The House, Thursday, January 4, 2024

Speaker PackardRep. Layon moves Ought to Pass and offers amendment (2451h). The debate will be on the amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wheeler. I would just like to remind anybody that is speaking on this, that this is a very sensitive and touchy issue and please make sure your remarks are appropriate.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for that reminder. I rise today despite the uncomfortability of this vote because for me it comes down to whether or not kids should be able to get these surgeries, despite the fact that I am a liberal, despite the fact that I believe in nondiscrimination for trans people, for gay people, for queer people and that I will fight until my very last day until they are recognized as human beings. The question before us is whether or not children under the age of 18 should be able to get these surgeries. I, despite being a liberal who believes in those human rights, do not think that is the case. When the question is put before me, and I spoke to people until 11:30 last night, lobbyists, different stakeholders, people with firsthand experience, lived experience and I've been speaking to people for the last four weeks about this bill, the only argument against it being that this amendment, specifically, opens the door to other bad trans bills. But, folks, the slippery slope fallacy applies here. We are talking about whether or not kids should get these surgeries and they should not. These are irreversible surgeries, despite the fact that there are medical exceptions, which are included in this amendment. When people have problems with their genitals that need to be addressed, that should be addressed. But when we are talking about whether or not kids should get these surgeries, I think that goes a bridge too far and I will not be signing on to that. So, I will be supporting this amendment and I appreciate the work done in the Health and Human Services Committee. They worked very diligently and if you want to watch legislating being done in real time and in a really good way, I recommend that you watch the committee hearings on this bill, the work session on this legislation. They diligently took all people into account. They took all experiences into account, and they came up with legislation that protects children under the age of 18. This is not a question of whether or not you are with the trans community. This is a question on whether or not you believe children should be able to get these irreversible surgeries. So again, despite being a Democrat, despite being a liberal who believes in human rights, I don't think that children should be able to get these irreversible surgeries. So, I will take all the heat that comes from this. I will be voting for this amendment and for OTP/A if it passes. The bill in its original form, I think is too broad and I won't be voting for OTP, but I will be voting for OTP/A if the amendment passes and I hope all of you on this side of the aisle who definitely believe in human rights, who believe in protecting nondiscrimination would consider the irreversible surgeries that kids are going to be getting if this bill does not pass. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker and I urge you to support this amendment.

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D - Straf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker, and fellow colleagues. The question that we raise is not about surgery and not about who this applies to. It's about why are we considering putting medical procedures into New Hampshire law? Medical science is constantly changing. New procedures, drugs and treatments are introduced all the time. The medical community is constantly learning new ways to care for patients. Medical professionals are expected to attend conferences and even spend time learning new techniques in institutions other than their own. That's their job. What's our job? Our job is to protect the people we serve. Statutes are written to protect us now and long term into the future. When we consider putting legislation into law, we should be asking ourselves, will this legislation stand the test of time? The problem with this amendment is that it's a Band-Aid. It's not something this legislature is capable of monitoring or changing as medical science continues to change. If we had heard testimony about consistent problems with medical services offered to New Hampshire residents by New Hampshire medical care organizations and professionals, it might be a different problem for us to address. But this is not the case. We have many excellent care providers in New Hampshire providing their services utilizing the best knowledge, skills, and tools available to them. Could they do better? Sure! But that's their job. Not ours. By the way, any youth reaching the age of 18 typically won't be approved for genital surgery until they've started hormone treatments for the gender they identify as, as well as implement their future plans as living as the gender they are. Young people are encouraged to wait until the age of 18 to start them. Their medical professionals and parents need to sign off on the use of these powerful drugs any earlier than 18. Insurance approvals may also play a part in their decisions. They also need to start living their life as the gender they identify for at least a year or more. During this time, they will attend many therapeutic counseling and psychotherapy sessions to prove to a licensed medical professional that they are capable of living their life safely without considering harm to themselves or to others. This is no small task given the social pressures they will have to live through. It is much more likely that a young transgender person won't receive genital surgery until they reach the age of 20 or older. Also, a major part we haven't even discussed that controls when these might happen are the costs of the surgical procedures and the willingness of surgeons and hospitals to take the risks associated with these procedures. On a personal note, I had to submit letters from my therapist and psychotherapist indicating that I was ready for this next step, even at the age of 69. I'm 71 now. Each of the three surgeons that interviewed me wanted to make sure that I knew what the procedure was and what it would entail so that they were comfortable that I was ready. The same thing is true with everyone, even 18-year-olds. The insurance company also needed to make sure I had the right letters in place so they would agree to their portion of the bill. My surgery cost over $95,000. It wasn't a complex or expensive female to male procedure, which the cost is considerably higher. Amendment 2451h is a temporary solution to a problem this legislature can't solve in the long term. Vote no on amendment 2023-2451h. Thank you.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I want to start off by thanking my colleague from Somersworth for how hard and passionately she fights for this issue. I would say that it's been challenging to debate this with somebody that you like and respect so much, but it makes sure that we keep things to the issues. If the medical societies and guidelines were still practicing the way that they have up until 16 months ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It used to be that a minor would need to wait until they were 18 for surgery. It used to be in the WPATH guidelines that parental consent was required for treatment, and it also used to be in the WPATH guidelines that you needed to have hormonal treatment before surgery. Sadly, in September of 2022 that changed. None of those protections are in guidelines anymore. So, this amendment significantly narrows the bill. It lays out the reasons why a person should turn 18 before having genital gender reassignment surgery. If you turn to page 93 in your calendar, you'll find the amendment which explicitly protects reconstruction and removal due to malformation, malignancy, injury or physical disease, surgeries for disorders of sexual development and male circumcision. This amendment laser focuses the bill on the fact that informed consent requires an understanding of the risks and benefits of the procedure. If a parent is told that this procedure is safe and effective, will they believe the doctor and sign on or will they ask for that evidence? In committee, the experts told us that it was safe and effective, but they could not give us the evidence. They gave us data on other procedures that were in the underlying bill, but nothing on genital gender reassignment surgeries. I looked at PubMed where all the clinical trials are published to see why. There is not a single study on children having genital gender reassignment surgery anywhere in the world. Without data we are experimenting on our children while telling their parents that it's safe and effective. I just can't square that circle. So, the question you all face here today is very important. Is it okay to tell parents that this surgery is safe and effective in children even though there are no data, and you would be leading them to have their child unknowingly participating in cutting edge surgery? Kids are not small adults and children who have undergone aggressive hormone therapy from a young age, which is what would be needed to have undergone cross-sex hormones for a while before the age of 18, have a very, very different medical history than adults who have undergone this procedure. It's apples and oranges. It's not the same thing. Our amendment language actually highlights the current lack of data specifically so that if there are published data that show that this is safe and effective in children, you will have the wind at your backs to change the law, but we need that data first. Otherwise, we are misleading parents. Should we tell parents it's well studied when it's not? Or should we put this pause into law and say wait until 18? If you agree with me that we need to wait until 18, at least until the data is available, please push the green button for this amendment. Mister Speaker, I ask for a roll call.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on Amendment (2451h). Rep. Layon has asked for a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The motion before us is on amendment (2451h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hynes for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dan Hynes (I - Hills 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this amendment goes against parental rights and goes against medical freedom, particularly where patients should be able to decide whether they get that treatment, which could prevent their suicide, which is also irreversible. Even if that treatment is experimental, like many of us might have wanted to try during the early stages of COVID, some experimental treatment. And if I agree with the prior speaker yesterday, we should not substitute the government for parents, would I press red to vote against this anti liberty bill? Thank you.

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

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that until 16 months ago, no clinical guidelines even permitted genital gender reassignment surgery in minors anywhere in the world. And if I know that the experts told us and parents that this was safe and effective, yet they were unable to provide data because there are no data. And if I know that informed consent requires knowledge and understanding of the risks and benefits, which are in truth unknown, yet presented differently to parents. And if I know that until recently these kids were already waiting until 18 for this lifechanging, hopefully for the good, but potentially for the bad surgery, would I then press the green button to continue to first do no harm and wait until 18?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (2451h). 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. 209 voting Yea, 167 voting Nay, amendment (2451h) was adopted. Now we are on to Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cannon.

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D - Straf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker, and fellow colleagues. Adopting this bill is different than anything else we have done in this House. It's going to be a statute that needs to be continually monitored for changes by the medical field. That's pretty hard to do when we put laws into place with this current group of august individuals because the future of this body is going to have to revisit this as changes are made in the medical field. We may also have to visit other areas too because there are changes of who can get what surgeries and how young and so we may need to revisit that area as well. It isn't just genital surgery that young people get. I encourage you to vote no on this bill. It's not right for New Hampshire. It's not right for the transgender community and I hope that our young people don't take this message badly because I'm concerned about the health of many young transgender people. Thank you.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, Representatives for passing this amendment to this bill. As I highlighted before, until 16 months ago, these procedures were prohibited by guidelines so not only is there no data, there are no anecdotes. We have not yet seen how the new WPATH guidelines will trickle down into practice of medicine, especially here in New Hampshire. Traditionally, it takes years, sometimes decades for new guidelines to see clinical adoption, especially for surgical procedures. If that's the case here, this pause does no harm. However, the natural course of transgender health care has taken a very different path than other medical specialties. Instead of slowly and cautiously adopting guidelines, the great desire to do something, anything to help these kids has overwhelmed the medical mindset of slow and cautious adoption. I appreciate the concern and can commiserate with these kids and their families. It's hard. Nobody denies that, but being told something is safe and effective when there is no data and they're just trying to figure out how it works on you is not compassionate. It's not kind. We need to wait. We need to pause. Earlier this morning, on the first bill we debated, we heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle how we could revisit that bill in the future should the data change. Our job is continually looking at the RSAs and continually updating them as necessary. It's no additional burden to do this and to wait and see. Do these help or do these harm? Until then I ask you to again join with me in pressing the green button in passing this bill as amended so we can wait for data and wait until 18. Thank you. I request a roll call vote, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Layon has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that medical knowledge evolves and with that evolution comes changing guidelines. It happens all the time. If I know that there will be no data to review if there is a specific prohibition put in place by all of us nonmedical people. And if I trust parents and medical providers to provide appropriate evidence-based care, would I now press red to defeat this bill so another motion may be made? Thank you.

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

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that telling parents, kids and the whole community that a procedure with no data is safe and effective is negligent, harmful and could cost children their lives or their future capacity. And if know that we adapt our laws all the time and this issue is not going away. If I know all of that, would I press the green button so we can wait until 18, wait for the data, and stop misleading the public and our kids? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 619. 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. 199 voting Yea; 175 voting Nay, the committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended is adopted.

Speaker PackardRep. Tom Mannion moves Ought to Pass. Rep. Pauer has a floor amendment. The House will be in order. (0045h) and it is in your seat pockets. There is no debate on the floor amendment. Are you ready for the question? Rep. Pauer is recognized to speak to her floor amendment.

Rep. Diane Pauer (R - Hills 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of the floor amendment to HB 229. Mister Speaker, in order to fully comprehend this amendment, it is important to understand three key concepts. First, by definition, the National Guard is not a state militia. State militias are distinct from the National Guard in that they serve no federal function. The State of New Hampshire does not have a state militia. Second, the National Guard normally, under state control, becomes part of the federal reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions. Third, the National Guard operates under three different statuses. Title 10 status, which is federally funded and federally controlled, under the command and control of the President. Title 32 status, which is federally funded, and state controlled, under the command and control of the state or territory governor and state active duty, which is state funded, and state controlled, under the command and control of the state territory or governor. Therefore, the National Guard is under the dual control of the state and the federal governments. Now, this amendment clarifies the definition of active-duty combat to include direct combat service in an armed conflict or combat service support employing an instrumentality of war in support of an armed conflict, both being hazardous duties. To be clear, this definition includes frontline service members as well as service members supporting the front lines, both deployed under Title 10. Furthermore, this amendment removes the clause `performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war' as a stand-alone provision from the definition of active-duty combat where an instrumentality of war is defined as a vehicle, vessel, device, or equipment designated primarily for military service. This change is important since most missions performed by the National Guard are distinct from active-duty combat and they involve the use of instrumentalities of war. Duties that involve the use of an instrumentality of war include most National Guard weekend drills, deployments, training exercises, stateside emergency responses as well as humanitarian and civic assistance. Such duties also include deployments to provide training and assistance to friendly foreign military units through the National Guard state partnership program. To be clear, none of these missions of the National Guard constitute active-duty combat but they do involve the use of instrumentalities of war and these important missions would be prohibited by the bill without this amendment. Lastly, sections 5 and 6 of the amendment are self evident in that they simply reaffirm that these non-active-duty combat missions are allowed with this amendment. Mister Speaker, in closing, this amendment makes important and necessary adjustments to the language of HB 229. Therefore, I urge my fellow colleagues to vote yes to support the floor amendment and then the bill as amended. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe question before the House is the Pauer floor amendment (0037h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the floor amendment is adopted. The motion before us now is Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Santonastaso.

Rep. Matthew Santonastaso (R - Ches 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I stand before you with a profound sense of duty. My service with the 82nd Airborne Division as a combat medic, where I was honored with the Combat Medic Badge for treating casualties under fire shapes my understanding of the gravity of sending our troops into combat. This bill requires the US Congress to formally declare war before deployment of New Hampshire National Guard Troops into combat. The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war in part to ensure that grave decisions are subject to rigorous debate, representative consent, and transparency. This process was designed to prevent unchecked executive power and to guarantee that the will of the people, through their elected representatives, was heard and heeded. By sidestepping this process, Congress is not held accountable for the outcome and consequences of military engagements. Defend the Guard is not an impediment to our National Guard's capacity to defend our nation and to respond to emergencies. Instead, it fortifies the constitutional process requiring a formal declaration of war by Congress before our troops are sent into combat. This doesn't prevent deployment. It ensures that such a significant decision is made with the full deliberation and authority that only a congressionally approved declared war can provide. Our National Guardsmen can be called into service under two distinct codes, Title 10, and Title 32 of the US Code. Title 10 places our Guardsmen under Presidential command for national defense while Title 32 keeps them under state command primarily for domestic emergencies. This bill continues New Hampshire's compliance with both. The issue is that Congress has not formally declared war since WWII. Instead, the authorization for use of miliary force, AUMF, of 2001 has been used as a blanket justification for military actions worldwide. The AUMF has led to endless engagements with no accountability or oversight from those who initiated it. This is not only a legal misstep but a moral failure. It puts our troops and global stability at risk without proper justification or end strategy. Concerns about losing federal funding due to noncompliance with Title 10 and 32 are overstated. As outlined in Section 108 of Title 32, the President has discretion in this and also must provide a timeframe for states to address any compliance issues before financial consequences. Moreover, the political reality is that it is improbable for the federal government to withdraw funding for the National Guard, an institution that enjoys widespread public support. No politician will ever advocate to withhold funding to the National Guard. The New Hampshire government's role is not to hold water for the US Congress, but to uphold the principles of the constitution and protect the interest and rights of its citizens. Allowing Congress to bypass its duty not only undermines the constitutional framework but it also diminishes the voice and representation of our constituents in matters of war. Defend the Guard resonates deeply with our citizens. Across political divides I have found unanimous support for this bill. This is a decision that impacts the lives of our service men and women and the constitutional integrity of our nation. Before we ask the New Hampshire guards men and women to go to foreign lands to kill and be killed, we should first ask Congress to do its job and make a formal declaration of war. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Steve Shurtleff (D - Merr 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker will all due respect for my friend from Derry, and he is my friend, I rise to oppose this bill. When the bill first came to our committee, I got a lot of calls from people in New Hampshire and a few from out of New Hampshire and the last thing they would say to me is, and don't forget that veterans support this bill. Let me say that nobody hates war, other than those that have lost a loved one, more than a veteran. I haven't fought in a war in a long time, far away along with my friend from Haverhill who knows the agonies of war. I'm a veteran and I don't support this bill. That feeling was reinforced when the State Veterans Advisory Council met. For those who don't know, and I know a lot of you do know about the council, it's a state agency. It's chaired by Paul Lloyd, the past commander of the VFW and a real friend of veterans. It is made up of 20 different veterans' organizations, VFW, Korean War Vets, American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart and so many others. That organization, on a vote of 20-0, voted not to support this bill but to oppose it. Now, this is not a good bill. It's not good for the National Guard. It's not good for New Hampshire. It's not good for our country and for me, most importantly, it's not good for members on active duty in the armed forces. I should mention that we have a member from the legislature that also serves on the State Advisory Committee and does an excellent job. It's not good for the National Guard because as I said in my blurb, we get up to $2 billion a year from the Department of Defense. A lot of that goes into planes for the Air National Guard. It goes into paying for personnel. It goes into buying the helicopters that we often see on channel 9 news bringing somebody down from the mountains who has been injured. It does so much for our state. That could be in jeopardy for our National Guard. Someone may speak later and say oh no the pentagon won't take away that $2 billion, they got plenty of money. They will keep giving it to New Hampshire. Not if you got a National Guard that can't react immediately to a national defense issue. This bill, as I mentioned, is not good for New Hampshire because we do get a lot of services from our National Guard that stay right here in this state. It helps so much whether it is engineers or anything else. A lot of that money that goes to support those programs will be gone. It won't be good for our country, and it won't be good for our active-duty military. The last time Congress passed a declaration of war was on December 11, 1941 when our country declared war on Germany four days after Pearl Harbor was attacked. If we learned nothing else from WWII, we learned that this country is no longer a citadel. We do not stand alone and have the Atlantic and the Pacific to protect us from our enemies abroad. If something happens, like in 1950 when North Korea came over the 48th parallel and attacked South Korea, we had to react immediately and we did along with the United Nations. We now have a complete nut job running North Korea, Kim Jong Un, who's got a missile that can hit the United States. If he should again decide to attack Korea, we've got to act immediately. When I served in Vietnam, the 197th field artillery was stationed there too of the National Guard, and they were only a couple of miles up from where I was at Lyka with the First Division, 2nd brigade. They fought with honor, and they fought with sacrifice by that unit. I was proud to have them there in partners. Even more so today, when our National Guard is part of that tapestry of United States defense, all the agencies and all the departments weave together as one solid force in defense of our nation. We got some more bills and we have been here a long time already. I'm going to end now, but I please ask you to vote no on this so another motion can be made. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Tom Mannion (R - Hills 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of HB 229 commonly referred to as the Defend the Guard Act. This bill, very simply, requires Congress to formally declare war pursuant to Article one, Section 8 of the US Constitution before we will deploy our state National Guard to a foreign combat zone. It does not stop training deployments, natural disaster response, use to repel invasion or quell uprisings. It has been filed in 38 states and is making progress through various legislatures. The fiscal note attached to the bill, a vague `puts funding at risk' is the same tired hollowed threat used to bully states into compliance. It's intentionally non committal because it is nonsense. When filed in Kansas, Defend the Guard was reported accurately as having no fiscal impact. Congressmen Gosar and Massie have spoken in favor of this bill reminding us that Congress controls the purse strings and no member would consider defunding a guard unit. It simply would be political suicide to file an amendment to an appropriations bill defunding a single State Guard being both a petty act of malice and also making the country weaker. It will not happen. Now, for a bit of history. Congress has not formally declared war since 1942. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 introduced the authorizations for use of military force, which have been the mechanism by which the President has instituted military operations ever since. This abdication of constitutionally delegated power to the Executive Branch ultimately led us into forever wars of the last two decades. The 2001 AUMF was hastily passed in the wake of 9-11 and was so vastly worded with vague limits on targets, theaters of operation and no victory conditions that it has been the justification for military action in 22 countries. Over the course of the war on terror, National Guard units made up 45% of the boots on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, accounting for 18% of the casualties. Hurricane Katrina's devastation in 2005 was exasperated by guard soldiers and equipment that were deployed to Iraq and Kuwait instead of at home protecting their communities. Years later, one of the same missing Louisiana National Guard units, the 256th Infantry Brigade, came under rocket attacks during their deployment to Syria in 2021, where the US is occupying that country's oil fields. The pentagon will continue to exploit state guard units to bolster their shrinking ranks in these forever wars until the states say enough is enough. Asking people to vote harder in federal elections to beg our representatives to repeal the AUMFs has been a failing proposition to stop the uniparty war machine for decades. The most recent vote in the US Senate to repeal the 2001 AUMF garnered 10 votes. This is in our hands right now to protect the lives of the service men and women in our state and to ensure our guard remains always ready, always there. I ask you to stand with them, Defend the Guard and press the green button to OTP on HB 229. Mister Speaker, I ask for a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Does the member yield to question? Your may inquire. Representative Stapleton Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, Representative, for taking my question. Last March 29th we delivered a House Proclamation to a National Guardsman here and he was from Windham. He won soldier of the year. He is now stationed over in Kuwait. Would you believe I was talking to him a week and a half or so ago and him and his fellow soldiers are very aware of what we are doing here right now, and they have asked for our support?

Rep. Tom Mannion (R - Hills 1)I do believe that. There is resounding support amongst post 9-11 veterans. There is a disconnect with the SVAC committee that I am looking to rectify next year with legislation. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Granger has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 229. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Massimilla for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Linda Massimilla (D - Graf 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that Title 10 of the US Code outlines the authority of the federal government to activate the reserves including the National Guard in time of war or of a national emergency or when otherwise authorized by law and that a governor may not hold consent in whole or part with regards to active-duty deployment outside of the United States. And if I know that Congress in 2001 passed the authorization of the use of the Military Force Act which impowered the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations and persons dealing in acts of international terrorism against the United States and that the AUMF Act has been used to activate combat activities against terrorist groups abroad without a declaration of war for the past 19 years. Finally, Mister Speaker, although I believe HB 229 is well intended as we all want to keep our New Hampshire National Guardsmen out of harms way, but I also know that the Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services oppose this bill and that it would create a conflict between the states and federal laws and the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and can only be resolved at the federal level, would I now press the red button against the OTP/A? Thank you.

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

Rep. Ellen Read (D - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know members of Congress have reaffirmed that Congress certainly will not take the unprecedented move of defunding a state guard unit and certainly not the committee chaired by one of New Hampshire's own Senators and certainly not for New Hampshire affirming that it should be Congress and not one man, one person who makes the dire last resort decision to send the National Guard into an overseas war. And if I know that we have spent over two decades, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars to enrich oil companies and defense contractors while destabilizing the middle east and souring an entire generation against the United States. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that as the name implies, the place for the National Guard is here at home guarding the nation where they will be available to help us during the next pandemic or natural disaster or civil unrest, would I now then press the green button to defend the guard who defends us?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 229. 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. The House will be in order. With 187 voting Yea and 182 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Why would I take a 16-0 bill off consent? That's a good question worth asking. The blurb in the House Calendar is actually longer than the text of the bill. The text of the bill is short. So short, it's two sentences and I'll read it in its entirety, so people understand what they are voting on. "The court shall admit any evidence or testimony in any form offered by the respondent in a family division case which the respondent believes will be favorable to his or her case." Second sentence. "In all proceedings before the judicial branch family division, the court shall apply the New Hampshire rules of evidence to enhance the predictable, orderly, fair, and reliable presentation of evidence." Sounds reasonable. In fact, our constitution speaks to this, but before I can get to that, I want to read two articles out of Part First, freedom of speech. "The freedom of deliberation speech and debate in either House of the Legislature is so essential to the rights of the people that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint or prosecution in any court or place whatsoever." I'll explain why I bring that up in a minute. Second constitutional principle that is worthwhile, rights of the accused, Part First, Article 15. "No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially, and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. Every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs (not some, not most, it's all proofs) that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense, by himself, and counsel." I could go on. There is more to that Article. It is an important Article. So, I'm going to go back in history a little bit. As a Dad, a little over two years ago, one of my children was having some medical issues. We did appropriate due diligence as parents to treat said medical issues. We ended up in the emergency room. We saw several other doctors. I had a nurse who believed we were doing the wrong thing and made a mandatory phone call to DCYF. I remember that day quite well because I get a phone call from a 603-271 phone number that I don't know and it's a DCYF employee demanding that my child go immediately to the emergency room. Now, mind you that same child had been released from the emergency room 5 or 6 days earlier and had been released to go home by the nurse that morning. She changed her mind. I told the DCYF employee, because I knew more about the medication than the nurse, that I don't think her analysis is correct. I'm pretty certain it's faulty. Her analysis is fundamentally flawed for numerous medical reasons, and I could easily describe those. So, no, there is no need to go to the emergency room, but I will gladly go to a doctor of my choice anywhere in the state if you need me to go get this opinion confirmed. No, that wasn't good enough. We need to see your child in an emergency room right now. Imminent danger of coma or death. I'll say that again. Imminent danger. Imminent being the key word, of coma or death. Mind you, that child is healthy, well and doing well at home right now. So, imminent danger of coma or death is probably a little bit of an exaggeration. This then went into the typical process that parents see if they are accused of neglect or abuse by a state agency. In this case, DCYF. There is a hearing at a court. That's a good thing. We had one of those about a week later. Between the initial accusation and the court hearing, which was on a Thursday, my son saw two additional doctors on Friday. DCYF spoke with one of those doctors and had a video phone call with my son and my wife and they still continued to push for removal of him from the home a week later. Imminent danger of coma or death. So, we get to this first hearing at the court, and we agree to set an order that the judge signs off, that was mutually agreed to by all parties. I won't read the entire order. It was written by hand. I will read two or three key lines. "The ex parte order issued in this matter is amended as follows: DCYF shall not seek placement outside of the home until further court order. Child shall remain with his parents." I'm going to go on. The last one is the most important. Right above the signature of the judge. "The scheduling of said hearing, meaning the first preliminary evidentiary hearing, shall account for the availability of the father's medical witnesses, all of whom shall be able to testify telephonically." Not most, not some, all of whom shall be able to testify telephonically, December 16. Christmas rolls around and there is a lot going on and fortunately the court and the department can't meet the statutory requirements to have a follow up hearing in the right amount of time so it's January 21st before we are back in court again. One would think I would have time to have at the next hearing the emergency room doctor who saw my son the day after the initial accusation to come testify because I was just told he would be allowed to testify. So, I paid an emergency room doctor to sit in the hallway at the Concord City courthouse. Unfortunately, he didn't get a chance to testify. So, we get to that 21st order and I'm going to read another court order. This is coming out of a hearing from the 21st. The following orders are entered following this hearing. A couple of different things. The case will be scheduled for a three-hour preliminary hearing in which each side will proceed by offers of proof and cross examination and the proffered witnesses. Each side will have one and half hours to present their case, including cross examination. I would think I would get a chance to bring in my medical witnesses at that point. I have a pharmacist. I have several medical doctors who are all being paid to be there to present their evidence. Some of whom have seen my son in person and some of whom have not. All of whom are experts relative to toxicology of various medical products. The judge rules in that hearing, nope, I've made up my mind. I'm not going to let you go ahead and offer your witnesses. I've decided you are already guilty enough that we should proceed to the next hearing, which is scheduled for almost two months later, a month and a half later. My point in all of this is that judges don't even follow their own orders. Literally same judge, same courtroom, same personnel involved on all parties and the judge who issued the order doesn't follow his own orders. The system is broken. Maybe going to Children and Family Law was the wrong place being that this is about the judicial process, not just the Children and Family Law process. There are people in this room who have much greater expertise relative to the courts that might be able to weigh in on what is the right process. I think it is worthwhile considering there are a lot of families who are subject to accusations by the state government who are now respondents who have limited means, who are put in situations where they are not able to respond, who should have some reasonable rules to work with so they understand and can expect a department who has effectively unlimited resources to turn in evidence ahead of time so they can respond to it. Who can turn in witnesses ahead of time so they can respond to it. I agree with the Chairman's report that the language there needs work. I am fully prepared to work on that language. I think given where we are right now and our House Rules, an amendment could not be offered between earlier this week and now. I would move to table this so an amendment can be drafted between various parties so that we can discuss this at our next Session. Mister Speaker, is that motion in order?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithYou were recognized to speak so making a motion is not appropriate because you would then be speaking twice, technically, and there are others to speak.

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)Okay, thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for humoring me on a longer than normal speech. I just spoke with the Chairman, and he would like to share his thoughts on the bill, but we will work towards some effort. Somebody can make a motion to table this. Thank you, everybody.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Mark Pearson is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The Children and Family Law Committee unanimously voted this bill Inexpedient to Legislate and they did it for two reasons. Number one, sections one and two of the bill contradict each other. Section One says the family court shall admit any evidence or testimony in any form offered by the respondent in a court case. Section Two says that in all proceedings the court shall apply the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence. I've read the book entitled Rules of Evidence. It's 280 pages long. I've read it four times. What is stated in this Rules of Evidence book gives the judge considerable latitude and offers suggestions as to when the judge would wisely deny the acceptance of certain evidence. So, which is it? Section One, the judge must admit anything or Section Two, the judge following the rules of evidence may decide not to admit something? The two sections contradict. The second reason we unanimously voted ITL has to do with many of the complaints made to the Special Committee on the Family Division of the Circuit Court. This special committee comprises five members from Children and Family Law and five members from the Judiciary Committee. In the 14 hours of public testimony, we heard many complaints that trials were taking too long, and decisions were being pushed too far out because too many pieces of evidence were being admitted. If the bill before us is signed into law, there is no restriction on what the respondent in a trial may offer. How long will the trials go on for now? Now, another piece of evidence that builds the case is different and my friend, I think, gave some reasons why he could argue what he wanted heard added to the case. But if it's not adding to the case, the judge can have the right to say no, the trial is going on too long. Additionally, many testified before us that the people were offering as evidence statements that had little probative value but were introduced simply to tarnish the character of the other person. In other words, a statement was offered that added nothing to helping the judge decide guilt or innocence, but the statement was made to drag somebody else through the mud. If the respondents proffered evidence must be accepted according to Part one of this bill, we can only imagine the additional amount of mud that will be flinged. However, I believe there is validity to what lies in the background of this bill. That is to say the complaint a judge or two may lean too heavily on one side or the other and admitting or refusing to admit a piece of evidence. That's why the amendment offered to the other bill about evidence, that we voted on by a unanimous, I think it was, voice vote yesterday said this, "If a judge denies a piece of evidence over an objection or if a judge refuses a piece of evidence over an objection, the judge shall place in the trial record the reason why he or she decided that way. I will stipulate that judges have good reason for what they do and if they do, it is not unreasonable to ask them to put it in writing. Court administrative supervisors will then review what judges wrote in the trial notes, especially if complaints are lodged against a certain judge. Possibly, they might conclude a given judge might need some continuing education. This, I believe, speaks to my friend's objections as to how his case was handled. So, I'd like two things. First, I'd like this body to vote ITL and number two, I will or somebody else can move to table so my friend and I can square a circle here and get justice for everybody. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)I'd like to make a motion, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Sweeney moves that HB 499 be laid on the table. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. This will be a division vote. Members take your seats. The question is whether to lay HB 499 on the table. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, push the green button, opposed, push red. 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. 200 in the affirmative, 164 in the negative, HB 499 is laid on the table.