The House, Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today to speak against HB 481. There are many reasons that this bill is not a good bill for New Hampshire. Marijuana commercialization is wrong for New Hampshire's young people and our communities. Science shows that marijuana use during youth when your brain is developing can have long-term negative effects. Allowing big marijuana into New Hampshire will allow this major industry to manufacture, sell and market an addictive substance to our kids setting them up for a long-term health problem, like impaired cognitive functioning and an elevated risk of developing mental illness, an increased chance of developing a substance use disorder. We already have a serious issue in New Hampshire with substance abuse and I don't see that making this legal is going to help that situation at all. Number one, HB 482 puts no limits on the types of products sold or the potency of those products. Also, it does not resolve the complicated public safety concerns like driving while impaired. Vaping marijuana products have become wide-spread among middle school and high school students. 2017 national survey results on drug use indicates levels of marijuana vaping nationally are considerable. One in ten 12th grade students vape marijuana in the past year and levels were 8% for 10th grade and 3% for 8th grade students. I have another statistic here on teen vaping in New Hampshire. 25% of New Hampshire high school students reported using vape products in the past 30 days, ranging from 37.6% of 9th graders to 32.4% of 12th graders. Among high school students who had used e-cigs before, over 1/3 reported vaping marijuana. Multiple studies have found that youth that tried vaping even once have a markedly increased risk of going on to smoke cigarettes and marijuana. One of the doctors that testified before the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, one of her statements was as a physician scientist, it is my obligation to first do no harm. How can I be sure that I am living up to the standards of my profession when allowing early exposure whether in the womb or environmentally to marijuana can lead to permanent and irreversible damage to the delicate and impressionable development of a child's brain. So, as we walk around New Hampshire and have so many odors coming our way. I have asthma that is affected any time I'm in an area of a smoke area. New Hampshire has a high rate of children with asthma and I'm going to say for those parents that smoke in their homes with their children, what are you trying to do, kill your children? So, I'm just going to say I wish that you would vote against the 481 bill because it's not good for any of us and it is an irresponsible piece of legislation which fully commercializes the retail sale of marijuana and all marijuana products. As lawmakers, you should oppose HB 481. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Exeter, Rep. Berrien.

Rep. Skip Berrien (D - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good morning colleagues. I know this is a difficult vote for many of us, but I rise in opposition to HB 481. Despite our centuries of experience with marijuana, we have a dearth of hard data regarding the long-term effects of marijuana on the human body. I accept the statement that no one has died from a marijuana overdose, but we do not know the long-term effects of marijuana on our individual lives and the social consequences, many of which were just stated. However, we have scientifically based observations which tell us that marijuana is not good for the developing brain of the fetus, children and our youth. This should cause us to be hesitant as we approach this consideration on legalization. First, we should consider the effects of maternal cannabis on the developing fetus. Just as know that tobacco and alcohol have adverse effects on the developing fetus, there are clear indications that the brain of the fetus is very sensitive to cannabis and is associated with behavioral disorders on into childhood. Low birth rate has also been associated with marijuana during pregnancy. In Colorado, marijuana consumption by pregnant mothers increased after legalization. Now, we can't financially support all of the developmental and behavioral demands in this state now. Do we really want to increase the demand on these services? Do we want more children appearing in our emergency rooms after they have ingested edible marijuana products left around by marijuana using parents? That's what happened in Colorado after legalization. And, are we willing to listen to our youth, such as those from Dover who articulated to the committee all the reasons they do not want marijuana to be a normal part of their community. Yes, we all acknowledge that weed is accessible to our youth and yes, as we've heard that vaping is now just one more way to furtively experience the effects of marijuana. Legalization will remove the social taboo and commercialization will induce more liberal use throughout our communities conveying to our youth that marijuana is not dangerous, not dangerous. But, scientific observation shows that marijuana alters the physiologic connectivity of our developing adolescent brain interfering with academic achievement and inducing a variety of behavioral problems. Do we want to increase the challenges we face in preparing a competent work force and a responsible citizenry? Yes, it's clear we need more information, but in the meantime, legalization is an experiment. It's an experiment to determine what harm marijuana will cause in our communities. Our children are the long-term subjects of this experiment. These children have not given consent to be subjects of this long-term experiment. This experiment puts our children at risk. Are you ready to consent to make New Hampshire children subjects of this experiment? I say, this is not the New Hampshire way. I ask you to vote down this OTP, so another motion can be made.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Epsom, Rep. McGuire.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'd like to question that we are not really here to decide whether marijuana is good or bad. We are here to decide if it should be legal or illegal which is an entirely different question. Because it is illegal, it causes problems that we can solve regardless of other concerns and issues. Whether we think it is good or bad, there is no doubt there is a significant number of people in this state, our constituents and neighbors, want to use it and many of them want to use it so much that they are willing to go to great lengths to get it. Since they can't grow it legally, they have to buy it and it is, because it's illegal, that means they have to buy it from criminals. Dealing with criminals, in itself, is a bad thing. You can't take them to court if they short change you. You can't be sure that whatever you are buying is what they tell it to you, it's not been tested. Why would criminals label it? It's certainly not going to be enforcing any silly little laws we have about selling to minors. So, that is a concern. If it were legal, you would be dealing with the corner shop which will, if it's labeled you will know what it is. It won't be adulterated, and they will be enforcing our laws against selling to minors the same way they enforce selling alcohol and tobacco, which are also forbidden to minors. I think for adults not having to deal with these criminals is important. If it were legal, it also means we would not be funneling a great deal of money to these criminals and they would use it to fight for territory with other gangs, drive-by shootings and of course to subsidize the drug lords. The other concern is that if you are dealing with the criminals, they have a significant incentive to upgrade your drug purchase. They are going to want you to buy something that is more profitable to them, something that is smaller, more effective, more expensive and so that's how you get pushed into taking some other drug instead of straight cannabis. For these reasons, I hope that you would join me and supporting this bill to make it legal, whether you think it's a good thing. Thank you very much and I will not take questions.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member does not yield to any questions. The Chair recognizes the member from Derry, Rep. Stephen Pearson.

Rep. Stephen Pearson (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I am Representative Stephen Pearson. When I am not up here at the State House working in committee I am at my other job. I am a Lieutenant on the Manchester Fire Department. When I am on duty, I am in charge of one of the City of Manchester's Safe Stations. I have been at ground zero of our State's opioid Crisis since day one. In that role I speak with those that come into our Safe Station looking for help. One of the things that is often talked about is how they got to this point in their life. All too often marijuana is mentioned, not because of the drug itself, but the social scene that surrounds that drug. We hear all too often about how someone in the group got bored with pot and decided to take it up a notch and that drug is then introduced into their social group. Early on we saw meth being the drug that took it up a level, and then it switched to heroin, but in so many cases this story begins with pot. Proponents of this bill would argue that its only pot, but it's never only pot. A mere month and a half ago the State of Oregon put the legalization of psychedelic mushrooms on the ballot. I'm going to say that again. A month and a half ago Oregon put the legalization of psychedelic mushrooms on the ballot. This is what happens when you allow a drug culture to take root. You see HB 481 endorses the creation of a drug culture. A culture sanctioned by the state. A culture that will not respect the age restrictions found in this bill. In the 22 years I have been in the fire service I have seen some horrible things. One of which was the day a threeyear-old little girl told me her mommy was dead in the bathroom and pointed to the door. A three-year-old girl sitting on her couch playing with a doll and sadly she was right. This is what happens when someone becomes enveloped in a drug culture. We are not going to solve our drug crisis by legalizing more drugs. That is a fundamentally flawed argument. This bill creates far more problems than its worth. A bill that proponents argue for with untested theories, unrealistic revenue projections and a disregard for real consequences. I urge you to vote no on 481. New Hampshire can be the common-sense oasis in the Northeast.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Danville, Rep. Wallace to speak for the recommendation.

Rep. Scott Wallace (R - Rock 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, HB 481 seeks to legalize cannabis for adult recreational use. This bill is a direct result of the two-year cannabis study commission's findings. The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had addressed the criminality of the issue. The majority of the committee has come to the conclusion that the bill is ready to move on to the second committee. The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee has had extensive discussions about the impacts of this bill. One of the key aspects is the quality control of cannabis that is brought to market. The Cannabis Control Commission will set forth a method through which products will be tested and labeled for purity and content just like any other consumer product intended for ingestion. There are issues to be worked out in Ways and Means as far as taxation and retail sales go, but the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee does not address those issues. I hope that you can support the bill and move it on to its next committee. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Salem, Rep. Abbas to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you, Mister Speaker. One of the issues with HB 481 is that its attempting to commercialize an industry with, however its overly regulated and the tax structure is not actually understood whether that would actually hamper the business. The problem with that and the reason that led to this over regulation has to do with the federal prohibition. One of those regulations is that cultivators won't be able to transport or sell marijuana to out of state retailers because that is against federal law. However, HB 481 is attempting to legalize a substance that is still illegal under federal law. Essentially, we are picking and choosing which laws we want to follow and which ones we don't. The problem is with the tax structure and the over regulation is actually going to drive the retail price up by creating all these expenses that the retailers will have to make up for. What that will do, is allow the black market to continue to thrive and we've seen that throughout the country with states that have removed the prohibition. Massachusetts for example. An ounce of marijuana is selling around $350 to $400 an ounce, where in the black market it is about $150 an ounce. So, this house bill, one of the goals of legalizing marijuana would be actually to eliminate the black market, however, due to the tax structure and the over regulation, it's highly doubtful that this house bill will actually succeed in that effort. The problem is with the black market is that that's where the children are buying marijuana from. The legal age to purchase marijuana is still going to be 21, if this were to pass. So, there is a persuasive argument that if marijuana is legalized, it's going to be cleaner and people will know what they are smoking. However, children who are still buying from the black market, it's still going to be a thriving industry. They are not going to go to a store if they are under 21. So, that objective will not be met as well. So, many of the supporters of this, they will want to generate a tax revenue. However, the tax revenue is based on a projection that the black market will go away, which I don't believe it will. There are also some public safety concerns. Just to clarify, if someone were to be pulled over by a police officer suspected of driving after using marijuana, at this point in time, there is not field sobriety test available that can effectively measure whether a drive is impaired. That is problematic in a sense that you now have a crime that you know that you will have a very difficult time proving if you were to prosecute this individual. I spoke before in the House on a different house bill involving habitual offenders and what I would say is that the study of that house bill, the amount of deadly car accidents increased in 2018 by over 40-50 accidents. So, that is a situation where you may have more marijuana out there, more people driving impaired and an inability to actually enforce that law. So, for that reason I'm going to ask you to vote no on HB 481. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Harts Location, Rep. Butler to speak for the recommendation.

Rep. Edward Butler (D - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm pleased to stand before you to support HB 481. As have many of you, I'm sure, I have supported legalization efforts in the past and was proud to be a part of the majorities that passed similar bills through this House and on to the body that will not be named. As most of you know, I am the House Commerce Chair and so I thought I would focus my remarks today on business and commerce related issues. After all, broadening access to cannabis and cannabis related products has begun to be a boom for businesses and revenues in Massachusetts and certainly so in many states where regulation supports a broad-based market for legal recreational cannabis use. I have no doubt it will be the same for New Hampshire. Legalization in Colorado and Washington happened in 2012 and sales began in 2014 so they have had the longest experience and examples to draw upon. Those state's economies have prospered, and opponents' dire predictions have not materialized. Oregon and Alaska voters approved similar measures in 2014 as did Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, California voters in 2016. Encouraging business and revenue statistics are most easily available from Colorado and Washington. Now it is true that the population in Colorado is a little bigger than ours, 5.5 million verses our 1.3 and Washington state is 7.4 million, but still, in 2017 Colorado collected more than $200 million in taxes from marijuana businesses. Washington generated more than $400 million from marijuana excise and sales taxes in 2017. The first stores in the legal cannabis industry in Massachusetts opened in November and through January 27, customers spent about $28 million on marijuana products. Marijuana businesses of course hire and retain workers and utilize services from a wide variety of collateral sectors, construction, engineering, security, legal, insurance and real estate. In 2018, US News and World Report ranked Denver, Portland and Seattle, all of which have regulated marijuana sales for adults, in the top ten best places to live in the nation. Workers' comp costs, which reflect the severity in number of workplace related injuries have decreased since legalization in Colorado. Again, US News and World Report ranked Colorado as the best economy state in the nation in 2017 and ranked Washington number three. An economic analysis of the legal marijuana industry in Colorado found that it generated $2.4 billion in overall economic activity in 2015. Marijuana sales have increased by more than 50% since 2015 from just under $ billion to $1.5 billion. Colorado broke records for the number of visitors and amount of tourist dollars spent in the sixth year in a row in 2016. These statistics are encouraging from a business and economic perspective. Legalizing access to recreational cannabis makes a great deal of sense. I support creating and supporting an industry that can stimulate our economy in such a variety of ways. One other issue the Commerce Committee deals with, which is a concern when we talk about creating a commercial cannabis industry, is banking. A few years ago, I went to an NCSL conference and attended a presentation from regulators from Colorado and Washington. Much of their presentation centered on the challenges of the early legal recreational cannabis business and how they were dealing with primarily cash businesses since banks were queasy about creating formal relationships with these new businesses. Luckily those early jitters have been minimized and some banks are now finding ways to work directly with commercial cannabis businesses. Despite the complications caused by federal law, hundreds of banks and credit unions do serve adult use cannabis businesses nationwide. All three therapeutic cannabis businesses in New Hampshire have access to banking and three financial institutions are already reportedly serving adult use businesses in Massachusetts. Of course, there are many other reasons to support legalizing and regulating the use of cannabis for adults, but one of those reasons is the very positive influence it will have on the creation of an entrepreneurial business climate that will support our local and state economies and will foster significant business growth and positive revenue gains for our state. Please support the Ought to Pass on HB 481. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question. The member will not yield to questions. The Chair recognizes the member from Campton, Rep. Richard Osborne to speak against the committee recommendation.

Rep. Richard Osborne (D - Graf 7)I am Richard Osborne from Campton. I'm speaking in opposition to this bill and I'm speaking as a physician who sees in this bill a danger to the health of children, pregnant women in particular and it's already been eloquently described what the risks are so I'm not going to go back through all of them. I would pass on to you words from the American Academy of Pediatrics, "Yes, more than half of Americans support the legalization of marijuana, but questions remain about how the drug affects our health." These questions are especially important for one group, pregnant women. Marijuana use during pregnancy is becoming more common despite the lack of clarity about its effects. The recommendation of the academy for women who are pregnant is don't use marijuana in any form throughout the pregnancy. We can debate whether the effects are important or not but at this stage in our knowledge of the effects of cannabis, I do not feel we are ready to let everyone use it without any regulation. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Keene, Rep. William Pearson.

Rep. William Pearson (D - Ches 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Members. Listening to the debate this morning, I might think that Juuls are going to cure cancer and save the rainforest. I might also think that marijuana is going to start killing our children by the dozens. I suggest to you that both arguments are overblown. I've been serving here since 2014, which I recognize isn't long compared to some of the members, but its long enough to have heard this debate come up a couple of times now and for those who have been here since I was first elected in 2014, you'll notice that this is the first time I have ever risen to speak to this issue. Well, that's because I've been reluctant to talk on it. I feel passionate about it and if you had spoken to me in the halls, we might have talked about it, but there is an immense stigma associated with talking about it, much less even doing it, or rather much more than even doing it. So, why do I come up today? Well, I think after the past couple of sessions I've garnered a little bit of respect among this body, I hope at least, and I've come out on issues that are broader than just marijuana. I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that I'm a 27-year old college educated male from Keene, New Hampshire. It seems obvious where I'm going to vote on this issue and why I support it but let me explain to you why. As reluctant as I am to break from the Pearson caucus, I know there are three of us now, I don't share my colleague's concern about cannabis. That goes to one of the bigger arguments that there's a real public health crisis associated here, and I know we are dealing with the opioid epidemic, but this is not that, not even close. Rather, I'd compare cannabis to coffee or sugar and in a 2015 report we saw 25,000 deaths in the United States associated with sugar. We saw 180,000 deaths associated worldwide with sugar. No one is talking about it here in this body in terms of regulating it. In fact, I posit to my colleague that if we want to remove marijuana and cannabis from these situations, we should remove them from the nefarious actors that end up peddling the cannabis. The very actors, "dealers" who would also have access to harder drugs. LSD, for instance, methamphetamines. These are thing that your CVS won't carry obviously, but someone who deals marijuana may. I also want to address the argument that there's a public safety problem here. How are police going to regulate this on the roads? Well, if you look at a map of the Northeast, specifically New England, and the surrounding states, many of them have legalized marijuana. I'd also suggest to you that police officers are having to deal with this problem whether or not we pass this bill or not. These people are on the roadways. The reason we don't have a sales tax in New Hampshire is to entice Massachusetts residents, who by the way have access to legal marijuana, to come to our state. To say that they're not also carrying marijuana, I think is a misnomer and it's really ignoring our police officers. I also wanted to talk about the adverse effects on the developing mind. I'm reluctant to talk about this too because my story is anecdotal. We've heard some statistics about this and I'm not going to talk about statistics. I will talk about my own life though. I can speak to that. I've experienced it. I graduated from Keene State in 2014. I now go to the University of New Hampshire School of Law. I've seen marijuana. I've been around it. I've ingested it during my time in undergrad and even more recently. I am preparing for the bar so there are ethics problems that I need to be careful of, but before that, I was pretty intimate with the substance and I would suggest that many of my colleagues were as well. To suggest that these people, some of the most highly educated people in the state, are experiencing mental developmental problems due to marijuana ingested, due to the ingesting of marijuana, I think is a complete farce. I'm sure some of you think my mental development has been stayed some. I'm looking over here. Maybe over here too. Be that as it may, I am but one example of a much broader cohort of people and I wish I could do them even more justice, ranging from the ages of 21 to 30 who regularly participate in the ingesting of marijuana and have really no side-effects aside, going full circle, from the stigma associated with it. That's why I'm really for this bill. It's because the problems that are associated with keeping it the way it is now have been far reaching and frankly they go to the criminal justice problems that we're trying to alleviate ourselves of right now, the overburdened prison populations, people who are not able to find jobs because of these low-level misdemeanor offences on their records. New Hampshire is a very white state, but there are also minority people who live in this state who are in this chamber and they are adversely affected by the marijuana policies that we have on the books. I think New Hampshire is behind the times on this. I think we should have done this yesterday. I'm glad that I've been able to speak to you about it today. I hope I can speak to you more about it in the future and I hope that you will respect my opinion, not just on this issue, but many others. Again, I acknowledge that there is a stigma associated with talking about it, especially as a young person coming from liberal Keene. I understand that, but I hope that I have engendered enough respect in this body that you will actually listen to the words I am saying today and support the committee's bipartisan recommendation of Ought to Pass.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Stratham, Rep. Abrami, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Patrick Abrami (R - Rock 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker I rise in opposition to HB 481. I am the last speaker on this side, so everybody knows. As many of you also know, I have had the privilege to chair the Commission to study the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana. During that time, I took a neutral position. Being a good legislator, I did, but now I am rising in opposition. The commission made 54 recommendations reported on peer reviewed findings only, took testimony from 43 individuals, including from officials from eight states that had legalized and commercialized, simulated findings from recently published commission reports from New York state and Canada, and took no position on whether or not legalization and commercialization should happen in this state. We felt that all of you should be the ones voting on that, but I did have a ring-side seat to learn the good, the bad and the ugly about the topic. I'm going to give you my top ten reasons and I'm going to be brief as I can be. First, we are going to talk about what legalization means in the eyes of the adolescence, it means normalization. I'm just going to say that. It means normalization in the eyes of our adolescents and I'm not going to talk about what I was going to talk about because the Reps. from Campton, Exeter and Nashua did an excellent job of talking about that. And, that goes for vaping as well. The statistic you heard about, the 10% of our 12-graders vaping is true. So, vaping not of nicotine, I'm talking about vaping of marijuana. So, I will leave it at that. The second issue I want to talk about is this is not your grandpa's marijuana anymore. Listen to me. This is not your grandpa's marijuana anymore. I'm a child of the 60's, like many of you are, and 70's and 80's. In those days, it was 3% THC and today it's 15 to 30% THC, pushing 30%. Why is that? Because of states that have legalized. Big companies are involved today, and they hire botanists. What do those botanists do? They engineer the plants to be more potent and that's what we are faced with so when the Representative from Keene says we're dealing with sugar, we're not dealing with sugar. Now, extracts. They extract THC out of the plants and create waxes. Waxes with product names like shatter. Guess what? Those concentrates are up to 94% THC. How do they ingest that? Well I learned a lot more than I ever wanted to know. You take a dab, you take a piece and put it on a titanium nail that is heated, it vaporizes in a vaping device and voila, instant high. Now if you don't call that a hard drug, I don't know what you call it. Guess what? That product is available in every single state. Every single state has this product that has legalized it and it's going to be here in our state as well because there is no stopping it, there is no stopping it. So, there is my second reason. The other thing that hasn't been mentioned, my third reason, is that when we did revenue projections, we determined that only 11.4% of those in New Hampshire will smoke, over 21, will buy marijuana. So, we are going to pass a bill with social impacts, negative social impacts, just for 11.4% of the population. I thought that was worth mentioning. My fourth is of course the roadside impairment testing that the Representative from Salem touched on that. My fifth in relation to impaired testing, workplace issues. No one has addressed workplace issues and there is a couple of them. One is that we have to do drug testing at workplaces. There is not good test. Well there is a urine test. The problem with a urine test is that if you smoke it once, it's in your system for more than a day. If you are a habitual user, it's in your system for 30 days. So, you may not be impaired at the time of the test, but it's still in your system and that's the problem. With the roadside testing and this, is that there is no good way of testing if you are really impaired, that will hold up in court. That should be mentioned. My sixth point. My friend from Harts Landing mentioned the banks and let me touch on that. In the commission we had a member from the banking commission and he said no way, no way will any bank in New Hampshire touch this marijuana money because it is still illegal federally. Why? Because bank board members are conservative. They do not want to be in violation of any state law or federal law and because it is still illegal federally, they will not. What about our medical marijuana or therapeutic cannabis? They deal with Century Bank in Massachusetts. But guess what? Century Bank has told us, told the commission through testimony, Century Bank is not going to take any additional business related to marijuana in New Hampshire. Back to workplace, my second point, back to workplace issues, I have ten of these. The employers cannot treat marijuana the same as they do alcohol. Why? Because alcohol is legal federally and marijuana is not. Employers must deal with the Control Substance Act of 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. Nowhere in the bill we are voting on do we touch on this topic. It's an issue. My ninth point, I think the Representative from Derry did a nice job of touching on it, the firefighter. There is an opioid crisis going on and it just seems counterintuitive to me that we would pass something like this in the midst of this. For anybody in the room, if anybody in this room thinks that marijuana is not addictive, it's addictive. We heard testimony after testimony in the commission about this. We had counselors that came to us and said geez we would not be in business if it wasn't for all of the people that are addicted to marijuana. It is an addictive substance and at these levels of THC that I've talked about, you can see why. My final thing, which is kind of a three-prong, I apologize. Of the 54 commission recommendations, they put many of the recommendations in this bill which is great, but there is some major ones that are missing. There is no opt-out provision for municipalities. Now for lottery and for keno, we have opt-in provisions. We do not have an opt-in provision, so your community could be asleep at the switch and the people in your town may not want a marijuana store in the plaza, but guess what? If they don't, if there is not opt-out, a vague opt-out, that's not good enough. It has to be an opt-in provision because you can still be asleep at the switch and all of a sudden there is a marijuana store in your location. So that's one. Two, most other states have seed to sale tracking and that's to prevent any leakage of the product to avoid taxes, selling a product illegally in the black market. There is no provision here in this bill for seed to sale tracking where most other states that have legalized have that provision. The other reason they do it is to say to the federal government, cause remember this is still illegal federally. So, what the other states are trying to do is trying to show the federal government, we are regulating this very tightly, we have seed to sale tracking, but this bill doesn't have that. Then there is no ban on smoking or vaporizing of marijuana in indoor places. There is a provision for banning of smoking and vaporizing in outdoor places, although the vaporizing that I'm talking about isn't the vices we heard a lot of testimony on, it's the using of the dabbing and all of that. We need to make sure we outlaw that both inside and outside. We don't want anybody dabbing in front of our children. So, in conclusion, there is no societal need or benefit for cannabinoids with the hallucinogenic properties produced by THC. There are only downside risks and costs to society and I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Portsmouth, Rep. Meuse.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Today I rise to speak in support of HB 481. The elephant in the room when it comes to this legislation isn't anything in the bill itself, it's the status quo. Here in New Hampshire, buying and selling or growing cannabis is illegal yet the black market for cannabis continues to boom. Despite a hundred years of prohibition, people that want marijuana have no trouble getting it as one person who testified in our committee said, in New Hampshire if you want to get marijuana, just ask a child. We also heard from parents with children who suffered from the effects of cannabis and the consequences of its use. Their testimony was sincere and heart wrenching but a takeaway for me was that all of the stories that we heard ultimately focused on people who had little trouble getting access to this drug. Essentially if you want access to this drug in New Hampshire, you can get access to this drug in New Hampshire currently without this law. If this teaches us anything, it really teaches us a critical lesson over and over and over again and that lesson is prohibition does not work. Despite this I know that there are many people in this room, many in our committee who are genuinely conflicted when it came to this bill. So, for those of you who are leaning towards no, let me tell you what your no vote will do. If you vote no, you will basically be voting to keep black market drug dealers in business. For many people, these people provide the real gateway to more serious drugs like heroine and like fentanyl. If you vote no, you are also going to be saying no to new revenue. One of the things that is buried in this bill is there is a provision that does talk about how revenue would be used. Revenue from this bill would be used to fund new drug education programs for kids. It would provide additional resources to law enforcement for enforcement. It would be used to study the medical and social impact of cannabis and to actually make further refinements in the law. I don't think we look at this law as being a done deal or a work in progress yet. I think the expectation is it will continue to evolve over the years. Last, but not least, and this is something really important to consider is that if we vote no we are also going to be voting to enforce a set of laws on our citizens that all the states around us have chosen no longer to enforce. Even the country we share a border with, Canada, has chosen not to enforce those laws anymore. On the other hand, if you choose to vote for this bill, you're not just going to be voting for legalization. You'll also going to be voting for regulation that will protect consumers. So, some of the other speakers have gotten into that a little bit, but one of the things that I have seen is that there is a picture floating around that shows cannabis products that have been designed to look like candy bars and to look like brand name snack foods and things like that. One of the things that is important to realize is that under this bill that kind of packaging would be illegal. What would be required is nutritional labeling that would spell things out like the concentration. So the advantage of that, if you are taking a look at kids who may be getting this illegally, is that kids are going to be getting a product, if they get marijuana that was totally legal in New Hampshire, they're going to be getting a product that's tested, where they understand the strength and that's been certified not to have adulterants, contaminants or other drugs added to it. That is not something they are going to get from anything they are buying on the black market currently. Many of us are also concerned about the impact on our roads, driving under the influence. I think one of things we have to realize is that this crime is not anything new. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing in HB 481 which actually legalizes driving under the influence of marijuana. Well we have heard a lot of conflicting testimony and statistics about the impact on accidents and arrests in states that have legalized. Here is something that is not in question here in New Hampshire. Should a person be stopped by police for suspicion for driving under the influence of cannabis, police will use the same procedures they use now to assess intoxication and to make an arrest. These situations and the resulting arrest and convictions will continue regardless of how we vote today. With 80% of our state's population living within 30 minutes of a bordering state where cannabis is legal, something that we also need to consider is that if we don't legalize, some of these people may buy the product over the state line and irresponsibly use it on their return trip. The bottom line is like any drug, like alcohol which we sell legally here in New Hampshire, there are no guarantees that cannabis is going to be completely safe for everyone who uses it, but in the same way that pharmaceutical companies are allowed to market over the counter medications with side effects that may be dangerous to certain people, cannabis should be legally available for adults who read the disclosures, who educate themselves about what they are getting into and who abide by our laws when they purchase, grow and consume it. HB 481 is an extremely thoughtful bill. Anybody who has read it knows how long it is and how much detail that the authors of this bill have gone into. This is the single most comprehensive piece of legislation of its kind that's been introduced before this body. It literally does try to check all the boxes. Part of this law is also the establishment of a commission that will make sure down the road if there are boxes that we failed to check. Initially we can make recommendations to make changes in the law, to make changes in actually how we do this. So, one of the things that I would say is, just to echo Rep. Pearson, is that this is the time for this. The other states surrounding us have done it and I genuinely believe that the status quo that we have right now just simply is no longer tenable, so I would ask you to vote Ought to Pass on HB 481 and to please send it on to the next step. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the last speaker on this bill, the member from Hampton, Rep. Cushing.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of HB 481. When I was a boy in the last century, growing up at Hampton Beach, there were a couple of activities that were prescribed by law and regulation, but they were also participated in by a wide body of the population. One of them was gambling and the other was the sale of intoxicating spirits. Although when I was growing up there was the Empire Laundry at Hampton Beach where people could go in and put some money down on the counter and get a laundry ticket and then when the Boston Herald arrived in the afternoon and had the treasury number on the front, they could take that laundry ticket, go back to the laundry and get some money. It was what the police chief called "The clean book." Also, the sale of intoxicating spirits was prohibited and there was a beer store right over the town line that saw a lot of traffic from the Town of Hampton and I remember going with my grandfather down to Seabrook to go visit Dr. Greens where he would get some medicine. Dr. Greens was the state liquor store and medicine was alcohol, which even during when the State of New Hampshire prohibited recreational use of alcohol, one could still obtain it medicinally at a pharmacy with a doctor's prescription. Times change. What we used to call felony bookmaking when I was a boy, is now called Powerball and rather than putting people in jail and breaking up gambling dens, we get praise on TV for our contribution to education by participating in what was previously an anti-social activity. You can buy a legal drink now at Hampton, both residents and tourists alike. In fact, that dry town that I grew up in now is the home of Smutty Nose Brewery and the two highest grossing volume liquor stores in the state. So, an activity that was once proscribed and prohibited now is regulated, legalized and taxed. Times change. What HB 481 wants to do is to relegalize the use of cannabis. For a couple of hundred years, they talked a lot about alcohol here, but it wasn't until 1934 that marijuana and cannabis was outlawed, and we've been dealing with what I think of as a failed war on cannabis for 85 years and it's time to bring that to an end. I say we do that because I come at it from a criminal justice and public safety perspective. I think the war of marijuana has had an adverse impact upon our society. No one can deny that there are some challenges and health impacts by use of cannabis. We've also come to realize is that the damage that is done by prohibition is at least, prohibition of cannabis, is equal to the damage done by the prohibition of alcohol. It just doesn't work. I know change is hard. It's a little scary but I think now is the time that New Hampshire makes the transition from prohibition of cannabis to relegalization to taxation and regulation. The program that's outlined here, I know it's 26 pages, but it's pretty simple. The first thing that will happen is 60 days after the law passes, use of, and possession of cannabis by adults will be legal. Will be just like Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Quebec and the nine states in the country, the other states in the country that have legalized it. We will set up a Cannabis Control Commission that will be charged with licensing and regulating the growing, the production, the retail sales, the transportation and the testing of cannabis. There are strict controls that are underway that are included in this law that will prohibit it from getting in the hands of children. That's going to be a focus of this organization. It will have an advisory committee of stakeholders that will go out of business in 2025, but it will help us as we make a transition from, just as we had to do 85 years ago when we had a transition from prohibition of alcohol to the regulation and legalization and taxation of that prohibited substance. We have to make that change today when it comes to cannabis. So, I would ask you to please press the green button and vote yes on HB 481.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the majority recommendation of Ought to Pass. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. The House will be in order. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Mangipudi for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know legalizing and commercializing of marijuana will normalize this drug in the eyes of our youth. And if I know that potencies today are upwards of ten times higher than what it was in the 70's and 80's variety and the concentrates are now upwards of 94% THC. And if I further know that vaping of marijuana is done by 10% of 12th graders and 8% of 10th graders. And if I believe that we decriminalized marijuana in 2017 which led to a dramatic increase in marijuana related arrests in just one year. For example, in 2017 New Hampshire public defenders handled about 234 cases of marijuana possession. In 2018.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend for a moment. This is a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair. If I believe. If I now. Thank you.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Okay. In 2018, that number was reduced to just 37 and 22 of those cases were reduced to a violation. And if I believe that we have legalized medical marijuana and that over 7,000 individuals have access to medical marijuana right now. And if Mister Speaker if I also know that marijuana being illegal federally creates a complication with banking and workplace issues. And if I also know that despite attempts by many companies, no roadside impairment test is available today. And if.

Speaker ShurtleffIf the member will suspend? I'm starting to believe so if you would just move ahead and finish this up. Normally we would do two or three "would I believe" or "would I know" so. Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Okay, thank you. I haven't smoked. If I believe that this bill permits full commercialization of marijuana allowing a major industry to manufacture, sell and market an addictive product to our young people in the midst of a substance misuse epidemic in our state.

Speaker ShurtleffI would ask the member to get to the last sentence to tell us what button to push.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Mister Speaker, I would now press the red button to defeat the pending motion, so another motion can be brought to forth. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Bradford, Rep. Rodd, for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Beth Rodd (D - Merr 6)Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues. If I know that the recreational marijuana is legal in every other state in New England except New Hampshire and that it provides for quality control and taxation revenue. And I also know that there are no quality controls on the black market and that legalizing and taxing marijuana products will bring income into the state while providing oversight of marijuana products' potency and purity, would I then press the green button to support the committee report of Ought to Pass. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThis is a roll call vote. The question before the House is the majority recommendation of Ought to Pass. If you agree, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will now be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 209 members voting Yea and 147 voting Nay, the majority recommendation passes. This bill will be sent to the Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)I'd like to do a tabling motion and I'd like a division vote.

Speaker ShurtleffA motion to table is in order. The member from Londonderry requests a motion to table. This will be a division vote. The member from Manchester requests a roll call vote and that is significantly seconded. This will now be a roll call vote on the motion to table. The question before the House is a motion to table HB 564. The member from Londonderry is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that I was just at the Parkland school area and got off the plane a little while ago and talked to many parents. And, Mister Speaker, if you knew what I know that those parents do not want a no gun zone.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend. The member's motion is on the tabling itself. The question is why do I think it should be put on the table. It's not about the underlying bill, but just the motion to table it. The member may proceed.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Well anyways, Mister Speaker, if I know that it's very important that we table this bill because the last thing we want is our schools to be no gun zones and for them crazies to come after our children, would you join me and press the green button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the motion to table. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor of that motion, you'll press the green button. If you opposed to the motion to table, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The member notified the clerk and that is sufficient. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ley for a parliamentary inquiry. The House will be in order.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that protection and safety or our students is of vital concern to the Education Committee and the Education Committee worked long and hard on this bill. And if I know this bill has garnered a great deal of public attention and therefore deserves to be heard and considered in this House, would I now vote against the tabling motion by pressing the red button. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the motion to table. If you are in support of that motion, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 148 members voting Yea and 206 members voting Nay, the motion to table is defeated. The question before the House is the majority recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Goffstown, Rep. Burt.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, to the last Representative from Goffstown that came up before me, I feel pretty white. Anyways, Mister Speaker, I apologize if I made a joke. So, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker? Hello? It's pretty loud.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend for a moment. I was talking with the clerk when you opened your remarks and knowing the member and the respect he has for this chamber, I know that you will be extremely cautious with his comments in the future. Words can have harmful meanings and I ask the member to proceed but keep that admonishment in mind.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)You are 100% right, Mister Speaker. Thank you. So, Mister Speaker, sadly Parkland, Florida had a shooting at their school. They had a report and out of that report, Mister Speaker, came a couple of recommendations. One is they need more money for school safety. I understand that part. The other is that they have to, this is what the commission said, they have to look at arming our teachers. The other thing, Mister Speaker, is look over at Dartmouth hospital. I've mentioned this before on the House floor and I just do not know how a son could do this, but he walked right by at the hospital. He walked right by that gun free zone sticker on the door. He goes up to where his mother was, and his step dad was there, a nurse and several other people. He pulls a gun out and he shoots her. Again, Mister Speaker, I just cannot wrap myself around this, but that was a gun free zone. He walks out of the building and gets into his car and he heads back to Rhode Island, Connecticut, wherever he is from. Now, Mister Speaker, I know teachers that carry guns in this state. They have called me. They have told me that they are doing this and if we remove those guns what are those teachers going to do when a crazy person walks into that school? Are they going to be like the Parkland, Florida teachers that threw themselves over the children to protect them? I bet you they will, but they will end up dead. So, lastly and finally, if this bill passes, there will be a school shooting in New Hampshire. When that happens, there will be dead children and the blood of those children will be on the hands of these people that vote for it. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe House will be in order. I say to the Representative from Goffstown, I must tell you that I am somewhat disappointed with your comments from the well. You have always had a good way of expressing yourself and saying what you think, but you have crossed over that line a couple of times today and I'm disappointed, not in you, but in the manner in which you make this House look. We have people that listen and are here in the gallery expect better and more of you as well as all members. I ask you to please keep that in mind the next time you come to the well or I'll ask you to suspend again. Will the member now yield to a question? Representative Harrington, you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question, Representative. I'm trying to figure out how this bill works. It seems to be the premise of the bill is that someone decides they want to kill people at a school. They load up a gun and drive down to the school and they run up and see a sign that says it's a gun free zone. They say damn, I can't shoot anybody today and they go home. The premise is a sign is going to block it. So, if signs are going to stop shootings at the school, why don't we expand the use of signs. This is my question to you. Why don't we make the entire state a no assault with a deadly weapon, murder free zone and post signs. We won't have to worry about anybody getting shot anywhere.

Speaker ShurtleffThe House will be in order. That question does not need an answer. That's not the type of questions we expect on the floor. Will the member yield to another question? The member from Londonderry, Rep. Baldasaro is recognized.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I just have to first ask a question if I may.

Speaker ShurtleffA question of the Chair or a question of the member?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Mister Speaker, per our constitution, New Hampshire, talks about freedom of speech on the floor. A question is asked using what's going on all around the world, all around the country, and he is being shut down. I'm just asking. Somebody's question being asked. There has been many shootings and he just wants an answer.

Speaker ShurtleffMay I ask the member a question? In this body, we listen to the Constitution of the United States and more importantly the State of New Hampshire. We follow our House Rules. We follow practice and precedent, but in this body the rule of common decency and civility will always be paramount in our dealings with our members. Some of the comments we heard earlier today in this debate were entirely uncalled for. The opening statement by the member from Goffstown disappoints me as a fellow member of the New Hampshire House because it lowers the credibility of this body and I know that member and I expect more from him than that. The House will be in order. That answers your question, my friend.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)I agree with you, Mister Speaker, on the first thing that was said 100%.

Speaker ShurtleffNow, do you have a question for the member?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Now, my question for the member, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I just got back, and I talked to a lot of parents down there in Florida of the shooting. Would you believe that many of those parents believe if the word was out that their school was not a no gun zone, that criminals would think twice about that, going to that school? Would you agree with that?

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Yes, I would. If the criminals know that it is not a gun free zone, they are less likely to attack.

Speaker ShurtleffRep. DiLorenzo is recognized for a Point of Privilege.

Rep. Charlotte DiLorenzo (D - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, disorderly words were used by a member of this House in a debate and I'd like to put the question to the House on whether or not to accept those words.

Speaker ShurtleffCould you restate your request? I don't believe some of the members heard you. Could you restate the request?

Rep. Charlotte DiLorenzo (D - Rock 10)Yes, disorderly words were used by a member of this House and I would like to put a question to this House on whether we should accept those words or reject those words. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe motion the member makes, which is in order, is were the remarks of the previous speaker appropriate in this chamber. That motion is in order and the Chair is going to ask for a division vote. Members will kindly take their seats. A roll call has been requested and sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call. The House will come to order. As soon as the House settles down I will recognize the member from Durham. Rep. Smith you are recognized. Did you have a question of the Chair? We have a motion pending, but it could be you have a higher priority. Let me state the question to the body because some of you may have not heard it. The question before this body is when the member from Goffstown spoke earlier, was he disorderly in the speech that he used on the floor of the House. That is an appropriate order for this chamber to take up. Parliamentary inquiries. There is no debate. The question has been put to the body. Parliamentary inquiries are appropriate if a member on either side of this question wishes to speak. Having said that, I recognize the member from Durham for a parliamentary inquiry. If there is somebody on the other side that wants to speak, I'll offer them the same opportunity. The member from Durham may proceed with her parliamentary inquiry. She is recognized.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I hold this body in respect and integrity and believe that that is how we as a body choose to act, would I now vote yes on the pending motion? I'm sorry and press the green button.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This is a true parliamentary inquiry to you. What is the result of a yes or no vote on this motion?

Speaker ShurtleffIf the body votes yes and this motion prevails, I will ask the member to come down front and apologize to this body for the language he used in his remarks. This is a formal apology to the body, if the motion prevails. If the motion fails, then we will proceed with our debate on the bill.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. In order for me to decide how to vote on this I need a definition of disorderly speech as it's applying to the motion on the floor please.

Speaker ShurtleffWell let me grab Webster's and I can give you a definition of the word disorderly. I can give you my definition of what disorderly would entail. Disorderly is any speech that would bring shame or dishonor on this body and on to the member uttering the words that would be held in disrepute by anybody hearing them. I thank the member for his question because it is a good question. I don't mean to be dismissive. I can tell you how Mason's defines the use of disorderly words in debate. It says on Section 123, paragraph 1, no person may indulge in personalities, impugn motives of members, or use indecent or profane language. 2. When disorderly words are used by a member in debate, notice should immediately be taken of them. Thank you for the question. Why does the member from Brookline rise?

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Parliamentary inquiry. In the past, we've had members that have spoken out of turn or out of sorts and they did apologize, and we kept on with the days business. Would that not be considered past practice?

Speaker ShurtleffNo, it wouldn't. As the clerk has pointed out to me, a member specifically rose, which is a member's right to put that question to the body. It's in proper form. We have a member later today that's going to apologize for a comment and that's fine and what you are referring to, but in this instance a member of this body was so upset and incensed by the words that she heard, she came forward which is her right and made the motion. That's why we are now going to the vote.

Speaker ShurtleffThat's going to be the last question. I've answered three and that's all I'm going to answer. Three strikes, that's all. I would ask the members to please take their seats. We are in the voting mode. I'll state the question before the vote as I always do. Members will please be seated while we are in the voting mode. The question before the House is were the remarks by the member from Goffstown disorderly speech when used on the floor of the House? If you agree that it was, you'll press the green button. If you don't believe it was, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will now be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present voted when the question was put? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 225 members voting Yea and 104 members voting Nay, the motion is adopted. I would ask the member from Goffstown to please come down to the well. Pursuant to the vote of this body, I would ask the member to apologize to the body for the remarks in your statement.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, you are correct. I have always treated this House with a lot of respect. The first part of my speech was way out of line and I do apologize for that. You know, the Representative from Londonderry and I, we pick on each other a lot about his going to Florida and his tan so that was totally out of line. I do apologize for that. On the second part, Mister Speaker, if that is what I am being called out for.

Speaker ShurtleffThat was not the question. It was on the opening remarks. You have apologized for that. It was for the comments earlier.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Oh, it was on the opening remarks. It wasn't the last remarks? Then I do agree with you, Mister Speaker. I have always treated this House with respect and I have always treated oppositions and everybody that I know, I treat everybody here as friends. I would never take anybody personally or call anybody personal. I do not do that, and I haven't in the past, so I do apologize. I flubbed once in the nine years I've been here, and I will try better. Thank you for not calling me out on the last part.

Speaker ShurtleffI thank the member for his apology. Why does the member rise?

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Mister Speaker, I had asked a question there and the person was not allowed to answer it. In my opinion the premise of this bill is based on signs stop crime, so I simply asked the other Representative his opinion if he thought that additional signs would stop additional crimes and you refused to allow him to answer the question. I don't know why.

Speaker ShurtleffI would be glad to explain to the member. As I understood your question to the member is if we put signs all over the State of New Hampshire, would we then have no murders whatsoever, I found that the question itself was factitious and not a true genuine question of the member based on the policy that came out of the committee or his feelings about that vote. So, based on that reason, that's why I asked that the member not answer the question.

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)I didn't say that it would stop crimes, I said based on the bills position that it should be just as effective at stopping crimes with signs that prevent murder as signs that prevent people taking guns to schools. I disagree with you. I think he should have been given the opportunity to answer the question.

Speaker ShurtleffI thank the member for his question. As soon as I find my place, we will begin. The Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Heath.

Rep. Mary Heath (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of HB 564 as amended. HB 564 codifies the Federal Gun Free Schools Act established in the early 90's. A couple of years ago I always thought there was no question. School zones were always gun free. I learned that the New Hampshire state law does not prohibit guns in schools and a recent statement from the AG's office has left school districts and police departments in murky waters on enforcement and jeopardizes safe spaces for our children to learn and grow. Currently, state officials including those in the Attorney General's office have told school officials and local police departments that they cannot enforce the federal law leaving superintendents and school boards helpless to promote their school zones as gun free for the safety of their students. HB 564 will fix that. It will bring us in line with the federal legislation that has been in place since the early 90's. A gun free school zone is defined as a public-school property including school playgrounds, athletic fields, administrative and physical plant buildings and school buses or vans. HB 564 won't solve all of the problems, but it's a good step. That and the vigilance every single day in our schools. Our teachers are standing in their classrooms every single day and they are listening to their students. They are hearing what their students are saying and often they are stopping horrendous acts that could take place in their schools. There are far too many guns in our society that our children have access to. We shouldn't be arguing about guns in our schools. We should be talking about the support for our public schools. It's strange, a private school can prohibit guns, but a public school can't. Right now, an adult can bring a gun into a school and excuse me for being emotional, but I have watched too many children die and I don't want that ever to happen in the State of New Hampshire. Right now, an adult can bring a gun to school and unless they issue threats or start shooting, school administrators have little recourse other than going into a lockdown. The presence of firearms in our schools disrupts learning environments and takes school personnel away from resources from their primary job of teaching children. Some children are already far too familiar with going into lockdown. In our City of Manchester, we had an 8-hour lockdown. Kids were forced to remain in their school for eight hours. Can you imagine a child with a disability forced to go through something like that? HB 564, as amended, doesn't apply to any person picking up or dropping off a student as long as the weapon is locked in their car. Any person authorized in writing by the school board, any duly appointed law enforcement officer, ROTC or properly trained SRO or member of the armed service of the United States or National Guard. The majority of our states, 47 of them, and the District of Columbia prohibit carrying or possessing a firearm on K-12 school property or events. Only Hawaii, New Hampshire and Wyoming do not. New Hampshire has never experienced, and I say thank God every single day that we have not experienced a multi-student shooting. And, while this bill can't promise that it will prevent such a tragedy, it's one step closer from keeping our New Hampshire children safe from harm. We have had letters of support from many schools, organizations, NEA New Hampshire and many superintendents. We as a group have worked with many educators on this bill for over six months. Superintendent need to have the standing to be able to say they can create gun free areas. Thank you and I ask for your support for HB 564. A vote affirmatively will keep our children and educators safe and I thank you for listening and I'm sorry for being so emotional.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lekas from Hudson to speak.

Rep. Tony Lekas (R - Hills 38)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Teachers, staff and parents carry in public schools across New Hampshire every school day now and that is actually explicitly permitted by federal law for those that have a license to carry valid in the state where the school is. I've had children and grandchildren in the Hudson schools and I've carried in the schools many times and I know other parents who do the same. The question is why do we go to the trouble of doing that and I'll tell you it is some trouble and expense. Some think it is, so we feel important or macho or something of that nature. The answer is actually that we carry out of love. Love for our lives, love for our families lives and love for the lives of other innocents around us. An author I'm sure at least some of you have heard of, J.R. Tolkien has stated it better than I can, "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." I'm a firearms instructor and I've trained teachers and staff who carry because they love and feel a duty to protect the children they are responsible for. Some are uncomfortable with the idea of people carrying around them. They feel that guns don't belong around children and especially don't belong in schools. Actually, it is people who intend to harm children that don't belong around children, not guns. That's not the issue. This bill will do nothing to keep such people from harming children. Instead it will prevent those who carry out of love and could be available to protect children if there were such a threat from having effective tools to do so. If you do care for the children, please press the red button to oppose this committee recommendation. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Horn you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I have a permit to carry in New Hampshire and I substitute teach. I asked my vice principal what his response would be if I was carrying on campus and his response would be he would ask me to leave. My question is do you feel other administrators would feel comfortable asking somebody to leave if they felt that they were carrying a weapon on campus?

Rep. Tony Lekas (R - Hills 38)It certainly possible, maybe even likely that some administrators might do that, might ask staff or a teacher to leave who is carrying, but I don't believe whatever that person, I'm sure that person would do so with good intent. But, I don't believe in fact they would actually be doing anything to protect the students and actually quite the opposite.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a follow up question? Member yields, Rep. Horn.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)As an individual responsible, having a permit, being asked to leave from the school grounds, do you find it unusual that I would acquiesce to that request being that he is in charge of that campus, in charge of that safety and I'm a responsible individual that will honor his commitment?

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a further question? The member yields. Rep. Seaworth you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Brian Seaworth (R - Merr 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the member for taking my question. I was a little confused by the member who spoke before you and I'd ask your help on this. As I looked at the bill last night, the member stated in the first part of the debate that this bill simply codifies the existing federal law into our state law. Yet, as I was looking at this bill last night, it seemed that this bill goes further than state law. Can you help me understand what the case is here?

Rep. Tony Lekas (R - Hills 38)As I stated, federal law does explicitly permit carrying in schools and school zones if that person has a license to carry that is valid in the state in which the school is and you know, while that's not required as part of New Hampshire law and recently this body and the other passed a bill that removed a requirement for a license to carry. Still under federal law if someone is going to carry legally in the schools, they would have to have a valid license to carry.

Speaker ShurtleffWould the member yield to another question? Rep. Spillane you are recognized for a question.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the member for taking my question. I've been listening to the debate on this and points that are being made and I don't see how this is enforceable without an illegal search of a person picking up their child. What is to state that the person carrying that's picking up their child has actually locked the gun in their vehicle? What's the enforcement mechanism or is this law completely unenforceable without illegal search of individuals?

Rep. Tony Lekas (R - Hills 38)I believe the only circumstance where this law would really come into play is if somehow the firearm became visible and was noticed, but otherwise I believe you are correct.

Speaker ShurtleffWould the member yield to one more question? Rep. Nelson you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Bill Nelson (R - Carr 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I know someone said, opposed to, in favor of this bill about state police are allowed to go on. My question regards federal agents. I have some people that I know that are federal agents that go all over the country doing investigative work. One could be in the Secret Service, Marshalls, etc. How do they stand in this whole process? Are they allowed to drop their child off to school or if there is a problem to respond or would that be illegal?

Rep. Tony Lekas (R - Hills 38)I'm not certain of the answer. I'd have to look over the bill, that part of it about who's allowed to carry more carefully. I know there is something there about law enforcement being permitted under some circumstance, but I don't know who all is covered.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member recognize Rep. Spillane for his second and last follow up?

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the member for taking another follow up question. Something that the previous questioner asked made me also want to ask. I have at least one constituent in my town who is a TSA agent and in fact a supervisor of the TSA and as such carries and is frequently at the school. Would this then also create problems for him and his duties as a TSA agent?

Rep. Tony Lekas (R - Hills 38)It's possible that it would but again I would have to look over the section of the bill that details who or what law enforcement is permitted to carry and under what circumstances before I could give a good answer.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Haverhill, Rep. Ladd.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. When this bill came before the Education Committee, there were a number of questions which we asked and of course we had taken the testimony from various groups. One of the questions I had is I'd like to have a description of or the definition of what is a safe school zone. We had that in statute, so I will read it right now. It means an area inclusive of any school property or school buses. So, then I asked a question. What is a definition of school property? School property is also in statute and it say school property means all real property, physical plant and equipment used for school purposes including but not limited to school playgrounds, buses whether public or private. Then I asked the next question. What is a school purpose? That's also in statute. School purpose means school sponsored programs including but not limited to educational or extracurricular activities. Now where I live and of course I have always spoken about Haverhill today, but we have a town to our South, Piermont. Piermont this last Fall had a problem with their athletic fields and they called up and I was a Commissioner at Haverhill Corner where we have a commons, North commons and a South commons. It used to be the playground and athletic facilities for Haverhill Academy. They said can we use those fields? We said sure they are available, come on up and you can use them. We made them available. My question now is are the commons in Haverhill now a safe school zone if they are used for a school purpose which is an after-school activity, extracurricular activity? And, then if it is because we don't have a posted as such. There is no active school within a thousand, within a long ways so the Academy is now Woodsville High School up the road another eight miles. So, how does a person walking by that has a permit and carrying properly know that when the kids from Piermont are playing there on that field or the kids from anywhere playing in that field in an active school activity are now in a safe school zone? How are you going to enforce that? Is it going to be that the fourth-graders that show up here at the Capitol building or to a museum or other place are now entering a safe school zone? It's not posted as such. Can you not carry? I don't know. I asked these questions and I did not get an answer. I'm also concerned that in New Hampshire the safe school zone I understand is considered to be 1,000 linear feet, radius wise, around the school or within or abutting that school bus area. So, some of that is defined, however, there are those unanswered questions, and these are the same questions the New Hampshire School Board Association addressed when they met earlier. They bring all the folks together in Concord and they develop their resolutions for the upcoming year and there was a request from several school districts to have this particular issue addressed. After an hours' worth of debate, New Hampshire School Board Association took the position that they were contrary to this bill. Could not support it. So, there is a lot of portions, elements that are undefined in this bill and it's going to make it hard for folks to enforce. The school board or the school district can, in writing, say that it's okay for you carry a weapon. What criteria are they using? Are we using the same criteria from one school district to another school district? No, we're not. That's an individual policy decision made. That makes it more difficult to enforce. So, with all this, I found it hard to vote and support this bill and I'm familiar with many of the recommendations, the 59 recommendations that came out of the Governor's task force on emergency preparedness in our schools. We have done an awful lot in this state to make our schools safer. Not one of those recommendations addresses this particular issue, although it was discussed to some degree. So, I feel that we're not at the place where we can pass this legislation until we have some of these questions answered and we have some definitive answers so that it is enforceable. So, with that I would suggest that we vote this bill down. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Flanagan you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. After listening to the Representative from Hanover, I'm not sure, Haverhill, excuse me, that he may have the answer, but if I have a gun and I'm picking up my child at school and I hear gun shots in the school. Do I then not go into the school to defend the children there with my legally owned gun or does the law require me as a good Samaritan to go in and protect the children because I have a gun and I'm there or do I wait six to ten minutes for the police to show up? And, I'm not sure how this law may affect that situation. If you have the answer, that would be great.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)I don't think I have that answer. I am not an attorney nor am I in law enforcement. I do know that every second counts and if you read the Governor's task force report. In that, as identified by Director Plummer of Homeland Security, every 5 seconds means a life, so I would say that if there is somebody that can respond, you know, I won't say what to do because I shouldn't because I am not that attorney, so I apologize for not having an answer to that one.

Speaker ShurtleffDoes the member yield to another question? Rep. Cordelli you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative. During the public hearing that the Education Committee had on this bill, seems to me that there were quite a few parents who came forward and testified that their children were scared in school about this issue. My recollection is that a lot of the concern was about the drills, the active shooter drills that they were experiencing in school, not someone possibly carrying a gun. Could you discuss those hearings and those concerns?

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)You're tapping my memory here. You are talking about HB 123 where we have ten fire drills or ten emergency drills during the course of the year and in that bill, we are identifying one as a bill where we are reacting to a terrorists or assault within the building. There are a number of ways we can handle that. The drill does not have to involve students. When we did some research to try to amend this and we had a subcommittee put together, we found that there are some states and even here in New Hampshire where much of the training and preparedness for this is being done by staff in the school on a workday when kids are not there and depending upon their age, if it's appropriate for the student, they're involved and this is always done in conjunction with local authorities and first responders. The best way to address within our schools is to deal with some of the issues down in the weeds. Some of the emotional behavioral conditions of students has to be done and we just can't do it superficially anymore. We have to really dig down and work with them. Work with community mental health and the resources we have in our schools to get into education training and to work with students. This is a real issue that we must deal with and in today's world in talking with many superintendents, school principals and teachers, I would not want to be an educator in a schoolhouse today. There are so many issues you are dealing with beyond reading, writing and arithmetic, spelling and cursive has gone out the window, than I used to work with. But, this one right here, when we worked with the Director of Homeland Security, Perry came up and we worked with parents in Lyme, Orford area and with the local authorities. The parents and school staff and the Director of Homeland Security and emergency management all came to the same closure that it's through training and working with parents and fear is conveyed from a parent oftentimes to a young child and there goes the, it's not just dealing with one individual, it's a, you've got to deal with a community. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? The member will yield to one more. Representative Boehm.

Rep. Ralph Boehm (R - Hills 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Rep. from Haverhill for taking the question. For the last few years the NHIAA has held their high school championship baseball games at Fisher Cat's stadium. With this bill then, does that make Fisher Cat stadium during those high school games a gun free zone?

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)NHIAA sanctions all of our high school sports down through the upper level of the middle school and yes, it would be a sanction sport and that area would be used for school extracurricular purpose, yes.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member does not yield to further questions. Rep. Welch has a question for the Chair or the Education Committee, if they wish to answer. Rep. Welch you may inquire.

Rep. David Welch (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Representative for taking my question. I'm a member of a colonial militia group and there a number of colonial militia groups in the State of New Hampshire. We go into the schools once a year and we demonstrate colonial medicine, colonial homemaking, colonial militia and colonial ranger among other things and we bring our muskets into the school and we fire a cannon at the end of that school day. Would passage of this bill prevent groups like this from participating?

Rep. Mel Myler (D - Merr 9)The bill provides an opportunity for school districts to allow certain arms on schools. For example, they could, if they wanted to, have a teacher have a sidearm on there. That could be authorized. My presumption would be that would be part of a curriculum program and that would be permissible.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes our last speaker on this bill, the member from Epping, Rep. Vallone.

Rep. Mark Vallone (D - Rock 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, I speak to you as a gun owner and as a principal. I was a principal of Epping Elementary School for 20 years and every day I did meet and greet, which was people would drive up and they would drop their kids off and they would drive back at the end of the day and pick up their kids. I was very concerned about HB 564 when it first came out because it required those folks who drive by with their little bumper stickers that say security by Smith & Wesson and all of those other great things knowing that we have a lot of people who carry, that they would have to lock up their guns or unload their guns and then load them back up. Considering how dangerous that is, the act of loading and unloading a gun, I didn't think that was making schools any safer. So, the bill has been amended so it reads more like the federal law which allows parents to continue and I had no problem for 20 years and I have no problem with this bill, frankly. Again, I think the Representative from Contoocook talked about the fact that firearms are allowed in schools, so it isn't making the schools completely gun free, but you are allowing people to come into the school who are trained in their use. As a principal, I didn't really like it when people came into the school and I didn't really know what their disposition was and sometimes we had some tough situations with people who were going through a crisis, mental health and substance abuse. We all know about that today. The fact that they were carrying was something else. That was really bothersome to me. So, I think that this law helps to clarify. It's not a perfect law. Certainly, it isn't, but it does help clarify and I do think that it will make schools safer. No guarantees. There is no guarantees and I think the signage issue is one thing that we should consider. It's a misnomer. We should have much better signage about what it is. It said guns are restricted. That would be a better way of putting it so that we don't have that mystique of somehow that being, of being "gun free." I think that's something that, I really appreciated the many people who showed up, both for and against the bill, who spoke on these issues. It helped to clarify my thinking in that regard and that's why I am supporting this, and I urge you all to vote in favor of HB 564.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Lang you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Timothy LangThank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. In doing my research for this bill, I read that the policy committee that makes policy recommendations to school boards across the state, the New Hampshire School Board Association recommended against this law. Is that accurate?

Rep. Mark Vallone (D - Rock 9)It was a very unusual kind of description. They didn't say that they came out against the bill. I don't think they took a vote. They said they could not be in favor of it and that's two different things. That's pretty much how we took it too.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the majority recommendation of...Why does the member rise?

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Mister Speaker, with all the questions we've had on this bill and the problems and the fact that I can't tell that we are not going to make parents into criminals here with the passage of this bill. I would like to move Indefinite Postponement please.

Speaker ShurtleffYour motion is to postpone? Indefinite Postponement. That's a higher motion and is in order. A roll call has been requested. Is the roll call sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The House will be in order. The question before the House is the majority recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes the member from Londonderry, Rep. Baldasaro for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill is in conflict with the federal law where you can have a permit and be on school grounds. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that there are many issues that have come up with this legislation that we are going to make our citizens, law abiding citizens, criminals by going into the school area or coming home from work even though the amendment says you can drop off and have the gun in the car, forget that they have it on their side. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill is not ready for prime time, will I press the green button and let's move on to the other bill. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the motion to Indefinitely Postpone this bill. This is a roll call vote. The member from wherever he is from, the beautiful Town of Jaffrey, the home of Amos Fortune is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you for that recovery there recognizing Amos Fortune, a slave who purchased his freedom and resided in Jaffrey and left a small endowment which currently funds a speaker's series every summer. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill has been thoroughly discussed, both in committee and today here on the floor of the House. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that the public is greatly interested in this subject and greatly desires a decision to be made by this House. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that Indefinite Postponement will kill this bill for this Session and kill this subject for the following year as well, would I now oppose the motion and press the red button. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThis is a roll call vote. The question before the House is the motion to Indefinitely Postpone HB 564. If you are in favor of that, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 145 members voting Yea and 202 members voting Nay, the motion to Indefinitely Postpone is defeated. The Chair now recognizes. That was the last speaker and we are now on to the vote. A roll call has been asked for. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is so members will kindly take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. If you are in support of that, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open. Wait a minute. You would think I was double parked. I'm still hung up on Amos Fortune and the fact that I can remember a man that died 200 years ago, but I could not remember the hometown of our Majority Leader. On that note, I'll recognize Rep. Rice for a parliamentary inquiry and also extend my apologies.

Rep. Kimberly Rice (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that we believe in local control and that the New Hampshire School Board Association opposes passage of this bill. And furthermore, if I know that a gun free zone sign is not going to stop someone who has evil intent and that this bill would in effect disarm New Hampshire. And, if I know that a based upon statutory definitions a law-abiding citizen with a self-defense firearm could be arrested if they were in the same location as a school class on a field trip or lived within 1,000 feet of a school in their own home could not own a gun, would I now vote against this unconstitutional legislation by pressing the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner. You are recognized. Well I had written down Rep. Luneau.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you. If I know that thoughts, prayers and lockdown drills are not enough to address the issue of gun violence prevention in schools. And, if I know that when someone rings the bell at a school to be let in, that person does not know how to recognize a good guy with gun from a bad guy with a gun. And, if I know that this bill allows for the school and the school board to authorize a designated or designated person who are vetted and well trained to carry a firearm on the school property, would I push the green button to support the committee vote to protect our students and help make our schools safer? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. If you are in support, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 194 members having voted Yea and154 voting Nay, the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended is adopted.

Rep. John O'Day (R - Ches 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good afternoon everyone. The eagle is our country's symbol of freedom. It is protected by law, not because it is our symbol, but because of it being endangered of extinction. How many of us would climb up to its nest, take the eggs and throw them to the ground? The constitution is not a symbol, but a proclamation of our freedoms. It's the law of the land. HB 696 flies in the face of New Hampshire's Constitution, Articles 2, 2A and 15 and the U.S. Constitution Amendments 2, 4 and 6. If this bill is passed, our rights are endangered, and we'll become extinct. Are you willing to throw the eggs of freedom to the ground and crush them? Please vote no on the Ought to Pass so a motion can be made. I'd like a division vote.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield for a question? Rep. Harrington, you may inquire.

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. What I wanted to ask you is that I am looking at this bill and in one section of it says that the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to the defendant. It says one of those temporary orders could be in order to direct the defendant to relinquish to a police officer any and all firearms and ammunition in their control. So, would you agree that it appears to me that without any chance to defend themselves, under this bill, a person could be stripped of their constitutional rights and forced to give up their guns which Article 2A says we have a right to defend ourselves with, with no chance to defend themselves before they are taken away?

Rep. John O'Day (R - Ches 11)Yes, Representative, that's what I believe.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Walpole, Rep. Weber.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, it's important to remember that what this bill is about is protecting vulnerable adults who are being either exploited, neglected or abused. It's very narrowly tailored to protect the vulnerable adult. And, the amendment that you just adopted certainly in the bill, we believe that the forfeiture provisions were overbroad. But, the amendment that you just adopted recognized that forfeitures certainly not appropriate in most cases and will not under the statute, as under the bill as we are proposing it, occur only if there is a judicial finding that it is necessary to protect the safety of the elderly adult. If you can't make that finding as a judicial finding, then there is no forfeiture here. So, I ask that you afford our vulnerable elders protection that they do not have adequately under our current criminal statutes and press the green button. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The is going to be a division vote. Members will kindly take their seats. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will now be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Osborne for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe that the proposed bill as amended is likely to have unintended consequences when there are inter-family conflicts, putting the weakest and poorest members at risk. And, if I know that these laws could be used to create a legal advantage in a divorce proceeding. And, if I see that this bill states that the court shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence, which could easily lead to false or fraudulent petitions. And, finally if I know that while this bill's stated purpose is to protect the elders from financial harm, it greatly oversteps the constitutional rights of our constituents, would I now press the red button?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question is on the recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill is simply a very scaled down and circumscribed bill modeled on our current domestic violence provisions and those have been in force for many years, would I now press the green button to accept the committee recommendation. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 208 members voting Yea and 132 voting Nay, the motion carries. This bill will be referred to the Criminal Justice Committee.