The House, Thursday, April 11, 2024

Speaker PackardTable HB 1288? The motion is to table HB 1288. Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call. Members take your seats. The House will be in order. The motion before us is to table HB 1288. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hakken-Phillips for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 1288 is a fiscally irresponsible unfunded mandate charged to New Hampshire's higher educational system. If I also know that New Hampshire has already an existing higher educational disciplinary process that is appropriate and fair. And if I also know that New Hampshire taxpayers have already paid for the New Hampshire court system that guarantees to protect our due process rights, then would I now press the green button and support the motion to place HB 1288 on the table? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this body considered this bill roughly two or three weeks ago and supported it and that nothing substantial has changed in the last two or three weeks, including after the Finance Committee's review of the bill, then would I press the red button to defeat the tabling motion so that we may proceed to the merits? Thank you, Mister Speaker and I ask for a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is tabling 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. The House will be in order. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? We already know what the results are. 180 voting Yea, 186 voting Nay. The motion to table fails. We are back to the original motion of Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hakken-Phillips.

Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in opposition to the Ought to Pass motion on HB 1288. Sponsors of the bill seek to correct a perceived unfairness within the higher education disciplinary process so that a more robust due process right system is assured when students, faculty or organizations face suspension, expulsion, or termination. The sponsors say more due process equals more fairness and more fairness, that's just a good thing. But guys, this bill is not that simple, and it has serious consequences. Mister Speaker, the math just doesn't add up. So, let's crunch the numbers. Zero, zero evidence was presented of any student, faculty member or organization within New Hampshire's higher ed system that was denied their due process right when undergoing a suspension or greater discipline. Why? Because those currently subject to potential discipline are already given notice of the charges for which they are accused, a meaningful opportunity to respond and an impartial decision maker. These are all essential elements to due process. Here's another number, zero. Zero students, faculty members or organizations who are denied access to the existing New Hampshire court system to seek remedies for these supposed due process violations. How about one? One giant conflict of state, federal and contract law. Under this law, state law would be required to put a pause on all higher educational disciplinary processes while criminal cases are working there way through the New Hampshire court system, which we all know takes some time. But under federal law, with millions in Title IX funding tied to it, that federal law requires immediate protective order enforcement for cases involving sexual harassment, sexual violence, and racial discrimination. Further, this bill would put into state law a direct conflict with collective bargaining agreements in the higher educational community for faculties because faculties have shared governance agreements, an independent arbitration clause is built into their contracts. Here's another one, zero. Zero attention paid to the unintended consequences of this bill. With all the focus on the rights of the accused, there was no concern about the absence of federal rules of evidence, protecting victim's rights who are subject to sexual violence. Zero, zero appropriations are tied to this bill although it is clear there would be a significant increase in New Hampshire's higher educational systems administrative burden. That's right, the University System anticipates a $1 to $2 million increase, and the Community College System anticipates over $370,000 increases of expenses per year to comply with this bill. So, make no mistake, HB 1288 is an unfunded, hefty unfunded mandate of state law. One more number, zero. Zero estimates of the true cost, the true unknown but very significant legal cost to defend New Hampshire's educational systems under this bill. Taxpayers will ultimately pay the price, probably millions to litigate this bill and believe me, litigation will be coming. Mister Speaker, those numbers don't make sense, but here are two numbers that do make sense. One, one existing New Hampshire court system that is already established and paid for by New Hampshire taxpayers that guarantees our due process rights in this bill and the many other fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed under our state constitution and our federal constitution. One New Hampshire judicial system that has worked efficiently and effectively for hundreds of years and under which the current higher educational systems disciplinary process honors. And one, one HB 1288 is one heck of an example of a fine jobs bill. This bill, if enacted, should forever be known as the make New Hampshire higher ed acquire great attorney's act because as far as I can tell, the major beneficiary of the secondary quasi judicial process within the state higher ed will be the members of the New Hampshire Bar Association. On behalf of all the members, I'd like to thank the sponsors for establishing the tidal wave of impending new jobs for attorneys to litigate the truly novel cases of New Hampshire's state law conflicting with federal law and breaches of contract. All parties will be more likely to lawyer up and come on, who doesn't like more lawyers? So, one plus one equals two. That math definitely checks out Mister Speaker and that's two solid reasons for you to oppose the OTP motion. Finally, HB 1288 is a fiscally irresponsible bill when we already have an existing higher educational disciplinary process that's appropriate and fair and when taxpayers have already paid for the New Hampshire court system that guarantees our due process rights when that process fails. For these reasons, Mister Speaker, I urge you to vote no on the OTP motion so that another, more fiscally prudent motion may be made. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise as I did two weeks ago or maybe it was three weeks ago in support of the Ought to Pass motion on this bill. As was just noted, this bill establishes certain due process rights for faculty, students or student organizations that are facing disciplinary, significant disciplinary actions involving suspensions, etc. One of the things we didn't hear from the prior speaker is which of the rights that I will read to you now are somehow unfair? The right to notice of the charges, to advance disclosure of witnesses and evidence, to the presumption of innocence and a requirement that the complainant prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence, the privilege against self incrimination, the right to confront and cross examine witnesses, the right to an impartial hearings officer and I could go on. Which of those is a right that's unfair? I submit to you that none of them are. The argument here by the University System is on the one hand they say our system is just fine, there's no problem. Don't worry about it. Well, if that's true, then there is no problem with this bill either because this bill says if you have an equivalent system, then you can continue to use your system. While we did hear complaints during this whole process from the University System, one of the things that was very interesting. If this was going to upset all these established procedures that unions and the schools had agreed to, you might think that sometime during the hearing process we would have heard some people from the unions saying don't do this, this will be terrible if you do it. We heard zero from the unions because this is not going to be some huge problem. The last point that I'll make is this. The suggestion that there is somehow a conflict between this and federal law and that we are going to get sued. I'll tell you, stop and think about this. This would be the federal government's argument for trying to defund New Hampshire because we had this law. Well, we should defund New Hampshire because they have a system in place to resolve disciplinary problems that is too fair. It gives too much fairness to the parties. Can you imagine? As a lawyer, I would pay to sit in the back of the courtroom and listen to that argument before a judge. Defund New Hampshire because they have a process that's too fair. I submit to you; it would go absolutely nowhere. For the reasons stated, I urge you to vote and press the green button to Ought to Pass on this motion. Thank you and Mister Speaker, I ask for a division vote.

Speaker PackardRep. Granger has asked for a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1288. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Kate Murray for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kate Murray (D - Rock 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker if I know that the current system is efficient, expeditious and cost effective. And if I know that our prime sponsor has joined many others in commending our University System for the highly professional manner in which it deals with these complaints. And if I know that this bill only adds another layer of bureaucracy and red tape to a system that is already addressing the concerns expressed in this bill. And if I know that this bill has an unknown fiscal component that could be very expensive and at the same time this bill could put into jeopardy critical federal funding, would I now press the red button to defeat this motion and allow a successful program to function successfully without additional and unnecessary burdens? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Tracy Emerick (R - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this bill is setting forth a standard for all of our institutions of higher education, I can't find a lot wrong with that. And if I also know that according to testimony from the University System, last year there were 20,000 incidents. Of those, 80 went to a hearing. I don't think that's an overburdensome task for 80 hearings. Please press the green button.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass 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. 196 voting Yea, 184 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThis this will be a division vote on the amendment. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment 1086h. Rep. Dan McGuire is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment moves, merely moves the implementation date of this regulation forward 18 months. And if I know it's been said that our Finance Committee should not be involved in making policy changes. And if I know that there's no financial reason to implement this regulation sooner. And if I know that any purported savings by extra regulation are purely fanciful, would I then press the red button to support the policy decision of the Commerce Committee? Thank you.

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

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 1649, as amended by Commerce, removed many manufacturer requirements leading up to the original effective date of the ban of the sale of consumer products with intentionally added PFAS. And if I know that an earlier effective date of the prohibition better protects public health, which is critical in the face of widespread PFAS contamination. And if I know that the EPA issued new tighter PFAS water maximum contaminant levels just yesterday that will be expensive to comply with so starting to remove PFAS from consumer products earlier could help with reducing the PFAS load reducing expense, would I now press the green button to support the bipartisan recommendation of the finance committee and pass the committee amendment 1086h? Thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of amendment 1086h. This is a division vote. If you're in favor, press the green button, opposed 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. 233 in the affirmative, 147 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Dan McGuire moves floor amendment 1459h, which is in your seat pockets. Rep. McGuire's recognized speak to his motion.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. HB 1649 is too broad. It not only affects the nasty stuff that's causing problems in Merrimack, but it sweeps along thousands of other things that are only marginally related to those chemicals. When we considered this bill in the Finance Committee, we were told several times that the bill is not breaking new ground. That it's just implementing bans that already exist in other states. I investigated what the State of California is doing in this area and California is a state with over 25 times our population and it correspondingly has a much larger DES and much more capability of environmental regulation. They have a large enough market that manufacturers and retailers will cater to their their regulations. We do not. If we enact onerous regulation, producers may simply quit our market. This is particularly true if we enact regulation that is in excess of what California does. This amendment concerns the paragraph in the bill that defines food packaging to be banned. It is word for word what California has in their PFAS laws. It regulates mostly disposable paper and cardboard items that contain food and beverage like bags, cups and boxes and it also includes utensils and straws. These items, according to the FDA, are the primary source of PFAS in the diet. The FDA announced this past February that grease proof substances with PFAS, like those found in french fry boxes, sandwich wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, coffee cups and so on are no longer sold in the United States. The problem with the food packaging language, as exists in HB 1649 is that it goes far beyond what California and the FDA are regulating. It regulates the outside of the container and the outside of the shipping carton as much as the inside. It specifically regulates labels and the inks used to print them on every food and beverage box, can, bottle and bag found in the grocery store. Strangely it doesn't regulate labels and ink on anything else like toothpaste or shampoo or cleaning products. PTFE, which is the chemical name for Teflon, is widely used in the printing industry in inks and coatings. It's what gives printed material it's rub resistance. When you handle a can in the grocery store, the ink doesn't come off on your fingers. That's frequently the result of Teflon being used in the ink or in the coating, but Teflon is included in the HB 1649 definition of PFAS to be banned even though Teflon is not a harmful chemical. If we keep, we'll talk about that more on the next amendment. If we keep...

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order. The member has a right to be heard and we are not supposed to react.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If we keep HB 1649's definition of food containers as including labels and ink, we could be banning every item on grocery store shelves today. Please press the green button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Ebel is recognized to speak against the amendment.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I urge this body to reject this floor amendment proposing to amend the definition of food packaging. This definition and this bill were fully vetted by the policy committee, the House Commerce Committee, and passed by this House on a voice vote without debate. To change this definition now at this late date is ill advised and unwise. During our Finance Committee work sessions, not one person testified against this bill and certainly no one took issue with the definition of food packaging. The current HB 1649 definition is the policy position of the House. Food packaging is one of the leading ways in which we're all exposed to PFAS and that is why food packaging is included in this bill. PFAS are in many forms of packaging from microwave popcorn to french fry bags to paper plates because of their anti-stick properties. And while it is true the predominant use of PFAS in food packaging is in connection with paper products, research also indicates that this is not the exclusive use of PFAS in packaging and there are more states than California that ban food packaging when you look at the other definitions in the other state. This bill focuses on the intentional addition of PFAS to consumer products. In communications I have had with industry representatives, we agreed that the current definition of food packaging was acceptable as the focus of this bill is intentionally added PFAS. This is certainly no time to be amending the definition of food packaging or anything else in this bill and especially not with respect to an item that has the potential of so much consumption. Like many bills, this legislation has several moving parts and one relies upon the other for complete commonsense piece of legislation. For these reasons, I urge this body to support the diligent policy work of the Commerce Committee. Uphold the strong vote of this House and support the recommendation of the finance committee and press the red button to reject this amendment. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Ebel has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment 1459h. This is a roll call vote. Rep. Ammon is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 42)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the FDA and other big regulators are already eliminating PFAS from food packaging. And if I know that not even California is attempting to regulate ink on labels and shipping boxes. And if I don't want to take the chance that grocery store shelves will be bare due to lack of compliant packaging, would I now press the green button to bring us back to a more sensible level of regulation that California has adopted for food packaging?

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

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the FDA announcement that's being referred to only apply to three manufacturers of food processing and there are others. If I know that the definition of PFAS was fully vetted and recommended by the policy committee, House Commerce, and supported by the Finance Committee. If I know changing a foundational definition here on the floor without vetting whatsoever or public input is ill advised and unwise and is less protective to the public health. If I know that some food packaging can contain unwanted PFAS and by amending this definition PFAS added ban would only apply to paper products excluding those products exposing us to more of these hazardous chemicals. And if I know that the point of this bill is to protect the public health and stem the tide of PFAS in our water, air and soils. And by changing this definition, more PFAS added products can accumulate in our landfills only to leech out later, would I now press the red button and reflect and reject this floor amendment?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment 1459h. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. Opposed, press the red. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 165 in the affirmative, 216 in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Dan McGuire offers floor amendment 1460h, which is in your seat pockets. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)I would like to request that the comments from the last debate be entered into the Permanent Journal.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithYou might want to wait until the end. Rep. Ebel is recognized to speak against the amendment.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I urge this body to reject this floor amendment to change the definition of PFAS. This change basically eviscerates the protections of HB 1649 by severely limiting the types of PFAS molecules that would be banned for use in our everyday products. By making the definition far more limited, many fewer PFAS added products will be banned and we will be left not much better off than we are now. This definition looks backward not forward. PFOS, PFNA and PFOA are already being used less by manufacturers because of their hazards but that doesn't mean manufacturers have stopped using PFAS. These versions of PFAS are simply replaced with another configuration of PFAS and that, my colleagues, is exactly the problem. This is like a game of whack-a-mole. To achieve the goal of this legislation, we need to look ahead not behind and that takes a broad definition that is now included in this bill. We need the broad definition of PFAS to ensure that by changing a hydrogen here or an oxygen there the PFAS created don't fall outside the definition. The focus has to be on the thing that makes these chemicals so dangerous and that is the unbreakable carbon flooring bond and no matter how you dress it up, the health hazards remain like putting lipstick on a PFAS pig. This is precisely the analysis that was done by the House Commerce Committee, which looked at this closely because the definition is one of the cornerstone pieces of this legislation. The broader definition now in the bill is what the Commerce Committee recommended. Why would we completely ignore their analysis and what is the point of a policy committee? Working with the Chair of Commerce, certain items were excluded from the bill while leaving the definition intact and I will say before the final vote, the Chair asked multiple times if there were other industry groups that has concerns or needed exclusion. The room had many lobbyists. Not one person responded, and I'm told as of yesterday no one has reached out. It's folly to change the definition now at this late date here on the floor when this version was never once discussed either in Commerce or in Finance. In fact, another definition of PFAS was also rejected that was proposed by my friend from from Epsom. It too was rejected as too restrictive and it was actually less restrictive than this one is and not aligned with the policy position adopted by the House. Not one person requested this during our work sessions or spoke against the bill. The harmful health effects are undeniable. Why have a more restrictive definition when there is really so much at stake? Even the EPA has now imposed nationwide drinking water standards for a more expanded list of PFAS than what's being proposed in this amendment. The broader definition is protective of the public health. It anticipates future changes to the PFAS molecules by manufacturers and is in fact the standard definition for such bans used in many other states and the Department of Defense. It is also the definition already in our own New Hampshire statutes as part of our existing ban of PFAS in firefighting foam. We were in the vanguard adopting that prohibition in 2020. Manufacturers actually like consistency and they should not have to comply with different different PFAS definitions in different states and certainly not just for our small state then they have to comply with elsewhere. Such a change would also complicate the development of a compliance clearing house and make it more expensive. I urge this body on this basis to reject this unnecessary and unwise floor amendment by pressing the red button and Mister Speaker I again request a roll call vote.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Dan McGuire is recognized to speak for the amendment.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I actually agree with part of that but I'll get to it in a minute. This amendment changes the definition of PFAS used in the bill which currently in the bill is a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon, meaning one carbon atom that has one or two fluorines off of it and it changes it to the somewhat lengthier list that you see in your seat pocket in front of you on on amendment 1460h. The problem with the definition used in the bill is that it's this broad, it's huge and it describes some 15,000 useful chemical compounds many of which are known not to be harmful. For example, over a 100 prescription medications, including Prozac and Lipitor, which is now a generic. It's off patent called Atorvastatin, which is the number one prescription drug in the United States with 120 million prescriptions issued per year meets the definition of PFAS in HB 1649. Now I would argue that medications, medications are exempt from 1649 by the way, right, so the bill does not ban medications, but I would argue that medications are among the most tested and safest items in the world. I mean these are thoroughly tested and for safety. How reliable is the definition we're using, if we define as harmful, we use a definition that includes multiple prescription drugs? Right, it doesn't make sense. Similarly,, here we'll get to Teflon here. Similarly, the definition in the bill includes Teflon, which is known as PTFE. Teflon is 100% fully fluorinated carbon atoms. So, the definition in HB 1649 is exactly Teflon. So if any compound included one Teflon molecule as part of its, you know, larger molecule, then it would be banned. Teflon is widely used in implantable devices like catheters and heart valves and things like that. It's what gives glide dental floss its slippery qualities. Gore-Tex. It gives Gore-Tex its waterproof quality and Teflon tape its ability to seal pipe connections. We have already, you talked about its use in inks. It's also found in wiring insulation and non-stick cookware. The shirt, tie, and shoes I'm wearing today meet the definition of PFAS in the bill. Strangely none of those things I just mentioned, including my shirt and so on, are regulated by this bill. But what is banned is any tablecloth, drape, sheet, upholstery, carpet or textile treatment that includes Teflon. This means that much of what is on the market today that is stain resistant or waterproof in those categories will be banned by this bill. To narrow the definition of PFAS to actually harmful chemicals I again turned to California. For many years, California has had a labeling law called Proposition 65. You may have seen products labeled for the California market that say something like Proposition 65 warning. This product contains some chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer or birth defects or whatever. Those warnings are on anything that contains any item on a list of dangerous chemicals. That list is 22 pages long. It has hundreds and hundreds of chemicals on it. What you see in this amendment in front of you are all the PFAS items from that list. So verbatim, they include the the two harmful chemicals found in Merrimack plus another one and all directly related compounds. But they do not include Teflon, Gore-Tex or Lipitor. None of which gets a warning label in California. The advantage of using this definition, besides targeting chemicals that are actually harmful, is that producers already know which of their products require a California warning and which don't. If those products are in categories banned by HB 1649, then they couldn't be sold in in New Hampshire. But manufacturers would not have to do anything special for us as they would with the with the definition now in the bill and they would have an easier time complying with our regulations. But I would like to be clear, California has adopted some bans, including on cosmetics and toys, and a few other things that use the definition that's currently in HB 1649. Those bans have not yet gone into effect. Just like House Bill 1649 pushes off the effective date so does California and I think that California made a mistake by banning things that they themselves do not think deserves a health warning. The very breadth of that legislation has caused California's Governor Newsome to veto some PFAS bills passed by his legislature. I don't think that the sponsors of HB 1649 would like to have the same fate happen to it. Please press the green button. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield to a question? Rep. Hoell, you may inquire.

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'll make it a quick question. If the harm for these chemicals is truly about getting inside the body and the bill talks about packaging but not cookware, talks about Gore-Tex fabric clothes and carpets but doesn't talk about implantable medical devices, are we going the correct direction with this bill?

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you for the question, Representative. Obviously, my opinion is no.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Ebel is recognized speak against the amendment. My bad. Rep. Bill Boyd is recognized to speak against the amendment.

Rep. Bill Boyd (R - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Speaker and Mister Speaker through you to my esteemed colleagues of the New Hampshire General Court. Today I rise in opposition to the proposed amendment 1460h. The amendment removes GenX and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid from the proposed bill eliminating the definition and the remedy the language seeks to establish to protect Granite State groundwater. As we all know, New Hampshire's groundwater becomes the source water that percolates through our strata into our streams and rivers, artesian wells, ponds and lakes. They remain our primary sources for drinking water. Now I Chair the New Hampshire Drinking Water and Groundwater Advisory Commission, which was tasked under RSA 485-F:3 to investigate, manage and remediate contaminated and polluted groundwater while administering a trust fund of $277 million acquired in 2016 from the state's Exon Mobile settlement. Since then the commission has leveraged over $180 million in grant and loans in support of municipalities and village districts goals of cleaning water and improving water access to its users. Communities like Windham, Salem, Jaffrey, Peterborough, Conway, Rochester and Winchester, to name a few, have benefited from the funding provided through the Drinking Water Commission. We've allocated $9.5 million in source water protection to communities like Westmoreland and Kingston and Northumberland. We've allocated $5 million for a PFAS rebate program for private well owners to implement a point of entry treatment system for their homes and it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of other allocations that came from our general fund in support of existing statewide water revolving funds, ARPA money, and the recent news of federal grant money coming to New Hampshire in the amount of $9.7 million to treat PFAS in our water. The commitment to invest millions of dollars into providing access to clean potable water to all Granite Staters is evident. Now I asked the question based on the data that I've presented. Why are we investing all this money to remediate PFAS and other pollutants in our drinking water, but we're allowing these PFAS forever chemicals to permeate unfettered in our landfills which filter down its way into our groundwater? These financial investments that we've been making run contrary to our actions. This floor amendment, as presented, removes two key chemical compounds from the bill which would curtail any meaningful rule to control these chemicals from leeching into our groundwater. Voting against this amendment will permit the underlying bill to offer a significant first step to tackling products with PFAS while allowing the state, the village districts and municipalities to plan, budget and manage cost associated with solid waste removal and clean drinking water. Water is an invaluable commodity that is driving New Hampshire's economic growth, housing opportunities and community public health. If we, as a legislative body, remain serious in addressing these issues, then we must remain vigilant in tackling this issue head on. I sincerely ask that you reject the floor amendment by pressing the red button to ensure we, as citizen legislators, promote clean water for the communities that we represent. Thank you, Mister, Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Ebel has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of floor Amendment 1460h and this is a roll call vote. Rep. Ammon is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 42)Thank you again, Mister Speaker. If I know that this this bill's definition of PFAS includes over 10,000 useful substances. If I know that among those are compounds in Lipitor, Prozac, Teflon, Gore-Tex and many other safe items. And if I know that this amendment reduces that list to the known harmful compounds that California warns against that have caused problems in Merrimack and that our DES regulates in drinking water, would I now press the green button to make this regulation manageable? Thank you.

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

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)If I know that the definition of PFAS was fully vetted and recommended by the policy committee, House Commerce, passed by this House and supported by the Finance Committee. If I know that changing a foundational definition here on the floor without any vetting whatsoever, which was not requested during any hearing and there has been no public input is ill-advised and unwise and far less protective of public health. And if know manufacturers are already familiar with and will be following the definition in HB 1649 because that's what is used in similar bans across the United States, more than in just California, and the new definition simply complicates this bill and makes it more expensive for manufacturers and for DES when it establishes the compliance clearing house, would I now press the red button and reject this floor amendment?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment 1460h. It's a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button, opposed, press the red. 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. 156 in the affirmative, 223 in the negative, the amendment fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Verville moves that HB 1649 be laid on the table. Rep. Ebel has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? Yep, this will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is whether to lay HB 1649 on the table. Rep. Verville is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that laws and regulations like this are really the purview of the federal government and are better handled by the federal EPA to give us national uniformity in rules for consistency to businesses as other speakers have actually called for earlier. If I know that legislation that goes to ban substances should be banning substances that are bio accumulative or toxic or bio accumulative and toxic but not entire classes of compounds that number currently into the tens of thousands. And Mister Speaker, if I know that industry in the United States today is already working diligently towards PFAS free products because the State of Maine two years ago passed the most restrictive PFAS law in the nation and so to be able to produce and sell a product in all 50 states you would have to adhere to the Maine regulations so if I know that that would make this bill redundant and make it more complicated for businesses involved in interstate commerce, would I now press the green button to table this bill so we can move on with the rest of our business today? Thank you, Mister, Speaker.

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

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that there is intense concern and interest in the State of New Hampshire in existing PFAS contamination, especially in Merrimack where they've had the biggest environmental disaster in the State of New Hampshire because of contamination. If I know that New Hampshire doesn't only regulate the way other states do, New Hampshire takes actions that make sense to it. If I know that even though we've been discussing amendments just far on the bill, we haven't yet really had the opportunity to discuss one of the most important bills I would say that we're talking about today considering the interest in this issue, would I now press the red button for the public health benefits that a further discussion of this bill and its passage could reveal? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is whether to lay HB 1649 on the table. It's a roll call vote. 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. 165 in the affirmative, 215 in the negative, the motion fails. Now, we are on to the main motion, finally, of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Carroll Brown is recognized to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Carroll Brown (R - Graf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm going to touch on a few different topics around this bill. I was asked to give you a little background of of some of my experience in this. I worked for DES for 30 years. I worked a good portion of that time in this...

Rep. Carroll Brown (R - Graf 10)I've often wondered what it feels like to have everyone walk out on you when you're up here. Speaker Steven Smith: Really? I don't know what's going on here but whatever you're going to do do it quickly. Don't gather and congregate and have conversations over there. If you're going to get out, get out and let the member be heard. This is ridiculous. Sorry, continue for the members who actually do want to pay attention.

Rep. Carroll Brown (R - Graf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker, again. I was a DES employee for 30 years. I worked a good portion of that time in the superfund program, which you know superfund sites are the most highly contaminated sites in the country. I have been on those sites. I've taken thousands of contaminated groundwater and surface water and soil samples. I've spent a considerable amount of time at the Derry landfill, the old Derry landfill, deciding for EPA whether that should be on the superfund list. Turns out that it was not. I've performed site assessments for a number of other sites to see if they would qualify for the superfund list. I've also managed the remediation of several hazardous waste sites and oil and gas contaminated sites, so I think I maybe have a little bit more perspective to give to you for this. So, I'm in opposition to this bill primarily because of some of the reasons you've already heard. That it's very broad and it takes an entire class of compounds and lumps them into the same category of health dangers. Let me give you an example. We have dangerous chemicals around us every day. Benzene is a human carcinogen and it's acutely toxic and can cause death in the correct amounts if you breathe it in, but where is benzene? It's in gasoline. Every one of you is exposed to benzene vapors every time you go to the gas station and fill your tank. Why does that not hurt you? Because it's about dose. It's about how much of that have you taken in. All of these MCLs, maximum contaminant levels, or water quality standard levels whatever you'd like to call them. Every kind of a standard for health is based on a dosage. What is that going to do to you? How much do you have of that? Have you breathed it in or eaten it or or had to drink of that? Every standard is based on some amount of consumption. As you've heard already today, yesterday, EPA came out with their drinking water standards for the five PFAS constituents, the same, and DES already has it for those same, four of those same five. Those numbers are based on the person drinking a certain amount of that water over a certain amount of time. So it does not mean that if you're exposed to that 10 parts per trillion, whatever the number may be, whichever, whichever of those chemicals it is. It does not mean that you're going to get ill immediately. It doesn't even mean that chronically you might be contracting cancer at a later time. That's up to you to be very specifically understanding of what these standards mean. So if you take an entire class of chemicals and say we're going to say they're all dangerous because we know these five are fairly dangerous, that's the argument you've heard that I think that that's a overly broad look at it. I'm just checking to see if I've covered everything I've written. I want to talk to you a little bit about how does this get into our environment. I've heard in the last year and a half that I've been here a number of times and it's been said at least twice today. If that PFAS, if we have it in our state, it is going to go into a landfill and it is going to go into the drinking water through leachate. And even if you, however you vote on this, you remember this now if you would for the future. That's not true. We have six active municipal solid waste landfills in New Hampshire. All of them are double lined. What that means, you've got the waste, and you have a very thick plastic liner. On top of that is a drainage system that collects the leachate. The intent is that that leachate does not get to the plastic liner and even get down to the groundwater through the liner. The leachate is purposefully collected so it we don't just let the liquids build up in a landfill, it's collected and sent off site for treatment. Depending where the landfill is, depends where it goes. Some of our municipal wastewater treatment plants can take leachate because they have industrial pre-treatment programs that know how to manage that and as time moves on the EPA is adjusting those discharge permits to give them PFAS limits. Some of that leachate is sent off state. Some is sent to New Jersey. So, all of the leachate in your landfills is being collected. Let's say for sake of argument that that first liner gets a hole in it. Underneath that first liner is another drainage system that can detect flow rates through the drainage system. So they can say oh look there's a lot of flow over here in this drainage system. That could mean there's a leak up there and then it can be excavated and repaired. So remember this, no matter how many times someone in here says if you put something in a landfill it's going into the groundwater or surface water, that just is not accurate. Please do your homework on that. If if you don't agree with that, you know, do your own homework. So, to summarize ,the best way I think to reduce exposure to PFAS. Let me back up a little bit. I will, I'll reiterate what I said earlier. This is very broad. It's a broad bill. It includes everything, every chemical in the PFAS universe and EPA and DES have only come up with levels for four or five of those and that's only if you drink it. That's not if you touch it. That's not if you have it on a cup on some ink. That's only if you consume the water. So the best way to continue this I think for the State of New Hampshire is what FDA has already initiated as you've heard. Eliminating some of this from food packaging, but that happened in February after they already did that. Continue to properly collect and treat landfill leachate and therefore that would continue to eliminate PFAS sources to drinking water. Therefore, I would ask you to please press the red button. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Dan McGuire is recognized to speak against the report.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. When California's Governor, Governor Newsom vetoed the menstrual products ban bill, the same provision is in HB 1649, he said, "Previously enacted single product chemical bans which also lack oversight are proving challenging to implement with inconsistent interpretations and confusion among manufacturers about how to comply with the restrictions," he was referring to bans on food packaging textiles and juvenile products, all of which are included to some degree in HB 1649. If California is finding these kind of bans challenging to implement, what hope does our DES have to do it? The sheer number of products involved means that enforcement is necessarily going to be selective and almost certainly will target smaller manufacturers. Is DES going to tell Heinz to change the printing on their 57 products? No, not very likely, but they might very well go to a local craft brewer and ask them about the ink used to print their beer labels. If their supplier can't provide the satisfactory documentation, there goes the whole brewery business. And then there's carpet. Isn't it likely that stain resistant carpet is a huge benefit to pet owners? Without it, what kind of cleaning chemicals will they have to use and how often or are we going to see carpet bootlegging from Massachusetts? Who knows? We have no way of knowing the circumstances of all manufacturers and consumers. We can't gauge the value of any particular technology to them. Chemicals like these don't come into existence randomly. They are deliberately created, manufactured, designed into products and purchased presumably because they are superior to any known alternative. How can we substitute our incomplete judgment for that of millions of individuals? Wouldn't it be better to inform people of the hazards if hazards exist and let them make their own decisions, especially when they are the ones most at risk? Please push the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in support of HB 1649, an important bipartisan bill that would ban the sale of consumer products in New Hampshire that we use in our everyday lives with PFAS that have been intentionally added by manufacturers. Forever chemicals are made to never breakdown, and they don't, creating havoc in their wake. I urge this body to support the Finance Committee's bipartisan Ought to Pass as Amended recommendation on this bill. And as has been mentioned many times, this follows the House's strong voice vote in support of the Commerce Committee's strong recommendation. We need to stop PFAS contamination in its tracks. Just yesterday, the EPA finally took action requiring drinking water utilities across the country to remove certain PFAS to no greater than 4 parts per trillion. This is yet another big wakeup call on the extreme hazards of these chemicals. Regardless of your personal opinion of the health effects, these regulations must be complied with and at huge expense. As we spend unbelievable amounts of money to remove PFAS, one wonders, why the heck do we keep using the stuff for so many consumer products when it is a convenience? It needs to stop. Surface water, groundwater, private wells, wastewater, drinking water, soil, air, landfill leachate, sludge, left untreated we know what all these can have in common, PFAS contamination. Liver problems, thyroid issues, kidney disease, decreased immunity and maternal health hazards. We know what these health problems can result from, the PFAS in virtually all of us. It's even the breast milk of new mothers and it's been found in their newborns and it's time to stop our exposure. Is there another state that has been quite as burdened by PFAS contamination? Our Attorney General has sued for millions in damages. We've already spent about $110 million in tax dollars to mitigate PFAS contamination and there's no end in sight. So, what to do? It's time to focus on the source of PFAS in all our lives. These forever chemicals are in a mind-boggling number of consumer products ensuring baby mattresses don't stain, food doesn't stick, and we don't get spaghetti stains on our easy chairs. But at what cost? This bill seeks to stem the tide of PFAS in our lives and it brought together a remarkable, unusual group of stakeholders to support the bill, landfill operators, wastewater and drinking water utilities, public health organizations, firefighters, the New Hampshire Municipal Association, clean water advocates and environmental groups. Only the hazards of something like PFAS could bring together such disparate groups together with one voice and say make it stop. In three years, manufacturers would be banned from selling specified products in our state to which they have added PFAS. For the most part, these are products that are most commonly banned in other states and more states will soon join those states. We should be one of them. The consumer products proposed to be banned are all things we use in our everyday lives including food packaging, infant and children's products, cosmetics, carpets, upholstered furniture, and textiles used in our homes. They are either sources of the most direct exposure to us or they carry the highest PFAS loads into our landfills. Speaking of landfills, PFAS from our trash flow into landfills and then into the collective landfill leachate in the millions and millions of gallons. This toxic leachate is trucked to wastewater treatment plants, where it joins sewer and septic waste also containing PFAS. Much PFAS ends up back in sludge that goes right back into the landfills, but much goes into surface and groundwater. That same water is subsequently used for drinking water where it has to be filtered at extreme cost by our drinking water utilities to ensure our safety. Before long, many wastewater treatment plants will likely have to treat water for PFAS before releasing it, something they don't now do. Our economic burden will be even more enormous. Meanwhile, manufacturers continue to use PFAS in the products that they sell to us. This is the definition of insanity. The costs for this bill are minimal, one DES position and $250,000 to get the program up and running. The reason that Governor Newsom vetoed the bill...

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithWill the member suspend for a second? Why can't we be silent and listen to people speak? The are plenty of other places to be if that's impossible for you. Let's just get through this. Please continue. Representative Ebel: Thank you. The reason that the Governor vetoed three bills that instituted bans, one of which included feminine hygiene products, is because the way they passed the bills in California. There was no oversight of an agency, there was simply a ban put in place with a penalty that was supposed to be enforced by the Attorney General and that was his primary concern and that was what the issue was in California. The health impacts and costs of PFAS remediation and healthcare are unquantifiable. For small money, DES can join a multistate clearinghouse to assess compliance focused on manufacturers and not retailers. DES now belongs to interstate mercury and toxics in packaging clearinghouses that have been in effect for a very long time. This was a particular interest of the Commerce Committee when reviewing this bill. Manufacturers know how to use these because we've already banned these toxins. That is how these bans are enforced and is familiar to businesses. Once thought of as useful, these chemicals, like PFAS, are now recognized as harmful, not unlike DDT or Mtbe. Usefulness does not equate to safety. Now is the time to take a strong stand. These forever chemicals should not be in the air we breathe, the water we drink or in the soil we walk on. We may never be able to correct the damage PFAS has already done. But now is the time to look to the future and stop using PFAS in common consumer products. Please join me by pressing the green button to support the bipartisan Ought to Pass recommendation of the Finance Committee for this bill. Our families, our children, our grandchildren, our state, our world, deserve nothing less. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Granger has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The House will come to order. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1649. Rep. Ammon is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 42)Thank you for the final time, Mister Speaker. If I know that PFAS is a subject of intense interest to federal regulators who have significantly more resources than our DES does. If I know that California is finding implementing of these bans so challenging, the Governor has vetoed three such bills because they are difficult to enforce. And if I know that the leachate from landfills is collected and processed in an industrial wastewater facility and the problems in Merrimack were caused by industrial waste, not consumer products. And if I know that industrial operators are the primary source of PFAS in the environment, not the consumer goods banned in this bill. And if know that we are about to ban, and this list is long so if I know we are about to ban this list: we are about to ban carpets and rugs, cosmetics, textile treatments, feminine hygiene products, food packaging and containers, juvenile products, personal protective equipment, upholstered furniture, textile furnishings. That's the list verbatim from the bill. If I know these are items in most of our homes and our closets and our wardrobes, would I now press the red button so as not to misdirect our limited DES resources? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Mooney is recognized for a shorter parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Maureen Mooney (R - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members, if I know that our state continues to suffer environmentally and physically from the devastating effects of PFAS in our water, air, soil. And if I know that as a result of millions of dollars spent and hundreds upon hundreds of hours in meetings, discussions, research, litigation, negotiations that there is agreement that only one action will further the harm, will limit further harm. And lastly, if I know that that one action to limit further harm is to prohibit PFAS in certain products as this bill does, then would I join the bipartisan majority of the House Finance Committee and vote on the green button on the motion of Ought to Pass with Amendment? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1649 and it's a roll call vote. 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. 233 in the affirmative, 140 in the negative, the report is adopted.