all the chickens out there can’t be in a cage. Well, that’s resulted in making it very expensive for all the people who raise eggs and chickens out there. And so now it’s nine dollars a carton for eggs in California. And so, this just, by putting it in the [Missouri] Constitution this, uh, would make it harder for, uh, them to, to try change our laws to come into our state. And so that’s why, you know, being proactive, our legislatures, uh, you know, saw, saw the concerns from around the country and said, hey, let’s, we have a law, but, let’s, let’s beef it up a little bit. Let’s put it in the Constitution that it’s a right that farmers can farm. And, uh, it, it, that way if there’s a legal challenge in the future or they try to it just, give a little more standing to help protect the…

Question:  But where, where  those, um, talking about the factory farms coming into Missouri?

Representative Hartzler: Just misinformation, it is totally misinformation. There was, they were [crosstalk] saying China’s gonna…

Question:  Well, you know what? I, I’m not sure about that because up in South Dakota this happened. People were against it. They kept, they kept factory farms out and it was defeated. But in Missouri it wasn’t defeated. So I think the misinformation is on the wrong side. I really do. Because who wants a big dairy conglomerate farm next to your family farm? This is what’s going to happen. And none of us can fight their corporate lawyers.  [crosstalk]  And now…

Representative Hartzler: Well, you know, everybody has an opinion on that but the election’s over and, you know, so, uh, let’s go on to a different topic.

[….]

“…And so now it’s nine dollars a carton for eggs in California…”

From the USDA [pdf]

EGG MARKET NEWS REPORT

FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 2014 VOL. 61 NO.67

U.S. Department of Agriculture  Agricultural Marketing Service Livestock, Poultry & Grain Market News

PRICES TO RETAILERS, SALES TO VOLUME BUYERS, USDA GRADE A AND GRADE A, WHITE EGGS IN CARTONS, CENTS PER DOZEN.

MIDWEST REGIONAL Daily producer prices are 4 cents higher for Large, 1 cent higher for Medium, and steady for Small. Midwest delivered prices are steady. Next week’s delivered asking prices are 6 cents higher for Extra Large and Large and 2 cents higher for Medium. Trade sentiment is steady to mostly higher. Demand is moderate to instances fairly good on light to mostly moderate offerings. Supplies are moderate. Market activity is moderate. Breaking stock prices are steady. The undertone is steady. Offerings are light to moderate on light demand. Supplies are moderate. Market activity is slow to moderate.

DELIVERED TO WAREHOUSE:

RANGE MOSTLY

EXTRA-LARGE 102-111 105-108

LARGE 101-110 103-106

MEDIUM 80-89 82-85

DELIVERED TO STORE DOOR:

RANGE MOSTLY

EXTRA LARGE 109-117 110-112

LARGE 107-115 108-110

MEDIUM 86-94 87-89

CALIFORNIA

Benchmark prices are steady. Asking prices for next week are unchanged on Jumbo, 8 cents higher for Extra Large, 7 cents higher for Large and 2 cents higher for Medium and Small. Trade sentiment is steady to higher. Demand is moderate to fairly good on moderate offerings. Supplies are mostly moderate. Market activity is moderate.

Small benchmark price $1.01.

CALIFORNIA:

Shell egg marketer’s benchmark price for negotiated egg sales of USDA Grade AA and Grade AA in cartons. Cents per dozen. This price does not reflect discounts or other contract terms.

RANGE

JUMBO 182

EXTRA LARGE156

LARGE 145

MEDIUM 121

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:

PRICES TO RETAILERS, SALES TO VOLUME BUYERS, USDA GRADE AA AND GRADE AA, WHITE EGGS IN CARTONS, DELIVERED STORE DOOR, CENTS PER DOZEN.

RANGE

JUMBO 164-176

EXTRA LARGE 134-146

LARGE 122-134

MEDIUM 101-109

[emphasis added]

Nine dollars? Seriously? That’d be some serious retail markup. If the retail price is nine dollars it ain’t because the chickens are running around free.

“…And then they bankrolled these huge campaigns…”

Who did?:

Missouri Ethics Commission

MISSOURI FARMERS CARE [pdf] 7/30/2014

1. Total Receipts For This Election Previously Reported $331,981.48

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $216,549.75

8. Total All Receipts This Election $548,884.23

14. Total Expenditures This Election $775,151.21

[emphasis added]

Uh, that was the supporters of the “right to farm” amendment, not the opponents.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: $110,000.00 for something they really care about (January 3, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Food fight! (May 28, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Because, across Missouri, family farms are being supplanted by… (June 24, 2014)

Campaign Finance: as if yard signs were actually a cash crop for actual farmers… (June 28, 2014)

Utilizing the First Amendment to challenge our oppressive corporate overlords… (July 2, 2014)

Joe Maxwell – “No” on Amendment No. 1 (July 8, 2014)

Campaign Finance: egg money (July 9, 2014)

Campaign Finance: opposing useless law (July 25, 2014)

Right to farm: read the small print and between the lines (July 25, 2014)

Pinch me, I must be dreaming – Cynthia Davis gets it right on Amendment 1 (July 30, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Big agriculture money keeps pouring in for Amendment 1 (July 31, 2014)

Baker Creek Seed Company – Vote “No” on Amendment 1 (August 3, 2014)

Senator Paul LeVota (D) on Amendment 1 (August 4, 2014)

After all that corporate money this is the best that they can do on Amendment 1? (August 6, 2014)