Jamie Ray Gragg — Voted yes on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 2384.
Jamie Ray Gragg — No direct speech in this section, but the committee member is not referenced here; the speaker is Representative Brad Criss, who is not in the expected member list.
Jamie Ray Gragg — Identified as the sponsor of House Bill 2099 and invited to begin.
Jamie Ray Gragg — His squatters bill was described as the second most important bill of the session.
Jamie Ray Gragg — Is addressed as the next speaker after Representative Miller's question.
Jamie Ray Gragg — Is called on to proceed next.
Jamie Ray Gragg — Is called on to proceed and then begins inquiry.
Jamie Ray Gragg — Asks what happens if occupants do not leave after 48 hours.
Don Mayhew — Don Mayhew is first recorded during roll call as voting yes/aye, and shortly thereafter he is recognized to speak and offers an amendment ending in .03H, moving for its adoption.
Don Mayhew — Voted yes on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 2384.
Don Mayhew — Representative Don Mayhew engaged in a sustained line of questioning about the bill’s E-Verify provisions and enforcement mechanisms. He asked whether E-Verify violations carry criminal penalties, why the bill did not include criminal penalties despite including asset forfeiture, and whether the proposal would require all Missouri employers to use E-Verify while preserving existing exceptions. The discussion remained focused on how the bill would be enforced and the scope of employer compliance.
Don Mayhew — Referenced as supporting the idea of stiffer penalties.
Don Mayhew — Representative Mayhew discussed Davis-Bacon projects and certified payroll records, explaining that he is familiar with how contractors can manipulate payroll reporting and omit workers. He described concerns about payroll discrepancies, asked how violations are determined, and raised enforcement issues related to private contractors, including a serious problem in the Lake of the Ozarks area.
Don Mayhew — Representative Mayhew engaged in a brief exchange about wage-related policy, first posing a hypothetical comparing paying a worker $5 an hour versus $15 an hour and asking about the resulting doubled charges, then following up by expressing support for including criminal penalty provisions and agreeing that willful disregard of the law should carry criminal consequences.
Don Mayhew — Questions whether the current law already provides normal protections and challenges the witness's concern about bad actors.
Don Mayhew — Don Mayhew participates in a continuous discussion of a bill addressing squatting and eviction procedures. He explains that he had raised the issue because of constituent cases involving squatters and fake lease documents, notes that eviction can take at least 90 days, and contrasts that with the bill’s 48-hour process for removing squatters. He then helps clarify the bill’s language, emphasizing that it refers to 'property' rather than 'land,' and is asked to point out where the 48-hour provision appears in the text. The exchange ends with a reference to the bill’s prior passage by 145 votes.
Scott Miller — Scott Miller was called during roll call, marked present, and later recorded as voting aye.
Scott Miller — Likely referenced as 'Brett Miller' in the transcript; the context suggests a member was being addressed or thanked, but the exact identity is uncertain.
Scott Miller — Sought to comment and inquire of the amendment maker.
Scott Miller — Voted aye on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 2384.
Scott Miller — Scott Miller questioned whether E-Verify is a federal program and whether violations are solely a federal issue, then continued probing how the bill would give the state authority to address matters normally handled through the federal E-Verify process. He also clarified that the bill does not require mandating E-Verify and that other lawful verification methods remain available.
Scott Miller — Representative Miller argued that the phrase 'reasonably should have known' is too vague and should be replaced with clearer, evidence-based language.
Scott Miller — Is called on to proceed after the explanation of the 48-hour process.
Brian Seitz — Brian Seitz is called during roll call/quorum, then participates in the bill discussion by asking what changed from the previous legislation and later raising questions about whether the International Energy Conservation Code is being removed and about the bill’s 'green' language. The segment also includes a recorded aye vote and a brief acknowledgment/thanks to Representative Sites as the discussion continues.
Brian Seitz — Voted aye on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 2384.
Brian Seitz — Brian Seitz asked whether consumers who use or hire these workers would face any penalty under the bill and whether the bill’s enforcement targets the employer or the individual hiring the service. The response clarified that there is no punishment on the consumer.
Tara Peters — Tara Peters is first called during the quorum/attendance check and then later recorded as voting aye during the same procedural roll call.
Tara Peters — Voted yes on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 2384.
Tara Peters — Is invited to proceed and later offers a supportive comment.
Tara Peters — Expresses strong support for the bill and cites repeated constituent complaints about squatters in rentals.
Tara Peters — Is credited with finding the relevant provision.
Pattie Mansur — Asked for a brief explanation of what the amendment changes represent.
Pattie Mansur — Was called on to continue questioning the bill sponsor.
Pattie Mansur — Raised a question about municipalities that have adopted energy codes above 2009.
Pattie Mansur — Voted no on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 2384.
Representative Mike Jones, District 12 — Identified himself as the bill sponsor and began responding to questions.
Jeff Vernetti — Jeff Vernetti, representing District 123 in the Lake of the Ozarks, presented House Bill 2366 and explained that the bill addresses problems with businesses not responding to license-revocation requests and gaining an unfair advantage by hiring illegal workers. He said the bill would give the Attorney General’s Office independent authority to investigate violations and bring enforcement actions in circuit court or Cole County. He also described the bill’s penalties, including injunctive relief, monetary damages, and restrictions on future employment of illegal workers, and concluded by saying the bill is intended to level the playing field while remaining open to flexible language if concerns arise.
Representative Brad Criss — Representative Brad Criss was introduced as having additional comments on his bill, then testified that the bill is intended to create a fairer playing field for businesses and workers by addressing illegal hiring and adding stronger enforcement. He explained that the measure is meant to clean up the problem and give it real teeth, including provisions that would allow seizure or revocation of business licenses or permits.
Representative Brad Criss / Jeff Vernetti — The witness explained that under the current process, local authorities are still notified and businesses have 15 days by statute to respond, but many businesses do not answer AG requests, creating a burdensome trickle-down effect that pulls municipalities into the process. The bill would streamline this by giving the Attorney General subpoena power to request the needed information while preserving communication and partnership with local authorities, and it removes much of the earlier language to reduce bureaucratic complexity and improve AG oversight.
Ed Tweedhouse — Ed Tweedhouse introduced himself as being with Tweedhouse Excavating in Jefferson City, Missouri, an open-shop contractor with 65 years in business and about 200 employees. He said he was testifying on behalf of his company and the Associated General Contractors of Missouri, noted his 35-year AGC membership and leadership roles, and then moved into the discussion by offering to answer questions and explaining that his company already requires affidavits from subcontractors in its contracts.
Mark Dalton — Mark Dalton, speaking for the Mid-America Carpenter’s Regional Council, testified in support of the bills as necessary to address contractor abuse and labor-law evasion. He explained that general contractors should know who is on their job sites and that consumers should not be expected to vet every subcontractor. Dalton described contractors using cash-pay workers, bypassing I-9 paperwork, and avoiding enforcement, citing examples in Chesterfield and O’Fallon where local action and municipal complaints were ineffective. He argued that the bills would give the Attorney General’s Office direct authority to investigate, create a faster enforcement pathway when municipalities do not act, and allow permits or licenses to be paused when probable cause exists. He also supported stronger penalties for companies that exploit workers and evade payroll and immigration-related requirements.
Mark Dalton — McKenna said Dalton's testimony captured the issue well.
John Barge — Testified in opposition on behalf of the St. Louis Home Builders Association.
Kurtis Gregory — Representative Sites raised concerns that the bill’s language is ambiguous, specifically questioning terms like 'should' and 'suspected.' The witness responded directly, agreeing that the language needs clarification.
Mr. Dalton — Referenced as having testified that cash payments are relatively common.
Ryan McKenna — Testified in support on behalf of the Missouri AFL-CIO and President Hummel.
Jared Hankinson — Testified in opposition on behalf of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Fred Riling — Testified in opposition on behalf of the Builders Association chapter of the AGC, citing representation of construction trade members.
Phil Amato — Introduced himself as representing District 113 in northern Jefferson County and said he was there to talk about House Bill 2009.
unidentified representative — Contacted the speaker after passage of the bill to describe a squatting problem on vacant property in a lake development.