The House, Thursday, June 5, 2025

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. To make a motion.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)I move to table SB 72, and I request that I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Speaker PackardRep. The motion is to table SB 72. It's a proper motion. Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is to table SB 72. The House will be in order. The motion before us is to table SB 72. It's a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Petrigno for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that there are five amendments on the calendar today for SB 72 and that one of the amendments amends the amendment which we were going to consider in the last session, but with special order to today. And, that there were at least two other amendments to this amendment in committee and when it came to us, it had already been amended two other times by the other body. And, if I know that the amendments are similar to the amendments that we considered to a companion bill that has now been sent over to the other body, which currently is also being amended. And, if I know and if I believe that I'm going to hear today that the amendment being proposed today is the amendment that will end all amendments, but I seriously doubt that, wouldn't I vote to table this so we can bring forth legislation which respects parental rights and guarantees the safety and welfare for children and is deserving of this body and I thank you very much Mister Speaker? Speaker Packard: The Chair recognizes Rep. DeSimone for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that SB 72's final amendment will be heard today and that's the only amendment that makes sense. All the other amendments are not necessary, then I will be voting no on the tabling motion so that we can get on with the business of the day and get the parental bill of rights passed today. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Vote red please.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to table SB 72. This a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button; if you're 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 the state of the vote. 168 voting Yea, 211 voting Nay, the motion fails. We are now on the majority amendment which is (1832h) printed in House record 25, pages 22 through 25. The Chair recognizes Rep. Raymond to speak against the majority amendment.

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)I'm sorry, Mister Speaker, are we doing speeches or PIs?

Speaker PackardYou had been signed up to speak against the majority amendment.

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I urge the body to vote against the majority amendment, and I think we have bipartisan agreement that the majority of the amendment does not meet the needs of the people of New Hampshire. It has a number of major problems with constitutionality and also interferes with police investigations on sexual abuse as well as some medical parts and I believe that there are better amendments coming this morning, so I urge everyone to vote no on the committee amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Jim Kofalt (R - Hills 32)Thank you, Mister Speaker. There are indeed better amendments coming later today. We have done a lot of work on this bill. The committee did a lot of work on this bill. I urge you to vote in favor of this amendment then we can move on and hear the other amendments, which include a replace all. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (1832h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Nays have it and the motion is defeated. It's already stated. We are now on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Kofalt offers amendment (2492h). It is in seat pockets. The Chair recognizes Rep. Petrigno.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, here we are once again considering yet another amendment to the so-called parental bill of rights and of course we continue to hear that parents are losing their rights as justification for this legislation yet all of the rights that already are in statute have never been rescinded. In fact they have been affirmed time and time again by court rulings, so parents are not losing their rights. Instead, some may feel that their rights are being violated and therefore it would be best if we directed them where to find proper recourse. We have also heard that all of the existing parental rights should be coalesced into a single statute, but parents need to look no further than to the Department of Education's website, which already lists all of their rights or we could simply compile all of the existing statutes into one bill and we'd have no problem with that, but instead the sponsors have chosen to incorporate new problematic language which accounts for the many different amendments and that is why we often hear that their version is more comprehensive but we believe that what is more comprehensive is actually unconstitutional and it puts children in harm's way. First is the standard, the very high standard of clear and convincing evidence to support a compelling state interest that a child is being abused, which such a high standard school personnel could not be able to report to DCYF their suspicions of child abuse when a child consistently comes to school with bruises. A simple Google search explains that this example is a combination of medical documentation, expert testimony, witness statements, and the exclusion of other possibilities would create clear and convincing evidence that a child was likely abused. Such evidence would be nearly impossible for school personnel to obtain and as such we would be giving cover to child abusers and I'm sure that's not the intent, but that's exactly what that provision does. Then there is the matter of the mandatory disclosure provision required of school personnel which puts all children in harm's way. School personnel would be forced to answer any and all questions directed by parents. Now this is not a problem. This is not a problem in the vast majority of cases, but like the clear and convincing evidence provision, this will give cover to those few abusive parents. As such, children who cannot confide in their parents for whatever reason, parents who are struggling with their own personal demons, families which are dysfunctional. These children would now be hesitant to talk to their teachers, coaches, the school nurse, guidance counselors for fear that their confidentiality would be violated. This effectively kills the Department of Education's One Trusted Adult Program, which former Governor Sununu championed. If troubled kids cannot talk with their parents for any reason and they know they now cannot talk to their trusted adults at school, then where will they turn? The answer is nowhere, except maybe to unsavory individuals who will exploit them, drugs, homelessness, or self harm. I asked this question in committee. I sincerely asked, is there anyone here who supports this bill who can alleviate my concerns and answer this question where will these kids go? One person said well they can go see their minister. I looked this up. Surprisingly I found that only 20 to 30% of New Hampshire residents regularly attend church. I brought my children to church every Sunday. My wife and I every Sunday, but my kids did not have the relationship with their pastor as they had with their teachers and coaches. Another member said well they can always talk to a family member other than mom and dad. When I moved to New Hampshire nearly 40 years ago, it was just me, my wife and my son. My other child came along and guess what? We still have no extended family in New Hampshire and so don't many other children and how can they trust their relatives to maintain their confidentiality? And then somebody else said well they can always report to DCYF if they're being abused. And I thought to myself well, I'm not talking about physical abuse, I'm talking about dysfunctional families, kids who just need an adult to talk to when their parents are not being adults. But then, how many 14- and 15-year-olds have the wherewithal to actually call DCYF if necessary? Sincerely, I support parental rights, but I will never support legislation that puts one child in harm's way and that is why I passionately urge my colleagues to consider parental rights along with the safety and the welfare of children by voting against this amendment and Mister Speaker I ask for a division vote. Thank you very much.

Rep. Jim Kofalt (R - Hills 32)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Two months ago this body passed HB 10 and in doing that we affirmed our commitment to parental rights. We affirmed our commitment to the proposition that governments do not raise children, parents do. Today we have an opportunity to reaffirm that. And the foundation of this bill and the bills that came before us is the statement that parental rights are fundamental. So, the speaker who came before me referred to past court rulings claiming that they affirm parental rights in all cases. In fact, we had a case here in New Hampshire, Jane Doe versus the Manchester School District in which the court did not decide affirmatively for parental rights. They applied what is called rational basis review. This is the least restrictive level of judicial review possible. Why did they do that? Because they did not have clear unequivocal guidance from this legislature and our governor that parental rights are fundamental and that they must be viewed through a lens of strict scrutiny. That changes the game. Today we have an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to parents' rights. The amendment before you combines the best features of the House Bill that we passed in March and the bill that came over to us from the other body. This amendment prioritizes issues that are of greatest concern to Granite Staters by focusing on education. It affirms that parents have a fundamental right with respect to the education and upbringing of their children. It provides for proactive notification. It's not asking parents to go look on the DOE website. It provides for proactive notification at the school district level to inform and educate New Hampshire parents about their rights. This amendment also includes meaningful and realistic measures to ensure accountability. And I want to address for a moment this concern that kids will no longer have the ability to speak to a trusted adult. This bill contains provisions that if there is abuse, there is absolutely a path as there always has been for teachers to report that. We are all mandatory reporters to report abuse, to make sure that the right people are called in to protect the child and rectify that situation. The problem with the argument I've been hearing today and the problem with the argument I've been hearing all along, is that we are presuming that parents are unfit and therefore we must keep information from the many and keep them in the dark because we think there might be a few out there. We have procedures to handle those situations, and we do. I wish they were perfect. They're not, but this bill does nothing to undermine those. Our governor has made a strong commitment to parental rights and with this amendment, I am confident we have a bill that she can comfortably support. The parental bill of rights has been a long time coming. Today it's time that we deliver on our promises to Granite Staters by affirming that parental rights are fundamental. I ask my colleagues to join me in pressing the green button.

Speaker PackardRep. Sweeney 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 Kofalt amendment (2492h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Petrigno for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe in parental rights and I absolutely do, but I also believe that this amendment is unconstitutional. And should it become law, I'm almost certain that it's going to be challenged in court. And Mister Speaker, I believe that clear and convincing evidence standard is way too high, as well as the mandatory school disclosure provision that both will cause harm to some children. Even one child is way too much. Would I press the red button and vote no? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that every parent has a fundamental right to raise their children. And if I know that communicating with any entity that has any contact with a child is necessary to raise those children properly, honestly and clearly, then I will vote green to pass this essential bill on parental rights. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (2492h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend the state of the vote. 215 voting Yay, 166 voting Nay, the amendment passes. The bill is on second reading, open to further amendment Rep. Raymond offers floor amendment (2348h) and is recognized to speak. Representative Raymond: Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in support of floor amendment (2348h). This floor amendment changes one and only one aspect of the parental bill of rights. It removes the phrase `clear and convincing' for the evidence needed under compelling state interest because it drastically changes the standards for schools to call DCYF about potential abuse on a child that was perpetrated by a parent. The words `clear and convincing evidence' by themselves seem logical, but this is actually a technical legal standard. Clear and convincing is a legal term that means 90% sure. It's currently used by the state only in cases where the state has already proven abuse in a lower court or the parent has already been convicted of criminal abuse and the state is now seeking to terminate parental rights at the supreme court freeing a child for adoption. This threshold is extreme for a reason. It's higher than the threshold for a jury to convict someone of criminal abuse and it's much too high to put on schools and school staff members. If SB 72 passes without removing the qualifier `clear and convincing,' a child telling someone at school that they're being sexually abused by a parent would not be enough for the school to call DCYF because that disclosure would not meet the new legal threshold of clear and convincing evidence. I know this doesn't seem logical. The words `clear and convincing' seem like a child telling their elementary school teacher would be enough for that teacher to report, but this is an established legal term with a specific meaning when it comes to the state. Including it in this bill, under compelling state interest, has a very specific impact. Some examples of evidence that would meet the clear and convincing evidence standard are things like video evidence or medical evidence coupled with eyewitness testimony. These are not things a school teacher or counselor or principal would ever have access to, and frankly we don't want school staff asking children probing questions. We don't want them investigating on their own. What we want schools to do is, when they get a disclosure, to call the child abuse hotline so trained social workers and police detectives can do their jobs without further interference from the school. Currently, the standard in all 50 states to report to DCYF is what's called a reasonable cause to suspect. A child disclosing sexual abuse to a teacher or a doctor meets that threshold. If we pass this bill with the standard of clear and convincing evidence, it would mean that the compelling state interest is to defer to the parent who is potentially sexually abusing their own child instead of calling DCYF and the police. I'm certain that no one in this chamber is comfortable with this. I'm certain that every person in this room wants to protect children, especially children who are victims of sexual abuse. Two weeks ago there was an excellent story on New Hampshire Public Radio about the potential harm that could be caused by this bill. The New Hampshire sexual assault nurses made it clear that in cases of child sex abuse the provisions of SB 72 would prohibit them from gathering critical medical evidence in a timely manner. We also know that this is the likely outcome because this is exactly what is happening in Idaho where they passed a similar bill last year. Their legislature is working on a new bill to fix the problems now, but in the meantime, there are children who have asked for help and not been able to get it. We all agree that parents have rights and schools should be working with parents, not against them, but we also know that some parents hurt their children, and those children need help from trusted adults. Those of us in this Chamber have a responsibility to strike a balance that protects the rights of parents and the best interests of children who are victims of physical and sexual abuse. This floor amendment simply strikes `clear and convincing' from the bill's definition of compelling government interest. Evidence is still there because there should be a documented reason for concern. Again, evidence stays, just the qualifier is removed. This floor amendment protects our most vulnerable children by ensuring that if they tell an adult at school that their parent is abusing them, the school is still allowed to call DCYF and DCYF can call the police, and they can do the investigation together. I urge you to vote yes on this floor amendment and I ask for a roll call vote. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jim Kofalt (R - Hills 32)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would like to read briefly from two sections of the bill. One is where the phrase `compelling state interest' appears. Infringement of parental rights prohibited no school may infringe on the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing education, healthcare and mental health of his or her minor child, excuse me, without demonstrating that such action is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest that such action is narrowly tailored and that such interest is not otherwise served by less restrictive means. That apparently is the section of concern. There's nothing in there that says an adult cannot report their concerns to DCYF. There's nothing that says they cannot raise those concerns. Moreover, in the amendment that we just passed, no provision of this chapter is meant to restrain or interfere with any state or local law enforcement agency investigations of criminal violations of the New Hampshire law by a minor. This is a very clear statement that what I said before is true. This does nothing to impinge our ability to report child abuse, to report concerns about child abuse or suspicions of child abuse, and for law enforcement to investigate those. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Sweeney 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 Raymond floor amendment (2348h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Raymond for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that just saying nothing is meant to interfere with an investigation doesn't actually stop the language from interfering with the investigation and reporting. And if I know that clear and convincing evidence when referring to compelling state interest is an already established legal term that requires states to demonstrate 90% certainty in certain cases at the state supreme court and not just a common-sense phrase. And if I know that if we do not remove this term from SB 72, it will significantly interfere with reporting and investigation of child sexual abuse, leaving children in danger and protecting perpetrators, would I then press the green button to pass this tiny amendment to remove the term `clear and convincing' while leaving the requirement for evidence? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. DeSimone for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the issues that we just spoke about are already addressed in the amendment that we just passed, therefore leaving the amendment we're talking about now unnecessary, then would I vote red and let's move on with the day? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (2348h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button; if you're opposed, 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. 169 voting Yay; 212 voting Nay, the amendment fails. We're now on to ought to pass as amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Malone. Representative: Malone: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Today I stand before you deeply concerned about the proposed parental right bill that mandates the mandatory disclosure of information a child shares at school. While I understand that the intent is to promote family involvement, this legislation threatens to undermine children's safety, trust and wellbeing in profound ways. Let's be clear, schools are more than just places for academics. They are safe spaces for our children, and they should be able to share their thoughts, feelings and experiences without fear of immediate exposure. Forcing school personnel to disclose everything a child says, regardless of contact, safety or family situation, risks exposing vulnerable children to harm, especially those from complicated backgrounds. Consider the wide range of children that will be affected. It will not only be the LGBTQ+ students who will be outed and forced to face harm, it's also children involved in custody disputes, those living in domestic violence, children in a neglectful and abusive environments. What about the children revealing that they are in unsafe situations sharing fears about their home life? Mandatory disclosure can force children to reveal themselves in ways that put them directly in harm. The legislation strips away the discretion that educators and school counselors need to protect our children's best interests. These trusted adults are not investigators, they are guides who should assess each situation carefully, always priority the children's safety. Requiring the mandatory disclosures, without sensitivity or confidentiality, can cause children to withdraw, distrust adults and suffer retaliation from abusive family members. Moreover, existing laws already require disclosures related to children's safety and education or breaking the school conduct at school. This new bill adds no protection for, only potential harm. Some argue this legislation will help parents know if their child is being bullied or involved in drug use, but those issues are already subject to the mandatory reporting that we have already. The real question is, in what world does an adult's right to know outweigh a child's right to safety? If parents want a better relationship with their children, they can get involved and build that trust and not rely on legislation that compromises another child's safety. There's also a misconception that neglectful or abusive families don't actually contact the schools, so this law won't affect those situations. That's simply not true. Many families, yes even the dysfunctional ones, depend on schools as their primary point of contact, especially during custody disputes and domestic crisis. School staff often find themselves caught between supporting children and navigating family dynamics. As someone who has worked closely with vulnerable children, I'm a former foster child myself and I have fostered over a dozen children, as well as had my own and I was also a social worker for homeless youth. I can tell you firsthand that the adult-like burdens that many of our children are facing right now are hard and sometimes school is the only safe place they have. Many have endured trauma, violence and neglect. Transgender youth in particular face higher, alarming higher rates as being victims of violence and homelessness. Weeks ago we took a stand against human trafficking. Now I urge you to focus on preventing such vulnerabilities before they happen by providing supportive systems within our communities that protect children from exploitation and harm. Schools should be a place of support and safety, not surveillance. As a parent and an advocate, I implore you to consider the real-world impact of this bill. It is easy to vote along your party lines or accept the narrative that this legislation is solely about a parent's fundamental rights, but true parental rights include the responsibility to protect children from harm, not exposing them to additional dangers. Many of us who have testified against this bill have dedicated countless hours working with children who have suffered because their voices were silenced. Before you cast your vote, think of the children counting on us to prioritize their safety over adult fears or political agendas. Let's not turn our schools into places where children's confidence are betrayed, at risk youth are further endangered, and where the trust between children and educators is broken. Children need and deserve caring supportive adults, not spies or informants. They need and deserve to feel safe, loved and protected. Having walked through this trauma myself, as well as alongside many kids in this situation, we can do better. We should pass legislation that safeguards children's well-being, supports their growth, and respects their need for confidentiality and safety. Thank you. Speaker Packard: The Chair recognizes Rep. Gregg.

Rep. Alicia Gregg (D - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, on its face this so-called parental bill of rights may seem like a noble cause. After all, who among us would argue that parents shouldn't be involved in their children's lives? They should be and in New Hampshire they already are. But if you look beneath the surface of this bill, along with the history of all of the attempts at amendments and types of bills like this, this is not about engagement, it's about control. It's about erasing the constitutional rights of children and replacing them with unchecked authority that can be used and, in some cases, abused by adults. This is not an accident. This is not a drafting error. This is by design. This bill rewrites the legal balance of rights that our constitution has long protected. It sends a message loud and clear that children have no rights unless their parents grant them. That is not liberty. That is not due process and that is not what New Hampshire stands for. This bill gives cover to the very people our laws should protect children from. It empowers abusers because abusers don't want scrutiny. They don't want oversight. They want the law to back them up when they isolate, manipulate and silence a child and this bill does exactly that. It does this by forcing schools and counselors into impossible corners. It does this by eliminating safe, confidential conversations that save lives, and it does this by treating children, not as people, but as property. But we know better. Children are not the property of the government. Children are not the property of the schools. Children are not the property of teachers and children are not the property of their parents. They are people. People with voices. Hopes, fears and rights and in New Hampshire our courts have affirmed that. In Kimberly C, our supreme court held that a child is entitled to due process and a voice in court. In juvenile 2001- 708, the court recognized that minors are entitled to challenge decisions that affect their liberties and yet here we are debating a bill that pretends those rights don't exist. Good parents, which let me state this very clearly, the vast majority of New Hampshire parents are good parents, don't need this bill. They're already engaged, already making decisions in their child's best interest, already building trust without coercion. They don't need government to hand them absolute authority over every thought or feeling their child has. Parenting isn't about control. It's about connection and when that connection is real and healthy no legislation is needed to preserve it. But when we pass laws that demand obedience over understanding, that prioritize parental dominance over child safety, we aren't strengthening families, we are weakening trust. We are silencing the very people who need us the most. This bill will not protect children. It will not protect. It will protect those who harm them. It will help turn our state into a sanctuary for abuse and it will come at the cost of a child's right to safety, to self and to speak. So I say this again, this is not a parental bill of rights, this is a blueprint for legal domination over children. It is a constitutional threat disguised as family policy. And Mister Speaker I ask my colleagues to remember this, our votes carry weight. We are not here to affirm ideology. We are here to defend liberty, all liberty, for all people, including children. Let us be worthy of that responsibility. Let us uphold the rights we swore to protect. Vote no on this bill and vote no on taking rights away from New Hampshire children and I would request a roll call vote.

Rep. Jim Kofalt (R - Hills 32)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, I will be brief because I've already been up here making the case for why we need a parental bill of rights, but I want to talk a little bit about trust. We have heard this term, trusted adults, several times in this conversation. Are parents trusted adults? I'm going to say affirmatively that in the vast majority of cases parents are the most trusted adults and that no one cares more about their children than they do. Do we curtail their rights? Do we keep them in the dark because there are some bad actors, and there are, but this bill does nothing to undermine the processes that we have in place to protect children today. Growing up is hard. Every family has its challenges and every family somewhere along the way has some difficult conversations. Keeping parents in the dark is not an answer to that problem. So, this brings us back to my opening statement before, governments do not raise children, parents do. I ask you to join me in voting green to affirm that statement.

Speaker PackardRep. Sweeney 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 SB 72. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Petrigno for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe that this legislation is unconstitutional and I know it will cause real harm to children. And, if I believe that most parents are indeed trusted adults, but in some instances, children may not be able to turn to them. And, if I believe that keeping children safe from injury is a compelling state interest and that we need to balance parental rights with the safety and the well-being of our children, would I press the red button and vote against this legislation? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Debra DeSimone (R - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that most parents are way more trustworthy than teachers, like Pamela Smart, then I will vote to pass this bill as amended. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is ought to pass as amended on SB 72. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green. If you're 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 vote. 214 voting Yay, 167 voting Nay, the motion passes.

Speaker PackardThe motion is to table SB 14. That is a proper motion. Rep. Rhodes requests 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 to table SB 14. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Newell for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jodi Newell (D - Ches 4)Thank you, Mister speaker. If I know that as this bill has moved through both Chambers, we've seen repeated attempts to make it more attractive to those of us who believe that mandatory minimum sentences have been and will continue to be a dismal failure. If I also know that mandatory minimums take discretion away from judges and add millions to our incarceration costs despite 45 years of experience with a failed war on drugs that shows that policies like these have no impact on deterring people from committing these crimes. And Mister Speaker, if I also know that we can save a whole lot of time by tabling this bill right now, I urge you to press the green button to do so.

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

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that we've been trying it their way for over a decade and fentanyl is still killing our citizens, would I not vote red on this? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to table SB 14. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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 also attend to the state of the vote. 176 voting Yay, 203 voting Nay, the motion fails. Now we're back to the majority amendment (2372h). The Chair recognizes Representative Scherr.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Fentanyl kills just like heroin kills, just like methamphetamine kills. We've been singing this song for over 50 years, that the way to deal with these insidious drugs that kill people and ruin lives and ruin families is to increase the punishment and to have mandatory minimums and we know that those fail. For example in Florida after they passed mandatory minimums, the arrest rate for drug crimes went up 50%. Another study shows that mandatory minimums had no effect on the level of illegal drug use, on arrest for drugs, on any significant control over the drug problem. So, we know these don't work. It's been proven over and over again, and mandatory minimums are expensive. It costs about $78,000 a year to house someone in the New Hampshire state prison. Mandatory minimums will increase the number of people in the New Hampshire state prison and will increase the cost at a time where we're struggling with the amount of money we can afford to spend on prisons. More specifically, included in SB 14 is the original SB 15, which puts in place mandatory minimums for the sale of drugs, the distribution of drugs with death resulting and that's a strict liability crime. Those of you who have teenage children or young adults, if they go to a party and one of their friends says "give this to your friend so and so" and your son, your daughter does that and that person dies because contained in that package was drugs that included fentanyl your daughter, your son in spite of the fact they had no idea that was happening, they distributed the drug. It doesn't matter whether they knew it or not. They are guilty of death resulting and they would get a mandatory minimum. The Cato Institute, which many of you this side of the aisle are familiar with, has been steadfastly opposed to mandatory minimums for decades. And now to entertain you all on a serious note, I'm going to quote Grover Norquist, somebody who on so many issues I do not get along with and do not agree with, but he has some pretty sound libertarian perspectives on a number of things. Let me read to you what Grover Norquist says about mandatory minimums, "mandatory minimums have become a sort of poor man's prohibition, grossly simplistic and ineffectual government response to a problem that has been around longer than our government itself. Viewed through a skeptical lens I train on all other government programs, I have concluded that mandatory minimum sentencing policies are not worth the high cost to American taxpayers." I ask you to vote no on the committee amendment and be done once again with this effort to deal, the failed effort to deal with the drug issues in this country through mandatory minimums. Please press the red button.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. So, mandatory minimums notwithstanding, because that is the underlying bill and that is not really changed by this amendment. What the committee amendment does is it brings limited penalty reform to psilocybin, magic mushrooms, right. So one specifically defined psychedelic that is in relatively common use today and if you get caught with any amount today, any amount, it's a felony, period the end. The amendment decriminalizes a very limited amount of psilocybin, which most people agree has medical benefits. Let us pass this amendment. Let us bring forward the limited decriminalization of 3/4 of an ounce of psilocybin. Let us pass that, then let's have the debate on the underlying bill. So I am asking you, for the greater good, to finally have some meaningful reform on psychedelics. Please press the green button to support the committee's amendment so we can have a debate on the underlying bill. Thank you.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister speaker, similar to what I said on the table motion, I've been here eight years. In eight years we have been constantly, every year, trying to lighten it, trying to make it easier, make it less punishment for people who use these things. We've passed their ability to have their drugs tested. There's needle exchange places. I mean we've bent over backwards in this state and in this country for these people who are suffering with addiction and what we're failing to realize is this is not about them. This bill targets people that are carrying enough to kill tens of thousands of people. These are not users carrying this 20 and 50 milligrams of fentanyl, which is being manufactured in China and shipped through Mexico and brought up here. It is killing our children. They're turning it into pills and selling it saying here have some oxycodone, it's fentanyl and if they don't die, they're addicted. So, they're killing our children every day. We've tried it their way, all right. We've tried it for over a decade and nothing has changed. It's just getting worse. So, minimum mandatories. In this bill is included a safety valve because we're not necessarily in favor of taking away all judicial discretion. Built-in safety valve so that if a judge looks and says this person doesn't meet the criteria that the legislature wanted. This person somehow just got caught up in this and they have no criminal history for this. They have no violent crimes on their record. The judge can look at that and say you don't meet the minimum mandatory standard and go back to his or her discretion. So, we've built in judicial discretion but for the people that are repeatedly bringing these poisons up here to kill our children, we have had enough. The public sent us here to do something about it and for a decade we've done nothing but enable. Now, I heard well you know we've tried this before and it's failed, the minimum mandatories in the 90s. Well if you remember the 90s like I do, crack cocaine was everywhere. It was the plague of our country. What haven't you heard about? You don't hear crack anymore, do you? You know why? Because the people who did it are still in jail on minimum mandatories, so they do work. Thank you. Please support the bill.

Speaker PackardRep. Roy 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 amendment (2372h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the speech that my friend from the other side made about the dangers of fentanyl is the same speech that was given in the 70s and 80s and 90s about the drug, the particular drug at the time that was killing our people. And if I know that there are people still using crack cocaine and still dealing with crack cocaine and that the mandatory minimums increased the number of people incarcerated but did nothing to stem the tide in crack cocaine. And if I know that the criteria in place that this amendment puts in place to prevent somebody from getting a mandatory minimum, are incredibly onerous and out of every hundred people one would meet these criteria, would I press the red button and vote no?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Rhodes for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment addresses dealers having enough poison to kill over 10,000 New Hampshire citizens. And Mister Speaker if I know that this bill will give judges the discretion, while making it clear we won't tolerate this poison being distributed to our communities any longer. And finally Mister Speaker, if I know that a gram of fentanyl on the street is approximately $150 making 20 grams $3,000 worth. If that's how much you have, this is not your personal use, you are a drug dealer. If we are more concerned with saving our families than the cost of incarceration, would I now vote green for the committee amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (2372h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 217 voting Yay; 164 voting Nay, the amendment passes. The bill is on second reading, open to further amendment. Rep. Scherr offers floor amendment (2636h). It's in your seat pockets and the Chair recognizes

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. What this amendment does is it removes the mandatory minimums. It increases the maximum penalty for possession of, excuse me, for possession of this amount of fentanyl to 50 years and it increases the amount of fentanyl that is a violation to 30 grams, and it also adds in about, towards an earlier argument made, it also adds a provision that makes possession of psilocybin a misdemeanor. This captures that which interests some on both sides of the aisle and it gets us rid of the scourge of the artifice that mandatory minimums are actually going to do anything. I encourage, I urge you to press the green button and adopt the amendment

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, the proposed amendment does nothing but just undo what we voted to do so please don't vote for this amendment. Vote red. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Scherr 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 floor amendment (2636h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry. Rep. Scherr is waving off. Both sides have waved off. So the motion before us is floor amendment (2636h). This is a roll call. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 169 voting Yay; 211 voting Nay, the motion fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Polozov offers floor amendment (2641h) and it's in your seat pockets. The Chair recognizes Rep. Polozov. The Chair recognizes Rep. Verville.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Politics makes for interesting bedfellows. I am rising today to speak against amendment (2641h). That I'm sure surprises many people in the room. In the nine years I've been kicking around this place, one of the things that keeps kicking me in the head is political reality and for many years I resisted its temptations, but I only got abused for it. This is a good amendment. This would be good law. I'm not going to lie to you. I love the idea. I'm totally in favor of it. The problem is it's my firm belief that if we pass this amendment, the body on the other side of the wall is not going to be interested and I don't believe that they'll accede to this. So you know, it's that crazy time of year, right. So it's either nonconcur, concur, non-concur committee of conference. So you cross your fingers, hope it's committee of conference. You know they're going to work to scrub it out. That's my belief. It's for that reason I don't support the amendment. So I'm asking you to vote red so we can have a debate on the underlying bill as amended by the committee. I'm asking you to vote red on this amendment. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Polozov requested a division. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Polozov floor amendment (2641h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Polozov for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Yury Polozov (R - Merr 10)Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment will make use of solar energy to produce more affordable medicines. And if I know that the language of HB 301 has been unanimously approved by both the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee and this body, would I press the green button to support approved medicine and fight the black market? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Verville for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I believe that fentanyl possession at 20 plus grams is almost certainly never going to be prosecuted at the state level and it will be kicked up to be a federal crime and the feds will step in and take the case. And Mister speaker, if I know that the underlying bill has for the first time in New Hampshire penalty reform for psilocybin, one specific psychedelic that has medical benefits and that there is no reason that New Hampshire should punish possession of any amount, including very small amounts of psilocybin with a felony crime. And if I believe that attaching this to that bill is going to doom it on the other side of the body and I want what I want, would I now press, unfortunately, the red button to defeat this amendment so we can go to the underlying bill and do some real good for the people of New Hampshire? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (2641h). This is a division vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 181 voting Yay; 202 voting Nay, the amendment fails. We're now on to ought to pass as amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Harriott-Gathright.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good morning, fellow representatives. I want to be clear, SB 14, like several other bills, is not about crime or an opioid or DUI or any of those types of things. We all know that this problem exists in New Hampshire. And it's also not about whether we think possessing any of the opioids or substances they are bringing into our state should be illegal already, is illegal and those who possess or sell illegal substances face severe penalties today under existing law. The question before us today is whether we think that adopting mandatory minimums and maximum, an outdated one-size fits all solution, is going to be an effective use of taxpayer dollars to address the many substance issues in our state. The bottom line is that our country has already tried that approach and it's been said over and over again. So most of us here have come through that so we all know that it was failed. So, that approach failed our country. It was overly simplistic and extremely costly to the taxpayer and to our communities. And it has done nothing to reduce drug use, sales or overdose deaths. Multiple studies over the past four decades have demonstrated that mandatory minimums and maximums have not worked. They do not reduce drug use. They do nothing to impact drug sales or crime, and they may increase the crime rate as they saw in Florida with the 50% rise in crime after instituting mandatory minimums. Beyond the practical implications, there are basic constitutional principles at stake here. Mandatory minimum sentences defeat the purpose of sentencing by taking discretion away from 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 create real separation of power issues. Think back to David Keene, a prominent gun rights advocate, adviser to the George H.W. Bush administration has stated "My opposition to mandatory minimums and maximums is rooted in conservative principles namely reverence for the constitution of contempt for government action that ignores the difference amongst individuals." Also James Madison for one believed that a clear separation of powers are more vital to protecting freedom than the Bill of Rights, yet mandatory minimums and maximums undermine the important protector of liberty. As a result, this problematic shift in power so well described by David Keene, the 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 an individual's criminal record. This is why New Hampshire currently has few mandatory minimums and maximums and why the New Hampshire legislature has consistently worked to remove mandatory minimums and maximums from our statutes over the last decade. This is also why advocates from across the political spectrum have opposed SB 14 and 15 and other similar bills. Finally, adding insult to injury, the amendment offers a few carveouts that judges can already account for under existing RSAs and throws in mushroom sweeteners to get a few votes, something that's likely to vanish in the committee of conference. Given what we know today about the impact of mandatory minimum and maximum in sentencing, the question of what to do with SB 14 should not be a difficult one. I'm asking this body to reject the return to an outdated policy that has proven expensive and ineffective at combating drug use, sales and deaths and that undermines basic principles of justice. Judges should be judges; legislators should be legislators. Let's stop trying to sentence from the State House floor. I urge you to vote no. Thank you, Mister Speaker, and I request a roll call vote.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, we are at a good place here, right. We are very, very close. Twenty grams plus of fentanyl possession is almost certainly going to be prosecuted as a federal crime. The odds of the state actually using this bill when it becomes law is infinitely small in my opinion. You can campaign on law and order on this. This is, in my opinion, what it is. You can agree or disagree, but what this bill now has in it, it has real psychedelic reform for the citizens of New Hampshire. Compounds that help people beat alcoholism, opioid addiction, other drug addiction, depression, post-traumatic stress syndrome. It's not a medical bill. I know it's not a medical bill, but it gets us a little bit closer. It finally ends a felony charge for simple possession of a small amount of psilocybin. That is an estimation. That is an excellent trade. That is for the greater benefit of the citizens of New Hampshire. The benefit of psilocybin, in my opinion, far outweighs, far outweighs any mandatory minimums and nobody's talked about the length of those minimums because those minimums are fairly short minimums for felony crimes, right. They're fairly short minimums. And so for that reason I am begging you. I am begging you for the greater good to press the green button so we can pass this bill as amended. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have to admit when Rep. Verville approached me about this and asked what I thought about adding psilocybin to it, I looked behind me because I thought he was surely talking to someone else. I did like I do on everything else, and I did some research, and I found out, you know, veterans like myself and many others who have PTSD, this is helping them. This is helping them get to sleep at night. This is helping them to be able to function in society. This is helping them get their lives back that were taken in service of this country. So I said yeah you know what, let's do it. Now with regard to my colleague who said let's not sentence from the legislature. That's what we do. We set the sentences. That's actually what we do. Judge discretion, the judge gets to decide is the trial fair. Is this person guilty or not guilty? Is the evidence admissible? Is it not admissible? There's judicial discretion from the moment of the arrest until sentencing and then he looks to what the legislature told him to do. Now in this case, when this bill came over from the other body, it was pretty harsh. I think it was like a minimum 10 years and no judicial discretion at all. I researched it, I rewrote it, and I added a safety valve so that people who are truly not dealers, in other words if someone got tricked into carrying 20 grams of fentanyl over the border who has no criminal record, the judge is going to look at that and say if you read the bill this person doesn't meet this qualification. They're not going to jail. And incidentally, my friend made a good point. The minimum mandatory, I made it three and a half years. It's three and a half years. Come on, I mean for 20 grams of fentanyl, enough to kill 10,000 people. For the 50 grams, enough to take out a pretty decent large city, it's only seven years. So please, it's common sense. The people asked us for law and order. Let's give them law and order. Let's help the veterans. Please vote to support the bill. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Roy has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members take your seats. The motion before us is ought to pass as amended on SB 14. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Newell for a parliamentary inquiry

Rep. Jodi Newell (D - Ches 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that mandatory minimums have not only been shown to be ineffective but also to impose extreme harm, irreparable harm. And if I also know that the parts of this bill that we all agree on, I myself voted for psilocybin decriminalization and would love to do that again, but it died in the Senate. So if I know that it's going to die in committee of conference, so that what we're actually voting on here is mandatory minimums because that's what the body on the other side of the wall wants, would I now push the red button to defeat this motion?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognize Rep. Rhodes for parliamentary. They wave off. The motion before us is ought to pass as amended on SB 14. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 214 voting Yay, 167 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardRep. Potenza offers floor amendment (2713h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Love.

Rep. David Love (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker and colleagues, I rise to support floor amendment (2713h). We all know that a law without consequences, for those that break that law, is just a suggestion. Any society with laws that lack consequences is asking for anarchy. Mister Speaker, since the COVID years, many children have been experiencing and suffering from mental illness, and they are in need of our help. In fact, many of these children have been contemplating suicide and sadly some have even succeeded. We can't, in the vast majority of cases, keep the children from receiving help from the greatest support system known to mankind, the family. We know that the family cannot help their children without having the information they need. Some would argue that we should cut moms and dads, grandparents and aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, cousins out of the healing process. We need to remember that there's a hierarchy of responsibility and love in this equation and school personnel aren't at the top of this family equation. Mister Speaker, it's the family that will arrange for the psychiatric care. It's the family that worry themselves sick every day. It's a family that will support a child through thick and thin of the recovery process. Mister Speaker and colleagues, let me ask you, if you worked in a school and one of your students exhibit exhibited symptoms of opioid abuse and he or she was nodding off in class, rubbing and scratching their faces and arms and wearing long sleeve shirts in an 80� classroom, would you find a way to inform the parents or just hope that the student figures it out before he overdoses? I would hope you choose the first option. Mister Speaker, in many ways untreated mental illness isn't much different than drug addiction. Both can be debilitating or deadly. And Mister Speaker, we know that the majority of school personnel care deeply about children, but we also know that there are bad actors everywhere in society and we need consequences in place for the people who willfully break the law. Mister Speaker and colleagues, I ask that you press the green button so we can truly make progress in protecting our children and families from the horrors that keeping information can become. Thank you, Mister Speaker, and I ask for a roll call.

Rep. Susan DeRoy (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Today I rise in strong support of floor amendment (2713h) to SB 96, an act relative to mandatory disclosure by school district employees to parents. We have before us an historic opportunity to affirm a simple, a simple foundational truth. Parents and guardians have the right to know everything regarding the care and education of their children. Let me say that again. Parents have the right to know everything about their children when it comes to their care and education. This amendment provides clarity where it is most needed and accountability where it has been long absent. Floor amendment (2713h) restores language to this notification bill that this body and another body have previously affirmed. As the discussion about ensuring parents receive all requested information about their children was introduced years ago, this amendment restores language to ensure parents have the right to be truthfully and fully informed and that there are consequences if school personnel willfully keeps parents in the dark. It also provides clear constitutional definition of compelling state interest, which was drafted and introduced by Representative Bob Lynn's floor amendment to HB 10 in 2023. This definition delineates the boundaries of the state's compelling interests, clarifying that what it is and is not and ensures the bill's language aligns with judicial decisions. This amendment also restores reasonable and yet actionable enforcement mechanisms. This bill isn't just about keeping parents in the driver's seat on the care and education of their children, but also the effective remedies and fair enforcement. The amendment ensures parents can go directly to court for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and damages and if they prevail, they are entitled to recover attorney fees and court costs. It further introduces graduated enforcement that respects due process. Credentialed professionals, such as educators and clinicians, are subject to their regulatory agency's review. If a violation is not willful, the agency has discretion on penalties, but if a violation is willful, then mandatory penalties apply, including a minimum one-year license suspension for the first offense and a permanent revocation for willful repeat violations. There's also a reasonable statute of limitations. Five years from the date of the offense for these disciplinary actions ensuring fairness and timely enforcement. And what about contractors? Those third parties in our school? This amendment ensures accountability without criminalizing. Willful violations are treated as civil violations, not crimes. Penalties include fines starting at $2,500, a one-year ban from school access and repeat offenders a $5,000 fine and permanent exclusion from working with schools. Colleagues, this amendment takes a vital parental notification laid out in the underlying bill and gives it some teeth. It ensures transparency, access to the courts, fair firm enforcement and respect for due process. It is precise. It is reasonable and it is necessary. Without this amendment, without actionable enforcement and guaranteed remedy. we will continue to deprive parents, caregivers, guardians and families a true and fair redress of their grievances. I urge you to support this amendment by putting families first, not just in name, but in practice. Thank you, Mister Speaker. I request a roll call.

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So this bill or this amendment is substantially different from the parental bill of rights we were talking about this morning. Both require teachers and school staff to answer parents' questions, which by the way is already in state law. And I know this because I'm on the policy committee at the Nashua Board of Education and we have a policy that says you must answer parents' questions unless you think a child will be abused or neglected. This particular amendment does not have that out about abuse or neglect. It does say, you know, you can take some time, you can have some days, but it doesn't say that you can just wait and let the police or DCYF do that disclosure. At the end of the day, the teacher is still responsible. But what's really problematic about this particular amendment is that it isn't focused on teachers. It includes all school staff. That includes school social workers, school guidance counselors and school psychologists. The supreme court has already affirmed that children have a right to confidentiality in whatever they tell a psychologist or social worker or therapist, period. Those people are not allowed to disclose that information to the parents under any circumstances. There have been multiple court cases about this and at the end of the day the child's constitutional right to privacy, when it comes to their mental health disclosures, overrides the parent's rights to know. Now I'm going to talk to you about sex abuse again because that's my wheelhouse. It's what I did for years. If a child goes to school and discloses sexual abuse happening at home, the next step is the school calls DCYF and DCYF calls the police. What the police and forensic interviewers like myself do, is we say to the school, do not talk about this with the family until we've done our investigation. A DCYF investigation takes about two months give or take. The police investigation can take as long as they want it to take. So what happens if the school follows the requirements outlined in this amendment? This amendment says if the parent calls you and asks you for information, you must tell them whatever they want to know. The kid says hey my stepfather has been coming into my bed at night. The school calls DCYF and the police say don't talk about it. Stepdad, who has legal rights to the child because he's stepdad, calls the school and says hey what did my stepdaughter say this morning? What is the teacher supposed to do? They can not tell stepdad and have their job at risk, their licensure at risk, or they can tell stepdad and be subject to criminal penalties from the police. This is not okay. We shouldn't be putting people in this position. At the end of the day good parents have relationships with their kids and the Supreme Court of New Hampshire just said in October that there are at least eight other places parents can go, other than the algebra teacher, to get the answers to their questions. You want to know who your kid is dating. You want to know if they're gay. You want to know if they're trans. You go get counseling. You sit around the kitchen table. You call their favorite aunt in to talk with them. There are dozens of other ways that good parents can make these connections with their children without trying to co-opt school staff and guidance counselors to surveil their students and then tattle on them. We should not be putting teachers and guidance counselors and school staff in the middle of family issues. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Love 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 Potenza floor amendment (2713h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Woodcock for a parliamentary inquiry. No, I'm sorry, Rep. Potenza for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kelley Potenza (R - Straf 19)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment clearly defines a compelling state interest which is desperately needed and is absolutely essential to be codified in statute to ensure that our laws are clear on aspects like a state actor must use means for satisfying the interest that is the least infringing on the rights of families. And Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment provides a pathway for families and the state to hold willful, the key word here is willful, bad actors in the public sector accountable. And Mister Speaker, if I also know the phrase, a law without penalties is not worth the paper it is written on, expresses a key principle in legal theory, laws must be enforceable to be effective. If there's no consequences for breaking a law, then it lacks the power to influence behavior or maintain order. And lastly Mister Speaker, if I know penalties discourage people from violating laws, that's deterrence and that laws need enforcement to command respect, that's authority and lastly without consequences those who follow the law are at a disadvantage compared to those who don't, that's fairness? Please press the green button to pass this amendment and we've already got a roll call. Thank you very much.

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

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that I spoke at length earlier this morning about the legal term `clear and convincing evidence' in regard to compelling state interest and shared with the body that this term has a specific use and it's not appropriate to use in regard to schools, but that this amendment also applies it to all state agents and there's no definition for who that is. And if I know that the amendment includes that exact problematic phrase along with stiff penalties for teachers and school counselors placing them in situations where they have to choose between losing their teaching credentials or being arrested for crimes. And if I know that this ignores the constitutional rights of children, then would I push the red button to defeat the OTP motion on this amendment and be clear that New Hampshire protects children not sexual abusers?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Potenza floor amendment (2713h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 186 voting Yay; 179 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Mister Speaker I move to special order SB 295 to the next order of business please.

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. The question is to special order SB 295 to the next order of business. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and SB 295 is the next order of business. The majority amendment is (2271h), printed in House Record 27 pages 64-65. Are you ready for the question on the amendment? All those in favor say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The bill's on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Luneau offers floor amendment (2702h). It's in your seat pockets. The Chair recognizes representative Damon.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. There is currently in process an LBA audit of the Education Freedom Account Program. Amendment (2702h) simply makes the effective date for expanding the program follow completion of this audit, which is expected towards the end of this calendar year. As we are elected to be thoughtful stewards of taxpayer dollars, it is our obligation to be sure that the audit confirms sufficient management controls to ensure compliance of the program with all state laws and department rules. The only audit data available to date, after nearly four years running the program, looked at just 50 random applications from two years ago. It found that 24% of those applications did not have sufficient evidence to be approved. Without the report of the full comprehensive LBA audit, we cannot reasonably use hard-earned taxpayer resources to expand the EFA program. The EFA program, as most of you know, is run by the Children's Scholarship Foundation, an out of state corporation that manages the taxpayer funds used to provide these vouchers. There have been many concerning expenditures. Reporting has not been timely. The most recent vendor and category spending report that should tell us how our taxpayer dollars are being spent, is from academic year 2021 to 2022. What has been paid and to whom in the three years since then? Should taxpayers be paying over $100,000 for summer tutoring at the Bridge Community Outreach Center in Littleton with its close affiliation to the new Epic Christian Academy building project? Should we continue to purchase pianos? Should we pay for ski lessons and lift tickets? We have heard from constituents statewide, in communities large and small, red and blue and mixed, that the personal economic impact of rising property taxes is not sustainable for most families. We must uphold our responsibility as elected representatives to listen to our constituents. Waiting for the audit results is the least we can do to ensure our taxpayer dollars are used wisely. So I strongly urge you to support amendment (2702h) and Mister Speaker, I request a roll call.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I want to address (2702h) and by my reading this amendment for the first time an hour ago there are a number of concerns that come to light. We're looking at a performance audit that's yet to be released by the Legislative Budget Assistant's Office and we don't expect to see this audit report until the end of this year, not the fiscal year, but the end of this year probably late fall, December. Also, if I look at section 1B in this, it says the audit finds sufficient management controls. I don't know if any auditor would write a report saying sufficient audit controls. They're usually specific recommendations. I don't think they'd opine on this language at all, and I don't know how to define sufficient. Next, I'd like to look at the whole concept of what they're looking at here. Yes, the scholarship fund does report annually to the department, and they respond to the areas what they're seen as having to improve and they've done that. They have complied. I see this amendment simply as, you can call it either a delay tactic or a poison pill amendment, whereas they're not looking to see this thing get done and the last part of this amendment states that nothing will be done until we have the two consecutive years that could be years five and six, who knows when. It's a way to try and delay the implementation of EFAs. Students out there today need this, and they need it now. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote on amendment (2702h). The motion before us is amendment (2702h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Luneau for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you very much Mister Chair. If I know the EFA program is unpopular with voters across the state as proven by numerous resolutions opposing any expansion at this time. And if I know a sample audit found 12 out of 50 EFA applications, nearly 25%, had been approved in error, including some families not providing sufficient proof of New Hampshire residency. And if I know the state's audit division is looking into the program now and should release their findings this year. And if I know the terms `sufficient management control' comes straight out of the director of the audit division's mouth and is a commonly recognized audit term. And if I know all this amendment requires is something all of us should want, an audit report showing a clean bill of health before this wildly unpopular scam consumes another $100 million dollars in taxpayer dollars, then would I press the green button to approve this amendment so that we can be sure the EFA program complies with our state laws and department rules? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Keith Erf (R - Hills 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this amendment is only designed to slow or impede the implementation of the EFA program, then I'd press the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (2702h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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 the state of the vote. 167 voting Yay, 201 voting Nay, the motion fails. We are now on to ought to pass as amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Kate Murray.

Rep. Kate Murray (D - Rock 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I stand in opposition to SB 295 which purports to add a cap to the enrollment of the EFA program otherwise known as the voucher program. We are told this cap will guard against runaway enrollment of the program; however a cap is not a cap when it doesn't actually cap anything. This is merely a diversion pulling our attention away from the fact that the voucher program is being expanded beyond anything that is fiscally responsible. I will explain, but first to be clear, I know that we all have heard consistently and continuously and daily from constituents expressing their strong opposition to any expansion of this program, never mind expansion to the program, opposition to the program itself. When we take into consideration the precarious financial situation facing New Hampshire where nearly every other program and agency in the state is being dealt significant cuts, this is not the time to expand such an unpopular program. With regards to the particulars of this bill, the bill states that enrollment will be capped at 10,000 students. However, when a certain percentage of that cap is reached, the cap is increased by 25%. This means the cap will never be reached because the goalpost will move as soon as the enrollment nears the cap. Instead of calling this a cap it is more appropriate to call it a visor because a visor has no cap, but it does shield the eyes from the light of what is actually going on. Or it's rather like a poor dog without a tail who's trying very hard to catch his tail and it's never going to happen. The cap doesn't even, the cap does not exist as does not the poor little tail on the dog. We should also take note that the voucher program is now undergoing an audit as you heard, and it is only sensible to wait for the audit to be completed, not merely with regards to the financial considerations, but also with regards to the efficacy of the program itself. We've still not seen any data on academic achievement of these students in the program while all other students in New Hampshire must demonstrate their academic achievement. We should also look at how the finances of this proposal don't really track. In my view, not a lot of thought went into the proposal and to be up front the numbers I'm going to share with you are on the low side. The House version of the budget allocates $36 million for the voucher program. Currently, we're spending about $30 million on the program. With priority going to students already in the program, this leaves about $6 million for new students. So, based on the proposed budget, expansion of the program will only be able to accept an additional 1,100 students given that the cost per voucher per student is $5,200. This would bring the total number of students as currently budgeted to around 6,900. To come even close to the 10,000-student cap, if the cap were in fact a cap which it is not, accepting the additional 3,100 students to reach this fictional cap that enrollment would cost at a minimum $16 million additional dollars. This is money we simply do not have when so many other state-run programs and services to Granite Staters are being cut in this budget cycle. At the end of the day, this particular bill is not much more than a diversion seeking to focus attention away from the fact that the voucher program is being expanded by removing all limitations. Daily we still receive emails from all over the state opposing the voucher program and in any of its iterations. Nineteen communities, and still counting, have expressed disapproval of this program. Recent news reports have once again highlighted that we are facing a serious statewide housing crisis. They further report that communities across the state have seen an alarming increase in the demand for food assistance. We should listen to our Granite Staters, to our constituents, and recognize the real needs facing Granite Staters and oppose this bill, which expands an unpopular voucher program. Please vote red to support your fellow Granite Staters and the State of New Hampshire, and Mister Speaker, thank you and I ask for roll call vote please.

Rep. Henry Giasson (R - Hills 29)A voucher and a grant are different things, so I don't think the gentlelady understood the difference.

Speaker PackardThat's not a point of order. The House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Erf.

Rep. Keith Erf (R - Hills 28)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, the first thing to know is that the amendment, committee amendment, that we passed replaced the entire bill, which I'll now describe. This education freedom account bill removes income caps immediately impacting the 25/26 school year. The amendment, the bill now, clarifies the EFA bill as it came to us from the Senate. There's a total enrollment cap that grows over time as needed. The cap is 10,000 students in the 25/26 school year, including both current and new students. For each subsequent year, if the enrollment exceeds 90% of the prior year cap, then the new cap is increased by 25% for that year. So, in year one, if enrollment exceeds 9,000 students during the school year, then in the 26/27 school year the cap is increased to 12,500 students. Priority guidelines are defined to include students currently enrolled in the EFA program, siblings of students currently enrolled in the program, students with disabilities, and students whose family income is less than or equal to 350% of the federal poverty guidelines as in current law. Any student qualifying under these guidelines is automatically enrolled regardless of the enrollment cap. Unnecessary restrictions related to fall and spring terms are removed and enrollment is on a simple rolling basis throughout the school year for all students. Finally, the enrollment cap is repealed when it isn't exceeded for two consecutive years, making the program fully universal. Please join me by pushing the green button to show your support. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Chris Muns (D - Rock 29)Mister Speaker, I have a true parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Chris Muns (D - Rock 29)I have been in the legislature now a few terms and I'm seeing something that I haven't seen before, which is a bill coming out of Finance that will significantly increase spending with no way to pay for that bill. And my question is, if we pass this bill today how is the increase in spending going to be accounted for? Do we need to raise revenue to ensure that the budget remains balanced, or will it just go to the governor's desk?

Speaker PackardYou're asking a question, not a real parliamentary inquiry. This is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Speaker PackardRep. Murray 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 SB 295. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Eileen Kelly for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Eileen Kelly (D - Merr 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that there has been much discussion regarding wants and needs and that the expansion of the education freedom accounts, commonly known as school vouchers, is clearly a want and not a need and if I know that the real needs of our citizens are left unmet. Mister Speaker, if I also know that SB 295 as amended proposes to cap the enrollment numbers for the program but only moves the goalpost by increasing the cap by 25% if enrollment reaches 90% of the cap so one can deduct that there really is no cap and ultimately provides for universal enrollment with no income limitation. And finally Mister Speaker, if I know that our citizens have told us through town warrant articles passed in 19 towns, through hundreds of emails, in person and online testimony, letters, phone calls, rallies and published op-ed articles that they do not approve of expanding the school voucher program, would I then vote no and press the red button? Thank you.

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

Rep. Valerie McDonnell (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this reaffirms our House position and appeals to the other body. And further Mister Speaker, if I know despite what we have been told today, this isn't a voucher scam. And finally Mister Speaker, thank you. And finally, I know that this is in the best interest for students and Granite State taxpayers alike.

Rep. Valerie McDonnell (R - Rock 25)Wow, thank you, Mister Speaker. Would I now press the green button to move this important policy across the finish line? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is ought to pass as amended on SB 295. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 190 voting Yea, 178 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted. REGULAR CALENDAR CONT'D SB 100-FN, relative to violations of the prohibition on teaching discrimination. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Glenn Cordelli for the Majority of Education Policy and Administration. This bill, as amended, enhances our anti-discrimination statutes. The state is defending these laws in federal court and these enhancements are intended to address a lower court's criticism. These statutes include provisions such as prohibiting instruction that one's age, sex, race, physical disability, etc. is inherently superior to people of another age, sex, race, physical disability. The bill from the Senate addressed one specific section of the statutes and specified that any violation of the section by an educator must be "intentional or knowing." The amendment adds slightly modified language of HB 50 which passed the House in March. This language reinforces that nothing in the law prohibits discussion by educators of historical existence of ideas and subjects as part of a larger course of academic instruction. It also states specifically that intent of the section is to equally protect all New Hampshire citizens from discrimination, regardless of race. This bill addresses all the major court concerns so should send a message to the federal court and educators in New Hampshire. Vote 9-8. Rep. Megan Murray for the Minority of Education Policy and Administration. The minority of the committee finds this bill with its non-germane amendment Inexpedient to Legislate and a near carbon copy of the nongermane amendment that was attached to the originally-filed, HB 50 that was an attempt to repeal the law around divisive concepts that has been deemed unconstitutional. Yet, again, this legislative attempt to stifle free speech, as easily demonstrated, will undoubtedly send a chilling effect into classrooms where teachers fear their credentials are at risk by there being a mechanism for mere speculative reports of a "violation" in teaching the honest history of painfully complex topics like racism. The lasting effects of racism on and in communities have taken hold for generations and exist still today. This bill takes things another step further by refusing to acknowledge that certain groups have historically had disproportionate access to funding, resources, access to the ballot box, and other rights delayed or still not afforded to them. By failing to acknowledge this, we do an injustice to the work and progress many communities have made in seeking equality under the law. Majority Amendment (2332h) Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following: AN ACT relative to the prohibition on teaching discrimination. Amend the bill by replacing all after section 1 with the following: 2 Discrimination in Public Schools; Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination. RSA 193:40, II-V is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: II. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit discussion by educators or others, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, of the historical existence of ideas and subjects identified in this section, or construed to mean that educators have any positive interest in teaching, instructing, or inculcating discrimination against any group of people. III. Prohibitions in this section shall apply only to teaching, instruction, and inculcation targeting members of any racial group, including but not limited to, white people or people of European descent, black people or people of Sub-Saharan African descent, or Hispanic or Latino people. IV. A report of intentional or knowing violation of this section by an educator shall be considered a possible violation of the educator code of conduct which shall justify investigation and potentially disciplinary sanction by the state board of education. V. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an intentional or knowing violation of this section, including the attorney general, may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the commission for human rights as provided RSA 354-A:34. VI. Discrimination shall not be justified by special considerations for any racial group. The intent of this section is to equally protect all New Hampshire citizens from discrimination regardless of race. VII. For the purposes of this section, "educator" means a professional employee of any school district whose position requires certification by the state board pursuant to RSA 189:39. Administrators, specialists, and teachers are included within the definition of this term. 3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question now is on the main motion of ought to pass as amended. Rep. Megan Murray is recognized to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. SB 100 as amended started out as a nongermane amendment and is essentially the same bill that we have heard earlier in the year that continues to provide vague and unconstitutional language that's on the books rather than repealing the statute as the courts directed. As mentioned before, our history.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe member will suspend for a minute. So, it got kind of noisy. Everybody's leaving. This is a one-on-one debate, so you're just going to be back in here in like five minutes anyway, so let's try to be quiet and hear the member as she speaks. Thank you.

Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As mentioned before, our history is sometimes mired in painful and yet vitally important conversations that are necessary to teach so that we do not forget our history and actually learn from it. With this bill and others similar, teachers in New Hampshire consistently fear that their jobs could be impacted for teaching the painful honest truth. American and global history demand that we teach about racism in all its forms. The truth is, in America, despite the Civil Rights Act of 1875 affirming equality for all, our history teaches us that historical inequalities and disproportionate impacts on our communities still exist. Historically marginalized groups experience gross inequities around the ability to receive services that were without bias. Facts tell us that history has much to teach, and we still have much to learn. Communities of color disproportionately experienced school segregation, including in college admittances, the denial of home loans, unequally offered home appraisal values, unconstitutional reading tests in order to vote. Our history shares a painful pattern of setting different standards of access. Simply put, it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on race already and yet history teaches us that there is still discriminatory practice happening. SB 100 is a call to turn an even further blind eye to addressing centuries worth of historical exclusion and systemic inequities as it relates to our programs and services. SB 100 adds an ugly caveat to its language that prohibits the adjustment of policies to account for centuries of disproportionately negative impacts as a result of racism, when in fact, consideration should exist to address the inequalities. Other legislative efforts this year stand to add negative impacts to communities by already furthering to stratify our local communities by taking public taxpayer money away from public schools and leaving the haves and have nots further apart. rather than closer together. SB 100 sets teachers and schools up to yet again be fearful that they could be the recipient of a complaint and yet another investigation by anyone who simply files a report claiming to be aggrieved. Whether it is founded in fact or not, a full investigation will ensue, and possible code of conduct violations levied against teachers. Not only does this bill's language stifle speech, it has an immediate chilling effect. This bill opens the law to further ambiguity and fear, especially for educators, schools, programs and services related to public education. The only solution is to repeal the unconstitutional law. Please vote no on OTP/A so that another motion can be made and I ask for a roll call.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Cordelli is recognized to speak in support of the committee report.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. SB 100 is very simple, but very important modification of the current statute on the prohibition of teaching discrimination. Important because the AFT teacher's union and the AFL/CIO filed suit against Commissioner Edelblut and a federal judge's ruling enjoined implementation of this law. The case has been appealed to the first circuit court of appeals in Boston, however given the record of the first circuit, our best strategy for getting our law back up and running again is to reform the statute and that's what we do here. This amended bill addresses each of the concerns raised by the federal court judge to support the case of the state so that we can continue to fight discrimination and critical race theory in our schools. Let's go over the judge's complaints and how we are addressing them. First, there's the issue of so-called vagueness. The law does not give teachers enough guidance, the judge said. Well, current law prohibits teaching students about discrimination such as one race being superior to another race and teachers can be in violation for doing so. SB 100 addresses this by adding the words `intentionally and knowing.' For example, intentionally or knowing violation of this section by an educator could be considered a code of conduct violation. The US Supreme Court has said that such language in statements may reduce a law's vagueness. Next, the judge said that remedial discrimination, such as affirmative action, can be justified to remedy past discrimination, but that our law included a blanket statement against promotion of discrimination. The judge went on to say that if we are going to prohibit things like affirmative action to remedy past discrimination, we need to expressly spell out that white students are protected from discrimination. SB 100 addresses that directly by saying that prohibitions apply to teaching targets of any racial group, including but not limited, to white people, people of European descent or black people. We repudiate the judge's claim that discrimination against some races is morally different or even acceptable and we reject new or remedial discrimination to remedy past discrimination. Saying, and I quote from the bill, "discrimination shall not be justified by special consideration for any racial group." I want to state clearly that we don't think that there is any problem with our current law, but mak- ing these changes to SB 100 to overcome the injunction is what our intent is. Prohibiting all discrimination is not ambiguous, as indicated by the judge, and it's unfortunate that we are now called on to specify that this protection is for all of our students. Discrimination is discrimination and we do not want our children to be taught that any race is superior to another or is inherently racist or privileged compared to another. If a teacher is doing that, then there should and must be penalties. Judge, I hope that this addresses the problem you have with our law. Your honor, I rest my case.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Megan Murray's requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the majority committee report on SB 100 of ought to pass as amended. Rep. Balboni is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Peggy Balboni (D - Rock 38)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the New Hampshire court has already found that key portions of RSA 193:40, commonly known as the divisive concepts law, to be unconstitutional and this bill as amended does nothing to change the fact that the law relies on vague, subjective language that intimidates educators and restricts academic freedom in our classrooms. And if I understand that this bill does nothing to improve student learning outcomes, but instead continues to suppress honest, inclusive classroom discussions leaving educators uncertain and fearful of addressing complex or uncomfortable aspects of history due to the risk of crossing a vague and subjective red line. And finally if I believe that this law in any form is harmful to both our educators and our students and undermines the integrity of our public education system and the only way to fix it is to repeal it, then would I now press the red button to vote down this legally flawed, educationally harmful and administratively unjust amendment?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Freeman's recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lisa Freeman (R - Belk 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the definition of discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex or gender. And if I further know by addressing the first district court's concern around vagueness by adding the words `intentionally and knowingly' meets the criteria that has also been set forth by the United States Supreme Court. And if I finally know that discrimination is discrimination and no child should ever be ashamed, blamed or ostracized secondary to the color of their skin, religion or ethnicity, would I now ask all of you to support the ought to pass motion and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of not being judged by the color of skin, but by the content of their character by pushing the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on SB 100. It's a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the 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. 194 in the affirmative, 165 in the negative, the report is adopted.