The House, Thursday, March 17, 2022

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairRep. Hill moves that HB 1007 be laid on the table. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested by Rep. Marsh? So who requested the roll call? Rep. Tim Smith requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded. It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take their seats. The House will come to order. The question is whether to lay HB 1007 on the table. We are going. The House will come to order. Rep. Rouillard is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Claire Rouillard (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that removal of a Member of this House for insurrection and rebellion would be a very difficult task. And, if I know that this bill is vague, the language is poor and there is no procedure outlined for removal in the bill. And, if I know that this bill could be used as a political weapon by one party against the other, would I vote with the majority of Legislative Administration and vote the color of my jacket, green? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. William Marsh (D - Carr 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment already prohibits those who engage in insurrection and rebellion from holding any public office and at this time, even without the passage of this bill, a member can be removed or not seated for that reason. And, if I know that the New Hampshire Constitution gives the New Hampshire House under Part II, Article 14 and the New Hampshire Senate under Part II, Article 29, the sole authority to rule on the qualifications of their members and they can do so at any time. But if I know that there is no authority under current statute to call a special election if either body disqualified a member for violating the 14th Amendment and therefore an entire district of this house or of the other body could remain unrepresented for an entire biennium, then would I push the red button so that we can ensure that all of our citizens are represented in this body? Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe question is whether to lay HB 1007 on the table. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 186 having voted in the affirmative, 150 in the negative, HB 1007 is laid on the table.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker I rise in opposition to the Ought to Pass motion on HB 1177, requiring apartment buildings be added in suburban areas. Almost the same bill came through Municipal and County when I was there and comes through almost every year. This bill tries to override local control by forcing our towns and cities to accept apartment buildings where the voters have only approved the construction of a single-family house. According to the bill, "These may be configured as a single 4-unit building, 2 duplex units, 2 single units, 1 duplex unit with 2 accessory buildings, 4 townhouses or a single-family house with 3 accessory dwelling units." Really? But you can't have a duplex, a townhouse and an accessory for each? How about a mini courtyard for 3 plus a whole McMansion added on? Or 2 houses and a hotel on Marvin Gardens? Will this require the town to accept a 4-story high mini skyscraper like those in downtown Manchester near where I used to live? Should even the suburbs of Manchester be required by the state to allow buildings that would only fit in the busier parts of Elm Street? And would buildings on Elm Street be torn down and replaced with pairs of duplexes contrary to the intent of the planners at city hall that put years and years and years in developing their cities plan? A kind of nightmare on Elm Street. Okay, wasn't meant to be a joke but I guess it is. Towns like Seabrook are already overloaded with apartment buildings and most people there are now dead set against them. I used to serve on my towns' planning board and every single member of my planning board was opposed to adding apartment buildings to my town. Should the state override the will of the voters also? Should towns like Hampton Falls and Hampton be commanded by another top down one size fits all solution to replace the suburbs with medium density apartment buildings over 40 feet high blocking everyone's view of the water? Would you want to see your neighborhood overbuilt? Would you want to explain to an angry planning board and other land use boards why you have thrown out years of town planning built around limited municipal services and staff to turn everything into something that looks somewhat like downtown Lawrence? What will we tell our constituents when they see their property tax rates nearly double because of the sudden need to add 2 police stations, 2 fire stations and another high school to serve a state induced surge in migration? And where will already overworked water departments find more water and bigger pipes in towns that are already at their limit? Or $6 million for a new wastewater treatment facility? How will our emergency rooms and fire departments deal with the large influx of people moving up from Lynn and Lawrence and North Shore Mass because thousands of cheaply built low-income stack and pack or Section 8 apartment buildings are only 10 feet apart. Sometimes not far enough apart for our fire trucks in some of these small towns. This bill is the worst idea since Congress forced us to pay for giant pink flatulent balloons that cows have to have strapped on to combat global warming. Please press the red button.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Yes, I'd like to make a motion to table this bill.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe motion on the floor is to table HB 1177. A division vote has been requested. Members will take their seats. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Baldasaro for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if I know that this bill allows residential zones, single family homes be rezoned for purposes up to 4 residential units. And Madam Speaker if I know New Hampshire believe in local control. And, if I know statewide zoning mandates creates a one size fits all. And Madam Speaker if I know many in this House has invested their hard-earned money in property only to have it changed by a vote here in the House, would I press the green button and table this bill?

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vann for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Ivy Vann (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of the House, if I know that New Hampshire is short somewhere between 20 and 30,000 housing units. And if I know that our restrictive zoning is part of the reason that we cannot build more units. And if I know that this bill allows 4, 4 units. And if I know that the federal home administration believes that 4 units is a house, would I now vote red against the tabling motion so that we can debate this bill? Thank you very much.

Rep. Rice, in the chairThe question is on the tabling motion for HB 1177. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 167 in the affirmative, 157 in the negative, the motion passes.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the amendment. Roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. The roll call will be on the amendment. Members take your seats. This is a roll call vote. The motion before us is the adoption of the amendment (0471h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Sylvia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that HB 1221 in its original form provides tax relief for both the business enterprise tax and the business profits tax, but that the committee amendment would only reduce the business profits tax. And Mister Speaker if I also know that the business profits tax is mostly paid by larger companies, while smaller business are much more likely to pay just the business enterprise tax. And Mister Speaker if I further know that the small businesses were much more likely to be negatively impacted during the pandemic and they are at least as deserving, if not more deserving, as larger businesses to receive tax relief. Mister Speaker if I know that New Hampshire had several other rounds of business relief in the past 7 years and despite assertions that these cuts would undermine our business tax revenues, our business taxes for this fiscal year are currently more than 88% higher than they were the final year at the highest rates. Finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that this fiscal year alone, through just eight months, our business taxes are already more than $91 million ahead of plan and overall revenues are more than $191 million over plan so we can clearly afford to give relief for BET and BPT, then would I now press the red button so that we can provide tax relief to all businesses...

Rep. Michael Sylvia (R - Belk 4)Then would I press the red button so that we can provide tax relief to all businesses so that we can continue to grow the New Hampshire advantage and our economy? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Norman Major (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this bill originally was to reduce the business profits tax and the business enterprise tax and would reduce income by a total of $36 million. Also, if I know that we have instituted through HB 2 last year and others a reduction in the business enterprise tax, business profits tax, meals and rooms tax and are going to glide down to zero on the interest and dividend tax and we also raised the threshold for filing the business enterprise tax, raised the threshold for filing the business tax. And if I know that yes, our business taxes are high and there are two major reasons for that. I know they are high because we didn't change the tax laws for PPE loans and therefore the businesses had to pay taxes on those and that's going to be about $100 million that will have to be refunded. And if I also know there's been a number of stimuluses over the last couple of years. Everybody gets checks for $1,400. We get checks for our employment. All kinds of checks. Now, that raises our profits and we are seeing that now. Those are a one-time thing.

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. This is a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Norman Major (R - Rock 14)Okay. If I know that raises our profits and this is a one-time event and that this amendment reduces, changes the bill from just a tax on business profits tax and business enterprise tax to just business profits tax, which will be $8 million. And if I know that over time due to $100 million of refunds and not receiving stimulus tax in the future years, that this bill is very reasonable, then would you vote no on the amendment? I'm sorry, yes on the amendment. Sorry.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the amendment to HB 1221. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 227 voting Yea, 99 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted. We will now move on to the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Mister Speaker I have a question and I'm not sure how to word it so I think it's a question to the Speaker.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)At the beginning of the discussion, something was said that would indicate that the Chair of Ways and Means would be more likely to give members a favor if we voted with him. There is no one in this body who is more honorable than the Chair of Ways and Means.

Speaker PackardRepresentative, you were recognized for a question.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)And my question is how do we correct that problem?

Speaker PackardOnce again Representative I'm going to move on to the bill. The motion before us now is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ames to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Dick Ames (D - Ches 9)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So I rise to speak against the pending OTP/A motion on HB 1221. The amended version of HB 1221 reduces the business profits tax from a rate of 7.6% of net taxable business profits to a rate of 7.5%. That is all it does. It makes no change in the business enterprise tax. This single decimal BPT tax rate reduction is expected per Department of Revenue Administration estimates to lower the state's total business tax revenues by about $2 million in fiscal year 2023 and then the annual loss is expected to build up to about $8.5 million per year starting in fiscal year 2024. This HB 1221 revenue loss will be additional to a probably $100 million in revenue losses attributable to prior year cuts in the BPT tax rate. The business profits tax is paid mostly by big business as you have heard. Of the 77,866 businesses that filed business property tax returns for fiscal year 2019, just 671 were about 1% of all filers paid close to 80% of the $515 million in business profits tax revenue received that year. Eighty of these high-end filers had taxable profits above $1 million per year. These high-end filers, mostly of not exclusively out of state international corporations will be the primary beneficiaries of HB 1221's single decimal point tax rate reduction. The average tax rate for each of the top 20 would be about $36,700 based on fiscal year 2019 data. In contrast, about 59,400 businesses were 76% of all businesses filing BPT tax returns in 2019 would get no benefit from the new HB 1221 tax break since their net profit after all credits will remain too low to be taxable. In the middle of the 2019 business profit taxpayer range, about 7,800 taxpayers, those with net business property tax paid in fiscal 2019, are between $1,000 and $10,000, will receive on average just a $49 tax break from the HB 1221 single decimal point rate reduction. Testimony on the bill included no persuasive evidence demonstrating that a single decimal point rate reduction would have any noticeable on business decisions to move to or depart from New Hampshire. State revenues have been high this year. Most likely because New Hampshire has benefited from a huge temporary infusion of COVID related federal funds and from soaring worldwide corporate profits realized by our largest business profit taxpayers. Even so, the state's revenues have proved insufficient to meet local school and essential human service funding needs. Property tax rates have been forced up this year and many property poor jurisdictions where state aid has failed to keep up with essential needs. In Jaffrey, where I live, state school aid is substantially down from fiscal year 2021 levels and the school tax rate is expected to rise this year by about $3.00 per thousand of assessed property valuation translating to a $300 property tax increase for each $100,000 of business property valuation. This property tax increase will for most business property taxpayers in Jaffrey dwarf any tax break received because of HB 1221 and even with that $3.00 per thousand school tax rate increase, the public school system serving Jaffrey is being forced to reduce its staff by about 7 full time teachers. Testimony on this bill and at the Ways and Means Economic Forum on March 4, provided no evidence-based support for the bills proposed rate reduction, but made clear instead that equitable relief from high property tax rates is urgently needed to enhance the profitability of many struggling New Hampshire businesses as well as the quality and sufficiency of local public schools, working housing and infrastructure on which these businesses depend. Since 2014, rapid national and global growth and more recently enormous federal stimulus funding for state businesses and consumers alike, have masked the state's revenue losses due to tax cuts given mostly to our largest businesses over the last six years. As the stimulus fades and as a new recession threatens, our revenue situation could become dire. The HB 1221 single decimal point business property tax rate cut is mindless and senseless. I hope you will agree and join me in voting against the pending OTP/A motion so that another motion can be brought. Thank you.

Speaker PackardA roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? Rep. Major requests a roll call. It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. We are on the last speaker. The Chair recognizes Rep. Janigian. Take your seats quietly.

Rep. John Janigian (R - Rock 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, as several speakers before me have now announced, the original HB 1221 proposed to cut the business enterprise tax and the business profits tax. We all know that now. It's been said more than once. The amendment that we just voted on and approved is only going to lower the business profits tax so any revenue hit to the state is very minimal. It's estimated to be $8 million, but the thing that we have seen is every time we have cut taxes, we've seen in increase in tax revenue. The $8 million may, it may actually be zero in terms of tax revenue loss. Many taxes were lowered in previous years and so that was one of the reasons, as Rep. Major mentioned, that we focused just on the BPT right now is because we want things to settle down. We want to see how the PPE loans and the COVID relief funds effect the tax in the end. Now some will say and some have already said that big business is going to profit from this. I disagree with that basic assertion. There are a lot of small businesses that are paying the business profits tax and not paying the business enterprise tax. Both those thresholds were increased. The business profits tax threshold and the business enterprise tax threshold have both been raised and that's helping small business. I beg to differ. Even a .1% decrease helps business. Furthermore, when we think about those who are thinking about coming to New Hampshire and bringing their business to New Hampshire and those who are in New Hampshire that we want them to stay here, every .1% matters. Now, we compare very favorably to the other states. Massachusetts is at 8% so they compare with our 7.5%. Vermont is at 8.5% as soon as you net more than $25,000. I'm going to venture to say there is a lot of businesses that make more than $25,000. So, in the end, this tax reduction will be good for New Hampshire businesses, good for this state. Please vote yes and push the green button. We will send the message once again that the fittest and safest state in New Hampshire is open for business. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1221. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Almy for a parliamentary inquiry. Just a minute Representative. You may continue.

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know as our Chair said earlier that there have been major changes to our tax rates, law and structure in recent years, not just in this term, as well as unforeseeable blows and one-time federal supports to our economy. And if I know that property taxes, which businesses as well as residents have to pay, raise even faster when the state deficits cause shortfalls in municipal or school aid or both. And if I know that out committee finds it exceedingly difficult to forecast whether we will find ourselves next year, maybe even the end of this year or in several years to come in deficit or in surplus. And, finally, if I believe that it is foolheartedly to make this further totally symbolic .1% cut to our revenues until things stabilize, shouldn't I push the red button? Thank you.

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

Rep. Norman Major (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this bill originally proposed lowering the business profits tax and the business enterprise tax resulting in about $36 million reduction in revenues. And if I know the bill was amended to only lower the business profits tax from 7.6% to 7.5%, which will lower the business taxes approximately $8 million. And if I know this reduction in the business profits tax rate will be good for both small and the large businesses and therefore resulting in the most important thing, keeping our economy growing, then would you join with me and the majority of the committee and push the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1221. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations 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. 177 voting Yea, 141 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Dan Toomey (D - Hills 32)Working people sometimes question whether it is in their best interest to bargain with their employer as an individual or bargain as a group and so if a majority of them decides it is in their best interest to bargain as a group, they can go through a legal process and an election and be certified as a sole bargaining agent as part of a union. They should be able to do this without interference from their employer, yet more than 75% of private sector employees respond to organizing drives with aggressive anti-union campaigns. These typically involve a series of mandatory captive meetings. At the workplace, where the employer makes his case against unionizations, these meetings are by their nature coercive because workers must attend and employers make dire claims about the consequences of unionization. Those who question the company line can face discipline or termination and it happens. High ranking company officials often attend and present and union activists are pointed out for derision. These meetings are often followed by supervisor one on ones as the primary means through which employers deliver threats and engage in interrogation. Employers use these supervisors one on one to threaten workers with union activity at least 54% of the time and interrogate workers about their union activity and that of coworkers in at least 63% of the time. Employers use surveillance about 14% of the time. There are laws against firing employees for organizing unions, but in more than 40% of the union election campaigns employers are charged with violating laws. However, the penalties for breaking the law are minimal and they are applied many months after an employee is fired for the purpose of intimidating other employees. Employers own their business but they don't own their employees. Employees are free citizens whose work makes all of our lives better and as such they are deserving of dignity and respect. They should be free from coercion or intimidation. Employers often claim that these meetings are an exercise in free speech, but mandating a person or a group to listen to your point of view is not free speech. It's not free. I don't know what it is, but it is not free speech. Please vote against the committee's recommendation of ITL and press the red button. Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe Member from Manchester, Rep. Infantine is recognized to speak in support of the committee report.

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. When a group of individuals decide that they are going to make an attempt to form a union or be organized, that's okay. That's fair and that's the way our system works. But we all know and I will use a legal term here, that more often than not, in the trenches, no one has clean hands. Alright? Management may say something that is against forming the union and say you are going to spend money on this and this and you may not get that. The union on the other hand will say but we will get you this and this. So, then each one uses the media to see what they can do to try to dissuade an opinion. National Labor Relations Board is in place and gets involved when need be. The bill was one-sided and said that management can't say anything negative about a union. Well what about the other side? Why do we have a one-sided bill? That was something that the majority could not get past. If you are going to do something, it needs to be fair for all. That's what the National Labor Board does. They try to get involved when things get out of control and bring things back to where they should be. So we had a bill that was not equal to both. We have an organization that is already in place to do things and unfortunately as I said things don't always, aren't always pretty. When we are making legislation, they aren't always pretty when a group is trying to organize. It is not the best system but it's the best one we have and so far, it seems to be working so I would request that the Members of the House support the Labor Committee position of Inexpedient to Legislate. Mister Speaker, I would like a division vote.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe question before the House is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? Who requested it? Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. This will be a division vote. The House will be in order. Rep. Bouchard is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Donald Bouchard (D - Hills 24)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that employees should have the right to come together and decide and then bargain as a group with employer interference. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that this decision to come together to decide and bargain as a group must be free from coercion and intimidation. Then, Mister Speaker, would I press the red button so that someone can make another motion? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the bill was well intended, but is one sided. If I also know that there are mechanisms in place with the National Labor Relations Board to deal with issues that go on when a group of employees want to organize, then would I support the committee recommendation of Inexpedient to Legislate? Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe question is on the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll be pressing the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 181 having voted in the affirmative, 149 in the negative, the committee report is adopted.