The House, Thursday, March 28, 2024

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mister Speaker, I move to table HB 1279, and I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThis is a proper motion. Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is to table HB 1279. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weyler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that when the state stopped contributing the 35% to the municipal employer's cost of retirement in 2012 that we made up the loss by increasing the employee's contribution, which would be proportional to the increase of employees and their pay. The 35% that we looked at in 2012.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Then would I now be in favor of tabling this as necessary because we have worked out a way to do it? Thank you. Press the green button.

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

Rep. Chuck Grassie (D - Straf 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this was a promise that was made to communities back in 1967 to get communities to join into the retirement system for the State of New Hampshire. And if I know that this is an important bill for all our communities, whether they be Democratic or Republican, council members, board of aldermen, selectmen. If I know that they want this bill to help relieve the burden on taxpayers, would I now press the red button so a further motion can be made?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to table HB 1279. 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. 182 voting Yea, 192 voting Nay, the tabling motion fails. The Chair recognizes Rep. Edgar.

Rep. Michael Edgar (D - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. There are two different versions of this and I'm glad I get to give one of them anyway. Yeah, my name is Mike Edgar and this bill here is really for the cities and towns. You know, we had a retirement system back in the 60's. There was like four different ones and the state wanted it combined into one. The towns and cities agreed, but at the same time when the state convinced the cities and towns to do it, they promised to subsidize or pay for 40% of what the employer, in this case the cities and towns, would have to pay. Well eventually that got decreased. I want to remind everybody that this is for the teachers, the police, the firefighters. Those are the ones that are getting their retirement, which they are paying quite a bit for because it was increased as mentioned earlier. What they are paying is quite a bit so basically, we had it where the state was going to contribute 40% and then basically get down to 2011 where they paid zero. My goodness. I first became involved with this when the former representative from Hampton, Renny Cushing was bringing this up. He was always trying to get basically to stop the downshifting and to get the cities and towns what is due them and this is one of the ones that he really avid about. Then one of my best memories of this whole topic, which we discussed several times, is when our fighting leprechaun brought this up two years ago and we actually got it passed in the House. Mike O'Brien did a great job and I think that was really something to see. It's recently mentioned about property tax relief. This bill was criticized because it had the words property tax relief in it and I guess it must be a popular term because a bill that was put in by the other side used the same term, property tax relief. What they did was they changed it so there was only one year of it and that was in 2022 and it was great. Between the towns and the cities, they got about $28 million back, but it's interesting that it also, getting that through, it also had a business tax relief in it. That was part of that bill that was put in for the one year. So, basically the state reneged on their promise and towns could really, really use the money. I hope that the people can see, who actually approved this, who approve the final bill after we change it, but vote red on the ITL and as I say, Yatahey, vote red.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This is a perennial bill, and we had the identical bill last year in HB 50. When that bill came to the Finance Committee, we choose to redirect it for the same purpose but not as an immediate payment to municipalities, but as a pay down of the unfunded liability of the pension system. That's a slow way and steady way of improving the pension system over the long haul rather than a shot in the arm for this year's municipalities. So, that's what we passed. It was passed with a very strong vote on the House floor. We put it into the budget. Unfortunately, it was ripped out by our friends on the other side of the wall and because we did not go to a committee of conference, that was the end of it for last year. It's something that in the committee of conference, we would have argued for it strongly. This year, earlier this year, we repurposed HB 436 to be exactly that. The exact same thing. This bill, as modified to pay down the unfunded liability. That bill is now on the other side of the wall, and they have not yet acted on it. I have high hopes. I have already spoken to them about it. I have high hopes that it may go forward in some form. The problem is, we have already given them a very heavy lift on the general fund this year. We have a much more important bill that we've already sent to enhance Group II liability features and we have HB 436, which is the paydown of the unfunded liability. If we add to it, essentially the same bill in this bill, that's yet another big chunk of the general funds and I think it will cause them to not pass our other important bills which we have already send them. It will just be too heavy a lift for their Finance Committee as it would be for ours. So please let's honor the decision that this body has already made and give our attention and our force to lowering the unfunded liability. That helps everyone, every municipality, the state in the long run, which is important. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Edgar has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Grassie for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Chuck Grassie (D - Straf 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that back in 1967 the State of New Hampshire promised communities a 40% share if they joined the retirement system. And if I know that in a strange quirk in 2011, this House and legislative body removed that contribution and became zero support for the communities. And if I know that what goes on on the other side of the wall is their business and what happens on this side of the wall is our business and that this bill will be back again if we do not do this this year because our city councils, our board of aldermen, our selectmen have requested this year after year after year. This is non partisan. If I know that this 7.5% will make up for that, basically bring back some of that promise that we had for our communities and help reduce taxes, would I now push the red button so we can get to Ought to Pass and move this bill forward?

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that in 2012, the lack of money going to the municipalities for the retirement contribution was made up by the towns of making the employees pay the difference. That system has been stable for 13 years and the employees are still paying about less than half of what the employer pays so if that system has been going on for 13 years, why suddenly is there a travail about its affect on taxes? And finally, if I know that the Constitution Bill of Rights for New Hampshire in Article 36 says pensions will never be paid for more than one year, will I please stop hearing about broken promises? Press the green button to balance budgets. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1279. 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. 178 voting Yea, 194 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Grassie moves Ought to Pass. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it by 194 to 178.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)The member rises for a motion to lay the bill on the table.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Weber moves that HB 1607 be laid on the table. Are you ready for the question? Rep. Hoell requests a roll call and it's well seconded. This will be a roll call. The question is whether to lay HB 1607 on the table and this is a roll call vote. Rep. Weber is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that everybody wants babies to be safe and cherished. And if I know that the numerous questions raised by this bill include the problem of leaving a 61- day period in which a child might be abused and then because of changes in the laws of evidence, that abuse might never be addressed either civilly or criminally, would I now press green on the tabling motion, and we will go to work for this in the future?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Peternel is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that our 20-year-old safe haven law is in dire need of updating. If I know that with the increased use of illegal drugs that we are likely to see more and more babies surrendered. If we do not surrender those babies safely, they may end up dead somewhere as we have seen in the past. If I know that evidence can be obtained in ways other than the surrender of the child and that the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys supports this bill. If I know that this bill has bipartisan sponsorship and committee support and that saving a baby's life should take precedence over prosecuting a struggling mother, would I please press the red button to not table this bill so that another motion can be made?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is whether to lay HB 1607 on the table. If you are in favor, press the green button. Opposed, press the red. 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. 183 in the affirmative, 187 in the negative, tabling fails. One on one debate. Rep. Peternel is recognized to speak against the motion. Hold up, we have amendments. Go ahead.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Imagine a woman who is a serious criminal surrounded by drug abuse and violence giving birth to a baby. This mother does not want or cannot handle the responsibility of raising this child. She would welcome an opportunity to anonymously wash her hands of the baby and surrender it to someone else. Some parents who surrender their infants may be heroic, but this woman is no hero. She wants to surrender the baby for one reason because it would be in her own self interests to be free of this child. But it is ultimately in the best interest of the baby to allow an option of anonymous surrender. Danielle Daughinais surrendered her baby to a New Hampshire hospital in 2021. Instead of keeping Daughinais identity anonymous, that hospital reported her to the police which led directly to her arrest for a separate murder charge and a litany of other crimes. In other words, New Hampshire's Safe Haven Law was used as a law enforcement tool. We need to update our Safe Haven Law so mothers know that they can surrender their baby free from fear of arrest. If a mother realizes that by safely surrendering her baby, the hospital will report her identity to the police who then pursue and investigate her, she may not come forward to surrender her baby and instead she might keep the baby out of fear of arrest. What will happen to the baby? We know what will happen. As long as our safe havens are used as a tool of law enforcement to catch criminal parents, then that baby might die, be neglected or like Dauphinais first child, live a short life of unspeakable abuse. There is a critical difference between babies and our other constituents. There is a critical difference between this issue and most of the issues we consider in this House. A helpless baby cannot drive to another state with better safe haven laws. Only we can give parents every incentive to save these babies. This bill will expand the age window in which parents can surrender their child and allow the optional construction of baby boxes to better protect infants and the anonymity of their parents. As the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys has explained, this is no different from other areas where we restrict the tools that law enforcement can use. Our laws exclude evidence obtained from illegal searches, but this does not mean we want criminals to go free. It means the police must use other tools, not illegal searches to catch those criminals. In the same way, police must use other tools to catch criminals besides baby safe havens. What is more critical, punishing criminals or saving babies lives? Your most vulnerable and innocent constituents need you. If you have concerns with this bill, help us continue the conversation and let them be addressed on the other side of the wall. Speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and join us in protecting them by pressing the red button to overturn the motion for Interim Study.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Weber is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, you've heard a number of most excellent points in favor of this bill, and I understand all of those arguments and I agree with them, but there is another side as well so let's look at the bill. Currently, anybody can surrender a baby within five days of birth by giving a warm handoff to a hospital, EMT, fire station, police station, a church, whatever. The bill would change that to 61 days for surrender and it has the anonymous use of the baby box as a protection and an incentive for the parent to surrender the child anonymously and I understand all of those arguments. Here is the other side of the question. Oh, and the third thing is of course it limits the liability to prosecution either civilly or criminally for acting under the act. So, here's the other side of the question. First off, somebody who is so deep in the depths of addiction or poverty or mental illness that they are considering surrendering a baby may not even know this law exists, may not know it's available to them and may not be organized enough to take advantage of the law. That is a tragedy. Secondly, for a parent who is in despair because of their circumstances and the arrival of an infant, what could be better than a warm handoff at a place where there are people who might offer support, offer comfort, offer help and prevent a parent in a moment of despair from doing something they will regret for the rest of their lives? Third, one of the things I found the most troubling with this bill was that part of our hearing on the bill really amounted to an infomercial by the manufacturer of these devices who made it very clear that he was making it his mission in life to change all the laws in all the states and yes, there is nothing that requires that his devices be used, but he's the only person who is doing it at the moment. Finally, there is that thorny issue of liability. If this bill passes, there is the very real possibility that someone, not necessarily the mother, could be abusing the child for 60 days and then could possibly put that comatose and battered infant into a box and escape criminal prosecution and imagine the howls from our constituents if that happens. There is a great deal to admire about this legislation. There is a great deal to be worked on in this legislation so I would urge you to support the Interim Study so that we can continue to work on the bill and bring back a better product with more of those questions resolved. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question is the majority committee report of Interim Study on HB 1607. This will be a division vote. Please take your seats. Rep. Hoell requests a roll call. Is it sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Still take your seats. The question is on the report of Interim Study on HB 1607. The House should be in order. This is a roll call vote. Rep. Mazur is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that safe haven boxes are being used in 16 other states and we want to lead New England in child protections. And if I know that evidence can be obtained in ways other than the surrender of the child and that the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Law supports the bill. And I also know that there was no manufacturer at the hearing because I was there, and they were not doing an infomercial. And lastly, if I know this bill has bipartisan sponsorship and committee support and that saving a baby's life should take precedence over prosecuting a struggling mother, would I please press the red button to overturn the Interim Study so a better motion can be made? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Weber is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that we all want to protect infants. And if I know.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order. Look, I know I let a lot of stuff slide, but just for once can we remember who we are, where we are and give the subject matter the gravity it deserves? Please continue.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. And if I know that I want to protect a suffering mother or parent, but I don't want to protect an abusive person. And if I know that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that this bill will allow people to go free and clear so they of course will adopt this procedure and also argue that they can also be brought to answer for their actions in other ways, would I now vote green to support Interim Study so we can resolve the questions and bring back a better bill next time around? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the committee report of Interim Study on HB 1607. 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. 182 in the affirmative, 189 in the negative, the motion fails. Rep. Kofalt moves Ought to Pass on HB 1607. Rep. Cordelli moves floor amendment (1351h) which can be found in your seat pockets. Rep. Peternel is recognized to speak.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that floor amendment (1351h).

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithYou can just talk. This doesn't have to be a PI.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)What a relief. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Amendment (1351h) simply adds. I'm sorry. It simply adds a list of findings at the beginning of the amendment and also changes the name of the safe haven baby box to just to a baby box. It can be any device. It is not incorporated. It is not patented. It is not trademarked. We could machine manufacture them right here in New Hampshire if we needed to. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of the amendment. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye, all those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Now the question is on the main motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Seth King is recognized to speak against the motion.

Rep. Seth King (R - Coos 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Friends, I have something very important to say here. This bill, I really like the vast majority of this bill. I like the baby boxes. I like increasing the number of days and that had bipartisan support. The main problem is with a very small section of the bill, which is referred to as the exclusionary clause. What this does is it allows individuals to abuse, including sexually abusing children for up to 61 days, drop them off and have a get out of jail free card. That is a bridge too far for me and when I brought this up in committee, we had enough support, including on the Republican side, to say you know what, that's also a bridge too far for me as well. That's why we originally supported the Interim Study bill. The problem is in the last minute, leadership has decided to switch around and say we want to fight for the bill completely. Let me ask you a question. If somebody kidnapped a child right now and the child was missing for 3 weeks, would the police ever come out in the media and say, you know what, just bring back the child, we don't care what you have done to it in the last 3 weeks, we will let you off Scott free? Would we ever do that? No, they wouldn't. They would never do that. We will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. We cannot tolerate child abusers and the problem is that if you were ever to say something like this, you would give, it would be a clarion call to all of the would-be abusers out there. All you have to do is bring back the child and we'll let you off Scott free no matter what you have done to it. So, what I would recommend is to not to support the OTP. It's very unfortunate because me and some other Representatives worked very hard with the authors of the bill and we said hey, let's have a compromise here. I'm perfectly fine, we were perfectly fine with saying look, if you're drug addicted, then we are not going to come after you, alright? I've been against the war on drugs my entire life. I don't want a drug addicted mother to be afraid of dropping off her baby and then getting busted. That is not what I want, but if you are sexually abusing children, if you are breaking their bones and brutalizing them, we will come after you with the full extent of the law. We cannot tolerate that, and the problem is this sends the wrong message and we are going to send a clarion call to everybody out there who is a would-be abuser that you have 61 days. Matter of fact, there was a, just a couple of days ago, there was a mother who was found, who was busted for pimping out her newborn child to sexual predators. There is real evil in the world. People will take advantage of this, and I don't want my hands on this bill at all. So please send the bill back. Let's fix that. We need some compromise. We cannot just have a free for all. That is unacceptable. As a Republican that's just embarrassing. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Peternel is recognized to speak in support of the motion.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill provides a requirement that within 24 hours of receiving a report, the department shall request law enforcement officials to investigate the incident, including by using the National Crime Information Center database to determine if the child is missing. As for the exclusionary rule, this uses the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, criminal investigations cannot directly result from an illegal search. The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. For example, the decision in Miranda vs. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements into evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendants Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Some of these individuals should be investigated or imprisoned but should not be discouraged from legally abandoning their babies. Remember, this is about saving the babies, not prosecuting the parents. Find them some other way. Arrests due to the safe haven drop off have led to a decrease in abandonment and an increase in abandoned infant death.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)I have a question for the Speaker. Is Section 5, now that we have adopted this amendment, something that can be separated out so that we can pass Sections 1 through 4 and Section 6?

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)Then Mister Speaker, I would move to divide the amendment that we adopted, removing Section 5 and pass Sections 1 through 4 and 6.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithOkay, so the question is shall Section 5 be divided? The question is shall Section 5 be divided? Are you ready for the question? Rep. Hoell is recognized. Okay, the Clerk is recognized to explain the motion. Clerk Smith: Mister Speaker, the question is shall the bill be divided. What that would mean is Section 5 that Rep. Hoell is asking to be divided, means that we would vote on them separately if you vote yes to divide it. So, Sections 1 through 4 and Section 6 would be a stand-alone motion and then subsequently, if the division is successful, then Section 5 would be voted on separately. You can adopt one without adopting the other. To be clear, you cannot table one or the other because that tables the whole bill.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithSo, the first question is whether or not you want to divide. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. All those opposed, Nay. Keep the doors closed. Let's do a division vote. Don't let any other members in. This is for clarification. The question is whether to divide Section 5. If you are in favor, press the green button. Opposed, press the red. 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. 290 in the affirmative, 82 in the negative, the question shall be divided. Now, the question is shall Sections 1 through 4 and 6 be adopted. Are you ready for the question? If anybody is outside, they are allowed to come in. Rep. Drye has requested a roll call and its sufficiently seconded. It will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is shall we adopt Sections 1 through 4 and 6. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor of that, press the green button. If you are opposed, press the red. 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. 372 voting in the affirmative and 1 Nay, the motion is adopted. The question now is shall we adopt Section 5. Are you ready for the question? Rep. Drye requests a roll call. It is sufficiently seconded. Let's do another roll call. Members take your seats. The question is whether to adopt Section 5. Rep. Peternel is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Mister Speaker, if I know that Section 5 is the most important part of this bill. That without the exclusionary rule, parents are going to dump their babies into dumpsters, kill them on the side of the road, let them suffocate in couches.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)If I know that without this exclusionary rule, the bill has no teeth, would I now vote green?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is whether to adopt Section 5. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. If you are opposed, press the red. 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. 185 voting in the affirmative, 188 in the negative, the motion fails. Without objection, the Clerk is allowed to renumber the bill accordingly.

Speaker PackardThe majority committee amendment is (0961h) printed in House Record 12 pages 170 through 171. Are you ready for the question on the majority amendment? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the majority committee amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Boyd offers floor amendment (1269h) and is recognized to speak to his amendment.

Rep. Bill Boyd (R - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, to you to my esteemed colleagues of the New Hampshire General Court, I rise in support of my floor amendment to HB 2024, the state 10-year plan, which seeks to keep Continental Boulevard in the hands of the state. I refer my right honorable colleagues to the minority report and to the minority amendment which can be found on page 171 of the amendment calendar. Two years ago, I stood here in the well in Representatives Hall making a case as to why the state should retain ownership of Continental Boulevard and today, I return. Those same facts remain as the road maintenance price tag gets a little bigger. The Town of Merrimack has never owned this road. The state's Department of Transportation built this 2.5 mile stretch of road in 1993 through eminent domain proceedings over the objections of the town. The prevailing argument made by the DOT at that moment in time was that public necessity for the use of private property for this road was needed by the public and region for the greater good. Some 30 years later, Continental Boulevard serves as the primary arterial connection from Route 101-A to the F.E. Everett Turnpike. The road handles over 17,000 vehicles daily as it feeds westbound and eastbound traffic along 101-A to exits 10 and 11 on the F.E. Everett in Merrimack away from overburdening exit 7 in Nashua. These traffic volumes also exceed the urban compact section of Daniel Webster Highway in Merrimack. That road handles approximately 15,000 vehicles daily in my town. Now the DOT contends that this stretch of roadway is no longer a public necessity to the state, and it seeks to abdicate its ownership and responsibility from a roadway it richly wanted back in 1993. The towns absorption of this roadway to our town budget will be an additional $500,000 annually with long term capital costs exceeding $7 million over the next 20 years. Furthermore, the town could be acquiring a roadway from the DOT that is currently scheduled by them for a facelift next year. The towns projected cost for repaving this 2.5 mile stretch of roadway lands just shy of $2 million, a single cost that exceeds the towns yearly paving budget. As you deliberate this floor amendment, please consider this fact. The states abdication of Continental Boulevard to the Town of Merrimack will be a lynchpin in how the DOT handles other state roadways in New Hampshire that they don't want to maintain and pay. The mission creep of giving up state roadways for cost efficiencies would begin and it could happen in your community. Auxiliary roadways like 11-A in Gilford and Alton, 12-A in Surry and Alstead, portions of 101-A in Milford and Mast Road 114-A in Goffstown to name a few. The list will become endless if we remove the lynchpin and vote to approve the transfer of Continental Boulevard to the Town of Merrimack. If you agree with me, then please press the green button to approve the floor amendment and ensure that DOT remains committed and engaged to maintaining the roads and the highways it has been entrusted to oversee. Thank you, Mister Speaker and I ask for a division vote.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to a question? The member yields. Rep. McGough, you may inquire.

Rep. Tim McGoughThank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, Representative Boyd for taking my question. So, if I understand correctly, if we support this floor amendment, it will prevent the unfunded mandate to Merrimack and will stop the dangerous precedent that could happen in any town?

Rep. Bill Boyd (R - Hills 12)Thank you for the question, Representative McGough. That's correct. It would stop the unfunded mandate that is elucidated in Part 1, article 28 of our constitution, where the state shall not mandate or assign any new responsibilities to any political subdivisions in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures.

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)I'd like to ask the representative a question.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to a further question? You may inquire.

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Representative, thank you for taking my question. This is regarding the DOT construction on Route 101-A at Pennichuck Square. Would you believe that if the state didn't think that Continental Boulevard had a regional impact to traffic flows along Route 101-A then they wouldn't be proposing to widen that stretch of roadway there, a project that is currently underway?

Rep. Bill Boyd (R - Hills 12)I thank the gentlelady for the question and yes, I would believe because I know that the DOT met with the Town of Merrimack last week to discuss the prospects of the construction in Pennichuck Square construction project. That has been in the 10-year plan previously to the tune of $5 million and includes widening, sewer, amongst other amenities to improve that particular roadway.

Rep. Rosemarie Rung (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thanks to my esteemed colleague from Merrimack for bringing forth this floor amendment. For years, misinformation has infiltrated the debate about Merrimack tolls and now about Continental Boulevard, which has led to some bad decisions. Handing over ownership of Continental Boulevard to Merrimack from the state would be a bad decision so allow me to set the record straight. Decades ago, against the wishes of the Town of Merrimack, which you have heard, the state built Continental Boulevard to connect to 101-A and the Everett Turnpike, both state roads. It was so important to the state to have this connection, that they took many properties by eminent domain and cut through school district property leaving the Thorntons Elementary School on one side of the road and what could have been playing fields for the school on the other. Their oversalting of this road caused the contamination of a public well that forced our water municipality to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace. Now, after all this cost that Merrimack has had to absorb and lost property tax revenues from the eminent domain, the state wants our property taxpayers to make up for their lost revenue. Also, decades ago, the town agreed to a toll at exit 11 to pay for the construction of a ramp to serve the Digital Equipment Corporation campus, which is now Fidelity Investments. That toll was to remain up until the bond, the construction bond for the ramp, was paid for, however, DOT has refinanced that bond at least twice for other purposes even though the actual ramp construction costs were paid many years ago. So, it was only fair for that toll to come down. So, let's look at the majority report that is on page 35 of this week's calendar. It states, over the past several years, due to the decrease in traffic volume and the elimination of toll plazas, turnpike revenue has declined considerably. Based on declining turnpike revenues and other historical reasons, the majority committee amendment calls for the transfer of ownership of Continental Boulevard to the Town of Merrimack. Why should local property taxpayers shoulder the cost of declining turnpike revenue? Turnpikes by definition are paid for by users, however, the first third of the Everett Turnpike and the most travelled section is from the Massachusetts state line to exit 8. This stretch has never had a toll, despite an earlier 10-year transportation plan that called for one along with extensive improvements which were already completed. So, new ramps, road widening, a bridge to connect to the bridge that goes to Hudson and toll infrastructure was constructed. If this toll station was put into operation as was planned in that 10-year transportation study, that revenue would be more than enough to cover the turnpike costs, but the users of that stretch of turnpike have paid nothing, zero, zilch, nada. It is so unfair to have one town pay so the majority of users on a turnpike don't have to. Please vote green to pass this amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Mark McConkeyThank you, Mister Speaker, and esteemed colleagues. You are not accustomed to seeing the Chair of Public Works and Highways at the well. There is a very good reason for that. In our committee, there is not a partisan bone in our collective body. We work together, reason among ourselves and we nearly always reach a unanimous decision that results with our bills on the Consent Calendar. Public Works and Highways has two charges. On the even years, we bring forward the 10-year transportation plan and on the odd year we provide the state capital budget. Before you today is HB 2024, and the only point of contention is floor amendment (1269h) to stop the reclassification of Continental Boulevard in the Town of Merrimack from becoming a town-maintained road. To defend the committee's position, I will offer a bit of background for your consideration. While the turnpike system received limited federal funds, it is primarily funded through the toll revenue. Nearly 30 years ago, the Town of Merrimack requested the turnpike to construct ramps to provide access for its citizens to the turnpike system to alleviate traffic on Route 3 and to enable development in the areas surrounding the ramps. The turnpike system did not have adequate funds to construct the access. In order to advance the projects, Merrimack agreed that the ramps would be tolled. Continental Boulevard was constructed as part of exit 10 interchange to support major developments in the area and provide construction to both exit 10, Industrial Drive and exit 11, via Continental Boulevard. Both exits 10 and 11 were tolled but over time the town advocated for the removal of tolls from exits 10, 11 and 12 resulting in a loss of nearly $1.6 million a year in revenue and it cost the turnpike, when they were removed, $2.2 million to remove those tolls. Insult to injury, Continental Boulevard is not even connected to the turnpike, but costs the turnpike $96,000 annually to maintain Continental Boulevard that only benefits Merrimack. The turnpike cannot afford this expense without offsetting revenue. The overwhelming majority of our Public Works and Highways Committee, 18-1 supports HB 2024 as amended without the Boyd floor amendment (1269h). I ask that you support our committee position, oppose this amendment, and press the red button when the Speaker calls for the vote. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Boyd floor amendment (1269h). Are you ready for the question? Did I hear a division? This will be a division vote. Members take your seats. The House will be in order. The motion before us is the Boyd floor amendment (1269h). This is going to be a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Murphy for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Nancy Murphy (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the Department of Transportation seeks to make up for a drop in toll revenue by reclassifying Continental Boulevard and dumping ownership, obligation, and responsibility onto the Town of Merrimack. And if I know that the committee amendment violates the Constitution Bill of Rights, Article 28-A creating the mother of all unfunded mandates that will unjustly increase property taxes for Merrimack residents who will become responsible for maintenance costs such as the $1.8 million anticipated cost for repaving this road, a sum that will exceed the entire paving budget for the town. And finally, if I know that New Hampshire municipalities like mine and potentially yours at some point in the future should not be mandated to take on DOT responsibilities for state owned roads that the town never wanted or owned in the first place, then would I now press the green button to support adoption of this bipartisan amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Mark McConkeyThank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the New Hampshire turnpike constructed ramps at exits 10, 11 and 12 for the Everett Turnpike, improved and extended an existing town road known as Camp Seargent, creating Continental Boulevard that relieved traffic on Route 3 and enabled economic development in those areas surrounding those ramps for the sole benefit of Merrimack. If I know the New Hampshire Turnpike only took on the major investment with the expressed understanding the Town of Merrimack would permit tolls to be collected for those aforementioned ramps to pay for the construction and the continued maintenance. And if I know that Merrimack later actively pursued and secured removal of the Merrimack tolls triggering a $1.6 million annual loss of tolls and the removal of those tolls locations cost the turnpike $2.1 million and after all that the turnpike is left with an expensive of $96,000 annually to maintain Continental Boulevard as mentioned, a local road that is not connected to the New Hampshire Turnpike System. Finally, if you are not from Merrimack, and believe as I the Town of Merrimack should have fully considered the financial ramifications for their town before they removed a stable revenue stream that would have fully funded the continued maintenance of their local road, would you now join me and press the red button to defeat this amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Boyd floor amendment (1269h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Okay, there was a slight malfunction, so we are going to do this again. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be in order. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 172 voting Yea and 195 voting Nay, the amendment fails. We are back to the majority committee motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 2024. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye, those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the committee report is adopted.