The House, Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Speaker O'BrienThe Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, my question is if we were to attempt to take CACR 6 off the table, what is the parliamentary procedure that we would be facing?

Speaker O'BrienRep. Bettencourt, if there was a motion to take CACR 6 off the table, it would require a majority vote to come off the table. It is past the deadline for first committee bills and therefore it would require a motion to suspend the rules in order for there to be further action on CACR 6 and that would require two-thirds of those present. Thereafter, the pending motion is Inexpedient to Legislate. It would require a majority vote to defeat that motion or for that motion to carry. If that motion does not carry, it is open for further motions. To amend it would require a majority vote. If the motion is Ought to Pass or Ought to Pass with Amendment, that would require three-fifths of the House that is present and that would be 239 members that would have to vote in the affirmative. Rep. Bettencourt: Mister Speaker, I move that CACR 6 be taken off the table.

Speaker O'BrienRep. Bettencourt moves that CACR 6 be taken off the table. The motion before the House is to take CACR 6 off the table. Are you ready for the vote? A division vote has been requested. This is a division vote. Will members please take their seats? The House will come to order. The question before the House is the motion by Rep. Bettencourt to remove CACR 6 from the table. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, if I knew that CACR 6 needed fine tuning and it was therefore placed on the table. Mister Speaker, if I know that we came within five votes of passing the amendment on the initial vote and there were individuals that wanted to participate, but couldn't and, if I also knew Mister Speaker that this legislation has been improved and deserves to be debated on the floor again, would I press the green button so that we may remove CACR 6 from the table.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Rep. Bettencourt to remove CACR 6 from the table. This is a division vote. If you are in favor of removing CACR 6 from the table, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 60 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 248 members having voted in the affirmative and 118 in the negative the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a motion.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, I would move that the rules be so far suspended as to allow us to be able to adequately take up CACR 6.

Speaker O'BrienRep. Bettencourt moves to suspend the rules to allow further action on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for the purpose of comments.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, this House had every opportunity to debate, to consider, to deliberate this bill and they did so and the orderly business of this House requires that we progress on to other matters because the decision has already been made on this issue. So I would urge a no vote on the rules suspension.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion to suspend the rules to allow further action on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Jasper for comments.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would urge the body to suspend the rules to allow us to consider further amendments and action on this CACR. We know it came very close. There were imperfections in the amendment that was before us a couple of weeks ago and by suspending the rules, and the reason we need to suspend the rules is because we are after the deadline for bills going to a first committee and I think it's important that we take this up and fully debate all the other actions relative to this CACR. Thank you.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Parliamentary inquiry of the previous speaker please.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield to a question? I assume this is a question of the speaker and not a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)That is correct, Mister Speaker. My question is this. I believe we are being asked to suspend the rules so that we can take up a new amendment to CACR 6 and I assume the reason for the rules that we have about deadlines and all is so that we can have public hearings and open debate and discussion of matters before we have to vote on them on the floor. So my question to you is, you have alluded to changes to CACR 6, but I think we need to know how extensive those changes are before we are asked to suspend rules and then have to vote on a constitutional amendment with no public hearing.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you for the question. My belief is the reason, first of all, that we have the rules the way we do is because bills going to a second committee, there are quite a few of them, and if we had them all intertwined, crossover could be a very difficult time, even as it is with the rules. I don't think it has anything to do with public hearings. I think it has a matter of doing with how many committees these bills need to go to. As you well know, we have many amendments in our seat pockets today from your colleagues having to do with the budget and HB 1 and HB 2 which also have not gone to a public hearing. You also know that we quite often adopt floor amendments to bills. The requirement is that bills have a public hearing, not floor amendments. So this is going through the normal process and all we are asking at this time is to suspend the rules because of that deadline and we will then have the full debate on the amendment which is in the seat pocket.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for a follow up question? The member does yield. Rep. Richardson please proceed.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)I assume you are referring to the amendment that is in the seat pocket which seems to me to be a substantial revision of the bill. So could you describe for us, before we suspend the rules, exactly what are differences to CACR 6 that we defeated last week and the current version.

Speaker O'BrienThat question goes beyond the limits of debate on this motion, Representative. The question before the House......Does the member yield for an additional question? Rep. Vaillancourt you are recognized for an additional question.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. In checking the previous roll call, I noted that there were 352 people here. According to the last roll call we just had or division, there were 366, so if we did not do this, would it in effect be disenfranchising the people that are here today that couldn't make it then if we don't agree to do this?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)I'm not sure I would go that far because we always have different numbers of members here and I wouldn't want to put myself in a situation of saying that every time we had a vote on something when there are more people here we should revisit it, but we have the opportunity here and we have an amendment in the seat pockets so I think it is proper to suspend the rules and deal with this, particularly where the vote was so close the last time.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the suspension of the rules. This is a division vote. Members will please take their seats and the Chair will recognize Rep. (Gary) Richardson for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I've read the proposed amendment to CACR 6 that is in our seat pockets and if I know that it involves significant new language that we have not considered before and if I know that to fool with this constitutional amendment at this date puts members in a position of having to vote without being fully informed, would I now vote red to oppose the motion to suspend the rules? Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThis is a division vote. The question is on the motion to suspend rules. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, if I know that in order to move forward on CACR 6, it is necessary to suspend the rules and if I know that this legislation is important to the tax- payers of our state and Mister Speaker, if I want to give a new and improved CACR 6 an opportunity to be debated in this Chamber, would I not press the green button to suspend the rules?

Speaker O'BrienRep. Jasper requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members have taken their seats, but this will now be a roll call vote rather than a division vote. The procedure status is that this vote requires two-thirds present and voting in order for the motion to carry. If you are in favor of suspension of the rules, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 258 members having voted in the affirmative and 114 in the negative and 248 being required for the motion to carry, the motion carries. The pending question is on Inexpedient to Legislate on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Stepanek to speak in opposition to Inexpedient to Legislate.

Rep. Stephen Stepanek (R - Hills 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members of this honorable House, CACR 6 is one of the most important bills you will vote on this session. I and most of you ran on a platform of limited and responsible government. This bill, more than any other, does this. Remember, by passing this we are giving the people the right to have their voice heard on this most important issue. This will go a long way towards preventing last minute midnight tax and fee increases. It will prevent reckless bonding of operating expenses, forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for it for the next 20 years. The argument has been made that this amendment will make it harder to raise taxes and fees. My answer to that is a resounding yes. Yes, it will make it harder to raise taxes and fees and take more money from our citizens. That should be a harder task on this legislature. The legislature must be held to a higher standard when it comes to raising taxes and fees. People have said it will be harder to borrow money. Again, my answer is a resounding yes. Yes, it should be harder to borrow money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back. We make it harder for our cities and towns to borrow money. Why should the state be any different? I urge all of you to support this bill and allow the people of New Hampshire to vote on this most important issue. Please vote against the motion to ITL. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe pending question is Inexpedient to Legislate on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Almy of Lebanon to speak in favor of ITL.

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. New Hampshire has been a fiscally prudent, very low tax state that managed to provide the essential services to its citizens and businesses by a combination of lean government and a heavy dependence on volunteers, non-profit agencies and coalitions. It has always been very hard to pass a budget because our revenues grow less than the cost of service and no one wants to raise taxes. This amendment is a solution in search of a problem and it is a very bad solution. There are occasions when taxes have to be created or raised if citizens and businesses are to get the infrastructure they need to survive and prosper. Sometimes older revenue sources peter out and die as our tobacco tax eventually will or they need to be put out of their misery as the old stock and trade tax did. They then need to be replaced if our businesses and citizens are to survive and prosper. Many of us have been through the agony of trying to get a decrepit and overcrowded school building replaced. In all but the wealthiest communities, the 60% bar for passage of a bond thwarts the will of the majority and condemns children to unsafe buildings and substandard educations. Since almost all budgets include some tweaking to taxes or fees to achieve balance, passage of this amendment means that budgets will routinely fail. As I said last time, seven of the last ten budgets would have failed. If we instead try to pass any possible tax measures needed in advance, which was suggested by the sponsor of this bill in committee, the budget processes will routinely extend into the fall and winter of the year and some legislatures may pass more revenues than we need. Bond markets hate this even more than we do. This does not mean it is harder to raise money for capital projects, this means it is more expensive and we will be paying a lot more. Arizona was degraded recently because of its supermajority requirement and last week Nevada was downgraded to one of the lowest state ratings with its supermajority requirement listed as a primary reason. The fifteen states that require supermajorities to increase taxes do not avoid fiscal peril. In fact, six out of those fifteen, but only four out of the remaining thirty five are on the Pew Center's list of the ten states in worse peril. These six are Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon. Do not destroy our state, vote for ITL.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the committee yield for a question from a Representative? The committee does yield. Rep. DiPentima you may inquire.

Rep. Rich DiPentima (D - Rock 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, Representative for taking my question. My question is, if this amendment were to pass, would it also require a two-thirds vote to downshift or cost-shift any costs to local community property taxes?

Rep. Stephen Stepanek (R - Hills 22)First of all, this requires 60% or supermajority of the members present and voting and it only impacts taxes, fees and bonding.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield to a follow up question? The member does yield.

Rep. Rich DiPentima (D - Rock 16)So if I understand this correctly, this means that we could still pass legislation that would cost-shift or downshift and increase local property taxes without having a supermajority.

Rep. Stephen Stepanek (R - Hills 22)The legislature would be free to do anything with a regular majority other than taxes, fees and bonding. Speaker O'Brien: The question before the House is Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair will declare this to be a division vote and therefore would members take their seats? Rep. Greazzo requests a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members have taken their seats therefore we will proceed. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tucker for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Pamela Tucker (R - Rock 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the House vote of OTP on this CACR came within 5 votes of the necessary 239 votes for passage and if I know that an amendment will be offered which will improve the CACR if the ITL motion is defeated, would I now vote to continue the debate in the fight against higher taxes and spending by pressing the red button? Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe question is on the motion of Inexpedient to Legislate on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. (Gary) Richardson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that last week, we voted to recommend passage of CACR 12 in which we are asking the voters to allow us to determine the amount of money that the state will spend on education by majority vote and if I know that this CACR would require a three-fifths majority vote to increase taxes and would allow a small minority to determine and control decisions made by the majority and would violate the principles set forth in CACR 12 and if I know that the responsible way to control spending and adopt a responsible budget and to fund education is by majority vote, not by a three-fifths vote, would I now vote green to support the motion of ITL?

Speaker O'BrienThe question is on the motion of Inexpedient to Legislate on CACR 6. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor of Inexpedient to Legislate, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 119 members voting in the affirmative and 251 in the negative, the motion does not carry. The Chair recognizes Rep. Jasper for the purpose of a motion.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I move that CACR 6 be Ought to Pass and then I would move amendment 1169h.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is on Rep. Jasper's motion of Ought to Pass as Amended and the adoption of amendment 1169h. It's in your seat pockets. The question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment 1169h. The Chair recognizes Rep. Almy to speak in opposition to the adoption of floor amendment 1169h.

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would like a division on this one. This amendment, at a minimum, does nothing to reduce the risk to our bond rating. It may make it worse. Legislatures always treat bonded debt as sacred so if we reach a place where this amendment would have to be activated, we will already be at the most basic essentials of a working government. If a future legislature cannot find 60% of its votes to pass a measure that pays the bonded debt obligations, the money for those obligations, according to the amendment, will come straight out of those basic functions. Most of those functions are of major concern to the bond markets. They are, of course, of greater concern to our citizens whose lives and livelihood would be seriously affected. Both this amendment and the underlying bill lead us, our citizens and our great state down into destruction. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe Chair recognizes Rep. Jasper to speak in favor of the amendment.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. First, I want to walk the House through the changes to the last CACR that we saw. When we last visited this issue, there was the issue of three-fifths vote and there was some disagreement in talking with various people as to whether it was three-fifths of the entire House or three-fifths of those present and voting. This clarifies that it is three-fifths of those present and voting. Another problem that seemed obvious was that we've seen what happened with bonding over the last four years and if we made a supermajority to raise fees and taxes, but did nothing to increase the number of votes for bonding, we'd be in that situation where we could see a lot of unnecessary and unwise bonding so we made the standard the same for bonding. Now, I worked with the State Treasurer on this. We did not go into this blindly. We wanted to make sure that the state's bond rating was protected so the next section dealing with the payments came from bond counsel who the State Treasurer consulted. The section has been - some of these words exactly - Maine's constitution is somewhat different, but the majority of our wording came from bond counsel from the Maine constitution which makes sure that the bonds will be paid. The State Treasurer's position on this is not that she is in favor of it or against it, but she wanted to make sure that mechanically it worked and that the state was not harmed. Her exact words to me were, "This would be a negative against our credit rating, but it would not be an automatic downgrade of our bonding rate." There are other things that we can do to protect our rate. When you hear that our bond rating is going to be automatically downgraded as other states have been, that is not true. An important part of that is in fact protecting what it takes to bond future obligation by raising that. That actually helps us on the other side of the issue. So that essentially is what it does. There is going to be further debate so I'm not going to, at this particular time, go into my reasons for supporting this. I wanted to give you the run down on what it does and hope that you will adopt the amendment and then there is going to be further debate on the issue before final passage.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for a question? Rep. Ulery you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Jordan Ulery (R - Hills 27)I thank my colleague from Hudson for taking my question. When you were speaking about downgrading the bonding, but you also spoke with the Treasurer regarding the bonding, I believe some of the conversation was that because, contained in the constitutional amendment is a revision to pay the interest due before anything else, that this offsets the negative that may possibly, maybe, occur from the institution of a supermajority. Is that correct?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)To a large degree, yes. The bonding side....Her words to me were a little different the first time from when I spoke to you, from when she called me back yesterday, so I want to be clear on this. The bond rating part of it, because it has the protection, will not affect our credit rating in the first part, in the original three-fifths, may be a slight knock against our credit rating, but not automatically against our bond rating. We can take further actions, such as making sure we have money in the rainy day fund and taking other positive actions that will offset any negative that could occur.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for an additional question? The member does yield. Rep. (Gary) Richardson, you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Representative from Hudson for taking my question. I believe you are aware that six days ago, Moody's downgraded the state of Nevada's bond rating and in their rating, they cited three reasons and the third was the fact that Nevada had adopted a two-thirds majority of each house of the legislature to raise taxes in 2012 and 2013. I quote "The supermajority requirement to raise taxes presents a hurdle to achieving balance or an ongoing balance going forward." I think you said in your remarks that the Treasurer had said it would be a negative against our credit rating, but not necessarily a downgrade of our bond rating. My question is why would we take this step with no opportunity to explore? This is an incredibly important issue and I know you agree with me. Why would we do this on an amendment with no opportunity for a public hearing and really, all of us, hear from the Treasurer to discuss this?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)The only part that is relative to your question that would negatively affect the bond rating is the part of the amendment that was already subject to a full public hearing of this House. The only change to that section is the fact that instead of being unclear as to whether it was three-fifths of the entire membership, we have made it clear that this is three-fifths of those present and voting which of course would be less of a problem with our bond rating than to have that absolute number set at 240 when we are a full house. I would disagree with your analogy and again I would say that there a lot more important things in the health of the State of New Hampshire than the bond rating. High taxes, high spending lead to a much bigger negative than any possible slight downgrade in our bond rating that might occur if we don't take other positive steps to protect it. Speaker O'Brien: Does the member yield for an additional question?

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Would you believe that I vehemently disagree with your last statement?

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is on adoption of floor amendment 1169h. The Chair declares this to be a division vote. This will be a division vote. Will members please take their seats? Rep. Soltani requests a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Parliamentary status is that this motion requires a majority vote in order to be adopted. The question before the House is adoption of floor amendment 1169h. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 2)Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, I beg your pardon, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that many of us have seen the language of this proposed amendment to our constitution for the very first time this morning and if I know as a person very concerned with transparency in government that the wording of this amendment has had no opportunity for public comment of any sort, if I am concerned that this amendment has the potential to destroy our bond rating and cripple our ability to govern, and finally if I believe that this amendment delegates to an unelected official governmental functions which this body and the elected representatives of the people ought to be exercising themselves, would I now press the red button to vote no on the amendment?

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment 1169h to CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment will clear up the confusion over numbers necessary for approval of any new tax and if I know that CACR 6 will now include bonding as well as taxes and if I know that this amendment came at the suggestion of the bond counsel and the Treasurer of New Hampshire and it has guaranteed that our state bonds will be paid and Mister Speaker.........

Speaker O'BrienWill the member suspend? The members in division five please come to order. The member may proceed.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)And Mister Speaker, if I know that if I have a real objection to floor amendments and a strike against transparency then I would move to change the rules to ban floor amendments and that this will have a full public hearing in the Senate, would I now press the green button?

Speaker O'BrienThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment 1169h. If you are in favor of adoption, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 265 members having voted in the affirmative, 107 in the negative, the floor amendment is adopted. The question before the House is on CACR 6 on a motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. (Kenneth) Gould from Derry to speak in opposition to Ought to Pass as Amended.

Rep. Kenneth Gould (R - Rock 5)Mister Speaker, I rise to oppose CACR 6. We're talking about enshrining into our constitution a supermajority requirement to do what we do virtually every year. We regularly need to make tweaks to our revenue system, sometimes small increases, sometimes small decreases. We do this almost every year. We have a standing committee that deals almost exclusively with revenues and it's an active committee. What do we do when horse race revenue evaporates? What do we do when dog racing disappears? We find other revenues. We have a history of doing this often and without this supermajority. We still have about the lowest state taxes in the nation. Why would we restrict future legislatures when we have not had this restriction on us for 200 plus years? There are a handful of states that have such a requirement. We could copy them. California has a wonderful time trying to put together a budget. Should we emulate them? How about Michigan? Nevada has this requirement and Moody's has just lowered their bond rating as you have heard and cited this requirement as part of the reason. They will pay a higher interest rate on their future borrowing. Arizona has sold state buildings, including the capitol, and leased them back from the investors. Don't you think that is a wonderful prospect? Mister Speaker, I believe that 50% plus one is the majority that should rule in this large, diversified legislature. This amendment to our constitution would give 41% more power than 59%. We would be afraid to lower taxes when revenues are strong just because we would be afraid of the high hurdle we would face if we needed to make a correction of subsequent years. I could go on and talk about how the business profits tax replaced the stock and trade and machinery tax forty years ago. This was done with the support of the business community and has been good for the business environment. Car dealers don't move their inventory to a lower tax town on March 31 anymore. Most everyone was happy with this change, but it did not get a 60% vote. I don't pretend to know what revenues will shrink to nothing like the horses and dogs, perhaps the tobacco tax. What will we be facing with revenue challenges 10, 20, 30 years from now? Please vote no.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for a question? The member yields. Rep. Tamburello, you are recognized.

Rep. Daniel Tamburello (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, Representative, for taking my question. Just a simple quick question. Do you believe it would be right to put this amendment to the voters and let them decide whether they want to raise the threshold to prevent us from raising taxes?

Rep. Kenneth Gould (R - Rock 5)I think the voters would love to see a question like this, but I think those of us know the downside more than the voters do.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vaillancourt to speak in favor of the motion.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Last night - I should start by saying as I said when we debated this before, that I have never voted for a supermajority before, but I'm going to vote for it today because we have to start thinking out of the box and plus, this isn't a two-thirds, it's only 60%. So last night I went to the dictionary to look up a very simple word. The word was theft and the dictionary said, "The act of stealing." Isn't that great, I thought. It is sending me to another word I have to look up so I looked up the word steal. To steal is to take without consent. If you accept that definition of stealing, then you must accept that all taxation is stealing of one kind or another. Willingly, willingly, willingly, I suppose you if you say yes, but the society pays a price to function and that is taxation. Good. If you accept the fact that taxation is theft, then it should be a little more difficult to steal, to take from people. All this amendment does is allow voters to decide whether we want to raise the threshold, not two-thirds, but to 60%. It is certainly within the purview of putting this in the constitution. As we've seen, the hurdles we've jumped through in the last half hour, we jumped back and forth from different majorities. We had a 60% needed for this or a 239, we had a two-thirds needed moments ago. I suggest that a nimble person in charge of parliamentary procedure can easily guide us through the differences between 50 and 60%. I want to just comment, as I did the other day, about the previous member's comment that seven out of the last ten budgets would have failed if this had been in effect. I'm just going to reiterate what I said then, that is not necessarily true because if this had been in effect, those budgets would not have come forward the way they came forward. I want to just comment on the very last speaker who was asking about if horse racing goes away and the revenues dry up. That is not a terribly good example because there are very few revenues there, but what would we do with our own houses if, for example, we had to pay more for gasoline? We would probably find a way to live within our household means. The first thing we'd do would not be to run out and mortgage the house. Maybe we would go out to lunch once a week less. Maybe we would not buy an extra sweater or new jacket. No laughter, good. We would control our spending. This amendment is a way to force us, as elected officials, to control our spending. Who could ask for anything more? Please vote green.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for a question? The member does yield. Rep. Itse.

Rep. Daniel Itse (R - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the member from Manchester for taking my question. Is it not true that this body, in concurrence with the Senate, cannot amend the constitution, but it is only the people that can place this restraint on future legislatures if they choose to do so.?

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)We are the first step in a process that ends with the people. A constitutional amendment has to have 60% of the overall body, 239 here. It will have to get 60% of the Senators and then it will go to the people and when I think of a constitutional amendment I always use as the first basis, is this something that would fittingly be in the constitution if the people chose to put it there. I believe if we sent it to the people and they decide to put it in the constitution, it certainly, historically would have every right to be there. We have such supermajorities in the constitution, but you are right, the people would ultimately decide.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for an additional question? The member does yield. Rep. Robbins you are recognized for a question.

Rep. David Robbins (R - Hills 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I apologize for my over-eagerness. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. If a majority of this body chose to review taxes and fees and put together a package of taxes and fees that would in fact lower overall taxes and fees, however, if one item in this package raised a specific tax or fee, would the entire package be held hostage to a 60% present and voting? I'm not sure whether to ask this of you or one of the sponsors. Thank you.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)First of all, I reject the term held hostage, but the amendment speaks for itself. You may not, if this passes, raise the tax or fee unless you get the 60%. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. (Gary) Richardson of Hopkinton for the purpose of speaking against the motion.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. There are times when I would truly love to take off my Democratic t-shirt and have you take off your Republican t-shirts and talk about an issue and this is certainly one of them. Last week, we passed a CACR 12 in which we asked the people of New Hampshire to give us the full discretion to determine the amount of state funding for education. This week we are considering a CACR in which we are asking the people to limit the amount that we can raise. It seems to me that these two propositions are logically inconsistent. If we can be trusted to be the exclusive authority to determine the amount of education funding, we can be trusted to determine how much money we should raise in taxes. I think there are at least two good reasons to vote against this CACR. First of all, is local control. We pay a great deal of lip service to local control in this Hall, but when it comes down to actual votes, we aren't always consistent with that. A very substantial part of our state budget goes back to cities and towns and if we impose on ourselves special limits and requirements in terms of the amount of money that we can raise and appropriate, ironically one of the parties that is going to be hurt are cities and towns. Second of all, as you recall from the debate on CACR 12, I support targeting for education. I don't support CACR 12 because of some of the wording, but I do support what I call pure targeting which would allow us to spend state money and donate state money to cities or school districts that need it the most. I would say this to you regardless to what party you are in, if you want to kill CACR 12, if you want to kill targeting, then you will pass CACR 6. If you put a constitutional amendment on the same ballot with targeting that says that the legislature needs to have a supermajority to raise money, you are going to kill targeting. CACR 6 is a formula to allow a minority to frustrate the will of the majority. If we can be trusted to fund education, we can be trusted to do so by majority vote. If you want to pass CACR 12 or some amendment to allow targeting, then you will vote against CACR 6. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for a question? The member does yield. Rep. Itse you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Daniel Itse (R - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Representative for taking my question. Constitutions are all about limiting the power of government and if the people believe that we have been overly generous with ourselves in taking their money, don't you believe they have a just power to limit our ability to take their money?

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Well, I would answer your question with a question. Why don't we make it three-quarters then or two-thirds? I think the people sent us here. We are the most representative body in the world. We have a constituency of about 3400 people. If the people don't like what we are doing, then elections matter, don't they? We don't need a constitutional amendment. I think our constituents sent us here to act responsibly. They know that we know more about the budget than they do. They expect us to act in their interest and we don't need a constitutional amendment to be responsive to the people.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for an additional question? The member does yield. Rep. Brunelle you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Michael Brunelle (D - Hills 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you for taking my question. You spoke about cities and towns. If revenues were falling even more below what the projections were and we couldn't raise any additional revenue and aid to cities and towns had to be touched, can you tell me what the impact would be on local property tax payers and services such as fire, police, etc.?

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)It's all downshifting folks. The money has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from the state, it comes from the local property tax.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for an additional question? Rep. Baldasaro you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you Mister Speaker and thank you, Representative for taking my question. You made a comment earlier concerning that the people, whether they would not want us to do this here. Would you agree that the people made a decision? Look at what's going on in this House, for us to protect the interest of their pocketbooks with the 290 something Representatives that they sent here?

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Absolutely and I don't think this is just 293 trying to protect pocketbooks, I think there are 400 people trying to protect pocketbooks.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Jasper to speak in support of the motion.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, as I look back over the four years and the nearly or over, I lost count, 100 taxes and fees that were increased, I know that that did damage to this state. We've been in a recession and it was about spending. We spent 24% more than we did prior and that could not have happened without those increases in fees and taxes and I heard the message from the voters of this state. We never saw a change in this House like we saw and that was related to what was happening. I want to make sure that we are never allowed to do that damage again. One of the things that was said made me think back to why we are at a $100 a year. Because the legislature was getting a per diem in the 1880's of about $3 a day and they were claiming they were even meeting on Sundays and that greatly angered the people of this state and they rose up and said alright we are going to give you 50% of the average salary in the state of New Hampshire. Unfortunately they were not thinking to the future with that one, but they recognized that the legislature was not acting responsibly and the two previous legislatures did not act responsibly. We tell the people in our towns, you can't bond unless you get 60% if you are on SB 2, but let me ask you something. Which lasts longer, a tax or a bond? I've been here a long time and I've seen a lot of bonds paid off. I've seen very few taxes eliminated or lowered. It's time we said that we are going to make sure that if we are going to pass a tax or a fee, we have a good enough argument and a good enough reason to do it that we can convince 60% of our colleagues to do it. I don't think that's irresponsible. I don't think that's unreasonable and I think that it's time to let the voters decide if they believe that as well. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for a question? The member yields. Rep. Baroody you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Benjamin Baroody (D - Hills 39)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thanks for taking my question. Out of the increase spending over the last few years, that approximately $3 billion that we got as stimulus money, was that counted into that?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)It's counted in the total state spending because of the fact that there was no planning to deal with the end of that. We are, in part, in the situation today and I would further just like to say that I would like to compliment people on the other side of the House. I see they are taking responsibility today. They have some blue buttons on and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienWill the speaker yield for an additional question? Representative Itse.

Rep. Daniel Itse (R - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Representative from Hudson for taking my question. The specter of downshifting costs on to the town has been raised because of this amendment, but I know that this current legislature has pledged not to downshift and should a future legislature make that mistake, would not the people have the power to rectify it?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)They certainly would and they certainly will.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Tucker requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is a roll call vote. Will members please take their seats? Members will please take their seats. This is a roll call vote on the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that passage by this House is one important step in a constitutionally mandated procedure and if I know that this House has still not had any opportunity for public input on this language. If I believe that this House should not take action based solely on the say so of bond counsel and the Treasurer and if I know that this House has a proud tradition of not delegating its decision making processes to the Senate, would I now vote no on the pending motion and press the red button?

Speaker O'BrienThe pending motion is Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 6. The Chair recognizes Rep. Jasper for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that Nevada's bond rating was downgraded for a variety of reasons, including the loss of gambling revenues and including the fact that they don't have a diversified tax base and that they have been recommended to diversify their tax base and those are not issues which this state faces; if I know, Mister Speaker, that we have nearly dealt with the issue of having a desire too often to tax too much and spend too much, would I now give the voters of our state who I have full confidence in because of course they elected me and you, to support this CACR by pushing the green button?

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is on the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 6. The procedural status of this motion is that it requires 239 votes to carry. If you are in favor of Ought to Pass as Amended, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 256 members having voted in the affirmative, 117 in the negative, the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, I would move that CACR 6 be reconsidered and encourage the membership to vote no.

Speaker O'BrienThe motion before the body is reconsideration on the vote on CACR 6. Are you ready for the vote? All those in favor.....A division vote has been requested. This will be a division vote. Members please take their seats. The parliamentary status is on a motion for reconsideration. On a CACR vote, it takes a majority to ask for reconsideration. This is a division vote. If you are in favor of reconsideration, you'll vote the green button. If you are opposed, you'll vote the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 104 members having voted in the affirmative, 269 in the negative, the motion does not carry and reconsideration fails. I have announcements. For what purpose does the member rise? Rep. Tamburello: I'd like to make a motion Mister Speaker. I move that the entire debate on CACR 6 be entered into the Permanent Record from the time that it was taken off the table.

Speaker O'BrienThe motion is to print the debate on CACR 6 into the Permanent Journal. Are you ready for the motion? All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the debate is entered into the Permanent Journal. The House recessed at 12:20 p.m. RECESS (Speaker O'Brien in the Chair) The House reconvened at 1:25 p.m. REGULAR CALENDAR (CONT'D) SB 133-FN, relative to reestablishing the exemption from property taxation for telecommunications poles and conduits. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. John A. Burt for the Majority of Municipal and County Government: The purpose of SB 133 is to reinstate the property tax exemption on telephone polls owned by telecommunication companies. The majority of the committee believes that it is not in the best interest of businesses and consumers of New Hampshire to assess property taxes on communications poles and conduits. Local governments have never before had the right to assess property taxes on telecom poles and conduits. Such a tax would result in new costs to the communications companies that would undoubtedly be passed on to businesses and residents who rely on landline phones, especially low income households and the elderly. As more consumers move to wireless and other technology, the burden of this tax will be on the shoulders of fewer and fewer landline consumers. While we continue to encourage broadband expansion in our rural areas, we must remember that investment by these companies in their infrastructure will not continue if every pole they erect becomes a liability. The cost of assessing the communications poles and conduits could cost several thousands of dollars in each community. In short, a tax is a tax. If there is one message that the voters sent us in November, it is that they do not want us looking for ways to expand the areas the government can levy taxes on businesses and individuals. Many of us were elected on a promise of no new taxes, and SB 133 keeps that promise. Vote 9-7. Rep. Kris E. Roberts for the Minority of Municipal and County Government: The sponsors of SB 133 stated that the failure to pass SB 133 granting tax-exempt status to underground conduit systems and telephone poles would result in a new tax. In many ways this is a play on words. The general court can't grant a property tax exemption, abatement, or credit unless there was a tax currently in place. So failure to pass SB 133 would not result in a new tax. SB 133 in fact reinstates an exemption that over 60% of this body voted to eliminate. SB 133 is government getting involved in the free-market system by requiring the local property owner to support major corporations such as Comcast, Time Warner, Metrocast, FairPoint and numerous others through their tax dollars. Despite what many people stated, for many communities this wouldn't result in increased taxes, resulting in larger budgets. It would mean that in most communities everyone would be treated fairly and would be required to pay equal taxes based on assessed value. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass. Rep. Weed requested a quorum call; Speaker declared a quorum present. Reps. Kris Roberts, Webb and Vaillancourt spoke against. Reps. Burt and Sterling spoke in favor. Rep. James Garrity spoke in favor and yielded to questions. On a division vote, 186 members having voted in the affirmative and 180 in the negative, the majority committee report was adopted. Ordered to third reading. Rep. DeJong declared a conflict of interest and did not participate.