The House, Thursday, March 5, 2026

Rep. Arnold Davis (R - Coos 2)Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you, the body, and our Lord to introduce House Bill 1078, known as the Gold Star Father and Gold Star Family License Plate Bill. This legislation represents far more than a license plate. It is a tribute to the families who share in the honor, remembrance, and profound sacrifice of their loved ones who gave their lives in service to our great nation. I would like to recognize the family of Staff Sergeant Tanner Grone, who are with us today in the gallery, and whose advocacy helped set this bill in motion. I also would like to acknowledge the representative from Gorham, New Hampshire, the prime sponsor who could not be here with us today, as well as the other Gold Star families joining us here this morning. I would be remiss not to mention the Gold Star Father and representative of Specialist Justin Rollins as well. We owe you and all Gold Star families a debt of gratitude that cannot be measured. This bill has been a long time coming, and it is long overdue. House Bill 1078 emerged from the Transportation Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan, Ought to Pass recommendation. At this time, I respectfully urge all members to pass this bill with a voice vote to show our guests in the gallery just how much this bill means to us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. George Sykes (D - Graf 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fellow colleagues, I grew up in a family that lived by the code that much has been given to us and much is owed in return. There were six boys of World War II age in my family; uncles and my father. One was not old enough to serve. Of the remaining five, one served in Panama, good for him. One served in the Pacific as a naval aviator, good for him. One served in the tank corps and came back injured. One served in the air corps as an engineering officer on a B-29. They did not find him after his plane crashed until he came home in 1947. One never came home and is buried in England as a pilot. I grew up with family members who felt very strongly that it was wonderful that the mothers got their Gold Star abilities; a flag that they flew. But this is an important thing because the cost to the families is very, very high and very, very well understood. So I would urge you to unanimously support the 16-0 vote of the Transportation Committee to honor the families as well.

Rep. Henry Giasson (R - Hills 29)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I served 24 years in the U.S. Army. I volunteered on the Honor Guard. I've attended many funerals for Gold Star families, lost friends myself. I knew these people for some years and I mourned them. These families knew those people for decades for their whole lives. They nurtured them, nourished them, educated and groomed them into the men and women in uniform. Allowing them to display this license plate will make a statement from this body and from the State of New Hampshire. We can never thank these families for their service or their sacrifice. We can never understand their mourning and we cannot carry their burden. But what we can do and what I believe that we are obligated to do together is as one body say to them, we mourn with you, we remember with you, we stand with you and we recognize you. We honor the sacrifice of your loved ones. So Mr. Speaker, I'm asking that we join together in a verbose voice vote in unison as one body. May the resounding echo of this vote ring in these chambers now and forever. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on House Bill 1078. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The ayes have it, the committee report's adopted. Please rise for a moment of silence for those who've given their lives in the service of this country.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under the landmark Claremont school funding decision of 1993, the state is required to make an adequate education free and available to every New Hampshire child. Just the other week, the Attorney General filed a complaint with the state Supreme Court to reverse Claremont. That's right, negating more than 30 years of jurisprudence, the benchmark decision that makes the state responsible to provide an adequate education for every child in New Hampshire. We all know the state has never lived up to its responsibility to do this. Granite Staters put a premium on high quality public schools and strong student outcomes; top five in the country. Despite having the lowest state share of school funding in the country, every year people open their wallets to fund the best school budgets they can for their kids and their neighbors kids. Strong statewide outcomes. But it doesn't happen everywhere, and people hope someday the state will step up to the plate and do the right thing and fund our public schools so that every kid can have a strong outcome. So let's be honest, 90% of New Hampshire kids go to public schools. They're not leaving their friends and their teachers to take a voucher. The Department of Education data shows this to be true. Sadly, this bill goes hand in glove with the Attorney General's case to reverse the Claremont decision. It backs the state out of the responsibility to fund public schools, and it leaves property taxpayers holding the bag. So let's see what this bill will actually do. It doesn't lower property taxes, it doesn't increase the share of state funding for public schools, and it doesn't establish a floor or percentage or a minimum state contribution to support your public schools. So, if property taxes are one of the top concerns of your constituents, why prioritize legislation that does nothing to address them? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I think voters are going to want to know where we stand on this, so let's go for a roll call. Speaker Kofalt: Thank you, the chair recognizes Representative Lynn to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the committee recommendation of ought to pass on House Bill 1815. If one were to listen to our friends across the aisle, one would believe that the only thing we can do in response to the Supreme Court's deeply flawed 3-2 decision in the ConVal case is to be quiet and simply write a check for hundreds of millions of dollars, which would likely require a levying a sales or income tax. And indeed, right on cue, the main proponents of this approach have recently proposed such a solution; a broad-based income tax. But fortunately, we are not so constrained. Although the series of Claremont cases reflect a pattern of increasingly intrusive invasions by the court of legislative prerogatives, the court nonetheless has repeatedly held that it is the job of the legislature to define an adequate education and to determine how it is funded. This bill accomplishes that task by responding to ConVal in several ways. First, Section 1 of the bill makes it clear that in accordance with long historical precedent in New Hampshire, local school boards and school districts are in all respects creatures of the state and can only act as the legislature authorizes. That being the case, the bill provides that we, the legislature, make the determination that providing an adequate education is a shared responsibility that must be achieved through the collective effort of state government and local school authorities. Second, the bill establishes that the state's role in this shared responsibility is to provide funding for the academic program that comprises an adequate education while leaving responsibility for collateral expenses to local communities. Third and most importantly, the bill states explicitly that quote, "how the state and its local governmental entities choose to raise, allocate and spend financial resources to implement this integrated public educational system is a public policy matter reserved to legislative and executive judgment and control." What this is saying to the court in essence is respectfully, the ConVal majority got way over its skis with its ruling and the court really needs to reexamine whether it actually has the authority the ConVal majority claim to have. Section 2 of the bill makes no changes to the 11 core academic areas that comprise the substantive content of an adequate educational program under current law. Lastly, Section 3 of the bill amends RSA 198:40-a, III to make clear that the funds provided to school districts that count towards the cost of an adequate education includes both base adequacy payments and differentiated aid payments. The dissent in ConVal made a compelling argument that the statute as it currently exists already makes it clear that both base and differentiated aid must be considered for adequacy purposes, but the majority disagreed. This bill makes that point clear beyond doubt. In sum, HB 1815 is a sensible and reasonable response to the ConVal case that will allow New Hampshire schools to continue to provide a first-rate education to our students without fundamentally changing our tax structure to emulate most of our New England neighbors, and while preserving the local flexibility that our citizens desire. I urge you to press the green button. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I join in asking for a roll call vote.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairRepresentative Luneau has asked for a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is officially seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Representative Ames for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dick Ames (D - Ches 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the State of New Hampshire has a fundamental, moral and constitutional responsibility to guarantee and deliver to all of New Hampshire's children a free, high quality public education, and if I further know that New Hampshire's extreme dependence on municipal level property taxation for public school funding has resulted in both unconstitutional educational disparities and disproportionate, unreasonable and unconstitutional taxation of local property taxpayers, and finally, if I believe that this bill's attempt, if ever litigated, to transform our constitutional school funding responsibility into a discretionary, judicially unenforceable quote, "political policy matter," that will itself prove to be unconstitutional and unenforceable, then would I not now vote no on the pending OTP motion by pressing the red button?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe chair recognizes Representative Ladd for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you. Mr. Speaker. If I know providing a constitutionally adequate education in New Hampshire is a shared responsibility between local school districts and the state, and not the sole responsibility of the state, and if I believe the Claremont Supreme Court decisions along with recent court findings regarding adequacy were wrongly decided and this bill rightfully reestablishes legislative authority over schools and correctly reinforces that school districts are subdivisions of the state, and lastly, if I know this bill clarifies and establishes that how the state and its local governmental entities choose to raise, allocate and spend financial resources to implement this integrated public education system is a political matter reserved to the legislator and executive judgement and control. Would I then press the green button as a necessary step in undoing wrongful judicial overreach in the past? Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the majority motion of Ought to Pass on House Bill 1815. 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. With 188 voting in the affirmative, 162 voting in the negative, the motion passes. What reason is member rise?

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you. Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, I move reconsideration on HB1815 and ask members to vote no.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThat is a proper motion. The motion is for reconsideration on House Bill 1815 on the ought to pass motion. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. The no's have it. Motion is defeated.

Rep. Wayne Burton (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No one can oppose the primary theme of HR 19. We live by lines 14 through 18, which unequivocally condemns political violence and intimidation in all forms and affirms that threats, disruption, or force have no place in New Hampshire's civic or academic life. The bill continues and it encourages faculty and student organizations to engage invited speakers with respectful questioning and debate, modeling the habits of free people to hear, test, and answer arguments, not silence them. Who can disagree with that? However, the resolution in lines 19 through 20 violates the very premise of the resolution by emphasizing one set of speakers over another by encouraging the institutions to host, quote, "more conservative speakers," unquote. I could support the resolution in its entirety if it encouraged more speakers from all viewpoints as expressed in UNH's policy on free speech. Quote, "at the University of New Hampshire, we believe that freedom of speech and free expression is fundamental to our identity as an institution of higher learning." A great example of the power of free speech occurred last Monday night when a UNH student and others, in following him, the prime sponsor of HB 1793, the bill prohibiting public colleges from regulating firearms on campus, spoke before the public comments section of the Durham Town Council on which I've served for 12 years. He, like the members of his group, were carrying unconcealed weapons. I want to say from the start, there was no brandishing of the firearms. They had an absolute legal right to be in our town council chambers with weapons. The state law allows that, but we did call a police officer from the town to make sure everyone was safe. The leader of the group, the sponsor of the bill, 1793, came to the microphone and called the council members, including me, "tyrants," quote, unquote. He then asserted his right to bear firearms came from God. No government could limit those rights. That's what he told our town council. Now, the last time I've been called a name was by the late publisher of the Union Leader, Nackey Loeb, who devoted a whole column to me and called me a commy-loving demagogue from Durham, which didn't necessarily hurt me in my home district, but it wasn't a very nice thing to say. Later, that was in 1989, later I spoke to Mrs. Loeb outside the auditorium here. She used to sit in a wheelchair outside the door waiting for us to come out, as you may remember. I thanked her. I said, I almost gave my life for you to be able to make that assertion. And it's reassuring to me that free speech is alive.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe member will suspend. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Samuel Farrington (R - Straf 8)I don't see how attacking the prime sponsor of campus carry is relevant to this house resolution at hand. Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairSo, I understand you introduced this as having relevance to the bill before us. And I would ask you to bring it back around to the resolution that we're debating currently. Representative Burton: I introduced, or I am opposing the bill because the bill is about freedom of speech in Durham and UNH, and these are UNH students. And I'd like to proceed.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairYou may proceed. I'm simply asking that you address the bill that is before it, or the resolution that's before us. So, bring it back around, please.

Rep. Wayne Burton (D - Straf 10)Let me wrap it up and make clear. Freedom of speech goes both ways. This bill goes one way. I can support the bill if it went and said everyone should have free speech, not just one political group or another. And that's my point, Mr. Speaker. That's why I'm speaking here now in opposition to the bill as written. If there were an amendment to make it for all points of view, I could vote for that. But to defeat the bill with a language in the bill itself doesn't make sense to me. Thank you very much.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Representative Colcombe to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Riché Colcombe (R - Hills 30)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 19 sends a much needed message in support of free speech and intellectual diversity at our colleges and our universities. The tragic assassination of a campus speaker last September has forced us to recognize that political violence is no longer a distant threat, but it's reality, one that attempts to deter speech and intimidate students. Our campuses should be protected space for debates, where the only way to defeat an argument is with a stronger argument, not through intimidation. We heard in the committee that our campuses are already balanced because of things like names on the buildings, but we distinguish between physical symbols and actual academic engagement. A building named after a republican statesman is a wonderful tribute to history, but it's not a substitute for active exchange of opinions in the classroom today. Hosting a political rally on campus or a bus bringing students to the polls is a sign of civic engagement, but it isn't the same thing as academic balance. This resolution isn't about which side has a louder voice at a rally. It's about ensuring that our tax-funded institutions remain open to a wide range of viewpoints, so the students can engage with different perspectives as part of a well-rounded education. Some might question the need for this resolution because it has no enforcement or funding attached to it. However, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why it's important. We aren't interested in mandating a curriculum or compelling anyone to speak. Our goal is simple. It's to ensure that New Hampshire colleges focus on teaching students how to think rather than what to think. At the end of the day, we want students to be exposed to all sides of the issues so they are better prepared for the world outside of the campus. I respectfully ask that you support the Ought to Pass motion.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the majority committee report of ought to pass on House Resolution 19. Are you ready for the question? Representative Luneau has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. House will come to order. The chair recognizes Representative Weinstein for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Toni Weinstein (D - Rock 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that public higher education faces serious challenges like underfunding, staffing shortages, student mental health needs, and accessibility gaps that the legislature should be focusing on, and if I know that the government should not be in the business of managing or dictating viewpoints on our college campuses, and if I also know that New Hampshire's colleges and universities already value free speech and academic freedom, and they maintain full authority to invite speakers from across the political spectrum, then would I now press the red button to stop this governmental overreach and defeat the OTP? Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe chair recognizes Representative Pam Brown for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Pam Brown (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know a man recently lost his life for loving discussion and exercising free speech on a college campus, would I now eagerly press green and unite with my House colleagues to embrace a simple resolution that tells the rest of the United States that New Hampshire welcomes speakers from across the ideological spectrum to our colleges and universities because, quote, "more speech, not less, best serves us?" Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the majority committee motion of Ought to Pass on House Resolution 19. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, 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. With 191 voting in the affirmative, 155 voting in the negative, the motion passes.

Rep. Loren Foxx (D - Hills 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Fish and Game Committee, we get a cross section of very interesting bills and have crazy debates about them. This one, the ferret bill, was nowhere near to close to being on the bingo card of my legislative career, yet here we are. Currently hunters are prohibited from bringing ferrets along in the car when they go hunting. You might wonder why this is. After all, aren't ferrets just cute little furry animals? But, there are several reasons why bringing your pet ferret on a hunting trip might not be such a good idea. First of all, the wildlife population is at risk when non-native ferrets are introduced. I just learned that too. If your pet ferret were to get loose on a hunting trip, there's a chance that it could wreak havoc on local wildlife populations by introducing parasites and diseases for which our native wildlife have no immunities. Second, by rule, right now there is no ferreting season. So it's not legal to let your pet ferret loose, even if they might not want to, to try to prey on another animal. Legal ferreting would open up an entirely different can of worms or a business of ferrets, as it were. Third, ferret safety. A pet ferret who gets loose may get injured underground by its prey or cause an inhumane death by its prey. Not good outcomes for either party. Ferrets can't distinguish among species of animals and the possibility exists that a ferret could unwittingly slay an endangered New England cottontail. For the health of our native wildlife and the safety of the animals involved, I ask you to please put your little ferret claws on the red button and vote to overturn the ought to pass motion so that a better motion may be made. Thank you.

Rep. Loren Foxx (D - Hills 2)And since I'm never up here, I'd like to ask for a division vote, please. Of course you are. And I liked you a minute ago.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Barton is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Joseph Barton (R - Graf 1)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll have you all know that Dr. Seuss was born on March 2nd, so I'll give a little homage to him. Mr. Speaker, good members, pray, lend your attention. I rise on repeal with modest intention, not to unsettle our forests or land, but to tidy a clause that's grown out of hand. For 90 long years, yes, 9-0, it's true, a curious clause has persisted right through. A relic, a leftover, dusty with age, still sitting there, squatting right there on the page, a law from a time of a different debate when radios crackled and news traveled late, when fears of the wild loomed larger than fact, and ferrets were treated as threats in the act. But listen now closely, let's make it quite plain. This bill does not loosen the wildlife domain. It does not send ferrets to hunt in the field. No marshland surrendered, no burrow unsealed. No rabbits pursued in the tall meadow grass, no hunting permissions silently passed. Game laws remain firm, intact and complete. No ferrets set loose where wild creatures meet. What does it do? Why something quite small, it cleans up a statute, well, that's really all. So that a ferret domesticated, bred, may lawfully go where its owner has led. A service companion, steady and trained, when balance is lost or strength has been drained. A quiet support, calm and discreet, a whiskered small therapist curled up at your feet, or simply a pet, no title assigned, no task to perform, no service defined, no hunting permitted, no wildlife running spree, just lawful and harmless and entirely free. Ninety years lingering, a worry misplaced, a leftover fear from a time we've outpaced. We prune back dead branches so strong limbs may thrive. We clear out old statutes so good laws survive. I speak for the ferrets, small, clever, spry, with bright little masks and a curious eye. They ask not for prey, nor the woodland to roam, just travel beside when their owners roam home. So, members, today, we can tidy the code, lift 90-year cobwebs off statute's old road. No chaos, no crisis, no trouble foreseen. My friends, if you're ready, vote yes, vote green. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithSo, that just happened. Alrighty, a division has been requested. This will be a division vote. Members, take your seats. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on House Bill 1167. Representative Harvey is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Cathryn Harvey (D - Ches 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that there was no testimony as to why you should or why you would even want to take your ferret hunting with you, and if I know that there is no ferret season, so any take that that ferret would make would be an illegal take, and if I know ferrets are very vicious hunters, but to them, all rabbits look alike, especially our endangered New Hampshire cottontail, would I now press the red button to leave our fuzzy, furry, friendly pets at home where they can watch TV and be pampered for the rest of their lives as they were meant to be? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Spillane is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be brief. If I know that this bill, though titled to say hunting with ferrets, has nothing to do with hunting with ferrets, and just means that you're not banned from taking them in your vehicle while you're going to a hunting spot or carrying them in your pocket, and if I know that you can do this with any manner of other pets, it's just the ferret who's been singled out and for some reason made a pariah out of your pet kingdom, then would I press green?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on House Bill 1167. This is a division vote. If you're in favor, press the green button. If you're opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present I had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 145 in the affirmative, 189 in the negative. The motion fails. The House will be in order. Representative Harvey moves Inexpedient to Legislate. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the ferrets are safe. REGULAR CALENDAR CONT'D HB 1317, relative to patient privacy protections. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINOR- ITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Lisa Mazur for the Majority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. Although safeguarding patient privacy is essential, this proposal is overly broad and largely duplicates existing protections under laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The prime sponsor has indicated one of their primary concerns is potential actions by the current administration, but state law should not be rewritten based on fear of a particular federal administration. As drafted, the bill could unintentionally disrupt Medicaid funding, public health reporting, and other federally coordinated services -- creating confusion and barriers to care without meaningfully strengthening privacy protections. Vote 11-7. Rep. Lucy Weber for the Minority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. Privacy has always been of particular concern to Granite Staters -- so much so that we passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing it several years ago. This bill reinforces our constitution and various other sources of patient health care data, state and federal, by creating one simple, overarching statement that includes the full extent of protection for this most personal of data. The very real possibility of discrimination on the basis of a disclosure of such personal information to unauthorized persons requires that we must do all we can to limit the possible risk of such disclosure. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support HR 42 to honor the life and the legacy of Melissa Hortman, the former Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Her career showed integrity, courage, and a deep commitment to public service. Speaker Hortman spent her life strengthening democratic institutions and serving the people of Minnesota. She worked across differences. She focused on thoughtful policy that improved people's lives. Colleagues from both parties respected her steady leadership and her belief that public service should always place the common good first. On June 14, 2025, Speaker Hortman and her husband were assassinated in a politically motivated attack at their home in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. That loss shocked the country. It devastated her family, her colleagues and the community she served. I wish I didn't have to stand here for this reason, but honoring her life also requires us to face the reality that political violence has come too far and too common in our country. Earlier today, we passed a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk. I disagreed with his political views, but disagreement is not a reason for violence. No one should die because of their politics. That principle has to apply to everyone. This is why recent social media posts from the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire are so disturbing. Those posts use threatening language and called for the killing of political opponents. That kind of rhetoric is dangerous. It crosses a clear line and it threatens democracy. Political debate is part of democracy. Threats of violence are not. Passing HR 42 sends a clear message. We reject political violence. We reject rhetoric that attempts to normalize it. We stand for a democracy where disagreements are resolved through debate, persuasion, and the rule of law, and we honor Melissa Hortman. I'm also thinking about the people watching us. Before serving here, I worked as a chaplain and a campus minister with young people. They watch what leaders say and what leaders tolerate. We have a responsibility to show them that even in disagreement, we treat each other with dignity and respect. That's the example Speaker Hortman set. She believed in the work of democracy. She believed in public service. She believed that disagreement should never turn into hatred or violence. By passing this bipartisan resolution today, we honor her life. We mourn her loss and we affirm that in New Hampshire, we reject political violence and we choose a better path. Thank you, and Mr. Speaker, I ask for a roll call.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on House Resolution 42. Representative Simpson requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The question is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on House Resolution 42. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button. If opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present have an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 308 in the affirmative, 11 in the negative. The resolution is adopted.