The House, Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Rep. John Bordenet (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I make a motion to table HB 1586.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)That motion is appropriate. Did I hear someone say division? This will be a division vote. The question is on the tabling motion on HB 1586. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. I'm getting ahead of myself. This is a division vote. The question is on the tabling motion for HB 1586. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? On the tabling motion for HB 1586, the Yeas are at 161, the Nays 162, the motion to table fails. The Chair recognizes Representative Altschiller to speak in opposition to the committee recommendation of Interim Study.

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you, Madam Speaker. Laura Bilodeau is a tenured full-time professor and Department Chair of the Behavioral Social Science and Human Services Department at the Manchester Community College. She's a former full-time police officer for the Plaistow Police Department and she is also a survivor of nearly 10 long years of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of her former stepfather. She testified last week in committee and said, "The details of my abuse, which included forced sexual acts for my stepfather's gratification, began when I was an 8-year-old third grader. The statute of limitations impacted my ability to get any sort of justice in New Hampshire for what I suffered as a result of his perverse behaviors." HB 1586 seeks to eliminate the criminal statute of limitations on sexual assault. Currently, the statute of limitations for sexual assaults are as follows and they are very different from each other. Adult victims of sexual violence have just 6 years to come forward to law enforcement for even the most violent sexual felonies to be prosecuted and only 1 year to come forward for misdemeanor sexual violence, making New Hampshire one of the most restrictive states in the country. Child victims only have until they turn 40, which is 22 years after their 18th birthday for their case to be prosecuted. New Hampshire does not have a DNA exception to the statute of limitations. This means that even if there is a DNA match made to identify a sexual perpetrator from an assault that took place more than 6 years ago, that perpetrator is free to go. HB 1586 seeks to eliminate these arbitrary deadlines and give victims of sexual violence access to justice and here's a really important point about this bill. It does not have a lookback provision. There is not lookback. This bill only applies to crimes committed after this bill is signed into law. This means that every single victim survivor who testified, called, wrote you emails, did so solely because they don't want the trauma they were exposed to and subjected to, to happen to anyone else. So what exactly are our statute of limitations? It's a law that forbids our prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than an arbitrarily specified number of years ago and when that time period is up, that crime can no longer be prosecuted. Interestingly enough, statutes of limitations vary from state to state. They are not the same across the board. Each state decides their own statute of limitations, often with very different time limits and New Hampshire has actually made changes to our statute of limitations 7 times since 1971. We did it in 1971, again in 1975, again in 1986. We revisited this again in 1987 and the last time we addressed this at all was in 1990. All we've done since 1990 is study. All we've done is study. We now have more information and understanding and we can better reflect our values and the seriousness with which we take this crime of sexual violence. Sexual assault is a vicious crime that damages victims' bodies and their psyches. It's an invasion. Aggravated felonious sexual assault and felonious sexual assault are rape. Misdemeanor sexual assaults are often the grooming behaviors used by perpetrators to break down the boundaries of their victims and those crimes include exposing their genitals, having sex in front of someone else or other acts of gross lewdness. These acts accumulate and increase in frequency over time and are used as demonstrations of a perpetrators power and control over their victims and the statute of limitations on what I just described is 1 year, 1 year. We know that victims can take months, years or decades before coming forward to their family, friends or law enforcement. In fact, the average age of disclosure of childhood sexual violence for adults is 52 years old. The barriers to disclosure are incredibly high. According to the United States Department of Justice, which is information presented to the committee last week, nearly 80% of all rapes and sexual assaults go unrecorded. 20% of survivors, according to the DOJ report worry about retaliation, not just from the perpetrator, but from society at large. Our current collection of statutes of limitations are biased towards the accused. Opponents of lifting the statute of limitations have said the due process rights of the offenders have to be considered. HB 1586 makes absolutely no changes to the burden of proof. Law enforcement officers still must have probable cause to charge and prosecutors must still prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest evidentiary standard. If watching the pervasive and institutional sexual abuse in organizations like the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts have shown us anything, it's that offenders understand that the system is working in their favor. Silencing victims and waiting out the clock are built into the abusive structures of these organizations. New Hampshire private school students have come forward decades later after leaving their schools with their experiences of abuse at the hands of teachers, coaches or other students and they were silenced by the institutions themselves. When the committee first voted on this in its executive session, nearly every member agreed that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution needs overhaul. The committee ultimately voted to disregard the plethora of data presented to them and send this to another study committee. We will be in year 31 of studying this. A study committee would be a terrific result if we hadn't already studied this nine ways to Sunday and digging back into the history of statutes of limitations, the House first started trying to overturn this in 1990 when Representative Pierce of Cheshire County brought it forward. Anticipating a deluge of questions and an eagerness to learn, we lined up experts on the effects of sexual trauma and response. The committee was presented with hard evidence that survivors of childhood sexual violence disclose that the average age of 52, which is 12 years outside of the New Hampshire statute of limitations. We presented evidence from New Hampshire county attorneys about the people they have turned away even when there is solid evidence of a crime because the adult statute of limitations on sexual assault is only 6 years. The committee was presented with evidence and research based information from the New Hampshire Department of Justice, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, SNAP, the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests, the world's oldest and largest group for clergy abuse victims, Child USA, the leading nonprofit think tank working to end child abuse and neglect in the United States, RAIN, the Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network, the New Hampshire Coalition Against Sexual Violence, County Attorney Patricia Conway of Rockingham, Michael Conlon of Hillsborough, Andrew Livernois of Belknap and Assistant County Attorney Casey Devine of Hillsborough also all made the trip to Concord to testify and to answer questions in support of this long, long overdue action. Also, understanding that people don't always have empathy or necessarily take action based on numbers alone, victim survivors bravely stepped forward too. Some of them our own New Hampshire House colleagues here with us today. We owe them a debt of gratitude and they shouldn't be ignored. The former law enforcement officer from Plaistow, Laura Bilodeau, shared her experiences as a survivor. All the survivors said the statute of limitations as it is in New Hampshire benefit sex offenders. Additionally, as cosponsors, we have been working to educate fellow legislators and House members and 61 of you all signed on in support of this bill and we thank you. Over the course of an hour and a half hearing, only 2 people spoke in opposition to HB 1586. Both paid lobbyists. One of them stated in an email just last night that the fundamental underpinning of our criminal justice system is the presumption that a person accused of a crime is innocent until the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the charge and on that we can agree. This bill, as written, demands, demands that the state meet the highest burden of proof. Where we, the cosponsors of this bill, differ from this advocacy group who have spent a great deal of money hiring not one but two extra lobbying firms to fight victims of sexual violence from accessing justice. We differ in the core belief that we all have a constitutional right to access justice. Where they see the 6 short years as so-called guardrails of the criminal justice system, we see the victims left broken on the side of the road. Allowing violent sexual perpetrators to run out the clock and in many cases continue abusing even more people is a public health crisis. One in 3 women and 1 in 20 men here in New Hampshire will experience sexual violence. That is a documented fact. Disclosures of abuse don't fit into these artificial timelines and we believe that every survivor should have the right to seek justice when they are ready, not forced by an arbitrary deadline. Monday morning, I received a call from a 94-yearold woman here in Concord, Barbara Gagolin, and Barbara, if you are listening today, and I think you are, I want to thank you. She called to say that she had read in the newspaper at the assisted living facility where she lives that we were finally taking action on the criminal statute of limitations and she was so thrilled. She was sexually assaulted at age 8 back in 1934. She held onto that secret for 56 years until 1982. She told me that she had finally moved through this trauma but it left a lifetime imprint. We should and we could be treating victims of sexual violence in a much more humane way and we know through working with victims that sometimes they are slow to accept that a crime has occurred because of the way their perpetrators and our community gaslight them into thinking they're assault might be their own fault. With all of that running against them, we should be ensuring that at least, at the very least, they have the doors of the courthouse open to them. Sexual assault is a crime of power and control and it is born from the entitlement that an offender feels they have over another person's body. We can make a data driven decision; a data driven value judgement that is in the interest of justice that we will not tolerate an escape from the consequences of that crime simple because the passage of time has made an offender older. Why are we willing to say that perpetrators of sexual violence can capitalize on their victim's trauma by keeping them quiet for one year, by keeping them quiet for 6 years or 22 years after their 18th birthday if their perpetrator doesn't leave the state? Why is the burden shouldered by the victims in order for those sexual offenders to earn a get out of jail free card? Why? The current statute of limitations is a gift to sexual offenders and all they have to do is wait out the clock. HB 1586 will only apply to victims who come forward after this bill is signed into law. Again, there is no lookback. New Hampshire is collecting more and more DNA related evidence than ever before and the digital footprint of offenders and victims make finding and corroborating evidence and timelines so much easier. The time is now. The time is now to lift the statute of limitations on this heinous crime and open the doors to the courthouse for victims. Prosecutors are under no obligation to prosecute cases that don't meet the standards of evidence they need, but a prosecutor should never again have to tell a victim when there is overwhelming evidence or a confession even that because of an arbitrary number decided upon years ago by a different group of people in this room has closed the window of justice for them. HB 1586 seeks to solve a problem that we have right now. We have an arbitrary deadline that works against what we know about how victims of sexual violence disclose these horrible crimes committed against them. Our current statute of limitations on sexual violence has set up a system where only some victims are deemed deserving of access to justice and perpetrators who are shielded by these arbitrary deadlines get to run out the clock. Laura Bilodeau said in her testimony to the committee, "I beseech you to show compassion toward victims, knowing that coming forward takes so much more courage than anyone should have to muster." I ask you to display wisdom in your decision and to pass this long-needed bill that would help such victims receive some sense of justice for what they have experienced knowing that nothing, nothing will make up for what they went through and the scars they still carry. Colleagues, the evidence is in. The victims are demanding justice for the next generation. The time is now today. Please give survivors of sexual assault an open door to the legal system and overturn the committee recommendation of Interim Study so that another motion can be made.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Will the member yield to a question? The member yields. Please ask your question.

Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D - Hills 11)Thank you for taking my question. A wise Republican colleague that has much experience once told me for a similar bill that I put in for protection for victims against violence of any sort and he said, "If you don't, a vote against this is a vote for the harasser and the abuser and it's against the victim." I wonder if you believe that that also applies to this bill as well.

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you for the question. Thank you for posing it in such an empathetic way. Victims are watching us across the state today. They have been waiting for this for 30 years and a vote today says victims of sexual assault just get a chance to walk through the courthouse doors. It says that prosecutors don't have to turn them away because an arbitrary deadline has passed.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Will the member yield to another question?

Rep. Robert Backus (D - Hills 19)Thank you for taking my question. My question is, did the committee consider lengthening the statute of limitations instead of simply ending it altogether so there would be no statute of limitations under this bill? And, if they did consider, do you know why that option was rejected?

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you for the question, Representative. I'm not a member of that committee so I can't speak to what they did, but I can tell you that our current statute of limitations for people who have endured sexual violence as a child, they only have 22 years after their 18th birthday, which is age 40 and the average age, the average age for adults that come forward after enduring sexual violence as children is 54. We heard from Laura Bilodeau that she was outside of that statute. We heard from Barbara that she didn't come forward until she was 56. It's an arbitrary deadline that we threw a dart at without any data 30 years ago. We have data now. It's time to lift the statute.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Will the member yield to another question. You may approach.

Rep. Ryan Buchanan (D - Merr 15)Thank you for taking my question. So my question is so the statute of limitations prevents when the victim can find justice. I'm wondering is there a similar limitation or a timeline when they no longer feel that pain of being a victim that we can sit there and go this is the number that after this many years, you return to a normal life? Where it will be okay that your predator, your attacker doesn't face justice?

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you for the question. That's a really hard one to answer. When I spoke with Barbara on Monday, I was getting coffee at Cumbies and my phone rang and it said Concord and I knew we had a big week coming up so of course I'm going to take any call that comes from Concord and it was Barbara. I spent a half an hour on the phone with a 96 year old woman for whom the imprint of being sexually violated at the age of 8 back in 1936 has left a permanent imprint on her and we know that while sexual violence victims move through their trauma sometimes, we know that they suffer from increased depression, self-harm and it changes their life forever. So I don't know that there is any day when you wake up on a sunshiny day even, when the trauma of sexual violence doesn't lift like a little black cloud in the back of your mind. Thank you.

Rep. Wendy Chase (D - Straf 18)Thank you for taking my question. In my case, would you believe that when the predator was finally charged, many of the victims had had a statute of limitations, which meant that had his sentence was not as great as it would have been? A lot of counts had been let go and those victims would never get their day in court? I was lucky I could but it did change the sentencing and it also changed the counts against the predator.

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you for sharing your experience, Representative Chase. Thank you to all the other members of the House who have shared your experiences either in testimony or in private moments or in email. We hear you. It's time. I'll ask you to press the red button to overturn this Interim Study so another motion can be made.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is on the majority recommendation of Interim Study on HB 1586. We still are having debates so we will work on that. The Chair recognizes Representative Roy of Deerfield so speak in support of the majority recommendation.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 32)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't want to be here speaking against this bill. I think emotionally I agree that victims deserve justice. The problem I have and the majority of the committee had on this bill is that it went too far. It took the statute of limitations and it didn't just raise it, which the sponsor could have done. It eliminated it totally. The statute of limitations are not arbitrary and they are not something that was made in this House by another group. Statutes of limitations are hundreds and hundreds of years old. There is a reason we have a statute of limitations. Our justice system, one of the forefathers of our justice system, a Judge from England named Blackstone once said that it's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to jail. Our system of justice is based on innocent until proven guilty and we put a very high bar on the state to put someone in jail. Now, once someone has been proven guilty, especially of a crime like this, were up to me I'd put them under the jail, but that's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the mighty power of the state to reach back in time in perpetuity and charge you with a crime. Now, I can't speak for anyone here, but I know for myself that if someone asked what I was doing 6 years ago on a Tuesday night at 4:00, I couldn't tell you. Maybe I would be lucky and be able to reconstruct events and times and find someone to speak in my defense and maybe I couldn't. Now, that is 6 or 7 years. What about if we go 20 years, 30, 40 years? You are going to end up with a situation where people who could have exonerated you are dead. Justice has to be swift and as swift as possible and there is a reason for that because we don't want to put innocent people in jail. Now, I keep hearing words like perpetrator and perhaps he is a perpetrator, but perhaps he's not and we have to always err on the side of justice. There is a reason if you think about what the symbol of justice is. It's a statue of a woman holding a scale and blindfolded. It's not emotion. This is an emotional issue and we cannot legislate by emotion. We have to legislate by reasoned thought and our system is based on innocent until proven guilty and one of the protections is statute of limitations. This isn't, as I said, an arbitrary thing. This is done for both the protection of the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator so that a good case can be brought. Now, we did hear testimony from one district attorney and it disturbed me a little bit because his opening statement was in my county, we believe victims. Now, that's admirable once they've been proven to be a victim, but when you just say I believe anyone who walks in the door, that's not his job. The job of a prosecutor is to seek justice and justice doesn't mean believing the first thing you hear. He has to look at the facts and as these cases get older, they are not like wine, they do not age well. You lose witnesses and it just ends up being not fair and you start reversing Blackstone's ratio. Instead of 10 innocent people going free, we have just the opposite. Excuse me, 10 guilty people. We have the opposite. We have 10 innocent people going to jail. Now, earlier this session we've dealt with some issues with DNA testing because we realize that there are a lot of innocent people sitting in jail. Well, if we want more innocent people to go to jail, we take away these ancient safeguards that protect people and enable them to put on a defense. Our criminal justice system isn't perfect by any stretch, but it's one of the best in the world and it's because of things like this. One of the problems with our criminal justice system is that it disparately impacts minorities. Now, if that's true, taking away another further protection like this is going to be worse. We really need to take our time and we need to think about things like this. So, someone asked why didn't the committee think about moving it? Well, we did and that's why we recommended Interim Study, because if we had just suggested an arbitrary date without thought and study, we would be in the same situation. So we believed that this issue deserved to be examined, but just taking it away and throwing it out wasn't the answer. So, the majority, bipartisan majority of the committee, gave this great thought and struggled with it and as I said, I don't want to have to defend this, but someone has to because it's justice, it's our system of justice. It may not be perfect and we may need to tweak it, but we can't just rip it up and throw it out. So, I would ask you to support the bipartisan majority of the committee, who after hearing the testimony and looking into the issue thoughtfully, agreed that it should go to Interim Study. Thank you.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Will the member accept a question? You may inquire.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 36)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. This was a very difficult bill so isn't it true that our committee discussed this bill in great length and then we concluded that the Interim Study was the best thing because it gave us the opportunity to expand the statute of limitations next session rather than attempting to eliminate it and interfere with due process protections?

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 32)Thank you for your question, Representative. Yes, this was very difficult for the committee and as I said I'd much rather not be appeared defending this issue, but I have to. The committee thought about this and we agreed the 6-year limitation could definitely be increased. We want data. We want to talk to the different people from the courts and we need time to do it, not just make a kneejerk reaction. So, we thought it best that we send this to Interim Study and revisit it next session and we definitely work on it. Thank you.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Would the member accept another question. The member does not. The Chair recognizes the last speaker, Representative Cushing to speak in favor of the majority recommendation of Interim Study on HB 1586.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my other colleagues on the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, I find this a very difficult place to be in this moment. As somebody who when the bill first had a vote in our committee, I voted for the bill and as someone who's spent a couple of decades working with victims of crime, primarily survivors of homicide victims, but I have a pretty good understanding about the journey people make from victims to survivors. In the Criminal Justice Committee, we deal with failure all the time. That's all we deal with. We deal with people who were murdered. We deal with people who were maimed by drunk drivers. We deal with the impact of drug abuse. We deal with the impact of sexual incest. We deal with the corrections system. We deal with trying to figure out justice and safety and it's really complicated. You may see us on occasion splitting on the line around firearms, but for the rest of the issues that come before us, most of the time we spend hours listening to the most awful things that have happened to human beings and then hours sitting around trying to figure out how to not make things worse. Now, as somebody who's dealt with statute of limitations, I've stood before you and I've had statute of limitations extended when it came around to cold case on sexual cases, and I worked diligently to try to provide victims of crime with support. I know that this bill that came before us, I, at the request of the sponsor, a request was made to hold a hearing as late as we could, which I did and I will tell you the absolute, the testimony was very powerful. I know that every member of my committee was impacted. I know that we want to do something about changing the statute of limitations. I know that we will do that. I think that there are some people who had legitimate questions and legitimate concerns that we just didn't have time to address. Now, we voted for, we didn't have the votes to pass this and we did not have the votes to kill it. We finally came together by an 18 to 2 vote to recommend Interim Study. As I said, as the Chair of the committee, this Interim Study, this is not death with dignity, but we just need to sit down and deal with what is a very complicated situation, as any criminal justice thing is. I want to be smart on crime. I don't want to necessarily be foolish. I've been in a situation where we have passed legislation that turned out to not be quite what we thought it was going to be at the end of the day. I'm also very mindful that we are going to be discussing the statutes of limitations on sexual assault again in this chamber before this session ends. There is a bill in the other chamber that I am a cosponsor of to lift the statute of limitations for sexual assault. I think it will pass and I feel very defensive about my committee right now because I know we feel we are a little bit under attack when our committee is being challenged and that's not part of what we want to do. I would simply ask you to support the committee report of Interim Study and have faith and confidence that we will do our best to address the other arguments. Thank you. Press the green button.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)A roll call was requested by, I believe, Representative Buchanan. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Representative McLean, for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mark McLean (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if I know that DNA and other emerging technologies have given law enforcement new tools in the fight against rape and other sexual crimes, but that New Hampshire's 6-year criminal statute of limitations separates many victims from their quest for justice. If I know that HB 1586 addresses this problem by ending the statute of limitations while 100,000% preserving the judicial process rights of the accused, the rules of evidence and the burden of proof. If I know the county attorneys of New Hampshire support HB 1586 because they are the ones that have to turn the victims away and finally, Madam Speaker, if I know that this issue has already been studied for 30 years and that the people of New Hampshire finally deserve action, would I now press the red button to defeat the Interim Study motion so that another motion of Ought to Pass can be brought forward? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The Chair recognizes Representative Cushing for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Madam Speaker, if I believe and I know. If I believe that the victims the survivors in this chamber and throughout the state and throughout the country who are living with the trauma of sexual assault, there is no question that the trauma is there and ongoing. And, if I further know that the statute of limitations for sexual assault is too short and that the committee recognizes that and is prepared to work to address that. And, if I further know that the 18 to 2 vote to Interim Study this bill is one that signals our commitment to help secure justice, would I now press the green button to uphold the committee report?

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is on the majority recommendation of Interim Study on HB 1586. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will pay attention to the state of the vote. With 200 Yeas and 123 Nays, the motion for Interim Study passes.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to make a motion that we table HB 1516.

Speaker ShurtleffYour motion is in order. Rep. Edwards moves to table this bill. The question before the House is on the motion to table HB 1516. A division has been requested. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? Who requested the roll call? Okay. Just for the records. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the motion to table HB 1516. The Chair recognizes Rep. Edwards for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that HB 1516 intends to establish extremely strong state powers and has not considered the exception for pregnancy in a couple, would I go ahead and vote in favor of tabling now so that the bill can be subjected to another motion and studied further to be fixed?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the motion to table HB 1516. The Chair recognizes Rep. Walz for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this bill has been worked on multiple years, multiple terms and has examined all contingencies including pregnancy. If I know that there is a large number of people in here ready, willing and able and anxious to vote on this bill, would I please press red and vote no on this tabling motion? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the motion to table HB 1516. 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 128 members voting Yea and 209 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. The question before the House is the adoption of the majority amendment (1085h) printed in House Record 10A on page 84. The Chair recognizes the member from Rochester, Rep. Grassie, to speak against the majority amendment.

Rep. Chuck Grassie (D - Straf 8)Mister Speaker, members of the House, I rise today to oppose the committee amendment. How did we come about getting this committee amendment? Originally there was an amendment by the sponsor to correct a drafting error in the bill and something was done when they discovered it going through the bill. There was an additional amendment put in to add an additional exemption in the bill that basically allowed for emancipated minors to get married. What the amendment does to the bill, well and those two amendments were basically mashed together and we end up with the amendment we have. What we would like to do today is defeat the committee amendment and get the original drafting amendment back in so we have a proper bill to send over to the Senate. What the amendment does is basically opens up a huge hole in the bill. If you support ending child marriage, you should support the bill without this amendment because it's very important when we take a look at what child marriage means. It's something that the US State Department has addressed as a human rights abuse. By talking about emancipated minors one of the things we have to consider is first of all the results that occurs by having someone who is a minor. If you take a look at RSA 461-B it talks about the emancipation of minors. It says that these people, these children basically, are given abilities to sign contracts. They have other abilities that adults have but one of the provisions in there allows judges to continue to have oversight over that minor child. Are they really emancipated from their family at all? Then if we take emancipation from a, maybe an abusive family or some situation that that child does not want to be in. Maybe they are in love with their boyfriend and want to get married so they go to a judge and they say they want to be married and the judge says well I agree with you but you need to be emancipated because if we pass this bill that's what will happen. Are we creating a situation that we don't want to run into? If you take a look at what happens with a young lady, a young girl or a child basically who enters into marriage and this would be through emancipation, 40% of them are likely to give birth within 24 months of a first child if they are married because they are pregnant. 50% of them are more likely to drop out of school. They are 4 times more likely not to complete college. They earn low wages. So what we are doing is we are looking at basically chaining these children to a lifetime of poverty. Let's take a look at the basic question that we have here, emancipation. What does it mean? It means to set free, to liberate, to unrepress, to free from restraint, control over the power of another, to free from bondage, to free from any controlling influence, to unchain. That's the first part. Minor. What does minor mean? Minor means a person who is not yet old enough to have the rights of an adult. Now when I approached people about this bill and said how did this amendment get put on there; I was told it's complicated. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about the rights and protections of children. What's so complicated about that? When we take a look at the problems that children have when they marry, what's so complicated about that? My answer is the definition of a minor, not an adult, it's a child. Are we going to be looking at a child being put into a marriage where 80% of them, 80% end up in divorce? It's a child. I urge you to oppose this amendment so we may bring another amendment to the floor.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the motion to adopt the majority amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Bow, Rep. Walz. Oh, I'm sorry, does the member yield to a question? Rep. Horn, you may inquire.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Representative for taking my question. The amendment we are speaking on was a result. Would you believe the amendment we are speaking on is the result of the committee voting separately on each issue and passing each issue with the understanding that emancipated minor meets the criteria, which is independently living and continuing education?

Rep. Chuck Grassie (D - Straf 8)I'm not sure I understand your question. I do know that I asked if we could divide the question so and I was told that we could not divide the question because of the wording of the amendment dealing with emancipation. In the amendment we have before us talks about an emancipated child.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)So, you are confused about how, you expressed confusion in your statement about how we got to this point with the amendment so would you believe that this is a standard practice on committees when they have multiple amendments on a bill that the OLS ties all of the amendments voted on separately by the committee and produces one amendment for the House to vote on during the day? Representative Grassie: I would believe that. The thing is what the amendment does is it basically guts the bill because right now someone can be married under the age of 18, between 16 and 18, with a judge's permission. What this does is just add one more step. While they're in seeing that judge to get married and the judge says well, I can't do it if this bill passed. I can't do it unless you are emancipated. Well, just emancipate me please. If the parents are there and they say yeah, it's okay, it's okay for you to marry your 25-year-old boyfriend, we'll emancipate you as well. It doesn't do anything. What we will end up with is exactly what we have now on the law and that's unacceptable.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the adoption of the amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Bow, Representative Walz, to speak against the amendment.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm going to be brief. The reason I ask to speak here today is because I was on the Committee of Conference when we passed the emancipation bill here. When the House initially passed emancipation, they passed a limited emancipation so that when an underage child was married and that marriage failed as 80 to 90% of them do, that they would have a way out, that they would have the authority to sign a lease, to open a bank account, to do those things that they would need to do to live independently. This amendment takes emancipation and turns it on its head. It uses emancipation to open the door for further child marriage because what it does is it allows somebody to become emancipated in order to get married thereby avoiding the scrutiny of a judge that they would have to do if they just wanted to get married. So, I am opposing this amendment because it is contrary to everything this House has done the last few terms and it completely turns upside down what the goal has been. I understand it was well intended, but I think it has unintended consequences that members of the committee did not understand or hear about. So I stand here today to ask you to vote down this amendment because I don't think this is what this body intends. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation on the adoption of amendment (1085h). A roll call has been requested by Representative Levesque. Is that sufficiently seconded? You must be in your seats in order to. This will be a roll call. I missed that Representative Long had signed up to speak in support of the amendment. My apologies to the member. Wait until everybody takes their seat. Representative Long is recognized to speak in support of the committee amendment, in support of the majority amendment.

Rep. Patrick LongThank you, Mister Speaker. In defense of the committee, emancipation isn't as easy as I want to be emancipated and you are emancipated. There is a process that goes through that. Also, we were hearing in committee where somebody who is currently married at 16 as a result can't file to get a divorce because they're not 18 years old. So we thought that this emancipation amendment would fix that. If they are able to contract for marriage, they're able to contract to get out of marriage. So that was the thought process in this so I ask that you support the committee and this amendment. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of majority amendment (1085h). This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is on the adoption of the majority amendment (1085h). The Chair recognizes Representative Walz for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)If I know that this amendment turns on its head everything that this legislature tried to do with emancipation. If I know this has unintended consequences that were not fully considered by the committee, would I please vote no on this amendment? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of the majority amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Long for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Patrick LongThank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe that this gives an opportunity for young people that are currently married a way out by being able to contract, then would I press green and support this amendment? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of the majority amendment. 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 113 members voting Yea, 230 voting Nay, the motion to adopt the amendment fails. The bill is now on second reading and open to further amendments. Representative Levesque offers floor amendment (1142h) which is found in your seat pockets. Representative Levesque is recognized to speak to her motion.

Rep. Cassandra Levesque (D - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Hello members of the House of Representatives. My amendment is just cleaning up some language. That's all it's doing. It's just housekeeping. I did this in committee and it was attached to emancipation and so now I brought it back since the emancipation amendment has failed so I just wanted to clean things up here. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1142h). Representative Levesque has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the motion to adopt floor amendment (1142h). The Chair recognizes Representative Horn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the amendment is anything but housekeeping. And, if I know that the amendment changes language so that people already married in this state wouldn't have their marriages annulled. And, if I further know, Mister Speaker, that when you change the language of a bill to that kind of significance, would it not then fall under housekeeping, would I then, if I know all of that, vote red?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1142h). The Chair recognizes Representative Walz for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know it is near impossible to getting a marriage annulled in this state anyway once it has been consummated. If I know that this bill really or this amendment really is just a housekeeping amendment that the committee was in strong support of, would I please now vote yes and support the committee and clean the bill up and make it a better bill? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1142h). This will be 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, 137 Nay the floor amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Horn for an amendment. Again, members can come down these aisles if there is nobody at the well, just when there is somebody there standing not to interfere. Representative Horn you are recognized to introduce floor amendment (1125h).

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Floor amendment (1125h) introduces the idea of moving of, introduces the idea of an exemption in cases of pregnancy. We have been given and treated to a lot of statistics about how bad somebody's life is when they're forced into marriage against their will and I would introduce to you that there are statistics that talk about how bad somebody's life is if they are a single unwed teenager. When you introduce the state in the role of forbidding a young family from starting out, I believe that is a massive overreach. When the age of consent is 16 in New Hampshire and a child occurs as a result of that legal activity, for the state to be in a position of saying doing the right thing and marrying the mother of your child is tremendous overreach. We want these families to be successful. We want these families to be stable and to say to every single 16 and 17-year-old that we don't believe in you; we don't believe you have the ability to get into a stable family; we don't believe in you to do the right thing is just awful. We can't be in the position of doing that so I ask for the body to consider my amendment which calls for an exception in the cases of pregnancy. This isn't mandated. This provides an opportunity for families to get a start. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of the Horn floor amendment, (1125h). The Chair recognizes Representative Long to speak against the adoption of the floor amendment. Let's get this speaker. Let him speak first and then I'll recognize the roll call.

Rep. Patrick LongThank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment suggests that if you're 16 now because the age of marriage is 16, or 17, if you are pregnant, you ought to have the option of getting married. The committee reviewed this and discussed this and voted it down because we didn't, the committee didn't believe that ought to be an option. That marriage is the only option that would save their lives. We didn't believe that would be the case so I ask you to vote down this amendment. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the. Will the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. In the interest of time, I'm sure. The question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1125h). Somebody requested a roll call. Representative Edwards requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will kindly take their seats. While we are waiting for members to come in, two things, our friend from Epping is back in the Chamber. He had a call from his health officer in the Town of Epping. He's fine and he can join us and we welcome him back into our fold. The other thing is this afternoon I talked to Ann FitzGerald. I asked her to provide water and snacks for everybody. I know some people have to eat because of medical reasons and other people are just like me that like to eat so those will be available this afternoon so you are aware of that. The question before the House is on the adoption of the Horn floor amendment (1125h). The Chair recognizes Representative Walz for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that if a teenager is pregnant and that teenager wants to get married, they do have the option to get married with going to court under the supervision of a judge or after a judge has looked at the case to make sure that that teenager is not unduly being coerced into that marriage. So if I know that this issue has already been addressed, would I please vote no on this amendment?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of the Horn floor amendment (1125h). Why does the member rise? We didn't have anything but you may have another opportunity. I got a feeling. This will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1125h). 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 had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 136 members voting Yea, 209 voting Nay, the motion fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Horn to introduce floor amendment (1127h) which is found in your seat pockets.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members of the House, this amendment is very simple. All we have to do is ask that this bill take effect on the first of January 2022. In the occasion of somebody being married. Let me rephrase. With the passage of the bill being presumed, the effect will be 16 to 17-year olds who are intending to marry in good faith, having put money down on venues of their choice, this would them to continue to be married without losing their deposits.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield for a question? Representative Baldasaro is recognized for a question.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. You know I was staying silent listening to all these amendments coming in on a bill that sounds like it's very broken and we are trying to fix something. Can you tell me how does this affect these young veterans, this bill, okay with them having a young girl that is pregnant? What does this do to those veterans?

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)I thank the good Representative from Londonderry for his question. This will have the effect of prohibiting marriage for veterans who had fathered a child prior to their enlistment and denies those spouses to have access to health benefits, specifically prenatal care.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the motion to adopt the Horn floor amendment (1127h). Why does the member rise?

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 14)Mister Speaker, I request Personal Privilege.

Speaker ShurtleffAs I am informed by the Clerk, Personal Privilege does not take precedent while we are in the middle of a debate. After we finish with this bill, would the member be able to come forward to state your personal privilege?

Speaker ShurtleffAfter the vote. After we finish with this bill. After we finish with this amendment. We are in the process of adopting or not adopting an amendment. When that is completed, then I will recognize the member for Personal Privilege. The question before the House is on the adoption of the amendment, floor amendment (1127h). A division has been requested. This will be a division vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1127h). This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Horn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that putting deposits down in anticipation.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend? I stand corrected. I said roll call and this is a division vote. Member may proceed.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that deposits are costly and when they are put down to secure venues and caterers, they are not often recovered if there is a cancellation, Mister Speaker. And, if I further know that by extending the date to the 22, the year 2022, we give people who are intending to marry time to capitalize on those deposits and have that ceremony, would I now vote red, sorry, would I now vote green for the amendment?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1127h). The Chair recognizes Representative Long for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Patrick LongThank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this amendment postpones this effective date for a year. And, if I know that there has been a lot of conversations and vetting over this and I believe this House is ready to decide on this, then shall I press the red button to oppose this?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a division vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment I1127h). 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 135 members voting Yea, 211 voting Nay, the amendment fails. The question now before the House is on the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. Why does the member rise?

Rep. Timothy Smith (D - Hills 17)Am I correct that the current parliamentary situation is that we are on the main mode for HB 1516 on second reading with a pending question of Ought to Pass as Amended?

Speaker ShurtleffJust so members are aware. The motion to move the question is in order. What it entails, we have 4 people against the motion and 2 for. They have already signed up and they will be heard first. By moving the question means no other people can come up and sign in to speak. So just so people, especially for our new people, what it means when we move the question. Also to remind myself. The question before the House now is on the motion. The question before the House is the motion to move the question to limit debate. All those in favor, say Aye, opposed, Nay. A division vote was requested before the gavel came down. This will be a division vote. Members in the Chamber will take their seats. Representative Edwards has requested a roll call on the motion. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. I want to make sure that everyone is perfectly clear on what the motion is before us and especially for our newer members that I think this is maybe the first time they've had a motion to move the question. What the motion does, it limits debate, but what it means is it doesn't stop those that have already signed up to speak from speaking. All it simply means is that no other members can sign up to speak for or against the pending motion. So, the motion before us is to limit debate, but those 6 people that have already signed up will be allowed to speak. Just so you are aware of what the motion is. The Chair recognizes Representative Sylvia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I understand that during the debate one may have something to further consider. And, if I know that sometimes a question will take care of that issue that they may want to speak to and if an answer is not given, then they will not have an answer, then they would want to sign up to speak themselves. This motion would disallow them from essentially asking a question, not that it technically does, but if they don't get an answer then they would want to speak. So, if I know that this motion.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend for a moment? I think what I'm hearing you say is this means that members cannot ask a question?

Speaker ShurtleffOkay, I want to make sure that you are on the right track. Okay so you are saying that if somebody had a question and they didn't feel was answered, they could speak afterward. I'm sorry. I apologize to the member.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)If I thought I covered that and if I think that we should allow members to speak if they do not get a question answered, then I would press the red button?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the motion to move the question, to limit debate. The Chair recognizes Representative Walz to speak in support of the motion.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)If I know we have heard a lot of data on this, a lot of arguments on this already by debating the amendment. If I know we have a very long day in front of us and we have already spent a long time on this bill. And, if I know the speakers in favor of the bill are comfortable with this motion to move the question, would I please now vote yes on this motion?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the motion to limit debate. 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 213 members voting Yea, 133 Nay, the motion to limit debate passes. The question now before the House is on the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Franklin, Representative Horn, to speak against the recommendation.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend. If members wish to leave the Chamber, do so quietly. The member at the well has a right to be heard. The member may proceed.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, we are going to hear later on that this bill is to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds against exploitation. I will start by telling you this doesn't do that, that marriage in neighboring states is still 14 so that if somebody was despicable enough to want to exploit a 16 and 17-year-old, they could go South to Massachusetts and do so. That marriage would even be recognized as legal in New Hampshire. So, no, this bill does not do that. The way that 16 and 17-year olds are being exploited in New Hampshire is that the justice system hearing the court case to permit a 16 or 17-year-old to marry would be blind to the possibility of exploitation and would sign off on this marriage as a matter of routine. So, as this bill does not address that process, this does not prevent 16 and 17-year olds from being exploited in New Hampshire. What this bill does do and Mister Speaker I am speaking from experience. What this bill does do is prevent service members from marrying the mothers of their children in order to extend health benefits to the mother to be. We are going to hear, I suspect, that it takes up to 22 months for somebody to be sent to a combat zone if you are a service member and I'm living proof that is not the case in all cases. I enlisted in the Army in September of 1999 and I found myself deployed to a war zone six months later. By March of 2001 I was in a position where I could be shot at or I could be asked to shoot somebody else. So, that is the principal reason for my objection is that when you tell somebody that they can't have their mother to be as a benefit of their health benefits because you are in the military, that's set a very disastrous standard for our state. They are going to suggest that we have pregnancy options available to teenage pregnancies, that Tricare, the very excellent health program our military benefits from, isn't needed. Well, I would ask the comparison, if you travel today to the state house in a Ford Escort manufactured in 1999, that could be an acceptable means of transportation. That would be the equivalent of whatever question mark healthcare is being offered to an unwed mother or you could ride to the state house in a Cadillac Escalade, brand new 2020 version. What would be your preferred method of transportation? Mister Speaker, I submit that most people would pick the Cadillac Escalade, which represents the military version of healthcare known as Tricare. It is an excellent military program. We've knocked down the exception for pregnancies. We've knocked down them getting a deposit back. We've even knocked down emancipated minors being allowed to marry. Now, there was some confusion about the definition, sorry, there was some confusion about the process by which a minor can become emancipated. Let me clear up that confusion. You can only be emancipated in New Hampshire by going before a judge, the same judges this bill proposes are not fit to rule on whether or not a child can be exploited, but you would go before a judge and you would have to prove to that judge that you would be satisfying your educational opportunities. In other words, couldn't drop out and be emancipated. You would be able to survive on your own, which means no you wouldn't be headed back to your family for a handout or you wouldn't be getting entitlements from the state and you would be able to sustain those issues in order to become emancipated. So, in other words, you're qualified by the justice department, the judiciary specifically, to make decisions on your own. You can enter into contracts; you can leave contracts on your own. You're not a ward of the state, but we have knocked that down. We've said that if you are an emancipated minor, not only can you not get married in New Hampshire, but if you come in from outside of New Hampshire, we suggest that you can't get married. If you were emancipated in a different state, you couldn't get married. Mister Speaker, I want to protect 16 and 17-year olds from exploitation more than probably, well actually I can't say that. That would be impugning intent. My apologies, Mister Speaker. I will stand with everybody when it comes to preventing minors from being exploited. I'm probably going to be louder than most, as is my nature. If this bill prevented that exploitation, I would be the first to support it, but what this bill does is it sends a variety of negative messages out into the world, especially negative messages aimed at women, girls, people who are pregnant. They tell you that you can't start a family. They tell you; you can't provide for your family. If 80% of these young marriages end in divorce, then 20% of those people shouldn't be told that they don't have the opportunity to make this happen. Adults entering into marriage, Mister Speaker, fail in their marriages over 50% of the time. There is no law being drafted that people should be prohibited from marrying because the majority of those marriages end in divorce. I am not in favor of a bill that limits what is possible for a lady in New Hampshire. Mister Speaker, I respectfully ask for a division vote.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Auburn, Representative Edwards. I have you down as speaking. Okay. The Chair recognizes Representative Jurius.

Rep. Deanna Jurius (R - Belk 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Ought to Pass motion on HB 1516. The sponsor of this bill has done tireless research and found stories of young women being sold with parental consent to much older men where they experience abuse. This is a disgusting and heinous occurrence that I oppose with the strongest possible language. That is not the purpose of marriage at all and anyone promoting such unions is deliberately manipulating our laws to achieve their own personal gain, however deranged it may be. That being said, raising the marriage age to 18 in our state when the age of consent is 16, is to say that a person is able to consent to a sexual union, but not to marriage. I know it's crazy, but there are still a number of us that don't think that anyone should have intimate relations outside of marriage. From this perspective, having two separate ages makes no sense. It would be like saying a person can operate a motor vehicle at 16, but cannot obtain a driver's license until age 18. I have no intention to bring us back into middle school heath class, but please just allow me to note that one of the possible consequences of having sex is pregnancy. This statute, even as amended, would make it illegal for two people to marry with the intention of raising their child together if either is under 18. Please hear me. I don't endorse this choice either way. I'm not saying it's a good idea or a bad idea. I truly just think that people should be allowed to make that decision. The State forbidding marriage when a baby is involved is really concerning overreach. I have not spoken to a single person opposed to this bill because they think that 16 and 17-year olds getting married is a fantastic idea and everyone should do it. We are just saying the government doesn't get to be that involved in family decisions. I'd like to get back to the abhorrent cases of abuse that prompted this bill. As I mentioned these cases of abuse and manipulation of the highest order are horrible. Here's the thing about abusive and manipulative people. They will use whatever statute we put in place to abuse and manipulate people. I have said it before. I have a feeling I will say it again. There is no law that is immune to abuse by our citizens. I will repeat there is no law that is immune to abuse by our citizens. Breaking the law is bad. Breaking the law to hurt people is worse. This law while attempting to curb abuse, which a laudable goal, introduces the government into serious family decisions. For this reason, I urge you to vote against the committee recommendation of Ought to Pass so that another motion can be made.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Representative Edwards, you may inquire.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If this bill were to pass, wouldn't we effectively be saying as a state that our preferred policy options for 17-year old pregnant woman is go on welfare, escape an intolerant state to marry elsewhere or get an abortion? And, if those were the policy preferences of the state, do you find that morally acceptable?

Rep. Deanna Jurius (R - Belk 2)Thank you for the question. I am digesting the multiple pieces of that. I'm not going to say that we will immediately take that position specifically, but those are options that were all mentioned in our executive session and our public hearing and I do think that it is a ridiculous suggestion to say that rather than someone getting married to help a family raise a child, that the government should just be the one to come in and take care of a child. I do. I do think that is reprehensible.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a follow up? Representative Edwards.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I were to tell you that small businesses, particularly restaurants, have a failure rate of 90% in the first two years, would you recommend as a matter of state policy that we make it illegal for anyone to start a restaurant?

Rep. Deanna Jurius (R - Belk 2)Thank you for that follow up question. I certainly would not. I think the inference is that the statistic of failure is not necessarily justification for the passage of any law or of any ban, so I would agree with that sentiment.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? Representative Notter, you may inquire.

Rep. Jeanine Notter (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Did anyone mention the forced illegitimacy that this bill could create?

Rep. Deanna Jurius (R - Belk 2)I'm not sure I can comment specifically on that, but I think that is a major concern.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Landaff, Representative Ruprecht to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Denny Ruprecht (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise in support of HB 1516. I'd like to begin by addressing an argument that was made that if this bill were to be enacted into law, that it would not recognize out of state marriages by minors. That simply isn't true because state statute already requires that we recognize all out of state marriages. But, Mister Speaker, more importantly, I support this bill because child marriage is a widespread practice. One that reaches every corner of the United States, including New Hampshire. The practice is a threat the health and wellbeing of the children with girls, in particular, at risk. Girls who marry before the age of 18 are more likely to experience domestic violence, are less likely to remain in school and are more likely to live in poverty. Girls who are married often become pregnant at a young age which can jeopardize the health of the mother and baby. Child brides often become isolated from friends, peers and family which can be damaging to their emotional and psychological wellbeing. Child marriage has a detrimental impact on a girl's health, future and family. Child marriage is prevalent in the United States and it does occur in New Hampshire. Between the years of 2000 and 2015 over 200,000 minors, some as young as 12, were married in the United States and 87% of child marriage cases in the US, the minor is a girl and in 86% of cases, she is marrying an adult. In this Chamber we often talk about governments solemn responsibility to protect children. Those who are in the dawn of life and who are among our most vulnerable constituents. While we as a state legislature cannot end the practice of child marriage globally or nationally, we can use our power to eliminate the practice within our own state. Mister Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the committee recommendation. Thank you

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Seabrook, Representative Abramson, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Ought to Pass motion. Most instances of high school sweethearts getting married either have been military couples or those with child, neither of which benefits from forcing couples to wait another year before getting married. To receive medical or housing benefits in the military, college or work, couples must already be legally married. This bill would do nothing but take exceptional cases and make them exceptionally difficult for high school sweethearts. Another reason why we should get the state out of marriage. Red button.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Representative Yokela, you may inquire.

Rep. Josh Yokela (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking the question. Do you believe that the restriction for people that have been deemed to be competent to sign other contracts and forbidding them to sign this contract, for example an emancipation, do you believe that is unequal treatment under the law?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Atkinson, Representative DeSimone. The Chair recognizes our last speaker, the member from Barrington, Representative Levesque, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Cassandra Levesque (D - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. HB 1516 will let a child be a child. It will let them fully develop mentally, physically, emotionally and socially. The committee received testimony from survivors of child marriage and I would love to share their testimony with you, but with our busy schedule, I won't do that. However, I will summarize it. We heard from approximately 20 women. Their stories are similar but they stand in unity asking us to end child marriage so that not one more child has to endure the horrors that they have survived. What can I say about child marriage that has not been said before? Do you want survivor testimony? We have it. It was provided to the committee. Do you want facts and figures? We have it in testimony from Unchained at Last, the AHA Foundation, the Tahirih Justice Center, organizations who are campaigning to end human rights abuse was submitted to the committee. We have guidance from the United States State Department in the document The US Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls, it states, "The goal of the US Government efforts under this strategy is to ensure adolescent girls are educated, healthy, economically and socially empowered and free from violence and discrimination, thereby promoting global developments, security and prosperity. Our efforts aim to enhance their access to quality education, to reduce the risk of child early enforced marriage and to reduce their vulnerability to gender based violence and to provide them with the tools necessary to fully participate in their societies, claim their rights and make informed decisions about their lives." We already have the tools available to empower the children. We just have to use them. Today you are being presented with proposed exceptions to child marriage, but I urge you to remember there is no data, no facts, no studies that say child marriage is beneficial to any child and we as lawmakers, especially when we are making laws pertaining to children, have to base our laws on facts and not on opinions. So I ask you today to support the recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. This will be a division vote. Members will kindly take their seats. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? You've got to stand up. It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Representative DeSimone to speak against the recommendation, for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that in 2017 the State of New Hampshire gave 16 and 17-year olds the right to consent to sex. And, if I know that if any of these 16 or 17-year olds become pregnant, HB 1516 does not allow marriage to be an option. If I further know that the State of New Hampshire has the upmost of respect for the judicial system and contrary to the believe of the prior speaker, HB 1516 takes away the option of parental consent or judicial consent to marry. And, if I understand correctly, Mister Speaker, that by giving permission to have the right to consent to sex said that a 16 or 17-year-old is mature enough to engage in that behavior, but this bill says they are not mature enough to consent to marriage, doesn't make any sense. Finally, Mister Speaker, if I firmly believe that HB 1516 is putting the horse before the cart by not increasing the age of consent to sex to the age of 18, before changing the age of marriage with parental or judicial consent to the age of 18. If I finally know that if you take into consideration all of the discussion that we have had today with all of the amendments, this bill is fatally, horribly flawed and should not pass, then I ask, Mister Speaker, wouldn't it make sense for me to vote red so that an alternative motion of ITL can be brought forth?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of the recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Representative Walz for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that 16 and 17-year olds are not an adult under our national constitution, our state constitution or our state statutes. That they cannot vote, they cannot sit on juries, they cannot buy tobacco or alcohol, they cannot do certain things with firearms, they can't gamble, then in many ways we recognize they are not adults. If I know that it is our job here in the legislature is to protect children. And, if I know that there is a movement both in the US and internationally to end child marriage. In fact there was just a full-page Ad in Sunday's New York Times about this. And, if I know that we should be in the forefront of this movement and be one of the state's leading the way on finally and completely ending child marriage, then please join me in pressing the green button to take another step on how to end marriage for all children? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThis 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 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 had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 207 members voting Yea, 132 Nay, the motion carries.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you. I just want to point out that there is a printing error that took place that the committee adopted an amendment that was offered by Representative Welch, then we went on to take other action, but when it appeared in the calendar for some reason it was incorrect. It's been put in the seat pockets. What is in the seat pocket is what was in the computer the whole time.

Speaker ShurtleffWe thank you for that explanation. Thank you. The question before the House is on the adoption of majority amendment (1037h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye, those opposed, Nay. The Chair is in doubt. Members in the chamber will take their seats. This will be a division vote. The Chair was in doubt on the last vote on the adoption of the majority amendment (1037h). This will be a division vote. If you are in favor of the adoption of the amendment, 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 170 voting Yea, 111 voting Nay, the majority amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Adjutant to introduce floor amendment (1170h). State your inquiry.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Mister Speaker, I'm a little confused. I have the amendment we just voted on and there is no verbiage in here as it relates to high compacity magazines so did that change the bill completely?

Speaker ShurtleffIt's that particular section. It should state what section the amendment refers to.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Well, it refers to insert by section one.

Speaker ShurtleffSo it would be section one. If it said replace all following.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)I'll talk to the sponsor of the amendment. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThat might be the simplest answer. The Chair recognizes Representative Adjutant to introduce floor amendment (1170h).

Rep. Joshua Adjutant (D - Graf 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, amendment (1170h) seeks to answer a question that I had about this bill when I saw it. I'm going to say what's normally reserved to be the quiet part out loud and just say that I like to shoot. I like to shoot at ranges. There are a few ranges that I frequent and I usually rent a rifle if I don't bring my own and I don't believe that everyone who would want to shoot with a higher capacity magazine just wants to stick it to the government. This amendment would allow range owners legal protections in order to keep and allow their customers to use these high capacity magazines in a safe and constructive environment where everyone practices the four weapon safety rules and I would ask that the body approve the amendment. Thank you very much.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Representative Baldasaro, you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative. What you're talking about on a range. If I shoot in my backyard and I have high capacity magazines, am I covered, or am I?

Rep. Joshua Adjutant (D - Graf 16)I apologize. I actually didn't hear what you said. If you shoot your what?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)If I shoot, you understand high capacity goes. I could have AR-15. I could have a MK, SKS with high capacity magazine. If I shoot in my yard, am I okay with this law?

Rep. Joshua Adjutant (D - Graf 16)Representative, is your yard a shooting range as defined by RSA 159-B: (a)-(2)?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)My yard is my right as a 2nd Amendment to shoot. So, with this law, I want to make damn well sure that the magazine police are not going to come by and say you cannot shoot a high capacity magazine in your yard. With this amendment, only ranges.

Rep. Joshua Adjutant (D - Graf 16)Representative, I'm going to be completely honest with you. Without this amendment, I'm not going to vote for the bill. I think that this provides an adequate enough offshoot, to use that metaphor, for folks that still want to go and use these weapons recreationally. I'm trying to do the best I can to make the bill a little better in my opinion so that's the answer to that. I think in your situation, that would still be prohibited based on the remaining language of the legislation in that personal private property isn't made an exemption there. If the amendment fails, I'm going to vote the same side as you on this bill.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1170h). The Chair recognizes Representative Cushing to speak. Representative Cushing waives. The question before the House is on the adoption of HB (1170h). Are you ready? I'm sorry. The question before the House is on the adoption of the amendment (1170h). Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. This will be a division vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is on the adoption of amendment (1170h). The Chair recognizes Representative Spillane for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, members. If I know that this amendment makes the bill a little bit better and I thank the member for putting it forward. But, if I also know that it does not exempt shooting on personal property and there's a lot of this state that is in rural areas where sandpits are the norm, home ranges are the norm. I have a neighbor who owns 200 acres and built his own range because he is safely away from anybody and it would not allow these people to be exempted under the amendment. And, if I know that some places in this state do not have ready and easy access to a range.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend? I can hear while the speaker is doing his PI, that people are whistling. The member at the well deserves the respect of this body and not to be interrupted while he's trying to do his PI. I thank the member. You may proceed.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. In some parts of this state, it's rural enough that they have a hard time getting access to a range as defined in the RSA, would I vote against this amendment and press the red button because it does not do quite enough to make this bill good enough?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1170h). The Chair recognizes Representative Adjutant for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joshua Adjutant (D - Graf 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that I am a more pro 2nd Amendment Democrat who wants to do what I can to improve a bill that I otherwise wouldn't vote for. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that there are other members that would be comforted by an amendment such as this. If I know that somebody who is not here right now, but is a Representative from the City of Dover who I ran this amendment by multiple times, was one of the cosponsors on the bill, gave his thumbs up of approval. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that I will not be voting for this bill without this amendment, would I now push the green button to pass this amendment and move on with this? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a division vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of floor amendment (1170h). 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 153 voting members voting Yea, 157 voting Nay, the amendment fails. The question before the House now is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Franklin, Representative Horn, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill makes possession of magazines more than 15 rounds for a pistol and more than 10 rounds for a long gun a prohibition. Gosh darn it if I could get somebody to guarantee me that we can successfully defend tyranny with only 15 rounds for a handgun and only 10 rounds for a long gun, I'd be in favor of this because gosh darn it, that's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It's not about sport shooting. It's not about home defense. It's about defending us from tyranny.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend. The House will be in order. The member has a right to be heard. Please proceed. Representative Horn: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Some people. Let me rephrase that. It has been suggested that when they wrote this 2nd Amendment that we are here defending, it only applies to black powder weapons. I say that is nonsense as it was legal to own cannon. They were talking about military grade firearms when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. They understood with very valid subject matter expertise that resisting tyranny was important because they had just resisted tyranny successfully. They didn't do it by using polite words. They did it with an armed populous that had the same firepower as the enemy they were fighting. Ten rounds for a long gun and 15 rounds for a handgun will not successfully resist tyranny. That is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment, but I do applaud the very imaginative way that they are trying to yet again restrict our 2nd Amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Goffstown. Does the member yield to a question? You may inquire.

Rep. Judy Aron (R - Sull 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Would you believe that about 7 years ago I went to the Hartford State Capitol and testified and rallied against this very kind of legislation? Would you believe that? In Connecticut?

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Representative for that question. I would believe anything that you say because I trust you as a Representative.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Goffstown, Representative Burt, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I almost think I can get you to vote against this and let me tell you why, Mister Speaker. There are 517 businesses in New Hampshire that benefit from gun sales, 517. There is Exeter, Epping, Newport, Dover, and let me point out a few other towns, Mister Speaker. There is a gentleman named Shea over in Amherst, Shooter Shooters. I don't know where that is. It's in Amherst. Gosselins in Chester. It was like 30 pages and I only printed 3. It was huge how many people benefit in New Hampshire from gun sales. So, Mister Speaker, with that said, I want to look at the National Shooters Sportsman Foundation. They put out data on every state. New Hampshire employs 2,551 people just in the state for manufacture and distribution and selling firearms and ammunition. In addition, there is 3,919 other jobs and this is in 2018. Of total, 6,470 jobs and Mister Speaker, I wish I had one of these jobs because it pays a lot more than we get. The average pay, Mister Speaker, is 66,400 in wages and benefits. That is a lot of pay. I want to read just one little spot here. It says now, only, not only does manufacturers and sale of firearms and hunting supplies create good jobs in New Hampshire, but the industry also contributes to the economy as a whole. In fact, in 2019, the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $1.4 billion in total economic activity in the State of New Hampshire. So, let be break that down for you, Mister Speaker. In federal taxes, businesses paid $124 million. They paid the state just shy of $97 million. That is a lot of money. So, a total of $220 million was paid in taxes. So, lastly, Mister Speaker, not only does the industry create jobs and sizeable revenues, tax revenues, in New Hampshire, the industry also pays over $220 million in payroll, $220 million in payroll. That's a lot of money. So, really, Mister Speaker, I hope you join me in voting no on this because I do not want to jeopardize any of those jobs. And, Mister Speaker, I ask are you willing to put your neighbor out of a good paying job in New Hampshire? Please vote no by pressing the red button if a roll call, which I'm sure is coming, is called. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question. Representative Harrington, you may inquire.

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I just want to read you a section of this law that I think is probably the most pertinent and the most important section of the whole law because it really, it needs to be read and known by everybody. It says, "This section shall not apply to a large capacity ammunition feeding device lawfully possessed on or before the effective date of this chapter." Now, can you think of any possible way that a police officer could enforce this law, and to do so he would have to somehow know when someone became in possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device? I could walk into a police station with a bag of these 6 months after this law goes into effect and they would have no way of knowing whether I went out of state and bought them or if I had bought them 10 years ago. Can you think of any way that they could tell this or is there any way possible this law can be enforced?

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you for that question. I don't know if anybody knows, but I am from Vermont. So, with that said, they passed this in Vermont. The AG, the Democrat AG, testified to the Governor and to the House over there, do not pass this. The state police, the local police, they all went and saw the legislators, like us in Montpelier and they said do not pass this. So, I had hope that they were not going to pass it, but they passed it. Why they said, the AG said, do not pass it and the state police said do not pass it was because we can't prove when you bought it because they are going to be grandfathered in. So, what's happened, Mister Speaker, is now all my friends, which I have many of them over there that own firearms, they come to New Hampshire and buy their magazines with cash so that way there is no trail and they sneak back across the border and now they have the new magazines and the state police says there is nothing we can do. So, that is a big reason to vote no on this. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Representative Baldasaro, you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Representative, I'm going to ask you the same question because this is very near and dear to my heart. When I retired from the Marine Corps, I didn't go to Massachusetts because I own too many guns. I'd be a criminal so I came here to New Hampshire. But anyways, if I died and I talked about high capacity rounds and magazines and everything else and canister, if I left them to my children, are they going to be breaking the law under this bill? Will they be confiscated?

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)I apologize. I do not know the exact answer to that. I would assume it is in their possession so I would hope no, but I apologize, I do not know if it can be transferred over to the children.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is. Will the member yield to a follow up? You may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The reason why I ask that because the writing, it talks about the transfer of magazines and other items here, high capacity. That's why it's a big concern of mine and many other Democrats and Republicans in the State of New Hampshire.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you for that follow up. You are correct. It probably would be against the law to transfer them over, now that I remember reading that. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Belmont, Representative Sylvia, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill, in my opinion, violates our constitution. Our constitution is kind of unique so I guess we will get a little history lesson here for those who haven't dug deep into it. Our constitution is made in 2 parts. Part 1st is in lead position here because those who wrote the constitution, unlike the federal constitution, our constitution is written to delineate the rights that are reserved to the people, the rights that government does not have. The rights include property. We are talking about property. Our constitution protects the right to have property. We then have Part 2nd, which gives us, gives the government, the powers that are necessary to operate the government. All of the reserved rights in our Bill of Rights, Part 1st of our constitution, are not to be tread upon by the government. That's why we put it first. Now, there is a little exception to that. They call it the police powers of the state. If I go punch the gentleman from Goffstown in the nose, I have violated his rights and therefore the government can step in and adjudicate that issue. In the case of magazines or firearms, they are simply property and if you are not doing anything with that property that harms another citizen, then the police powers of the state just don't apply. They shall not infringe. So, this bill is contrary to the constitution and our rules, I believe it's 51, says that the Vice Chair should not promote this to the body to be heard. So, we should get rid of this. Vote no.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Salem, Representative Abbas, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to oppose the committee's recommendation of Ought to Pass with Amendment. While the goal of preventing a mass shooting is admirable, limiting the amount of ammunition that a magazine can hold doesn't accomplish that goal. During our committee testimony, I'm sure many of you know from personal experience, that if you try you can, one person can swap out a magazine within 1 to 3 seconds. There is really no difference between someone having 5 magazines that hold 30 bullets or someone that has 10 magazines that hold 15 bullets. When an individual will commit a mass shooting, the generally carry preloaded magazines in their possession already. One of the reasons why this is ineffective is it doesn't actually focus on the legality of the actual bullet that the gun can fire. Again, speaking of my own experience, of the firearms that I own, the firearm that can actually shoot the strongest bullet only can hold 5 bullets. So, this does not necessarily accomplish the goal of promoting any type of safety. Now, it's also important to know that a similar law to this bill was recently deemed unconstitutional out in California and that case currently on its way to the Supreme Court. It hasn't quite got there yet. That's the Duncan case out in California. That was decided 2019. In footnote 14 siting the Freedman case, that court emphasized that ultimately, it's up to lawful gun owners and not the government to decide these matters. To limit self-defense to only the method accepted by the government is in affect an enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government. A result directly contrary to our constitution and our political tradition. Now, if you're not persuaded by the argument, I presented about the magazine capacity. If you're not persuaded by the, or you're not concerned about the constitutionality of this bill, I do ask you to consider this. The amount of people who appeared before the public hearing, required us, it actually overflowed into the hallway, and we actually ended up taking over the room that is traditionally reserved for the Ways and Means Committee. With 2 rooms full of people appeared, the only person or witness who testified in support of this bill was the sponsor of the bill. The rest of the people appeared were all in opposition of it. I would estimate that the amount of emails I received asking me to vote against this bill was at least 10 to 1. We are the people's legislature and with this bill, I believe the people have clearly already spoken. So, if you agree with me and want to support the people's voice, I ask that you push that red button so another motion can be made. Thank you. Speaker Shurtleff: Will the member yield to a question? Representative Edwards, you may inquire.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. Would you believe that I am pretty comfortable around weapons? I own a Sig Sauer handgun. It's got a 23-round magazine in it. I keep it full and I keep another magazine with it. The reason I do that is because if there is a home break in, I don't know how many people are coming in and how much weaponry they have and I have a wife and dogs and myself to protect. Would you think it's reasonable in defending your home and your family to be able to have enough rounds in the chamber to handle a vast range of threat conditions?

Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you for the question. I would say the Supreme Court has already answered that and the answer is I believe it would be unreasonable and I believe the Supreme Court agrees with that and I believe the quote that I read from the Duncan case out of California would agree with that.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes our last speaker, the Representative from Portsmouth, Representative Meuse, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in support of HB 1608. This bill would make it a crime to sale, transfer, manufacture or acquire a large capacity ammunition magazine or loading device in New Hampshire. It would limit the capacity of these devices to 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun. So, long guns include things like assault rifles, AR style rifles and things like that or more than 15 rounds of ammunition for a handgun. As some of the speakers earlier have made clear, if you currently own one of these devices, this bill does allow you to keep it. But, after the bill take effect, you can't legally sell it, trade it or buy a replacement with the same capacity or larger if yours gets damaged. There was a time in this country when the sale of magazines containing any more than 10 bullets was prohibited and it was prohibited under what was called the federal assault weapons ban. But, when that ban was allowed to expire in 2004, firearms manufacturers which you might expect were pretty quick to react. Today, most AR style rifles that are sold in New Hampshire and across the country no longer come with a 10-round magazine. They come with a 30-round magazine that the gun industry in one of the more classic examples of moving the goalpost over the years, now refers to as a standard capacity magazine. In addition to 30 round magazines, 50 round magazines are available and if that doesn't sound like enough you can buy aftermarket devices with a capacity as high as 100 rounds. By making it possible to fire many more bullets without reloading, these devices make weapons that are already extremely deadly, even deadlier. When combined with the high muzzle velocity and accuracy of the weapons they feed, they are capable of creating a rain of fire that not only makes it impossible for most people to flee to take cover or to physically confront the gunman, but they also minimize the opportunity for the victims who are in front of that rain of fire to survive. Between 1990 and 2017, 64% of high fatality mass shootings have involved firearms employing high capacity loading devices. From Newtown to Orlando to Parkland to Las Vegas, were over 50 people lost their lives and over 400 people were wounded in a single incident, the toll has been heartbreaking and it's been devastating. Similar legislation to HB 1608 has been enacted in the District of Columbia and 9 states, some of which it required a tragedy for lawmakers to act. The good news is that states that had the courage to move in that direction, have generally seen that these bans are working. According to a study published last year in the American Journal of Public Health and I think we all have extra reason to like public heath these days, the incidents of high fatality mass shootings in states where these devices are allowed, was more than double the rate than states that have banned them. States without bans have also experienced significantly more high fatality mass shootings and a death rate 3 times higher from such incidents. The study concluded that restricting the sale and possession of large capacity magazines appears to reduce both the number of high fatality mass shooting incidents and the number of people killed in states that have passed bills like the one we have before us today. I urge you to follow the committee's recommendation and vote green for Ought to Pass. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Representative Verville, you may inquire.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative. Representative are you familiar with the incident that occurred in Florida just under 2 years ago. There was a mother and her 2 children at home and a home invasion had occurred, one perpetrator. The mother and the 2 children barricaded themselves in the mother's bedroom closet. The perpetrator entered the room and was going to enter the closet and the woman announced that she was in the closet with a handgun ready to act. The perpetrator didn't care. He opened the door, the wife, the woman, took a 6 round revolver and got off all 6 shots. Five shots landed on the perpetrator and one shot missed. This is very close range. From being barricade in the closet to a perpetrator at the door, with a 6 round revolver, she only got 5 out of 6 on the perpetrator and the perpetrator was able to flee the building, get into his car and drive almost a mile down the road before he careened off the road. When I hear a story like that; I don't know if you are familiar, but you can google it. When I hear a story like that, being a husband.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend? Are we getting close to the end of this story? This is turning into a floor speech.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)I'm a married man with 2 children. It brings me concern that they won't be able to defend themselves against a multi perpetrator type of event. Does that give you any concern with regards to this bill?

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 29)I have no reason at all to doubt your story and the accuracy of what you are saying. Looking back at the bill itself, the bill actually would allow you to have the magazine of up to 15 rounds for a handgun so the bill in no way would have impacted the case in Florida as you have laid it out, if I am understanding you correctly.

Speaker ShurtleffDoes the member want to yield to a follow up question? You may inquire.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. Can you point to any incidents that have occurred in New Hampshire or a problem that currently exists in New Hampshire that this bill addressed?

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 29)Well, I think I can't point to any incidents in New Hampshire, but I think if you would have asked people in other states. If you would have asked people in Nevada maybe 3 years ago, if they could have pointed to an incident like this, I think they might have said no too. A year later, we have over 50 people dead and we have 400 people wounded. I think measures like these are measures essentially of manage, that help us manage the risk that innocent people don't lose their lives to these weapons. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. Representative Baldasaro has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Burt for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know the Vermont AG, state police and local police over there said not to pass this same bill as it cannot be enforced. If I also know, Mister Speaker, that there in 2018 there was 6,470 jobs in New Hampshire related to guns and I support the middle class as there is a $1.4 billion impact to New Hampshire's economy. And, lastly Mister Speaker, I know I am not willing to put my neighbor out of a job and I hope you are not either, would you now press the bright red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Representative Newman for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Ray Newman (D - Hills 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that large capacity ammunition feeding devices increase the number of rounds that could be fired at potential victims before reloading. And, if I know that over the past decade, 5 deadliest mass shootings in America all involved these devices. And, if I know the shootings where these devices were used resulted in twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries per incident on average compared to those that did not include the use of these devices, would I now press the deep green safety button in order to pass this bill as amended?

Speaker ShurtleffThis 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 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 150 members voting Yea and 145 voting Nay, the recommendation is adopted.