The House, Thursday, April 11, 2019

Rep. Lynne Ober (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. House Finance gets HB 1 and HB 2 together. We work on them together. HB 2 is known as the trailer bill. The budget, both of those bills, HB 1 and HB 2, are completely different from what the Governor sent to us. We have $417 million more in taxes being raised out of your pocket, my pocket, your constituent's pockets. Many of those things are found in sections in HB 2. HB 2, the trailer bill, is supposed to have sections that make HB 1 work. So many agencies have sections in HB 2, but there are also sections in HB 2 that are not attributable to any certain agency. The Governor put in one-time spending using the surplus funds from this year for one-time projects into HB 2. Those sections in HB 2 were divided among the three divisions. I think you all know Finance has three divisions. We work diligently on our sections. It's the only way we can finish the budget in the time allotted to us. There's has always been a gentleman's protocol that one division does not vote or take over sections belonging to another division. This year and this could have only come directly from the House Finance Chair, Division II voted to remove all the one-time projects. All the projects related to Division II, all the projects related to Division I, where I sit, all the projects related to Division III, which had the secure psych unit. In Division I we were told by our chairman that Division II had taken that vote and actually what the chair said to us is that we can put those sections back in one at a time if we choose, which sounded to me like we would do what we have done every year. Go through every section, go through every budget line item applicable to our 32 agencies and make reasonable decisions together. We got down to the last day and in all the years I have sat on Finance, I've never seen happen what happened in Division I. We had what can only be called a verbal kerfuffle and it went on and on. Republican members were not happy that many of the sections in HB 2, including the Governor's family leave plan, were having zero discussion. So, despite the fact that Division II removed the sections and we were told we could put them back in as needed and we expected to have discussions and our chairman in Division I had made specific appointments by day, by hour to come discuss, there was no discussion and we got involved in a verbal kerfuffle. Finally, a Democratic member called for a recess. Everyone was asked to leave the room who it did not affect. Myself and my two other Republican members, the Representative from Winnisquam, the Representative from Merrimack, went over to the Governor's office and he was in Keene, but he immediately agreed that his three top staff members would come over and discuss the family leave program, which the Democrats in Division I had just planned to remove with absolutely no discussion. But, as we have gone on, some of the other sections have come up. The Internet Crime Against Children Task Force is not assigned to a specific agency and although I read in the newspaper that the Democrats threw the AG under the bus for not discussing it, it's not attached to the AG. He does not fund it. He does not have anything to do with it. ICAC is stationed in Portsmouth and run by police departments. It was never discussed. They needed $500,000. They have made in the last year 132 arrests against predators who have attacked our children. But, Division I which should have looked at this never discussed it because Division II removed all of our sections. Ways and Means asked us to delay the vaping for a year so an amendment was done, but the licensing was remained in Division II. We had the agency come and they said to do this correctly, they probably need two new staff members and since the vaping bill still resides in Ways and Means, they can work with Ways and Means to add those staff members. So, we said how much? Two staff members costs $160,000 with benefits. So, we said how much are you going to get from licensing vaping places? The answer was a license cost $6 and we expect to raise it the maximum $1,200. So, we are going to spend $160,000 to raise $1,200. For these reasons, plus others, the capital gains tax which passed this House had a fiscal note in Ways and Means of slightly over $94 million in revenue. I have a simple mind, so I will raise that to $95 million. Division II and the House Finance amendment on HB 2 spent $150 million capital gains tax in order to beef up some of their programs in education, but Ways and Means thought we would only get at a maximum $95 million. Where is the rest of that money coming from? For these and other reasons, I will be voting against the House Finance amendment on HB 2. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe House will be in order. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). The Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Heath, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Mary Heath (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today very proud to support HB 2 as amended by the House Finance Committee and I ask for your vote. HB 2 retains the educational trust as a separate fund and protects adequacy dollars for New Hampshire schools. It also funds full day adequacy funding for kindergarten, which we passed here in this body as HB 184. Our budget funds, stabilization grants and FY2020 and in FY2021 presents a new targeted aid formula based on district specific poverty factors and adds $160 million to provide needed aid to struggling school districts. 154 communities in our state will see an increase in funding. 34 will see a decrease because of the manner in which full day kindergarten is funded, however those towns keep their SWEPT dollars. If Franklin used their additional 2.5 million for tax relief, there could be as much as 17% property tax decrease. This bill incorporates HB 709 and HB 686 that this body passed, which extends the capital gains and raises significantly personal exemptions. Our budget restores building aid, fully funds special ed, formerly known as catastrophic aid, which we haven't seen a reimbursement at a 100% for many years, and fully funds career and technical education tuition and transportation so that more students can access our CTE programs, Career, Technical Education programs across the state. This bill also increases funding for our Community College System of New Hampshire by $20 million and the University System with an increase of $12 million and freezes tuition for FY2021 and we also funded $14 million in scholarships. In the Department of Transportation, we filled a $15.5 million deficit and funded $14.5 million for fleet equipment replacement for aging snowplows and trucks to keep our New Hampshire roads safe. We heard from our towns and cities concerned about school funding and while this bill doesn't solve all the issues, it's a great first step and that is why we provided funding for a commission charged with finding a better solution to fulfill our constitutional promise to cherish education in New Hampshire. So, Mister Speaker and honorable colleagues, I ask for your support for a budget that better supports New Hampshire children and keeps our New Hampshire citizens safe and I thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). The Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Weyler, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to oppose this amendment to HB 2. This process was a little bit muddled at the beginning. We got HB 2 late. We got the revenue estimates late. The revenue estimates at first showed a difference of $51 million. That was about .5% that had to be resolved, but instead of cutting or taking care of that $51 million we were told more money is coming and then we were told the capital gains tax was going to bring in $150 million. Well, when it left Ways and Means they had decided it would bring in $94 million. Then it gets to us a few days later and suddenly it's $150 million. Then you think about it and you talk to a few people that are in business. A successful business man makes $1 million in buying and selling things, that's capital gains. He pays 15% tax to the IRS and pays 7.9% on business taxes to the state. So, now we think we can go back and tax that same money again? So, oh you made a $1 million and we want 5% capital gains. Oh, good, give me back 7.9% I gave you for business profits tax and I'll pay you 5%. So, I think we are looking to tax things that are already been taxed. I don't think it will work, but that's being used to add $200 million to the education funding. I don't think we need to add that. In the 12 budgets I have worked on, this is an amazing year. The natural gain, the natural gain I'm talking about without a new tax, without any new fees, the natural gain was almost a $1 billion for biennium over biennium. I've usually seen $300 million or $500 million increase because of inflation and new businesses and so on, but never this much. This is partly a result of the 8% tax on repatriation of profits from overseas. It's also partly a result of the tax cut of the business taxes in New Hampshire. I begin to think maybe we've hit the peak on the Laffer curve, by cutting taxes. Why would we want to increase them? If we are already in an ideal situation, the economy is doing well, why do we need to spend more money than what we brought in, which is almost $1 billion more? That's going to take care of all the agencies that need a little more here and a little more there and the opioid crisis and all these other things. We don't need to have any more new taxes. We are in an ideal situation. Let's not mess it up. The Education Trust Fund, I was there when it was designed. If you have money in a fund that is a dedicated fund, you can't use it anywhere else. So, we made sure that the Education Trust Fund was always underfunded because if it got surplus, you had money you couldn't use anywhere else, but if you always plan to fill it up with a little bit of general fund then you had some flexibility. But now this one comes in because of the excellent revenue on the business taxes, you have $63.6 million more in the Education Trust Fund than we planned on. So, we are going to use that this year to help education and go into things which we normally funded with general fund, building aid, special ed, transportation and tuition. Those things can now be used out of that money, but in future, we should do away with the Education Trust Fund. It was there to assure the court that yes, we are serious, we are going to pay adequacy. We are going to pay it. I think after 20 years they're convinced, yes, we are serious. We are going to keep paying the schools. We don't need to have a separate fund because even at the end, with a projection now at the end of this biennium, they'll be $28 million in surplus in the Education Trust Fund. That means there is money you can't use anywhere else. You just heard we need new snowplows. We need more money going into DOT because the gas tax doesn't bring in as much money as their expenses. It used to be fine to cover them. It grows at about 2% per year, but their expenses grow almost 5%. Prices of everything goes up and we just go up about 2% on the gas tax. It's not enough because everybody has got better mileage and some people are driving electric cars. Those don't pay as much as they used to. So, yes, DOT revenues are running behind. We put in a little general fund the last budget and we will put in more this time. Otherwise, what will we do when we get these winter storms and we've had more than our share this year. So, there are needs there that need to be covered that I would hate to have $28 million at the end of the biennium while we get record winter storms and we can't use it anywhere else. So, there is a lot of things that I disagree with in HB 2, but those are the highlights. I'm not in support of this and I hope you vote against HB 2. The HB 2 as it came to us was better. Please vote no and push red. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes the member from Hanover, Rep. Nordgren, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Sharon Nordgren (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I might even try this without my bifocals. I have really large print. One of the things that Division III tried to do in both the Department of Children and Families and the Mental Health Plan was to frontload services for people in need and children at risk so that they don't end up in protective situation with children and family or in the state hospital. So, as I go through the different things we did in HB 2, I hope you will realize a lot of these appropriations we made will help with community access for people. HB 2, Division III budget was created to address ongoing issues within the Health, Human Services Department. HB 2 enables the Health and Human Services Department to make progress in many areas, but these are the highlights. We were able to include goals for the first two years of the ten-year mental health plan. It is our belief that community-based services will provide much needed care before the need to be in a hospital setting. Included in that plan, HB 2 appropriates $2 million for rate increases and construction of designated receiving facility beds. One of the issues brought to our attention was the need to provide reasonable rates for these beds so we might make more options available across the state. HB 2 also appropriates $5.5 million for a new treatment facility for children in need of acute psychiatric treatment. It is our understanding that progress is being made to move the 24-bed unit from the New Hampshire Hospital to a more appropriate setting. HB 2 appropriates $2.775 million for the repurposing of the current children's unit as usable space for adults. In order to provide more community-based options for mental health patients, we have also included 20 new transitional housing beds by including $2.5 million in our budget. We appropriated $1 million in the current fiscal year to immediately assist hospitals struggling to accommodate patients in emergency rooms waiting for admission to the New Hampshire Hospital. We also have included a Medicaid dental plan for the last five months of the budget. This is for adults. HB 621 was included in HB 2 and it provides staff and consulting fees for Health, Human Services staff and the Children and Family Department to evaluate at risk children and we have also included that in our budget. We've included $1 million funding for the possible loss of federal funding for family planning organizations. The county cap for money paid to the state for elder care by the counties was raised to 9.7% in the Governor's budget. We have kept the rate at 2.5% for the next two years. Developmental services will also be funded to eliminate the projected waitlist and we proposed a rate increase for those providers. The Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester is funded at their current level with the continuing provision for them to go to the fiscal committee if needed. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). The Chair recognizes the last speaker, the member from Stratham, Rep. Lovejoy, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Patricia Lovejoy (D - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. HB 2, which is also referred to as the trailer bill contains the changes to statute that are necessary to makes HB 1 work. Our approach to HB 2 has been to include only those items that are needed to enable HB 1. We have endeavored not to include changes to policy that had not been vetted by the policy committee. One exception that we made in Division I was that we retained the Governor's initiative on public bathing facilities. This section sets up training and self-certification for all owners of public pools and spas, along with registration fees and spa inspections by the Department of Environmental Services. The reason that we kept this in HB 2 was a life safety issue. As most of you may remember last August, somebody died in Hampton due to contamination of a pool/spa facility. So, in Division I we kept this section. We did it because we did not want to delay inspections for another year. The following are highlights of HB 2 that relate to the work that we did in Division I. HB 2 addresses the needs of our municipalities in several ways. Revenue sharing, that has not been funded since 2008, is funded in year two of the budget at $12.5 million, which will benefit all of our communities. State aid grants for wastewater treatment plants that have been fully completed as of December 2019, have been funded. This includes 28 projects funded at $5.7 million for the biennium. Affordable housing is one of the issues that is very critical affecting all of our businesses and communities. Five million has been added to the affordable housing fund in 2020. The Coos County job creation tax credit program has been extended by 5 years and a $1 million revolving fund has been set up to help cash strapped municipalities in applying for community development grants. A farm conservation account that is funded with $750,000 and is eligible for matching federal funds, will help our communities preserve open farm land. This budget maintains the business tax rates at our current level, repealing future cuts to the BET and BPT. The health and welfare of our citizens is strengthened by inclusion of a family and medical leave program that covers all private employees who are not currently covered by a private FML plan. This program has been fully vetted by one of our policy committees. It's HB 712 and has passed the house. The Governor's regulation and licensure of E-cigarettes has been retained in year 1 of the budget and we have postponed the taxation until year 2 of the budget, thereby giving the Liquor Commission and Ways and Means the time to properly implement the process of taxation. New Hampshire has been awarded a HAVA Grant, which is Help America Votes grant of $3.1 Million. HB 2 includes the state match of $155,000, a pretty good deal, $155 and we get $3.1 million and it also includes the enabling language. Please support HB 2, the trailer bill that makes HB 1 work by pressing the green button. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). Rep. Baldasaro has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call. Members will kindly take their seats. Members will take their seats. Just a reminder not to use a cell phone inside this chamber for communications purposes. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Packard for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that one-time spending should be in HB 2. The Governor's capital infrastructure revitalization fund, which was in HB 2, was deleted. So, that one-time spending could go into growing government in HB 1. If I know that we are lucky to have economic conditions that allow revenue to exceed expectations in our last budget and that we should be saving money by putting more in the rainy-day fund, but this bill, as amended, reduces the amount put into the rainy-day fund by $20 million so that the rest can be spent now to grow government. If I know now is not the time to turn our backs on our job creators by reversing course on meaningful business tax reform that will keep jobs and businesses in New Hampshire. If I know now is not the time to establish a tax on capital gains. A tax that will siphon $150 million out of our economy. And, if I know that establishing a government run family leave program that will be funded by .5% tax on wages is the wrong direction for our state. And, if I know that this budget proposes over $400 million in new taxes, which is completely opposite of tax relief, would I now press the red button to oppose this deeply flawed budget that taxes and spends us at record levels? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this amendment produces a balance budget that funds the needs of our state and our communities. And, if I know this amendment includes the policies to make the state budget work, would I now vote yes?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1403h). If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 222 members voting Yea and 159 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted. HB 2 is on second reading and open to further amendments. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ladd to introduce amendment (1417h) found on page 75. Rep. Ladd.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. We all know about stabilization, so I am not going to go into the policy side, just deal exactly with the money. This bill or this amendment changes level funding of stabilization for FY20 to the level we funded it in FY18, 92%. What we have in the HB 2 as presented by the committee is that we restored to the level FY16. The difference between those two sums of money are $25 million, a little over $25 million, to restore to the level of FY16 and about $12.5 million to restore half of that for the level of FY18. This is an important component of our process procedure we have established through both the Education Committee and Finance to resolve the adequacy funding issues, which we have. Stabilization is the first component for FY20. It's the starting step. FY21 is comprised of an interim bill, which was initially put forth as HB 709 and now incorporated into HB 2. And, finally, there is a study commission to resolve where we're going to go in the future in terms of funding adequacy throughout the state. What we have is this 3-pronged process right now and why I have introduced this amendment which deals with putting our stabilization at FY18 amount or $12.5 million. That's how it was initially put forth in HB 177 by myself and a number of other people on that bill which included people from both sides of the aisle. It was incorporated into HB 709 now into HB 2. Why we have put this forward to reduce it in half is that we are looking at the funds to support adequacy down the road and funding adequacy through a capital gains tax of $150 million, which we are not sure where those revenues are coming from or whether they are accurate, is not sustainable and it's not the way to address how we are going to support our students in schools. As this amendment has been presented, towns like Claremont would receive $500,000 in addition on top of what they have received in FY19 during FY20. Manchester will receive another $1 million. This is money that we have to be careful of. I learned it in Finance 101 for school administration and it's the same policy that the federal government follows. When you have money coming in through a Title I grant, you don't use it to replace a program you have going in your schools right now, labor costs, programs, services, you supplement. This program, which we have here, stabilization for FY20 is a hole trying to stop some of the issues which we see within our schools, however, it should not be used to get in the issue of contracts, labor contracts, for programs that in FY21 or later when the final product comes out, they may not receive the same amount of money. There is going to be that waterfall effect. How are you going to deal with that? So, in conclusion, no towns that are receiving stabilization right now will receive any less. They will receive more. In fact, twice as much through this returning it to FY18 level. FY16 level is excessive and it's going to get us in trouble when we go into the next step and try to deal with HB 709 now in HB 2 when we are looking at FY21. FY21's are built upon the base figures in FY20. If we get those FY20 figures up here, that's where we are coming out and fund more and more and using capital gains which is absolutely the wrong direction. It's anti the advantage we have in this state. It's going to destroy businesses in this state and it's going to destroy the culture that we have so I ask you to support (1417h) as presented here today. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1417h). The Chair recognizes the member from Hopkinton, Rep. Luneau, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. I'm here to speak against the proposed amendment. It's not what the Education Committee recommended and it's not what received strong bipartisan support in this body just a month ago. This is an easy one to deal with. It reduces the stabilization grant. The thing that props up the currently totally flawed education funding formula by 8% when compared to what's in the current budget, what's in the budget. Yes, you heard that right. It actually reduces state funding for education. We didn't hear any of that during our 4 hours of hearings in the Education Committee. Most cities and towns have already voted on their school budgets for next year. The expense lines for schools have been debated, voted on and are now set. Can't change how much they are going to spend so where would the stabilization money go? Well, unless the school district calls for a special meeting, it goes to property tax relief. That's right. Property tax relief, dollar for dollar. I guess the money has to come from somewhere. Big companies like Apple, Amazon and Wal-Mart or your constituents. Property tax payers. You make the call. I'm going to vote no.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1417h). Rep. Baldasaro has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the house is the adoption of floor amendment (1417h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Steven Smith for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Steven Smith (R - Sull 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that I have been here long enough to see the brilliant infallible ideas that many of us had six or eight years ago not quite pan out the way we thought they did. If I know that this issue is so important that it is turning out hundreds of people for local meetings and driving the results of local elections. Mister Speaker, if I take that seriously and I want to ensure the bipartisan success of HB 709 by basing it on things we know we can do today, then would I support this amendment to give it the best chance of success?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1417h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Myler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mel Myler (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the House Education Committee voted in a bipartisan 17-3 vote to establish the year of 2016 as a basis for the education stabilization grant for 2020. And, if I know that on February 27th of this year, this House in a bipartisan vote of 268 to 90 to enact HB 177 and the year of 2016 as a basis for the stabilization grant. And, I believe that the reason for the bipartisan support for the 2016 stabilization grant was based on the belief that the need to provide immediate infusion of money to the neediest school districts of our state, would I now press the red button and send a message to these school districts that this body cares about them and the fiscal crisis they face? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1417h). If you are favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 157 voting Yea and 221 voting Nay, the adoption of the amendment is defeated. The bill is now on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Ober moves floor amendment (1435h) found in your seat pockets and she is recognized to speak to her amendment.

Rep. Lynne Ober (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Amendment 2019-1435h does two things. It replaces sections 95 to 97 in HB 2 with this amendment, which is the Governor's family leave plan. A year ago, in Division I we extensively examined the family leave plan and what it's going to be. The plan we rejected is currently in HB 2. This plan is very close to what we came up with. This plan is based on the very successful model that has been used in New York State for a number of years. It recognizes that individual insurance companies do a better job of selling insurance than a state. The plan that's in HB 2 will not provide family leave until late 2022. That's assuming there is no delay in developing a computer system so it's more likely going to have family leave in 2023. It taxes everyone's income even people not eligible for family leave. In my district and probably in your district, are many summer activities that are only open part time or winter activities such as ski resorts that are only open part time. In my district the kids all work at Canobie Lake Park, but there is Water Country on the coast. There's a lot of ski districts, ski resorts where kids work. They are going to be taxed and they are never going to be eligible for family leave. Camp counselors are going to be taxed. Under this proposal, it is not mandatory, and it is not taxed income. I was told that we've never seen this happen. New Hampshire currently has a very successful partnership with Ohio State that runs our ABLE accounts, known as New Hampshire STABLE and found on the GDC website. So, we have partnered with other states successfully and we have lowered costs for our constituents. This plan would offer family leave by July 1, 2020, three years earlier. If you believe in family leave as I do, but you believe that it should be a personal choice as all benefits are, then I urge you to vote red on what's in HB 2 and green for this amendment. Let's have family leave that is not mandatory that does not tax incomes and that will be available in 2020 and not as far off in the future as 2023. Vote green on this amendment.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is on floor amendment (1435h). The Chair recognizes the member from Stratham to speak against the amendment, Rep. Lovejoy.

Rep. Patricia Lovejoy (D - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment replaces a family and medical leave program that covers all private employees in the state with a family and medical leave program that has been fully vetted by a policy committee and has been passed by this House and it replaces it with a family and medical leave program that covers state employees in Vermont and New Hampshire and which has an opt-in for private employers. The twin-state program has not been vetted at all by a policy committee. Insurance companies that have been responding to the Governor's twin state plan raised feasibility questions about the proposed program design and its potential cost. None of the companies providing information to the Governor were able to provide pricing estimates for employees in the private sector because of the uncertainty surrounding the composition of a voluntary insurance pool. The kind of voluntary product proposed by the Governor does not currently exist for family and medical leave insurance products in New Hampshire, Vermont or any other state. HB 2 as originally submitted by the Governor in addition to this twin state program contained 20 sections covering 14 pages on multi state welfare arrangements. These sections, which have also not been vetted, are needed to make the twin state program work for small employers to have direct access to the program. This amendment doesn't include those sections. Please reject this amendment and keep meaningful medical and family leave intact by pressing the green button. Thank you. Excuse me, the red button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1435h). Rep. Hinch has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1435h). The Chair recognizes the member from Londonderry, Rep. Packard, for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment would remove and replace the section of HB 2 that would implement a .5% tax on wages that would siphon $168 million out of pockets of employees and employers each year across the state. If I know this amendment would remove and replace the flawed government run insurance program that would cost $15 million to develop, $ 6 million plus per year to administer and require 40 new employees to run, none of which have been funded in HB 1. If I know the plan contained in this amendment would establish a voluntary and viable program administered by real insurance companies, not the government and would create the benefit supporters are looking for without the tax, without the mandate and without growing government at taxpayers' expense, would I now press the green button to move forward on the right path to family and medical leave insurance? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1435h). The Chair recognizes the member from Concord, Rep. Wallner, for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the family medical leave program that is in HB 2 is HB 712 which passed on the floor of this House on February 17. And, if I know that HB 712 had a public hearing, it had work sessions and it passed in the House Labor Committee and was adopted by this House. And, if know that the Governor's twin state plan unlike HB 712, has not had a public hearing or been vetted by a policy committee, would I now vote no on this amendment and push the red button?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1435h). If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 159 members voting Yea and 223 voting Nay, the amendment is not adopted. HB 2 is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Lovejoy moves floor amendment (1469h) found in your seat pockets. The Chair recognizes the member from Gorham, Rep. Hatch, to speak to that amendment.

Rep. William Hatch (D - Coos 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Simply, this amendment will appropriate $500,000 to the New Hampshire Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. This program was established to allow the law enforcement agencies from multi-jurisdictional organizations to work in tandem for the prevention, interdiction and investigation and prosecution of Internet crimes against children. This is being funded by budget transfers of $200,000 from the Fort Stark Historic Site after assuring the $100,000 left in their budget is ample to address any life safety issues there. There is also a $300,000 transfer from the class 631 building aid and lease knowing that it is still viable with a remaining appropriation. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1469h). The Chair recognizes the member from Hudson, Rep. Lynne Ober to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Lynne Ober (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. My favorite State Rep said one should not use logic at the podium and I'm happy to say this is going to be totally illogical. I've been here for 8 terms. This is my 15th year. For the very first time I'm standing up to speak against an amendment that I'm going to vote for. Does that sound logical to you? No. The problem I have with this amendment is the money. The Governor has originally proposed $360,000 to repair Fort Stark which is open to the public because of life safety issues. There is basically no park staff there so people are at risk. Division I didn't have that much money and gave Fort Stark $300,000. This is going to appropriate out of that $300,000, $250,000 from Fort Stark, but then it can't leave $100,000 for Fort Stark. The budget already spends $382 million more than what the Governor proposed and now we are adding another $50,000 onto it. So, while I'm totally in favor of funding ICAC and I was against the way Division I handled it when we handled the budget, I am very concerned about the money in this amendment. So, even though I plan to vote yes on this amendment, I wanted to bring that disparity to your attention. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Baldasaro, you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. Earlier today you gave a great speech over there about the Internet crimes that nobody discussed in the committee and it wasn't funded. Now all of a sudden, I see this amendment showing up. I want to thank you personally. Is that what is going on with this now? You opened up a can of worms and put this back in?

Rep. Lynne Ober (R - Hills 37)I think this Speaker will gavel me out of order. I believe it was Rep. Altschiller who opened up the can of worms. I just happen to support her position that we should fund ICAC. They need $500,000. They do good work. I just don't support the funding that is here. Thank you for the question.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Speaker would never equate any legislation to a can of worms. We'll just let it go at that. I thank you the gentlelady from Hudson. Rep. Ley has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1469h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Lovejoy for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Patricia Lovejoy (D - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the New Hampshire Internet Crimes Against Children's fund is doing critical work to protect New Hampshire's children from online predators. And, if I know that this $500,000 funding is critical to the operation of the New Hampshire Internet Crimes Against Children Fund. And, if I know that none of the buildings at Fort Stark with the exception of the visitor's center, are open to the public now or would be open to the public if the full funding of $360,000 that they requested were funded, would I now press the green button? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1469h). This will be a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 376 voting Yea and 4 Nay, the amendment is adopted. HB 2 is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Cushing moves (1470h) found in your seat pockets. The member from Hampton is recognized to speak to that amendment.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members of the House, I want to acknowledge the work that was done by Division III and the bipartisan recommendation that they came to on the recommendations for Health and Human Services. I think we all know that we have a behavioral health, we have a mental health crisis here in the State of New Hampshire and what is included in HB 2 is a recognition that you have to deal with that along with a continuum of prevention, of early treatment, of hospitalization, of community support afterwards. But, for too long, the State of New Hampshire, for 35 years, one of the sad aspects of our mental health policy is that for those who are the most vulnerable, the most severely impacted by mental illness such that they are a threat to themselves or others end up being treated not in a therapeutic hospital, but end up being held inside the walls of the state prison in the secure psychiatric unit. It's time to change that. There was a study commission in 2005 that recommended repurposing a building and creating a place for civilly committed who've never committed a crime. The legislature, after the 2005 study committee, failed to fund that. I chaired a study committee in 2010 that recommended building a small hospital adjacent to the current hospital. The legislature after that failed to do that. This is the year that we have to put an end to the criminalization of people with severe mental illness. What the proposed amendment does is direct $1.25 million to be used for development, engineering and planning to prepare for the construction of a facility, whether it is recycling of a portion of the New Hampshire hospital or building a new facility afterwards. What we need is a plan and we need to put some real money on the table. I urge the body to please support this floor amendment.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1470h). The Chair recognizes the member from Littleton to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Erin Hennessey (R - Graf 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I agree with the Representative from Hampton on what he just said. We have been studying this for years now. What this amendment does and if you don't know where section 76 of HB 2, it's on page 27 by the way, is it basically plans a hospital. In our original HB 2, the Governor put $26 million into planning and building a hospital. The Representative from Hampton wants real money. That is real money. $26 million is real money to build a hospital. We know as a state we need it. What we don't need is another plan, so I will be voting against this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the house is the adoption of floor amendment (1470h). Rep. Ley moves for a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1470h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Nordgren for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sharon Nordgren (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the $26 million 60 bed price tag was too soon. If I know that this amendment will start the process to move the secure psychiatric unit to an appropriate site. And, if I know this process will also involve an advisory council and the Department of Health and Human Services. And, if I know that site plans and architectural plans will be included, would I now vote yes and pass this important amendment? Please press the green button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1470h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Hennessey for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Erin Hennessey (R - Graf 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the Commissioner of Health and Human Services came before Division III and said, we need a hospital. If I know that the New Hampshire hospital came before Division III of Finance and said that the beds vacated by the children in New Hampshire hospital will not work for a secure psychiatric hospital. And, if I know that this amendment does not fund a secure psychiatric hospital, would I now press the red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (1470h). If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 220 voting Yea and 159 Nay, the amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes the member from Londonderry.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, you're a good man there by recognizing them children. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to print the debate in the Journal, the past debate.

Speaker ShurtleffYou're moving the debate. Did you want all the debate on HB 2?

Speaker ShurtleffOn the last amendment. The question before the House is the motion by the member from Londonderry that the debate on the last amendment be placed in the Permanent Journal. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye, opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and it will be placed in the Permanent Journal. Rep. Ladd moves floor amendment (1473h) found in your seat pockets and the member from Haverhill is recognized to speak to his amendment.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. As a member of the House Education policy and then getting involved with some of what's happening here in Finance, I have a real appreciation for what we have gotten from the Legislative Budget Assistant's Office. I think we all have utilized them, and they have been supportive of every one of us and they do deserve that acknowledgement. Getting on to this amendment, (1473h). This amendment addresses the, basically the whole adequacy formula for FY21 and as with my family budget, I taught my children you can't spend what you don't have, and we've got to identify the difference between wants and needs. There are so many difficult decisions we have to make on behalf of education here so let go down and through and try to explain to you what we've got in this particular amendment. We've discussed some of this before in policy where we have a commission to study the third step that I spoke of earlier today at the tune of about $500,000. That has been taken out of this amendment. The commission is still there, but there is no revenue for the commission. The next part that is significant within this bill is that it eliminates capital gains tax. It strips out the $150 million from this support in the formula. It goes on to identify what we spoke about earlier today, the stabilization. We were told by the LBA that it had to be in both parts of these two amendments I'm speaking on, so I won't go through that again. It restores stabilization to the level of 2018, that be the $12.5 million. Within the HB 709, which became part of what we are talking about today in the trailer bill, the bill as presented by myself and a number of other people from both sides of the aisles, had a cap in it. And, the cap at that time for the targeted aid. Now, for some of you probably don't have a thorough understand how we are proposing that funding be proposed for the future here and all of us on the Education policy supported this formula. We were getting hung up on is where the money comes from. That's where we are hung up. The first part is our base adequacy and our differentiated aid. You are all familiar with that. That goes on the CPI, adjustments are the same and that money will continue moving forward. Then we had an area looking at going back and identifying fiscal capacity disparity aid. That was taken from the old 2008/2011 version, only we used equalized valuation per pupil. That's targeted. And the last portion also is targeted enhanced aid based upon the free and reduced, poverty within communities. The targeted aid, those last two categories I spoke about, can be capped unopposed to opposite to what you can do for the top two, the base adequacy and differentiated aid which constitutionally every child deserves the same amount of money. So, the cap is 120%. 120% generates a lot of money. When I introduced the bill, my bill came forward with 101.5%. That increased the cost of approximately $10 million. 120% you up close to $100 million. This is where things get very difficult in making the decisions. We know that some money has to be put forward to support our education process. How much is the question? I don't believe we need that type of dollar on an intermediate bill. A bill which may dissolve and go away in two years' time if the committee, if this moves forward, the commission without dollars, but they can do that as we did back in 2008. If they come forward with a plan, a plan that will change how we fund education. We are doing it all per capita wise now and that doesn't work. We need to be looking at program, budgeting for education. What services are required and what differences do we have between some of these towns that have these significant disparities. So, the cap along with the stabilization reduced to 101.5% would save $107 million. That would just come out, yet school districts would still be receiving approximately 1/3 more in terms of what they were receiving before. In other words, if it was $1 million, they would be getting $3 million. What this does, it goes on beyond the cap and provides a hold harmless within it. That's a grant to municipalities who see a decrease in kindergarten funding from FY19 to FY20 and FY21, changes the "kenogarten" to full adequacy for kindergarten. So, this bill as it is being presented right here, I amended myself, supports full day kindergarten. We all recognize those students are students deserving a full time and being placed in the adequacy formula. We also have the areas which we're maintaining in this, the special ed aid as presented remains. Tuition and transportation remain. The bill building aid remains. So, the changes we are seeing are internal where we are reducing the $107 million for FY21. That also does not require where we are getting the added funds to support the ability to reduce and eliminate the capital gains. We are reducing the Governor's scholarship program for a $4.5 million over a biennium. That reduces FY20 to $1.25 and the amount in the subsequent FY21 would be $3.25 reductions. It reduces the amount of adequacy as I talked about by $107 million and we take from the Education Trust Fund balance $16.5 million. Remember it was spoken by a previous Representative here where we have $28 plus million there. That money should be used for education, not turned around and used for something else. Also, we are taking from the University System of New Hampshire $12 million over the biennium and that's a reduction of $4.5 million and $7.5 million over the two years I'm talking about. The Governor's scholarship program has a surplus or balance of or more than $2 million right now. So, the reduction we took there is not going to really cause the harm that we would see if we didn't fund our K-12 population to what we need. So, in conclusion we are very supportive of students. I am very supportive of students and education; however, we have to fund it with a known commodity that's going to be sustainable and at the same time not ruining that engine, small business, which keeps this state moving forward. Small business and education go hand in hand. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1473h). The Chair recognizes the member Easton, Rep. Ford, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Susan Ford (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As I read over this amendment I was struck by the funding of this plan. It takes money away from our New Hampshire students and gives it to towns. When the Keno bill was passed, it was determined that the allocation from the Keno earnings would be returned to all towns providing full day programs. Both towns with high property values and towns with low property values. This caused some confusion among towns and led everyone to expect that this funding would be continued. I suspect that would have been corrected during this Session since full day kindergarten students are now counted just as students in grade one through twelve are counted. This bill provides new stabilization grants or hold harmless to high property tax towns. You've heard the term donor towns. They don't exist. So, where does the money come from to pay these towns? First, we take $12 million away from the university system. It is a difficult thing to take a look at the university system. Our higher education program includes our community colleges and our university system. While UNH comes immediately to mind, we need to remember and recognize that Granite State, Keene State and Plymouth State University are also part of our university system. The economists always stress how important quality education programs both at the K-12 and higher education systems are as an economic driver. In 2011, state support for our university system was cut in half. We are still below what was once allocated in 2010 and the system has been flat funded for five years. It is critical to the health of the system and to our state to fund our higher education programs. Without an investment, our institutions will struggle to continue to provide affordable access and to support the communities they serve. The BIA has made funding of the university system one of its top priorities. They understand the importance of a strong educational system in New Hampshire. Businesses know this investment is necessary for the state's economy and we can't advance that economy without addressing university system funding and providing a well-prepared work force. And then the same students that are part of the university system take a second hit. This bill takes money from the Governor's scholarship program. That program will be reduced by $4.5 million. That may be a new program to you. It was to me. The program is structured to provide Pell eligible students scholarships for 2- and 4-year institutions and career schools. The program was first established by the Office of Strategic Initiatives and is now being moved to the Department of Education. It will struggle to survive on this hit to the finances. Additional monies will be raised from the educational trust fund. We have discussions about how important it is to retain the youth in New Hampshire. In fact, we need them to support and help us as we grow older and we will grow older. This bill gives them the message that they aren't very important to legislators. Certainly not as important as property towns. Please tell the students of New Hampshire you believe in them, you appreciate them, and you support them as they have opportunities to become well educated adults without starting their careers with high debt. Join me to support our young people and our fine university system and push the red button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1473h). The Chair recognizes the last speaker, the member from Hopkinton, Rep. Luneau.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. I'm here to speak against the proposed amendment. Basically, it undermines the strong bipartisan work this House has done to move in a direction to improve how we fund public education in New Hampshire. It blatantly disregards the needs we have heard from communities like Berlin, Newport, Pittsfield, Derry, Claremont and others across the Granite State. And, Franklin. How could I forget about Franklin? It's a slap in the face to property taxpayers in all cities and towns. Yes, all of them who understand that funding public education is the responsibility we have as a state. The Education Committee heard over 4 hours of testimony from taxpayers, school board members, city administrators and school superintendents. All basically saying how education funding is broken. What a surprise. And, the committee worked hard to develop the funding policy that provides for an equitable opportunity for an adequate education for all students regardless of zip code. The proposed amendment throws all of that out the window. It throws out the fiscal disparity aid to help our most vulnerable property poor cities and towns. It throws out the restoration of the stabilization grant necessary to prop up our current funding formula. It throws out the funding for the independent commission to develop a comprehensive plan to fund public education in the future and it throws out most of the $164 million used to improve education and provide meaningful property tax relief. Total evisceration of the education funding plan. Totally on the backs of property taxpayers. It's an 11th hour con job we received at 4:57 p.m. yesterday. And, it does some other nasty stuff too. It strips funding for the University System and steals money from our college students who receive support from the Governor's scholarship. It's a cop out. It's no solution. It's no way forward and it's no way to solve this. Please vote no. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1473h). I just want to remind all members when they come to the well to be very cognizant of what they are saying to the body so as not to cast aspersions on anybody that files any bill or any amendment. That is their right as a member. I just bring that to your attention for future speeches. As I said, Rep. Notter has requested a roll call vote on this amendment. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1473h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Weyler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that facing a $200 million increase in education funding is based on a new tax that is unlikely to yield any amount close to that. And, if I further know that the school districts are struggling to adjust to reductions in state aid. And, if I know that this amendment makes changes in other education funds to assure that we can make a reliable increase to the districts in already available funds and does not rely on any unproven source, then would I now press the green button in order to give some relief to our school districts? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1473h). Rep. Myler is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mel Myler (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that after hours of hearings and planning in the past 3 months, we have been working in a bipartisan way to construct a rational strategy to deal with school funding that includes a short-term infusion of stabilization funds to the most needy schools and a mid-term adjustment of the current funding plan and a long-term independent look to solve the school funding crisis. And, if I know that the 11th hour amendment of HB 2-1473h undercuts this collaboration and negates the position of the House vote of 268-90 in support of the school funding bill of HB 709. And, if I believe that this amendment totally turns this body's back on the educational funding crisis, both short-term and long-term. And, finally, if I believe in the voices that we have heard from constituents that the true property value tax relief can only come through positive education funding by the legislative actions of this House, would I now press the red button very hard to send a message that we have heard those voices and hardily reject this last minute attempt to deny school districts of needed funding? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1473h). If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 157 members voting Yea and 225 members voting Nay, the motion fails for a lack of a majority. We are down to our last two speakers on HB 2, so I would just ask people to remain in their seats. I'm sure there is going to be a roll call vote on the final. It's this psychic ability I have acquired over the years. I don't know how. It's the Irish. The question now before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Weyler, to speak against the recommendation. Rep. Weyler, you are recognized to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. One-time money should be used for one-time expenses. These are happy days. We've got pretty much everything covered. We are bringing in record revenue. Why do we need to screw it up by adding another tax? That's what this amendment does. Instead of doing something wise. When you have one-time revenue, that's what the prognosticators in the Ways and Means Committee say it shows it going up this year and next year but then going down again for revenue, so we don't want to make the government grow larger, we want to use that money wisely. There are many things you can use with one-time revenue. You could put something into the retirement system that badly needs some money. You could use it for capital budget things that you weren't able to afford, some of them in little towns, some of our towns, some of our cities. You could use it for a lot of things, but to grow government is the worst thing you can do with it, especially if it is not anticipated to keep growing. There is a lot of things that were changed in here. A whole eight pages were taken out that would help towns and cities do some projects that were long awaited. Other new additions were made as you have heard so HB 2 is not ready for primetime. HB 2, this amendment should be defeated. We should go back to the original bill that many of us support and think was wisely constructed. Please vote no on this HB 2 as amended.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Jaffrey, Rep. Ley, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Douglas Ley (D - Ches 9)Mister Speaker, colleagues, we are now on the cusp of voting on HB 2, the so-called trailer bill, as amended. This bill, this budget accomplishes a great deal that is beneficial to all the citizens of the State of New Hampshire. It begins moving New Hampshire forward in many, many ways. How so? Well, for example, by significantly increasing public education funding, by providing serious property tax relief for businesses and our hard-working citizens, by addressing mental health and addiction issues, including funding for the preliminary planning and engineering studies for a new secure psychiatric unit. And, finally, by establishing a viable and sustainable Family Medical Leave Insurance Program that will keep people on the job and will support and sustain families across New Hampshire. Furthermore, this budget begins addressing long standing problems that we have avoided for years by kicking the proverbial can down the road. Because this budget does all these things, and so much more, I ask that you vote for HB 2 as amended. Join me in moving this state forward and join me in supporting this budget and let today be the dawn of a new day for the great State of New Hampshire. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the adoption of the bill as amended. Rep. Baldasaro has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. I appreciate the bipartisanship. Members will kindly take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Packard for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know in my previous PI that I gave you more than enough reasons to vote against this bill. And, if I know that I could probably list about another hundred or so, but I know the Speaker would cut me off. And, if I know that we had bipartisan opposition to the amendment to HB 2, would I now press the red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 2 as amended contains valuable policy positions passed by this House and is the document that supports and enables our state budget to work. And, if I know HB 2 as amended reinstitutes revenue sharing for our communities, retains the education trust fund and makes changes in the adequate education funding formula resulting in an estimated $160 million new dollars going to our cities and towns. And, if I know that this is a budget to be proud of, a budget that benefits all of New Hampshire citizens and communities, would I now vote yes and press the green button?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The recommendation is that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 224 members voting Yea and 160 Nay, the recommendation is adopted.

Rep. Erin Hennessey (R - Graf 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I am in Division III of House Finance and we worked very hard.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member suspend for just a moment? The House will be in order and allow the member to be heard. You may proceed. Thank you.

Rep. Erin Hennessey (R - Graf 1)As I said I am in Division III of Finance and over the past couple of months we worked very hard developing a budget for Health and Human Services, which is over 40% of this state's funding. If you haven't been to one of our committee meetings or work sessions, I think that you would find that Division III of Finance is very amiable, and we work hard, and we agree with most of our positions and policy decisions. Some of the things I am really proud about in this budget in the amendment. We fully fund the developmental disability waitlist and do a rate increase. We add funds to suicide prevention and a national accredited call center. For the first time we funded children's mobile crisis team. We funded peer recovery services and we helped fix the bottleneck at the New Hampshire hospital by taking the kids out and putting them in a healthier environment, freeing up up to 48 beds there. We funded designated receiving beds. We funded transitional housing beds and we also gave immediate relief to rural hospitals. In DCYF, we fund the Families First Act as well as least 26 new positions for DCYF and more if there is money available and to the delight of all of our county delegations, that means you, everyone here, we fixed the issue with the county cap. Here comes the but. But, as a fiscal conservative I cannot support this amendment. The funds removed from HB 2 by Division II of Finance, a lot of those monies were put into Division III's operating budget. Those were one-time funds that were made into operating expenses, which includes over 40 additional positions throughout the Department of Health and Human Services. The amended budget also overspends TANF funds by $5 million and completely depletes the TANF reserve balance. We are in good times here. We are not experiencing a recession. Next biennium we are going to have to replace those funds with $40 to $75 million of general funds depending on how we find our economy going. The amendment also adds new programs to the state where no financial study was done to determine the actual cost to New Hampshire and our taxpayers. For these reasons please join me in pressing the red button.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? The member reluctantly yields. Rep. Baldasaro, you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. My question is a very simple one. I'm wearing my taxation is theft button, but what I want to know is does this bill raise taxes in the State of New Hampshire on business, property owners there's a downshift?

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation on the adoption of amendment (1397h). The Chair recognizes the member from Easton, Rep. Ford, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Susan Ford (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Please join me in supporting the Finance Committee's funding of the highway fund with $26.7 million from the general fund, $16.8 million directed from the "plea by mail" revenue, and $9.9 million by switching the source of funds from highway funds to general funds within the Department of Safety and for the operation of highway rest areas. This does not solve the transportation problem. The issue tends to be that we have such good mileage on our cars. Electric cars pay very little mileage. The gas tax is down. We need to be able to consider that in future years. The division also funded the Department of Safety approximately $2 million over the biennium for their Cruiser Camera Program. This program was their top priority to promote safety and reduce risk to troopers and the public. We have also provided $700,000 over the biennium, including 4 dedicated positions to open a Division of Motor Vehicles in the Lakes Region, which will alleviate customer wait times in Concord and Tamworth, and improve customer service. The Fish and Game Department will have over $3.4 million in general funds over the biennium. The Transportation Department will provide $86.1 million to the municipalities and appropriating $13.6 million for state aid for municipal bridge projects. A new position has been added to manage unmanned aircraft systems, also known as drones. This is an issue at our small airports and at Manchester airport, so we need somebody on board to be able to take a look and to support our state. We also provided $1.6 million for the demolition and environmental remediation of 3 state-owned buildings. A commission will be established to examine the current funding formula and establish an adequacy formula that is fair to all towns and cities in New Hampshire. We maintained the educational trust fund and added special education aid, formerly known as catastrophic aid, tuition and transportation aid for career and technical education and provides $19.3 million toward new building aid. All charter schools will get the same allocation for kindergarten students. Police standards and training will have approximately $3.4 million in each fiscal year. The lottery is planning for the sports wagering as passed by the House in HB 480. It is anticipated that this will provide the state with $10 million in additional educational trust fund revenue. As you know, these were priorities that we found when we were out campaigning. These are issues that will resonate with the residents of our state and I urge you to vote for HB 1 amendment.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of majority amendment (1397h). The Chair recognizes the member from Milford, Rep. Martin, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Joelle Martin (D - Hills 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. So, I am very pleased to share with you what this budget delivers for the people of New Hampshire. There is only 1,000 pages so it won't take me that long. Just kidding. The Finance Committee Division III is charged with the Health and Human Services portion of the state budget. This budget ensures that Granite Staters will receive the health support and social services that are needed for strong and vibrant communities, while also delivering a fiscally responsible state plan for the next two years and beyond. To meet the needs of our most vulnerable children, this budget funds additional child protection case workers which will reduce the now unmanageable caseloads and better serve our children. This budget also allocates surplus funds to support a range of prevention efforts aiming to keep New Hampshire's children home, safe and thriving with their families preventing their future involvement with DCYF. An additional strategic investment will help bring New Hampshire Child and Family Services into compliance with the new federal Family First Act. This compliance will enable DCYF to access federal matching funds in the future instead of strictly relying on general fund dollars. To combat homelessness for Granite Staters, this budget allocates additional resources to the Division of Economic and Housing stability. HB 1, as amended, continues the Granite Work First program, which helps citizens transition from government support programs to economic independence through the promotion of job preparation and work placement. And, although the Governor's budget put TANF funds in deficit, we allocated $11 million in general funds to the childcare development budget to offset this. To address our mental health crisis, this budget strategically funds the first phase recommendations of the state's new 10-year mental health plan. Not only does the budget include funding for additional mental health beds and facilities as we've heard about in HB 2, it also provides the needed resources to build the foundation for a full continuum of mental health care for our loved ones with mental illness, including an additional adult mobile crisis unit. Expansion of all adult mobile crisis units to serve children and youth. Community services and housing supports as well as step up, step down services to support individuals who do not need hospitalization and those individuals who are ready to leave the hospital but can't because they need additional support. This full range of mental health solutions provides the appropriate care for our loved ones experiencing mental illness, while also freeing up much needed hospital beds and acute care for those who need it. And, as you heard earlier, for our counties who are held responsible for 9.7% of long-term care service costs in the Governor's budget, this budget reduces every county's budgetary burden to just 2.5%. So, in summary, this budget delivers for all of the people of New Hampshire. The budgets critical investments will make our communities stronger, while also providing much needed and desired property tax relief. If you want your constituents to experience stronger, more vibrant communities and benefit from property tax relief, then please join me in voting green and support this bill as amended.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1397h). The Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Weyler, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to oppose the committee amendment on HB 1. As I said before, there was record increase from biennium over biennium. Good times are here again, tax cuts work, yes, the Laffer curve is correct. We got all this money. A lot of the things that my colleagues have spoken about being added into the budget were already in there. The Governor put them in. Yes, he added 65 new employees. They turned around and added 81 more on top of that. That was not necessary. All the predictions are that this money will begin to fade away that we are seeing in these business tax increases. A lot of it is due to repatriation and some of it is due to the tax cuts that we hope will continue, but this takes them away and adds $94 million by stopping those tax cuts. That's going to affect decisions that will be made in the future in businesses. Yes, there will be some decline, so with one-time money you need to spend it for one-time projects. You should not be spending it to grow government when the prognostications are the revenue will decrease. We don't need to do some of the things that have been done and take away some of the suggestions that were made in the underlying HB 1. A lot of projects across the state, some in your towns and your cities, those are gone. Eight pages were taken out of HB 2, so they won't be in HB 1. There are a lot of things that could be done with one-time money. The worst one is to grow government unsustainably. This is echoes of 2008. Some of us where here then. Big increases in the budget. Imaginary revenue. That's what I think the capital gains tax is, imaginary revenue because I think it is an attempt to tax money that's already been paid in business profits. A lot of it was capital gains. That's what the federal government saw. $2.8 billion, they said, was capital gains taxes paid in New Hampshire. A lot of it, if you are buying and selling things, that's capital gains. That's what a lot of businesses do, so to think $150 million will come out of that is just setting us up for disappointment. That's what it is going to do. I am certain that won't raise anywhere near what is contemplated because $2.89 billion is a big piece of all the income taxes paid in the State of New Hampshire. You will also have to explain to your constituents why those projects go cancelled. Family Medical Leave Act is an income tax, .5% out of everybody's pay, even the kids working at the ice cream stand for the summer. They are losing .5% from their low wages. What's that going to do to help them? Nothing. They are going to be disgusted about that. The education trust fund was designed not to have a surplus. Once it has a surplus, that money can't be used anywhere else. That's why we fill it up with general funds so let's eliminate the education trust fund or change the formula to ensure that we are not putting money somewhere when we would rather use it somewhere else. The economy is doing well. We are able to fund a lot more things that we have been waiting to fund for a while. That's what HB 1 as it came to us did. We don't need to grow it. We don't need to go from a 10% increase to a 13% increase. We will regret it. Echoes of 2008. We will be back here next year if you put in this imaginary new tax income. We'll be back here next year wondering what can we do now. Please vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to a question? Rep. Baldasaro, you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative. Hey, the last speaker that was up here put a scare tactic out there to everybody on the Governor, which I disagreed with sitting there listening, said that the Governor's budget, the TANF was going to go broke if we did use his numbers. Is that true?

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Most of the money for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families comes from the federal government. They have a pretty good amount for us because it is somewhat done on a per capita basis. We're fortunate to have one of the lowest poverty rates so there are a lot of things that the money doesn't qualify for. It stays in a fund, which is good because if we ever have a recession again and more people need that money, there will be a fund there that we can use it, but what the plan that has come to us uses up that reserve fund over about 3 years, so if a recession does come after that, this big supply of money that pays at the time most of that money for TANF won't be available once we use that up. So, going forward we will have to take it out of general funds and we won't have as much help from the federal. Yes, it will make a big difference.

Speaker ShurtleffWill the member yield to another question? Rep. Packard, you may inquire.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you for taking my question. Quite a few of the past speakers have talked about property tax relief and I'm wondering where all this money for property tax relief is going to come from and is it actually going to happen?

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)I think we have the example from 1999. It was the first year we sent $200 million more in education funding than we ever had before and the first year we spent it, it arrived after most of the towns had done their education budgets. So, 60%, that one year, went to relieve property taxes. Sixty percent, one year. The very next year the same money and a little more went out to the towns and every cent got spent to expand the education. An interesting thing I was looking at, you bring up something I thought I should share. I went to the education and they don't have figures most older than 10 years. So, if you go back 10 years, 07-08, there were 32,000 employees working in our schools. Of those, 15,200 were teachers. Only 47%. Come forward ten years to 17-18, now we only have 13,000 teachers in our schools, so the number of total employees is 31,000. You see the difference there? We laid off 2,000 teachers and hired a 1,000 more non-teaching staff. We all need to go to the school board meetings and ask why is there so much non-teaching staff. Only 41.9% of the staff now are teachers. What are all those other people doing but raising your property taxes. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation of adoption of amendment (1397h). The Chair recognizes our last speaker, the member from Gorham to speak in support of the recommendation,

Rep. William Hatch (D - Coos 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of HB 1 as amended. This budget was designed to work for all of our citizens as well as municipalities in all parts of the state. Note we made a concerted effort to budget so that our state agencies can meet the needs of all citizens while working to mitigate the property tax burden for many of all municipalities. Some of the things included in this budget are, for example, we budgeted $1.3 million in scheduling software that departments such as Correction and Safety are in dire need of. We also fully funded Corrections efficiency budget request and we also funded all authorized positions, which in turn will make savings by reducing the overtime needs of the department. This budget will provide $700,000 for the Lakeshore Redevelopment Planning Commission and that will address the disposition of the former Laconia State School property which has been there for many years empty, vacant and in some cases dangerous. We budgeted $2 million in general funds in the Judicial Branch IT fund and a one-time $950,000 appropriation to replace the ancient hardware and IT systems. Again, direly needed. The budget funds an additional superior court judge to address the recent 15% increase in criminal cases associated with the opioid crisis. This will help manage the existing backlog. The number of circuit court judges are increased from 33 to 35, which will allow for cases in the family division of the circuit court to be heard in a timely manner. This budget fully funds the judicial counsel at $3 million for the biennium. A very important thing to have happen. I think we all can agree. A paralegal in the criminal justice bureau was added to provide trial support. A new cold case attorney was also added to handle the backlog of cold cases. Also, a new appeals attorney was funded for the Department of Justice. Recognizing that tourism is very important and in fact vital to the economic well-being of many areas of the state such as our North country. We addressed the needs to promote tourism dramatically for the Department of Business and Economic Affairs travel and tourism budget, the statutory 3.15% of meals and rooms tax revenue is funded. We funded the complete amount which creates a $6.4 million increase over the previous biennium. In line with that direction there is also $3.4 million in the budget for the operation and maintaining of the highway safety and rest areas. Hopefully, just hopefully are gone the days that we say welcome to New Hampshire. If you need facilities, we have a lot of bushes or if you are lucky we have a porta potty. Hopefully that has ended. This budget fully funds the flood control program. A $1.8 million appropriation for the biennium and that's just a few examples of items that were funded in this budget to address the needs of the state. Everything else is available for your review online or you are welcome to ask any questions to any of the Finance members. So, again thanks to all that helped with invaluable input and please show your support by pushing the green button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1397h). Rep. Ley has asked for a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded in the spirit of bipartisanship. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the adoption of majority amendment (1397h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Hinch for a parliamentary inquiry. The House will be in order.

Rep. Richard Hinch (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this budget relies on spending one-time revenue to establish new programs, new positions and new spending that aren't one time. And, if I know that these are perpetual and when they are one-time revenue doesn't come back, taxpayers will be on the hook to fill that deficit. If I know that the major new funding source for education spending in this budget relies on unproven revenue from a brand new capital gains tax and the revenue estimates relied on in this new capital gains tax are the highest they could be, putting us in a precarious situation if these expectations are not met. If I know that this bill authorizes 157 new employees, more than double the Governor's proposal and doubles that cost. If I know this budget seeks to spend 13% more than our current operating budget, which equals $637 million more in the general education trust fund spending and a whopping $1.5 billion, with a "b" more in total funds. And, finally Mister Speaker, if I know that this budget spends $9,500 for every person in New Hampshire, a whopping $1,100 per person increase over our last budget and that is just unsustainable even in good times, would I now press the red button to oppose this deeply flawed budget that taxes and spends at record levels? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1397h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the amendment to HB 1 establishes the House's budget position. And, if I know the amendment produces a balanced budget. And, if I know this amendment to HB 1 provides funding for our state agencies and our communities for the next biennium, would I now vote yes and push the green button?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1397h). If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 223 members voting Yea and 161 voting Nay, the recommendation is adopted on the amendment (1397h). Rep. Abbas moves floor amendment (1455h) found in your seat pockets and Rep. Ober is recognizes to speak to that amendment. We have just 3 speakers on this amendment so please don't wonder too far.

Rep. Lynne Ober (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. You know I am brief. I never carry anything up here to read lengthy pages to you so. This is an amendment that funds ICAC. You all know I am in favor of ICAC. You know I was very disappointed when Division I chose not to even discuss it when we had the budget deliberations. They need a grant of $500,000. This amendment provides a $500,000 grant without actually making significant cuts in the budget. We'll still have educational statistics. One of the most important things I think in HB 1 and HB 2 that Division I talks about, you can't believe the length of time, are rest areas. None of us want our visitors going to porta potties, although $200,000 is removed from that line, the agency made it very clear that every rest area would be open and fully staffed. There would be no porta potties and that this money was for some renovations that could be put off and actually could be used later in the year if some other expenses come in less than expected. So, this amendment puts the $500,000 into the budget, HB 1. It fully funds ICAC. It defends our children. It also allows us to move forward with as much as a balance budget as possible, although I still believe the budget as a whole is overspent and not balanced. But, this provides no additional funding to that whereas the amendment previously passed on ICAC as I mentioned added an additional $50,000 above the $500,000. Please support this amendment and press the green button. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1455h). The Chair recognizes the member from Salem, Rep. Abbas, to speak in support of the recommendation. Rep. Abbas: Thank you, Mister Speaker. A lot of great points were just made that I don't want to repeat. I will just emphasize again that with this amendment there will be no additional spending and what I would say is that the budget right now, which relies on a lot of assumptions and unproven revenue streams in order to balance this budget, this will create no additional spending. I believe we have a responsibility and a duty to the voters who put us in these seats to not spend money that we can't account for. This is no additional spending. It's taking $259,000 from the Department of Education for education statistics that the Department of Education is on record of saying that they are not interested in that program. So, I would point out for that reason, that was a great place to start when this memo was filed. So, I would ask you to push that green button. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1455h). The Chair recognizes our last speaker, the member from Stratham, Rep. Lovejoy, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Patricia Lovejoy (D - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Earlier this morning we passed an amendment to HB 2, amendment (1469h) that was passed by a margin of 376-4 that is already funding the $500,000 for the Internet Crimes Against Children Act so I propose that this amendment is not needed. We have already funded them. Please vote no. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffRep. Notter has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the adoption of amendment (1455h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Rice for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kimberly Rice (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that funding the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is crucial to providing the tools necessary to protect our children from online predators. And, if I also know that this amendment provides this funding from a more appropriate source, would I now press the green button and provide this critical funding for the protection of our state's greatest asset, our children? Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe Chair recognizes Rep. Hatch for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. William Hatch (D - Coos 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have forgotten my papers, but I will try to do this without them. Mister Speaker, if I know that redundancy has a purpose in some places, but this is not one of them. The funding of this activity was accomplished already this morning and to pass this would be redundant of that, so I urge all to press the red button to defeat this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of amendment (1455h). If you in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 159 members voting Yea and 221 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Ley has moved. Strike that. The question now before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Epsom, Rep. McGuire, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The Finance Committee was actually quite fortunate when they started working on the budget because they were in possession of an anticipated surplus from this year or this biennium of somewhere between $170 and $200 million depending on whose numbers you believe. Even if, let's just say $175, that's a lot of money and it is purely one-time money. It's not going to be coming out. The forecasted surplus from the budget under consideration is $28 million and it's all in the education trust fund which is one of the bad places to put it, but that still leaves $150 million, probably plus a bit, that is one-time money that needs to be used for one-time purposes. That's a basic principle of budgeting and it's not as if we don't have places to use one-time money. We could have funded the entire capital budget, which is $125 million, and without borrowing a penny. That would have saved us the interest. It would have improved our credit rating and it would have kept our bonding capability available when we need it. We could have done the statutorily required thing and put it all into the rainy-day fund, which would protect us against the downturn that the Chair of Ways and Means has been warning us about. We could have put it into the retirement system toward future payments which would be invested and would save the state money in the future. It would save local taxpayers money in the future. It might not be a lot bright this year, but it would provide meaningful and long-lasting property tax relief to everybody in the state. But, that was not done. There are a few places in the budget where we had one-time task. There is the New Hampshire hospital wing modification, $500,000 for that study committee. Great, we should have done that, but there is still $150 million of one-time money that we are using to fund recurring programs and that is a recipe for total disaster in the future. No matter how, it means that the next budget that comes up is going to be short and if we are extremely fortunate and business is booming, and we bring in a lot of tax money we may be able to get by in the next budget with a few cuts here and there, some fee increases, whatever. But, sooner or later the economy is not going to helpful. We are going to be unlucky and we are going to be in the situation we faced in 2011 where you start out the budget in a $900 million hole. That was an incredibly painful experience for everybody who was there at the time, no matter which party they belonged to. It was painful for the people of the state and for the state employees and retirees. We took all sorts of drastic actions to settle that. It was worked out, but it was not easy, and it was not fun, and we are setting ourselves up for that, maybe not in 21, maybe not in 23 if we are really lucky, but by 25 at the very latest we are going to be facing that kind of a structural deficit. No matter which party is in power at the time, they are going to have to make some important major and highly unpopular decisions. No matter whether you are increasing taxes or you are cutting spending or both, it's going to require a great deal of pain on the part of the legislature and on the people of the state and I think we should take the action now to get that surplus spending out of our current budget, use it for the one time needs we have and not set ourselves up for failure in the future. Thank you very much.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Easton, Rep. Ford, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Susan Ford (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. When the majority of Division III first examined the Governor's budget, we were concerned that education did not take center stage. Representatives that had canvassed or stood at their transfer stations during the last election heard that both education funding and the increases in property taxes is a concern to most New Hampshire residents. We also were concerned about the transportation budget. It did not meet New Hampshire's needs. As we all know, the highway fund isn't a robust fund as it used to be. Our cars get much better mileage. This is an issue we face in the near future and Division II was cognizant of this issue as we worked for the most part going line by line through the budget. What our concern was that the Governor's budget did not meet the needs of the New Hampshire citizens and I urge you all to pass HB 1 as amended by pushing the green button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 2. The Chair recognizes the member from Seabrook, Rep. Abramson, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I speak in opposition to HB 1 because it ignores the issue that I've brought to the floor and to committee many times over the years, that nearly all problems in our society are better handled at the local level than through state excess. I've campaigned on the need to return money and power to the local level, spoke publicly on the need, written countless letters to the editor, which many of you have read and even put this on my campaign signs every year. Going door to door, 80% of my constituents told me that they support keeping the money and decision making at the local level. More effective than the state bureaucracy is civil society, local churches, local charities, local towns, local schools, and other local efforts that have been helping the less fortunate since colonial times. A bloated state budget will not help those who've fallen on reduced means. Mutual aid societies, lodges, trade unions, friends, family, and extended family have easily dwarfed any bureaucracy in terms of helping individuals overcome problems of addiction, age, infirmity, unemployment, homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, and dependency. States were once created and budgeted only for maintaining civil and criminal courts and maintaining uniform election laws, not for replacing the good works of charity and family. While the drug courts today still show only a 3-4% success rate, Teen Challenge, a faith-based addiction program, now boasts a 70% success rate and costs taxpayers nothing. No state agency in this budget would pretend such a success rate. Habitat for Humanity, the Lions Club, Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul, and our local charities accomplish far more for far less than what's being proposed in HB 1. At the local level, there's less partisanship and influence by party leaders and special interest groups. At the local level, we've seen the success of Gloucester's ANGEL program, which Chief Lou Campanello assured me, by email, helps save lives for about $50 per person. Each dollar spent by the state takes 2 or 3 from the private sector, our state's real job creator, and those coming out of high school, drug and alcohol treatment, probation, parole and recovering from work injuries or layoffs absolutely depend on a healthy job market as the real American safety net. Vote down this bloated budget. Start over with a more realistic appreciation of the hard work of Chucky's Fight, the Goodwill, the real help of the soup kitchens, thousands of new job-creating startups and extended family. Indeed, when voters have been asked in New Hampshire if they'd rather have more state spending or more private spending, they've voted for smaller government every single time. Why should the state take your money and make you fill out a lot of forms and jump through bureaucratic hoops to try and get some of your own money back, less the enormous growing cost of state and federal bureaucracy? Why not just reduce spending and let working Americans keep more of what they've rightfully earned? Red button. Taxation is theft and taxation of wages is slavery. Thank you.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Milford, Rep. Martin, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. Joelle Martin (D - Hills 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This budget as amended is a budget for the people of New Hampshire. I've heard from my neighbors in Milford and you've all heard from your constituents across the state. They've shared their priorities with us. They've asked us for property tax relief, education funding and adequate support for our critical services like mental health and child protection. The House budget addresses every one of these priorities. I'm proud of the work we've all done these last few months and I'm pleased that we've drafted a budget that works for all Granite Staters. So, press the green button for Ought to Pass as Amended. Thank you. Speaker Shurtleff: The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Weyler, to speak against the recommendation.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)I'll tell you one more time. One-time money should not be used to grow government. We will regret it in the near future, maybe next year, maybe next biennium. There is no sense in growing government. Times are good. We don't have as many poor people and we don't have as many unemployed people. Why do we need to add to all of these programs? By the way, the number of students is still shrinking. Why do we need to throw $200 million more? None of it is going to go to property tax relief. It never has, except the one year that I told you about. Never since. Please don't make this bloated government, this bloated amendment pass. Please don't pass this as a bloated thing. Vote no. Press the red button.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes our last speaker, Rep. Hatch, the member from Gorham, to speak in support of the recommendation.

Rep. William Hatch (D - Coos 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. We've heard a lot about how well our state is doing as we are discussing the budget this morning. This may surprise some of you. I know many, many households in this state that aren't doing so well. I know many households in this state where feeding their children in the evening, making sure they have ample meal to get through the next day is not always happening. In fact, something like 24% of the children where I live go to bed hungry. I wouldn't say they are doing so well. So, I guess to make a long story very short and you are getting the idea of where I am going with this, this budget attempts to help everyone, share in the prosperity coming through the state. Not just the chosen few are those who can access themselves to the enormous windfall that's coming this way. So, with that, I really urge you to support this budget. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Notter has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded in the spirit of bipartisanship and does an old man's heart a lot of good so thank you. This will be a roll call vote. Members will kindly take their seats. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hinch for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Richard Hinch (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that we are about to celebrate Groundhog Day because 10 years ago this month the House did exactly the same thing that the House is heading towards doing. If I know that this budget relies on spending one-time revenues to establish new programs, new positions and new spending that aren't one time. If I know that this bill authorizes 157 new employees, more than double the Governor's proposal and doubles the cost. If I know this budget seeks to spend 13% more than our current operating budget, which equals $637 million in general education trust fund and a whopping $1.5 billion in total funds. Mister Speaker, if I know all this, would I decide not to celebrate Groundhog Day, and would I therefore press the red button to oppose this deeply flawed budget that taxes and spends at record levels? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker ShurtleffThe question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 1 as amended establishes the House budget position as the budget moves through the budget process. And, if I know that it is a balanced budget that will result in a rainy-day fund balance of $116.7 million at the end of the next biennium. And, if I know this is a budget that meets the needs of our citizens and addresses our most pressing concerns, those of mental health, child protection, our transportation system and education, would I now vote yes and push the green button?

Speaker ShurtleffThis will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass as Amended. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. With 225 members voting Yea and 159 voting Nay, the recommendation is adopted.