The House, Thursday, March 12, 2020

Rep. Timothy LangThank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, body, for special ordering this so that we can cover this not knowing how far we would get yesterday. This bill is a fairly simple bill. I don't know how many selectmen we have in the room, but currently our constitution requires the selectmen, that's all it says, to attend elections in our town process and state election process. What that has caused to happen is; I'm a town moderator as well. Last night, or Tuesday, I swore in three different selectmen pro tems because my town chooses to interpret "the selectmen" as meaning 100% all selectmen must attend. There are other towns that choose to say that it's the quorum and lastly there is a third set of towns that can't even meet the statutory requirement because, or the constitutional requirement because they have two polling districts. You can either get all the selectmen there or you can get the quorum of selectmen there. They have to have it where they either have a quorum or one. What this bill does is define in statute what it means by "the selectmen" and it defines it as meaning one selectmen is present at town elections at all times. The concept was that under the requirement we have a moderator present, a town clerk present or their assistant and a selectman. So you have three different elected officials overviewing town elections. So I'm asking you to overturn the ITL motion and allow us to define what "the selectmen" means as defining as a single selectman meets that criteria. The attorney general's office has ruled that they think it means quorum. They are not sure because there has never been a case brought in this case so it's up to the legislature to define what it means. I'm asking you to overturn the ITL recommendation and push the red button and allow us to make an alternative motion of Ought to Pass so this bill can move forward and fix these problems with our towns. I think Derry is a town that has 7 town selectmen and yet have 2 polling places so they can either meet the all requirement for each polling place. Four polling places, I apologize. They can neither meet the requirement of all at all polling places nor the quorum so they are automatically violating the constitution as it's done so if you read it that way. So I'd ask you to overturn this and let us set a statutory requirement and define this process and move ahead. Thank you very much and again thank you for special ordering this bill although we probably could have taken it up in regular order. Thank you.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The motion before the House is the majority recommendation of ITL on HB 1299. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lane to speak on behalf of the majority recommendation.

Rep. Connie Lane (D - Merr 12)Good morning. I promise to be brief. While the majority recognizes that this bill is addressing an important dilemma that's faced by selectmen and moderators, the solution flies in the face of Part II, Article 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution. I am a lawyer and while this is kind of nitpicky the committee feels the correct way to address this issue is to do it by constitutional amendment. Part II, Article 2 states that the meetings for the choice of governor, council and senators, shall be warned by warrant from the selectman, and governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence of the selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend) in open meeting, receive the votes of all the inhabitants of such towns and wards present and shall in said meetings in the presence of said selectmen sort and count the votes. The constitution clearly requires the selectmen, plural; I'll skip over the sexual discrimination aspect of it, to attend the voting process and the counting of votes. It does not say that only one selectman may attend. It says all must attend. We have a statute that allows substitute selectmen to be appointed to fulfill these constitutional duties. Unfortunately for towns like Tim described. Excuse me, Representative Lang. Unfortunately for towns with more polling places than selectmen or who cannot find enough substitutes, the substitution provision falls short of a solution. The solution to this problem is to amend the constitution, not to enact HB 1299. Thus, the committee found this bill Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you and I apologize for my transgression.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the recommendation is adopted. REGULAR CALENDAR CONT'D HB 1232, relative to the burden of proof in special education hearings. MAJORITY: REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Sue Mullen for the Majority of Education. This bill seeks to shift the burden of proving the appropriateness of a child's special education placement or program on to the school district, or other public agency. The majority of the committee felt they needed additional understanding of burden of persuasion, production, and the impact this change in law would have upon process efficiency. Vote 17-2. Rep. Glenn Cordelli for the Minority of Education. Currently, the party who brings a case to a special education due process hearing has the burden of proving their case. In most all instances, it is the parents who are bringing cases due to concerns about the special education services proposed for their child. In a U.S. Supreme Court case, the court provided that as the standard, but allowed states the option of shifting the burden of proof. As Justice Ginsburg stated, parents in a hearing are "outgunned" by districts. Districts have resources such as lawyers, staff, and information that are typically not available to parents. This bill attempts to balance the scales by stating that it is school districts that will have the burden of proof in hearings. We owe this to special education parents. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Refer for Interim Study. Majority committee report adopted. HB 1243, relative to the degree-granting authority of an educational institution in New Hampshire. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. Rep. David Luneau for the Majority of Education. The authority for a college to grant degrees in the state of New Hampshire is subject to an act of the legislature. This bill would cede control from the legislature to the Department of Education. The committee believes existing law has worked well and this bill is unnecessary. Vote 11-8. Rep. Rick Ladd for the Minority of Education. This bill, with the proposed amendment, would place in statute a well-defined procedural process regarding the Higher Education Commission's degree granting authority. The bill clarifies and states that no educational institution shall grant degrees unless approved by the higher education commission and then authorized by name to do so by an act of the legislature. It is clearly the responsibility of the higher education commission and not the legislature to receive and approve applications from potential post-secondary institutions wanting to function in New Hampshire. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. Rep. Ladd spoke against. Rep. Luneau spoke in favor. On a division vote, with 177 members having voted in the affirmative, and 135 in the negative, the majority committee report was adopted. HB 1251, relative to participation in school sports programs for female student-athletes. MAJORITY: IN- EXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Stephen Woodcock for the Majority of Education. This bill would subject young students to unnecessary and invasive medical testing, not for any medically necessary reason, but solely because someone disputed their identity. This is blatant discrimination and violates the very protections recommended by the Governor's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion, passed by this legislature, and signed into law by Governor Sununu last year. Beyond our own state laws, this legislation violates Title IX and the U.S. Constitution and, if passed, would subject the state to costly litigation. This bill is a solution to a non-existent problem, goes against years of bipartisan work, and would only serve to exclude transgender youth from full social participation with peers. Vote 13-6. Rep. Rick Ladd for the Minority of Education. This bill saves girls' and women's sports programs and keeps the title IX gains, hard-fought for fifty years, from being eroded. Reports are growing about the number of female athletes who have been bumped from fixed-number teams, who have unjustly had their records broken, and who have lost their scholarships because of males identifying as female. The bill won't deny any student the opportunity to play sports. It will provide an objective way to keep girls' teams for girls. It will keep things just and fair. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. Rep. Mark Pearson spoke against and yielded to questions. Rep. Woodcock spoke in favor. (Rep. Ebel in the Chair) Rep. Notter requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 184 - NAYS 131 YEAS - 184

Rep. Daryl AbbasGood morning and thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to the committee's recommendation of Inexpedient to Legislate. So, I hope and I pray as a society that we all believe that all living people have a right to life, liberty and property and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. HB 1675 clarifies that despite any efforts to terminate a pregnancy, that all children after they are born are entitled to necessary lifesaving medical treatment. At this time, this is already against federal law, however there is no enforcement mechanism at the state level. In addition, what this does do is that it will therefore create a felony if a medical professional does not comply with the law. In addition to that it does create a mandating reporting requirement for anyone who knows or has reason to know that someone in the medical field violates this section. As you understand from my explanation now, this bill doesn't actually put a restriction on anyone's right to seek an abortion or to get an abortion. What this bill does is it addresses circumstances that may occur after the abortion is performed. So, for those that campaigned on the promise that they would support legislation that would uphold Roe v Wade or uphold Casey v Planned Parenthood, if you support this bill, you are not violating or breeching that promise you made to your constituents. You can still be pro choice and support this bill. So if you agree with me, I would ask that you push that red button so that another motion can be made. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes the member from Meredith, Rep. Jurius to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Deanna Jurius (R - Belk 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Inexpedient to Legislation motion on HB 1675. The born alive infant protection act is very simple. It says that if a baby is born, she has a right to life and should be given necessary medical attention. I've heard 3 arguments against such protections and law that I would like to rebut. The first is that this bill is an assault on women's rights. This bill is not about abortion. It's about babies. This bill doesn't place any restrictions on abortion. It means that if an abortion is unsuccessful, if I can even use that word, and a baby accidently lives through a procedure, that baby deserves her best chance of survival. A medical provider cannot just let her die without care. Infanticide is still illegal in our state. No one is allowed to kill a baby, thank God for that. However, a baby who is alive after an attempted abortion can be denied medical care. Any baby denied basic medical care will die and that's what this bill is about. The second is that this bill could be a threat to the health of a mother. A mother who has her pregnancy terminated is at no greater health risk if the baby is accidently alive when he exits her womb. Lastly, this bill puts doctors in a position to have to give expensive care to a baby who is not viable. This bill clearly states and I'll quote, "Any healthcare provider present at the time the infant is born shall take medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant." This bill does hold doctors to a higher legal standard than currently exists, although I would think that the Hippocratic Oath would cover this. It does not ask them to run to the ends of the earth. It simply says that they need to provide medically appropriate and reasonable actions. To vote with me against the committee recommendation is to send a strong message that every individual life, no matter how small of vulnerable, is inherently valuable and deserving of care. It is to say that babies who have absolutely no control over how they come into this world, need to be protected. To vote against the committee recommendation is to vote on the side of babies. Please join me in voting against the ITL motion and stand up for the right to life of all babies in our state. Speaker Shurtleff: The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes the member from Milton, Rep. Rooney to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Abigail Rooney (R - Straf 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Honorable colleagues, I'll be brief. I just want to ask you to consider one thing when you are making your decision about this bill. Regardless of your feelings about abortion, I just want to remind you that we are no longer talking about unborn babies. We are talking about newborn babies. Just think about it. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes the member from Derry, Rep. Prudhomme-O'Brien. Now you can go to the well.

Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This morning's prayer was quite poignant. We were asked to be disturbed. We were asked to push forward with strength and courage and hope and I want to thank you if you have already made up your mind on this issue or you think you have made up your mind on this issue because I am about to bring up some issues that you may not have thought of yet. Maybe you have, I don't know, but they were kind of new to me when I started to think about them just a few days ago. Now, I know that we are a very kind body. I know that the people here are kind and that was shown to me yesterday on a voice vote we passed 1650, which enhanced protections for animals that are killed intentionally. HB 1675 states that any infant born alive is deserving of medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment and requires that abortion providers provide that care. We were told during the committee hearing that this bill is not needed because there is no law in New Hampshire that allows abortion up to birth. Well, this is true. There is also no law that defines a gestational age after which abortion is not allowed in New Hampshire. In absence of that, abortion is allowed at any time during pregnancy in our state. Opponents of this bill also said that infants do not survive abortion and are not born alive and left to die in New Hampshire. But, the most basic abortion statistics in New Hampshire are not known because that industry will not release them. We are repeatedly asked to blindly trust what opponents of this bill say in a manner that would be foolish if applied to any other issue that we were to logically analyze. What am I supposed to think when I meet real people who have survived abortion? Am I to think that they do not exist? Why wouldn't infants sometimes be born alive during abortion procedures now in New Hampshire? Are abortion methods commonly employed now more reliably fatal? That is probably correct and part of this issue, but it would be illogical to assume that the total absence of any abortion information in this state equals the facts. The fact that infants are not now born alive during an abortion in New Hampshire when they have been born alive during abortion in the recent past and in other places. Imagine constantly fighting a narrative that says you do not exist. Milton New Hampshire resident Paula Page is an abortion survivor and she does exist. She will always bear the physical scars of an abortion attempt. Ladies and gentlemen, she's my guest today and she is in the gallery with us right now standing and waving at you if you want to look behind you and see that she's a real person.

Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien (R - Rock 6)When I read NH RSA 132:32, I interpret it as that we do not deny that live births during abortion can occur and that doing nothing to preserve the health and life of that born alive infant is in fact a part of the legal definition of abortion in this state. I'll give you a moment if any of you want to call that up on your devices. If leaving born alive infants to perish is simply part of the current definition of abortion in New Hampshire, I suppose the argument that live birth during abortion don't happen in New Hampshire could be made within that context. It's a stretch in my opinion, but perhaps that is what is meant. After all, with the definition of abortion like what we have, it is hard to know when an abortion is actually over. Is it before a live birth or is it after a live birth? RSA 132:32 defines abortion. Abortion means the use or prescription of any instrument medicine drug or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth or to remove an ectopic pregnancy or the products from a spontaneous miscarriage. That's quite a run-on sentence so I'll parse it. Those that have called up RSA 132:32 on your devices will know that my words remain precise. Abortion means the use of prescriptions, instruments, drugs, any substance to intentionally terminate pregnancy with an intention other than to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth. How did those words get into our state law if they were not exactly what was intended? If infants being born alive and legally being left to die is not what you want in our state, or if you know that your constituents do not want it, please vote against the committee recommendation to kill this bill. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes our last speaker, the member from Durham, Rep. Marjorie Smith.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Mister Speaker, HB 1675 is inflammatory and medically inaccurate. This bill is similar to legislation that has been promoted across the country and in the United States Senate. The United States Senate has recently as February rejected this bill. They rejected it because it drives a false narrative. Harm to anyone, including a newborn, is illegal. It is illegal so let's be absolutely clear. When a child is born, he or she is protected by state and federal laws just like you and just like me. At the public hearing and in executive session, the bill's sponsors and supporters implied that medical professionals are committing egregious and already illegal acts. All medical care in the reproductive health or gynecology field is provided by medical professionals who are licensed by the New Hampshire Board of Medicine and the New Hampshire Board of Nursing. All health care professionals, whether they are in a hospital or in a health care center, are held to the highest ethical standards and, more importantly, to the same laws as every other resident of New Hampshire. Supporters of the bill have argued, if it doesn't happen there is no harm in the passage of this bill, but that doesn't take into consideration the real-life consequences of this bill. We are talking about situations involving a much-wanted pregnancy, when families want to leave the hospital with their newborn child. We have all gone through that ourselves or we know people close to us who have gone to that. You go to the hospital and you want to come home with a newborn child who you will love and cherish and raise. That is universal. It's what keeps us going as a society. There are rare circumstances where an infant might be born prematurely with a health issue so severe that the most appropriate care involves neonatal hospice. Involved in these situations are advanced medical teams with several different specialties, including neonatal specialists. The danger with this bill is that it restricts and dictates the standards of care in very complicated circumstances and it interferes with the doctors' ability to provide the most appropriate care for the family. Doctors afraid of criminal charges could be forced to take infants away from their parents, under the threat of a criminal charge, in order to provide unnecessary medical treatment that only prolongs suffering. This bill would dictate how a parent gets to spend the last few moments of their child's life. Furthermore, there is already a New Hampshire state law, adopted by this body in 2001, that established the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. There was no evidence that it was necessary then, and 20 years later there is still no evidence that it's necessary because that's just not how medical care works. When a doctor is trying to do the best job possible and achieve the best possible outcome for families, for mothers and fathers and babies who are in these incredibly difficult situations, seconds count, and they need to focus on care, not on irresponsible laws that have no basis in medicine and criminalize doctors. This bill is solely designed to politicize the provision of health care, especially for women, and perpetuate dangerous and misleading narratives and criminalize doctors who are providing compassionate care for their patients, mothers and babies. New Hampshire has traditionally upheld the values of privacy regarding personal medical decisions. Passage of this bill would be redundant, unnecessary, and would take away parental choices during devastating times. I urge you to support the committee's recommendation of ITL. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to legislate. Rep. Baldasaro 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. Members are reminded, those who haven't already done so to turn on your voting machines. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Notter for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jeanine Notter (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that I have more than once interviewed the nationally known abortion survivor, Janna Jensen. And, if I know that this bill is not about abortion until birth, but about babies like Janna who survived an attempted abortion. And, if I know that appropriate medical care would include neonatal hospice as mentioned in the remarks of the previous speaker. And, if I believe with all my heart that the life of a tiny helpless baby is precious and worthy of protection. Lastly, Mister Speaker, if I know that besides Janna Jensen, abortion survivors nationwide, including the women sitting in the gallery with us today have persuaded me of the need for this legislation, would I then press the red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Burroughs for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Anita Burroughs (D - Carr 1)Mister Speaker, if I know that when any infant is born in the State of New Hampshire, that that infant is already protected by state and federal law. And, if I know that doing harm to an infant or failing to deny that infant medical care is already illegal. And, if I know that an abortion only pertains to an embryo or a fetus and does not pertain to an infant, would I then press the green button to vote this bill Inexpedient to Legislate? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. 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 177 members voting Yea and 131 voting Nay, the recommendation is adopted.

Rep. Chris True (R - Rock 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, HB 1148 is a very simple bill which allows the posting of our country's national motto inside our New Hampshire schools. This bill simply allows the posting of our national motto and most certainly it does not demand it. If a school doesn't have the funds available, civic organizations or other nonpublic groups can cover the costs of a durable poster or a framed copy of our country's national motto. Some people have said that we should not post our country's national motto in consideration of the feelings of those who might be offended. So, what would we do with these some people? Shall we not post our national motto? Shall we remove "in God we trust" from our currency? Shall we erase from our oath of office "so help me God?" Shall we ask our House Chaplain to please refrain from saying the word "God" while offering our prayers? Shall the New Hampshire House of Representatives cease citing the Pledge of Allegiance? Some claim they are offended. Please allow me to say this, sticks and stones may break my bones, but there will always be someone who claims something offends them. In closing, please allow me to share with you a pearl of wisdom that my father gave to me when I was a young man. Christopher, he said, do not let people (expletive heard on recording) on you. They'll try to. They'll say you should do what you're told. You should not think for yourself. You should just follow the leader. Don't let people (expletive heard on recording) on you. I'm asking you today, please overturn this ITL so that we can help ensure that our schools in New Hampshire can proudly display our national motto. Please press the red button and don't let anybody (expletive heard on recording) on you.

Speaker ShurtleffExcuse me, member. We have fourth graders that come in here. Did I just hear you use a four-letter word that we normally don't use? I ask the member that because we have children come in here. We have people my age that feel offended when they hear language, especially from the floor of the New Hampshire House. I would ask the member in the future, and other members, to watch their language and speak appropriately. I missed it the first time. I was told by the Clerk. Please, in the future, as a man of faith, I expect more from you than maybe some others.

Rep. Chris True (R - Rock 9)I apologize, Mister Speaker, and I do say this was a 2 � minute speech.

Speaker ShurtleffBless you for that, but as we go forward, please be cautious. I know the member has a lot of passion when he speaks from the well. If I misunderstood, I apologize to the member. I heard a different word.

Rep. Chris True (R - Rock 9)If I have offended someone, let me say this. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but there will always be someone who claims that something offends them.

Rep. Chris True (R - Rock 9)In closing, please allow me to share with you a pearl of wisdom that my father gave to me. Christopher, he said, don't let people should on you. They will say you should do what you're told. They will say you should not think for yourself. They will say you should just follow the leader. Don't let people should on you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe House will be in order. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes the member from Center Conway, Rep. Woodcock to speak for the recommendation.

Speaker ShurtleffPlease come down to the well and state it. We had this discussion a few weeks ago.

Rep. Walter Kolodziej (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I think after the rundown you gave that individual, you owe him an apology because he was not saying. He did not say what you thought he might say. He said something different. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jeanine Notter (R - Hills 21)I don't really know what I'm being recognized for but I was just going to talk to you because I thought I heard that word too, but I saw the look on the Representative's face and he has no idea what we were talking about. The Representative in the front row heard the word that he thought he said.

Speaker ShurtleffWe are going to move along. I thank the member from Merrimack. We are going to move along. Hi Jack. We are going to move along and call up the next speaker. The admonishment on language goes for all of us at all times. As I said, we have heard things that have got very close so be very cautious in what we say. State your point of order.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. You know, Mister Speaker, I do admire you.

Speaker ShurtleffI know. You are one of my biggest fans. I appreciate your letters.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)At 6 foot 3, however, you and I have had numerous discussions about the tone from the rostrum here. I have his speech and it does say should. I think you owe him an apology.

Speaker ShurtleffThat's been asked. Thank you and keep sending those letters. The question before the House is on the recommendation that the bill be Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes the member from Center Conway, Rep. Woodcock, to speak for the recommendation.

Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D - Carr 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Display of the national motto, In God we trust, HB 1148. As a veteran I would like to tell you that this is a patriotic bill. It's an American bill, but it's not. It's a bill that basically just lacks substance. If you read the minority report, the Representative from Haverhill wrote that this bill does not mandate anything. That's his words and he is correct. HB 1148 states that the school board may. There is nothing currently in law that I'm aware of that states the school board may not. I suppose you could bring up the historic conflict between church and state, but I won't go into that or the need to spend funds to create the signs for each school building in the state when school money is at a premium, but I won't go into that. In my short tenure here I have heard over and over again that some of the wise sages on the education committee have said, "Why do we continue to make rules and laws that we don't need?" HB 1148 is exactly one of those laws. As I quoted from the minority report, this bill does not mandate anything. I urge you to vote ITL and press the green button and may we not make more laws that we do not need. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. Rep. Notter 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 recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Elliott for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)Mister Speaker, if I know that the phrase "In God we trust" is not a Christian motto. It is not a Jewish motto and it is not a Muslim motto, but rather was not a religious motto at all. And, if I know that it is a phrase that the United States Congress first used in 1864 when a Civil War was being waged and over 600,000 Northerner and Southerners were killed in battle. And, if I know that Congress was sending a message because the slogan defined us as a nation. I also know that it wasn't until July 31, 1956 that President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law declaring "In God we trust" to become the nation's official motto. And, if I know that no other nation in the world is there a private citizen that would say or write or even dare to think about such a motto without the fear of horrible consequences from a dictatorial leader. And, if I know that we have had Presidents from Washington onwards that believed in a divine providence to use Washington's words, which was some kind of an unknown powerful force that has guided our nation for the past.

Speaker ShurtleffWould my friend from Salem just suspend for a moment? This is a very informative PI, but it is going on a tad long so if we are getting close to the red button part, that would be much appreciated.

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)And, if I know, Mister Speaker, that to remove such a precious motto from our historic past, would send a message to our enemies that we are indeed a godless nation. And, if I know that by saving this sacred motto for our children and our children's children and for all future Americans, we would send a message to the whole world that this day, this hour, this moment, we would be telling them the truth, that we Americans still trust in God. And, if I know that to do otherwise would be act of betrayal to our ancestors and to the entire United States of America. Push the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThank you. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vallone for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mark Vallone (D - Rock 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the motto "In God we trust" is well known throughout this country, having been printed on billions of dollar bills for decades. And, if I know that there is no need for this bill as schools are not prevented from displaying this motto. And, if I know that this bill promotes a motto that was only adopted as law in 1956, which also ignores that our original national motto was "E pluribus Unum," out of many, one, which was first printed on the great seal in 1782, would I not press the green button to ITL this bill?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. 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 182 members voting Yea and 131 voting Nay, the recommendation is adopted.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of HB 1251, relative to participation in school sports programs for female student athletes. This is one of those bills where for myself I see so much the need to be careful, to be wise and to be loving. I was ordained an Episcopal priest 45 years ago and over the years I have enjoyed all kinds of people in the congregations I've served. For 26 years now I've worked alongside my wife in a medial counseling center we established and during that time we've enjoyed all kinds of people as medical patients and counseling clients. We strive to keep them all safe. Now I have long held the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King in high esteem and underscoring that you cannot get a doctorate in theology from Boston University without hearing a lot about Dr. King because he received the same degree at the same place. Let me read something he presented to the annual convention of the National Bar Association on August 20, 1959. He noted that there were some in the civil rights movement who wanted to punish white people by depriving them of some of their rights, but Dr. King said, "In an effort to achieve freedom in America we must not try to leap from a position of disadvantage to one of advantage, thus subverting justice. We must seek democracy and not the substitution of one tyranny for another," and he concluded, "So I would recommend to you a way of love." This was a difficult balance to achieve, but what were the alternatives? Continued racism on one hand or an extreme kind of black power on the other? Dr. King wanted justice and justice for all and justice for all achieved through love. Fifty years ago part of the Federal Education Amendments gave justice to females in school and college sports. It was recognized that female athletes could not biologically compete with males in sports requiring strength and endurance. More female teams were needed, but there was pushback. Some schools claimed they couldn't afford more teams. A few even attempted to drop some boys teams so they would fund the girls teams and thereby inflame some against those girls teams. But for the most part girls and women got their sports teams. They would not have equal opportunity to benefit from the high value of personal growth, collaborative support, recognition and leadership development that comes from athletics in all female teams so they could not be disadvantaged by competing with males who have a biological advantage. Those of you who are golfers know immediately of different places to tee off for males and females. Now putting this justice at risk today is the demand that biological males subjectively identifying as females be included on female sports teams. It has actually been said, it has actually been said that this bill is a solution to a nonexistent problem. Even a superficial reading of the news proves this to be false. Even listening to those who have been disadvantaged when testifying here and to the other body proves this false, not to mention some of those disadvantaged who didn't get a chance to testify to either committee. A growing number of schools' biological males with average scores on their male teams are outscoring the best females when they join the female teams. Some of them have testified before our committees. Others have given written testaments and copies of newspaper articles and a literature search yields even more information. Some girls, because of all of this, are losing their school and state records. Some are losing their scholarships, but it isn't just about elite athletes. What about the mediocre girl who made her team but now will be bumped because her team has a fixed number of people? Political commentator Peter Boyles of Denver references a woman in one of those extreme sports that I can't stand to watch who is badly injured by a transgendered female. It has been alleged that this bill will keep transgendered girls from participating in sports and I have been screamed at on several occasions you're keeping my daughter off of sports teams. What it would do is require people to be on the team of their biological sex. There is a team available, but not a realistic availability is for a biological female to join a male team and I think we know why. These people, the biological females are the ones at risk of not having a team. Well when I point this out to those who have screamed at me, their response is I don't care. By contrast we heard the words of Dr. King. Some people have objected to the procedures used to establish objective, not subjective markers as being insulting and invasive, but one of those procedures is a simple cheek swap. No test is needed under current New Hampshire law because a birth certificate can determine what team the athlete is to play on and how are hormonal injections and genital surgeries not invasive? I recall the physical exams I had to take when I wanted to be on the junior high track team. Turn your head and cough being one that was often done. I was extremely embarrassed by that year after year, but it was part of qualifying to be on a team. This bill is not about disadvantaging transgender individuals in sports any more than that law 48 years ago was about shrinking the number of male participations in sports. Mister Speaker, just as the Education Amendments Act or Title Nine was tweaked several times, I'm sure that sports organizations will find ways to accommodate transgendered wishing to play sports without destroying the intent of the original act or turning the clock back to the dark ages of women's sports. Shall we be recording this voting for that? Maybe we can as Dr. King said, "Seek democracy and not the institution of one tyranny for another." Thank you, Mister Speaker and I call for a roll call.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Flanagan, you may inquire.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker and I won't use any naughty words. To my friend, with approximately 9400 physiological differences between male and female, how does a female athlete compete against a transgender woman?

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Not very well and we have growing evidence to that. We have records that have been taken away. We have now people who are no longer their state champions because of those differences.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? Rep. Horn, you may inquire.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the kind Representative for taking my question. This isn't about a subjective philosophy. This is about an object of consequence. Have you heard the stories of female athletes being injured when they are up against a trans athlete?

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Representative for the question. Yes, I have and I referenced Peter Boyles research, which I guess he's put on his website documenting with some detail of this.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes the member from Center Conway, Rep. Woodcock, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D - Carr 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. It is difficult to understand when you read the title of a bill, participation in schools sports program for female student athletes. Why the bill would create such contention and emotion and objection. Seems pretty clear to me we want women on women's teams and we want men on men's teams. Of course we have coed teams and they have both men and women on the same team and we have unified teams with students with intellectual disabilities, which are both men and women on the same team and they don't discriminate by gender. But basically the bill sounds okay until you get beyond the title. The analysis of the bill says the bill prohibits public schools from permitting a male student to participate in a student sport designated for females. When you go deeper into the bill it specifies interscholastic, intramural, primary, secondary, higher education. Think back for a minute. Intramurals, we've all played in intramurals or had children who played on intramurals. We've watched youngsters running around, sometimes most of them totally lost in intramurals. They have limited skills; they have a lot of fun. They are playing with their classmates. That's intramural sports. Do we really want to legislate that a 3rd grader can be sent to a doctor for a medical exam to check their internal and external reproductive anatomy to verify their gender? What are we possibly thinking? I question why this only applies to males and not the reverse. What about females playing on boys teams. Most of us recognize that there are many highly skilled female athletes that would put males to shame, not because of their gender, just because they are better athletes and they happen to be female. In reality I don't think the bill really intended to regulate little kids playing intramural sports as part of some elementary after school once a week program. Discussion about 1251, it did include the federal law Title Nine. Yes, Title Nine does many things and has been extremely helpful at leveling the playing field, but the focus of Title Nine back in the day when it came in was about equity. It was about smaller things, equal school budgets for men's basketball and women's basketball, about the same number of games per season regardless if it was the boys teams or girls teams. It was about the same amount of funding for supplies. If boys had $500 for new uniforms, girls should have $500 for new uniforms. It was about coaching salaries, men's sports, girls sports, baseball, softball. That was the real backbone of Title Nine. That's where the equity came in. It may seem odd that I'm standing here supporting this bill, but let me give you a little context. I had the pleasure of coaching organized sports, women's sports, at both the high school and collegiate level for over 20 years, pre and post Title Nine. As a dad of a female athlete, both in high school, multiple sports in a four-year single sport starter in college, I value women's sports. I recognize the limited opportunity of women in sports have had over these past decades and I understand the inequities that persisted and they still continue today. Wouldn't you think that equalizing the playing field for all students is the purpose of 1251? But it isn't. The bill is about one thing and one thing only, prohibiting students that are trans athletes from playing on a girls team. That folks is blatant discrimination. These girls are girls. Let me repeat that. Trans girls are girls and belong on a girls team. By the way, trans boys are boys and belong on a boys team. We have heard about the isolated trans girl athlete that apparently is physically stronger than the bulk of her teammates. That's true and those are on rare occasions. We don't create laws to fit the outliers. We make laws for the masses, for the people and we know that trans athletes that take, most take puberty suppressive drugs as they transition and this disparity of size rarely happens. Those are the facts. Those are what we know. New Hampshire's public schools athletic programs are regulated. They are regulated by the NHIAA, which has sound transgender athletic policies. They are already in place. For those of you who may not know, the NHIAA, all it is, is the principal and the athletic director from every single high school in the State of New Hampshire and their job is to create rules that ensure fairness and sportsmanship, equity and safety. The NCAA also has rules to regulate transgender athletes. The fact that 1251 is placed right after discrimination clause is offensive. Section one of the antidiscrimination law that we all read, we all passed and the Governor signed. No person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination in public schools because of their age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, color, marital status, disability, religion, national origin. So why are we, the legislature, trying to step in and establish an athletic participation law that negatively impacts all of our students? It overrides the leadership of our high schools. I will tell you this. This law is not in the best interest of our students. It wasn't designed to limit boys on girls teams. That's not what was designed. It is merely a wolf in sheep's clothing and was designed to keep trans girls from participating with their friends on their appropriate team. It is discrimination plain and simple. Please do not use your vote to support discrimination. Thank you. Vote green on HB 1251.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Would the speaker accept a question? No. The question before the House is the adoption of the committee report of ITL and Rep. Notter has requested a roll call vote. Is that seconded? It is adequately seconded. There will be a roll call vote. All members please take your seats. The House will come to order. The question before the House is the majority committee recommendation of ITL on HB 1251. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will. I'm sorry, we have a lot of changing of the guards going on here. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ladd for a parliamentary inquiry. I apologize.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This PI was written by my daughter who is an elite athlete at Texas A&M and my granddaughter who recently ran the American East Championships for the University of Maine and did a superb job and came in second. Here is the PI that they put together. If I know the challenge for schools and athletic associations is to provide equal opportunity and fairness for all students to participate in athletics. And, if I also know the intent of this bill is to maintain fairness in girls' sports and not to tear down equality gains made by Title One. And, if I further understand by allowing males to participate in female athletics, achievement and gains made in women's sports in activities such as soccer, track, swimming and more will be shredded, would I then press the red button to support protecting fairness and our Title Nine? Thank you.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is the majority recommendation of ITL on HB 1251. The Chair recognizes Rep. Myler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mel Myler (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I believe that there are thousands of New Hampshire students currently involved in interscholastic sports and know that transgender students participate in them without incident. If I believe that the vast majority participate in sports for the love of the sport, the competition, the teamwork, the feeling of belonging without the goal of receiving an athletic scholarship. If I believe that the issue in 1251 is not about Title Nine, but is a civil right to participate in teams sports. If I believe that 1251 has an extremely punitive section in proving a student's gender, would I now press the green button and support the committee's ITL recommendation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is the majority recommendation of ITL on HB 1251. Now, this is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 184 Yeas, 131 Nays, the motion of ITL on HB 1251 is adopted.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I haven't done that in many years. I rise to oppose this bill. Once again, this bill violates Part First of our constitution in a couple of sections, certainly 2 and 2A. We have certainly a right to possess property and of course this is a violation of our right to have firearms also. As I said yesterday and I misstated the rule, our House Rules at 44 (d) reads, no committee shall report with a positive recommendation any bill or resolution which would, if enacted, be a violation of any article of the Constitution of New Hampshire or the Constitution of the United States of America or grant broad rulemaking authority to an agency or department. The vice chairman or another member of each committee shall review all pending legislation and shall advise the chairman and the members of all legislation before the committee which should be reviewed in terms of this Rule. Now, somehow this got through the committee and it's not only a violation of the constitution, it's a violation of the rules. I wasn't recognized for a motion, so I can't do that, but I can tell you at the very least you should want to vote no on this bill.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. Representative, are you aware that the New Hampshire School Board's Association came out against this bill?

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you for the question. I do believe I heard that and I'm not surprised. We all know that gun-free zones are very dangerous places and I would think that they would like to protect the safety of the children. The safety of the children is not just their physical bodies. There is a real serious problem with terrorizing children and making them live in fear like they are going to be attacked. These drills, and we will get to that on another bill. These, I've got to find friendly words, these thoughts that they are being given are terrorizing them and this is a very harmful thing. They are not in danger in their schools. There is a recent video you can find on YouTube that tells you through statistics that a child is in more danger if they get a ride to school in their car with their parents. That's more dangerous than riding the school bus and riding the school bus is more dangerous than being in class as far as possibilities of some sort of gun violence. So, nobody thinks anything of putting their child onto a school bus, but we terrorize them that sitting in class someone is going to come in and kill them. This is horrifying and I guess that's a long answer to a very good question.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The Chair recognizes Rep. Horn to speak in opposition to the majority recommendation of OTP/A.

Rep. Werner Horn (R - Merr 3)Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, thank you, Madam Speaker. So let's talk practicality for a second. What this bill does is it prohibits people from being armed on school property in direct violation of a federal statute that allows for people who are lawfully permitted from carrying firearms, which means any citizen who has gone through the permitting process would be restricted from carrying their firearm on school grounds. This is important only if something happens. Everyday activities, an ordinary existence, this has no effect, but in Florida there was an incident where there wasn't business as usual, where there wasn't ordinary existence, where having somebody armed as the first person that they criminal encountered would have resulted in a different outcome. There is no question that if the first person that individual encountered when they came onto school grounds with murder in their heart, the outcome changes. And furthermore, when somebody authorized to carry on school grounds showed up in Florida at this institution they sat outside and did nothing for 10 minutes while the body count rose, unacceptable. Unacceptable that anybody would make our children less safe. There are places in the world where mortal danger is a fact of life, where automatic weapons are carried by citizens on a daily basis and nobody bats an eye. There are no horrific exchanges of gunfire in the streets so let's put that nonsense to bed. There is the recognition that the best way to stop somebody from committing harm with a firearm is by somebody shielding with a firearm. This bill makes our kids less safe. It makes people in a community buy into the illusion that they are safer with something like this in place and if this committee report is upheld, your vote is going to be contributing to that illusion. Your vote won't make them safer, but your vote will make them feel safer. So, let's err on the side of practicality. Let's not deny our communities the ability to defend themselves with absolute matching force if that's what's required to keep our children safe. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is the majority recommendation of OTP/A on HB 1285. The Chair recognizes Rep. Burt to speak in opposition to the majority recommendation.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, HB 1285 is antigun. Madam Speaker, I want to mention my mother because back in the day she kept us safe. When she sent me to school, this was in the 60's and 70's, she knew we had guns in our schools. When I got to a certain age, I could carry one. Nobody cared back then and guess what Madam Speaker; we never had a school shooting? There were very rare incident of that so I want to thank her for keeping me safe. Madam Speaker, I know last year the School Board Association did oppose this. I'm hearing conflict stories that they opposed it this time. I heard that the antigunners got a hold of them and whipped them into shape and said you are not supporting it this year so I don't know if they did or not this year. But the reason they did last year is because they did not want this to happen. It's in Section B, II of the bill and it says a person authorized by name and in writing by the school board can carry a gun. Now the problem with that is, is that we have a lot of schools, Hanover and other areas like that, that would never, never vote to allow anybody to carry a gun. Now I do not know in Hanover if any teachers are carrying because none of them called me, but many teachers have called me throughout the state and said they carry. They will do what it takes to make sure their children are safe because just like down in Texas, Madam Speaker, at that church, it was over in 6 seconds. The bad guy pulled the gun out, shot one person, he was going to start shooting again and luckily there was somebody there with a gun that put a bullet in him and dropped him to the ground, stopped it instantly, 6 seconds. That will not be the case at our schools when, if this passes, when a school shooting happens. I also understand, Madam Speaker, that both sides of parents, a lot of parents that are antigun do not support this and a lot of parents who are progun do not support this because they understand the reality of real life. You make our schools gun free zones and you might as well just put a big banner out there saying hey crazy nut, we are open for business. Madam Speaker, last year I got gaveled. I hope you're not going to gavel me, but last year I did mention about you know whoever votes for this, you know that there will be a school shooting and the blood of those dead children and dead teachers will be on the hands of the people. Now, I'm not going to say that, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)Watch your statements. Please continue, but be respectful to the House.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)I am, thank you, Madam Speaker. So, I'm not going to say that, but what I am going to say is that this isn't going to work. We are one of the safest states in the nation. Our schools are the safest schools in the nation and why I believe that is because the people out there that want to do harm to us and to our children understand that we carry guns. That it's not going to be an easy target to just walk into our schools. They don't know which schools carry and I'm not going to tell you which schools told me that the teachers are carrying. Well the actual school didn't say it, the teachers called and told me. That's why they oppose this bill, some of them. So, Madam Speaker, if I know my friends that sit in the cheap seats will vote against this and I hope that you will join me. And, Madam Speaker, I'm not sure if you hear me when I holler roll call up there so I'll say right now that I do want a roll call on this so I hope that you will really look at this. That this is not going to make our schools safe and once the opposition gets up and says that a school board can authorize this, yes, they can according to the bill. Bottom line is they won't. I know many schools that won't so what that will do is it will remove guns from the teachers that are currently carrying that want to protect our children to the end. They are willing to do what it takes. I want to thank those teachers for being that brave because that is brave. I pray that they are never put in this situation, but they are willing. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. I want to present you with 2 scenarios because that seems like what we are really talking about here. We are going to hear about how people are shot in schools and maniacs go down there with guns and try to shoot as many people as possible. So, let's just explore that for a second and I'd like you opinion on which scenario is more logical. Someone gets up, some nut decides he's going to go down to a school and shoot and kill as many people as he possibly can. He gets his gun, he gets his bag of ammunition, he gets in his car and drives to the school. He sees a sign that says gun free school zone. Now, this is where the question comes in. Is he more likely to say damn it I'm willing to murder people but I'm not going to commit a misdemeanor by carrying a gun on school grounds and go home or is he more than likely to say great no one else has a gun but me, I can go in there and shoot away with impunity?

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you for that question and it is the latter. He will see that gun free zone and he will say great, I've got plenty of time. Like in Columbine, there were 2 policemen there with guns and the kids that did the harm knew where they were so they started at the other end. So, they are not dumb. People that are going to do this harm will continue so press the red button. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is the majority recommendation of the committee of OTP/A on HB 1285. The Chair recognizes Rep. Luneau to speak in favor of the committee report.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. HB 1285 is directed to the possession of firearms on school property. State law is not sufficient to enable New Hampshire law enforcement officers to prohibit the possession of firearms on school property. This bill prohibits possession of a firearm on school property while allowing exceptions for law enforcement officers and persons specifically authorized by local school boards. This bill would enable a school building administrator to ask a person who is not authorized to carry a firearm on school property to leave and to contact local law enforcement for intervention if necessary. We've seen similar bills before but this one is a little different with better definitions and privacy protection for those persons who are exempt. Please support the committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended by pressing the green button. Thank you.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is the majority recommendation of OTP/A on HB 1285. Rep. Baldasaro has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. All members please take your seat. Members will please take their seats. The House will come to order. The question before the House is on the majority committee recommendation of OTP/A on HB 1285. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ladd for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I know this bill violates the 2nd Amendment, our right to keep and bear arms. And, if I also understand this bill includes all school property as well as nonschool property used for school purposes and through this provision a law-abiding carrying adult passing by or watching a school activity on a community field, would unknowingly be violating and receiving a Class A misdemeanor. And, if I further know this bill will not make schools safer or deter those from doing harm, would I then defeat the bill by targeting the red button? Thank you. Deputy Speaker Ebel: The question before the House is the majority recommendation of OTP/A on HB 1285. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. If I know this bill gives clear definitions of which areas are included in limiting the possession of firearms on school properties. And, if I know that this bill allows law enforcement officers on duty or off duty, members of the armed forces and authorized persons to carry a firearm on school property. And, if I know at the present time when an unauthorized person with a firearm comes to a school and to that secure door at the front with a buzzer and buzzes in, the secretary does not know and has no way of knowing whether that is a good person with a gun or a bad person with murder in their hearts with a gun and the result usually is a lockdown drill. And, if I know that with this bill the principal or the person in charge will have the ability if a person shows up with a firearm to call the police, the police can be contacted and intervene if necessary, would I press the green button to support the committee's recommendation? Thank you.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is on the majority recommendation of OTP/A on HB 1285. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 182 Yeas, a 141 Nays, the motion passes.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I guess I can get away with saying anything at this point, but I won't. Climate change. This is an interesting topic because of course we know that climate change is, it always has for as long as the planet has been spinning. Now when we talk about teaching climate change, we are talking about teaching manmade global warming. It's changed its name and it's now the climate crisis. Frankly, this is another issue where children are being terrified. The world is going to end because of climate change, putting them in a panic and we wonder when the world is going to end when a 5-year-old is going to be 15, how suicide becomes such a problem. These kids are in despair and they are in despair because of the propaganda which is being fed into them.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend. Someone has raised a point of order. The member will come down to the well. Go to the well and state your point of order.

Rep. Christopher Herbert (D - Hills 43)I think the speaker needs to provide citations for some of your opinions.

Rep. Christopher Herbert (D - Hills 43)I'm hearing your statements without facts so I.

Rep. Christopher Herbert (D - Hills 43)I have children and I haven't noticed that they are committing suicide at any elevated level so I just think to keep it on a level keel. So my point of order is make an effort to be believable.

Speaker ShurtleffLet the Chair say. The House will be in order. You're not back in junior high school. This is the New Hampshire House. Let me say the facts are like beauty, it seems to be in the eye of the beholder. As I say there are three sides to every story, your side, my story and the truth so it's somewhere in between. We take people at their word when they say something but we ask them to be cautious and whatever they say on the House floor that they have some basis in fact. The member may proceed.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Let me give you a bit of science fact. If we go back oh 12,000 years, I think it was. There was somewhere between a mile and 2 miles of ice up there. The seacoast was out, I'm sorry, off the top of my head, 400 miles. The sea level was 200 meters lower. These are off the top of my head so accuracy, I'm sorry, it could be off. I certainly could be challenged, but we have to understand that this globe keeps spinning, things change, asteroids.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member will suspend. Members may leave the Chamber to go out to the anteroom, but please do so quietly. The member has a right to be heard. The member may proceed.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So the idea of this curriculum being handed down from the state level. Curriculum is traditionally a local matter. We don't feed this down from the top. In fact if we would have children learning from a local school, we would be better off. So, to feed them something that is not science fact based then we're not giving them information, we are just indoctrinating them into a system of thought that the teachers believe. There is science and we should stick to science. This anthropogenic global warming was a twisted piece of science. It started with a question not of how the climate is changing, if it is. It takes that question, the initial question that started all of this is not what affects climate change. It was let's look and see what man's effect is on climate change. That was the original question and that question said don't look at anything else. Forget about that sun. We don't want to hear about that. We want to know what's the effect that man is having. Now, that's the science and that's where it started and to teach children something that is not science is just plain wrong.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill is recommended for Interim Study. The Chair recognizes the member from Litchfield, Rep. Boehm to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Ralph Boehm (R - Hills 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Interim study what? It's not the legislatures job to put curriculum into law and you can read the minority blurb to see why. But anyway, during the hearing, I asked the question as to why a 1,000 years ago the Vikings were farming in Greenland as it was a whole lot warmer then, than it is now. The answer from a retired science teacher said that never happened. It is documented fact and the years 900 - 1300 is referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, like I said, was warmer than now. Sea ice decreased during those centuries so sailing from Scandinavia to Greenland became less hazardous. Longer growing seasons made it feasible to graze cattle, sheep and goats in the meadows along the sheltered fjords of Greenland's southwest coast. This is also proven in the icy cores in Greenland. They'd then travel from Greenland to what is now Canada or Nova Scotia and some evidence that they brought wood back to Greenland. There are probably 5,000 people and 620 farms which they now find below the frozen tundra. Buildings are still there. Then what happened in 1257 or so, a major volcano erupted in Indonesia that triggered the start of the mini ice age. A bishop who traveled from Greenland about 1350 found that the settlement was completely abandoned. That is church documented history. By the way, none of this ever shows up in any global warming scenarios as it messes up their narrative. More recent, it was documented in 1922 that the ice pack again was breaking up and was reported that the seal population was being hurt. In 1912 more proof of that the ice pack was breaking up and that iceberg was further South than it should have been and that's what the Titanic hit and most of us remember the 1970's when it was reported an ice age was coming, probably by the same scientists that now push the climate change narrative. NASA scientists have reported that another cold spell is coming. They were quickly shut out as again it wasn't part of the approved narrative. The point of all this is that any curriculum of climate change should be climate history and maybe that will be discussed in Interim Study. More carbon dioxide in the air results in more plant life. Also something to consider, when sea ice melts, the sea level doesn't change. The ice is already in the sea. That is elementary school science, but at this point, what difference does it make? So, Mister Speaker, I ask for a voice vote and I'll vote yes. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill be referred for Interim Study. The Chair recognizes the member from Epping, Rep. Vallone, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Mark Vallone (D - Rock 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of the House Education recommendation to refer this bill to Interim Study. HB 1635 would mandate instruction about climate change in all public-school grades pre-K through grade 12. The majority of the committee agreed that climate change is something that is important and should be taught in schools. The question was about whether legislation was needed and there were some concerns about how prescriptive is was like mandating so many hours in the various grade levels and mandating certain topics. So, the majority of the committee believed that this type of approach runs counter to how we've done education curriculum at the state level. We believe that further investigation is necessary, maybe to help school districts in developing their own effective science curriculum using such documents as those found in the National Science Teaching Association framework for K through 12 science education. So, that is why the majority of the committee suggested Interim Study. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill be referred for Interim Study. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the recommendation is adopted.

Rep. Timothy LangThank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill is a permitted repeat of a bill from last year that eliminates a simple requirement to establish one's domicile when voting. And, further Mister Speaker, if I know that this requirement to show proof of a domicile is less arduous than that required of Real ID's or other simple financial management tools such as credit that we use every single day. And, Mister Speaker if I know that this bill repeals a valid authorization of the state office in charge of our elections to work with other states to check for duplicate voter registrations because I know that while clerks are required to notify prior jurisdictions of new voters, they are not always able to. And, finally Mister Speaker if I know that the primary focus of this bill is subject to litigation in our courts that has recently been completed a very long trial process and is now complete and submitted. We are just waiting for the written trial court decision and such decision will provide guidance for our future legislation, would I now press the red button so another motion can be made?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ley for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this bill would repeal SB 3 which created a new and quite complex voter registration form and required voters who register within 30 days of an election to complete onerous paperwork.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend for a moment? Members should be in their seats. We are in the voting mode. It's like we are playing musical chairs. The member may proceed. Thank you for your cooperation.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'll start over again.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)I know people want to hear. Mister Speaker, if I know this bill would repeal SB 3 which created a new and quite complex voter registration form and required voters who register within 30 days of an election to complete onerous paperwork. If I know the 30-day cutoff is completely arbitrary and serves no legitimate purpose. If I believe the qualifications for the fundamental constitutional right to vote should be equal and whether someone registered to vote last year, last month, last week or this morning is irrelevant to those qualifications, would I now press the green button to support this bill and a return to clear, logical requirements of voters? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. 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 191 members voting Yea and 129 Nay, the motion is approved.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker this was a hard bill for me. I was the only vote that said no in committee. What this bill does is if an EMT, policeman, fireman, medical technician, commits suicide. If they are working, you know, they have to be working, employed and they commit suicide, the state taxpayers will give their loved ones $100,000. Now, I'm not opposed to that part of it. What I opposed to is that we are paying somebody, well not somebody, we are paying their families to commit suicide. Suicide in my eyes, Mister Speaker, is very sad. I cannot imagine being that low in life where that is your only option, especially when there is help out there, but I guess when you get to that situation you are not looking for that help. So the other thing that I looked at, Mister Speaker, and one of the reasons I voted no is because we can't, nobody else I guess the military from what I understood in committee, they are doing it, but private insurance, nobody else. You commit suicide they are not paying. I just think that this is setting a bad precedent. Now, if we opened it up where everybody had to pay private and everybody else, I'd had to look at it different. But what I'm looking at, Mister Speaker, was what happens if the individual that fits in this criteria is a major gambler. We have that problem here in New Hampshire. So, with that said, what would happen if they were in debt over their eyebrows and they said you know what, my kids need to go to college and everything else. I don't know if this would happen or not.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend? Why does the member rise? Did the member rise for a motion? You have a point of order. Please state your point of order.

Rep. Catherine Sofikitis (D - Hills 34)My brother was a military man and he killed himself and I don't like how you just classified that as paying people to commit suicide. I am so offended by that right now. Don't roll your eyes at me, Representative.

Speaker ShurtleffThe member has stated her point of order and her point of order is taken. The member will proceed.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)I did not roll any eyes. But, Mister Speaker, again suicide is very sad. It was hard for me to vote no on this because I understand, not that I, you know, again thank God I'm never there. What I'm looking at is the gambling side of it or any reason other than just the depression side. I don't want to have an option where that $100,000 would be worth the risk of what the person would do so that is why I voted against it and I hope a couple of you will also. 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 Salem, Rep. Abbas, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of the recommendation of Ought to Pass that was 18-1. I just want to thank the co-sponsors as well, the former first responders as well as the communities working on this bill. To simplify what is otherwise a very difficult subject, HB 1122 will allow a surviving family of first responders to cover the line of duty death benefits if the first responder where to pass away by suicide. I was motivated to put this bill in after the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee went on a tour of a facility where all the New Hampshire firefighters receive their training. We were told that in 2018 eight first responders in the State of New Hampshire committed suicide and first that number just jumped out at me and seemed it was clearly higher than the average. The consensus was that the figure related to the stress and PTSD that is associated with first responders facing traumatic situations on a regular basis. Under the current law, if a first responder were to suffer a physical wound and be hospitalized for several months and eventually succumb to that wound, they would still receive the line of duty death benefits and to me if it is a psychological wound leading to a mental health situation that ultimately results in suicide that relates to the stress of their profession, I didn't see any way to distinguish the two. To me they are simply passing away from the wound that they sustained. This principle is not unheard of. It is identical to what the United States Military follows. I understand that there is some questions people have of what this bill could possibly motivate other people to do and I will say that thought crossed my mind and I came up and testified before the committee, but I also did the math and the math behind that doesn't make sense. Taking the sensitivity of the subject out of it, simply put, a first responder, not even counting any overtime, would basically make $100,000 within probably a year and a half or maybe two years. The financial part of that doesn't really line up so I don't believe this bill will encourage suicide. I certainly would not have filed this bill if I thought that for a second. What this bill does do is it puts the family members in a better situation so they can at least, obviously they are going through a traumatic situation, but they will be in a situation where they can make the arrangements to address what is clearly one of the most devastating situations this family will go through. We also heard testimony that when someone reaches the point of being suicidal, it's unlikely they would even consider the financial ramifications of their actions. The reason for that is that is really is an introverted decision as opposed to something considering other people around them. What I would say is if you join me passing this by either a voice vote or pushing the green button, we will be one step closer to being the first state in the country to actually pass a policy such as this one. I know we often hear people speak, whether in committee or testifying or at the well over here of what other states do, I think this will put us in a position where other states will talk about what New Hampshire did and model their law after ours. I would ask you to support me in having this bill passed. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWould the member take a question? Rep. Baldasaro, you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and the veteran community and I was fortunate to sit on the first responders study commission. Learning a lot, the fire and police go through the same PTSD and mental issues that the veterans do. Very far and in between kill themselves over a card game. I have to disagree with my friend. Like fellow veterans I know that committed suicide, would you believe that this is very important because the state for many years pushed mental health aside and did nothing until recently with the past commissions?

Rep. Daryl AbbasI agree with that. I think the state has taken several steps obviously trying to prevent suicide, but also addressing the mental health issues that go with suicide. 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 Manchester, Rep. Proulx to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Mark Proulx (R - Hills 44)Good afternoon. I will try and make this as brief as I can. Many of you know I am a firefighter, but what you may not know is that I run the critical instance stress debriefing team or stress management team for the state. I've been doing that for 30 years. What that team does is go out and help police, fire, EMS any emergency responder that has a bad call and helps them get through it. We have mental health people. We do peer support. I've been doing this for 30 years. I've seen the uptake of suicide for our first responders. Why is that? The human body is designed to handle a certain amount of stress. Luckily, most civilians never reach that. They may have one or two bad instances in their life, but unfortunately first responders are called to go and see and do those things that nobody else wants to do. When I left this Chamber yesterday, I responded to a local fire department because they had a 14-year-old that went into cardiac arrest. The woman who did CPR on them only saw her child. She can't tell me what that kid looks like. So, yes, we have this issue that our first responders are getting beat up and what has happened for years is that when we said hey, I think I'm having an issue about that call, we were told to suck it up and get back on the truck. That taught them that it is not okay to ask for help. We are trying to change that stigma and as you heard my friend, Baldasaro talk about the commission on PTSD. We started there, we made, this body passed a bill that said if you have PTSD it is presumed to come from your job unless proven otherwise. That was the first step in saying listen, we know you are doing this really tough job and that PTSD comes from your job. Not from something else, not because you are weak, but because of your job. This is the second part that says because God forbid, we help, ask for help for PTSD. If we ever talked about having suicidal tendencies, oh my God, right? That was even worse because that was the dirty little secret. If you had someone in your department that committed suicide, you were not allowed to wear the uniform. You couldn't take the department car, right, because that was really bad so that is a big stigma we have to change and this bill does that. This bill says we want to help you before you get to that point, right. We are going to help you with your PTSD and if you start thinking you have suicidal tendencies, please reach out and get help. We will help you, right. That old thing about well, I'll commit suicide for the benefit of $100,000, really. When they are falling into that blackhole that they see no way out, except for suicide, the last thing they are thinking about is $100,000, right. Because they don't want to leave their family, but that is the only way they see out. So, please and also, private life insurance doesn't pay for suicide. Yes, we are following the military model because they pay any soldier, military person that commits suicide, they get their benefit. So, please vote to pass this and take care of our first responders who are always taking care of you. Thank you.

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

Rep. Josh Yokela (R - Rock 7)I hear a lot of discussion about PTSD regarding this bill, but I don't see anything in the language of this bill that directs it towards a connection between the suicide and the PTSD that may have been acquired through their work. Is it any type of suicide for any reason or do they need to be diagnosed beforehand with PTSD before this would kick in?

Rep. Mark Proulx (R - Hills 44)So, any line of duty death has a very intensive investigation, right. Yes, there is presumption in this that suicide is caused by your work unless they can prove otherwise, right. There may be some underlying issues or past history that may be there and that is for the investigating body to determine.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested. Is the roll call seconded? It is seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. McGuire for a parliamentary inquiry. The House will be in order.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I'm concerned about the moral hazard of paying first responders for suicide. And, if I am absolutely horrified by the idea that we would establish that suicide is normal for first responders, would I now press the red button? Thank you.

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

Rep. Mark Proulx (R - Hills 44)If I know that this bill will help the first responders get the help that they need by making it okay to seek help and that we understand that this is a bad byproduct of their job. And, if I know that if the system fails our first responders and one of them completes the act of suicide, that there will be a small benefit for their family to help them get through. Please, please push the green button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. 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 275 members voting Yea. Why does the member rise? We haven't finished the voting. We will get right to you, but let me finish and I'll recognize you. We are still in the voting mode. With a vote of 275 Yea and 42 Nay, the motion is adopted. REGULAR CALENDAR CONT'D HB 1228, proclaiming Climate Change Awareness Day on October 1. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. Rep. Sallie Fellows for Executive Departments and Administration. This bill directs the Governor to proclaim Climate Change Awareness Day every year. This proclamation includes asking citizens of New Hampshire to consider the unique environmental and economic impact climate change is having on our state. The committee amendment changes the date from October 1 to April 22, creating an opportunity to combine the local perspective with the global perspective of Earth Day activities. Vote 11-8. Amendment (1034h) Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following: AN ACT proclaiming Climate Change Awareness Day. Amend the bill by replacing section 2 with the following: 2 New Section; Climate Change Awareness Day. Amend RSA 4 by inserting after section 13-aa the following new section: 4:13-bb Climate Change Awareness Day. The governor shall annually proclaim April 22 as a statewide day of climate change awareness and shall urge state and local agencies, academic institutions, communities, and individuals to mark the day with events and activities designed to promote greater awareness of the effects of climate change. The governor shall call upon the department of environmental services, the fish and game department, and the department of education to promote the statewide event as an educational opportunity to share regional and statewide concerns about the environmental, economic, health, and safety effects of climate change.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to try to stick to 4 points in about 4 minutes. This is not a crazy bill. This is a bill that they have been operating with in Arizona. They found that they needed to add some quality standards to their bill so they amended it. I, as I introduced my bill to the committee, brought forward with it at the same time an amendment to make sure that the quality standards that was required by the Pathology Association of New Hampshire were attached. What does this bill do? This bill respects the principle of my body, my choice. What it does is it lets you as an adult go and ask for your own lab tests for diagnostic purposes. It does not, it's an enabling piece of legislation. It doesn't require the lab to provide the test. It doesn't require the insurance company to pay for it and it offered immunity for the physicians who took care of that patient but were unaware of the lab result. So this was just to handle the situation like I was in where I went nine months without health insurance before the VA picked me up. I knew I needed A1C testing. I didn't want to pay for a physician. I knew what my diagnostic ranges were. I just needed my medical information. My body, my choice, and I wasn't allowed to get one. So, this would allow that. The other thing, if you look at our current situation with the pandemic. I was at the Auburn town meeting on Tuesday and a trauma surgeon from the ER at Elliott came by and talked to me and he said that would be great right now with the Coronavirus is once the tests are available, if people could go and directly get access to a test without coming into the providers office because when they come into the providers office they've got to put on their personal protective equipment and it gets to be a big deal. Then there is a bill so there are times when we can actually do a lot of good to avoid panic and bottlenecks by letting people go get their own diagnostic testing done. Then in the future. What's going on in the future? We have wearable diagnostic devices. Some people think of them as Apple watches or Fitbit, but increasingly the technology is going to allow these wrists watches to do tremendous amounts of diagnostic testing in real time and connect it into a virtual health care environment to where those results are being stored and reviewed. So what this bill does is, because of my body, my choice, a need to be able to handle the pandemic situations differently and to have clinical structures as flexible as the technology is going to be there to drive us, I would ask you to vote red on this ITL so that an amendment can be introduced and we can pass this. Thank you.

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

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Representative, thank you for taking my question. Aside of the Coronavirus, which people may get hysterical taking tests, but is there another underlying assumption that these are more educated potential patients and also it could save money in the long run?

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you for the question. I'd say, I meant to speak a little bit to the cost savings question earlier when I mentioned that this would allow a patient or individual to go get a test done without going through the health care system and incurring the charges. I do think there is a long-term cost savings as a result. To the other part of your question that dealt with the extent to which an individual is intelligent enough, I think you used the word intelligent enough, to take a look at their own lab results, I would say that there is a significant subset of our population who, if they know they have an underlying medical condition, that they are more than smart enough to interact with their providers, to interact with other information that is available and to become aware enough to be able to get themselves in to see a provider if it looks like they are out of range. So, I don't know that you need to be particularly intelligent because if you have an underlying condition, you have a lot of motivation to get smarter.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The Chair recognizes Rep. Knirk to speak in favor of the majority committee report.

Rep. Jerry Knirk (D - Carr 8)Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill would allow a person to obtain a laboratory test from a clinical laboratory without a request or authorization from any medical provider. It's important to understand though that laboratory tests are just part of the diagnosis of a medical condition. Diagnosis lies primarily on the history and the physical examination and then the laboratory test is generally done to confirm the suspected disorder. For any given laboratory test with a range of values you would find the range of normal such that 95% of people fall into that range which means that 5% of perfectly normal people will have an abnormal value. Many screening tests have significant false positive and false negative rates in the normal population. So when a false negative occurs, a person may be lulled into a sense that there is not a problem leading to a delay in seeking care for a condition. A false positive may drive that person to seek care when there is no real clinical problem increasing visits to a provider thereby increasing the workload of a provider and increasing medical costs as false positive results lead to a diagnostic cascade of unnecessary repeated tests and additional tests to reassure the person of the absence of disease. In addition, most providers will actually place an order for a person to get a lab test in the future or will order one as a response to a phone call from a patient from whom they already have a relationship. There were concerns with this bill stating the provider would not be held responsible for the results of a lab test they did not order, but this violates the standard of care of providers to act upon abnormal test results in the chart regardless of who ordered the test. Please support the 16-4 majority vote of Inexpedient to Legislate by pressing the green button.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)This is a division vote. All members please take their seats. A roll call has been requested. Is that seconded? It's been sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the ITL motion on HB 1275. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. I'm going to do it again. The Chair recognizes Rep. Pearson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I know that the medical staff of the Family Practice Medical office of which I am part time CEO is in favor of this bill. And, if I know that because of increasing Internet accessibility many patients are highly knowledgeable about their personal well-being and health. And, if I know that such advances as wearable diagnostic devices are providing diagnostic information to people right now, which is leading forward thinking medical offices to adapt to the growing practice of information brought to them by their patients. And, finally if I know that at least one other state has allowed patient directed ordering of laboratory testing and has found this to be quite successful, why, then Madam Speaker would I not say no to the motion of Inexpedient to Legislate so another motion might be made and do so by asking for the red button to be pushed? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Deputy Speaker Ebel: The Chair recognizes Rep. Knirk for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jerry Knirk (D - Carr 8)Madam Speaker, if I know that the diagnosis and treatment of disease requires more than just a laboratory value. And, if I know that the result of a lab test alone without the context of a history and physical may lead to problems of misdiagnosis and also unneeded provider visits and over testing. If I know that providers already will order appropriate future lab studies for management of chronic diseases in patients known to them, would I then press the green button to support the committee recommendation of Inexpedient to Legislate?

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 5)The question before the House is on the ITL motion on HB 1275. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 189 Yeas, 123 Nays, the ITL motion on HB 1275 passes.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker I oppose this bill because it will remove liability from gun manufacturers. Some of you may understand that gun manufacturing is a rather large piece of the economy in New Hampshire.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend for a moment? If members want to speak, please go out to the anteroom. The member has a right to be heard. The member may proceed.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)So, the firearms industry. It's a big business in New Hampshire. If we enact this law and I'm sure it won't make it past a certain office, this would devastate the economy in this state and I don't think anybody here wants to be on record for it and I suggest there is going to be a roll call so vote red.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Andrew Bouldin to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Andrew Bouldin (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. No industry should be above the law, but especially not one that produces deadly weapons. Please support the Ought to Pass motion.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the Ought to Pass. Rep. Janvrin 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 recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. The House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Burt for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know Sig, Ruger and many other manufacturing companies are located in New Hampshire and even one in Goffstown. And, if I also know I do not want to force those businesses to move to North Carolina or any other Southern state. And, lastly, Mister Speaker, with those companies leaving that will affect the middle class and the good paying jobs that comes with that. And, Mister Speaker, you know me, I support the middle class. Lastly, Mister Speaker, would I now vote with my friends in the cheap seats and press the red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Altschiller for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that when the manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers of firearms and ammunition are negligent in their fundamental duties to act with reasonable care toward public safety, the public should have access to the courts to seek remedy. And, if I further know that when a product fails or is misused and causes harm to citizens, they should have access to the courts to seek remedy where the courts would then decide if those citizens can establish a standing. Finally, if I know that the automobile industry, computer industry, food and pharmaceutical industries do not enjoy this special carve out from being found responsible for negligence that the firearms industry enjoys, then will I support HB 1143 and open the courthouse doors to those with standing harmed by this industry's negligence by pressing the green button?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. If you are favor, you will 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 for and 126 against, the recommendation is adopted. Rep. Timothy Smith declared a conflict and did not participate.