The House, Thursday, March 14, 2024

Speaker PackardRep. Cascadden moves Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Alicia Lekas.

Rep. Alicia Lekas (R - Hills 38)Prior to the antidiscrimination law that this bill tries to repeal, many of us including people in this room right now, have had our kids and our friends' kids come home upset because they were being taught that all white people are racist and that because they were a boy, they were oppressors. Since this law was passed, I haven't heard any of that so I would say it seems to be working and there is no reason to repeal it. But schools and businesses have started another way of being racist and discriminatory. They started a new campaign which is more subtle but just as pernicious and I'd like to read a letter that our committee got from a person of color on what is currently being pushed which is racist and discriminatory. "I would like to address the committee on the inclusion of diversity equity and inclusion policies within our state. Being a person of color it is my experience that DEI should instead be labeled division, exclusion and indoctrination. Instead of judging by their character as Martin Luther King aspired to, these policies aim at discriminating against racists that happen to be out of favor at this time. Just as we look back on history right now and bow our heads in shame at how blacks were once treated, today's generation seems bent on creating another injustice that it will have to repent of in future generations by choosing favored skin colors and endowing certain levels of melatonin with rights that are denied others. The efforts of DEI policies to help people of color contrary to their stated purpose of lifting us up are placing boots on our necks. What legacy is being left by DEI policies as I listen to whites tell me all the things that need to be done to make my life equal to their own. I hear the ideologies behind their words. I hear them telling me that people of color are an inferior race that is incapable of rising to the challenges handed them at this hour. I hear them telling me that the only way that our people can be successful in life is if other races cheat at life for us by giving us a head start. I hear them saying there is no value in my people except the value endowed by their great white benefactors. It is the same racist ideology that kept people in the chains of slavery. The anthem that sings that we are but animals in need of being kept, but now it is slavery of the mind. It's seems that the governing mentality still expects our people to stand in line for handouts from said benefactors. Do you not realize that you are simply creating a new reality in which the whites are still the oppressors? The only difference is that now you oppress our minds with thoughts that we cannot be equal. You disparage us with statements that only you can lift us up. That our people lack the strength to do so on our own. You damn us to the slavery of never being capable of catching our own fish. Perhaps you think that these policies will help. That might be what whites thought when the laws that sent people to the homes of my mother and others like her in the middle of the night searching under the beds of her and her siblings making certain that her father was not in the home helping to provide for them lest their government aid be taken from them. My mother learned to hate your handouts and it is a legacy that I respect and will continue with my own children. All handouts come at a cost of humiliating the recipients they intend to help. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do. You might even think you are helping but by the time the ink is dry on the laws you have passed, another family is broken, another head droops in shame and humiliation. So perhaps you should reconsider your choices. We've done this before and now an entire race suffers from the damning pandemic of fatherlessness. The unintended consequences of your help did not benefit us before. Please don't help us now. Sincerely, T. Johnson." Please vote red on this misplaced repeal bill and keep our antidiscrimination laws in place. Thank you. Mister Speaker, I would like a roll call on this.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, New Hampshire is currently struggling with a teacher shortage. In fact, recently, the committee to study New Hampshire teacher shortages and recruitment incentives completed its findings. Among which teachers reported that the increased politicization of their jobs has discouraged many away from the profession and that they are feeling stressed with concerns for consequences as a result of legislation proposed and passed by us. It is my hope that today will take a step in addressing our teacher's concerns by overturning one of those laws titled the right to freedom from discrimination in the workplace and education. Yet despite its title, it has nothing to do with real discrimination. It should have no place on the books in our honorable state. One which never received a stand alone vote in this chamber, but instead was pushed through as part of the budget in 2021. It is an insult to our public-school teachers, and it gives cover to those who actually hate and are discriminatory. In my testimony before the Education Committee, I said not everyone who agrees with this law is a racist, but everyone who is racist supports this law.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Well, the following day I received a hateful email from a self avowed racist who also eviscerated me and other members of this chamber for our views on this law. He quoted my remarks and then he said, "Peter is correct about that. Racists support the current law." So, let's take a close look at this law. It's comprised of four provisions, which on the surface sound perfectly reasonable, until you examine them carefully. Provisions A, C and D are very clear. No pupil in any school, public school, shall be taught that they are superior. That's provision A. Should discriminate, provision C or treat others less than equal, provision D. Seriously? Do we believe that our public schools are instructing children that they are superior? Really? Should discriminate? Treat others less than equal? This is where the law insults our teachers. I think of Marie, my wife, who taught elementary school in Milford for 30 years. In her classroom she had a sign which simply said the golden rule. It was written in gold-colored letters. It was in a gold color frame, and she explained to the children that out of all the rules to follow, this was the most important, to treat others as equals with respect and kindness. Now while these provisions attempt to make the law sound anti-discriminatory, I believe that they are meant to camouflage the law's real intent, which is found in provision B. That is to silence teachers' voices on topics that some don't want discussed. What does provision B say? No pupil in any public school shall be taught that an individual or group is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive. Now think about that for a moment. Think about that for a moment. Are we denying reality? Of course, there are individuals and groups which are racist, sexist and oppressive. Discriminatory to the LGBTQ+ community, anti-semitic, Islamophobic and more. Our attorney general's office has a list of these hate groups, but provision B prevents teachers from saying so. This right here is the law's real intent. By the way, if I was asked and I never was, I would have said you can always find examples of those in every profession who violate proper conduct, but you don't paint everyone with the same brush and impose draconian measures which make it challenging to do their jobs. The real question is this. Can a teacher discuss the Holocaust without making parallels to today's neo-Nazis or teach the history of the Ku Klux Klan without examining today's white supremacist? I recently saw a post that said education is not memorizing that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Education is about understanding how and why millions of ordinary German citizens allowed it to happen. The reason we study the past is to understand how we got to where we are today and to work towards making tomorrow a better place for all of us and we cannot do that if we are not allowed to connect the dots. Colleagues, New Hampshire is better than this. We are better than this. I urge you to vote Ought to Pass. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mister Speaker, I move to Indefinitely Postpone HB 1162.

Speaker PackardThat is a proper motion. A roll call has been requested by Rep. Sweeney. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone HB 1162. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Peternel for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Mister Speaker, if I know that the current allows educators to teach and treat all equally and without discrimination. If I know that the current law does not prohibit teachers from teaching US History and does allow for the teaching of historical concepts related to discrimination and allows for diverse educational approaches. If I know that repealing RSA 354-A:29 through 354-A:34 would eliminate any method of redress for grievance of discrimination, would I now press the green button and support the Indefinitely Postpone motion?

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

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know that all young people have a 1st Amendment right to learn free from censorship or discrimination, including a right to read, learn and share ideas free from viewpoint-based discrimination, then wouldn't I press the red button to defeat the Indefinite Postponement motion so that we can get back onto this debate? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone HB 1162. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 192 voting Yea, 183 voting Nay, HB 1162 has been Indefinitely Postponed.

Speaker PackardRep. Belcher moves Ought to Pass. Committee amendment (0654h). Are you ready for the question on the committee amendment? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. A division has been called. Only members in the chamber can vote. Members need to be in your seats. Only members in the chamber can vote. The question is on the amendment (0654h). This is for clarification. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 181 voting Yea, 182 voting Nay, the motion fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Having voted on the prevailing side, I move reconsideration on that last vote and urge the members to vote yes and request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardWe've moved on and it's allowed. Now we are going to a roll call vote. This is a motion for reconsideration on the amendment. The motion before us is reconsideration on HB 1305. This is on the amendment which is (0654h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor of reconsideration, 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 189 voting Yea, 183 voting Nay, reconsideration passes. We are now back on the amendment. Are you ready for the question? Division? A division has been requested. Members take your seats. You should be in them anyway. The motion before us is on the amendment (0654h). 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 192 voting Yea, 182 voting Nay, committee amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Popovici-Muller offers floor amendment (1094h) and is recognized to speak to his amendment.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to support amendment (1094h). When I started working on this bill, I engaged with policy representatives from the beginning, and I continue to work with them through all of this time. The minority report states that the bill does nothing toward any feedback from the University System even though when I tabled HB 516 last year, I told everybody here that the University System had required a change to limit their financial liability. That change has been made in HB 1305, as amended. So, I have to correct the record and say that the bill, as filed, already had feedback including feedback from the University System. We just adopted 0654h, same process. Somebody raised concerns with the civil rights unit of the Attorney General. I worked with them to address their concerns. The amendment literally contains the line which the Attorney General suggested to fix this bill. It had been adopted by the committee. Same process was used to come up with this amendment. I continue to work with the university representatives, and we found two minor changes that, if made, would make the bill more palatable to them. First, we add two words in the first paragraph to the amendment to clarify that while the bill does protect the rights of the members of the campus community, it does not extend the same level of protections to people unassociated with the university that would just walk in from the street. That was a reasonable concern, and I was happy to work with them to make it better. It also, at their request, adds two instances where we refer to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions to clarify that those restrictions apply at all times. I originally felt that my bill language made that clear to start with, but after hearing them telling me that it would be better this way, I was happy to address that. I am not claiming, by the way, that they will support this bill, as amended. If they did, we would have a much smaller floor discussion, but they definitely prefer the bill, as amended, here to the current language of the bill. They do support the amendment (1094h) so please show your support for the University System by supporting amendment (1094h), which is filed at their request. Thank you, Mister Speaker and I'm not taking any questions and I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardRep. Popovici-Muller 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 the Popovici-Muller floor amendment (1094h). This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Luneau for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this bill has a lot of problems with it. And if I know that this amendment doesn't fix any of them, then wouldn't I press the red button to defeat the amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Popovici-Muller for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment was requested by the University System, would I press the green button to show my support for them? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1094h). 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 197 voting Yea, 175 voting Nay, the floor amendment was adopted. Now we are on to Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. McDonnell.

Rep. Valerie McDonnell (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, honorable colleagues for allowing me to speak today. I like to talk. A lot and both the New Hampshire and US Constitutions uphold that right. Moreover, 1st Amendment protections expand far beyond speech and cover five freedoms, two of which are the subject of HB 1305, speech and association. More specifically, HB 1305 relates to New Hampshire college students, however, we are all students of history and as many statemen who came before us have noted, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." As we gather in this historic chamber representing the multitude of viewpoints that encompass the Granite State, these words are relevant today. However, student organizations are incentivized to do the opposite. Any person's misbehavior at an event, penalizes the student group hosting the event, therefore the hecklers veto prohibits future events. In other words, the student organization loses their rights through no fault of their own. Not only is this unfair, but this is also un-American. The absolute violation of both of our constitutions renders the University System open to expensive lawsuits. Therefore, HB 1305 is paramount to protecting taxpayers from financial risk. Considering it is the second most expensive state university nationwide, the University of New Hampshire is already a financial burden. Needless to say, litigation reduced instructional resources, increases tax liability and is not conducive to learning. After all, the purpose of college is to get an education. Furthermore, HB 1305 aligns with supreme court rulings by prohibiting free speech zones. In other words, speech should not be limited to the back corner of the parking lot and prohibited everywhere else. Finally, last year a similar bill was laid on the table so not debated. Today, New Hampshire students are not only listening to this debate, but also want to know which representatives defend freedom. So, Mister Speaker, on their behalf, I request a roll call vote. Thank you.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise before you today because the prime sponsor of the bill asked me, as a co-sponsor, to come speak before you today about the importance of freedom of speech. Mister Speaker, it's a pleasure to finally be able to get to speak on the same side of the aisle as my friend from Salem. She's a passionate individual young person who has spent a lot of time here and it's a great thing to be able to get to speak with her. This bill is very simple. There is a problem in our schools right now that students have been reporting for unfortunately a long time. Their free speech has been hampered and this is students both conservative students, liberal students, socialist students and libertarian students. People have had their ability to speak on issues tampered by college administrators who are trying their hardest to keep things nice. Unfortunately for those who want to keep things nice and calm and respectful, sometimes freedom of speech requires us to be a little bit passionate. It requires us to say something that the majority of the people in the room might disagree with. In fact, that is what protest is all about. Mister Speaker, this bill was worked on extraordinary hard for the last biennium as a matter of fact. It was introduced in the beginning of this biennium and now we are here towards the end of it debating the final version of this bill. The sponsor worked with the civil rights division of the AG's office to make sure that it fits and is compliant with what they need to do in that office, making sure that it doesn't have any civil rights violations in it, and they worked very hard with the University System to make sure that it met their concerns. And this is important because this government, this country in this world depends on the constitution that we have here in the United States of America. There are many countries in this world that don't have basic foundational constitutional rights and they look to the United States of America, our red, white and blue stripes, for inspiration for those constitutional rights. If we here in this body today don't say that our students at the institutions where they are learning have those constitutional rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, we all know the gambit, then I think we are failing them. Our institutions of educational learning, especially our higher education institutions should be places where we can vociferously debate these issues. Where everybody from every side can come and tell why or why not they have the beliefs that they do and yes, sometimes those beliefs will be abhorrent to most of us. That's what freedom of speech is about. The founders were smart, they were intelligent, and they knew that the minority view needed to be protected in a constitutional republic if it was to survive. The 1st Amendment isn't for things that we all agree about. I don't need the 1st Amendment to protect me from my right to say that puppies are cute. I think most of us agree that puppies are cute. I need my 1st Amendment rights to protect me from people who would prosecute me for my position on something that they don't agree with, someone prosecuting a minority view. So, Mister Speaker, to protect our educational institutions and make sure that speech and debate is had in a full-throated way and understanding the very diligent work that was put into this bill, I urge you to join me, Representative McDonnell, the young people of this body and everybody in here who loves freedom of speech in supporting the Ought to Pass motion on this legislation. Thank you.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm here to speak in opposition to HB 1305. Make no mistake, I'm in favor of free speech and free speech on our college campuses. While the bill has some good aspects, they are already being done throughout the state's university and community college systems and are included in free speech policies at UNH, Plymouth, Keene and all the community colleges. UNH is ranked third in the country among all colleges and universities for its policies on free speech and expression and all of our state's four-year institutions received green lights from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This bill is unnecessary. But most importantly, the bill overreaches far beyond speech and expression. We haven't talked about this yet. It requires our state colleges and universities to recognize student organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion and political ideology. The bill would require UNH and the other colleges and universities to fund these groups, some of them being hate groups with money coming from taxpayers, tuition and fees. Are you kidding? Really? Is this what New Hampshire is all about? This bill fuels a divisive environment on campus, and it violates our state's own anti-discrimination laws and federal law such as Title IX. Taxpayers and families expect better. The sponsors ignored input and feedback from the universities and community colleges. Bills like this would promote discrimination and hate speech and should be resoundingly rejected. Press the red button if you support antidiscrimination. You know, there's a lot of UNH graduates here in New Hampshire and they want to know what side you're on so I'm going to stand by and request a roll call vote on this as well, Mister Speaker, so that they know. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Popovici-Muller.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker and distinguished colleagues. I rise today to correct a lot of misinformation about this bill. I shared a package of documents and videos with all of you ahead of time. I don't need to keep my cards close to my chest. I'd rather give you the time to consider everything at length. I could address the minority report point that we are doing great, and we are ranked 3rd by FIRE, but our FIRE score is only 72/100 which is a rather mediocre C minus. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask our university to do better. I could remind you that UC Berkeley went from being the heart of the free speech movement to suffering from repeated cases of violence being used to suppress speech, just like UPenn went from being against free speech to being for free speech and then back again to being against free speech. We have a duty to set standards and make sure that our institutions respect free speech permanently, so this legislation is needed. I could spend time to address the puzzling claim that HB 1305, and I quote "violates our state's own non-discrimination laws and federal law." But to take that claim seriously, you'd have to believe that nobody noticed it until now, because nobody testified against it in committee. You'd have to believe that the ACLU endorsed this bill two years in a row because they just didn't notice it was dismantling our anti discrimination laws which the ACLU is defending so staunchly, and you'd have to believe that the director of the civil rights unit, after a thorough review of this bill also failed to notice that this bill dismantles the statutes that the civil rights unit is designed to protect. Yeah, right. So why the opposition to this bill? If you took the ten minutes that I asked you for when I sent you that email yesterday to watch the videos, you already know. This publicly stated desire to ban student associations whose beliefs one finds repugnant is very understandable, its human nature, but acting on such desires is unconstitutional, and a terrible policy. We cannot and should not punish people based on the content of their lawful speech, regardless of how repugnant we may find it. Free speech is the cornerstone of our nation. Tampering with it is foolish. I want to remind you that a lot of commonly accepted beliefs today have been considered repugnant at the beginning. Abolitionism was considered repugnant and was attacked because of claims of emotional harm against the slave owners. Women's rights were considered a repugnant idea. How dare they? Gay rights were so radioactive in the 50's that the ACLU refused to even represent them. It took another decade until the ACLU was comfortable enough. So many ideas are strong today because someone protected them, the 1st Amendment, against the people who wanted to silence them until they grew into the supported ideas they are today. The freedom of association bans all comers policies, which would require every student association to accept every member. Those policies are discriminatory in intent and in application, because to apply them literally, the way they are written would require every university to remove every safe space, because every safe space is discriminatory. That way you don't allow everybody in. Nobody intends to do that, and they shouldn't. All we are asking for is the same treatment for everybody to have their own safe spaces to meet. Should apply to everyone. Same thing with the minimal funds that they get from the university. Which, by the way, come from student activity fees. Not from taxpayer money, not tuition funds, student activity fees from the people who attend. There is no requirement for the university to offer any funds to any student associations. The bill simply says that if you do it, you have to give it to everybody equally. You don't have to, if you find that objectionable. Equal protection under the law, equal rights for everyone. That is all we are asking for. The minority report also appears to consistently confuse discrimination, which is legal and good, with illegal discrimination, which is based on belonging to a protected class, which is bad and illegal. UNH discriminates against every student they reject. Should they accept everybody who applies? Does the school discriminate against athletically challenged students by not letting a 5-foot student who is weighing 100lb play nose tackle, or center on the basketball team? How dare you discriminate. And please, try to imagine a world in which you would be legally required to date anybody who asks you out because to deny somebody is discriminatory. Of course, it's not illegally discriminatory, thank God. Nobody is suggesting those policies are good, but by the same token, all comers policies are terrible, so we should make sure they don't come in. But for the record, illegal discrimination is still a red herring. Every example of undesirable student associations discussed in hearings both in 2023 and 2024 was based on their beliefs, speech and expression, whether it was their purported support for genocide, or their neo nazi membership, white supremacists or anti semitic. If even members of the Education Committee cannot resist the unconstitutional desire to ban certain student associations in order to suppress speech, they find repugnant, what chance does the faculty, staff and student membership have to resist the same temptations? This by the way is precisely the type of student association ban that victims testified about in 2023, and I am dismayed by the fact that people who watched this testimony are trying to oppose the bill that is trying to prevent further abuses. And by the way, another one of those situations happened later in 2023, reminding us of the need to pass this bill to make it crystal clear to everyone that we do not tolerate such actions in the State of New Hampshire. I am asking you all to reject these attempts to enable oppression of minorities based on their beliefs, lawful beliefs and speech and protect all members of the campus community by supporting the OTP motion for this bipartisan bill. Thank you, Mister Speaker. I will not be taking any questions, and I do also request a roll call vote. Thank you.

Speaker PackardI was just going to ask if the member yielded to questions. No, member does not yield. The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1305. A roll call has been requested. 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 Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1305. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Damon for a parliamentary inquiry. Representative Damon: Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the university and community college systems in New Hampshire already have effective policy standards for free speech and expression and are highly ranked nationally for their fair application of those policies. And if I know that this bill would require our state colleges and universities to recognize and fund organizations that discriminate on the basis on race, gender, religion and political ideology. And if I know that despite its title, this bill actually violates our state's nondiscrimination laws, would I now press the red button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Rep. Lynn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that freedom of expression and freedom of association are under attack in this country, particularly in our academic institutions which should be the last place we would expect this to occur. And if I know that although New Hampshire public colleges and universities fair better in this regard than private colleges and universities, and those in some other states, our public institutions of higher learning have not been immune to the scourge of political correctness. And if I know that championing diversity is the cause c�l�bre in the academic world as to all things but one. That exception being diversity of thought. And if I know that HB 1305 enhances freedom of expression and freedom of association on our public university campuses while giving administrators ample authority to impose reasonable time, place and manner limitations on these rights. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill does not and could not under the supremacy clause authorize the university system to sanction unlawful discrimination based on race, sex or any other protected class, then would I support the OTP motion by pushing the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker and I also request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1305. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 206 voting Yea, 169 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardRep. Seibert moves Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Moffett.

Rep. Michael Moffett (R - Merr 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. To be sure our American healthcare system needs improvements. We spend far too much per capita than any other country and there are certainly policies and efficiencies that we need to look at. There are certainly gaps in coverage. We know that. We can do better, but a single payer national health insurance the best way to go? Just look at the countries that have that, that have gone there. Some have had experiences better than others, but all too often they end up with lower quality healthcare, especially if healthcare providers receive inadequate reimbursement. Also, under said systems, people lose their choices, choices. They lose choice when they go to single payer in these other countries. A lack of competition and a lack of choice, lessens the pressures on providers to perform or to innovate. Rationing is commonplace in many of these countries. We just have to look where this has been tried and what's happened time and time again. We've all heard the horror stories, and they are real, of people who died in these other countries waiting for treatment because they couldn't get scheduled. Tellingly, countless people from other countries with national health insurance come to America. They come here from these other countries that have national insurance and they are in line and can't get help for important treatments, they come here. With our current open borders, we have millions of people busting in here and overwhelming what we currently have in terms of emergency room treatment. Yet, many of the proponents of national health insurance want to include undocumented migrants in this plan. That is a sure way to overwhelm what is already a system that is stressed. So, poll after poll shows a majority of Americans to be satisfied with the plans they have in place. I am and probably most of you are. So why do we want to change that drastically? Like I said, things need attention, but we need to revamp. We don't need to replace our current healthcare structure. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jessica LaMontagne (D - Straf 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good afternoon, my fellow members of the House. I rise in support of HR 23 calling on our federal delegation to support a national universal health insurance program. Our complicated, wasteful healthcare system is a catastrophe. We spend more on healthcare per capita than any country on earth and have the worst health outcomes. It's true what is said that people come from all over the world to access American healthcare, but wealthy people paying cash for the best doctors in the world is not the same thing as people coming here to buy private health insurance. They don't. Opponents of the resolution state that many citizens are happy with their current arrangements. No one testified at the hearing that they love their private health insurance. On the contrary, we heard many stories of necessary healthcare being denied and being too expensive. Two members of the committee who said they were happy with their health insurance actually have national government run single payer health insurance. That would be TRICARE and Medicare. Yes, people on those plans are very happy with it. With single payer you can go to any provider you want, private, public or non profit. People ask how can we afford a national health insurance program? But the real question is how can we afford not to have one? The crux of the matter is that we have two separate risk pools for health insurance. One is the low-risk pool, the healthy working adult population and their children. Few of whom have any major medical problems or expenses. The other is the high-risk pool. Who's in that pool? Everyone with a disability, they are automatically on Medicare. Any child with a major medical problem is automatically on the CHIP program regardless of their income level. All the poor, they are on Medicaid. And most importantly, the elderly. They are on Medicare who as a group have the highest health cost and the highest prescription drug cost of any other group. So, the private sector has the luxury of insuring the low-risk pool and making huge profits at it. But the government is tasked with insuring the high-risk pool. Most of us are going to pay private health insurance for 50 years. Our entire working lives we are going to pay in to that year after year and not one penny of that money goes into the pool to take care of us when we are old. We hit 65 and we are dropped like a hot potato and have to go on Medicare. So, I ask you how is this sustainable? How can the government possibly keep that up? You want to cut national debt? Have national health insurance and we all increase our contribution from the 2 to 3% we already pay to 5%. That would be much less expensive for you and your employer who are now paying 12 to 20% of every salary and to private health insurance. If we combined risk pools like every other country in the world, we could afford to provide long term care insurance for the elderly who need it. As it is now, ordinary, working- and middle-class people who have the misfortune of prolonged age-related disability or dementia are forced to spend their entire life savings, sell their homes, leave nothing for their children, just to pay for their long-term care. That is because we have allowed private insurance companies to profit from insuring them their entire working lives and contribute nothing for their care then they are old. A national health insurance plan would allow us to have long term care for our seniors and we would no longer need Medicare supplements or the awful advantage plans. We need to do it and it must be done at the federal level which is why this is a House Resolution. Aside from the elderly, what's in it for young people? Personal freedom is one reason I am in favor of a national health insurance plan. You could pursue the job you love, not just a job that has benefits. You could start a small business without worrying about how you are going to have health insurance for yourself, let alone your employees. Single payer would easily provide insurance for gig workers who are often the one's who have no insurance. Instead of bargaining over health plans, unions could focus on better wages, working conditions and retirement plans. Single payer would also benefit manufacturers who are trying to compete with companies in other countries. In fact, almost every other country in the world where companies do not have to pay for insurance for their employees. It would make us more competitive in the global economy. But let's be clear, we do not have a free market in health insurance. We don't have choice. If you get coverage through your job your employer picks the plan. You don't have any say about it. And if you buy it through the marketplace, you really only have one option. Providers are severely restricted by networks. You can't choose which doctor you go to. Your insurance plan chooses that for you. Also, why isn't Medicaid expansion enough? Why do we need single payer? I don't like the Medicaid program. Don't misunderstand me, I would never vote to take it away from anyone until we have another option. But Medicaid entails enormous administrative cost to screen for income and you have to keep doing it over and over again. It's also tedious to apply for it and that's a barrier to participation and it's a literal barrier to access because many doctors simply won't accept Medicaid patients. It's a disincentive to work or an incentive to work under the table because if you start to make a little more money, you're going to lose your insurance. If we opened up Medicare for all for example, we could do away with Medicaid all together and save a lot of money. Medicare and TRICARE are national government run single payer healthcare systems and they work very well. They are more efficient than private insurance companies that have an overhead of 17 to 20%. Most importantly, it will allow us to prioritize reimbursement for primary care, which the private insurance market does not do, which is why we have a crisis of primary care in this country. My husband's doctor retired last year. It took him four months to find a doctor that was even accepting new patients for primary care and the first appointment he could get is still eight months away. So, the other important thing about a national insurance program would mean managed care could be about providing best medical practices and not just maximizing shareholder profits. This is not socialized medicine. It is just the insurance. You can still go to whatever doctor you want to. It will cost the State of New Hampshire nothing and as for illegal immigrants. If you don't have a social security card, you wouldn't get a national insurance card either. So, I urge you all to vote Ought to Pass on this resolution and I ask for a division vote.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mister Speaker, I move Indefinite Postponement on HR 23 and I ask for a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardRep. Sweeney moves Indefinite Postponement on HR 23 and asks for 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 Indefinite Postponement of HR 23. This is a going to be a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lloyd for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Christal Lloyd (D - Hills 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that most Granite Staters would be unable to afford or even severely setback by needing to pay nearly $7,000 or more a year to their employer's choice of high deductible medical plan in addition to already paying copays and premiums. And if I know under our current system, year after year these same Granite Staters have seen an increase in cost while at the very same time seeing a decrease in benefit coverage. And if I also know that we as a country are fully capable of figuring out a unique system that works for us regardless of what other countries have already done. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that preventative healthcare has been shown to not only lengthen lives, but also decrease healthcare costs over time, would I press the red button to overturn this Indefinite Postponement motion and allow another motion to be made so that hopefully New Hampshire can send a strongly worded message to our federal government that our state expects a solution to be found? Thank you.

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

Rep. David Lundgren (R - Rock 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I know that in other countries with national health insurance that folks have ended up receiving lower quality healthcare when providers receive inadequate reimbursements for their costs. And if I know that the folks from such countries often end up traveling to American for healthcare. And if I know that a majority of Americans are satisfied with their current healthcare plans and I know that I am a doctor who's spent many times, many years, excuse me, dealing with healthcare administrations, that I would press the green button to Indefinitely Postpone? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Indefinite Postponement on HR 23. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. Members need to be in their seats. 192 voting Yea, 179 voting Nay Indefinite Postponement passed on HR 23.

Rep. Christine Seibert (D - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, this measure is not just about climate change. It ultimately seeks to undermine how we currently conduct everyday business here at the State House. The principle of hearing both sides of an issue before weighing the decision is essential in ensuring the fairness of the decision-making process. This principle embodies the core values of democracy, transparency and justice which we hold dear. In this legislature we listen to and consider multiple perspectives on any given issue and allow stakeholders to present their arguments and evidence. In parliamentary proceedings the practice of hearing both sides of an issue before weighing a decision reinforces the integrity of our deliberative process and enhances the legitimacy of our outcomes. Please join me in voting no on the Ought to Pass motion so another motion can be made. Thank you.

Rep. Michael Moffett (R - Merr 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. There are five giant paintings up here in this Hall that we look at. You see Webster, Pierce, Washington and Lincoln, but who is this other guy? A lot of you may not know, it's Senator John P. Hale. He's an abolitionist US Senator who served during the Civil War. What many of you may not know is that his daughter Lucy was engaged to one of the most famous actors of the time during the Civil War. Hale, that guy's future son in law was a guy named John Wilkes Booth. The same guy that assassinated that guy, Abraham Lincoln. Booth had Lucy's picture near his heart when he was shot dead in 1865. Lucy quickly moved from New Hampshire to Europe. So, what does this little history lesson have to do with climate change? The point is that some information, some history, some facts can be uncomfortable and inconvenient to acknowledge such as the relationship between Lucy Hale and John Wilkes Booth. Similarly, there is a lack of climate information, total climate information, history and facts that need to be better presented. Many years ago, as a UNH freshman I took a course in this, and I was scared to death. And yet I went back and found the textbook that I was given way back then and the predictions, the doomsday scenarios didn't come true. That was in the 70s. So those of us who make laws are pressured by activists to take climate action now, climate action now or else we are doomed. Some states have already passed laws. California, you can't drive a gas-powered vehicle there past a date certain. Other states are doing the same thing. They are getting rid of gas stoves. They are mandating electric school busses. They are trying to get military jets to use organic fuel, way more expensive. We've had bills in this chamber to outlaw woodstoves and on and on. But does hysterical climate activism yield good public policy? That's what we are all about, is laws, public policy. Will carbon taxes on Granite Staters stop climate change? Carbon taxes on us stop climate change? Activists often cite scientific consensus and that's the point of this measure. Not every voice is being listened to or heard. Too many scientists are being bullied. The American Meteorological Society did a member survey and received 1,862 responses. Only 52% of those felt that 20th century global emissions had anything to do with global warming. It's a far cry from the 97% figure we keep hearing in terms of scientists who supposedly blame humans for climate change. So, this brings us to the purpose of this resolution which simply states, and which simply calls for all voices to be heard as we develop climate policies in this body and elsewhere. Experts who are being threatened and ignored deserve to be heard and we need to stop scaring the heck out of our kids the way they scared the heck out of me at UNH when I was a freshman there. Most agree that measured, most of us agree that measured and sensible reductions in fossil fuel emissions are desirable and we can do that by working together. The EPA was established under a Republican administration. Together, together we've cleaned our lakes and rivers. We've cleaned our air. If you remember how bad it was in New York City or LA? We've worked together to ameliorate that stuff for decades. But climate scientists who shut down debate and try to impose radical measures promote bad policies. We are under incredible pressure. Schools are under pressure to start teaching climate as part of school. HR 30 is coming up from another committee. So anyway, this resolution simply calls for us to listen to all voices. If that seems reasonable. By the way, if you notice in the calendar there was no contrary minority report. Who wants to step up and say not to listen to all voices? So, if you want to listen to all voices as we put together the policy, then I ask you to hit the green, the Celtics green, the St. Patrick's Day green, green button to vote yes. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. The motion before us is to table HR 27. A division has been called. Members take your seats. Rep. Hoell has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)When I asked for the roll call and you requested a second, I thought I saw more than ten votes.

Speaker PackardI did not count ten votes and they had to be in their seats, and it took maybe two minutes for everybody to stand up. When we ask for a second, everybody has to stand up right away, not look around the room to see who is standing and who isn't.

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)Mister Speaker, is there a provision to allow me to ask for a second roll call vote so we can actually see if there is a second?

Speaker PackardThis is going to be a division vote. The motion before us is to table HR 27. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 187 voting Yea, 185 voting Nay, HR 27 is laid on the table.