The House, Thursday, February 22, 2024

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, when this bill came to the committee, at first blush I thought this, you know, was a good idea to let someone have the ability to decide what they wanted to do with their own rights. And then as we heard testimony, my opinion slowly changed because first of all, the 2nd Amendment right as we know is not granted by the state or the federal government. The 2nd Amendment right existed before the constitution was ever drafted. What we do know is that this bill would allow you to put your name on a registry that in the future you could not purchase a firearm. The problem is that what if someone influences you to put your name on that? What if, for example, you are involved with a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist you've seen for years and you depend on for your mental health says to you if you want to continue seeing me, you have to put your name on this registry? You now have a choice to keep your 2nd Amendment rights or lose your doctor. What if where you live, they say we don't allow people who aren't on this list? There are a plethora of ways that someone could be influenced and coerced into giving up their God-given 2nd Amendment right. The part that really, really twisted it for me was the testimony we heard from the New Hampshire Medical Association from a psychiatrist himself. He said we like this because it gives a list of who owns firearms and we have been long in favor of and support of and wanted a list of people that own firearms. That scares me and it should scare you. Whether you support the 2nd Amendment or not, any government agency or any organization that wants lists of people for any reason is scary. I would ask you to overturn the Ought to Pass so that a better motion can be made. Thank you.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Before I start, I just want to say that because this bill and my remarks deal with suicide, I want to remind anybody who's listening in on the live stream or up in the gallery who's dealing with a mental health crisis that help and support are available here in New Hampshire by calling the suicide and crisis hotline at 9-8-8. Over the Summer, I met a New Hampshire mom that lost her only son to a gun suicide and her story is why I filed this bill and why I'm standing before you today. I've had a lot of conversations with her over the last few months. What I've learned from those conversations are three things. The devastating impact that a tragedy like this can have on the people that are left behind. The finality of an attempted suicide by firearm, which has a 90% success rate. And most importantly I've learned that there are small but significant changes we can make to our laws to help people who are at risk for suicide, as well as their families. There are many people who experience suicidal thoughts. They can be veterans, police officers, the coach of your kid's baseball team, your friends and even members of your own family. Some are prone to severe depression; others may suffer from severe bipolar disorder. A surprising number have never even been treated for mental illness at all because half of the people who have suicidal thoughts are never actually treated for mental illness. Outwardly these people may look fine and if you ask them, most will tell you that they are fine. At least they are for now. But they also know that when they are in crises, the catastrophic mood swings and the overwhelming urge to do themselves harm will be back. Some of them also know that having a firearm in their lives during one of these times of crisis will put them at a dramatically higher risk of taking their own life. In most parts of the country, including New Hampshire, there is no ability to voluntarily add yourself to the federal background check system so you can't purchase a firearm. What this bill would do is change that by establishing a voluntary firearm do not sell list for people who wish to voluntarily suspend their firearms rights of their own free will. Similar bills have already been passed in Utah, Virginia and Washington State. HB 1050 authorizes the Department of Safety to create administrative processes needed to establish and manage the list. It also establishes the ground rules for handling these applications. Once a person is on the list and in the system, they will no longer be able to pass a background check to be able to purchase any type of firearm. If they change their mind and they wish to have their ability to purchase a firearm restored, all they need to do is fill out a simple form to do that. They will not need a signature from their doctor, their lawyer or anyone else. That's because the only person who can apply to put you on the list or to take you off of the list is you. On the matter of coercion or the potential coercion by a psychiatrist and medical people, I think a lot of us take medication and one of the things that I always ask my doctor before he puts me on a medication is there alternatives? You know, what are the alternatives that are available to me? Is this something that I really need to do? Is it something that's really essential? I've never actually had a doctor refuse to treat me because I refuse to take Atorvastatin. I think that situation, while there is always the potential for people that try to influence your decision, I don't think we are in a situation where we are going to have medical professionals coercing people to put themselves on this list. I also want to point out to you that the bill includes a class B misdemeanor penalty for anyone who attempts to enroll or to remove another from that list. So, the bottom line, again, is the only person who can put you on the list or take you off the list is you. There's also an entire section of the bill devoted to confidentiality and the protection of privacy. Contrary to what you may have heard, this bill doesn't take anybody's guns away. If a person decides to voluntarily and temporarily suspend their right to purchase a firearm, there is a process for them to end that suspension if they decide that is what they truly want. The bottom line is it is not a decision about whether or not to own a firearm, it's a personal health care decision and a case study in empowering the freedom of choice in a state where many of us like to loudly proclaim how much we treasure personal liberty. So today we have a choice. We can trust the people who find themselves in this situation, know themselves and know their vulnerabilities far better than we do or we can insert ourselves into a personal decision that would simply allow vulnerable people to take the quickest, the deadliest in our state, the most common method of suicide off the table. Colleagues, please join me in voting HB 1050 Ought to Pass. And, Mister Speaker, I ask for a division vote. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 1050. Rep. Granger has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. When you second a roll call request, you must be in your seat, not walking around the chamber. Members will be in your seats. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 1050. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Rhodes for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this simple form that we heard about does not exist to take you name off of a list. And if I know that the FBI does not have any obligation to take anybody's name off a list regardless of what the state says. And if I know there's always free cheese in the mousetrap, Mister Speaker, would I now press no on the Ought to Pass motion?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Selig for a parliamentary inquiry. The House will be in order.

Rep. Loren Selig (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill is an easy way to help people who have mental health crisis voluntarily block themselves and only themselves from buying guns when they are at their lowest. And, if I know that this bill does not take anyone's rights away, but rather gives people who suffer from extreme depression a tool to protect themselves from themselves. And if know that this bill could save lives and prevent suicide by gun. And, finally Mister Speaker, if I know that you are down with OTP, would I ask you to push the green button with me?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 1050. 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. 179 voting Yea, 200 voting Nay, the motion of Ought to Pass fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us now is Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1050. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. This will be a division vote. Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1050. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 205 voting Yea, 175 voting Nay, the motion of Inexpedient to Legislate passes. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThat motion is in order. The motion before us is Indefinitely Postpone HB 1050. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. I think everybody should still be in their seats. So, the motion before us is Indefinite Postponement on HB 1050. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 204 voting Yea, 177 voting Nay, HB 1050 is indefinitely postponed.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. HB 1288 changes certain due process rights for students, student organizations and faculty members facing disciplinary actions by state institutions of higher learning. Due process basically occurs when the accused has the right to publish to a published notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, an opportunity to tell their side of the story and a timely decision. The process and procedures of disciplinary action in academic and educational settings are meant to be flexible. Plagiarism or complaint of an unfair grade should not rise to the level of the same disciplinary procedure as would assault or arson. At universities, colleges and other educational institutions, the student disciplinary action is a locally developed process that sets procedures that are respectful, effective and fair but are not intended to duplicate a court of law. Often the levels of the process go from an informal one to one review or hearing to a formal hearing before a disciplinary panel that addresses the incident, determines responsibility and gives the appropriate sanctions. All parties have the option of appeals and if they choose a hearing in a court of law. Our state and university college systems have well-developed long-standing set of policies and disciplinary procedures based on the clearly stated and published rules and responsibility in a code of conduct, behavioral policies, academic integrity and sexual misconduct. Most of the due process rights prescribed in this bill are already happening and are currently in place at the campuses of our state universities and colleges, but this bill also proposes a one size fits all process and requirement that should not be the way to address the several layers of violations, the severity of the infraction or the choices of those involved at our universities and colleges. This bill requires adherence to specific measures at all levels. The university system suggested this bill could increase the number of formal hearings in an academic year from about 80 to more than 3,000. Not only would this be costly, but it would also slow the process of resolving disciplinary issues for students. In addition, the disciplinary processes for most faculty members are governed by several different collective bargaining agreements in which both employee and employer have agreed on the process for addressing those disciplinary concerns. Implementation of these rigid requirements in HB 1288 and it's one size fits all for unionized employees would require extended negotiations with various bargaining units to change agreements to meet the letter of the law. HB 1288 is a problem in search of a solution. There was no testimony pointing to issues that needed to be addressed at our state's public colleges and universities. On the other hand, we heard significant testimony that this legislation would create unnecessary, cumbersome and costly burdens for the university and community college systems to replace their process. Requirements to set up a new procedure, to develop, introduce and formulate the various components required in this bill would cause confusion and disruption by creating a parallel program to the one that's currently in place and almost duplicates it. In the absence of demonstrated problems, there is no evidence to suggest that we should or need to change the approach to disciplinary policies or procedures now. The legislature has a long history of leaving process and operational issues like this to the board of trustees and administrators of our community college system and our university system rather than creating detailed management instructions. I urge you to vote no on this OTP motion so another motion can be presented, and I ask for a division vote please.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise in support of the OTP/A motion on HB 1288. This bill establishes certain minimum due process protections that students, student organizations and faculty members at public higher education institutions must be afforded before they can be suspended, expelled, fired from employment or for student organizations deprived of any rights enjoyed by other student organizations. An issue had come up during the course of the committee proceeding on this bill is why does it focus only on those, why not, there are lot of staff people that are employed. Why doesn't the bill encompass that? The answer to that is that as we've seen around the country, those are generally not the people who end up in situations where their due process rights are imperiled. It's faculty members, students and student organizations. Those are the ones that are often in danger in connection with procedures that are used. So, let's take a look for a minute at what the due process rights are that this bill spells out. I ask you to think about them and as you are thinking about them, ask yourself does this sound unfair? Is there something wrong with giving people who are accused of wrongdoing and facing suspension, expulsion, firing, etc. of these rights? First, notice of the charges. Second, some advance disclosure of the witnesses and the evidence to be presented against the person as well as any exculpatory evidence that favors the person. Third, a presumption that the violation did not occur and a requirement that the violation be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. I should note here that that is a preponderance of the evidence standard is the civil standard. It's the lowest burden of proof that we have in the law. So, this is not making these proceedings analgesic criminal proceedings. The privilege against self incrimination would apply. There would be a right to confront and cross examine witnesses. A right to present a defense and call witnesses for the defense. A right to an impartial hearing officer. The right to have a lawyer or a non lawyer advocate be present at the student or faculty member's expense. This is not saying you get a right to a government paid for lawyer, but you have a right to have one or a non lawyer if you want to be present with you. A right to a verbatim record of the hearing and a right to appeal any adverse decision to a higher-level college official who was not directly involved in the earlier stages of the proceedings. The bill allows institutions to take immediate action prior to affording these rights where there is a threat of imminent harm and to then hold a hearing later on once the threat has been ameliorated. Colleges, the prior speaker indicated that some of the college administrators had basically come in and said our current practices are just fine. There really is no problem. Interestingly, one of the groups you would expect would be here, would have been there in the committee process if there really wasn't any problem is the union representatives that represent faculty members, etc. to come in and say if we pass this bill there will be a big problem. But you know what, there were no union representatives coming in and saying this was going to be a problem. And I submit to you that's because they don't see it as a problem. Let me point out to you the one thing I think is critically important. The prior speaker mentioned that most of the procedures that the university system and the community college system currently use really comply with this. There is really no difference or a very minor difference. If that's really true, then there is no problem because the bill specifically says that colleges or universities that have their own procedures are completely free to use those as long as they afford the minimum due process requirements that are in this bill. So, they can keep doing what they are doing as long as they afford the minimum due process. And of course, one of the other things that the bill says is in terms of trying to informally resolve matters, there is nothing in the bill and the bill specifically says that a faculty member or student is free to waive any of the rights as just as anyone else would be that are afforded under this as long as they do so voluntarily and knowingly. Let me talk for a moment about a particular problem that is a basis for needing for me to believe that this bill is particularly important. It's the issue of potential sexual assault allegations brought against students or maybe even faculty members, but probably more likely students. As you may know, during the Obama Administration, there was what was sent out by the education department, something known as guidance. They weren't regulations that were sort of supposed to have the legal effect of law, it was referred to as guidance suggesting that colleges and universities around the country were really affording too much due process in these kinds of cases and that it would be okay to allow some lesser level of process in these cases which did not really afford fairness to the person that was accused. That was reversed during the Trump Administration, but now is in the process of being reinstated by the Biden Administration. I have to say that it is very discouraging to see this development happening in the current administration. Requiring fairness does not in any way mean that anything goes in these kinds of due process protections that are afforded by this procedure. During the committee proceedings on this matter, an issue was raised that if a student is allowed to ask questions of an accuser, things could get out of control. Absolutely not. There is nothing in here that in any way would prevent the officer conducting the hearing from shutting down something if they are trying, if the accused was trying to harass a victim or something like that. Absolutely, the hearing's officer could shut it down. I think this is the important thing that I hope you will consider as you debate, as you think about what should happen on this bill, our traditions in this country and really in England, going back to the Magna Carta, have always taken the view that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape punishment than for one innocent person to be convicted. I hope that all of us in this room still believe that. I submit respectfully that we should not allow an exception to this proud tradition of justice to take hold on our college campuses. For this reason, I urge you to press the green button. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardRep. Lynn has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1288. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Damon for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the university and community college systems of New Hampshire already have well established disciplinary systems that effectively resolve issues respecting both parties without precluding civil or criminal legal proceedings if needed. And if I know this bill would require renegotiating many collective bargaining agreements at considerable time and expense. And more importantly, if I know as a survivor of assault that allowing the cross examination of the alleged perpetrator without the safety of official court procedures, is likely to cause further trauma to victims. And if I know this bill discourages victims from seeking help or reporting assaults, would I now press the red button so a better motion can be made? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1288. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Belcher for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mike Belcher (R - Carr 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good morning. If I know that this bill establishes a basic level of due process. If I further know that if colleges already meet these basic requirements, they must do nothing further. But, if I know that it was confirmed to our committee that sometimes due process is withheld, including the right to cross examination, would I then press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1288. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 192 voting Yea, 185 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted and it's going to Finance.

Speaker PackardRep. Staub moves Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Infantine.

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill proposes to increase the minimum wage up to $17/hour by 2029 so I did some research. We all drive thru, and we see advertisements that say X dollars per hour. So, I looked at three kinds of starting type jobs. McDonalds, Hannaford supermarkets and Dunkin Donuts, and I looked on their State of New Hampshire web pages to see all of their jobs that are open for each one of these positions. I didn't see a starting wage lower than $16/hour at McDonalds. Hannaford is between $15 and $22 for bagging and checkout clerks. Dunkins is the lowest between $13 and $18. So, I would suggest that New Hampshire employers are already doing this themselves. They know what they need to do to hire employees. New Hampshire doesn't do a lot of things other states do like a bottle bill. Why? Because we recycle ourselves. We don't have a mandatory insurance law but more people in New Hampshire have insurance than states where it is mandatory. Employers know what they have to do to get employees. The second part of the bill that is disconcerting to me has to do with is that this bill will increase every year with the New England Consumer Price Index. Nothing for negative inflation, but just for, you know, on a positive scale, positive inflation. You know, I have always believed and was taught this a long time ago. I've been hanging around these halls for almost 20 years now. When I was a young buck, someone told me we don't shy away from our responsibilities to vote on things. We don't let things just happen every year automatically. I don't think we should be passing something where increases happen automatically. I don't like it when the United States Congress walks around and gets a raise every year and says oh, we didn't vote for it, it was automatic. In New Hampshire we vote. So, I would like a roll call Mister Speaker, but I am asking my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Rep. Kathy Staub (D - Hills 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in support of the Ought to Pass motion on HB 1322. This bill would gradually raise New Hampshire's minimum wage beginning with an increase to $9.50 followed by modest yearly increases until it reaches $17/hour in 2029. Then after that, increases yearly based on the CPI, which is what the states of Vermont and Maine do. Why $17 you might ask. The MIT living wage calculator estimates that $17.23/hour is what a single person needs to live a decent life in New Hampshire and isn't that what we want for all Granite Staters? It is true that our current labor shortage has given workers the leverage to demand higher wages, but there is still one group of workers who can make $7.25/hour, tipped workers. If a waitress in New Hampshire comes in on a quiet day and doesn't make much in tips, the employer is required to make up their wages to the minimum wage of a mere $7.25. That same waitress would make $15 for her time in Massachusetts and $14.15 in Maine and aren't our workers worth as much as workers in Massachusetts and Maine? New Hampshire has not raised its minimum wage in fifteen years. Every state around us has by a lot and their economies have not collapsed. If we want to grow our states economy, we need to attract and retain working people. Reestablishing and raising the minimum wage sends the message that we value our workers, and that New Hampshire is a place where they can make a living and enjoy a good quality of life. Mister Speaker, when I vote for this bill, I will be thinking of the people who will benefit most, the waitress, who fills your coffee cup on a quiet Tuesday morning, the people who keep the convenience stores and gas stations open so you can get a gallon of milk when you need it or fill your tank when you come rolling in on fumes and the home health aid who comes every morning to help your elderly neighbor get out of bed, makes sure she takes her medication and has at least one good meal that day. If you believe as I do that the 124,000 workers in New Hampshire who make less than $17/hour are important contributors to our state's economy and enhance the quality of life for all of us, then I urge you to press the green button and raise the wage. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Infantine has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The House will be in order. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1322. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Infantine for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. William Infantine (R - Hills 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that New Hampshire employers know what they need to do to attract employees and the vast majority are paying more per hour than what is proposed in this legislation. And Mister Speaker if I also know that this bill is tied to automatic increases with the New England Consumer Price Index and I don't feel that legislation should have automatic increases, we should sit and vote on any increases, would I vote no on this bill? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Kris Schultz (D - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that a strong capitalism and a strong New Hampshire means we don't pay workers so poorly that they have to go on public assistance. And if I know that too many workers can't afford rent, food and the simple basics and instead of livable wages for our 124,000 low wage workers probably in every district in the state. And if I know that with no minimum wage of our own, we default to the federal $7.25/hour, the wealthiest state to do so, and half of what all of New England does besides us. And Mister Speaker if I know that hard working Granite Staters are counting on us to make that horrible phrase, working poor, a relic of the past by pushing the green button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1322. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 187 voting Yea, 192 voting Nay, the motion fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThat is a proper motion. So, the motion before us now is to Indefinitely Postpone HB 1322. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Mister Speaker, I'd like to move to table this legislation. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThat is a higher priority motion. The motion now will be to table HB 1322. I'm assuming a division. So, this will be a division vote. Members will remain in your seats. Are we all set? The motion before us is to table HB 1322. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations 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. 189 voting Yea, 191 voting Nay, the motion to table fails. We are back to the motion of Indefinitely Postponement on HB 1322. This is a division vote, and everybody is still in their seats. Very good. So, the motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone HB 1322. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations 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. 193 voting Yea, 187 voting Nay, the Indefinite Postponement of HB 1322 passes.

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. Rep. Sweeney requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Granger.

Rep. Michael Granger (R - Straf 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This legislation is called right to work, but it would be more accurate to call it the right to work and not have money from your paycheck stolen by people who have crippled your ability to independently negotiate who then act like they've done you a favor by doing so. That's a bit long winded, but you get the point. I am an independent worker. I do not work at a union job. I come from a long line of proud independent workers who also do not take union jobs. I'm someone who isn't in a union and also supports right to work. It's a change of pace for this legislation. Labor laws can be confusing, so I'll provide a fairly clear example of why I support right to work. Let's say you work for a company and the workers form a union. You're not in the union, but they form a union. Let's say the union chooses, the union chooses.

Speaker PackardThe member will be in order. Let's not talk about.

Rep. Michael Granger (R - Straf 2)Let's say that the union chooses for exclusive representation. That means that they represent all employees, even non-union employees. The union chooses that. Question for you. How would you go about independently negotiating your own wage and benefit package directly with the company? Answer, you can't. It's illegal. You are not allowed to negotiate your own wages. You're not allowed to negotiate your own benefit package. As an independent worker, you have had your agencies stolen from you by a union that will then come to the labor committee and then call you a free rider. They will come to my committee, and they will come in droves to complain about independent workers like me who are free riders because we get the negotiated wage that they negotiated for them even if we don't want it. Even if we don't want their benefit package. Even if we value our independence more than their handouts. They will come over and call you a free rider. So, regardless of how this vote goes, know this. Evil is self defeating. Private sector labor unions who have relied on this antiquated peculiar institution to stay alive are slowly disappearing. There was a time in America when almost half of all the workers were in a union. We've now gotten to the point where the unions have driven away the majority of those they represent and now only 10% of workers are in a union. What more, most of these union workers are in the public sector which already has right to work thanks to the Janus decision. On top of that, not every private sector union engages in the practice of forcing non union members to subsidize the unions. Some actually try to provide a decent service to their members without needlessly resorting to throwing independent workers under the bus. We will bring this bill back every two years until either it passes or until this unethical practice stops. If you want to not listen to this debate ever again, please oppose the indefinite postponement. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to Indefinite Postpone HB 1377. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. LeClerc.

Rep. Daniel LeClerc (D - Hills 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I may not have as much experience here at the State House as most of you, but I do have experience in opposing this right to work bill as I have been a carpenter and in a carpenter's union for 28 years now. I reached out to all when right to work legislation was first introduced in this body. I was told that the first substantial bill was introduced in 1979. When introduced, I was 16 going on 17 years old but didn't know much about unions except that my dad was a member of the Teamsters. He was a route salesman for Sunbeam Bread working out of Cote's Brothers Bakery in Manchester. And if you grew up in and around Manchester, you might have gone down South Elm Street, rolled your windows down and smelled fresh Sunbeam bread. It was awesome. I remember those days. So, in 1980, I earned my PhD, that's my public high school diploma from Manchester Memorial High School. I only mention this because at the time the Teamsters were having issues with those that were not in favor of unions. I don't remember all the details, but I do know that my dad got called to ride shotgun, literally, in case an overnight delivery got interrupted. Because of this, he missed my high school graduation. You might be thinking why would a father miss their oldest son's graduation? You know what, I kind of thought that too, but then we talked about it when he got home, and I understood that he did what he had to do. He obviously did not want to miss my high school graduation, but he also didn't want to lose what was fought by so many before him. Those who had made huge sacrifices for the greater good. He was proud of the fact that being a Teamster allowed him to provide for his wife and four sons and was not about to let anyone take that away from him. When I graduated from trade school a few years later, he was able to make that. He remained a Teamster even when he changed careers and started working for the Manchester Police Department. We lost him in 2011 after fighting long and hard against two different cancers and then finally succumbing to leukemia. At the ripe old age of 66 by the way, just one month before he was going to retire. Thanks to the MPD and the Teamsters, his benefits paid for all the medications and treatments he had to deal with along the way. They stayed by his side until the end and because his wife was able to receive his pension, she was able to stay in their home until we lost her just over a year ago. In 1995, my wife Francine and I had our second son. I've been working in construction for open shop companies since the mid eighties before, during and after going to trade school. I was tired of begging for lame wages and getting terrible benefits that I had to pay for. With my wife and two young sons I knew I needed to make a change. My brother-in-law had just joined the carpenter's union and suggested that I do the same, so I did. My only regret was that I waited until I was 33 years old and didn't do it at 23 years old. Fast forward to today. I'm 61 years old. This close to retiring. I have a full pension and annuity waiting for Francine and me to carry us through our retirement years. I've been paying dues voluntarily for all those years because I know the rate of return we'll receive cannot be matched by any financial institution. There's no way we could have saved up what we are going to get in our retirement years. This legislation jeopardizes all of that. Even with its misleading title, we can all agree that everyone has the right to work, but I really hope that everyone in this room knows that this bill has nothing to do with that. Make no mistake. The only intent of HB 1377 is to destroy unions in what many, many long before us have fought and died for. Safe wages, safe working conditions and a chance to retire with dignity, just to name a few. Even thought the federal government already protects worker's freedom not to join a union, HB 1377 wants to give some workers a free ride by allowing anti-union workers to opt out of paying any fees, but still be able to receive all of the benefits and by law union representation would still be provided. Even a business as large as Plant Fitness would not survive if nobody paid fees to be a member. During two days of hearings at the Labor Committee, the best committee in the House Mister Speaker. We heard testimony from the Executive Director for Northeast Citizens for Right to Work who are really from Virginia. His written testimony stated the facts show businesses are naturally inclined to locate new jobs in and when feasible, transfer existing jobs to states where right to work is protected. When we asked for proof, none was provided. We do know that Republican Governor Jim Justice pushed to pass a right to work law promising it would bring new jobs. But in February of 2021, about half an hour or so into a town meeting, he admitted really and truly let's be brutally honest, we passed a right to work law in West Virginia and we ran to the windows looking to see all the people that were going to come, and they didn't come. Last Thursday, during the State of the State Address, Governor Sununu said that many businesses have come to New Hampshire, and we are not a right to work state. And as February 13, 2024, just last week, after 50 plus years of being a right to work state, Michigan is no longer a right to work state. We also heard from the President and CEO.

Rep. Daniel LeClerc (D - Hills 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. We also heard from the President and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors, that's the ABC, who represents many dues paying construction firms. He testified that in New Hampshire union bosses use violence, coercion and intimidation to force people to join unions. As a former union boss, I resent those remarks. And again, when asked for proof, none was brought forth. I'd like to point out that our union bosses here in New Hampshire have helped many open shop carpenters get compensation owed to them. Working with the state DOL, we got them the money they earned, sometimes thousands because we believe in protecting all workers' rights and when you work you get paid union or not. The ABC also testified that union construction workers could only make what their contract states and need to beg the union boss for more money. Again, hurtful, but not true. The rate of pay in our contract is a minimum amount. If a carpenter would like to earn more, he or she can work with their employer to do so. No union boss involved. By the way, union carpenter's minimum wage is way higher than the open shop carpenter's minimum wage of $7.25/hour. Colleagues let's be clear. The reality is that right to work isn't just wrong for New Hampshire workers, it's also wrong for New Hampshire businesses. At the hearings and through correspondence, we heard from firms that employ thousands of New Hampshire workers. They were clear in telling us that right to work is bad for business because it will intrude in their businesses ability to freely negotiate contracts that they determine are in their best interest to their companies. They expressed dismay that here in New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state, that this legislative body would pass a law that mandates government interference in the free market. They also pointed out that passing right to work will harm our communities because studies show that states that have passed right to work have lower wages, higher rates of jobsite injuries and death, lower rates of healthcare coverage and higher rates of poverty. Pushing more people toward public assistance is not something they and I hope we can all agree is not good for our state. Mister Speaker, I could continue pointing out the untruths told by the folks in favor of right to work, but I would just like to point out two more things before closing. First, while execing HB 1377, it was said in the best committee in the House, that unions are irrelevant and probably won't be around in 50 years. If that was true, why the hell are so many anti-union organizations like the aforementioned working so diligently and spending so much money to get rid of them? I'll wager my entire gross salary for this session that the members of this House receive more correspondence in opposition to this bill from true voting New Hampshire constituents than those in support. I'm confident in this wager because after more than five hours of testimony over two days, more than 1400 members of the public either spoke or registered their opposition to HB 1377, while less than 50 spoke positive. Secondly, this body gets together to debate and vote on whether or not a bill introduced from committee should become law. Typically, bad bills go no further no matter how many times or in what form they are introduced. In my opinion and the opinion of legislators over the past 40 plus years, no matter which side had the majority, this is once again a bad bill that should not go any further. Mister Speaker, I respectfully ask that we all push the red button, I mean the green button to Indefinitely Postpone, like so many before us at the request of our voting New Hampshire constituents. Let's all prove again that right to work and HB 1377 are wrong for New Hampshire, wrong for New Hampshire businesses and wrong for all the taxpayers of this great State of New Hampshire. Mister Speaker, I also respectfully ask for a division vote.

Speaker PackardIt's already a roll call. Members take your seats. This is going to be a roll call. The motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone HB 1377. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Brian Sullivan for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Brian Sullivan (D - Sull 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this body has been killing right to work for over 40 years. And if I know that over 1,400 people signed in in opposition to right to work and only 50 signed in in favor of it. And if I know that right to work is wrong for New Hampshire, then would I press the green button in favor of Indefinitely Postponement? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Popovici-Muller for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Mister Speaker, if I know that many workers do not want a union job and this bill protects the rights of every worker to choose to join a union and pay for their services or not. If I know that this bill will eliminate restrictions on the freedoms of individuals and businesses alike, allowing them to choose what is best for them without being coerced into different choices. If I know that the so-called free riders are a myth since the NLRA explicitly allows unions to negotiate members only contracts which do not require unions to represent non members. And lastly, if I know that there is no doubt that forcing someone to pay to exercise their constitutional right is a clear interference with their rights, would I then press the red button so that a better motion can be made?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Indefinite Postponement on HB 1377. 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. Before I announce the vote, I want to make it clear. The House will be in order and that includes the gallery. No clapping, no screaming, no hollering from anybody. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 212 voting Yea, 168 voting Nay, Indefinite Postponement passes.