The House, Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Rep. Sue Mullen (D - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker I rise today in opposition to House Education's majority recommendation of ITL for HB 1120. This bill is really about two things, quality of instruction and student safety, as they apply to students participating in the Education Freedom Account Program. Many minority members of House Ed, along with their constituents have expressed numerous concerns regarding the qualification and background checks of service providers who are paid with state funds to teach our children in nontraditional settings. HB 1120 addresses a number of these concerns, most specifically assuring that education service providers have a proven track record of both academic success and financial viability, that instructional providers referring to themselves as a school are offering a comprehensive program seek nonpublic school approval as outlined in our current Ed 400 rules. That individuals and programs comply with all the applicable local health and safety standards and codes, particularly those outlined by the 2016 Governors School Safety Preparedness Task Force and that all providers who have direct contact with our children complete, pass and submit the criminal history background check required under RSA 189:13a to the Department of Education. What the bill requires would not be unique to New Hampshire. Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, Washington DC, Wisconsin and North Carolina all have required some version of provision one in an attempt to preempt financial loss or fraud. Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, DC, Louisiana, Ohio, Maine, Maryland, Vermont and Wisconsin all require some form of accreditation or state approval of proposed curriculum to be used that meets states standards. Arkansas has been the guiding light in terms of health and safety standards in response to some horror stories coming out of DC and Indiana. Our own Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules when discussing the Education Freedom Accounts Program, said there is no provision in the statute to require that education service providers get a criminal background check and no stipulation that a negative background check will result in a bar from participation in the EFA program. If these are needed, the statute will need to be amended. So, I stand before you today because EFAs are here and they need some work. Regardless of how any of us feel about the impact of the program on our ability to fund our existing public schools, we currently have almost 2,000 kids participating in a program that has inadequate guardrails, financial stability, measurable educational standards, health and safety first, no criminals with kids. Surely these are not revolutionary or objectionable goals. My concern is that we have put the cart before the horse and that this program went into effect before we had the opportunity to work out all the kinks. It's now going to take all of us to move that horse. Please vote no on the majority recommendation of ITL so that another motion may be made. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardWe are on the final speaker. Rep. Mullen has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. We are on the final speaker. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill was written in relation to a voucher program, but we all know that there are no vouchers in New Hampshire. We have an Education Freedom Account Program that provides a variety of education options for parents, not just going to a different school. The litany of states you just heard, they were all in relation to voucher programs where a voucher is given to a student to go to a particular school. HB 1120 would require Education Freedom Account service providers to have a proven academic success record and have background checks. If an EFA student is going to let's say a private school, that would be the case. There would be background checks. It all sounds good, but with the Education Freedom Accounts, how does a service provider prove academic success or have a background check if they are providing computers to the student or selling curriculum to the student? How about a homeschool mom who is taking in Education Freedom Account kids from the neighborhood? How does she prove academic success for the past year? Is she going to have to get a background check? The necessary requirements for the service providers are in law and in rules, including information about background checks on service providers. The bill requires for service providers do not make sense for our Education Freedom Account Program. The committee voted ITL and so should you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1120. This is a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hall for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Muriel Hall (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe that all public and nonpublic school education programs funded by New Hampshire taxpayers' money must be approved by the New Hampshire Department of Education. And, Mister Speaker, if I believe that all Education Freedom Account providers must be able to demonstrate financial sustainability and measurable academic success. And, Mister Speaker, if I believe that criminal background checks must be mandatory in public and nonpublic schools in order to provide safe learning environments for all New Hampshire students, would I now vote no on the ITL motion and push the red button so another motion can be brought forward?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Ladd for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this bill will require an EFA service provider to comply with a number of conditions that are already required by federal and state laws and recently approved rules. And if I know this bill would even require a mom who is homeschooling neighborhood children to have a background check and lastly, if I know this is one of many bills recently submitted to the education committee to obstruct the EFA program that is providing well over 1,800 New Hampshire students an education that best meets their needs, would I then support education choice by pressing the green button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1120. 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. Members will be in their seats. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 165 voting Yea, 155 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe bill being on second reading and open to further amendment, Rep. Tanner moves floor amendment (1083h). It is in your seat pockets and the Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner. Representative Tanner: Thank you, Mister Speaker. I offer floor amendment (1083h). This bill is about the mask issue, which particularly in schools has been an extremely contentious and divisive issue. HB 1131, the main bill, offers a rigid solution by prohibiting school boards and other public agencies from adopting, enforcing or implementing a policy that requires students or members of the public to wear a facial covering. This amendment speaks to the third section of that bill, which requires teachers not to require masks and puts them in double jeopardy. Either they are following the school board policy, which if they do not follow that policy, they can be fired for insubordination or if they do the opposite and don't require the masks, or do require the masks, they are taken before the code of conduct by the Department of Education and they lose their teacher certification. This is double jeopardy and that's why I would like this part of the bill removed through this amendment so that teachers would not be put in the situation where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThere is going to be a division vote on this amendment so members will be taking their seats. We are at the last speaker. The Chair recognizes Rep. Blasek.

Rep. Melissa Blasek (R - Hills 12)This amendment would, as the previous speaker said, remove the responsibility of the educator to follow the law. So, essentially, a district would never actually make a mask policy if this bill passes because that would be illegal. So, therefore, if an educator, like a principal or a teacher decides to violate this law and implement a mask policy, they should be held accountable.

Speaker PackardRep. Blasek requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote on the amendment. Members take their seats. The motion before us is the floor amendment by Rep. Mullen. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mullen for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sue Mullen (D - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that teachers are expected to follow the direction of their administrators, the superintendent and local school boards or they are considered insubordinate. And, if I know procedures and policies for supervision and disciplinary actions are the joint effort of school boards and bargaining units and not within the control of the individual teacher, would I now acknowledge the reality of the chain of command for our educators by pushing the green button to support the amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that teachers who violate the law or are insubordinate should be held accountable and that this floor amendment would remove that accountability, would I now press the red button?

Speaker PackardThis is going to be a roll call vote on the floor amendment, the Tanner floor amendment. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 152 voting Yea, 168 voting Nay, the floor amendment fails. We are back to the original majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I don't have to tell anyone here, no matter which side of the mask issue you are on, that's it's been extremely contentious and divisive like I said before. We have many bills that are dealing with masks in several different committees. Unfortunately, schools have taken the brunt of much of the controversy. With no clear requirement or support from the Department of Education on how to provide an adequate education, keep students and staff safe during COVID, the COVID pandemic, and at the same time deliver the support, provide the lunches, maintain a safety net, schools, public schools were on their own to come up with solutions and procedures. All of us did this the past two years. Schools tried to make the best decisions based on what information was given them from state agencies, the Governor's office, the State Chief Medical Officer. HB 1131 offers an extreme and rigid solution to the mask issue and then enforces it with a sledgehammer. This bill requires public schools to adopt the policy that will prohibit schools or school districts from adopting, enforcing or implementing a policy that requires students, members of the public attending meetings or coming onto school property from wearing a mask or facial covering. Enforcement of HB 1131 gives any person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this bill, including the Attorney General, the ability to initiate a civil action, a lawsuit, against the school, the school district, the school board or any other public education agency. Did I mention the sledgehammer? Did I have a floor amendment? In section three of this bill is a totally uncalled for attack on teachers. A teacher who follows a mask requirement that might be at the direction of the school, the Governor, the State Medical Officer or the Department of Education, risks being fired for not following employment procedures. If the teacher follows the measure outlined in this bill by not requiring a mask, they may risk losing their teaching credential, their license, their very livelihood by violating the code of conduct. This is making an employee choose between getting fired or losing their teaching license and not being able to teach. This is the true definition of double jeopardy. That is the sledgehammer approach. This is an extreme measure to block a common, proven public health procedure to slow the airborne transmission of diseases. This is an extreme measure that attacks schools and teachers who are doing their best under unprecedented circumstances. This is an extreme measure that puts schools in double jeopardy of meeting their responsibility of keeping students and staff as safe as they can under the guidance of the Chief Medical Officer of our state and the Governor's Emergency Orders and the Center for Disease Control for the Federal Government and complying with this restrictive policy. I urge you to vote red on the OTP for this so an ITL can be offered. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Blasek has requested a roll call. We are down to our last speaker. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is going to be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Blasek.

Rep. Melissa Blasek (R - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. HB 1131, as amended, is first and foremost a parental rights bill. It allows parents and public schools to make the best choice for their child in regard to facial coverings. Proponents of universal mask mandates in schools have yet to conclusively prove that masks are helpful and that they do no harm. To date there have been no randomized clinical control trials of children in masks. Champions of mask mandates might cite the Bangladesh study that not only used, was riddled with severe design flaws, but also found that cloth masks, which are the masks used by the majority of students in schools, had no effect and surgical masks had statistically insignificantly effect. They might also cite the recent CDC promoted survey study of schools but again this study was severely flawed. Of 1,000 people surveyed, they only got 4/10ths of 1% response rate. COVID cases were based on contact tracing, but in many locations, if the student was masked, they were not traced and overall they found a significant rise in all infections in the masked mandated schools. The list of flawed studies goes on from there, but suffice it to say that there is no conclusive evidence that we are helping the students, the teachers or the community by forcing children to wear masks. But over the last two years, papers have started to emerge showing harms to children. There are now studies showing the physical, emotional, psychological and educational detriments to children from mask mandates. Testimony in the hearing for this bill was heart wrenching as parents shared their stories, including a child who attempted suicide and extreme mask anxiety was a contributing factor to her depression. Numerous speech pathologists wrote testimony about the severe speech development harms they are seeing from masking. This cannot be allowed to continue any longer. We are not conferring any benefit to these students by forcing them to wear a mask and we are potentially harming them. The DHHS recently changed their indoor masking guidance and DOE and the Governor announced that the school systems had to drop their mask mandates, but to date, some districts still have mask requirements and refuse to drop them. In addition, several school systems have pledged to mask the children every winter for cold and flu season. I urge you to vote Ought to Pass on this bill so that we can finally end the unscientific and potentially harmful mandates and allow parents to make the best decisions for their children.

Speaker PackardThis will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mullen for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sue Mullen (D - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill, as written, eliminates the superintendent of schools from the chain of command of decision making. If I know that it ignores the board of directors at the chartered public school. And if I know that this bill opens up the possibility of civil litigation by any aggrieved party towards a school, school district, school board or other public education agency and weaponizes the teacher code of conduct. And if I believe that the unintended consequences of encouraging litigation over collaboration will shortchange both our students and our constituents, would I now push the red button to oppose the majority recommendation of OTP/A? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the state has said that masks should be an individual choice. If I know that there was an error on the pink sheet on this bill. If know that for too long schools have ignored the education impact and harm to children of wearing masks all day. And if agree with the recent headline, "The educational cost of face mask coverings is far better established than the benefits of mandates," would I now say enough is enough and press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1131. 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 present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 166 voting Yea, 157 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to table HB 1178. Roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take your seats. The House will be in order. The motion before us is the tabling motion on HB 1178. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bradley for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Amy Bradley (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that keeping firearms and other deadly weapons out of the hands of criminal and criminal gangs is one of the most important duties of both our state and federal governments. And if I know that this bill makes the tough job of federal and state law enforcement officials even tougher, then would I press the green button to table?

Speaker PackardThe House recognizes Rep. Burt for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know what is going on over in the Ukraine. And Mister Speaker if I know that both Democrat and Republican Attorney Generals have opined that New Hampshire law enforcement should not have been enforcing any federal laws. Mister Speaker, and lastly, if I know that I would vote red on this motion? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to table HB 1178. 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 present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 153 voting Yea, 187 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. The question is now on the amendment, (0479h) printed in House Record 10A, page 17. Are you ready for the question on the amendment? The question is on the amendment. If you are in favor, say Aye. If you are opposed, say Nay. The amendment passes. The question now is on the Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Meuse to speak against the committee report.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As amended, HB 1178 is bad public policy that would prohibit state, local and county police from enforcing and cooperating with the enforcement of any US firearms law, federal regulation or Presidential executive order that we also don't have on the books here in New Hampshire. What often gets lost in this debate is that there are relatively few federal gun laws on the books anyway. The ones that we do have on the books are similar to the laws that we have in New Hampshire that make it illegal to straw purchase a firearm on behalf of another person or to provide a gun to someone who is banned from having one. The problem is that existing state and federal laws alone have not been enough to stop criminals specializing in trafficking guns across state lines to other criminals and criminal gangs. That's where the recent efforts of the Biden administration come in. In 2021, the President announced the formation of strike forces intended to sharply curtail significant firearms trafficking corridors that have diverted guns to five major urban areas. Also announced were programs to work with states to gather data on firearms trafficking for policy makers as well as rules that have yet to be finalized to stop the proliferation of ghost guns. Ghost guns for those of you who may not be familiar with them are unmarked guns without serial numbers that are sold as components in kit form. These kits are easy to assemble. Often, they come 80% preassembled and are currently exempt from background checks making them hugely attractive to criminals. Well HB 1178 may have the stated purpose of protecting Second Amendment rights, what it would also do is undermine cooperation between state and federal law enforcement in a very critical area. The result is easy to predict. More guns winding up in the hands of more dangerous criminals. HB 1178 is not about protecting gun rights. Our state and federal constitutions already do a pretty good job of that. What HB 1178 is about is scoring political points by driving a divisive and unnecessary wedge between the state and federal government when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It also has the very real potential of greatly increasing the flow of illegal firearms, including ghost guns into and out of our state. The bottom line is HB 1178 does not make New Hampshire any safer for our residents, our law enforcement personnel or our visitors. Please press the red button so another motion may be made. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Lynn to speak to the committee report.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. We are fortunate to live in a state that strongly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, at the federal level, under the current administration, that is not the case. Indeed, based upon its actions to date, it seems clear that the present administration in Washington regards the Second Amendment as a pesky nuisance, that it would repeal in a heartbeat if it had the power to do so. But since it doesn't have that power, it has set about a course of legislative and regulatory proposals the aim of which is to effectively emasculate the Second Amendment through the strategy of death by a thousand cuts. HB 1178 is designed to ensure that New Hampshire never becomes complacent in that strategy. The provisions of the bill are simple and straight forward. Section one of the bill says that no personnel or financial resources of this state or its political subdivisions shall be used to force, administer or cooperate with the federal government in the enforcement of any federal law, regulation or executive order regarding the regulation of firearms, ammunition, firearms components, etc. that is inconsistent with New Hampshire law regarding the same subject matters. Because, in most states, New Hampshire law enforcement has a long history of cooperating with federal authorities in many areas of mutual interest. Section two of the bill makes it clear that the prohibitions in section one do not apply when federal authorities are investigating someone as to whom there is reasonable suspicion to believe he or she has committed a violation of state law or a violation of a federal law, not covered by section one. Section two also allows state authorities to provide their federal counterparts with publicly available information, criminal history information or information needed to fulfill New Hampshire's responsibilities under the national crime prevention and privacy contract. Under the leadership of the chair and the prime sponsor, the Representative from Goffstown of the Criminal Justice Committee, that committee worked very hard to achieve consensus on this legislation among various stakeholders. It includes provisions, for example, suggested by the New Hampshire Attorney General and by the NRA and gunowners of America, all of whom have reviewed the bills language and are onboard with it. I respectfully ask that you support this bill by pressing the green button. Thank you and Mister Speaker I would request a roll call vote on this.

Speaker PackardA roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The question before is Ought to Pass with Amendment motion on HB 1178. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bradley for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Amy Bradley (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that keeping firearms and other deadly materials out of the hands of criminals and criminal gangs is one of the most important duties of both our state and federal governments. And if I know that the bill makes this tough on federal and state law enforcements and it makes it even tougher then would I press the red button so another motion can be made?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Burt for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Burt (R - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know HB 1178 would prohibit the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulations or Presidential executive orders that restrict or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mister Speaker, if I know over the years on many topics both Democrat and Republican Attorney Generals have opined that New Hampshire law enforcement should not have been enforcing federal laws. And, lastly Mister Speaker, if I know this is a simple concept. State and local police are hired, trained and compensated with the state and local tax dollars. It makes no sense to divert those scant resources to enforce federal laws that if they are to be enforced, should properly be enforced by federal law enforcement, would I now press that very bright green button and pass this common sense Second Amendment bill? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment on HB 1178. 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 present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 190 voting Yea, 147 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Harriott-Gathright to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The amendment as well as the underlying bill is a far reach for an issue that's not there. At the moment, the fair and impartial police policy adopted by various departments state that they will cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), if there has been a valid warrant. Therefore, the amendment creates another issue around valid warrants versus requests. The bill is confusing, vague, and oppressive to many. This bill requires municipalities to violate the 4th and 14th Amendments and will subject these entities to liability for those violations. Remember that a person's presence in the United States in violation of immigration laws standing alone is not a crime. Immigration violations are mostly civil, not criminal in nature. ICE detainers are issued by ICE agents themselves without any authorization or oversight by a judge or other neutral decision makers. ICE detainers are not warrants, but are mere requests. It is not a crime for an undocumented person to remain in the United States. The bill contributes to the rise in hate and injustice perpetuated by national anti-immigrant organizations. This bill undermines community trust in law enforcement and will make New Hampshire less safe, perhaps, maybe less likely, to report a crime or even testify as a witness to a crime, even for domestic violence. It may make the job of law enforcement harder, people afraid to talk and afraid of being deported after assisting law enforcement. This bill makes it illegal for a state or local agency to exercise its discretion, threatening local control again. The bill expects cities and towns to expend resources to enforce federal immigration laws without reimbursement from the state or federal government. The state should not be about controlling the decisions of cities or towns. We love our motto, "Live Free or Die" and that's what most immigrants are attempting to do.

Speaker PackardWe are going to take up the final speaker in a second. First of all, we've had a request for a roll call by Representative Conley. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Abbas.

Rep. Daryl AbbasThank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of the committee's recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1266. For some points of clarification, HB 1266 does not mandate that the police or local law enforcement officials enforce federal laws. It also does not mandate or force or require law enforcement to comply with, cooperate with any detainer requests by the federal government. It allows police to use their discretion when a person is already in custody, someone who has been arrested and charged with a crime. In that situation, it leaves the discretion to that law enforcement agency whether they wish to cooperate with a detainer request. During the public hearing we heard a lot of compelling testimony talking about discretion, discretion and to allow the police to have discretion. The amendment that was just adopted did exactly that. It gave the law enforcement the discretion to make a sound decision on a case-by-case basis. Some communities in New Hampshire have adopted local ordinances or policies where no matter what the circumstance is, the law enforcement body is not permitted to actually cooperate with or honor any type of detainer request by the federal government. And, to put that into perspective, think of a hypothetical situation. You can have a person who is arrested for a misdemeanor under state law and upon investigation while the person is already in custody, can be literally wanted by the federal government for acts of terrorism. However, because of the policy adopted by some communities, that person would be released despite the threat to public safety they may pose. So, please join me in pushing that green button supporting the committee's recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? Member does not yield. The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1266. This is a roll call vote. Members will be in their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Conley for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Casey Conley (D - Straf 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this bill puts local and state police in New Hampshire in the position of enforcing federal immigration laws. And, if I know this bill contains no penalty whatsoever for violating it and therefore is completely symbolic. If I agree with my colleague from Goffstown, that federal authorities should enforce federal laws and state police should enforce state laws, would I then press the red button to defeat this motion?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Roy for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 32)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this law would not cause the enforcement of any law, state, federal or otherwise. And, if I further know that all that this would do is that during the booking process, if a detainer popped up, the police would have the option to contact ICE and not be forbidden, would I then agree with the committee and press the green button for Ought to Pass as Amended? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1266. 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 present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 172 voting Yea, 162 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.