The House, Thursday, February 12, 2026

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Spahr.

Rep. Terry Spahr (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does anybody know what we spent last year in this state? Our budget was about $8 billion. 17 years ago, in 2008, our budget was about $5 billion. So we've seen in 17 years basically an increase of about $3 billion in our budget, and mostly that's because of inflation. Salaries go up, healthcare costs, technology, construction, building maintenance, office expenses, they all increase every year, just as we do with our own personal budgets at home. The state covers these costs through collecting, basically a percentage, a percentage of business profits, a percentage of meals and rooms, of car rentals, insurance premiums, real estate transfers, casino gaming, and other sources. By collecting a percentage, the revenue keeps pace with that inflation. The tobacco tax doesn't do this. It is a flat fee per pack of cigarettes, and it doesn't adjust for inflation, and it hasn't since 2008 when our annual budget was $5 billion. Today it's $8 billion. As a result, the state is now losing tens of millions of dollars annually because of this inflation challenge. This bill would simply adjust for inflation and bring it back to the 2008 levels. That's what this bill does. So why is that a good thing? Well, just like the other 90 flat fees that we increased last year to account for inflation and pass them into law, it's the right thing to do to adjust this one as well. Even adjusting for inflation, our state will still be extremely competitive. We're the lowest cost state in the Northeast as far as the cost per pack of cigarettes, and even with this adjustment, we're still extremely lower than all our other states. We're very competitive with this bill. Excuse me. The additional estimated amount is about $40 to $87 million, and right now, our budget is bleeding. This will help staunch that bleeding. Last year, the governor had to basically raid the Rainy Day Fund and deplete it by $67 million. That's not good, and think about this, the additional money collected would also allow lawmakers more flexibility to look at other important taxes to potentially cut. Taxes that are more impactful to New Hampshire, to New Hampshire's growth and its success. Can you guys think of one? Business profits tax. Two of my colleagues, on a different note, two of my colleagues on our committee, one's a Republican, one's a Democrat, they both shared with us last year that they actually quit smoking, said it was the best decision they have ever made in their lives with regard to their health. This fee increase may even entice a few others, New Hampshire residents, to do the same. Not only will their health be better, but they'll actually save a lot more money because the average is $3 a year in cigarettes, and they also spend an average of about $2,000 more in healthcare costs every single year. So it's a win-win for people. And New Hampshire businesses love this bill. Guess why? We lose, the businesses here in this state, lose about a billion and a half dollars a year in lost productivity from workers who are sick and unable to work because of smoking-related causes. A billion and a half dollars. This bill is frankly, in my opinion, a no-brainer. It guarantees our citizens, it guarantees our businesses, and it guarantees our state will be healthier and wealthier. Let's go to New Hampshire.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Stringham.

Rep. Jerry Stringham (D - Graf 3)Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague said, HB 1596 changes the per-pack fee on a package of cigarettes for the first time in 18 years to $2.80 from the current level of $1.78. And he explained why we have to vote on that. While most taxes that we increase auto-adjust because they're percent taxes, so the fee on a hamburger that you bought at the store, the state fee is now higher than it was 18 years ago. But since the fee on cigarettes is per-pack, we have to do the unenviable process of deciding when and how much to raise this tax or change it. So how did we come up with the $2.80 number from $1.78? There's really two things. One is that this is just a COLA-based index increase since the last time it was set at 2008. So it's just an inflation adjuster. Secondly, it was a specific request of the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society who look at this fee as a very important public health matter. And they say it's better to raise the fee all at once, say a dollar per pack at the time. It has more of a cessation impact, creates a little bit of a shock to the system, than inching it up every once in a while. It's like raising the temperature of the boiling water with a frog in it that we've heard before. So that's how we came up with this $1.02 increase. So the second question is, why now? Well, Maine raised their cigarette tax by $1.50 per pack last year. The new $2.80 Granite State rate will be the lowest in the New England region. In addition to having a lower rate, we still do not pay sales tax. All of the other New England states pay a sales tax on top of the entire purchase price, not just the tax, but the whole thing. So that adds up to a dollar more to the purchase price. So, critics of this bill will tell you we'll lose cross-border sales with this increase. I think those who are stocking up while in the Granite State will continue to do so. They will still save a dollar, perhaps even up to $3 per pack. Just to give you an idea that the rates are $3.08 in Vermont, $3.50 in Maine, $3.51 in Mass, $3.90 in Connecticut, and Rhode Island, $4.50. So saving this dollar to $3 to stock up while visiting the Granite State, and at the same time, while you're here, buying some maple syrup or stocking up on your Live Free or Die bumper stickers is bound to happen. The DOR fiscal note seems to agree, providing about $80 million in additional revenues. So we can, there's some benefits to it, but why raise it at all? As my friend and colleague often says, we're a state of unlimited wants and limited means. So why raise it? This bill also addresses what some of the uses of this could be, or will be. The bill removes the income-based premium tax for some Medicaid recipients imposed on Granite Staters by our last budget for the first time. Some Medicaid recipients in the Granite State program and the CHIP programs will pay, for the first time, a premium based on about 5% of their income, just to stay in and be eligible for the program. I can see what's going to happen, with my eyes closed, even though it hasn't taken effect yet. Hardworking Granite Staters in need of health insurance just won't have the funds they need. They know they need it, but the up to $270 they have to come up with, they just don't have. What'll happen? They'll lose coverage. They'll still, at times, end up to show up at a hospital or a community health center. The facility's uncompensated care ratio will go up. Some of the facilities of this type of care will have to close, just as the Ammonoosuc Health Clinic in Franconia just did, citing Medicaid cuts as the reason. Access will go down, and then insurer rates for everyone else will go up, impacting businesses and beneficiaries alike. So that's why this bill uses a small portion of the added revenue from the change in the cigarette tax to rid of this income-based tax on Medicaid recipients. Finally, the bill restores a portion of the funding cuts to the university system. While the cuts enacted in the current biennium seem doable, and as one of my colleagues said, a favorite cut, they turned out to be implemented at a rate that is hurting our youth and our businesses because of their size and speed. A factor we may not have appreciated is that over 50% of the university system budget comes from cost-based grants. So if you cut any of those in the cost you save, you also cut the revenue. So a smaller and smaller piece of the university budget, which is already ranked 50th in the nation, has to bear the burden. Maybe they could have cut administrative staff, but our examination says it's already thin. Most colleges have presidents, provosts, and deans, but basically, we don't have deans at our state colleges. The president of Plymouth State is a guy named Jonathan Birx. He's a good president of the 3,182 undergraduates and over 500 graduates. So who's the president of Keene State College with another 2,700? It's a guy named Jonathan Birx, it's the same guy. They're sharing the president of two major universities in the state. It sounds like they're pretty efficient and not top-heavy to me. In response to the budget cuts in the university system, which came fast, they removed 45 teaching positions. They canceled classes and put students at risk for achieving their graduation dates. At least some have left the state for their school to attend out-of-state institutions of learning. A university official told me that even with the cuts, they're still running short. They just can't cut enough teaching positions quick enough to meet the budgetary goals. Local businesses in the North Country and elsewhere are affected. The diner I also often frequent is largely staffed with college students on the weekend. And due to a diminished workforce of students, two weeks ago that diner announced they were closing for the winter and would open in late May, hopefully. There's no part of this bill that doesn't help Granite Staters. I don't take raising any fee lightly. As I'm sure none of you were when we raised the auto registration fee as part of this budget. But applying this COLA to cigarettes allows us to undo some of the most egregious harms in the current budget. I'm sure the second committee will further verify the benefits of reduction income based Medicaid taxes that were instituted and the timing of reductions to the university system or make the bill better. And I do deeply appreciate efforts by some across the aisle on this bill. And I'm hopeful that those ideas will be considered as I know they will in the second House committee. So I ask on behalf of Granite Staters that do not want to face postponement as a penalty for smoking cigarettes. For CHIP and Medicaid patients that are working hard and doing what they can to be part of the New Hampshire experience, and for college students that want to be educated and contribute to the New Hampshire advantage for the rest of their lives. Please support this fiscally responsible bill and vote red on the ITL motion so that an alternative motion can be made. Thank you very much.

Speaker PackardThe Chair, recognize Representative Cole.

Rep. Brian Cole (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HB 1596, an act relative to the collection of certain healthcare programs funding for the University of New Hampshire and raising the tobacco tax. First, let's address the heart of the bill. A massive increase to the tobacco tax from $1.78 to $2.80 per pack. 57% tax increase. It's projected to generate $84 million in new revenue by singling out smokers. New Hampshire's low tobacco tax has long been a competitive advantage, particularly for our border communities. Our tax rate is nearly half of that of Massachusetts. This draws cross-border shoppers and supports local retailers, convenience stores, and creates jobs. A sharp increase like this will shrink in-state sales and undermine the very revenue that the bill promises to produce, threatening both our low tax identity and the economic vitality of granite-staters who rely on that price differential. The bill also carves out a permanent $18 million a year appropriation for the University of New Hampshire system. Only a small percentage of the university system budget comes from state funds and is continuing to operate effectively without additional state support. Most concerning, however, is how this bill pays for this new spending. By repealing premiums for the Grant Advantage Medicare Expansion Program and the Children's Health Insurance Program, these premiums were deliberately designed to promote shared responsibility, control costs, and reduce pressure on the general fund. Eliminating them shifts the burden entirely onto taxpayers. By combining these two elements, this bill increases state expenditures by up to $34 million and new general fund costs starting next year. New Hampshire is already generous in its healthcare support. There are no free rides, state employees pay premiums for their coverage, and participants in these programs should as well to maintain fairness and fiscal discipline. HB 1596 raises taxes significantly, creates new permanent spending, relies on uncertain and potential declining revenue, and dismantles proven mechanisms for cost sharing. It places long-term pressure on an already strained budget and chips away at what makes New Hampshire attractive, low taxes and fiscal restraint. I urge the body to press green button and support the ITL motion, and Mr. Speaker, I call for roll call.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Cole has asked for 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, the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 1596. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Spahr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Terry Spahr (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that this bill will make our residents, our businesses, and our great state so much stronger, then I would push the red button?

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Janigian for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Janigian (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the funding source of this bill is a huge dollar, over a dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes, and if I know that our low tobacco tax compared to surrounding states is what creates a lot of cross-border traffic from places as far away as Rhode Island and beyond, and finally, if I know that a large increase in this tax would substantially slow those cross-border sales, then would I now press the green button and support the majority of the committee and the ITL motion?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate in House Bill 1596. 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; 200 voting Yay, 157 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Selig.

Rep. Loren Selig (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to the Inexpedient to Legislate motion for HB 1642. I want to start with a story. It's a story of a woman who had a history of making poor financial choices in her life. For a time, she seemed to regain her footing, but then everything began to unravel. She was the mother of three young children; two in early elementary school and a toddler, and she was married to a man who had been diagnosed with a particularly brutal form of cancer. My own daughter, now a first-year college student, knew this family well. She knew the father from his work in her middle school. She knew the oldest child from elementary school. During her senior year of high school, she worked every other afternoon, one-on-one with that middle child. She loved that experience so much, she seriously considered pursuing a degree in teaching and early childhood education. But by late summer of 2025, this mother was in a free fall emotionally. She began sharing her distress publicly on social media, posts that showed desperation and crisis. But under the way New Hampshire law is currently written, unless she was placed in an evaluative psychiatric hold and determined that she needed long-term care, even when those warning signs were visible, nothing more would be done, and nothing more can be with our current laws. On my daughter's very first day of college classes, I had to make the most horrific phone call of my life. I had to tell her that that family that she knew and cared so deeply about was gone. Everyone except the toddler. The mother had reached her breaking point, and instead of receiving the help she'd so desperately needed and was crying out for, she used a firearm to take the lives of her two older children, her husband and herself. We will never know her final motivation, but we do know this, if HB 1642 had been law, when those social media posts were visible, someone could have made the call and an intervention could have happened and lives might have been saved. This family and our community were only one of many who were devastated by gun violence in 2025. HB 1642 is about prevention. It's about giving families, communities and law enforcement a chance to act before tragedy strikes. For those who are concerned about misuse, this bill has specific rules written into it so that people who file false reports would themselves be subject to prosecution. I want to be clear. By voting against this bill, the blood of anyone else in New Hampshire who dies by gun violence that could have been prevented will be on your hands. I urge the body to reject the Inexpedient to Legislate and allow another better motion to be made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I request a Division Vote.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we've seen this same bill as long as I've been here, almost a decade, every term, in different forms and to different guises, but at the end of the day, it's what they call a red flag bill. It's where someone has their property taken prior to having due process. It's patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that people can have firearms seized after they have due process under a restraining order or something of that nature. This turns justice on its head. But more than that, this is dangerous. It's dangerous for people in the opposite way that they claim. If they claim that someone is dangerous to themselves or others, what this bill proposes to do is allow law enforcement to break into their home, take all their firearms, and leave with the door swinging on one hinge. There's no mental health provided for them. They're just left there. The dangerous person is offered no help under this bill. The only thing this bill does is seize their property. Now, we already have an involuntary commitment process in New Hampshire. If someone is dangerous to themselves or others, relatives or family can go to the court and ask for them to be committed, where the judge will determine if that's enough. They will send them to be examined by a doctor, and if necessary, they'll get treatment, and that would make them, if they were involuntarily committed, ineligible to have firearms anyway. The point being, right now, this bill proposes no help for someone who they say needs it so desperately. All it does is take their property and leave them alone. I would ask you to support the committee's recommendation of Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Harriott-Gathright has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. The majority report is Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 1642. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Harriott-Gathright for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know, the bill creates a legal process under civil law to temporarily restrict a person's access to firearms if a judge finds that they pose a significant danger of using firearms to harm themselves or others. And Mr. Speaker, if I know no one gets arrested, no criminal record is created unless the individual violates the order. And finally, Mr. Speaker, the court has also made clear that pre-hearing deprivations are constitutional, especially in emergency situations, repeatedly recognizing that where a state must act quickly or where it would be impractical to provide pre-deprivation process, post-deprivation process satisfies the requirements of the due process clause. This bill will save lives. Colleagues, please press the red button and save lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Rhodes for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know the premise of this bill is to temporarily take away a person's firearms while leaving them in the exact same environment that someone claims is creating the mental health situation, and if I know that New Hampshire has a very clear and robust involuntary commitment law that will address the very situations that were described in our public hearing, and Mr. Speaker, if I know that having a police officer invade somebody's home, seize their firearms, walk out and say, "have a great day," does nothing to help the mental health crisis that the person is having, it just leaves them with an insult, would I now press green? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 1642. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 206 voting Yay; 153 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Nagel.

Rep. David Nagel (D - Belk 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I begin, I would like to thank my good friends who last week delivered a moving bipartisan unanimous consent on the subject of genocide. That is what this bill is actually all about. The original bill was meant to be provocative, to redefine a divisive memorial to Hannah Duston in Boscawen and to expose an inconvenient truth. It succeeded beyond my wildest expectations and brought together people of diverse backgrounds and opinions to accomplish a virtuous goal and create a workgroup so that a place could be made for all of us. It was my understanding that that made this bill unnecessary. Unfortunately, I found out later for reasons that I will get to that is not true and that's why I'm still here. Both the legend of Duston from 1697 and the creation of the memorial in 1874 have always been divisive. According to the legend told by Cotton Mather, Duston, her child and her midwife were abducted by an unknown Native group during a raid on Haverhill, Massachusetts during King William's War in 1697. The war pitted the French against the English, with the Natives fighting on both sides in a last-ditch effort to regain their lost land. Early on, her child was killed and she was being taken, we think, to Quebec, but we don't know. At some point, she was left in the care of two Native families, partially out of fear and partially out of anger for having been forced to pray like a Catholic. Duston and two others murdered ten of the Natives, six of them children, in their sleep. Then they proceeded to scalp them and return to Boston to collect a scalp bounty. It is not clear how much of this story is true. You can believe as much or as little of it as you want. The question I do offer you or ask of you is, was the protagonist a hero or a villain? And there's no consensus on that. And for me personally, that's not the issue. The issue to me is how the narrative was used subsequently. Mather himself was a cleric, and he basically considered Natives barbaric, uncivilized savages and needed to find a way to justify violation of the Second, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Commandments in his treatment of the Natives. In 1874, a memorial was created in Boston and dedicated with grand ceremony on the shores of the Merrimack. When the people were done with their party, they trudged over to the State House and said, the monument is now yours, congratulations. The legislature that was there at the time said, no, we don't want it. They eventually did take it, and we've had it ever since. And the state since then has done very little to support it. While the memorial was designed to honor Duston superficially, its purpose was actually more sinister, and that is the issue. The memorial is actually one of two, the other in Haverhill, Massachusetts, and depicts the goddess Columbia, the symbol of the New World in general and manifest destiny in particular. In one hand is a hatchet, and in the other are 10 Native scalps. It is a vision so repulsive to some that one observer was a forced lament. It is shocking to humane, refined sensibilities. We shall have an increase of faith in juvenile human nature if the conquered boys don't stone that monument till not a vestige of it remains to desecrate New England's soil. In reality, the memorial was created to honor and inspire a spirit of patriotism as a means of promoting manifest destiny and solving what was known in the 1800s as the Indian problem by any means necessary. Duston was merely a symbol. The only good Indian is a dead Indian, and that was the motto of the time. The result was so brutally efficient that in a period of 300 years, the Native population of the Americas was reduced by 90%. In New Hampshire, it took only 80 years for the colonists to do what 13,000 years could not do when they basically eliminated the Abenaki from the state. While historians debate whether this constitutes genocide or merely ethnic cleansing, this was considered the greatest demographic disaster in human history. It was driven by a belief in racial superiority, one admired by Adolf Hitler who chose to emulate it in his genocidal campaign against Eastern Europe and all its inhabitants. When I look at the memorial, that is what I see, an outrage image of racism and hatred, and I don't believe the state should be supporting that. What became very important, though, after I submitted the bill was I got a lot of calls, and that led to a lot of discussion, and I quickly became able to see that there's a lot of ways that people look at this memorial, and because of that, we actually created a work group to try to change this memorial site that would leave the memorial there, but at the same time honor all the participants in the process. One of the things that people justified to keep the memorial was history is important, good or bad. I quizzed everybody and I asked, do you know the history, and not one person did, which is all right, but we need to learn the history so we can avoid its mistakes in the future. Some people justified, well, it was a time of violence, and the cheap export of European colonists at that time was to actually export an exponential increase in violence in the area. Some claim that the story empowers women, and this is an amazing story. If it's true, it is an amazing story about a woman's survival, and I think that should be honored. I agree. But the minor little detail was she did, in fact, murder six innocent children in their sleep and then desecrated their lifeless bodies. One other little minor detail that's often missing was the fate of abducted Native men, women, and children, who often led to a different fate. They were either murdered or sold into slavery. These concerns have been discussed since the mid-1600s. There's virtually nothing I'm bringing up now that has not been brought up before. In 2017, a multi-stakeholder group was created to recreate this site to more accurately honor the history of all involved and acknowledge past sins as a way of creating a better future. That effort unfortunately died in 2021, and the report that was created at that time still has some value but needs to be updated. After I released this bill, we came together as an unusual group, having very little in common on this issue, but unified that something needed to change. And we did come up with a private funding mechanism. I personally have imagined that this site will be for New Hampshire, like the Vietnam Memorial is in D.C., or if any of you have been to Dachau or Auschwitz, a never-again site and how we can do better in the future. The problem is it's an incredibly complicated, very small piece of property with multiple people involved, including you. You only own a small sliver, but it's really important, and because of that, I was informed by the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources that we would need to create a legislative body in my amendment that I hope we can hear, with an advisory council to oversee the work group and the work that they're doing. Therefore, I really would hope that you would push the red button on this bill to ITL it, and that way we can talk about the amendment. And I do have one more thing that I really feel obligated to say, because this has been a very challenging six months for me, but I do feel I need to say this. To those who sent me hate mail and threats, I ask you, who are we? I would suggest that we are all we, no matter the color of our skin, and I look forward to the day, as Martin Luther King said, that we will one day live in a nation where we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character, and I would add the words that we make liberty and justice real for all. It is my hope, sincere hope, that we can make this small piece of land be used to make that vision real, and I pray that those who sent me those letters can get past your hatred and join us for a place for all of us. Thank you, and I would ask for a division vote.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Donnelly.

Rep. Tanya Donnelly (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an inspiring story for me, because I learned about Hannah Duston about 30 years ago when I first moved to Massachusetts. I was originally raised in upstate New York, where they had the French and Indian War. So I know the author of the Massacre on the Merrimack, which I encourage everyone to read, because it's a very highly detailed book.

Speaker PackardRepresentative, we'll suspend. There's no props at the well.

Rep. Tanya Donnelly (R - Rock 25)Lesson learned. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Let me begin with, this is the first erected woman statue in the United States. That alone should be significant enough for us to never want to take this down as a community. In addition, this is also something, that Hannah Duston had just bore a baby. She was only a week old, Martha. She was captive. Her husband, she didn't even know, her husband ran with the other children to flee. She didn't know if they were alive or dead. Then what happened is they took her. They captured her. It was known that women back then, hundreds of them, colonial women, were taken and they were sold into slavery. She didn't know what was to happen with her. She just had a baby. As much as we want to say that this may be a symbol, this may be not a true story, there's enough evidence out there stating that this is a true story. We have lots of true stories. When we look through the hallways of our state house, are we going to deny all of our state house stories as well? I really encourage people to say yes on the ITL, this is a very important statue. It has been debated enough. As we've heard, back in 2016, there was an improvement to the memorial site to encourage people to become more knowledgeable, to become learned about this brave woman, the first statue of American history. The bill seeks to silence the resiliency of women who've lived in this time. Their voices were unheard and erased, her bravery, and diminished the legacy of the survival that she faced in that oppressive moment. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Granger 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 majority report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 1664. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Sargent for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gregory Sargent (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that instead of removing the Hannah Duston statue, we have an opportunity to finish the work of the prior study committee, and if I also know that a new advisory council with state, local, and Native representation is needed to finish the job and to make the site historically complete and a desirable place to go, would I now press the red button so that a better motion may be made?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Donnelly for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Tanya Donnelly (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the life in the 1600s was a brutal time when hundreds of colonial women were captured, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, King William's War, I can't even imagine the resiliency it took to survive such horrors. If I know that in 1874, Hannah Duston statue became the first publicly funded statue of women in this country, then I know it stands for a symbol of courage, survival, and a testament to women's voices in a time when women had none. This statue should never be removed. If I know in 2016, House Bill 1397 was passed to improve the memorial site so that all could learn about the Hannah Duston bravery, and then I know it was a step towards honoring the strength of women endured unimaginable trials and the world denied them standing rights and recognition. And yet today a man sponsors a bill to remove the statue. The first statue of a woman in our nation, the bill seeks to silence the strength and resiliency of women who live in a time when their...

Speaker PackardThe Representative will suspend. This is a parliamentary inquiry.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 1664. 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. 194 voting Yay 156 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.