The House, Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Labranche to speak against the committee amendment.

Rep. Tony Labranche (I - Hills 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker and honorable colleagues I rise today to oppose the committee amendment on CACR 15. The underlying CACR, as the title would suggest, would allow a 17-year-old to vote in the primary elections if they are 18 by the general election. I oppose this amendment for multiple reasons. First, it completely guts and replaces the bill. Secondly, I believe that the underlying bill would actually pass with a bipartisan majority as the underlying bill was actually sponsored by the majority whip and the Member from Londonderry who currently serves as the Chair of State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs back in 2015. It was also sponsored by other members back in 2019, most notably the Member from Goffstown who currently serves as the Chair of the New Hampshire Young Republicans. The underlying CACR is also supported by the New Hampshire Legislative Youth Advisory Council, while the amendment is opposed by the council. That is why I ask all of you to vote down this amendment so that we can debate the substance of the underlying Constitutional Amendment and pass it with a bipartisan majority. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Barbara Griffin.

Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you to the Representative for bringing the issue before the body because it is always great to learn something new about processes in the House because once a bill goes to a committee, it is the committees. We know that in all of our committees. We, as committee members, then control what goes forward in a bill, whether it is related to the original subject or not, after a hearing on what amendments might be nongermane. That is indeed as you just heard what happened in this amendment. This Representative from Goffstown didn't think that the underlying bill had much chance of success before the House. This Representative from Goffstown often disagrees with other Representatives from Goffstown and that is the point of this debate, of this hall, of this microphone. So, the amendment that's brought before you is to raise an issue for your consideration indeed about elections, about voting and who should be voting in them. I actually disagree that it was nongermane, but we followed the process and that is the bill that is before you today and I ask that you support the amendment so that we can have a debate on the underlying issue that is before you now by the majority vote of the committee. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is committee amendment (0735h). Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. Members will take their seats. Who is requesting a roll call? Rep. Berry is requesting a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is the vote on the amendment to CACR 15. This is the vote on the amendment. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 192 voting Yea, 163 voting Nay, committee amendment is adopted. The motion before us now is Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lane to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Connie Lane (D - Merr 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The majority's stated purpose in the committee of this amendment as amended, CACR, is to place the current statutory definitions of "resident," "residency" and "domicile" into the constitution so that it will be harder to change them in the future. The minority feels that this CACR is unnecessary precisely because these definitions are already in the statutes. But more importantly, if we are going to amend and put these definitions into the constitution, then let's do it right. The language should be drafted thoughtfully and carefully so as not to create more confusion about an issue this body has argued about for years and in court. If passed, there will be five qualifications to vote in New Hampshire. You must be a citizen of the United States. You must be a citizen of New Hampshire. You must be domiciled in New Hampshire. New Hampshire must be your primary residency and you can only vote where you are domiciled. So, let's look at the second and fourth requirements, both of which introduce undefined terms into the qualifications to vote in New Hampshire. Nowhere are the terms "primary residency" or "citizen of New Hampshire" defined, not in the CACR and not in the statutes. The term "primary residency" implies that there might be a secondary residency or other types of residencies. What does it mean to be a citizen of New Hampshire? How is it different from being a citizen of the United States? Must you be a citizen of the United States to be a citizen of New Hampshire? Is New Hampshire going to start issuing passports, as one who testified on the CACR inquired? This CACR creates unnecessary confusion and will actually prolong the debate over the definitions of "domicile" and "residency." If passed in its current form, not only will it be more difficult to amend the bill, but it will insert even more uncertainty into the already protracted debate regarding what "domicile" means vis a vis "resident." Thank you.

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

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'll keep my remarks brief since a CACR requires twothirds. Mister Speaker, the Election Law Committee is attempting to put to bed the endless debate in New Hampshire over who should vote in a New Hampshire election, the old domicile, residency state of mind. We are trying to put that to bed. Mister Speaker, we are saying that if New Hampshire is your primary residency you get to vote here. We asked people testifying on this bill how many people do you think this will stop from voting in a New Hampshire election? They said well, realistically none. Why? Because you should already be a resident if you are voting here. Voting is an active residency. So, Mister Speaker, this is a common-sense reform and the question before us is who should vote in a New Hampshire election, residents of New Hampshire or residents and nonresidents of New Hampshire. So, Mister Speaker, if you believe that nonresidents should be voting in New Hampshire elections, oppose this. Mister Speaker, if you believe only residents of New Hampshire should be voting in New Hampshire, then you should vote green.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 15. This is a roll call vote. Members will be in your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Muirhead for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Russell Muirhead (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that CACR 15 would not resolve ambiguities.

Speaker PackardCould the Representative suspend for a minute? Good to go.

Rep. Russell Muirhead (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that CACR 15 would not resolve ambiguities but would actually introduce new ambiguities into the venerable New Hampshire Constitution of 1783. And, if I believed that CACR 15 might impede ballot access for voters who move frequently because their housing is insecure, would I press the red button so a new motion can be made?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Barbara Griffin for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this legislative body in multiple prior sessions has considered bills for statutes which can be changed by this body addressing the qualifications of voters. And, if I know that the New Hampshire Constitution provides for domicile qualification, while in statute at this time "domicile" and "residency" have been defined and made equivalent. And, Mister Speaker, if I agree that having these terms in our constitution is important today and, in the future, to make sure that only legally qualified persons of New Hampshire are voting in New Hampshire, would I now press the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 15. 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, 165 voting Nay. It did not meet the three-fifths requirement of 235 so the motion to pass fails.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. What this bill does, is it protects those who do not want to participate in abortions or sterilization or artificial contraception from any discrimination in the workplace based on that decision. It's titled the rights of conscience for medical professionals. Now I believe the rights of conscience should apply to all people. First, in this case, doctors and nurse practitioners already have the protection of the AMA code of medical ethics and most employers make accommodation for those who object to certain procedures, which means for those medical professionals, the bill is not needed. Secondly, let's look at the terms of the bill. The definition of medical professional is so broad that it includes those who are manning the reception desk and those who clean the floor of the surgical suite. It's basically everyone who works in any kind of medical establishment. The definition is so broad, that if someone wanted to act maliciously, could seek employment at a reproductive health care center and then be hired and assert their right of conscience. And what would happen then? Well, despite not doing the job for which they were hired, they could not be terminated because the bill says that termination constitutes discrimination. And, what happens if you discriminate? The bill creates a new right of civil action and the recovery against the health care center would be a minimum of $10,000 plus costs, even if the employee was perhaps asserting the privilege wrongly. That's a lot of burden on what are normally small businesses. But here's the part that I particularly object to in this bill. All persons should have a right to act in accordance with their conscience and sometimes that's difficult. People have lost their jobs over it and people have died for it. It isn't always easy and, in this case, what we are doing is on the one hand we are affording an absolute guaranteed clear easy way for people who believe in one course of action to act in accordance with their conscience. They are protected. People who believe that, as a medical professional, as an act of conscience they must help a woman who is past 24 weeks of a problem pregnancy who is making the most difficult decision she will ever make in her life with the help of her family and her medical professionals. Those medical professionals are currently legally forbidden for acting in accordance with their conscience. So, on the one hand we have people whose consciences are protected and on the other hand we have people whose consciences have a legal barrier. That is just wrong. I ask you to press the red button so another motion can be made.

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

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Conscience is a precious thing. I think most of us have seen the documentaries about the unspeakable things that doctors and their staffs were forced to do in Nazi Germany. And yet one hears that in numbers of states medical people are forced to participate in a procedure that as they and I understand it is the taking of an innocent human life. There are numerous places where abortion is practiced but is a small portion of what is being done. This bill would allow persons of conscience in this matter to keep their jobs there, not disrupting the facility while allowing....

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. The member has a right to be heard. The member may continue.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill would allow persons of conscience in this matter to keep their jobs, while allowing others to stand in for them in those procedures only. I've heard several objections to this bill. First, these protections are already there in law. If that's the case, then no one has anything to fear for us making it a bit more explicit, do they? We are not adding anything. We are just making these protections that we are told are already there in the law just a little bit more explicit. It's an abundance of caution. A phrase we have all been using. Second, we've been told no medical professional in New Hampshire has ever been put in job risk for that. You have not spoken to the people I have. Next, during the hearing, I was asked as prime sponsor of this bill, would I be willing to include other medical procedures in other kinds of professions. Thank you to my colleagues across the aisle for bringing that up. My response is over the summer I shall be happy to work with my colleagues in my committee who pose these questions so we can file some bipartisan LSRs. Fourth, this bill is signed into law. The objections say would lead to a reduction in the number of capable medical people coming to work here in New Hampshire and thus our quality of care would suffer. We should discount such fear mongering. The fact is for many years Massachusetts had a bill just like this, actually with tougher penalties and yet continued to draw good people to practice medicine and was consistently rated as having one of high quality. I've discovered that states with laws like the one proposed here, have drawn many quite capable pro-life medical staff. Maybe even we would get better for allowing such conscience here. And, finally it was suggested that an individual might join the staff of a facility where abortion is the main procedure performed and then once they start asserting rights of conscience. It does not take much mental acuity to know that no pro-life person would choose to work at such a place. I close with a quote about Nazi Germany made by Martin Niemoller, a German Lutheran Pastor about how people of conscience have to stand up for each other even if their issues differ. These are the words that are found on the US Holocaust Memorial. "First, they (meaning Nazi's) came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionist and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend for a minute. I think the testimony is getting a little bit off base. If we can bring it back to the bill itself.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Yes sir. People of conscience, Mister Speaker, need to stand together and I ask people to stand with me on this because there may well be a time next time when I'm being asked to stand with you. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass. This is a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass on HB 1080. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that our constitution tells us that rights ought to be reciprocal and I know that to favor the rights of conscience of one group of people over the rights of conscience of another group of people is just wrong, would I press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Layon for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know an aspiring doctor, nurse or other health care professional has very little say in what procedures they participate in and no law to cite today if they're asked to violate their conscience by terminating by what they believe to be an innocent life. And, if I know that potential care providers decide early when they decide to take pre-med classes or not what path they are going to go down and we don't know how many future nurses, doctors and other health care professionals don't enter this profession because they are afraid they may have to violate their conscience in this way. And, if I know if those tasked to do no harm should not have to undergo harm themselves in order to do their job, would I then press the green button in order to pass this bill?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass on HB 1080. 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. 175 voting Yea, 165 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardFor what reason does the member rise? State your motion.

Speaker PackardThat is a proper motion. A roll call has been requested by Rep. Greeson. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. This is a roll call vote. The motion before us is to table HB 1180. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cannon for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D - Straf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker and fellow Representatives, over the past three years we have heard a bill...

Speaker PackardRepresentative, this is a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D - Straf 12)If I know over the past three years, we have heard similar bills about transgender people in sports. In the past two years, those bills have gone nowhere. If I know that the transgender population and the medical staff working with them, as well as our school systems and even the collegiate environment are making changes to the policies that allow transgender girls to work, to play and to work with other straight girls, would you please vote with me and table this bill? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Mark Pearson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that 60 years ago Title IX was put into law so that girls could compete with boys, women with men in a much more equal way than they had before. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that we are seeing an increased amount every time this bill comes by there is more and more and more cases of champion girls who are now losing to people who, as on male teams didn't win much at all. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill is not telling schools what to do, but allowing them to have their local decisions, would I now not press the button against tabling? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the tabling motion on HB 1180. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 167 voting Yea, 169 voting Nay, the tabling motion fails. We are back to the amendment, which is (0959h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Mark Pearson to speak against the amendment.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. When this amendment was first crafted, it represented knowledge that we had having spoken to correctional officials and since then, however, we have learned that in a few places around the country, certain laws have been put in place. And, when that has come, the kind of problems that occur when fixed laws replace flexible policies, we want to preserve what we have now with our flexibility because one size does not fit all. Inadvertently, the amendment will weaken this. We have just discovered this and so I am strongly suggesting that we vote no on this amendment.

Speaker PackardRep. Gould has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. This will be a division vote. Members take your seats. The question before us is the adoption of the amendment (0959h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mark Pearson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker and pardon me for the confusion. Once again, my PI is if I know that the amendment, when we first put it together was brilliant. And, if I know subsequent knowledge that has come to us have said that this could be counterproductive, would I not press the red button against the amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Betty Gay (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the goal of this amendment is to protect women's sports. And, if I know this bill without the amendment could allow carding or blocking trans people from public bathrooms. And, if I know this bill without the amendment could also complicate the job of New Hampshire corrections, who already must follow federal requirements for safe incarceration under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 or PREA as they call it. And, if I know that women and girls participating in sports with trans women, teens and adults deserve to compete against people whose transition started before they reached male strength, as advocated by Caitlyn Jenner, then wouldn't I support this amendment by pressing the green button? I request a division vote. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the vote on the amendment (0959h) to HB 1180. This is a division 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. 170 voting Yea and 170 voting Nay, the amendment fails. The question now is on Ought to Pass, the majority of Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I guess they are coming for me. This bill is all about discrimination plain and simple. The few transgender children who participate in sports with varying athletic abilities, size, shape, as much as other youth do. Some youths have outstanding athletic ability, some not so much. Gender identity shouldn't play a role in the opportunities that we give students in all activities and courses we offer in school, including sports. There are governing bodies at all levels of sport competition that regulate seasons, rules and eligibility to participate in sports. At our high school level in New Hampshire, it is part of the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association. This association that oversees all high school competition in the state has concluded that it would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to applicable state and federal laws to preclude a student from participation on a gender specific sports team that is consistent with the public gender identity of that student in his or her school and community. Local schools are charged with verifying that the school district has determined that the expression of the student's gender identity is bona fide and not for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in competitive sports. If you think a high school boy would suddenly put on a skirt and tryout for a girls' team, it just doesn't happen in high school. I taught in high school for 30 years. School sports at all levels should be centered on inclusion, education and participation. There is ample evidence that an opportunity for adolescents to participate in sports results in positive outcomes such as better grades, better work in class, self-discipline, higher educational and occupational aspirations and improved self-esteem. Youth learn a lot of lessons in sports. I coached for many years. They learn to get better, to have a role on a team, they learn sportsmanship, leadership, hard work and they learn to be gracious in winning and to be resilient in the face of defeat, which some of us could take a lesson on. This is all discrimination, okay? It's not about a safety issue. I taught for a long-time co-ed high school Phys-education and for over 30 years I had no concerns with safety. It's not about coed competition. We had coed competition in classes and there were as many girls that did well as boys. It's not about fairness, which is an elusive term when the tallest basketball player on my team was 5'4" and the other team had a 6' center because there will be differences not related to gender identity. It's not about winning and losing because eventually you meet some team or some person who will be better than you, worked harder or just had a lucky day. NCAA and the Olympic Committee, where competition is a little bit higher, have other rules and regulations but they also let transgender people identify and play in sports. So this bill is giving permission to schools and governmental agencies to deny a young person the ability to participate based on their gender identity, their authentic self, who they think they are, how they feel and that is wrong to deny that. As a country, as New Hampshire, we have made our nondiscrimination laws a statement how New Hampshire treats people in protected classes and transgender people are in a protected class. I believe that discrimination is wrong and that everybody should have the ability to succeed in our public schools and life. Everybody. Don't come for them. Thank you.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. We had an amendment that took away 2/3rds of a very bad bill, but that failed, so I'll tell you about the 2/3rds of the very bad bill that remain. One of the things that, one of the areas that people would be allowed to assign people only to their biological sex, if they chose to do that, is in the prison system. The rationale for that was transgender women who had not completed their transition, being in prison with females. So, here is the problem. What we should be doing for our prison population is making sure that absolutely everyone is safe. Every single prisoner. We know that because we just had the bill about the youth development center. We need to keep everybody safe and the way of doing that is not assigning somebody who is partway through a transition from male to female back to a male prison. That's not safe. The other thing is that it is not fair to put all the burden of safety on transgender people. What we ought to be doing in the prisons is to ensure the safety of all the prisoners and that is being worked on with prison policies and their policies of how people are housed, which takes into account and recognizes their gender identity without forcing them to relinquish it. We had very strong language from both, I believe somebody was a superintendent of corrections in one of the counties and also from the Department of Corrections at the state level, that the provisions of this bill are going to make their lives infinitely more difficult. So that's one thing. The other section that is still in the bill is the inclusion of what was called areas of intimate privacy. You know what that sounds like to me? That sounds like a bathroom bill. Do you remember what happened in North Carolina when North Carolina passed a bathroom bill? It wasn't pretty. People actually pulled out of athletic competitions and all kinds of other things because they had gone down that road. I know that people are going to tell me this just permits people to do it, it doesn't require. But here's the rub with that. If you permit people to discriminate in all three of these areas, sports, prisons and places of intimate privacy, then a transgender person who is assigned unfairly to a place for their biological sex will no longer have the protections against discrimination that they now have because we just removed them in this bill. There will be no recourse for them. So for those reasons, because this bill is now back to its original and exceedingly flawed form, I ask you to press the red button so that another motion can be made. Thank you.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D - Straf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So what is our purpose here? Are we putting in legislation to control a very small portion of our population? Our transgender population for everyone is about 1/3 of 1% of our entire population. Of that, only about 500 members are students. Most of those students are there to get an education. Very few of them are there to participate in sports and it's very rare when one of those students is a superstar. I understand we have a need to make sports fair between transgender girls and cisgirls. Cisgirls is the terminology. Our schools are aware of this. The athletic associations are aware of this. The IOC, the NCAA are aware of this. They've been putting in place policies to help both the transgender girls and the straight girls play in the same sports. In the medical community, they've identified medication that allows students and people to block hormones of students, of young people, from proceeding through puberty. These transgender girls who are taking these puberty blocking drugs grow at the same rate as their girlfriends in the community. They don't grow to be the same as every other male. Most of these girls won't start estrogen therapy until they are 18 years old. Up until that time they won't have testosterone in their system. They won't be growing at the same rate as other boys. They won't have some of the impact as far as their skeletal strength and muscular structure as other boys. There are a number of organizations that are defining what the policies are for transgender girls in sports. First off, in the school system, the New Hampshire School Board Association has put policies in place for transgender girls to be in school systems to get an education just like everyone else. They don't touch on sports. The sports area is left up to the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association. That association has defined a rule that a transgender student that wants to play in sports needs to be registered as a girl or a boy depending on the gender they identify as at the beginning of entering high school with the full support of their parents and plan for them to grow. If they are participating in sports on a girls' sports team, they have to stay participating on a girls' sports team. If they grow and they're participating on a boys' sports team, they have to stay on a boys' sports team. They can't cross over between those two genders. In the NCAA, they just released in February a policy concerning transgender girls in sports in the intercollegiate environment. Even the IOC, the Olympic Committee, has similar policies. These policies require that a transgender athlete has to start getting tested for their testosterone levels so that they may compete at the same level as other girls. That policy has just gone into place and it's going to start with one test a year and it's going to go next year to two tests a year. So they are going to keep track of the hormone levels to make sure they are providing a safe environment for transgender girls or women and other women in the sports environment. These are only a few of the organizations that are working with the transgender community to provide a level playing field for the environment which they work and play in. This bill that's been introduced is on the leading edge of what is already happening in other places and if we implement this bill, it's ignoring that this work is already being done in other areas and it may be more appropriate to be done by other associations or organizations that are working with transgender people, rather than putting something into statute that will negatively affect future transgender women or transgender men that are just trying to live their life like everyone else on a level playing field. Please vote red on this bill. Thank you.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? The member does not yield. We are down to the final speaker. Rep. Gould has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. We've had intervening business so the motion is in order. The House will come to order. We have a request for a roll call from Rep. Baldasaro. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote on the tabling motion. That is what is before us now. The House will come to order. The motion before us is to table HB 1180. 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 since the last tabling motion this bill has changed tremendously and that it now includes safety issues in prison, privacy issues in bathrooms as well as global discrimination issues. And, if I believe that tabling this bill sends a message to New Hampshire about our position on discrimination, would I please press the green button in favor of the tabling motion? Thank you.

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

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that NCAA and Olympic standards for transgendered athletes require the recognition of biologic sex in order to respect the rights of the transgender athletes and those whom they compete with. And, if I know that circuit court rulings have hinged upon whether or not the law in a particular state recognizes the states' role in recognizing biologic sex in order to make these distinctions, would I then press the green button, sorry the red button. Sorry. Would I then press the red button in order to allow our state to continue to recognize biologic sex so that we can make sure that we are not discriminating against people and we can recognize their unique individuality and their specific needs.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the tabling motion on HB 1180. 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. 175 voting Yea, 167 voting Nay, the tabling motion passes.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Mullen to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Sue Mullen (D - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Ed majority recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended to HB 1639, relative to the youth risk behavior survey. The YRBS has been used as an instrument to capture student voices since 1993. For 29 years it has provided confidential data regarding student at risk behaviors to schools, law enforcement and community agencies so that they may develop and deliver programs that speak directly to student needs. Currently, any parent who does not wish for their child to participate in the YRBS, only needs to notify the school and the child will be exempted. That is detailed under RSA 186:11 along with the requirements for parental notification and the required opportunity to review the document. HB 1639 seeks to flip the process and require that any parent who wishes their child to participate provides written permission. On the surface, this may seem like no big deal, but the reality is that anyone who has ever had to collect permission slips knows that even for high interest activities like field trips, films and sporting events, hectic lives and forgetful children often result in paperwork being left on the kitchen counter. Without a permission slip there would be no participation. The impact of inadequate participation, those most effected had a lot to say. House Education received impassioned testimony from many stakeholders. The National Alliance on Mental Illness, The Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, New Futures, the Franklin, New Hampshire Chief of Police, the Raymond Coalition for Youth, the Strafford County Substance Misuse Prevention Coordinator and our own State of New Hampshire Public Health Services Director pointed out that the data collected by this survey allows them to secure funding and address topics such as bullying, suicide prevention, substance misuse, violence, harassment, vaping, anxiety, depression and more. To a person they pointed out the benefits to communities from the targeted responses that guide them in knowing what individual community's need and to a person, they talked about the potentially devastating impact of not being able to survey the minimum number of students required for the data to be considered representative and unbiased. Their program and services are at risk of elimination. You may hear testimony today that kids don't take this survey seriously and that may be true for a few. You may hear that the YRBS is considered a joke by some. Again, possible. But what about the kids that do take it seriously? How many kids have we helped? Maybe even saved because we listened to them? Instruments like the YRBS have metrics built into them to account for the responses that are obviously untrue. The outliers get tossed so that the results are reliable and not skewed. There is nothing funny about drug and alcohol abuse or suicide. There is no joke in sexual violence, anxiety and depression or being the victim of bullying. There are tough issues addressed in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey without a doubt because these are the real issues challenging our kids. We heard testimony from experts in the field that when participation moves from opt-out to opt-in, data and requirements are affected and programs are eliminated. Questions remain. If not the tried-and-true YRBS, how will we go about gathering the data to know what we should be doing? Do we guess? Are we going to be required to shift the expenses for current programs on to our constituents? What kind of messages are we delivering to our youth when we silence their voices because the topics are too tough to talk about? For these reasons I ask that you press the red button against the Ought to Pass as Amended recommendation so that another motion may be made. Thank you.

Speaker PackardWe are down to the last speaker. Rep. Mullen as requested a roll call. 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. Boehm.

Rep. Ralph Boehm (R - Hills 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Some years ago I introduced a bill to put a rein in on non-academic surveys. Parents had to be notified and questions provided. The bill finally passed and is now law even though there have been multiple tries to change it. Everything was opt-out except for the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, however, this survey is taken as a joke by most high school students. When I was on the school board, this was given in our high school. I heard from students that they were taking this as a class project to see how bad they could make it. How many times do we get drunk? Do you take drugs? They answered on how to do it. Some weeks later our principal came to our school board meeting with the disastrous results. I then informed him how the survey was taken. Out student school board member verified this. Other schools have the same issues. When they know the survey is being taken, social media goes rampant with entries on how to answer the questions. We had testimony on this at our hearing. Also, parents need to know what their children are being asked. Parental rights. All questions on any survey must be given to the parents so they can make the decision to allow their children to take the survey. Over the years we have heard arguments that parents do not get the permission slip for the survey so they do not opt-in. Interesting, parents have to opt-in for field trips and they seem to be returned. Parents don't opt-in because they do not want their child to take it and now it is also being done electronically, emails, etc. to parents so it's not hidden in the school bag. Some may testify that this survey and others are all academic. It is the school responsibility to teach, not be social workers. These surveys only interfere with the student learning activities. For example, in the CTE committee that I am on. It came out that some career tech education students may miss their courses because the survey is being taken at their resident school. It has been proven time after time that no survey is anonymous. The first seven questions on this survey, one can easily determine who is answering the questions, age, grade, sex, race, height, weight, etc. Then there are questions on using drugs. Anyone guess who will answer correctly if they are? Questions on drugs, drinking, sex, suicide can also serve as training aids. We've seen this in the past with some drug programs and why they have been stopped. Parents need to know again what questions are being asked of their children. If the parents are specifically asked to opt-in, then they will take the opportunity to check the questions. At what percentage point does it make the survey immaterial if only some are answering correctly? Remember, this survey is done by the CDC and depending on what administration is in power, questions do become political. In the past there were questions on guns at home. I bet this year there will be questions about vaccinations. Another argument is that they need the entire school to take the survey to get the full results. What's the difference? Students answering as a joke or not answering at all? So please press the green button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended. This is a roll call vote. Members will be in their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cornell for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Patricia Cornell (D - Hills 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that I have no idea how to counter the amount of misinformation you have just been given. And. If I know that numerous stakeholders testified that they relied on the data collected by the Youth Behavior Survey to plan programs and services to address bullying, suicide, anxiety, substance abuse and more. And, if I know that surveys and tests have built in metrics to account for the very small number of students that may not take it seriously. And, if I know that I was in a school when students were taking this risk survey and I don't know of very many at all that said I'm just going to make a joke out of this. And, if I know that after spending 36 years in education that opt-in does not work, even for a great field trip because kids are forgetful. And, if I know that I spent hours in the morning before a field trip calling parents for their crying child to please run in with that permission slip, would I now vote no and press the red button so another motion could be made?

Speaker PackardFor future parliamentary inquiries and for future speeches, I'm going to ask that all the members adhere to what we try and observe in this chamber that we do not try and put blame or suggest that somebody else has a bad motive or anything of that nature. So, please, please. I'm talking to both sides of the aisle here. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Mister Speaker, isn't there a difference between maligning and questioning motive and what I heard, which was a concern about facts?

Speaker PackardThe member, in my opinion, suggested that the member lied. Now, that is why I am addressing both sides of the aisle here. We've had it before. We've had it yesterday and it's already started today and I'm asking all the members to refrain from making any type of an accusatory remark about another member. You may further inquire.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I appreciate the explanation and agree with it entirely. My concern is that there is a difference between the word misinformation, which simply means a mistake and disinformation, which implies a lie. Thank you. Speaker Packard: Thank you. The Chair recognizes Rep. Alicia Lekas for a parliamentary inquiry. Before you start Representative, yesterday I asked also that we keep our parliamentary inquiries to parliamentary inquiries. They are starting to get a little bit long and I'm not referring to you right now Representative, but they are starting to get a little bit long on both sides of the aisle. So, please keep your parliamentary inquiries to what they should be, a true parliamentary inquiry, not a speech.

Rep. Alicia Lekas (R - Hills 38)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that false information can lead to false results and then we would be basing actions on false results. And, if I know that many parents object to this survey. And, if I know that most school district websites are so large and so complicated that even if notification is given on the website, the parents may well not find it and even know to be able to opt-out, would I now press green? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1639. 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. 183 voting Yea, 164 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe debate is going to be on the majority committee amendment (0730h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Simon.

Rep. Matthew Simon (R - Graf 1)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. I know it's been a very long day. This is a topic that garners a lot of attention and is difficult in a lot of ways for a lot of people so I'll try to keep my comments brief this evening, as brief as possible. There are a lot of things that I would really like to speak about this evening, but what I would like to do primarily is just to remind us of what the Fetal Life Protection Act does and what this amendment does to the Fetal Life Protection Act. The Fetal Life Protection Act outlaws the killing of a child after six months gestation to nine months gestation in the womb. For the first time in the State of New Hampshire's history, it gives equal protection under the law to those people. So, for the first time in history, people who are that old cannot be killed no more than any other human being can be killed. That puts us in a very unique position as a body because for the first time in the State of New Hampshire's history, this body has the power to remove equal protection under the law for some of our citizens and allow them to be killed. So the next time, the next time that an abortionist legally approaches a child between the gestational age of six months and nine months and stabs that child through the heart and inserts poison into its veins so that it convulses until the heart seizes up, when we can't hear its silent scream of agony, that will literally be on us. We approved it. Not only did we approve it, we fought for it. We said it was good. This amendment basically guts any protection that any child in this age range will have. It doesn't protect any of them. It kind of dresses it up with some different language, fetal anomalies not compatible with life and a generalized health exception. It strips all of the criminal and civil penalties out of the bill, essentially rendering it completely unenforceable. I've had a lot of conversations with people around this chamber and the number one thing I've heard is that we don't believe that children are human beings before they are born. And there is something that I would like to straighten out about this particular point in pregnancy. I'd like to make it understood that every abortion at this point the child will have to be born. The child will have to be born. When that process of abortion is completed, when that child is killed and the mother is induced and the child is delivered, that child is held in the hands of the abortionist. That child is no longer in the mother's womb. It is a complete human being and it's a dead human being and it's not dead by natural causes. It has a hole in the heart. Its veins are full of poison. Under any other circumstances, we would call that murder, but for some reason, we have this complete unscientific notion that the child who is in the womb 2 minutes before and the child who is outside the womb after are completely different. If somebody could get up here and explain that to me, I would be unbelievably grateful because otherwise what we are saying is that we believe that it's completely acceptable to either kill the child, having it born dead or even worse in some cases, completely dismembered. Body by body part, this is what the Fetal Life Protection Act outlaws, leg detached, head detached, body completely torn apart and when we are done, there's a pile of human body parts on the table.

Speaker PackardI would question the member on his language.

Rep. Matthew Simon (R - Graf 1)I did not realize. I'm new at this. Ladies and gentlemen of the General Court, I urge you. I urge you to turn down the committee amendment on this bill so that a better motion can be made. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith. Representative Marjorie Smith: Mister Speaker, truth does still carry some weight. For some of us more weight than others. What this bill represents is a coming together of disparate views. How did we get into this situation in the first place? We got into this situation because although every one of us knows that the Finance Committee never, never gets involved in policy and only deals with budget matters. You all do know that. I know it from my years as Chair of Finance Committee. Never did we get involved with anything that would be policy, except when we wanted to. We all know because it has been stated publicly by people who are making the decisions that the reason that certain sections were put into HB 2, that's the budget trailer bill that is supposed to support things relating to money, the things that were irrelevant to money because there is no public dollar that goes into, there is no public dollar that goes into funding abortions in this state. Nonetheless, decisions were made to include language having to do with state policy affecting reproductive rights. Okay, that was done by the Finance Committee because it never gets involved with policy and this body in order to pass the budget, agreed and the governor who stated as clearly as he possibly could that he didn't like some of the language, but nonetheless because it was in the budget, he had to sign it, signed it. Fine, that's what happens in a democratic, small d, democratic form of government where we have Republicans and Democrats and Independents. We have people with different views on different subjects and we accommodate as much as we can. That being the case, we then looked at what the language was and what the language accomplished and didn't accomplish. As a result and after a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary Committee came up with an amended bill affecting women's health as it relates to the Fetal Protection Act, so named in the budget. One part of what we did was to take language developed by one of our colleagues who is the most effective advocate for what he views as fetal protection. We took language, exact language that he came up with and its language that you can see in both the majority amendment and the minority amendment that the Judiciary Committee came up with. We took language that acknowledged the 24-week limit on which under ordinary circumstances abortions could be performed in the state. We also took the language that was somewhat unclear, having to do with certain tests about to which a pregnant woman would be subjected and we said that would only happen, not at the beginning of a pregnancy, but if there was some question as to whether we were at the 24-week deadline or not. This was the minority amendment and the majority amendment. It is exactly the same language. Then we did two other things. We said, and you can read about it in the report in the calendar, we said okay first that the gestational age of 24-weeks, as I said, was, we would accept as a limit. We said except in cases where there are fetal anomalies that are inconsistent with life. Not fetal anomalies that might be anomalies, but are not going to interfere with life. Only those that were consistent with life. We said, talking about the ultrasound test, we then eliminated the criminal and civil penalties that were in the Fetal Protection Act. In this state, medical care in most states, but certainly in this state, medical care and the reproductive health or gynecology field, abortion is provided by medical professionals who, despite what some people might say, are licensed by the New Hampshire Board of Medicine and the New Hampshire Board of Nursing. These boards oversee the education background, training of every doctor, nurse and practitioner and physician assistant in New Hampshire. In addition to the state requirements, we also know that these providers are insured and the insurers maintain certain standards. We eliminated the civil and criminal penalties here because if in fact someone were to act in violation of the law, they would be held accountable by the appropriate bodies. To have this language free-floating meant that there were many people who would say we are not going to come to New Hampshire to practice medicine. We are not going to take the chance that some idle person wandering around might charge us with no reason. Okay, so we did a change in credentialing. We did a change in ultrasound and we acknowledge that fetal anomalies and the life and health of the mother are important. There were other things we didn't change. For example, we didn't address the language of rape and incest. There were other changes that we didn't make. Why? Because in the House Judiciary Committee we work together, we try to find common ground, we try to balance the competing demands of disparate views and we did a good job. Now, at this time, it is 9:30 and people continue to leave. Mister Speaker, I'm going to stop for a moment only because my mother told me never to speak while others were speaking.

Speaker PackardThe member has a right to be heard. I don't know how many times I have asked today for the chamber to be quiet and I'm addressing both sides, again, that neither side is complying with the simple request to allow the members to speak. So hopefully this will be my last request for the day. Let the member speak. If you need to have a conversation, take it out into the anteroom. The member may continue.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm tired and I assume everyone here is tired. I made a suggestion a while ago that we put off this discussion until tomorrow. That did not seem to be the will of the body and so we are proceeding now, but there is no earthly reason why a majority of this body would not recognize that this bill, as amended by a majority of the committee, honors and reflects the feelings of those with disparate views, but nonetheless continues the long tradition we've had in this state of respecting women's privacy and the right for a woman to make a decision having to do with her body, without 400 members of the legislature trying to find their way into the doctor's office. I ask you to think about it and to think about the implications and remember that not one public dollar in this state, actually in any state, not one public dollar goes to pay for abortion in those cases when abortion is legal. That to interfere with our long tradition is not going to cause abortion to disappear. We have always had abortion. What will happen if we do not pass this legislation in this way is the possibility that...

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. State your point of order.

Rep. Mark Alliegro (R - Graf 7)Mister Speaker, I believe that the Representative is wandering off subject quite a bit and my understanding is that we have to stay on topic.

Speaker PackardWe are discussing the amendment to the bill right now. The member may continue.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I respect the concerns of the members. I hope they are paying attention to realize that I have in fact been addressing the 3 major changes that the amendment to the bill brings into play and recognize that with this amendment and this bill we will have a logical, careful governing of abortion, as it is appropriate in this state, and that we will make sure that we are not going to do here what has happened in other states where abortion continues, but without safe requirements when you can get a legal abortion. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority amendment. Rep. Notter has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote on the majority amendment. The House will come to order. The motion before us is the majority amendment on HB 1673. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Notter for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jeanine Notter (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment makes a mockery of the Fetal Life Protection Act by removing all penalties for late term abortions because there is no way to hold any violator accountable. And, if I know this majority amendment adds on an open-ended exception that makes the law a meaningless joke. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that my colleagues, who support abortion up to birth should look the people of New Hampshire in the eye and be honest about what they are doing instead of concealing their actions with an underhanded gutting bill, would I then press the red button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe House will come to order. We are on our second to last bill. Let's see if we can get through this in a civilized manner. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Simpson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 36)If I know that the impact of our newly enacted abortion law is being felt right now, most significantly by families in extremely complex circumstances who have learned of a fatal fetal diagnosis late in their pregnancy. And, if I know that this legislative body earlier today passed a bill allowing for health care professionals to make decisions based on their own conscience. And, if I know that the original ultrasound provision in law is unclear and we need to clarify it, would I now press the green button to vote with the bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee and pass this amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before the House is on the majority amendment. 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. 163 voting Yea, 165 voting Nay, the amendment fails. The Chair recognizes Rep. Simon for an amendment.

Rep. Matthew Simon (R - Graf 1)Mister Speaker, I move the adoption of the minority amendment (0688h). Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment is the amendment that we have seen frequently throughout this term. It addresses the lack of clarity in the ultrasound requirement that led providers to believe that they had to perform ultrasounds at the beginning of pregnancy with transvaginal ultrasounds. That's where that whole conflict came from. That was never the intention of the writers of the bill and this amendment clarifies that. I would just like to point out that both sides really do agree on the need for this amendment and we are running out of time to get it into one of our bills to be sent over to the other body so I would really urge everybody to adopt this amendment at this point so we can send it to the other house. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe question before us is the minority amendment (0688h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. This amendment is an example of what happens when people of disparate views work together. I think that the bill as it came to you was a fine bill. By two votes, this body chose not to accept that. Nonetheless I would say to you that the minority amendment, which is using the exact same language in the majority amendment is a good amendment. We need it to be added to the bill because while it doesn't do everything that it should do, it does at least clarify what had been a very confusing issue having to do with ultrasound use for women who are pregnant. Therefore, I ask you to support the minority amendment.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us right now is the Simon amendment (0688h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Simon amendment is adopted. The motion before us now is Ought to Pass as Amended. I have quite a list here of speakers. Do we want to go to the vote? The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1673. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. REGULAR CALENDAR CONT'D HB 1674, relative to reproductive rights. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Kurt Wuelper for the Majority of Judiciary. This bill would establish that NH "shall not restrict or interfere with an individual's exercise of their private decision to terminate a pregnancy" except as already provided in law. One injured by a violation of this provision would be able to sue the state for injunctive relief including court costs and attorney's fees. The sponsors fear that, should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, women in New Hampshire would be denied access to abortions. The majority saw many potential unintended consequences and numerous apparent conflicts between this language and our current laws regarding sexuality. As this bill would add no protections for abortion now, and any future legislature intent on enacting such restrictions could still do so, the majority believes this bill is both problematic and premature. Vote 11-8. Rep. Alexis Simpson for the Minority of Judiciary. Multiple generations of women and girls have had access to safe, legal abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided 49 years ago. This bill would ensure that Granite Staters would have access to safe, legal abortion within the bounds of the current law, which is critically important given the high likelihood that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the Supreme Court in the next three months. This bill does not change any current law, but it would place the rights that women and girls currently have in New Hampshire in the statutes next to the restrictions.

Speaker PackardRepresentatives Rogers and Wallner offer amendment (1038h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Long to speak to the amendment.

Rep. Patrick LongThank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I first would like to commend the collaborative work with the Attorney General, the victim's attorney and especially the Finance Committee. I was quite impressed on the collaborative work that they had done towards this bill. This amendment adds emotional abuse. I believe New Hampshire has an opportunity to address all victimization done at the hands of our facilities, especially at minimum through HB 1677's process, all victims retain their right to choose the court process. However, this process ought to be available to all victims who choose so. Although the appropriation is an extremely large allocation, I'm reminded of the tax dollars that went toward perpetration of these acts. So, I ask that you support the victims in this situation and we add all victims the opportunity to go through this process. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'd like you to understand just a little bit of the process that got us here. For the first time in decades, the State of New Hampshire has stood up to the plate and said we are responsible and we are going to be accountable for righting the wrongs of many, many decades where kids that have been incarcerated in the Youth Development Centers have been warehoused in a way in which physical and sexual abuse seems to have been fairly common and too much a part of the culture. That's what I'm hearing anecdotally, don't admit that in the court, but that's what I understand. So, what the AG has done is he and his office has set up a settlement fund so that we can efficiently process hundreds of claims and the key claims that we must address are the sexual and physical abuse. Like any project, this is a new project, the biggest thing you need to worry about is scope creep. If you make the scope too big, your project is going to fail. So with a lot of thought we, and debate, we are not, we don't want the emotional abuse included in this bill, which is what this amendment does, because first of all emotional abuse is very tough to adjudicate. Just the mere fact that you are incarcerated, legitimately, would for many feel like emotional abuse and because it's messy and it would open up the settlement fund to scope creep that is beyond what we are ready to do initially. We may never get to that, but don't think for a moment that those kids who thought they were emotionally abused don't have recourse. There's always been a method for them to file a complaint with the AG and to have it adjudicated and that avenue remains open to them. What we have done is we have set up a settlement fund to officially process a large, large number of cases and I'd ask you to vote against this amendment so that we can allow the Attorney General to focus on the most egregious claims and get them handled as expeditiously as possible. Thank you.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)I respect the Representative. I'll take her question.

Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D - Hills 11)Thank you so much, Representative, for taking my questions. Are you saying that watching a child get raped by a facilitator that facilitates this is less important and should get less rewards of damages than the one that is actually doing the raping and is getting threatened to then be raped if they tell anybody? Representative Edwards: Thank you for the question. I understand your concern to be whether or not a rape would be included and I'd say rape is part of sexual assault and that's clearly the major reason we are doing this is to adjudicate and pay out and try to compensate for their pain and anguish. The money is that it would help them deal with the rape. Hopefully that answers your question. I think we are done.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to further questions? Member does not yield. A division has been requested. Members take your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment will strengthen this very, very important bill. And, if I know that this amendment will add emotional abuse in the definition of child abuse. And, if I know that research shows that emotional abuse and solitary confinement can cause lifelong damage to young children and young adults. And, if I know that for this settlement process to work, the process must be viewed as inclusive and open to all claimants, would I now vote yes to this amendment?

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

Rep. Karen Umberger (R - Carr 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that emotional abuse, child endangerment, false imprisonment, unlawful confinement, child exploitation or deprivation of education rights are issues that should be considered, but should not be added to the definition of sexual abuse or physical abuse, would I now press the red button and vote no on this amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us if floor amendment (1038h). It is a division 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. 164 voting Yea, 177 voting Nay, the floor amendment fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. This is floor amendment (1036h) and the Chair recognizes Rep. Rogers to speak to the floor amendment.

Rep. Katherine Rogers (D - Merr 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I want to start out first of all by telling you that in the spirit of bipartisanship...

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend for a minute until we get the sound on.

Rep. Katherine Rogers (D - Merr 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I want to start out first of all by telling you that in the spirit of bipartisanship, with which this bill was written, I have to thank the Member from Londonderry for the hat that I am wearing today which is a U.S. Marine Corps hat so I'm sure you all can tell which Member from Londonderry. I hope that in light of that he'll listen to what I say and vote with me. HB 1677, as amended, is a great start, but we can act now to make it an even more effective response to a critical situation. Amendment (1036h) will help to do that. According to the Department of Children and Family Services Director, from 1990 to the present, 4,776 children were housed at the Sununu Youth Center and its predecessor. There have already been close to 500 cases of abuse filed in the courts and that number could increase. As a former county attorney, this situation resonates with me. It's clear, based on the number of cases filed against the state, that the financial cap on settlements in this bill is artificially low, at one point $1.5 million. It should be increased to $4.5 million. This is a significant increase, but there's a cause to do this from a legal standpoint. The state, by taking complete custody and control of these children, had a fiduciary duty to them. We promised to provide the highest standard of care. If this case goes to civil court, all the plaintiffs have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a 50.1% likelihood, that the abuse happened. As lawmakers, we must be prepared to respond to several judgements against the State of New Hampshire. Keep in mind the state has already indicted twelve former employees and promises to indict more. These employees account for the abuse of close to one half of the child victims and the state believes it can prove the defendants abused these kids beyond a reasonable doubt, a 98% likelihood. For our purposes, this means these cases will either be settled and receive a financial award from this fund that we are creating or the cases go to trial. The plaintiffs have several lawyers already committed to working these cases on behalf of the child victims. So far, the Attorney General has one. It's entirely possible that if any of these cases or several of these cases go to trial, that when jurors hear what happened to these children, multimillion dollar verdicts in single cases will result. It's critical to note some of the cases in federal court in recent years exceeded $20 million, even for incidences less brutal than child rape. The federal court draws from a similar jury pool as our State Superior Court in Merrimack County, where these cases would be heard. You have to anticipate the same jury pool will wield similar outcomes. It's in the state's best financial interest to agree to a process that will resolve all or almost all of these child victim cases as expeditiously as possible with as little additional trauma to the victims as possible. After all, it's the right thing to do. Amendment (1036h) expands the cap on settlements to $4.5 million, a more realistic cap on settlement amounts. If we want the plaintiffs to come to the table with their claims and avoid going to civil court where $10 million or higher claims could result, we must be realistic about the logical and likely financial risks. We should increase the cap the state is willing to award in this process. I ask that you join me in more properly compensating any victims of abuse while in the state's custody. Please support amendment (1036h) by voting yes and pressing the green button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Karen Umberger (R - Carr 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The cap in HB 1677 is $1.5 million for sexual abuse and $150,000 for physical abuse. These caps were set as a result of the AG looking out across the country for what settlements were out there for sexual abuse and physical abuse and that was the number that the AG came to us with as what was the, I don't want to call it the average settlement because it wasn't necessarily adding up the figures and coming up with a number. It was looking at all of the cases that were out there. Now, as the Representative from Concord said, you don't have to choose the process that we've put together in HB 1677. HB 1677 is designed as a trauma and victim centered process as opposed to going to court, which is not necessarily a victim or trauma centered thing, but this cap that we have put in the bill, I believe, will actually solve all of the problems that were caused and I would agree that these are absolutely horrible, to think that this was going on in our youth centers over a long period of time. It was only recently that the AG in his work discovered the horrific nature of what was going on. So, I ask that you vote red and keep the caps that are currently in HB 1677 of $1.5 million for sexual abuse and $150,000 for physical abuse. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is on floor amendment (1036h). This is going to be a division vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is on floor amendment (1036h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this amendment will also strengthen this very important bill. And, if I know the intent of this legislation is to provide an alternative for claimants to settle their cases through the settlement fund process as opposed to taking cases to court, which is a much more costly process for the state and for the victim. And, if I know that if the cap on settlements is too low, claimants will choose court over going through the settlement fund process. And, if I know this amendment raises the cap to a more realistic level, which will encourage claimants to use the settlement process, would I now vote yes on this amendment?

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

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the Attorney General made a thorough study of rewards for sexual abuse attacks on children by authorities and that study led to a proposal to create a settlement fund of $100 million to use in a new system to avoid going to court, if the damaged parties accepted it. And, if I further know that the attorney for the approximate 500 litigants kept trying to increase the caps on the settlement offered. And, if I know that increasing the caps or the allowed damages will make even that huge sum be insufficient, would I now press the red button to keep from making this effort unworkable? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1036h). This is a division 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 attend to the state of the vote. 165 voting Yea, 184 voting Nay, the amendment fails. We are back to the original bill with the committee amendment so the motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Marjorie Porter (D - Hills 30)Thank you, Mister Speaker and good morning again colleagues. I have a few definitions here for you this morning. According to EdChoice and I think most of you know who EdChoice is. It's not a man. School vouchers give parents the freedom to choose a private school for their children using all or part of the public funding set aside for their children's education. According to Britannica ProCon, this is a site the encyclopedia puts up debating pros and cons on various issues, Britannica ProCon says school vouchers are state or school district funded scholarships that allow students to attend a private school of the family's choice. According to EdChoice, 18 states and DC had one or more voucher programs; Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a school voucher in the US is a scholarship that allows a student to attend a private school rather than a public school. In the words of The Bard, "A rose by any other name." New Hampshire now has the most expansive school voucher program in the country...

Rep. Marjorie Porter (D - Hills 30)...and yet this body has never had a chance to listen to a debate and vote on the provisions of the bill which established it. HB 20, the House version of the program, raised so many concerns it was retained in committee for further work, but the Senate rushed ahead anyway and included their similarly flawed version in HB 2. We have been told that bills attempting to fix this myriad of ills, and we've heard many of them today and this week, are an attempt at death by a thousand cuts and that those proposing such bills were members of the education establishment, cared nothing for the poor or the harm done to children. Despite the fact that most of us have spent our entire working career, 40 years for me, our working lives, loving and teaching them. So this is what we have, a program that is wildly unpopular with the general public. A program that lacks accountability, administered by an out-of-state company, which gets to decide who is approved, who gets funded and what qualifies as an educational expense, with lax rules passed over the objections of the professionals responsible for advising us on rulemaking. A program that allows organizations receiving public funds to discriminate against those they don't approve of. A program that may leave students and taxpayers susceptible to fraud and abuse. A program that could bleed the state dry financially because there are no budget caps, no limits on how much can be spent. In just the first few months, it's already nearly $9 million over budget and growing. The LBA has warned us that if all eligible students not currently enrolled in public schools, not enrolled in public schools, took advantage of the program, the cost to the state could be $70 million a year. I'm going to say that again. These are for all the kids out there that are eligible for this program now, if they all applied next year. That's the figure LBA is estimating. This is new spending. This isn't money we are spending on education now. Talk about a thousand cuts, that's a hemorrhage. We have tried to fix it. You have heard us try to fix it. The only option available now is to repeal it. Please let common sense and your sense of frugality prevail and vote no on this ITL motion. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Luneau has requested a roll call. We are coming down to the final speaker. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is going to be a roll call vote. We are down to the final speaker so members take your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The voucher plan is nothing less than an attempt to dismantle our public schools and replace them with private schools. We've heard that argument about the new education freedom account program, but we first heard it back in 2011 with the debate about the tax credit scholarship program. The same old proven false argument and since we are on the topic of education, we don't have a voucher plan. The states mentioned all have voucher plans. Opponents can't get that right. Maybe we need a lunch and learn program about education freedom. Why are opponents so scared of the education freedom programs? I am reminded of a quote, "Competition is always a good thing. It forces us to do our best. A monopoly renders people complacent and satisfied with mediocrity." In a 2019 analysis of studies on the impact on academics of choice programs on public schools, 24 studies showed a positive effect of school choice on the public schools. One neutral and one negative. So, why are people scared? Over 1,800 students are enrolled in the program and remember these are low-income students due to a family income cap of 300% of federal poverty. HB 1683 would repeal and throw those kids out of the program. What about them? Are they just collateral damage? Yet opponents say shut it down. When we are talking about funding, I'll point out this is the only program of its kind that has a phase out of funding for students leaving a public school. The first year after they leave, the school gets 100% of state funding plus all local funding. The second year they get 50% of state funding and all local funding and the third year they get 25% of state funding and local funding. The year after that they get all local funding still. The minority report says that it is the responsible thing to do to repeal this program. Responsible? Ask parents how responsible it is. Yes, again opponents are scared. Scared because this program is successful. Yes, more student selected EFA's than originally estimated. Why is that? Why is it above enrollment estimates? Well the pandemic opened a window into education and the parents have taken notice. Parents are standing up against those who say they should not have a role in their children's education. Parents are standing up for education options. Parents are standing up and so should we and we will. We will stand up for families and children. We will stand up for educational opportunities for New Hampshire children. We will stand against this repeal. We will ITL this outrageous attempt to destroy this program. If children are our future, we must provide them with educational opportunities to be successful. We will not fail these students and we will not fail the future.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. This is a roll call vote. Members will be in your seats. The motion before us is the majority report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1683. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Luneau for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know New Hampshire's 160,000 public school kids perform among the best in the country and that's what parents want. And, if I know the state's voucher program is the most expansive voucher program in the country and is riddled with flaws. And, if I know that the voucher program is clearly not as successful as some proponents may suggest, given that the vast majority of the voucher students may be around 1,600 were already attending private schools and homeschooling situations. And, if I know that this bill is the only option left since every other bill to improve the financial responsibility, accountability and to prevent fraud has been defeated. And, if I know this bill will repeal a program that steals from taxpayers and is ripe for fraud and misuse, then would I press the red button to overturn the ITL motion so another motion can be made?

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

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, if I believe that every child is entitled to an adequate education, but I know that a one size that fits all program system cannot possibly provide it to every child and I know that this legislation before us would tear almost 2,000 children away from their chosen environment and return them to the inadequate educational environment from whence they came, would I now press the green button for the children?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is the majority report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1683. 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. 189 voting Yea, 166 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.