The House, Thursday, May 2, 2024

Speaker PackardThe bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Yokela offers floor amendment (1455h) and is recognized to speak to his amendment.

Rep. Josh Yokela (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, we have voted on this topic many times about whether a person should be able to marry at 16 with their parents' permission and the courts permission or if it should be barred entirely up to 18. I think there is another category that this body should consider. A lot of the discussion inside the committee report had to do with whether or not someone is mature enough to handle essentially this decision. I believe that we have the standard of 18 being able to understand and be held responsible for their decisions as a general order of course. And then we have other court proceedings that decide, that make judgements on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, if someone is incompetent, even at 18, the judge may rule that they are not able to do certain things. If in cases where a judge considers a minor and has the opportunity to decide whether they are capable of making this decision for themselves, that is considered granting them emancipation. In a lot of the negative remarks, I hear from the opposition is that when some other state or some other country or someone did something that hoodwinked the judge into granting emancipation, but I say that they are not subject to our statute. Our statute requires that it is in the best interest of that minor, that they live apart from their parents for 3 months or longer, that they are able to be self sufficient financially and in their personal affairs. These are not very low bars in New Hampshire. I submit to you if they are able to meet these bars, that they are able to understand the consequences of their actions. I implore you to vote for this amendment to allow for those people that have been judged by the court for it to be in their best interest and that they are able to understand the ramifications of their actions, that they be able to take that action. It is not an inherently immoral action that they are doing. It's just whether or not they are capable of understanding that action and accepting the consequences of that action. So, I hope you vote for this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, with all due respect this amendment defeats the purpose of the underlining bill which is to raise the minimum age of marriage to 18. The bill came to us unanimously from the other Chamber and likewise, the Children and Family Law Committee submitted it to our Consent Calendar, and we would not be here discussing this if it wasn't for an amendment brought forth by a member, not from our committee. The fact of the matter is that emancipated minors cannot vote, they cannot purchase or consume tobacco or alcohol. They cannot purchase firearms. Why then would we allow for an age exception for marriage and nothing else? Moreso, emancipated minors are among the most vulnerable of children. Why then would we want to put them in a position to be taken advantage of by manipulative, unsavory adults? The bottom line is this, plain and simple, children should not be getting married and there should be no exception. I ask that you vote ITL on the amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Yokela floor amendment (1455h). A division has been requested. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Yokela floor amendment (1455h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. DeSimone for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this amendment fixes only one of the many problems with the underlying bill. And Mister Speaker, if I know that Title 43 -Domestic Relations, 461-B:8 III emancipation of a 16-year-old minor may be granted by the court if it is found to be in the best interest of said minor and the minor has demonstrated the ability and maturity to be self sufficient, financially, and personally. Further Mister Speaker, if I know that once granted emancipation, the minor will be given the right to live independently in housing of the minor's choice, enter into contractual agreements, consent to medical care, obtain legal counsel, enlist in the military and many other rights afforded to independently living people, then Mister Speaker, I would respect that a minor would be mature enough to decide their marital status by voting yes and pressing the green button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Cassandra Levesque (D - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that in the last five years, 11 states, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, all of which have emancipation laws have passed legislation to end child marriage. If I also know that New Hampshire 461-B states that emancipated minors are not exempt from age restrictive laws. And if I know that the U.S. State Department had declared child marriage a human rights violation and we as legislators should not be taking the stance that it is in some instances okay to violate a child's human rights, would I now press the red button so that we can dismiss this dangerous loophole and move on to vote for the underlying bill that passed out of committee on a 14 to 1 bipartisan vote?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Yokela floor amendment (1455h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 169 voting Yea, 195 voting Nay, the motion fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Yokela offers floor amendment (1700h). It's in your seat pockets. Rep. Yokela is recognized to speak to the motion.

Rep. Josh Yokela (R - Rock 7)I understand that some people had qualms with the first amendment having the 16 to 18 being struck in and that this amendment is just specifically, only dealing with emancipation. So, hopefully that will alleviate some of those qualms that members have. Thank you very much.

Rep. Margaret Drye (R - Sull 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Setting a standard for a marriageable age is setting a rule and like most rules there are exceptions. I want to talk to you about the exception of pregnancy. In my family and my friends have two examples of minors that got married because of pregnancy. One daughter of a friend and her boyfriend celebrated getting engaged. They were high school sweethearts with getting pregnant. Suddenly the love, marriage, babies timeline is reversed. They elected to get married because that offered to the young woman things that she didn't have before, stability, provision, protection and a chance for a young family to be a family before a baby arrived. The goal was still the same, marriage and raising a family together. They just got there in a little different timeline. And my own relatives, a 17-year-old was pregnant by a man who was older than 18 and that was a difficult issue for our family, but in the end with consultation between both parties and both families, there was a marriage which has lasted because we just enveloped the man and his family into our family, and it's been that way ever since. I just want to say that I'm supporting this amendment because it offers an exception, and it is not a rule that a minor would be allowed to marry a person who is going for emancipation has to make a strong case for emancipation. I believe that gives enough safeguard to protect marriage, but also to allow that option in cases where that would be a good solution. I urge you to support this amendment.

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)Thank you, Mister Speaker. To make a motion.

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)I move to recommit SB 316 back to the House Criminal Justice Committee. I'd like to speak to my motion.

Speaker PackardThe motion is to recommit SB 316 back to the committee. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. A division has been requested. Only those in the room can vote. This is to clarify the vote. This is a clarification vote. The motion is to recommit SB 316. 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. 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. 172 voting Yea, 180 voting Nay, the motion fails. We are back to the original motion. Rep. Janvrin moves Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Harriott-Gathright.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 10)Good morning, Mister Speaker. Good morning, fellow Representatives. I want to be clear; SB 316 is not whether there is an opioid problem in this state. We all know that this problem exists. It is also not about whether we think possessing fentanyl and bringing it into the state should be illegal. It already is illegal and those who possess and sell fentanyl face severe penalties available today under existing law. The question before us today is whether we think that adopting mandatory minimums and outdated one size fit all solution is going to be an effective use of taxpayer dollars in addressing the opioid problem in our state. The bottom line is that our country has already tried this approach for decades through the war on drugs, mandatory minimums used by federal government and states to try to incarcerate our way out of the drug problem plaguing our communities. That approach failed our country. It was overly simplistic and extremely costly to the taxpayer and our communities, and it has done nothing to reduce drug use, sales, overdoses or deaths. Multiple studies over the past four decades have demonstrated that mandatory minimum has not worked. They do not reduce drug use. They do nothing to impact drug sales or crime and they increase crime rates. As they saw in Florida, with 50% rise in crimes after instituting mandatory minimums and it was the taxpayers left holding the bill for excessive incarceration with rising prison and jail populations with no reduction in drug use, sales or crimes to show for it. Beyond the practical implication, there are basic constitutional principles at stake here. Mandatory minimum sentences defeat the purpose of sentencing by taking discretion away from the judges and giving it to prosecutors who use the threat of these lengthy punishments to frustrate defendants asserting their constitutional rights. This shift in power from judges to prosecutors creates real separation of powers issues. David King, a prominent gun rights advocate and advisor to the George H. W. Bush administration has stated the following, "My opposition to mandatory minimums is rooted in a conservative principle, namely, reverence for the constitution and contempt for government action that ignores the difference amongst individuals. James Madison, for one, believed that a clear separation of powers was more vital to protecting freedom than the Bill of Rights, yet mandatory minimum undermine the important protector of liberty. The attempt by legislators and the Congress to address perceived problems in the justice system by transferring power from judges to prosecutors and the executive branch violate their principles and have in the process giving prosecutors unreviewable authority to influence sentences through their charging decisions and plea bargain power." And that is what he said. As a result, in this problematic shift in power so well described by David King, mandatory minimum sentencing robs judges of their ability to fully consider all relevant facts and circumstances for sentencing such as the nature and context of a particular crime or the individuals crime record. This is why New Hampshire currently has few mandatory minimums and why the New Hampshire legislature has consistently worked to remove mandatory minimums from our statutes over the last decade. This is also why advocates from across the spectrum have opposed SB 316. Finally, adding insult to injury, SB 316 adds a new clause expanding asset forfeiture authority of the police. The House has been working for years to reform and narrow the asset forfeiture policy authority of law enforcement due to fear of lack of due process and unfair deprivation of property. Now is not the time to expand the government's asset forfeiture authority. Given what we know today about the impact of mandatory minimum sentences, the question of what to do with SB 316 should not be a difficult one. I am asking the body to reject the return to an outdated policy that's proven expensive and ineffective at combating drug use, sales, deaths, and that undermines basic principles of justice. I urge you to vote red on the Ought to Pass motion so another appropriate motion can be made. Thank you, Mister Speaker and I request a division vote.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. That's a lot to unpack. So, mandatory minimums, first of all they are not unconstitutional. They have been around for a while. We have some here. Generally speaking, as a process for criminal justice I am not in favor of broad mandatory minimums either. They were used broadly during the 80's and early 90's during the crack epidemic. Same thing with the three strikes rules. It's not that they weren't effective, it's that broadly implemented, they sent a lot of people to prison who probably didn't need to go. That being said, when used strategically, they can have a very good deterrent affect. We had a gentleman here from Manchester, a former convicted drug dealer who did federal time, during our bail hearings and he was part of the input we took from everyone. We asked what do you think would better deter this? We were talking about, you know, people getting out on bail and being arrested. He said, "If you want to stop this fentanyl problem, you need to bring back mandatory minimums." He said, "I'm from New York and back when there was mandatory minimum, people refused to come to New Hampshire because they knew we would have to go to jail so we would go to Massachusetts. Once you got rid of those, now we moved up." The drugs are coming from Lowell and Lawrence, we know that. There is no deterrent. The deterrent would be if you want to bring these drugs to New Hampshire so they can poison our children and you're caught, you are going to jail for five years. So that's a decision you can weigh for yourself when you get in your car. Speaking of car, the part about the asset forfeiture, that what was we were going to recommit for, but the question was whether it was after conviction or before conviction. It's my reading of the bill that it would be after because you have to be convicted of actually transporting to lose the vehicle. Interesting thing about the vehicles they use to transport these. They spend sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to have these vehicles fitted. So, you have turn on your windshield wiper, put on your right blinker and tune the radio to 92.4 FM so a hide opens up where all the drugs are hidden. It's not just the family vehicle they are using. That being said, with regard to the expense, I've heard numbers around $56,000 a year to incarcerate somebody. It costs well over $100,000 a year to have someone in and out of rehab a couple times and the associated medical bills, much more than the cost of incarceration. With that being said, we are targeting here not the user who we spend millions every year to help people who are addicted to these drugs, but at the same time, we can't just keep treating the symptom, we have to treat the underlying cause. So, we continue, and we should continue helping people who are addicted to drugs, but at some point, we have to take steps to stop the poison from coming in in the first place, otherwise we will just keep pouring more money, more money and digging more graves and more graves. Now, it is true that deaths have gone down, but that's only because we have sent more Narcan out into the society so people are being brought back so they can overdose again. The drug epidemic has not gone away. People are still being addicted. They're still overdosing in record numbers. They're just more of them surviving the overdose. So, it's true these were tried before and, in my opinion, and studies and the numbers show they did stop the crack epidemic. Unfortunately, they caught a lot of people they shouldn't have because those minimum mandatories were much, much broader. If you got caught with any amount of a drug, you could be sentenced for years. This is simply anyone caught coming over our boarder with the intent to poison our children would have to make a choice when they decided to take that ride is it worth five years of your life to come up here and poison our children. If you decide to take that risk, that's on you. No one made you do it. So, I would encourage you to think about that. How much money we spend on everything, risk, reward. Do we want to put some type of penalty to deter these people from doing these acts? Thank you.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? Member does not yield. Rep. Gathright has requested a division vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on SB 316. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Meuse for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Mister Speaker, if I know that multiple studies over the last four decades of our failed war on drugs show that mandatory minimum penalties do nothing to reduce crime, drug sales, drug arrests or overdose rates. And, if I know that long mandatory prison sentences increase both the cost of incarceration and the chances of recidivism once the offender has been released. And, if I know our current statute gives judges discretion to sentence offenders for this crime for up to 30 years in prison for transporting drugs with intent to distribute and they often do. And, finally, if I know that our state does not have a judicial discretion problem, but that it does have a Fentanyl problem that requires thoughtful, evidence-based policy solutions for the 2020s rather than failed policy solutions from the 1980s, then would I press the red button so another motion may be made? Thank you.

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

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that New Hampshire needs to address the cause of a person's addiction and not just the effect and by passing this bill we will be addressing this issue from all angles. And, if I know there is no better example of unfair deprivation than a loved one grieving a family member that is dead. And, Mister Speaker, if I know the excuse of the price of incarceration is irrelevant considering you can't put a price on a person's life, would I now press green with the committee?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on SB 316. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 137 voting Yea, 229 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Harriott-Gathright moves Inexpedient to Legislate. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and Inexpedient to Legislate is adopted.