The House, Thursday, June 24, 2021

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Mister Speaker I rise to oppose the Committee of Conference Report on HB 1. I miss the early days of my 25 years in the House. I knew that personal privacy would be respected. The Government stayed out of New Hampshire's bedrooms and left it to the individual to work out the decisions and bear the responsibility of matters best left to individuals and their families. We viewed ourselves as a Libertarian state. I am not a doctor but have never understood how a 424 person legislature could fit into a doctor's office and assert themselves between doctor and patient ordering medical procedures such as ultrasounds.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)I believe the representative is speaking now or may be speaking to HB 2 and not HB 1.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Mister Speaker. I thank the gentleman for that comment. In fact every single point that I will make has to do with what is or what is not in HB 1 and I beg your indulgence so I can continue at least for a while. Although I understand the member's concerns.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. Okay, I don't understand how a 424 person legislature could fit in a doctor's office and assert themselves between doctor and patient ordering medical procedures such as ultrasound without regard to medical necessity, patient safety or cost. I am not a prosecutor but cannot imagine holding pregnant women and their physicians criminally liable, criminally liable for acting in the best medical interest of the patient. My academic training is in public administration.

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend for a minute. What is your point of order?

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)My point of order is that there is nothing in HB 1 dealing with criminal penalties. She's speaking to HB 2.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)I quite agree with the speaker and you will now see the connection in my next paragraph.

Speaker PackardI will allow the member to continue. I would just caution her being a longtime member and friend that to try and keep on point.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)I respect that Mister Speaker, as I respect this body. My academic training is in public administration. I do know how to read a budget. There is, as we all know, nowhere in the budget where there are funds for performing abortions. Public funds are not used to perform abortions regardless of the reason for the procedure. No state or federal funds go to abortion. Patients must pay out of pocket or with private insurance. Provision of abortion is not in the budget. HB 2, the trailer bill, is supposed to include the language making it possible for HB 1 to work. Unfortunately HB 2 is overloaded with sections that have nothing to do with public budgeting. But what HB 1 does is underfund preventive healthcare like contraception and cancer screening. HB 1 reduces the family planning line from previous budgets and does not take into account the loss of federal funds due to the Title X gag rule. An effort was made to add $1.2 million to cover the loss of these funds, but that effort failed. It is possible that by the end of first year of the biennium, the Title X gag rule will end but until then there is a cut in these funds. Despite the claims that no funds are cut, there is a cut of $3.2 million for the entire family planning network. A network with a shared mission to provide quality, affordable services to all Granite Staters regardless of income or zip code, including rural areas which we know are underserved. For decades this program has helped provide low income people with basic prevented services like birth control and like cancer screenings. This program is a clear success. New Hampshire has some of the best maternal outcomes and lowest unintended pregnancy rates. This underfunding risk all of our good public health outcomes. Nowhere in the budget are there funds to pay for the unnecessary and potentially harmful ultrasounds required by HB 2 for anyone seeking an abortion. Nowhere do I see funds to audit the books of healthcare providers as required by HB 2 but if DHHS is unable to complete the audit, healthcare providers will lose all future state funding or be forced to suspend operations. How these issues ended up in HB 2 is beyond my understanding but if they are legitimately in HB 2, then they must be in HB 1. We should be paying for these mandatory and medically unnecessary tests that we require. We should be paying for unnecessary and inappropriate special audits. Mister Speaker, it is rare that a legislative day passes that I do not learn something new. Knowing that the policy has long been that leaders are expected to support committee decisions, in a recent session I asked why, when you had an opportunity to vote you did not support the committee. Mister Speaker, you stated quite eloquently that your vote was your own and you could vote any way that you chose, any way that you thought appropriate. Mister Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to follow your advice and to vote their own conscience. Thank you and with respect Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Hanover, Rep. Nordgren to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Sharon Nordgren (D - Graf 12)Good morning, everyone. One of the most obvious crises brought to the forefront in New Hampshire this last year and a half is the one of homelessness. The youth population and adults are trying now to recover their lives, stability and a safe home. In the first year of our current budget, the Health and Human Services Department overspent the homeless budget so the result in this fiscal year was that the department was unable to fully fund their current contracts. And, in fact, these contracts for homeless shelters pay only $8 per day/per person when the actual cost to the non-profit is $47 per day. SB 140 included $18 million for providing homeless shelter services. This spending included federal and state money. Often the Finance Committee tables a bill and then includes the requested funding in the budget we are preparing. The importance of this issue and the required funding was a top priority for the Health and Human Services Department. Unfortunately, they got nothing, nothing in the final budget we are voting on today. SB 140 was left on the Senate table. So where will these unfortunate members of our community go? Obviously, communities will step in wherever possible but that is a big task for some of our cities and towns. The Senate President was quoted as saying he is very proud of the budget they gave the Governor but this budget lacks what the citizens of New Hampshire want and need. Please vote against HB 1. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Query from Manchester to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Joshua Query (D - Hills 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise to oppose HB 1 because of the significant underfunding of the family planning program. This program provides care to patients all over our state, the North Country, the Seacoast and my home in Manchester. My story is about Planned Parenthood but the family planning program has multiple providers beyond those specific heath centers. I want to start with what the FPP covers. This program is about preventative sexual and reproductive health care. This program covers birth control, cancer screenings and STI testing and treatment. This program is about being proactive, breaking down barriers to access, ensuring coverage for Granite Staters who may have lower incomes, the uninsured or maybe underinsured. I want to share my story with all of you today because I know firsthand how important the care is that FPP covers to those 15,000 Granite Staters. I know how vital the care they provide for patients regardless of income and access. Last April, at the height of the pandemic, I was unknowingly exposed to the HIV virus. It wasn't until later in May that I had found out. I was underinsured, unemployed and at this point in the pandemic, we had no idea how much longer it would rage on. In the meantime though, so many health care providers were closed because of COVID-19. I knew I needed to see a doctor quickly. I had never been inside of a Planned Parenthood before but I knew they offered STI testing. I called the Manchester health center and they scheduled me for a telehealth appointment. Their assessment over the phone would determine whether I would need to visit the health center in person. In our conversation the provider confirmed that I needed to go in because I was at risk of being HIV positive. I went into the health care center to receive an instant HIV test which can tell you if you have been exposed to the HIV virus. I learned immediately that I had enough of the viral load in my bloodstream to indicate that I had been exposed. They sent full bloodwork to their labs for testing to see if I was HIV positive or to see if I had enough of the viral load in my system but was not yet positive. They immediately had me begin PEP or Post Exposure Prophylaxis. This is a series of pills that you start taking after you have been exposed to HIV which lowers your chances of getting it. PEP costs over $12,000 for a 30-day supply. Let me say that number again, $12,000. Being underinsured I did not have $12,000 to pay out of pocket for one month and truly I don't know how many people can possibly afford that. Planned Parenthood worked with me. They knew my financial situation. They knew that I would not be able to pay for this critical medication. My providers at Planned Parenthood were able to connect me with the drug manufacturer, provide them with the necessary documentation and work with the manufacturer on my behalf to make sure I qualified for the reduced cost. Because of them I was able to start PEP at no cost. I was on PEP for 90 days which would have cost me almost $40,000. For those 90 days I was tested monthly at Planned Parenthood. After my third and final HIV test to confirm that I was HIV negative and not a false negative, I then switched over to PREP, Pre-exposure Prophylaxis because I am at greater risk. This would help to prevent HIV in case of future exposure. The cost of my PREP medication without prescription insurance is about $3,000 for 30 days. Again, Planned Parenthood worked with me in a similar way and I was able to start PREP at no cost for the medication to myself until I was able to be fully insured at the start of 2021. I still go to the health center every 90 days to maintain that I am HIV negative and that the PREP is working and not having any side effects on my body. Throughout this entire process, with all of these visits to make sure that I remain healthy, the health centers charged me based on my income instead of a flat rate, which I might not have been able to afford when I was between jobs. If Planned Parenthood hadn't been able to help me with that first round of medication, I could say almost with certainty that I would be HIV positive today. Planned Parenthood saved my life. My story may feel unique, but I represent so many people in our state who have lost insurance coverage or are underinsured. I represent people who face astronomical medical costs who then need to decide if the debt or the disease is the harder battle to face. I represent people who rely on community health centers and Planned Parenthood and other providers who offer care based off of patients circumstances for preventative health care. HB 1 underfunds this vital program that again, covers care for 15,000 Granite Staters. We represent these 15,000 Granite Staters, all of us. In the last budget, after the Title X gag rule had been enacted, providers like Planned Parenthood were no longer part of the program. This legislative body with the body on the other side of the wall insured through a bipartisan vote that our state had an obligation to cover the loss of federal funds to make sure there was no disruption for patients needing preventative care. It is our obligation now to do the same as our federal leaders work diligently to restore that funding. We need to cover the 9 month gap that we know we face for the family planning program. We need to vote down HB 1 and work to restore funding for our family planning providers in every region of our state. This budget only offers right-wing ideology, property tax increases for families, more tax cuts for large and out of state businesses. Please press the red button and vote no on HB 1.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Auburn, Rep. Edwards to speak in favor of the Committee of Conference Report. Representative Edwards: Thank you, Mister Speaker. What a glorious day we have today. Thank you, dear Lord, for doing that for us. I would like to put aside my notes for a second and address the key point that the representative was just making relative to family planning funding. Before the prior budget, there was a just under $600,000 of state money that was going to our family planning programs. In our budget in the first year, we're allocating over $800,000. The family planning portion of the state's budget has gone up 10% every year for the past three years. We care about family planning. We want to make sure that STD's are under control, that women get the preventative health care they need so that they can stay viable and healthy and this budget does that. So I hope if there are reporters that listen to the last floor speech, that they check their facts because what this budget doesn't do, it doesn't continue to fill in for the federal government to directly appropriate money to abortion centers. Under our RSA we have artfully called them reproductive health facilities but it's an Orwell term to confuse people. Our RSA clearly points out that these are outpatient abortion centers that either perform or make available abortions. We are not filling in the gap for the Biden administration but we are increasing 10% a year the family planning so we can have healthy, viable families. So back to the prepared remarks. A DHH budget is not just a set of dollar amounts. It's the resourcing of programs intended to improve the quality of health, save lives and reduce suffering. When we approved the House version of the budget at the end of March, we worked through that with lower revenue projections than the Governor had used in his estimates. The Senate budget was done after us, under yet higher revenue estimates. The past few months are making it more clear the New Hampshire advantage is working. Our policies of low taxes, low regulation, respect for families and businesses are fueling an aggressive snap back to normalcy. Much of the nation is envious as they struggle with massive business closures and much higher unemployment. Civil arrests is palpable in many of the great cities of the nation while New Hampshire enjoys a stability and calm that makes for industrious, productive lives. Maintaining our positive economic environment is among the most significant things we can do to improve the health and wellbeing of the state. A free and prosperous people are a healthy and active people. Our budget benefits from the successful efforts of the people of the state. We owe it to them to be strong fiduciaries spending wisely and returning to them what we can. Since we passed HB 1 just a couple of months ago, I'll focus on the major changes that we made through the Senate Committee of Conference and just start out with the big picture first, although the Chairman of Finance will go over the whole of the budget. Our total budget is $13.5 billion to include federal monies. We, in our budget, reduced $172 million overall while DHHS had maintained some gains. In the current budget expiring next week, it is still true that the DHHS budget went up nearly 18% from two years ago, 18%. The House budget bent that unsustainable growth curve down by eliminating growth to essentially the rate of inflation. Over the past couple of years those investments have paid off. We should acknowledge that. Our waiting lists have been virtually eliminated. The Senate added to some worthwhile programs and kept their annual growth rate below 3.9%. Overall in the past two years and projecting the next two, we aggressively bent the cost curve down to under 6% per year. That's better than the 9% a year that you can find in the current budget. I hope we can work on bending that curve down more in the next budget cycle while maintaining our successes. The Governor's budget increased the headcount in the budget we are voting on to 3,224. Recognizing the reality of our workforce shortages, both the House and the Senate reduced that headcount ceiling to 3,000. In April DHHS had about 2,650 employees so they had 350 people that they could still hire to hit that 3,000 ceiling. Our budget allows the continued hiring for critical positions. A number of these unfilled positions have existed since at least 2018 and we hope the Commissioner, by requiring that those positions that have been that old and unfilled, that they be eliminated. However, we did take special pains to ensure that the child productive workers and essential contracting specialists are able to be hired. On the county cap reduction. This is kind of near and dear to me because I just came from our Rockingham County budget convention yesterday. What we did is the Governor had put $5 million toward the county cap and the committee increased that to about $24 million, which essentially turned it into 2% raise above what they've had in the past. As a result of that, Rockingham County says they can reduce the county portion of their property tax by 7%. So, that's a powerful way for the state to use the surpluses that we've been generating in a surprising way so that we can directly help the taxpayers of the state, the property taxpayers. The Senate and House are completely aligned with shutting down the Sununu Center as we know it. More juveniles will take advantage of the system of care, the community based coordinated system to stay closer to their families. We've invested a lot of money in the last budget and this budget we've continued that spending trend in the hope and theory that investing in community based residential and behavioral assets will be the smart play for society. It's going to become time for DHHS to deliver on the results that have come with the promises. We agreed with the Senate to add $3 million to fund community supports systems for the preventive or protective cases that will closed by DCYF. We agreed with the Senate to add over $600,000 for kinship programs to connect kids to grandparents and to locate absent parents. We agreed with the Senate to add $3 million for additional shelter facilities in an ongoing effort to deal with homelessness and abused individuals. We agreed with the Senate to add $3 million for additional home visiting services to keep people of need from using our emergency rooms more. We agreed with the Senate again to increase by 5% the payments to a broad range of long-term care supports for our elderly, to include choices for independence. Those are designed to keep grandma and grandpa in their homes longer. This is a good example of challenges brought on by our workforce shortages. Wages in these industries have suffered and they are not competitive so we bumped up the reimbursement levels by 5% so that they have the resources to obtain the people to provide the services. We agreed with the Senate to add over $400,000 for vaping and smoking cessation programs, a program I'm not convinced has the evidence to prove that it's a worthwhile investment but we did it. We've continued to invest in mobile crisis response teams costing around $6 million a year each in the hope and theory that they can help with what many refer to as a mental health crisis in the state. We want to continue to deal with the emergency room boarding problem, which has kept patients warehoused on gurneys without appropriate mental health care. It's my intent to have Division III do a review and analysis on the effectiveness of these teams and on the state of ER boarding next year while you all work so hard on fresh bills. I'll spare you the list of all of the changes. The takeaway is that the Governor's proposed budget was fully funded, not necessarily exactly the way it came to the House last February, but we met his requests for full funding and we took care of direct and indirect care programs to include the New Hampshire Hospital, Glencliff Home, the Veterans' Home, Medicaid services, behavioral health, long-term supports and services, developmental services, economic and housing stability, public health and yes, family planning got paid or is getting an additional 10% on a 3 year trajectory. We also did the accounting for DHHS revised estimates which often brought their cost projections down. The net of all of that was an increase of less than $4 million in general funds, which also brought in nearly $29 million in additional federal funds. So, in conclusion, this is a responsible, respectful budget. It's one that respects the taxpayer's expectations of value and it respects the needs of our community. I ask you to vote in favor of HB 1. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 4)I don't. There are so many speakers on this. We are overwhelmed on the other side by speakers. I'm sure they'll say something that will answer the question.

Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D - Hills 11)The representative stated untrue facts as to the emergency vehicles being in operation. They were never actually put into operation.

Speaker PackardI'm not sure that. I believe that was a statement, not a question. The Chair recognizes the member from Conway, Rep. Buco, to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Thomas Buco (D - Carr 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, the State of New Hampshire administers a financial aid program which appropriates grant funding to municipalities for water pollution control projects. These grants are intended as incentives to help municipalities comply with state water pollution control mandates. When the state makes a commitment to a municipality and the municipality incurs debt and builds expensive water pollution control projects. However, when the state reneges on its commitment, then the local property taxpayer must make up the difference in debt payments. So even though the Senate restored the funds that the House has suspended, there are still 132 projects in 57 different political subdivisions which are not funded in this budget. Even though these projects may get funded by federal funds in the future, local property taxpayers need that promised assistance now. Most representatives have one or more of these projects in their district and will have to explain to their taxpayers why this budget does not keep the state commitment to help finance their local water pollution control projects. Please vote against HB 1. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Heath, to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Mary Heath (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in opposition to the conference committees version of the budget. A quarter of all New Hampshire communities will receive less in state education aid in each of the two fiscal years than they do presently. Most of those communities have property values well below the state average. Members of the House should reject the proposed 2022-2023 budget for it would leave New Hampshire's school funding system even less equitable than it is already and would force cities and towns with the least capacity to shoulder an even heavier burden in educating the children of our state. Sadly this budget allows fiscal capacity disparity aid to expire at the close of FY21 ending a form of aid that allocated more than $40 million to property poor communities in this state. Under the provisions of the conference agreement, in FY22-23 budget, adequacy grants in FY22 would fall to $985.5 million, a FY22 decline of $26.7 million. One hundred and five cities and towns, or nearly half of all communities, would lose some aid relative to FY21. Nine municipalities, including Berlin, Derry, Manchester and Rochester would suffer declines of more than $1 million. In FY23, total education grants are projected to the amount of $963.3 million. That figure is $48.9 million less than the FY2021 total with 170 communities seeing a drop from FY22. In all, 59 cities and towns, or one out of every four, would receive less in state education aid in both 22 and 23. The majority of municipalities suffering drops in both years have the lowest property values in the state, in fact, 51 of the 59 communities suffering two years of lower education aid have property values that placed them in the lowest quarter of all our municipalities. In conclusion Mister Speaker, rather than moving New Hampshire closer to creating a funding system that ensures every school has the resources it needs to provide an excellent education, the proposed 2023 budget would leave many students and communities further behind. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Speaker Packard: The Chair recognizes the member from Newcastle, Rep. Kate Murray to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Kate Murray (D - Rock 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. With a background in music and theology, I never expected to be talking about taxes. But I'm not here to talk for myself, but for my constituents and for them the critical issue is their tax burden and the property taxes in particular. I am here to speak for them. I oppose this budget on behalf of my constituents because the one thing my constituents want me to do is protect them from increases in property taxes and the one thing this budget is most assuredly going to do is raise property taxes. Economics aside, this budget demonstrates a basic concept in physics. When you take something off one side of the balance scale, the scale is now unbalanced. When one side goes up, the other side goes down. You need to add something to the other side to rebalance the scale or in this case to rebalance the budget. This may be a property of physics, but it ain't rocket science. The supporters of this budget will tell you how they reduced taxes, but they neglect to add that these reduced taxes are business taxes assessed at the state level and when you lower taxes at the state level, local property taxes will have to increase to make up that difference. When less money comes in at the state level, more money needs to be raised at the local level by our own towns and municipalities by our constituents in the form of property tax increases. Our constituents are very unhappy about this because they know they will have to be picking up the difference between what the state cuts and what they need in order to operate in their communities. One may suggest some of these cuts will help instate business owners, however many instate business owners also own and pay property taxes. These business owners will notice right quick that the difference between what they may save in lower business taxes will not come close to what they will end up paying in property taxes. In addition, I oppose this budget because there are other areas that will also result in higher taxes for my constituents. Twenty-two million has been cut from Health and Human Services and consequently services will have to be cut. When babies shut their eyes, they think you have disappeared. As they grow and learn they realize this is not the case. They might not see you but you are still there. In the same way cutting services does not make the need for those services go away. The needs are still there and needs must be met. Much of this will have to be made up by the county. It is not the New Hampshire way for the legislators to cause suffering for constituents by increasing their tax burden. Thirty-seven million in education funding targeted for students in property poor areas has been cut. The needs for those students still exist. The burden for providing an adequate education to those students will fall on local shoulders. One hundred million will be funneled through to our wealthier communities at the expense of poor communities through a one-time manipulation of SWEPT and vouchers will drain money from the public school system. Initially $3 million has been set aside for this program but there is no cap on the amount that can be spent and some estimates put that cost upwards of $17 million. That money will no longer be available for public education. Filling that deficit will fall on Granite State taxpayers. No new water projects will be accepted even though the need for these projects has not gone away and may well increase. It does not take much to realize that this burden will also be borne on the shoulders of Granite Staters. There are colleagues who hang their hats on lowering business taxes but I hang my hat on keeping property taxes as low as possible. This is what my constituents want me to do. Mark Twain said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Pause and reflect indeed. In the modern vernacular that translates to think about it. Think about what we are doing. I think about what my constituents want. They want me to hold the line against anything that will increase their tax burden therefore I must oppose this budget which is designed to deliver an increase to property taxes. I ask everyone here to pause and reflect as to who you represent and what they want and what the consequences of this budget will be to the people you are here to represent. In this case that translates to tax increases for families, tax cuts for out of state businesses. Please do not support this budget. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThis will be the final speaker and I have a sense that we will have a roll call so if members will kind of start moving to their seats, we can move this along pretty quickly. The Chair recognizes the member from Kingston, Rep. Weyler, to speak for the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to defend HB 1. In six days it will be June 30. The budget we are working under since July 1, 2019, will expire. If our state government is to continue to function then we must pass HB 1. This is the appropriating authority for state spending for the next two years. The House Finance Committee began working on this in mid-February. We passed it in the House in March and sent it to the Senate. They made changes and we worked out some compromises during the Committee of Conference. We believe that we preserved the most important points. The draft that we received from the Governor assumed $70 million more than the revenue estimates delivered by the Committee on Ways and Means and voted in by this body. So we delivered a balanced budget based upon those lower numbers. Subsequently new revenue increases became available for the Senate to add. In one case they moved a $30 million fund off budget to ensure rooms and meals tax distribution to the municipalities would not face future cuts. This allowed the resulting budget to be smaller than we proposed, even when adding money back to programs we were unable to fully fund. This budget is smaller than the present budget but still puts funding where it is needed. The Governor has removed the training in the prison to help inmates achieve a high school diploma. We restored that. We have more funds to distribute to municipalities and I believe it is more than the present budget for the water treatment programs. A reorganization in the OSI, the PUC and the energy department simplified those operations and saved money. We increased scholarship dollars. We enabled more online licensing. We increased highway funding to make up for the losses incurred by hybrid vehicles and overall increases in miles per gallon in most newer cars. We listened to the schools that were worried about the effects of the pandemic on their adequacy payments. This is a reflection of a 10-year decline in enrollments and as those enrollments are declining there is a steady reduction in adequacy payments, but as a compromise, we agreed to go back since so many children were not in school during the pandemic or were removed, we agreed to go back to earlier years to assess the ADMA which helps the local schools even though in the fact they have fewer students than they had in the years that we are going to use as a reference. I don't see that we are giving less money than they would have gotten anyway under the decline in students. We fund the education savings account to help low income parents to achieve improvements for their children. You already heard a lot about health and human services and we heard some misrepresentations there. We've accepted some new federal funds under the American Recovery Act. Those millions could be delayed if we do not pass this bill. Most importantly, good revenue projections have allowed tax cuts, business taxes, meals and rooms taxes and phase out the interest and dividends tax. I believe we are going to have lower property taxes. We heard already that money we are giving the counties has a knock on effect that the property taxes that the counties charge will now be less than they would have been. We've got meals and room tax guaranteed and it's going up from what it's been previously. That's got to help reduce property taxes. Our standing as a great state for business and a low cost for our citizens has improved over past years. We are indeed proud to present this budget and ask for your support. I think you will be proud of it. The rainy day fund is going to be at the highest level it has ever been. Please vote green. This is an important budget. Thank you. I will take no questions.

Speaker PackardRep. Steven Smith requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? For what purpose does the member rise?

Rep. Jacqueline Cali-Pitts (D - Rock 30)My inquiry is that I always understood and I want a clarification. I would like a clarification that if we had HB 1, that HB 1 without 2 or HB 2 without 1 was not an option. That you had to have both and I understood that for maybe 20 years and I don't understand why we are waiting on 1 without discussing 2 because, again, I always thought they were like I'm wearing a wedding hat so I'll make that love and marriage. You can't have one, you can't have none without the other. Could you explain to me how this works, 1 and 2?

Speaker PackardHB 2 will come in after this. It's 2 separate pieces of legislation so we are going to be voting on HB 1 then we will take up debate on HB 2 and we will vote on HB 2.

Rep. Jacqueline Cali-Pitts (D - Rock 30)May I ask for further clarification? Are there things in HB 2 that depend on HB 1 and vice versa?

Rep. Jacqueline Cali-Pitts (D - Rock 30)So if you don't have both, then you really don't have two full bills? I don't understand.

Speaker PackardI'm not sure how to answer that completely, but this is the way we've done the budget for the last 30 years that I have been here and I think before that. You take up 1 and then you take up 2. If 1 fails then that affects the other one but until we take up 2, we don't know what the answer to that is.

Speaker PackardThank you. The roll call was sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. Members will be in their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Leishman for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Peter Leishman (D - Hills 24)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I'm concerned with a number of the proposed cuts in programs, services, and municipal revenue sharing. And Mister. Speaker, if I know that both Republicans and Democrats agree that property tax relief is paramount and yet this budget reduces aid to the communities we represent from the last state budget, and instead adds $44 million to the rainy day fund which will bring the rainy day fund balance to nearly $160 million. And if I further believe that instead of using the New Hampshire taxpayers dollars to fill the rainy day coffers, that we should be funding such programs like Medicaid Dental Plan or cancer screening, homeless shelter services and increasing revenue sharing to our municipalities. And finally Mister Speaker, if I know we can and should do better, wouldn't I vote no and press the red button? Thanks, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 4)Thank you kindly, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 1 is a fiscally responsible and balanced state budget that contains carefully considered appropriations based on realistic and conservative revenue estimates and will allow our state to take care of those most in need while also enabling a strong economy and promoting job growth. And if I know this budget spends 3% less and cuts roughly $172.5 million from the previous excessive spending plan of the last biennium. And lastly, Mister Speaker, if I do know in fact that this budget builds our rainy day fund to $158.6 million, the highest it has ever been in state history, would I now press the green button for the win to support this superlative example of how our state government should be managing our taxpayer dollars?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. This will be a roll call vote on HB 1. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. The House will be in order. 208 voting Yea, 172 voting Nay, HB 1 passes.

Rep. Mary Beth Walz (D - Merr 23)Thank you again, Mister Speaker. It is said that your choices reveal your priorities and the choices in HB 2 set forth the priorities of the majority. HB 2 is more than about cutting taxes and spending. It is about the kind of future we want for our state and its citizens. Unfortunately HB 2 is Robin Hood in reverse where the state is giving enormous tax cuts to rich citizens and wealthy out of state corporations while ignoring our neediest and down shifting to property taxpayers. Who benefits? First of all, rich investors. The budget includes $10 million of taxpayer money, yours and mine hard earned dollars to reimburse the reckless investors who caught up in the Financial Resources Management Ponzi scheme. Those investors failed to do their own due diligence before investing millions of dollars in a get rich quick scheme. Now after losing every court case they blame the state for their losses and expect the state to reimburse them. Nowhere in this country have taxpayer dollars been used to reimburse Ponzi scheme investors. This misuse of our tax dollars would be the first public payoff to Ponzi investors anywhere in the country, but there is more. A windfall for a small group of rich investors. Within HB 2 is the elimination of the interest and dividends tax. Nine out of every ten dollars of this tax reduction will flow to the top 20% of earners and half, half the benefit will go to just 209 taxpayers. That's right, half the benefit to just 209 taxpayers, the top 1% of income earners. If the majority want to benefit small investors, they could have simply raised the threshold at which the taxes owed. What a gift this is to the wealthy. More good fortune is had for large corporations. The reduction in the business profits tax flows to a small group of mostly out of state corporations. A mere 5% of the companies pay 95% of the business profit tax and just 76 companies, that's right 76 companies alone pay half of the business profits tax. The majority would have you believe that business tax cuts are how we grow our small and state businesses. The reality is that small businesses are not the real beneficiaries and this tax cut is not going to make or break any business. This reduction in our main source of revenue is nothing more than a giveaway to out of state corporations, large donors and a talking point for Republicans in the next election. Meanwhile the priorities in this budget ignore the basic needs of thousands of our citizens. The $5 million a year being spent to reimburse reckless investors from the Ponzi scheme could be used to provide dental care to Medicaid recipients. Money could have been sent to cities and towns to lower property tax, to invest in infrastructure, to alleviate homelessness or to address so many other unmet needs. Despite cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and finishing this year with $158 million in the rainy day fund, the majority stated they just don't have the money. They are cutting this much and the rainy day fund and they couldn't find $5 million for Medicaid dental benefits? Not believable. Priorities. HB 2 is about priorities. It prioritizes 209 large investors. It prioritizes 76 large corporations, mostly out of state. It prioritizes large political donors. It prioritizes Republican talking points. All while playing reverse Robin Hood with our tax dollars. These are not the priorities or the future the minority would chose for our state. Please join me in pressing the red button and voting no on HB 2.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Rep. Espitia, to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Manny Espitia (D - Hills 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues I rise before you to speak on HB 2, specifically the language around section 354-A:29-34 and that language states that people of age, sex, gender, identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently, that sorry. We will not talk about this. That they are inherently superior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, so forth and so on. Mister Speaker I would like to believe that we live in a color blind society here. I would like to believe that we live in a society where we are all equal but the founding of this country would prove otherwise. When we look at our constitution where it immediately points to a 3/5ths compromise that specifically states that slaves, that Africans were going to be considered less than one human. We look at the stories of so many of whom are incarcerated and the rates at which there are disparities there for race. We look at health insurance signups and who is enrolled in health insurance and the disparities between black Americans and white Americans are just there. Mister Speaker I would love a lot of these issues, and colleagues, to be addressed. I'd love to make sure that we could reach an equal point but if we don't talk about it, if we don't actually have that conversation and we don't work on it, we will never be able to do that. So please, I urge you, this language should not be in the budget. This budget should be one that helps working class people and I don't believe that this is that budget so please, I urge you to vote against HB 2. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Harriott-Gathright, to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 36)Thank you. I am speaking specifically, as well, against 544 piece of legislation. A nationwide attempt to censure discussions of race in the classroom is underway. These bills don't just set back progress in addressing systemic issues, they also rob young people of an inclusive education and blatantly suppress speech about race. This bans teaching divisive concepts in K-12 public schools, public colleges and universities. The bill targets efforts to provide education about gender and race discrimination. Critical Race Theory, an academic concept and practice that recognizes systemic racism is deeply ingrained in American society and examines how our systems promote inequality. This bill attempts to bar educators from teaching Critical Race Theory and related concepts like white privilege and racial equity in schools. This bill doesn't just set back progress in addressing systemic issues, they also rob our young people. This bill targets government contractors and agencies inspired by an executive order. Divisive concepts are not harmful ideologies as people say they are. In fact, the concepts used to educate individuals on systemic barriers and discrimination of people of color and other marginalized groups still face in this country across our institutions. Imagine being a middle school history teacher and not be allowed to use concepts or terms like systemic racism, to teach about slavery or being a college student in a political theory course and not be able to raise questions about white privilege. This is exactly what is happening across the country and in New Hampshire as well. It is well known across the country, fully acknowledged, the realities of systemic racism. It is still alive and well and the need to dismantle oppressive systems and pursue change is more important than ever. But rather than engage in these conversations taking place across the country, some folks seek to silence individuals, educators and young people and impose an alternate version of American history, one that erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experience of black or brown people, women, girls, LBGTQ+ individuals. Our country needs to acknowledge, New Hampshire needs to acknowledge it's history of systemic racism and reckon with present day impacts of racial discrimination. This includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. This law to prevent talk about racism is detrimental to free speech, a right many claim to hold dear. The First Amendment protects the right to share ideas, including the right of listeners to receive information and knowledge. With respect to contractors and grantors, the government cannot prohibit private entities from conducting anti-racism trainings just because they accept some public funding. I conclude with remember all young people, especially students of color, deserve an inclusive education and the right to express themselves around issues such as race. These anti-critical race theory bills rob young people of an inclusive education and suppress speech about race and now it's up to you to end these harmful bills. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Keene, Rep. Toll, to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.

Rep. Amanda Toll (D - Ches 15)Good afternoon. I'm here today to speak in opposition to HB 2. I'm going to be focusing on HB 2's attacks on reproductive rights which are an afront to Granite Staters who value freedom, gender justice, the sanctity of the patient-provider relationship, health care access and our civil liberties. HB 2 is the most regressive budget that New Hampshire has ever seen when it comes to reproductive health and rights. It includes mandatory medically unnecessary and intrusive ultrasounds and a cruel abortion ban that criminalizes doctors and includes virtually zero exceptions. It also drastically underfunds family planning providers. As a teenager I had an unplanned pregnancy and needed an abortion. Having an abortion allowed me to go to college, then to graduate school to receive a master's in education. I've been able to own a small business, teach yoga and become a state representative advocating for public policy grounded in compassion and justice. It allowed me to have, when I was ready, a child who is now 6 and the love of my life. I'm leading the life I want to be leading and I firmly believe none of these things could have happened if I was unable to have an abortion. Having an abortion literally saved my life. Maybe not my physical life, but the quality of my life. I know firsthand that no one, especially politicians in Concord should interfere with this intensely personal decision between a pregnant person and their doctor, but that's exactly what this budget is trying to do; prevent pregnant people from getting the reproductive health care they need. This is an anti-choice budget that will ban abortion at 24 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. Even with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances, this abortion ban would not be acceptable. Imagine an expectant parent finding out that their fetus has an anomaly that will make any life outside the womb short, painful and traumatizing. If this budget passes, politicians in Concord will be telling these parents there is no choice available to spare them pain and trauma. Rather than being able to make an informed decision with the health care provider, parents who find out about these anomalies who may already be facing the worst pain and agony of their lives, will be forced by the state to carry pregnancies to term regardless of their wishes. We are telling people they don't know what's right for their families and we are telling health care providers if they serve their patient's needs, they can go to jail for up to 7 years. Imagine a rape victim finding out they are pregnant and then finding out in order to terminate the unwanted and nonconsensual pregnancy, they will be forced to undergo an ultrasound. There is no exception to the invasive ultrasound requirement. Why are we creating public policy that will retraumatize the already victimized? As legislators we should be aiming to do the exact opposite. I ask my colleagues to have compassion when they hear stories like mine and to trust pregnant people and their health care providers. Where in these attacks on reproductive rights is the empathy for pregnant people? As someone who has walked this path, I am calling on you to reject this budget and to trust pregnant people and their doctors to make the best decisions possible for themselves and their families. Our goal a public servants must be to support Granite Staters and to expand access to health care, not to limit it. It's so easy to demonize folks we don't know to not be able to imagine what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes. I hope my story and the many stories that were shared in the lead up to today in response to this attack on reproductive rights will help humanize this issue. This budget offers no empathy for New Hampshire families and instead offers right-wing ideology, property tax increases and more tax cuts for large out of state businesses. I call on you to reject the dangerous and regressive values that HB 2 represents.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Rep. Mangipudi, to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Namaste. Mister Speaker, I rise in opposition to HB 2, in particular of the language that prohibits teaching and learning about history of this great democracy. This issue labeled as divisive concepts in HB 2 has concern with the history of racism in America are plain history, true history and if we are honest, we can agree it was painful, harmful and worthy of examination. HB 2 divisive concepts language takes attention away from what is true. The refusal of truth is insidious because it denies the reality we see with our own eyes and experience ourselves. Living in denial of our past make us doomed to repeat it in our future. I am speaking from my personal experience for who I am, how I look and where I came from. We are where we are today because of the policy decisions we made in our past. HB 2 makes willful ignorance of public policy that is unconceivable. These regressive policies of exclusion go totally against all that America holds promise to be, especially right here in the "Live Free or Die" state.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 40)Are we discussing the language in HB 2 or are we discussing the language in HB 544 because it sounds like we are talking about a bill that was laid on the table.

Speaker PackardWell the language, Representative, is, part of that language is in HB 2 so I'm trying to give everybody a little bit of latitude here.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 40)Nowhere in HB 2 does it mention divisive concepts and that would be my point of order. Thank you.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Should HB 2 pass, there are some examples of so-called divisive concepts that will no longer be addressed in training for our state workers or in New Hampshire classrooms. In 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted and women could finally take up their own line of credit without the permission of their husband or father as a co-signer. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act also provided recourse for people who had experienced lender discrimination based on race, sex, age, nationality and marital status. Example is standing proof right here. Until passage of Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978 employers could and commonly did fire women for being pregnant. The sexism built into the employment laws of country up until advantaged advocated forced change held 50% of the potential American workforce back from career advancement. Sexual harassment in the workplace was and, in many places, still commonplace. The American courts finally recognizes it in a 1977 ruling, but it was not fully defined until 1980 by the Equal Employment Opportunity. Had the suffragettes of 19th century not created a movement that battled the divisive concept of women voting, you and I would not be part of this debate. Even the historic 100 year battle to achieve passage of the 19th Amendment had flaws. Black women were largely excluded from movement subject to the Jim Crow voting laws that remained in place until the Voting Acts of 1965 was passed. The divisiveness of federal citizenship laws barred Native American women and Asian women like me from voting. Native American women gained their voting rights in 1924 and Asian American women would have to wait another 30 years for theirs. These are examples of the struggles through the history of women's fight to gain the vote or the intersectional history of sexism and racism. The conflicts are often divisive and getting on the right side of history is difficult but we should never shy away from our truth, even when it is hard to face. These four brief examples are pieces of our American history. We cannot ignore and dismiss. HB 2 would just do that. If this HB 2 passes.

Rep. Patrick Abrami (R - Rock 12)Point of order, Mister Speaker. I read that whole section yesterday and none of what she is saying is true. All of what you say can be taught under this bill.

Speaker PackardI'm not going to get into the debate. I take your point of order.

Rep. Latha Mangipudi (D - Hills 11)Mister Speaker, if I know I would not be able to serve and be a productive contributing citizen of this wonderful state, Live Free or Die in this beautiful country as a beacon of democracy if HB 2 passes. Please join me in rejecting this regressive policy by voting red. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Deerfield, Rep. Spillane, to speak for the committee report.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, we stand at a historic moment in New Hampshire with this budget. This budget reflects the culmination of years of hard work and it finally achieves some long overdue goals that we as a body have tried to push forward time after time and in some cases more than 25 years. This budget is constitutional. It is balanced. It cuts taxes and raises no taxes and fees. It continues our reduction of the BPT and BET that we owe to our businesses in New Hampshire. It phases out the interest and dividends tax that has continually put an asterisk next to New Hampshire's note income tax status and we will truly become a no income tax state. Our retirees who draw money from their 401K's pay an income tax and we failed to acknowledge it. We will finally rectify that. We are going to be providing property tax relief to local communities with this bill. This bill is pro-life. We have tried for over 25 years to pass some sort of reform on late term abortions and we will finally achieve that with HB 2. This bill is pro-education choice. Again, a battle we have been trying to win for years and it's almost law. This bill raises the filing thresholds for small companies from $50,000 to $92,000 in gross business income for the business profits tax which cuts red tape and avoid unnecessary tax filings for those businesses. Over 6,000 taxpayers with zero tax liability are no longer required to file a return. The threshold for the taxes is now indexed to inflation to avoid bracket creep. This bill, HB 2 gives us the ability to audit any health care provider for reproductive services and if the organization has comingled their tax dollars with funds used to support abortions, the organization must cease operations immediately. There is more small business support via funding for a small business development center which has been requested by our small businesses around the state. We allow food stamp holders to purchase fresh veggies and fruits at farmer's markets which was not allowed previously. It's going to significantly lower the cost of running our nursing homes in the counties which is going to save the property taxpayers even more money. We are going to be increasing the state aid nearly $100 million over the biennium to the education funding formula. It's going to correct the education funding formula to ensure that schools are not hurt by the COVID enrollment drop providing $67 million in additional aid. It's providing an additional $17.5 million in each year for free and reduced student meal populations. These are all things that I think that probably are nonpartisan. We are going to be giving an additional $30 million in school construction aid. This is the first time additional money has been available since the early 2000's. We are going to provide charter school funding and we are going to fully fund the aid to the public charter schools based on their enrollment estimates totaling approximately $47 million in fiscal year 2022 and $49.5 million in fiscal year 2023. Mister Speaker, HB 2 is long overdue. It is something that is going to be historic in its passage in the way that we can run this state and achieve goals that we have been trying to achieve for so many years. We are going to be returning education property tax of about $100 million directly which will result in a lower property tax for everybody. Nothing comes forward as relevant enough for these gains to be negated by a vote of no on HB 2. I would hope that and urge all of you to join me in voting green on HB 2. Thank you very much. (Representative Rice in the Chair)

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Pembroke, Rep. Schuett.

Rep. Dianne Schuett (D - Merr 12)Madam Speaker, there are many things in HB 2 that I do not feel belong in a budget bill, but I rise to speak out particularly against sections 37 through 39. This is personal to me. Our 2 teenage daughters sat with her as she was dying. They cooled her face, held her hands, wiped the foam from her mouth and prayed with her. She died having a baby that her health would not support. She was 34 and she was my grandmother. She was proud to officially be California's youngest grandmother at the age of 31 when I was born. Sadly, she did not live to see any of her five other grandchildren or her greatgrandchildren. My two aunts were the teenagers who held her hands as she died. I cannot say if she would have chosen the option of abortion, but it doesn't matter. The year was 1945 and she had no choice. I was relieved when this country finally recognized that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, their own lives and I will stand against anything that in the slightest way takes us back to that benighted time in our history. Far from being the good old days, for many women they were a time of darkness. This section of the budget threatens to do that and not only that, it would charge any provider with a felony and a penalty up to $100,000. Therefore, since my legislature has chosen to put this issue into HB 2, I cannot support it.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognized the member from Concord, Rep. Wazir.

Rep. Safiya Wazir (D - Merr 17)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak in opposition to the HB 544, the measures that have become part of HB 2, known as the divisive concepts legislation. I bring a special perspective to this issue having been born in a county where basic freedoms were denied. In this place, an open exchange of ideas were not always possible. In other countries, also squash and condemn this free exchange of ideas. The kind of exchange we are having right now. As an American, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights provides a beautiful structure for rights and freedom. The liberty and a life we live that we are enjoying right at the moment. This includes basic rights in the US that are not so basic elsewhere. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and much more. Those are part of what makes the United States a beautiful county and instead of going forward, this legislation takes us backward, making us like more vulnerable countries that suffer from human rights crisis. We call ourselves the greatest country and we should allow discussion and the fullness of learning opportunities. The HB 544 measures undermine what makes American a place of freedom. It limits what can be said on important topics such as racism, sexism and more. It goes against the very core of education to limit the discussion of those divisive concepts, not just how they affect people in the past, but taking a look at current events that are so relevant to the younger generation in our country. Furthermore, this budget only offers right-wing ideology, property tax increases for families and more tax caps for wealthy investors and large out of state businesses. For so many reasons I kindly ask for you to press the red button and say no to HB 2. Thank you.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Milford, Rep. Perez.

Rep. Maria Perez (I - Hills 43)Thank you, Chair, and thank you members for listening to my personal story. I'm an immigrant from El Salvador. I'm a survivor of sexual assault. It is my honor to serve as a State Representative from Milford, New Hampshire, but I can never forget where I came from. Some of the language in HB 2, it will try to erase the story of my family, the story of many families who immigrate to this country. We feel like we are part of this country. We feel like we are part of the history and trying to take away that from not just my family, for all the rest of the families, is not the right thing to do. As a survivor of sexual assault that happened from a member of my own family, I will ask you to please, please continue supporting abortion for victims like myself. The only reason I immigrated to this country is because I didn't' want to be pregnant from someone from my own family. It was hard for me to be here not knowing the language, not knowing the culture, learning everything from the beginning. But to be honest, I am so grateful of everything this country has given me and the opportunity to give a better life to my family. Like I was talking to some of the members from the Republican side. I'm not here to attack anybody. We are humans. We are humans and we try. We may not agree with everything, but we can try to understand each other and we always keep the respect for all members of our community. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak against HB 2.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Stratham, Rep. Altschiller.

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my remarks are centered on one part of the HB 2 Committee of Conference Report. Part 36, specifically page 14, lines 1 through 17 entitled Reproductive Health Facilities. It contains 4 parts. This section introduces a new and undefined entity a family planning project and then further goes on to say any contract awarded to a family planning project shall contain 4 provisions. The first is that no state funds shall be used to subsidize abortions either directly or indirectly and I'm going to stop right there to clarify that there are no state funds being used to subsidize abortions neither directly nor indirectly, none. This is not happening. This fact was confirmed by the Senator from Wolfeboro during the Committee of Conference. In fact, supporters of this measure, had said in the Committee of Conference, we know this isn't happening in New Hampshire and some used the phrase on more than one occasion, this is not a problem in New Hampshire. We have no evidence of it. But still, as far as we are concerned, when it comes to New Hampshire health care clinics, we want to trust but verify. Really? Trust but verify? That's a translation of a Russian phrase used very famously in 1987 by our 40th President during the Cold War used when negotiating with a demonstrably untrustworthy opponent. That phrase did then and does now what it was meant to do. It's a verbal shot across the bow. A confirmation of distrust. This new section proposed in HB 2 is rooted in distrust of the reproductive health care facilities in our state. Going back to the section on the newly named family planning project. Those who have already been awarded state contracts and have gone through the application and the vetting of these contracts, they now will have yet another compliance requirement, inspections of their financial records by the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services and there is no clarity in the Committee of Conference Report about this new compliance protocol. Just that there is no trust, no trust that the contract holder must now prove a negative. The informal fallacy present in this section presupposes that reproductive health care facilities are inherently noncompliant with their use of state funds. That is a baseless supposition. Then the section gets even more threatening with the last two parts, parts three and four. Every June the DHS Commissioner shall certify in writing to the Governor and Council that he or she personally has reviewed each family planning projects expenditures to make sure that no state funds were used to provide abortion services and then the Coup de grace. If the Commissioner fails to make this certification in time, or if the Governor and Executive Council, based on evidence presented by the Commissioner in this certification that is very vague, find that the state funds awarded by the department have been used to provide abortion services, the contract money is pulled indefinitely, pulled, possibly forever or pulled until such time that the family planning project has built a separate facility altogether and there is yet another of the distrust. Supporters of this audit mistrust the reproductive health care providers who have been providing reproductive health care through state contracts to thousands and thousands of Granite Staters. Cancer screenings, birth control, sexually transmitted infection screenings, diagnosis, treatments. What they have not done, they do not do and are prohibited by law to do is use state or federal money to provide abortion health care services. And despite all of the accusations and the outrage, New Hampshire reproductive health care providers have proven themselves to be trustworthy stewards of our state dollars. This proposal is a threat. This proposal is holding reproductive health care providers hostage to an audit process that is unnecessary and inspired by mistrust. Additionally, it foists an entirely new protocol on to the Department of Health and Human Services while simultaneously understaffing and underfunding this same department. Talk about your unfunded mandates. This section is a threat to reproductive health care providers in New Hampshire. It holds these providers hostage to a protocol designed to fail. It endangers the health care of thousands of New Hampshire patients who need safe, affordable access to reproductive health care. Release the hostage and trust our health care providers by voting against HB 2, this dangerous bill.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe House will be in order. The House recognizes the member from Peterborough, Rep. Leishman.

Rep. Peter Leishman (D - Hills 24)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to address section 459, emergency powers or also known as HB 417 which was amended by the Senate. I am still a strong supporter of the work the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee did on HB 417, to reign in the emergency powers of the Governor's office. Not only did I support the committee's work, but the House voted 328 to 41 on April 8 to support the committee's work. Under HB 417, the Governor's emergency declaration would terminate in 30 days unless a vote was taken by the legislature to renew his or her order. While the Senate conferees said nothing was going to go into the budget unless the Governor was okay with it. I guess he didn't like the House version and instead the Senate asked the House to accept the Senate version which now gives the Governor 90 days of unchecked power over the citizens of New Hampshire. Under the new language, the emergency declaration can only be challenged by calling for a joint session of the House and Senate 90 days after the emergency has been declared. Madam Speaker, no one should question the right of the Governor to act quickly to address an emergency. However, if an emergency truly exists, the legislature surely would agree to support the Governor's actions and authorize a renewal of the emergency order or if the legislature found that the Governor had overplayed his or her hand, the declaration would be terminated. Madam Speaker, on March 13, 2020, Governor Sununu declared a state of emergency and renewed that emergency declaration 21 times until he declared the state of emergency over on June 11, 2021. So for 15 months, Madam Speaker, the citizens legislative branch was simply replaced by the executive branch of government. I ask you whether it's Governor Sununu or a future Governor that declares a state of emergency, will the legislature be the voice of the people or just a nameplate on the statehouse. I would encourage you to vote no on HB 2. Thank you.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Kearsarge, Rep. Umberger.

Rep. Karen Umberger (R - Carr 1)Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have heard numerous speakers talk about the good and the perceived bad of HB 2. I want to talk about the positives of HB 2. Education ensures K-12 schools are not hurt by the COVID enrollment drop and additional dollars are provided to schools with high numbers of free and reduced lunch children, $17.5 million per year. Provides full funding for those school districts that started kindergarten in 2019/2020 school year and in the 2021 school year. Provides $82 million for school building aid. School infrastructure program includes the ability to purchase high efficiency school buses. Fully funds special education aid for the high cost special education children. Provides $1.5 million per year to the community college for dual and concurrent enrollment. Increases the community college to $56 million per year. Establishes education freedom accounts and provides a phase out grant to local school districts that lose children. Safety body cameras for police. Funding of Granite Shield which works to prevent illegal drugs from entering New Hampshire. The Fire Standards and Training and Emergency Medical Program receives $300,000 per year to reduce the cost for local fire department training. Provides funding for the New Hampshire Internet crimes against children. Fully funds the highway block grant. Provides $13.6 million for municipal bridge aid. Removes toll booths in Merrimack. Provides $50 million to DOT to help make up for lost revenue from road tolls lost during the reduced mileage driven during the last 18 months. Provides $5 million to leverage federal grants that require state match. Provides dollars for new vehicles. The lottery will be able to purchase their building allowing more dollars to go to the education trust fund. These are just some of the positives contained in HB 2 and why I urge you to vote yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Hanover, Rep. Murphy.

Rep. James Murphy (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker and honorable colleagues, in that the budget is a reflection of our state's values, we should all be disappointed with the budget in HB 2 in its many regressive policies in revenue shortfalls. As a practicing surgeon in New Hampshire for 40 years my passion was always place the patient first and to ensure them that their wellbeing was my first and only priority. As elected legislators we are all called to the same high standard of citizen first. Our collective purpose is the wellbeing of our citizens who have placed their trust in us. Unfortunately this budget contains escalating revenue cuts which will harm our current citizens and future generations. Several taxes for businesses and individuals are cut in this budget including the business profits tax, the business enterprise tax, meals and rooms tax. This bill will benefit the largest multinational corporations and the wealthiest individuals in the state. The interest and dividends tax, which usually provides about a $100 million, will be phased out entirely within this decade. The estimated cumulative revenue losses over the next decade will grow from $45 million in 2022 to $166 million in 2029. These tax cuts will ultimately result in higher property taxes or diminished services or likely both. The next budget will operate with $200 million less revenue. The federal fiscal stimulus will phase out and not be available for many ongoing services. There is uncertainty as to the financial impact of our shift to market based sourcing this year and the single sales factor next year. Existing research indicates that we may see a substantial loss from the single sales factor. SB 3 gave appropriate and necessary PPP tax forgiveness to our businesses, however they had to pay that tax in April and now at least half of the business tax revenue increase that we have currently realized will have to be paid back. The State of New Hampshire is still only 53% vaccinated. In the COVID-19 and its lingering effects and how they impact the next biennium in our budget is uncertain. All of these confounding factors will mean fewer resources to fund the many needed services in this state. Consistent with New Hampshire's regressive education policies, proposed lower education funding revised distribution formulas and a one-time change to the statewide property tax, i.e. SWEPT, will decrease funding for public schools. Funding for initiatives to decrease the effects of climate change will be reduced. We already have one of the lowest investments in Medicaid funding in the country, if not the lowest. The challenges that New Hampshire's health care system will face ongoing will only increase with less funding support. Elders and others dependent on social services will also suffer. Local communities will consequently have to take on even heavier property tax burdens as the state's contribution to our common good declines. Madam Speaker, we may not change a single vote today but I would hope that going forward we will all demonstrate a willingness to reflect on the impact of these tax cuts and to be mindful of the harm that they will do to so many in need in our great state. We were elected to serve all Granite Staters who should be at the center of all that we do. We must always be keenly aware of the trust that our constituents have place in us and then serve them with transparency, decency and deliberative thought. I urge you to vote against HB 2 as it now stands. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Exeter, Rep. Simpson.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 36)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to HB 2, which includes a policy to ban abortion after 24 weeks with almost no exception, criminalizes doctors and health care providers and mandates unnecessary ultrasounds early in pregnancy. My background as a Pastor and campus Minister has meant that I have worked with people at their hardest times. I've sat with them and listened to them in the most critical and challenging life experiences that any of us could face. Over the years doing my work, I've learned a deep respect for the complexities and immense challenges of what it means simply to be human. I can assure you that there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution in any situation. Let me tell you about a woman I know. Erica had a miscarriage and the doctor told her this happens often. There's no reason not to try again when you're ready. She became pregnant soon after and made it through the first trimester with no difficulty. Then she started getting tests back and her pregnancy became high risk. She was getting checked every few weeks, being as diligent as she could and time kept passing. Here are her words, "Over time, serious muscular issues came to light, like bilateral club feet and the hands were always clenched tightly in every ultrasound. There was very little fetal movement. My amniotic fluid was really, really high and most concerning, the fetus was not growing. These were things that my doctors couldn't have known until the third trimester. Eventually, our doctor determined the fetus was not swallowing. Swallowing is how a developing baby practices breathing. No swallowing, no breathing, that's it." When Erica asked her doctor what happened if she carried to term. He said that she would likely give birth to a baby who would choke for a few moments and then die. She learned that information at 30 weeks of pregnancy. I cannot fathom learning that information after 30 weeks of pregnancy. By the third trimester, a woman is generally fully onboard with what it means to be a mom. They've announced it on social media, they've read books about what to expect, they've started thinking about names, maybe even choosing one. The other side of pregnancy is not so pleasant. I remember after several long days on my feet in the hot August sun during my third trimester, my back hurt afterwards for weeks. It is already so much work just to be pregnant. It takes a toll on your body, on your sleep, on your moods, on your relationships. However for me, I knew that at the end of it, I would get to bring home my son. What this budget bill does is force women like Erica to remain pregnant, to continue to carry the pregnancy to term knowing that if they give birth, their child will suffocate. They will be forced to remain pregnant and continue to carry their child for up to 16 more weeks and at the end of it, they will be left with only their grief with whomever can be there to comfort them in their loss. This abortion ban and by extension this state budget is unconscionable. It is exceptionally punitive in how it treats women as well as doctors. Supporting this budget with this abortion ban means that as a politician, as a state representative, you believe that you know better than a doctor and that you know better than grieving parents. We just do not. We cannot and should not be dictating and shaming critical medical care. We as a legislative body should not be anywhere near making decisions for women, families or their health care providers. New Hampshire women facing these complicated circumstances deserve our compassion and our respect, not one size fits all laws. Please respect women, their families and our medical professionals and vote against this cruel budget.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe House will be in order. The Chair recognizes the member from Concord, Rep. Rogers.

Rep. Katherine Rogers (D - Merr 28)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to HB 2 and in particular, to the inclusion of an unprecedented, inappropriate and extreme abortion ban. Let's be honest here. There is no reason why a policy bill of this nature should even be in the budget, except as we are all aware, to alleviate pressure on the governor. Last Friday, I was diagnosed with uterine cancer. I was told that the most effective treatment was a hysterectomy as soon as possible and if the cancer is not yet spread to any other organs, the prognosis is good. I could then move forward without haste to lifesaving testing and surgery. I started to think what if I was 36? What if I was over 24 weeks pregnant? Under this bill, I would be looking at a possible death sentence. The government would decide my fate, not me, not the medical profession, the government. Doesn't that put a chill down your spine? In this House, 66% of the members are men. Is it right that they get to play God with the women of New Hampshire? I sincerely hope that none of you are diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, but I don't doubt that if you are, you will do all you can to survive. Some colleagues may disagree with me on whether this 24 week abortion ban is extreme. I can assure you it is and for several reasons. Number one, the physical and mental health of the mother. The abortion ban in this state budget has no exception for fatal fetal diagnosis. This means that if the mother, pregnant woman, learns in a routine OB-GYN visit at 24 weeks that the fetal has a lethal form of skeletal dysplasia, meaning that the bones of the fetus are actively breaking and that the fetus will suffocate after birth, that pregnant woman cannot access abortion. With that information, she'll be forced to carry for up to another 16 weeks and give birth. I ask you to imagine that grief, that trauma. Second, the abortion ban in the state budget is extreme because it does not include an exception for rape or incest. I've heard some colleagues claim that a pregnant women should have already come to a decision before 24 weeks and she should have already had an abortion. This is a gross misunderstanding. There is no excuse for that. Really, google it. Within 30 seconds you can read about PTSD after sexual assault. One of the main symptoms is emotional avoidance, staying away from the reminders of the trauma, resisting conversations about what happened. You would put an arbitrary deadline on anyone that's gone through that nightmare? These statements also confuse me. Does that mean you are okay with having an abortion earlier? Thirdly, I have colleagues who seek to compare this abortion ban with other states. This bill is more extreme than many other states. I will point out as examples. The penalties this ban carries are stricter than the State of Florida. They are stricter than the State of Missouri and they are stricter than the State of Louisiana. I've heard some colleagues mention Massachusetts as a comparable ban. This is half true. While Massachusetts has a 24 week ban, they have an exception for fatal fetal anomalies. Again, this abortion ban is in the budget and it is extreme. And, by the way, since when has New Hampshire tried to emulate Massachusetts? Number four is another spine chiller.

Rep. Katherine Rogers (D - Merr 28)Government imposed ultrasounds. The abortion ban in this state budget also requires ultrasounds before an abortion, no matter how early, no matter if the pregnant woman knows exactly how many weeks pregnant, she is, mandatory ultrasounds. To be clear, health care professionals currently have the flexibility to use ultrasounds as needed based on their expertise and the patient's case. This legislative body would now require medical tests for all individuals seeking an abortion. Mandatory medical tests are out of line with medical guidelines and certainly don't align with the New Hampshire values of privacy and freedom. Furthermore, not only would women be forced against their will to a medical test, but there is no thought as to how that would affect the women's mental health, particularly in the case of rape and incest and there is no assistance to pay the $250 to $500 for the procedure. I want to make sure that everyone understands just what an obstetric ultrasound, that this bill would require, entails. It's performed very much like a gynecological exam. First, you get to lie on a cold, steel table. Then you get to place your feet in stirrups. Then a transductor, no a probe, is placed into your vagina. Although in most cases it's no more than extremely unpleasant, in cases of rape and incest, this procedure can be very physically and emotionally painful. The government just doesn't get more invasive than that. Finally, the abortion ban in this state budget is extreme because it criminalizes health care professionals. To this point I will say as an intelligent, educated woman with a law degree, I can't read this language and tell you whether or not my condition would be covered by the medical emergency exception. The language is ambiguous at best. Do we not think our health care professionals are under enough strain, that we would now burden them with the prospect of 7 years imprisonment and fines of upward of $100,000 if they fall outside the statute of law? A statute of law which was written sloppily, at the last minute and during a Committee of Conference. This does not exactly encourage the best and brightest doctors to practice here in New Hampshire. Yet another loss for the people of New Hampshire. This legislature had the opportunity to present a budget that works for the hardworking people of the state. Instead, this budget offers right-wing ideology, increased property taxes for families and more tax cuts for large out of state businesses. I urge my colleagues here to press the red button and reject HB 2. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Hopkinton, Rep. Luneau.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, if you are looking for out of control government spending, this is it. The proposal in HB 2 for education savings accounts exposes the state to more than $70 million a year in new costs, mostly going to kids who already go to private schools. What? Seventy million, you've got to be kidding me. So let's break it down. Nearly � of New Hampshire's 190,000 students in public, private and home schools would be eligible to sign up for an education freedom account and receive a check in the amount of $4-5-6,000 through the state's education trust fund. The same fund that provides grants to our public schools. How many of these students will take the check? I guess that's the big question. According to the Commissioner of Education, that number is between .01% and 2.43%. For students who currently attend public schools, it's a tough choice. Give up my public school, leave my friends and teachers behind, arrange for transportation and come up with the additional money to cover the cost for tuition, books and other materials that accede the value of the voucher. That's how it is in other states. But the program in HB 2 is different. It's the most extensive voucher program ever proposed in the country. Students already in private schools and homeschooled are eligible for that big check. But for the fiscal analysis, the commissioner estimated that only 4, only 4 of these students would take the check in year one, ramping up to 102 kids in year two. Remember, that's out of 15,000 eligible students who have already made the decision to leave public school and who are paying tuition and other costs. Based on these ridiculous estimates, the proposal in HB 2 shows a cost of $129,000 in fiscal year 2022 and $3.3 million in fiscal year 2023. Come on, Granite Staters know a scam when they see it. In contrast, the LBA projects the state's financial exposure at more than $70 million in the first year alone, just based on students already attending private schools or being homeschooled. Really? Who's not going to take the big check? All they need to do is apply for the EFA and it's a safe bet the program contractor who gets a 10% cut will be more than happy to help them with all the paperwork. So, it comes down to what you believe. The lowball estimates offered by the commissioner or a much more realistic state exposure developed by the legislative budget assistant. That $70 million from the education trust fund not going to public schools, $70 million not going to help underfunded school districts, $70 million not going to property tax relief. The LBA makes it clear, "The net impact would be increased state education trust fund expenditures and decreased local adequacy grant revenue." In words made famous by my friend, the former member from Weare, "Voters didn't send me to Concord to raise their taxes." So that's what you are really voting on here. The Education Committee did the right thing to retain its voucher bill. It needs a lot more work. It lacks accountability. It's ripe for fraud as seen in other states. It's financially irresponsible and based on nonpartisan polling, Granite Staters reject voucher programs by an overwhelming margin. So let's reject this voucher program and vote no on HB 2. Thank you.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Bedford, Rep. Sanborn.

Rep. SanbornThank you, Madam Speaker and thank you, colleagues. It is a great honor to stand before you in support of this spectacular bill. In my ten years serving in the House I have never seen such a tremendous well-crafted budget with so many Reps and Senators participating to positively impact the final product. This is a budget we can be proud of. I'll be honest, there are a few things in this bill that I might have done differently, that I don't completely see eye to eye with in its present form. Personally, I disagree with family medical leave in the budget, but I know it's not going to happen after 2023, but quite frankly, this vote isn't about me. This bill and this vote and this job is about what's doing best for all of us. It's about what's doing best for the people of New Hampshire. Nearly every citizen in our state will benefit from passage of this bill. There are $171 million in tax reductions over the biennium that will go back to the taxpayer and not to unnecessarily growing the size of government. We will cut taxes on New Hampshire property owners. We will cut taxes on meals and hotel rooms and rental cars. We will cut and then eliminate interest and dividend taxes helping our retirees. We will tell over 30,000 small employers in our state they will now be exempt from filing taxes. We will reduce the tax on payroll and the business profits tax on New Hampshire employers so they can survive and grow again. We will give unprecedented amounts of funding to our cities and towns for wastewater projects, highway projects and bridge repairs. We will give all families, regardless of their income levels and zip codes the ability to send their kid to a different school if the one they are in now isn't working for them. We give more money to public schools in this budget, helping more than ever with infrastructure, charter schools, school building aid, special education, career and technical education and even robotics. We created the Department of Energy, a smaller, more functional combination of three departments so we can better coordinate services for New Hampshire residents. We empower the legislature to have a direct role in managing future states of emergency while meanwhile getting commitment from the governor and the other body to make it even stronger in January. We provide increased funding and new better programs for our veterans, nursing homes, mental health programs and troubled youth and the list goes on and on. As you can see, passage of this bill provides the funding and the policies to provide all important government functions and help those in need. It does this while also reducing burdens on our citizens in a meaningful way as we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also does this while keeping spending in check and strengthening our state's savings account. It has been a tough year for all of us. Let's give the people of New Hampshire a bright light and optimism for the future. With passage of this bill, we send a signal to our people and to the world. New Hampshire is coming out of this pandemic stronger, more free, more affordable, more generous and more fun than ever before. We can feel good about this budget. More importantly, we can vote for it knowing it's the right product at the right time. Please join me in passage of HB 2 by pressing the green button.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Georges Mills, Rep. Tanner.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm here as an educator to vote to oppose HB 2. What most teachers dislike about their job is not the kids, the school district, the content they are teaching, recess, lunch or bus duty, the extra hours of correcting papers or developing lesson plans, the many meetings and parent conferences or the extra time and effort to help those needy students. No, what drives teachers, good teachers out of the profession is this game of politics that is being played with the public school system. Politics that are over-regulating and underfunding our schools. Political regulations not based on the best practices of child development brain-based learning, but games based on the demagoguery of political opportunists with a national agenda. We are in New Hampshire and we've just hit the games jackpot with the inclusion of HB 544 in HB 2 and the voucher bill. The latest part of HB 2 is a major unwanted and unwarranted bill with out of state political intrusion and micromanagement into our community schools. We have before us a bill that takes away academic freedom and free speech and criminalizes any teacher, administrator or specialists who discusses or offers to their staff or students diversity training course work or any other activity that deals with discrimination. This section of HB 2 allows anyone who feels uncomfortable, feels inferior or superior or feels aggrieved by any of these discussions, trainings or activities that speak to the differences based on age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, mental or physical disabilities, religion or national origin to take legal action in the superior court and file a civil complaint as well as file a complaint with the State Board of Education. A public school specialist, teacher, administrator will now be looking over his or her shoulder self-censoring their speech, stopping discussions, trainings, events or even leaving student questions unanswered because of the threat of losing their education credentials and being subjected to a fine in civil court. This part of HB 2 will demoralize teachers and put yet another nail in the coffin of our New Hampshire nationally recognized public school system. I'm a country girl who has actually seen how sausage is made. My great-grandmother would take all kinds of animal products, grind them up, add some seasoning and stuff them into the lining of animal intestines. That's how sausage is made. This bill is political sausage in its finest form. It's looking for a solution to many problems that don't exist. It's full of ambiguous and vague language and is likely to result in many unintended consequences and who loses? The students lose. The students who will be less likely to explore the world outside their community and state, less likely to stretch their intellectual capabilities or cultivate critical thinking. Discussion of current events cannot delve into any issue that may result or touch upon the possible discussion of discrimination, prejudice or bigotry for fear that someone, someone might be aggrieved. No longer will public schools take the chance and have diversity days to introduce their students to people who have different life experiences because of age, sex, gender identities, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disabilities, religion or national origin. Will lefthanded desks and lefthanded scissors be eliminated or hidden so as not to aggrieve or make the righthanded students feel superior? Teachers probably won't want to take the chance of inviting a guest speaker to their class who is black or maybe gay because it might aggrieve someone. Art and theater productions will be screened for themes of discrimination that might offend. Displays like the AIDS quilt or the domestic violence t-shirt clothesline display will be forbidden at public schools because students will ask questions that might offend. Teachers are not trying to brainwash students or make them racist or sexist. Teachers want to teach, to challenge, to encourage students to explore the world, to seek truth, reason and understanding, to think critically. They want to offer opportunities for students to see how others live and maybe even encourage them to walk a step or two in someone else's shoes. By learning about others, we see characteristics that make us, our experiences, our lives and our communities unique. This bill is denying students those opportunities to grow. Diversity should be cherished. Our public schools should bring people together, not keep them separate and afraid of each other. As elected officials of this state, we represent all of our constituents and in good conscience must recognize and represent the multi-cultural citizens of our communities. We should be committed to fostering understanding and allow, not censure, our community schools from celebrating diversity and fostering unity and appreciation for all students, staff and community members, regardless of their unique characteristics. We need to help people understand each other and be able to work together. That is what the melting pot of America is all about. The differences among us are not to be feared, ignored, cancelled or denied, but rather welcomed as an enriching part of the lives of the many people who come together and make the citizenry of our state and our nation. And here is a warning. This sausage is toxic. It's not good for consumption and it's a good reason to vote no on HB 2. Thank you.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. Heath.

Rep. Mary Heath (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to HB 2 and the reduction of the statewide education property tax by $100 million for FY23 which would lower the rate by about $1.30 reducing property taxes by average by about 50 cents for one year only. For those towns that retain their SWEPT dollars, the state would reimburse those funds drawn from the education trust, reducing the amount available to school districts. Forty-four towns will receive SWEPT reimbursements, raising from $563 to $2.7 million for Portsmouth and totaling $17.1 million across the state. Five municipalities would together receive $8 million. My colleague from Hopkinton was quoted in the New Hampshire Business Review to say, "It's about government waste. It's about dishing out state money where it's not needed. A travesty against taxpayers across the state." That $100 million easily would restore fiscal capacity disparity aid for the biennium which would distribute $48.5 million among municipalities where the equalized property value was less than the state average of $1.2 million in 2019. Now, if I live in Derry, New Hampshire, where the average home is $385,000, I see a SWEPT reduction of $192, but I see an increase of my property tax of $358. I see an overall increase in my taxes of $166. Now, if I live in Moultonborough, where the average home is $533,000 and a savings of $267 on my SWEPT, I will see a savings of $267. Sounds like Robinhood in reverse to me. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. This budget only offers rightwing ideology, property tax increases for families and more tax cuts for wealthy investors and large out of state businesses. This is not the New Hampshire way and I ask you to vote no on HB 2.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe House will be in order. And now the Chair recognizes the final speaker from Charlestown, Rep. Smith.

Rep. Steven Smith (R - Sull 11)Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's the only way I'll get applause in here. Madam Speaker, when I speak on big things like this, I always like to hear what my constituents said so I'm compelled to say this. My government's a lemon and I want my money back. Most of the people I talk to, they're not on a lot of the stuff that we focus on as one person eloquently put it when I asked what's your priority for when I go to Concord? They said, "Well, you can find a way to keep Concord's grubby paws off my money," and that's what I'm here to do. I'm here to vote green on the grubby paws protection act. So, if you look at this, and you go through and try to count the ways that we are not taking people's money or in some cases straight up just giving it back to them, I mean you'd think that a bunch of people sat in a room and said how can we set the record for most tax cuts in one budget? And that's because that's literally what happened and thank you to the talented members of the Finance Committee. So, they are going to kill the budget, right? There's going to be a huge deficit if we do all these tax cuts. I've heard that before. Matter of fact, I remember just a couple of cycles ago, when then Governor Hassan said that the tax cuts that were in the Republican budget are going to blow, I can't remember how many hundred million dollar hole in the budget, and she vetoed it. Later on, some stuff happened, we passed that budget and guess what didn't happen? We didn't have that deficit. A matter of fact we had a surplus. Now, at that point, I thought the argument was over and I said thank goodness because I've been hearing this forever. But here we are on Groundhog Day hearing the same argument over and over again. I don't care about that stuff. I care about giving people their money back. That's what matters. So, I looked at some of these and I said honestly a �% on the rooms and meals tax. What kind of bogus window dressing is that, but then I looked at the numbers and I apologized to the Finance Committee for my initial reaction. Fourteen million, so you know, we've heard stuff. It's really going to save the economy that your $10 burger is now $10.95. Not the point. Fourteen million. That's how much money is not going to be in our grubby paws. It's going to remain in the economy where it belongs and that's a big deal. When you think about this, remember it's not our money. It's their money. The interest and dividends tax, yeah, wealthy people with a lot of investments are going to do okay. You know what? They have accountants that were probably doing okay with this anyway. You know who it's going to matter to though? People that don't have that expensive resource. They worked hard all their life. They scrimped, they saved, they put money away, they've got something. Who are we to say we are entitled to any piece of that? When even a small portion of wealth might make the difference between whether they can afford things if there is an electric bill increase. To those people it is a big deal and that's who I want to speak for today. Business relief, okay it's amazing that the state has survived the pandemic and the case that it did. Businesses worked hard. They didn't know what was going to happen. I read about some historic places that have been there for 80, 100 years said they didn't know if they were going to survive. There were funds available to help them. That's awesome. Now, think about the injustice of this. They received loans and if they did everything they were supposed to, they checked every box, they followed the rules, they did what they were supposed to. Now, all of a sudden, we think we're entitled to a piece of that because it is income, it's revenue. That's offensive. We're not going to do it. This SWEPT thing. This is a funny story. We talk about property tax relief all the time and what do we do? We send bucket loads of money back to the municipalities, sometimes the school districts, but does the money go to the people's pockets? We never check on that so we're in the papers going we provided you $800 million on property tax relief, but did we? We wish there was a more direct way to do that and I know it's only a little, but the member from Auburn said isn't there a way we can just not take the money from them? Isn't that what we should be here trying to do, right? So people laugh at the slogan, you know I am not a slogan guy, taxation is theft, but when you can find a way to just not take people's money that is the first thing I'm here to do. It isn't going to decrease the education money. Actually I heard somebody say it's so small, we should give it to the school districts anyway. It's not their money. It's not my money. It's not your money. It's the people's money and we're supposed to be here to keep Concord's grubby paws off of it. Well, if I went through all the tax cuts, everybody would be mad at me because we would still be here in a half hour so I'm not going to do that. I am going to say I am proud to vote for the grubby paws protection act and I hope you join me. It's their money. Let's just give it back to them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe House will be in order. Rep. Silber has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. The members will take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if I know that HB 2 contains many policy changes that will set New Hampshire back and many of these policy changes are inappropriate for inclusion in a state budget. And, if I know this budget weakens individual freedom in the Live Free or Die state, taking away productive rights and dictating how history and racism can be taught in our schools. And, if I know this budget reduces taxes on the wealthy and large out of state corporations and shifts expenses on to our local communities which will result in increasing property taxes on our constituents, would I now press the red button and reject the Committee of Conference Report on HB 2?

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Rep. Osborne for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 4)Thank you kindly, Madam Speaker. If I know that I'd like to thank all of the last 20 speakers for such a thorough job of selling me on HB 2. And if I know that HB 2 contains over $171 million in tax cuts for every Granite Stater. If I know that HB 2 sends more money back to municipalities than ever before and ensures these funds cannot be siphoned off by government in future budgets and lastly Mister Speaker, Madam Speaker, if I know this bill contains progress on darn near every single campaign promise we made to our constituents last year, would I now press the green button to support this transformational symphony of reforms that will positively rocket our state into the future? Thank you.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe House will be in order. This will be a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green 1A button. If you are opposed, you will press the red 2B button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 198 members having voted in the affirmative and 181 in the negative, the Committee of Conference Report is adopted.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D - Straf 6)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. I'm here to speak against the Conference Committee on HB 542 which is about the exercise of religion during states of emergency and first I want to say I have nothing against religion or God. I'm probably going to refer to the Grateful Dead in a minute or two so I thought I would balance things out by quoting Trey Anastasio from the band Phish. Religion is cool but I like the old God. I don't necessarily believe in the old God, but it's not like I don't like the old God but let's get back to serious remarks. The exercise of religion is protected by both the federal and state constitutions, as is actually the right to peacefully assemble, but there is no constitutional right to spread an infectious disease such as COVID-19. Nor is there any constitutional right to endanger your own safety or anyone else's safety during a state of emergency. This applies even to churches. There is no constitutional right to hold services at a church which is located in the path of a flood or a wildfire. There is no right to hold services in a church building which has been damaged in an earthquake. There is no right for any group to gather anywhere where it is not safe to gather regardless of whether it is religious or not. The definition of religion in the bill is very broad which is understandable because it is difficult to find anything which all religions agree to. There are religions which don't even agree on anything as seemingly basic as the existence of a Creator. But HB 542 uses a definition which is so broad it excludes almost no one aside from expressly atheist or anti-religious groups and even those groups carry out many of the social functions of religion. In fact, one of my relatives died a few years ago, there are even people who officiate ceremonies for atheists because atheists die, there are people who are not members of any church, they die, they get married, they have babies. They do all those things that those of us who are part of a church do. So the Grateful Dead comes in. During the pandemic we had one of the first large gatherings in Durham after the world shut down. I guess it was in the early Fall of 2020 was for a local gentleman who was a leading citizen of the town and on the town council. Actually he was very interested in running for State Rep. Every two years he would ask me if any of us were not planning to run for reelection and he was happy for us and sad for him. Everybody always wanted to run for reelection and he is no longer with us. He was not a member of any religion but he was very much into the Grateful Dead so we actually had a very beautiful ceremony based on the Grateful Dead's music and the larger deadhead culture which he was a proud part of, which is not to say the Grateful Dead or even Phish are a religion per se, but I actually think the Grateful Dead spinoff, Phish, they actually terminated all of their touring.

Speaker PackardWe are supposed to be talking about HB 542.

Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)I ask the Speaker if we could just stay on field, please. Thank you.

Speaker PackardWith all due respect Representative, I don't think the Grateful Dead are a part of 542.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D - Straf 6)Okay. There was even a provision in there about "sincerely held" verses insincerely held religious beliefs but even that is somewhat unfair. There are many people in every religious community who don't necessarily believe strongly or at all in that community's particular religious dogma but are still committed to the community itself. For example I had the story about the Priest at St. Thomas More Parish and my father who was always a member of the Parish Council, very strong supporter of the Priest. The Priest died in 1972 at the age of 44, a long time ago, and my dad just said that's the end of it for me. I don't want to follow any God who would kill such a fine young wonderful person at such a young age. That was just my father's personal decision. Other people see it as part of God's plan. I actually understand why people can continue to believe in a God who sends us a pandemic. Coronaviruses could conceivably be just another part of His/Her/Its/Their plan, just like other things that can kill us. I can kind of understand.

Rep. Norman Silber (R - Belk 6)Mister Speaker. I ask again to stay on point instead of all this talk about family relations with nothing to do with 542.

Speaker PackardRepresentative, if a member does rise, they do have to state a point of order.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D - Straf 6)My point is that religion is part of life. Most of the functions it fills are also filled by other organizations so I don't think the church should have special privileges and that's why I oppose the bill.

Rep. Norman Silber (R - Belk 6)Mister Speaker. Point or order. Mister Speaker, we are talking about 542. Would you ask the speaker to confine his remarks to the bill and the subject matter?

Speaker PackardI will. I have asked him once to stay on point. I believe I'm trying to get through this day with a certain amount of latitude for everybody but the point is well taken. Try to stay on point, Representative.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The main reason why HB 542 and say it is very well intended, but I don't see anything which says why churches should be allowed to not follow the state of emergency. I personally wouldn't want to follow any God who would tell us not to take commonsense precautions when an emergency such as a pandemic which was a major catastrophe. It killed more people than anything since the Civil War. We are still allowed to talk about the Civil War. It reduced the life expectancy of Americans by two years and Americans of color by three years. It was a major catastrophe. Special things were needed but I just don't think these particular organizations deserve more consideration than other organizations in our communities. So that is about it. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the member from Manchester, Rep. McLean to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Mark McLean (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, HB 542 is a bill that simply seeks to preserve the free exercise of religion during a state of emergency. The final version of the bill coming out of the Committee of Conference removed defining sections and certain definitions found in the House Bill. It also removed the waiver on sovereign and qualified immunities out of concern that suits might be brought personally against the Governor and others, but what remains is a clear directive ensuring that the operations of religious organizations are not held subordinate to other essential services such as the acquisition of food or clothing. It recognizes that for people of faith, nourishment of the spirit is every bit as essential as nourishment of the body. The final version of the bill also retains explicit language allowing a religious organization to assert a claim against the state government if the provisions of the law are violated and allows it to recover appropriate relief. This is a big win for religious liberty and I hope you will support it. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Ammon has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take their seats.

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)I have a question. The language is not clear.

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)A question on the way the bill is written.

Speaker PackardRepresentative, do you wish to ask the speaker, the last speaker a question?

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)No, I want to ask the speaker a question. The Speaker of the House.

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)546c says that in person gathering in houses of worship shall not be prohibited, but then it says.

Speaker PackardRepresentative, if you are asking me about the bill, I'm not here to answer questions about the bill. Representative Elliott: Alright then, I'll ask anyone Mister Speaker.

Rep. Robert Elliott (R - Rock 8)I'll ask a committee member or preferably the chairman of the committee of conference.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Elliott, I've stated the question and we are in the voting mode now. If you want to privately ask one of the members of the committee or the speaker a question, you may. A roll call has been requested and seconded. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Simpson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that religious gatherings are different from grocery shopping and pose different risks during a pandemic. And if I know that many religious gatherings during the pandemic became super spreading events. And if I know the US Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution both enshrined the freedom to exercise religion and that we don't need an additional religious liberty act that elevates the rights of religious communities over surrounding communities, would I push the red button to vote against the Committee of Conference Report?

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

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that last year during the pandemic, the State of New Hampshire shut down churches, but they kept hardware stores, liquor stores, Target and Walmart open. And if I know that religious liberty is an underpinning of our democracy. It's enshrined in the first amendment. And if I know that this bill would treat houses of worship as essential, would I now press the green button?

Speaker PackardThis 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. 205 voting Yea, 158 voting Nay, the committee report on HB 542 Committee of Conference is adopted.