The House, Thursday, June 3, 2021

Rep. William Marsh (D - Carr 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in opposition to amendment (1864h) to SB 155 specifically the second half. This part prohibits discrimination based on vaccination status for all vaccinations, not just Covid. And while this has a limited exception for healthcare facilities and first responders, the federal statute quoted in section 9, part 5 does not just apply to medical facilities. It applies to all employers. What about meat packing plants for instance? Around the country numerous people have contracted Covid and some have died in meat packing plants. New Hampshire actually has 12 meat packing plants according to google maps. Is it not reasonable to want employees to be vaccinated to prevent a threat to our food supply? Without asking about vaccinations, how would employers comply with the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard which requires all employers to offer hepatitis B vaccination to unvaccinated employees coming into contact with blood. Section 9 would make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person or governmental entity to deny an individual access to goods, services, employment, housing, education or places of public accommodation based on an individual's vaccination status or immunity status. The Governor's economic reopening task force always upheld the right of any private business to have stricter rules than the state mandated if they felt that necessary to protect their employees or their patrons. We felt each private business knew their business better than we did. Why would we interfere with the private businesses right to protect themselves, their employees and their patrons? In contrast, this amendment confers upon those who refuse to take reasonable precautions the right to go wherever they want and potentially infect whomever they encounter. This language mirrors HB 506 which the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee reported Inexpedient to Legislate on a 15-6 vote. Both types of measles, rubella and rubeola are dangerous for pregnant women. This amendment applies to measles vaccination. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology says both kinds of measles are associated with significant risks to unborn babies, incluging miscarriage and stillbirth. While rubella remains well controlled, in 2019 we had a rubeola outbreak involving 31 states. If this amendment were to become law, by the language in section 9, it would be illegal for a pregnant mother to deny services to someone who might give measles to her unborn child. Is it right to use the force of law to compel a mother to put their baby at risk? Section 10 is a rewrite of the immunization statute, incorporating changes to HHS and EA has rejected multiple times over the years. Removing the commissioner's authority to add diseases to the list rapidly by rulemaking is senseless when our children just missed a year of in-person education due to a pandemic. Given how connected our world is today, it is highly likely another virus will emerge requiring a rapid response. Five recent near misses should have made us aware of the possibility of a pandemic like Covid. We had SARS in 2003, H1N1 influenza in 2009, MERS in 2012, Ebola in Africa in 2014 and Zika in 2015. And to correct a statement made earlier today, yes, we do have an approved vaccination for Ebola. We could bring it out if we needed to. The question is not whether we will have another pandemic, but when will it happen? Section 11 is a rewrite of HB 221. HHS reported that bill Inexpedient to Legislate on a 14-7 vote. We heard testimony that a similar measure in the State of Texas substantially raised the cost of the vaccine registry. The Journal of Public Health Management Practices in September 2010 reported that it raised the cost to the healthcare system 10-fold from 29 cents to $2.65 per child. Medically this amendment makes no sense. We all want to return to normal where people can again have large group gatherings. A voluntary gathering of people who share the knowledge that they have been vaccinated allows this to happen safely. If people don't want to get vaccinated, they don't need to participate. But as a state we need to move on from social distancing measures and the draconian effect on the economy. Vaccination allows us to do so safely and so the public interest is to encourage vaccination and the voluntary sharing of that vaccination data. Last, this amendment is unnecessary. Federal law already prohibits mandating vaccines unless there is a direct threat pursuant to 29CFR 1630.2R which is quoted in the bill. The Equal Employment Economic Opportunity Commission has upheld this provision and there is considerable case law about employees being terminated for refusing vaccinations. We do not need to prohibit a vaccine requirement in state law because there is already such a provision in federal law. But if we want to edit state law anyway, we have before us later in this session another bill to block employer mandated Covid-19 vaccinations without the unintended consequences of this one. That is amendment (1758h) to SB 123 from Labor. Please join me in pushing the red button against this expensive medically unsound and completely unnecessary amendment. I thank you and I do not yield to questions.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe member from Deerfield, Rep. Roy, is recognized to speak in support of the amendment.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 32)Thank you, Mister Speaker. SB 155 makes permanent certain emergency orders issued by the Governor during the state of emergency. The omnibus bill originally had 7 sections codifying emergency orders. The first establishing temporary health partners as assistance to nurses, licensed nursing assistants was amended to define temporary health partners and clarify their scope of practice. The second, licensing some medical providers during the emergency was modified for clarity and the third authorizing pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to administer Covid tests and vaccines was narrowed to the testing section since vaccines are covered in another bill. The fourth allowing out of state pharmacies providing experimental drugs to be temporarily licensed as mail order pharmacies was also amended for clarity. The fifth section protecting nonconforming use of summer camps unable to operate due to Covid-19 was amended to cover both 2020 and 2021. A sixth section on continuing construction during the pandemic was agreed by all parties to be unnecessary and was deleted. Section seven on expanded outdoor dining was amended for simplicity and to clarify that local ordinances must be followed and that any expansion of capacity must be approved by the relevant water and sewer authority with the Department of Environmental Services in the case of septic. These changes were agreed to by the committee as a whole as Ought to Pass. At the same time, a nongermane amendment was brought to the committee. This amendment sought to ban so-called vaccine passports from use by government agencies. While considering this amendment, several disturbing trends came to light. First, on a positive note, it appeared that at neither the state nor federal level were vaccine passports appearing to be used. Both our Governor and President Biden indicated that this was not something that either the state or federal government were interested in pursuing. Problem solved, right? Not so fast. As with any bill brought before ED&A committee, we look into it from all sides before deciding whether to recommend it positively or negatively to the House. This amendment was no different. My first inclination was that it was not necessary and that it perhaps even over-politicized a health issue that has already been so twisted and tortured by politicians and pundits alike that the average citizen no longer knows what to believe. One day it's Chinese bats. The next it's a secret plot by the Chinese government resembling a James Bond plot whose goal was to cripple the US economy and prevent Donald Trump from being reelected. One day we shouldn't wear masks. The next we should wear two masks. One day Dr. Fauci is brilliant according to several administrations, both Democrat and Republican. Just yesterday we see emails from a foyer request seemingly indicating that he knew it was not likely natural and he was involved in funding the work that created it. So who knows anymore? This of course explains my initial reticence of having our committee wade into this quagmire in the first place. That being said, during my research, I discovered that vaccine passports were indeed coming, just not from the direction we were expecting. I started receiving constituent contacts complaining that their employers were demanding that their employees receive the Covid vaccine or be terminated. Now I'm not talking about hospital workers. I'm talking about office workers, machinists, regular people with regular jobs having absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. This caused me to investigate why this was occurring. Was it just employers trying to create a safer workplace? Was there something else at play? Well as the old saying goes, follow the money. It turns out that embedded in the American Rescue Plan Act was a provision for businesses to obtain tax credits for employees taking time to get the Covid shot or who miss work because they fall ill from the side effects of the Covid shot. Also included are new threats from OSHA regarding workplace safety due to Covid-19. There is also talk of workman's' compensation insurance discounts for employers mandating a vaccine as part of a company wellness program. In short, possible motive discovered. But in all this, what we have failed to discuss is what do the people want? As a society, do we want to force our citizens to take experimental vaccines every time a new virus rears its head? Do the people consent? Time after time in this body, we have had the important debate about whether healthcare decisions are an extremely private matter between a patient and their doctor and it is a worthy debate to have. Does my body, my choice only apply to abortion? What about new advances in science? What if we determine someone's characteristics can be genetically altered in utero? Would we allow mandated gene therapy? After all propensity for carrying certain diseases costs billions in healthcare. What about vaccines for the flu? Will employers mandate those next? The list could go on and on anywhere the imagination leads you. Any potential illness or condition that cost employers money in the form of missed work or higher insurance premiums could be the next mandated vaccine or treatment. Some have said well let them get another job. Really? After decades with a company, having built seniority, vacation time, pension benefits, they should just go? And go where? The more companies that adopt this, the choices will shrink. The bottom line is that our citizens are asking for this protection. They are begging for it. The question is which of us will have the courage to say people first. Republicans, we traditionally are seen as pro-business. That's not because of the old talking points we get kickbacks and donations. If so, I have seemed to have missed mine because I never got a penny. No, Republicans stand up for businesses because we believe that the free market and a less regulated business environment leads to innovation and innovation leads to better and higher paying jobs. Democrats have traditionally been seen as pro union and suspicious of big business and interested in everything from raising the minimum wage to limiting CEO pay. Why? Because they believe these things lead to better jobs and higher pay for workers. We want the same things. We are just different in how we get there. But this, this is not about any of that. This is not about politics as evidenced by my friend and colleague who just spoke. I am actually glad that he spoke although I don't know how I can hope to debate an esteemed eye doctor on the topic of possibly manmade weaponizing infectious diseases. Well I can because this is not about medicine. It's about freedom and as a disabled veteran I know a thing or two about freedom. I also know a thing or two about the effects of medicine gone wrong. Because of the injuries I incurred in the military, I had to have a spinal fusion. After that, still having pain, I was referred for spinal injections. Because of those I developed a disease called adhesive arachnoiditis, a non-curable disease that causes all the nerves in my spine to stick together with scar tissue. It is likely I will end up in a wheelchair and die eight years earlier. This treatment was highly recommended by the medical field yet we are finding out that more and more people are developing this disease as spinal injections become more common. But this highlights my point that we all disagree at some level about this which is exactly why it should be left to the individual citizens to decide what's right for themselves. We've heard something about protecting pregnant women by allowing workplaces to mandate vaccination against certain diseases. This is not new. Somehow women have been managing to have healthy babies without mandating vaccines to everyone around them since well forever. Tap water is possibly dangerous because of fluoride and chlorine. Shall we mandate wells for Poland Spring? This is about allowing workplaces, schools and the government to dictate what experimental cocktail you inject into your and your children's bodies. Long term effects? Who knows? How could we? It's brand new. It's not even approved for use, except for emergencies. Now, as for telling businesses how to manage their employees. We have come together before, Democrats and Republicans, to tell businesses how they cannot treat our people. In the 1800's we battled giant plantations in the South who complained that if we took their slaves away, they would suffer. We fought the bloodiest war in American history over that. In the end the people won. During the turn of the century, together we fought businesses who said they needed child labor and unlimited work weeks.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe member will suspend for a second. I feel like we have strayed way down the road from the amendment and I ask that you tighten it up a little bit.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 32)Okay. Although I disagree with the Speaker. During the turn of the century together we fought businesses as they said they needed child labor and unlimited work weeks and no paid overtime; a day people won. Time and time again we stood together and the people won. We stood together against businesses that said serving people of color would hurt their business. Together we said no. We fought school systems who refused to integrate. The people won. Every time we stand together, the people win. Let us mark today as the latest chapter in that book and let us stand together and give the people a win. God knows they need it. Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe House will be in order. A question for the member who just spoke? Will you yield for a question?

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 32)At the risk of going too far away from the amendment, I do not yield.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairMember does not yield. The question before the House is whether to adopt amendment (1864h). Rep. Goley requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. The question before the House is whether to adopt amendment (1864h). This is a roll call vote. Rep. Allard is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Allard (I - Merr 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that New Hampshire business community members spoke out against this amendment because it would remove their ability to take reasonable precautions to protect their employees and patrons. And if I know that allowing another committee to reintroduce a bill previously ITL'd by a House Committee through nongermane amendments would establish a hugely disruptive precedent. And if I know that the Labor Committee has an amendment prohibiting employer mandates of emergency use vaccines without unintended consequences of this particular amendment, would I not push the red button and reject this expensive and medically unsound proposal? Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairRep. McGuire is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment codifies a number of important emergency regulations that we believe should continue into the future. And if I know that it protects our constituents from discrimination on the basis of their vaccine status, which is important for those who cannot become vaccinated or do not wish to share their medical history. And if I know that it puts into statute the current list of school required vaccinations and requires additional vaccinations to be added by the legislature, not by the Department of HHS would I now press the green button and adopt this amendment?

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The question is whether to amend SB 155 with amendment (1864h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 182 having voted in the affirmative, 193 in the negative, the motion fails. The question now being adoption of the motion of Ought to Pass. Rep. Grote offered floor amendment (1646h). Floor Amendment (1646h) Amend the bill by replacing sections 1 and 2 with the following: 1 Temporary Health Partner Authorized in Skilled Nursing Facilities under Federal and State Waivers. I. In this section, "temporary health partner" means an individual who has been hired pursuant to federal and state waivers of certain qualifications for long-term care facility staff. II. To address staffing shortages at long-term care facilities and meet the needs of some of New Hampshire's most vulnerable populations, the position of temporary health partner (THP) is hereby authorized to work in a skilled nursing facility, notwithstanding any provision of RSA 326-B:14, provided that: (a) The THP completes training of no less than 8 hours, provided by a national association such as the American Health Care Association or by a New Hampshire educational program. (b) THPs shall work under the supervision of an RN, APRN, or LPN, as is required of LNAs under RSA 326-B:14. (c) The scope of work authorized to be performed by THPs is limited to the work set forth in this section and shall be performed in accordance with the resident care plan. (d) The THP has demonstrated competency, as determined by the employing long-term care facility, prior to performing any of the activities set forth in this section. III. Scope of work for a temporary health partner (THP): (a) The THP is a temporary position limited to assist LNAs and nurses in their daily tasks. Each of these tasks shall not be performed without proper training and demonstrating competency in such tasks. The THP shall work under the direction and supervision of licensed nurses to assist nurses and LNAs to provide services set forth in each resident care plan. Before performing any tasks described in subparagraph (b), the THP shall have been trained and demonstrated competency to perform such tasks, and shall review and adhere to the resident care plan. The facility shall provide direction and oversight to the THP. (b) After the employing facility ensures skill competency, the THP may perform any of the following activities: (1) Nutrition and elimination assistance. Assist with elimination, including toileting and peri-care, and assist with routine ostomy care. (2) Comfort care and end-of-life care. Assist with promoting comfort and sleep, assist with end-oflife care, and assist with physical care of body after death. (3) Activities of daily living. Assist with bathing, oral care, denture care, grooming, shaving, nail care, and dressing and undressing. (4) Infection control practices. Assist with hand hygiene, standard and transmission-based precautions, cleaning and disinfection, utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). (5) Positioning, moving, and restorative care. Assist with ambulation or walking and occupied bedmaking. III. The position of THP shall not be considered a substitute for licensure as an LNA under RSA 326- B:14 but is intended to assist the work of LNAs. The THP shall not perform services independently and shall be supervised by licensed nurses at all times. 2 New Section; Office of Professional Licensure and Certification; Emergency Licensing Process. Amend RSA 310-A by inserting after section 1-g the following new section: 310-A:1-h Emergency Licensing Process. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the office of professional licensure and certification may issue emergency licenses to the following applicants: I. Any medical provider previously licensed in New Hampshire in the last 3 years whose license is no longer active, subject to the following: (a) The medical provider's license was in good standing prior to being placed in inactive or lapsed status. (b) Notwithstanding any law or rule to the contrary, a medical provider shall not be required to complete continuing education as a condition precedent to reactivating their license pursuant to this section. II. Any medical provider previously licensed to practice in another jurisdiction within the last 3 years whose license is no longer active, subject to the following: (a) The medical provider's license was in good standing in another United States jurisdiction prior to being placed in inactive or lapsed status; and (b) The medical provider presents evidence to the office of professional licensure and certification that the medical provider was licensed and in good standing immediately prior to the change in licensure status. (c) Notwithstanding any law or rule to the contrary, a medical provider shall not be required to complete continuing education as a condition precedent to receive an emergency license pursuant to this section. III. Any fellow enrolled in a New Hampshire program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to practice within the fellow's core specialty, subject to the following: (a) The fellow is American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or American Osteopathic Association (AOA) board-eligible or certified in the core specialty. (b) The fellow is appointed to the medical staff at a sponsoring institution and will engage in practice consistent with the policies and procedures of the sponsoring institution and its participating sites. (c) The time spent in core specialty service is limited to 20 percent of the fellow's annual education time in any academic year. (d) A fellow seeking to practice under this paragraph shall provide the office of professional licensure and certification with appropriate evidence that the required qualifications have been met. IV. Senior nursing students, who are scheduled to graduate within 5 months from the date of application, from a board of nursing approved registered nursing or practical nursing program, subject to the following: (a) The individual is employed by or providing health care services at the direction of, a licensed health care facility or a licensed health care provider. (b) The individual is directly supervised while providing health care services. (c) The health care services are being provided in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. V. Any provider seeking an emergency license under this section shall submit his or her request on a form adopted by the office of professional licensure and certification for such purpose. VI. In this section, an applicant in good standing shall include medical providers who are subject to nondisciplinary conditions, but shall not include medical providers whose licenses have been revoked, canceled, surrendered, suspended, denied, or subject to disciplinary restrictions. VII. Licenses issued pursuant to this section shall be on a temporary basis and shall expire on or before January 31, 2022. VIII. All individuals licensed under this section shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the state licensing body for that profession. IX. The office of professional licensure and certification may issue guidance relative to the emergency licensing process established in this section, which may include guidance concerning the appropriate supervision of nursing students. Any guidance shall be posted on the board's website. Amend the bill by replacing all after section 4 with the following: 5 New Section; Pharmacists and Pharmacies; Out-of-state Pharmacies as Temporary Limited Licensed Mail-Order Facilities. Amend RSA 318 by inserting after section 37 the following new section: 318:37-a Out-of-state Pharmacies as Temporary Limited Licensed Mail-Order Facilities. I. To protect public health and increase access to medical care in New Hampshire, and to promote and secure the safety and protection of the people of New Hampshire, any out-of-state pharmacy seeking to ship investigational drugs to clinical trial participants who reside in New Hampshire and who are unable to retrieve the investigational drugs from the out-of-state pharmacy due to the novel coronavirus shall be allowed to operate as if the out-of-state pharmacy were licensed as a mail-order pharmacy within the state of New Hampshire if the following conditions are met: (a) The out-of-state pharmacy is licensed and in good standing in another United States jurisdiction. (b) The medical services provided within New Hampshire are in-person or through appropriate forms of telehealth. (c) The out-of-state pharmacy presents to the office of professional licensure and certification evidence that they are licensed in good standing in another jurisdiction. Such out-of-state pharmacies shall be issued an emergency mail-order pharmacy license at no cost, which shall remain in effect until January 31, 2022. (d) Such out-of-state pharmacies shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the board of pharmacy while acting under an emergency mail-order pharmacy license. II. The office of professional licensure and certification, in consultation with the board of pharmacy, shall provide assistance and guidance, as necessary, to out-of-state pharmacies regarding the requirements of this section. 6 New Subdivision; Local Land Use Planning; Protection of Pre-existing, Non-conforming Use Status for Summer Camps. Amend RSA 674 by inserting after section 73 the following new subdivision: Protection of Pre-existing, Non-conforming Use Status for Summer Camps 674:74 Protection of Pre-existing, Non-conforming Use Status for Summer Camps. I. Notwithstanding any provision of law or municipal ordinance or regulation to the contrary, any summer camp that has been operating in the state of New Hampshire as a pre-existing, nonconforming use under its applicable zoning ordinance that either closed for the summer of 2020 and/or 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or was forced to operate for a shorter season or at a reduced capacity during the summer of 2020 and/or 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, shall not lose its status as a pre-existing, non-conforming use due to either: (a) Its failure to operate during the summer of 2020 and/or 2021; or (b) Its operation for a shorter season or at a reduced capacity during the summer of 2020 and/or 2021. II. The summer camp's status or ability to operate as a pre-existing, non-conforming use shall not be in any way affected by its failure to operate during the summer of 2020 and/or 2021, or its operation for a shorter season or at a reduced capacity during the summer of 2020 and/or 2021. 7 Liquor Licenses and Fees; Authorization for Other Areas; Expansion of Outdoor Dining. Amend RSA 178:24 to read as follows: 178:24 Authorization for Other Areas. A business holding a license authorizing the consumption of alcoholic beverages on its licensed premise may petition the commission for permission to extend service for beverages and liquor to any clearly defined area under the control of the licensee. In addition, a licensee may expand into a shared space, such as a sidewalk or street, with the approval of local officials. Petitions shall include written plans and diagrams that shall provide detailed information on the proposed extension of alcohol service. Petitions shall also conform to local zoning requirements and include the written approval of local officials. Businesses served by a waste disposal system, as defined by RSA 485-A:2, XI, shall obtain approval from the department of environmental services for any expansion under this section. Businesses that are on municipal sewer may expand seating as permitted by the municipality. The commission may approve plans submitted by licensees and may add such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate to preserve public health and safety. The commission may deny, in its discretion, any petition under this section which constitutes a risk to public health, safety, or welfare of any community. 8 Prospective Repeals. The following are repealed: I. RSA 310-A:1-h, relative to emergency licensing procedures. II. RSA 318:37-a, relative to out-of-state pharmacies temporarily licensed as mail-order facilities. 9 Effective Date. I. Paragraphs I and II of section 8 of this act shall take effect January 31, 2022. II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As always happens before a big bill, there is a lot of changes. In the last couple of days a number of changes were brought to my attention. I made every attempt to make some of those changes yesterday, but was 17 minutes late getting my amendment in to the Clerk's Office. We had floor amendment (1835h) that was prepared by Rep. Abramson and that is what I will be discussing. It was virtually the same as what I was going to propose. In this right to work bill, there were a number of items that people had concern with. The first of which it precluded union members from picketing or boycotting. Many felt that was against people's First Amendment right and that has been stricken. Second part had to do with getting approval or referring or clearance through a labor union. That has been found in other states to be unconstitutional so why would we put it through here just so someone could challenge it? That has been removed. The original bill that came over from the Senate allowed prosecution and fines up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail. Well, let's be honest when it comes to labor type laws, they are all civil. We don't put people in jail and if you thought about it, who would you put in jail in a situation like this? The entire company? A union steward? Who? It just seemed foolish. Lastly, it had to do with this bill becoming effective upon passage was the original bill from the Senate. I didn't feel that was appropriate just by putting rules in place and other things that need to be in place. It has now been changed to January 1 of 2022. That's the sum total of the changes in amendment (1835h). I would appreciate my colleagues voting in favor of this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Infantine floor amendment (1835h).

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Mister Speaker, may I have a division vote?

Speaker PackardI was waiting for that. A division has been called. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Merner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Troy Merner (R - Coos 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know you can't fix a bad bill with an amendment on right to work, would I not press the red button and vote against the amendment? Thank you.

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

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Mister Speaker, if I know I disagree and I think this makes a good bill better, I would ask you to vote green.

Speaker PackardThis is a division vote. This is on the Infantine floor amendment (1835h). If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 183 voting Yea, 190 voting Nay, the motion fails. We are back to the original bill as amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bouchard to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Donald Bouchard (D - Hills 24)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise in opposition to SB 61. I would like to point out that the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 provides for collective bargaining and a 1935 National Labor Relations Act also known as the Wagner Act requires businesses to bargain in good faith with any unions supported by the majority of their employees. As a former union member, a president of a local union as well as a union negotiator of several collective bargaining agreements, I find it unfair for non-union employees to reap the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement without contributing to the cost of the collective bargaining agreement while their fellow employees who belong to the union support that collective bargaining agreement with their union dues. The right to work bill will affect the workforce morale by putting workers who have contributed to the cost of the collective bargaining agreement against those that have reaped the benefits without contributing to the costs. The federal government already protects workers freedom not to join a union. Workers can decide to opt out of membership at a unionized workplace and pay a reduced fee in the form of an agency fee that covers the cost that the union pays to negotiate for raises, benefits and to represent employees if they have grievances at work. What right to work would really do is give some workers a free ride and tell union workers could opt out of paying any fees to a union even though unions would still be legally required to represent them. As a result, non-member employees would receive higher wages and benefits negotiated by a union without paying the cost for negotiating for these benefits. Those who have grievances at work would receive free representation by the union. By allowing some workers a free ride, right to work would hinder workers who want to come together in unions from getting enough power to negotiate on an even footing with employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions. If an employee is not supportive of the local union, he or she may start an employee-led desertification process that permits employees to petition the labor board for a desertification with signatures from at least 30% of union employees. Wages in right to work states are 3.1% lower than those in non-right to work states. This translates into right to work being associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time worker. The findings also show that where unions are strong compensation increases even for workers not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. As non-union employers face competitive pressure to match union standards. Likewise, when unions are weakened by right to work laws, all of the state's workers feel the impact. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the rate of fatalities in the workplace is 54% higher in states with right to work laws. Unions also pour a lot of resources into training workers to do their jobs safely. When unions are not able to provide this training, such as apprentice programs, workplace safety suffers. This trend can also be seen with low union density where fatality rates are about twice as high compared to states with high union density. In closing, I infer that the real purpose of the right to work bill is to tilt the balance towards businesses and further rig the system at the expense of our state's working families. Right to work will make it harder for working people to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. That is the purpose and the rational of the right to work movement which is to make everyone an at-will worker. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? Member does not yield.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Mister Speaker, is it possible that someone from the committee can get up and answer a question that I have?

Speaker PackardWell we have members on the, supporting the committee report that might answer questions for you.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)There's a member right here. Mister Speaker, there's a member here.

Speaker PackardWell we are moving on to the other member first that is speaking and we will work on it Al, but right now we are moving on to the next member on the list to speak. The Chair recognizes Rep. Baxter to speak in favor of the committee report.

Rep. Tim Baxter (R - Rock 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise today to support SB 61. Mister Speaker, right to work is one of the most important pieces of legislation we can pass this year for both economic and moral reasons. First, right to work states have experienced higher wage growth. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, personal income grew 50% faster in right to work states. Second, right to work states have experienced faster job growth, especially in the manufacturing industry. This will help grow our small businesses in New Hampshire and attract more young people to move to our state. The Republican party should be the party of the American worker so we should champion this policy which will lead to better wages and better jobs. Morally, no worker in the Granite State should ever be forced between keeping their job to put food on the table or violating their conscious by paying into a union which they morally disagree with. Unions spent over $250 million in the 2020 election for both conservative and liberal causes. No one should ever be forced to fund political speech that violates their deeply held views. Please empower worker freedom by supporting this right to work legislation. The people of this state desperately need right to work. Let's finally get the job done. Let's do it right now. Fellow Representatives, I urge you to stand with workers, not union bosses, by voting OTP on SB 61. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? Rep. Baldasaro you may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question on this legislation that is long overdue. My question basically is, do here in the State of New Hampshire, per the supreme court decision, do government employees and county employees are already right to work?

Rep. Tim Baxter (R - Rock 20)Thank you Representative. Because of the Janus Supreme Court decision, right to work already applies to government employees.

Rep. Mike Bordes (R - Belk 3)Having voted on the prevailing side on the previous vote on the floor amendment, I would like to move to reconsider.

Speaker PackardWhich floor amendment are we talking? The floor amendment or the majority amendment?

Rep. Mike Bordes (R - Belk 3)Yes, I did. I request a division vote as well.

Speaker PackardOkay. Can you publicly state your name please?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us. There is already a request for a division. The motion on the floor is to reconsider the vote on floor amendment (1835h). A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? No, it is not sufficiently seconded. This will be a division vote. Members take their seats. The motion before us is reconsideration on floor amendment (1835h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 178 voting Yea, 193 voting Nay, the motion for reconsideration fails. We are back to the original bill as amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Soucy to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Timothy Soucy (D - Merr 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As a retired firefighter for the City of Nashua serving 29 years, I'm a proud member of the National Firefighters Association Local 789, serving 9 years as their President, I rise today in opposition to SB 61 right to work legislation. SB 61 is government interference in private business relationships between employers and employees. The New Hampshire legislature has had a long history of not interfering with private business. So I ask why are we doing it now? Why are we interfering in private business? Supporters of right to work suggest that if New Hampshire were to become a right work state it would foster economic growth, however, during the House Labor Committee public hearing, not one person or organization provided any data that supports this theory nor did anyone present data that companies would be lined up at the border waiting to become a right to work state. SB 61 would establish 2 sets of rules for associations. By definition associations are a group of people organized for a joint purpose. These business associations represent many different businesses from different sectors of the business community. The members affiliated with these associations are charged dues. Affiliation with these associations is voluntary. Business or individuals that do not join the association are not represented by that association and rightfully so. Unions by definition are an association as well. It is voluntary to join a labor union. The difference is that if an individual does not join the union, by law, the union must still represent that individual. SB 61 would allow an individual to be represented without bearing any of the cost. This is just not fair. Union associations would be the only business associations forced to provide representation without compensation. In closing Mister Speaker, SB 61 will not bring businesses to New Hampshire, will not create any further freedom for employees or raise wages for our state workers. What it will do is bring government into private business where we have no reason to be. Private businesses make better decisions on their own and do not need government intrusion. I strongly urge this body to vote against SB 61 by pressing the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes Rep. Turcotte to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Len Turcotte (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good afternoon fellow representatives. I rise today in support of SB 61. Thirty-six years ago this March I was hired as a pilot at American Airlines. At the same time I joined and became a member of the Allied Pilots Association, an independent union that currently represents 14,500 pilots at American Airlines. I remain a pilot and member of that union today and if I continue to fly until mandatory retirement age, I should have a little over 5 years to go. When I joined the Allied Pilots Association it was what they called an open shop meeting. If you joined, you paid union dues. If you did not join, you did not pay union dues. Without coercion, intimidation or any kind of pressure, back then, almost 99% of the pilots voluntarily joined as I did. During these past 36 years, I've held many national union leadership positions and performed nearly 8 years of full-time union service. I've worked at APA as a negotiator, a contract specialist, one of 18 national board of directors, as the base chairman for 550 pilots at the Boston crew base. That's the equivalent of a local union president. I have represented pilots in termination hearings and the subsequent arbitrations. I've worked for months at a time with national mediators, testified in multiple contractual arbitration as an expert witness, sat on arbitration executive boards and negotiated or approved 2 major seniority integrations. In January of 1999, I was a negotiator and while my daughter celebrated her first birthday here in New Hampshire, I along with a dozen other pilots from our union leadership sat in a Dallas, Texas Federal Courtroom in a contempt of court hearing arising from what the judge would later determine was or he would later rule as an illegal job action. Our pilot union was fined $42 million. As a negotiator at the time and viewed by the judge as one of the union's leadership, I was held jointly and separately liable for that $42 million. At that time it was the biggest fine ever levied against a union in the United States. In May of 2001, I was elected as the Boston Chairman. Again that's the equivalent of a union local president. Just a few months later, on September 11, two of the pilots I represented were operating flight 11 to Los Angeles when it became the first plane intentionally flown by terrorists into the twin towers. You can only imagine the next six months to a year of what we dealt with. I relate the last two instances of my 8 years of union service to illustrate that one cannot and should not automatically assume and label a conservative Republican such as myself as being anti-union. In fact, in the first instance you can see I found myself potentially on the hook of a very, very large fine while in the service of my fellow union pilots. For over 36 years now I've paid between 1 and 1 �% of my pay to the Allied Pilots Association in the form of union dues voluntarily. Many of you are probably thinking hey, Len, why would anyone voluntarily give up that 1 �% pay annually? The answer for me is simple. It's about the value received from my union. Put another way, I have and continue to receive an adequate return on my investment. Now I know the return on investment has been good for several reasons. First the pay, benefits, work rules and quality of work life I received as a pilot are very good. Secondly, I have seen firsthand how my dues were utilized as most of my union work was accomplished at our union headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. Those who have paid with our dues work hard and those dues are used exclusively for the benefit of our 14,500 pilots. As an unaffiliated and independent union, the Allied Pilots Association is as frugal as we are here in New Hampshire. But now for the but. If I ever thought I was not getting a good value, that the money I was giving to the union each month in the form of dues was not giving me an adequate return on my investment, I or anyone else should have the freedom to exercise their individual choice and discontinue paying those union dues until such time as the union again is performing at an acceptable level. You will hear or have already heard that right to work is about union busting. It is not. I hope my brief time here at the mic in our temporary House Chamber has proven that. I stand before you as both a very conservative member of the Republican party and as a strong union leader and advocate as I hope some of these stories have kind of proven to you. Most union members simply pay their dues their entire careers. I've spent nearly a quarter of my time at American Airlines in the form of union leadership. For me it's simple. Right to work is about two things, value received and freedom of choice. In this New Hampshire House of Representatives, there is currently a member who once belonged to my union. The Representative from Kingston was a member of the Allied Pilots Association for his full career at American Airlines. During my last term, the representative who had served the Town of Wentworth was a member of my same union. All three of us supported the Allied Pilots Association for our entire careers and most importantly each of us support right to work. Right to work is not now nor has it ever been a Democrat verses Republican issue. It's about freedom of choice and value received. I would ask each of you to join me in supporting the committee report of Ought to Pass by pressing the green button and I do ask for a roll call vote. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to questions? The member does not yield. This is a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Yes, representative.

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. A division has been requested. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote on the tabling motion of SB 61. This is a roll call vote. Members take their seats. The question is the tabling motion on SB 61. This is 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 are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 168 voting Yea, 207 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. We are back to the original motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 61. We have finished debate. This is going to be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. State your point of order.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Is it a proper motion to make a motion to recess until tomorrow morning?

Speaker PackardNot while we are in the middle of a vote. The motion before us on SB 61 is the majority motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Merner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Troy Merner (R - Coos 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker if I know this bill is government intrusion between employee and employer agreements. And if I know the so-called right to work bill is personal to me as a 40 year member of the Iron Workers in a 3rd generation and I know our trade has the highest fatality rates in the business. And I also know in the right to work states, sadly, the rates are 49% higher for fatality rate and workers in those states are more reliant upon the government for support. And if I know the State of Missouri legislature passed right to work but in 2019 the year after Janus, by a 72% margin, they repealed it on a ballot question. And I further know the State of West Virginia Governor has come out strongly with a video in production on this bill to us stating that all the things that we are hearing, creating jobs, bringing in business, is a lie and is saying that right to work has hurt their state. And I also know Mister Speaker that the State of New Hampshire has the lowest unemployment in the United States right now of any state so wouldn't it make sense to push the red button and defeat this motion and keep New Hampshire on the track it is going? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Steven Smith for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Steven Smith (R - Sull 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker if I don't care about talking points. If I know that there are only 4 actionable planks in right to work bill so in terms of those, if I don't believe anybody should be fired or denied employment for choosing to join a union. If I don't believe anybody should be fired or denied employment for choosing not to join a union. If I don't want people to take money out of my paycheck without my permission and donate it to people that I didn't authorize, then would I press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 61. This is 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 are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 175 voting Yea, 199 voting Nay. The House will be in order. The motion fails. One at a time please. Rep. Osborne. Why does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. Intervening business has taken place.

Rep. Timothy Soucy (D - Merr 16)Mister Speaker is a motion of Indefinitely Postponement a higher priority?

Speaker PackardNo it's not. Motion to table it. Why does the member rise?

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Is a motion to recess until tomorrow morning a higher priority?

Speaker PackardWe have a pending question, Representative, right now.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)I'm asking if it is a higher priority, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardNo, it is not. The motion is in order. Rep. Osborne has moved to lay SB 61 on the table. A division has been called. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. This will be a division vote. Members will take their seats. The motion before us is to table SB 61. The Chair recognizes Rep. Osborne for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So if I saw the poll that came out of St. Anselm this week and I know that the overwhelming and vast majority of Granite Staters wanted and expected us to pass this bill today, would I at least, you know, refrain from rubbing salt in that wound by laying this bill on the table right now?

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

Rep. Troy Merner (R - Coos 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know during testimony and everything with this bill, we had over 30 New Hampshire companies sign up against this right to work bill with not 1 New Hampshire company in favor of this bill, would I now push the red button and oppose this motion?

Speaker PackardThis is a division vote on SB 61. The motion is to table. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 171 voting Yea, 204 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. Rep. Soucy is recognized for a motion.

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. The motion before us is Indefinite Postponement on SB 61. Are you ready for the question? Division has been requested. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is the move to Indefinitely Postpone on SB 61. This is 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 are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 196 voting Yea, 178 voting Nay, Indefinite Postponement on SB 61. State your motion.

Rep. Brian Sullivan (D - Sull 1)Having voted on the prevailing side, I make a motion to reconsider and ask everyone to vote no.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to reconsider SB 61 the motion to, to reconsider the Indefinite Postponement. A division has already been called. This will be a division vote. The motion is to reconsider the motion to Indefinitely Postpone. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 163 voting Yea, 201 voting Nay, the motion to reconsider fails.