The House, Thursday, March 13, 2025

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee amendment (0448h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this bill, this amendment, is costly to the counties. If I know that it will require counties to hire more corrections officers. If I know that it will strain the judiciary even further with costs. If I know that this is as anti-liberty a bill that there is, and it will result in many more people being jailed. And if I know that 25 to 30% of those people, all people who are charged with crimes, 25 to 30% of them have their charges either completely dismissed or they are found not guilty. And if I know that because of that, we will be jailing pre-trial people who have not been found guilty, some of whom will never be found guilty, would I press the red button and vote no?

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

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that I want to ensure that protections for the accused are codified, would I support this amendment rather than passing the underlying bill without being amended by pressing the green button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee amendment (0448h) that is in House Record 15, printed on pages 53 through 55. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. If you are opposed, press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 209 voting Yea, 167 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. I would suggest everybody stay in their seat as we have a number of amendments to go through. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Scherr moves floor amendment (0939h) and that is in your seat pockets. It is part of a stapled group. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)The amendment that was just approved is both costly and it is anti-liberty. This amendment, by contrast, recognizes the work that the criminal justice committee did last session in a bipartisan fashion and passed a bill 16-0 that made further tweaks to the bail reform bill. It tightened up the bail reform bill and that bill passed this House by an overwhelming vote, and it passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote. What is now before you simply tweaks that in a way to tighten it up a good bit more to force judges to consider whether a person has a violent past or criminal record, whether the current charge is a felony, whether the current charge is a violent felony, whether they are out on bail on a violent felony or a felony of some sort. This bill keeps in place the magistrate system which allows people who have been arrested to see a magistrate or a judge within 24 hours, unlike the amendment that was just passed, which deletes the magistrates completely and it allows for people to be held, individuals to be held for 36 hours excluding weekends and holidays before they see a judge which means somebody who is arrested after 5:00 on a Friday may not see a judge until the following Wednesday or Thursday even though they've not been found guilty of anything and even though 25 to 30% of them will actually never be found guilty. What we need to understand is, everyone needs to understand, in spite of all the PR, the bail system is working. The Mayor of Manchester told us on Tuesday that the celebrated, that the crime rate in Manchester last year under last year's bail reform was down 15%. That isn't even under the bipartisan bill that tightened up bail reform that didn't go into effect until January 1st of this year. We don't need to fix bail reform. We don't need to fix bail reform because we know that when bail reform went into effect, the year bail reform went into effect, there were a little over 18,000 violent crimes and property crimes in New Hampshire that year. Last year, it's been documented, under bail reform over the last six years, there are now only 13,000 plus property crimes or violent crimes. Bail reform, as this legislature has continued to work on it, is working. We do not need to throw it out. We need to tweak it as this amendment does. We need to reduce the number of failures to appear that will result in a judge presuming that someone is not going to appear again, that is reduced from three failures to appear to two failures to appear that is getting rid of substantially the revolving door. Most importantly, this alternative does not impose what is the equivalent of an unfunded mandate on counties to hire more corrections officers, to open up wings of jails that have been closed and used for other purposes. What we know is this amendment is not an anti-liberty amendment. It isn't jailing people needlessly by reducing the standard for which they can be held to probably cause, which is no standard whatsoever. We know that this amendment will make the appropriate tweaks to bail reform while the criminal justice committee looks at how bail reform is going under the new provision which went into effect on January 1st, and we have time to consider it. This amendment will make a worthwhile tweak, but it will allow the committee to continue to consider this. I urge you to vote yes. Press the green button on this and vote yes. I ask for a division vote.

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, its very interesting that my colleague brings a floor amendment and says the words that we understand that more tweaking can be done because last term whenever we sat there for a year and a half working on this bail reform, the agreement that we agreed to was because absolutely there was nothing more could be done. That was absolutely it. Don't bring it back, but yet we are told in committee well, yeah there is a little bit more work that can be done. You know what, we did do work and its going to be on the amendment that we are going to pass after we kill this floor amendment. Clear and convincing evidence. Do you realize how high of a bar that is? That's more than what it takes to get a search warrant. Additionally, we are talking about a person that is sadly, not vandalism or trespassing. We are talking about the 12 most egregious crimes. We are talking about child sex predators. We are talking about people that have child pornography on their computers. We are talking about people who are sexually assaulting people, and all of the stars have to align in like this perfect phenomenon. You have to be arrested on a Friday after 5:00 and Monday has to be a holiday weekend. How many Monday holidays do we have? I don't really think that many. Additionally, the bail commissioners are not allowed to hold bail hearings. Sorry, the magistrates are not allowed to hold bail hearings. The majority of people are still going to see bail commissioners. You know what they say, the person in the wrong always does the most talking? Vote red.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us now is the Scherr floor amendment. This is going to be a division vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the Scherr floor amendment. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that in Dover in February of this year under the bipartisan bail reform bill, the police arrested a person and charged him with 7 felonies involving narcotics distribution and he was preventively detained under the bipartisan bail bill. If I know that in Nashua, a person was arrested for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 15-year-old and for manufacturing child sexual abuse images and he was preventively detained under the bipartisan bail bill. If I know in Hudson, the police arrested a person for burglarizing a house and putting in place hidden cameras to record what the members of that house was doing, and he was held preventively under the current bipartisan bail statute. If I know that in Nashua,

Speaker PackardRepresentative, this is a parliamentary inquiry. Not a speech.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)And if I know that in Nashua, the police arrested someone for shooting someone during a fight and he was preventively detained, would I vote and press the green button and vote yes?

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

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that there was just a knife fight in Manchester a couple of weeks ago, would I vote red?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Scherr floor amendment. It is in your seat pockets stapled together in a packet. This is going to be a division vote. If you are in favor; you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 171 voting Yea; 209 voting Nay the amendment fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Roy offers floor amendment (0940h). It is in your seat pockets in the packet. The Chair recognizes Rep. Roy.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This is an amendment. Actually, OLS contacted me and notified me that there was a clerical error. All this does is it fixes a reference in the statutes. Please support this amendment.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Roy floor amendment (0940h). Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. Members take your seats. The motion fore us is the Roy floor amendment. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)If I know that this amendment reinforces the fact that people will be held for 36 hours without seeing a magistrate or a judge excluding weekends and holidays, a further afront to the liberty of individuals without ever getting a hearing before they are ever found guilty, would I press the red button and vote no?

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

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment has nothing to do with that stuff that he just said. This is just a clerical correction, would I then just vote to pass the amendment so we can get to the bill?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Roy floor amendment (0940h). It is in your seat pockets, and this is a division vote. If you are in favor; you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 206 voting Yea; 173 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted. The motion before us now is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 592. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. You've heard a lot about bail. There has been a lot of discussion over the last many years. Let's not take a big leap by just completely gutting the bail reform statute. That doesn't accomplish what we want. Despite what an earlier member might have suggested, we have always been open on criminal justice to listening to what's going on and continuing to tweak the bail bill. Perfection is never attainable, and we always listen to what's going on. Number two, I hesitate to talk about the Manchester incident one more time, but that was a fight started by one person. He swung and hit another person, guy number two in the head, called him the "N" word. Then the guy who was hit in the head said I got a knife, let's not do this. The guy number one says I got a knife too even though he didn't have a knife. So, they come back together again, they tumble on the ground. Guy number one gets 9 stab wounds, and guy number two gets 2 stab wounds. The rule on the street is he who wins a fight gets charged. That's all that's happened. Guy number two is now charged. He's going to raise a tough defense claim and it's a very strong self defense claim. So, however you vote on this, don't vote based on that Manchester incident. I gave you examples of how many different times the bail statute currently in place has been working. People are being held preventively on a regular basis. Let's not open the door of flood gates and have a lot more people held when the crime rate in Manchester has gone down 15%, where the number of property crimes has, and violent crimes has gone down from 18,000 to 13,000 since bail reform went into effect. It is working. The legislature has done an excellent job at slowly and carefully adjusting bail reform issues when they come up. It's been done on a bipartisan basis. Let's continue with that and not take the opportunity to get rid of bail reform as this bill does. I ask you to press the red button and vote against, vote no on the OTP/A.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This isn't about who gets stabbed or who gets arrested and who let go. This is about policy. The bill last year was a good bill. It wasn't a Republican bill because we didn't have a Republican majority. So, we compromised, and we came up with a good bill. We don't have to compromise. It is now a Republican majority, and we are going to pass a Republican bail bill. We don't need to be ashamed of that. We are Republicans and that's what we are going to do. So, I hate to say it because I have to because someone famously said it, elections have consequences. Vote green.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardIt is a correct motion. The motion before us is to lay HB 592 on the table. Rep. Kuttab has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is not sufficiently seconded. This will be a division vote. Members take your seats. This will be a division vote. The motion before us is to table HB 592. This is going to be a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. It has been a while since I saw you all. Let's do what this legislature does. Excuse me. I know that the right thing to do is to do what us legislators do best. Think carefully about things and come to a consensus and come to a compromise. So, please press the green button and vote yes on the tabling motion.

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

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this is yet another attempt to protect the broken bail law that we have in our system. And Mister Speaker, if I know that our system doesn't work. If I know that a Veteran, an Army Veteran was killed on Friday on the morning while he was walking by a pond and he was stabbed to death nine times by a person out on double PR bail who was on bail for trying to stab someone and he fulfilled that promise, would I now put an end to the games and vote red so we can pass this bill?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is to table HB 592. 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. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 177 voting Yea; 202 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Granger has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? We are on the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. It is not sufficiently seconded. So, the motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 592. A division has been called. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended. This going to be a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)I will be uncharacteristically brief. If I know that this OTP/A presents a bill that is both costly to counties and is anti-liberty and that many people will be jailed, some of whom will never in spite of not having been found guilty and will never be found guilty given the nature of the system, would I press the red button and vote no?

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

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that by passing this bill we are going back to where we were before 2018 whenever we passed a disastrous bail reform bill. It was a national effort to fix something that was not broken in the first place in New Hampshire. And if I know that by passing this bill, we are going to do away with the magistrates that don't have the ability to hold bail hearings in the first place. And if I know that only the most egregious crimes are the people held for up to 36 hours whenever all the stars align perfectly, then would I press green?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 592. 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. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 204 voting Yea; 175 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted. (Rep. Steven Smith in the Chair)

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe Ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading. The House will be in order. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Luneau offers floor amendment (0916h) which can be found in your seat pockets. Rep. Luneau is recognized to speak to his amendment.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. This is a simple amendment, and it is directed to the income eligibility for the school voucher program. Unlike other public assistance programs with income qualifications, like Medicaid, like SNAP and like the federal school lunch program to make sure kids are fed and ready to learn, the state's school voucher program doesn't require annual income certification. So, what this amendment does is apply an annual income certification to the program to make sure that every year at the present level of about $110,000 a year for a family of four, that the student's family is eligible for this public assistance program. It's that simple. I hope we can all support this measure to make sure that families who receive this public assistance are in fact eligible. Of course, there's more to do to make sure the money is a good investment for taxpayers such as making sure the money is spent on educational goods and services that lead to strong student outcomes and making sure that taxpayer funds aren't being misappropriated like what is happening in other states with similar voucher programs. On Tuesday, towns across the state passed resolutions demanding accountability to the EFA program and urging legislators not to expand the program any further. So, there's more to do but this is a good conservative first step. So, I hope you'll support this common-sense amendment, and we can get out ahead of the state auditor's report that is due out later this year. I think taxpayers will want to know who is being responsible because transparency is important to us. So, I would like to call for a roll call vote. Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Valerie McDonnell (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Opponents have repeatedly filed legislation to dismantle the EFA program and this amendment is no different. By replacing the entire bill, leaving the income gap in place and requiring families to be recertified each year, this amendment forces children to switch schools simply because their parents' income fluctuates from year to year. Also, this 11th hour floor amendment was not presented to the committee for consideration, despite there being ample opportunities to do so. The only thing I agree with the previous speaker on is that I would also like a roll call vote. So please press the red button.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithReps. Luneau and McDonnell request a roll call. 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 (0916h). This is a roll call vote. Rep. Ames is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dick Ames (D - Ches 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment requires continuing annual reconfirmation that each EFA recipients' income remains below the statutory income cap. And if I know that the current cap is adjusted each year to keep up with inflation and that this adjustment will continue if this amendment is adopted. And if I know that that adjustment occurs through the adjustment and the annual setting of the poverty level in the country and in this region. And if I believe that reserving public funded grants such as the EFA to those applicants with relatively low annual income is good public policy and knowing all of this, would I not then push the green button to vote for this amendment? Thank you.

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

Rep. Valerie McDonnell (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment replaced the entire bill. This amendment has not been seen by the committee. And finally, Mister Speaker if I know this amendment is a poison pill to the bill, would I now press the red button so that we can debate the underlying bill? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (0916h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. If you are 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. 170 in the affirmative and 205 in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Ames moves floor amendment (0922h) which can be found in your seat pockets and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Dick Ames (D - Ches 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Hello again. This is a simple amendment. Easy to understand. It simply applies to the EFA program the budgetary restrictions and discipline of our standard of appropriation and spending process. It requires that it must be appropriated and unobligated funds available for each EFA at the time of the determination and decision on an applicant application for an EFA. So, it renders the EFA process subject to the appropriation process just as so many other parts of state government in our state system are also limited and subject to the budgetary discipline. So please press the green button when you get to the calling of the vote and I do, Mister Speaker, request a roll call.

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

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. It is ironic, sort of like catastrophic aid. If there is not enough money appropriated for catastrophic aid, go back to the education trust fund and get the money necessary, but you can't do it for an EFA. That's what they are trying to say. They're trying to say if it's it not appropriated, but you have children in your family are now going to come to kindergarten and brother and sister already in an EFA program, you're not going to get those children in an EFA program either or a new student moving into town. This is just another roadblock, another effort to chip away at the EFA program. A program that has been extremely successful. I urge you to vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Ames requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. The question is on the adoption of floor amendment (0922h), and this is a roll call vote. Rep. Luneau is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know that on Tuesday voters from all across the state voted affirmatively to urge the legislature not to expand this program, then would I press the green button to pass this amendment to at least set the cap on this wildly out of control spending of taxpayer money? Thank you.

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

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this wildly exceptional program is very successful. And if I know this is the best fit for so many children that have been bullied, that are in schools where they are not receiving the academic challenge they deserve, would I then vote to oppose this amendment? Vote red.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (0922h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor; press the green button. If you are 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. 171 in the affirmative; 205 in the negative, the amendment fails. Now on to the main motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. LeClerc is recognized to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Daniel LeClerc (D - Hills 34)Mister Speaker, I rise today to ask this body to protect the EFA program by voting no on HB 115. For the current school year, the EFA program serves 5,321 students, helping families with low to moderate means provide an education to their children. Proponents call this program successful. Some even say wildly successful. The bill before us expands the program moderately this year and removes the income cap entirely next year. Significantly expanding the EFA program now before its performance audit is complete, runs the risk of putting a negative spotlight on the program and haring its long-term solvency. While the concept of universally EFAs are popular nationally, the taxpayers we represent here in New Hampshire aren't so sure. The Granite State Taxpayers, our longest running taxpayer advocacy organization opposes this bill, telling the education committee that, "Expanding an existing program at a time when a budget deficit looms and even human services face cuts, is inappropriate." Putting aside disagreement over what the expansion in this bill will cost taxpayers, the majority report states that this bill will cost $11 million in new money in the second year once the income cap is removed. We all know the spending and revenue crunch our state is under right now and that there is no extra money available to expand the programs we support. In the Finance Committee there has been talk of increasing fees to help balance the budget and the governor's budget itself includes significant increases on developers. The governors budget doubles fees on excavating and dredging, doubles fees on applications for shoreline terrain alterations and even raises the fees on the registration of dams. We have choices to make. Wouldn't it be nice to pass a budget with no increase to fees? Instead of spending $11 million helping the people who are generally well off and able and already pay for the private education themselves, shouldn't we be holding the line on taxes and fees and working to keep costs down on the business we need to solve our housing crisis? Remember, we don't need this bill to expand the EFA program. The governors budget expands EFAs in a revenue neutral way, providing universal choices to students who public school is not working for. Let's not risk a good thing by spending money that we just do not have. Please join me in pressing the red button against the OTP. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. McDonnell is recognized to speak in support of the committee report.

Rep. Valerie McDonnell (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Honorable colleagues, I look forward to the day when children will no longer be turned away from education because of their zip code or their family's inability to pay. By providing school choice to every New Hampshire family, HB 115-FN guarantees that children will never be turned away again. So, I rise again today in support of the committee report. As a product of public schools and even as a recent graduate of a public high school here in New Hampshire, but education should not be a one size fits all approach because one size does not fit all. Therefore, we should celebrate students' differences rather than erase them. Furthermore, this bill empowers students to excel and to exceed expectations by expanding education freedom accounts, EFAs, universally. First, the maximum eligible annual income would increase in fiscal year in 2026 and better yet, be completely eliminated in all subsequent years. This change levels the playing field because means testing is not required for admission to public schools under current law. The same should be true for all educational pathways including the EFA program, which despite what we are often told, is not a voucher program. In addition to this blatant lie, we often hear three other misconceptions about EFA expansion. Number one, EFAs can only be spent on private school tuition to the detriment of public schools. Wrong. Current EFA participants also learn online, in homeschool programs and even in New Hampshire's public schools. Number two, the EFA program lacks accountability. Wrong. The award-winning non-profit who administers the program has made both an itemized list of expenditures and an audit report publicly available for anyone to review. Number three, EFA expansion increases local property taxes. Wrong again. The EFA program is funded by the state education trust fund and has already returned more than $266 million tax dollars to taxpayers. Finally, today the other body is also considering so called universal EFA expansion, however, the other body's bill merely exchanges the income limitations under current law for limitations on the total number of students. So, their bill is a step backwards and this bill is a step forwards. So please join the resounding 84% of parents, the majority of the committee and myself in supporting our youngest constituents via HB 115-FN. Thank you, and Mister Speaker I request a roll call vote please.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Luneau requested a roll call which looks like it is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 115. This is a roll call vote. Rep. Damon is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good morning, colleagues. If I know that providing universal education freedom accounts means paying for children of affluent families who are already in private schools at a cost of over $100 million per year. And if I know that the New Hampshire EFA program lacks outcome measures but similar programs in other states have shown dismal outcomes. And if I know that this legislation fails to meet our basic obligation to fiscal responsibility for the taxpayers we all represent during a time of a looming budget crisis, would I now press the red button to defeat this extreme expensive irresponsible legislation? Thank you.

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

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know New Hampshire's cost per pupil has dramatically increased producing a perfect inverse correlation on plummeting education scores. And if I know those parents seeking a better fit for their children deserve this opportunity to attend a school where they can achieve and accomplish their goals. If I know projected cost for the EFA program contained in HB 115 are much less than the exaggerated $100 million that have been incorrectly exaggerated by the opposition. And lastly and perhaps more important for our public throughout this country, if I know HB 115 sends a clear message to the education consumer to shop around comparative and successful educational choice options are now available in New Hampshire. Thank you. Press that beautiful green button.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRemember, its like Jeopardy, put it in the form of a question. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 115. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. If you are opposed, 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. 198 in the affirmative, 180 in the negative, the committee report is adopted. The House recessed at 12:00 p.m. RECESS The House reconvened at 1:00 p.m. (Speaker Packard in the Chair)

Speaker PackardThe question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Damon.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to ask my colleagues to reach deeply for kindness and empathy and please join me in defeating the ITL for HB 703. I hope that we all believe that every child deserves the opportunity to learn, to thrive and that no child should go hungry during the school day. This bill prohibits schools from denying meals, serving alternative lesser meals or stigmatizing students based on their meal payment status. It also would require school districts to accept voluntary donations to alleviate school meal debt which addresses an issue that occurred last year in New Hampshire. An amendment that would make the bill budget neutral by removing the requirement for the department of education to pay for district school mean debt is ready for your attention. As such, HB 703 is then simply asking districts to have a clear policy that protects our students from being shamed for the economic status. Thirty-nine percent of New Hampshire children, over 1/3, live in households who have insufficient food access. Children living with food insecurity are twice as likely to receive special education services, twice as likely to repeat a grade, have increased hyper activity and difficulty focusing and are twice as likely to be suspended which also interferes with learning. Children are not responsible for their poverty. Let me say that again. Children are not responsible for their poverty. Yet we know that when students are labeled for being poor, they often choose to go hungry rather than be seen getting a meal that stigmatizes them. Using tokens, stickers, stamps, a public list of students with meal debt, alternative meals, prohibiting extra curricular or field trip participation or requiring students to do chores to earn their meals are all ways that we call out children for poverty. My mom was a hard-working food service director, and I know most nutrition and school staff are compassionate wonderful people, but sometimes policies are created that are not kind, wonderful and fair to students. Access to the school meals program is strongly associated with improved education and health benefits, including less childhood obesity. It is associated with reduced absenteeism and tardiness and fewer behavioral issues. School meal programs have to balance offering foods that are appealing to today's children with providing nutritionally sound meals. Many items served in the school meal program are required by federal rules to meet nutrition standards that are much healthier than the same item you could purchase at a store or at a restaurant. You cannot tell the amount of nutrition provided by the name on a menu. The minority recognizes that it is essential to children's educational success to be fed adequately and routinely. Please join me in voting against the ITL so a better, kinder motion can be made for our kids. Thank you.

Rep. Raymond Peeples (R - Hills 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill requires school districts with meal programs to adopt meal policies that do not deny or stigmatize students with unpaid meal balances. This bill further authorizes the school to complete the application for free meals, a right that should stay with the parent or guardian. Allowing meal debt to go unchecked and eliminating all forms of collection, puts a burden on the taxpayer to pick up the cost. School nutrition programs are vital to our students and while we can all agree that no student should be denied a meal for any reason, we also can agree that its unfair to dump that bad debt onto the taxpayer. This is an issue that's best handled at the local level allowing local districts control over the policies that govern their school lunch programs. I would urge you to support the recommendation of ITL.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 703. Rep. Luneau 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 on HB 703. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weinstein for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Toni Weinstein (D - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that there are students in New Hampshire schools that are stigmatized by poverty and are facing food insecurity. And if I know that those students shouldn't be subjected to meal shaming practices like denying meals, serving alternative meals or stigmatizing students based on their meal payment status. And I know that this bill addresses that by simply asking school districts to adopt compassionate policies, then would I now press the red button to defeat the ITL motion so that a better motion can be made? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Ladd for a parliamentary inquiry. Representative Ladd: Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know the amount of meal debt accrued at the local level estimated by the department to be as much as $2.5 million annually. And if we all know that no child should be denied a meal for any reason, however, if I also know that by allowing meal debt to be unchecked and then requiring the department of education to pay the unpaid meal debt, it would unfairly shift the burden of debt responsibility onto local taxpayers, would I then leave the management of local school meal programs to the local district and press the green button and ITL this bill?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 703. 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. 202 voting Yea; 173 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)I would like to have HB 739 be laid on the table.

Speaker PackardThat is a proper motion. The motion before us is to lay HB 739 on the table. A division has been requested. Members take your seats. The motion before us is to lay HB 739 on the table. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this is simply a redistribution of money scheme. And if I know the last time that this donor town scheme was introduced, it led to a bipartisan division across the state. And if I know that this will simply pit neighbor against neighbor once more, would I now press the green button?

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

Rep. Walter Spilsbury (R - Sull 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker if I know that HB 739 resolves a constitutional issue that has been put in play by a superior court decision. And if I know that the education funding committee has voted for HB 739 OTP 17 to 1 even though we know it affects different communities differently. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that the decision up or down needs to be made today so that the bill can move to Finance and so that Finance can determine how to use the $30 million that it would raise, would I now vote against the table motion?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the tabling motion on HB 739. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 150 voting Yea; 223 voting Nay, the motion fails. The amendment is (0680h) printed in House Record 15 page 64. Are you ready for the question on the amendment? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Right now, we are on to Ought to Pass with Amendment and the Chair recognizes Rep. Cordelli.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill actually should be titled the pitting against neighbor bill because that is what this bill does. After all, it is basic redistribution of tax dollars from one town to another, from one taxpayer to another. The bill proposes to do with taxpayer funds raised by the statewide education property tax or SWEPT, if the town collects more than the state says that they have to collect, that is referred to as excess SWEPT, although that term appears nowhere in current statute. This bill would require that that excess amount that is over what the state requires towns to collect, be sent to the state and have it redistributed to other towns around the state. Maybe we should expand that concept. Maybe we should let Manchester tax Bedford taxpayers. And if the amount of education adequacy grant increases, the list of donor towns will grow from the current 40. Why do these towns raise more money than the state says that they have to? The Department of Revenue Administration determines an equalized property value for towns and uses that to determine the amount owed by each town to raise the required SWEPT funds. It is a uniform rate across the state as required by our constitution. It happens that some towns have some properties that have more value than others. Maybe around the lake. Let's look at the two towns that I represent. They are a good example. Considering there are 236 towns, let's take a look at the percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch because that's a commonly used measure of poverty. Tuftonboro, free and reduced percentage is 26.5%. Wolfeboro is 25.5%. The state average is 14.5% as a measure of poverty. Let's look at the 2020-2025, median income per household. For Wolfeboro, it is $98,300. For Tuftonboro, it's $84,500. The state average is $95,600. Are my two towns wealthy? Clearly not. But let's take those taxpayer monies and distribute it to other towns. For those two towns currently, this would require $3 million to be sent from these towns to the state to be redistributed. What do you think is going to happen to local property taxes and the people who are struggling to make ends meet? We talk about fairness. Does this sound fair? What do I tell Marilyn, a friend of mine who lives in an old trailer in a trailer park and has to rely on people to bring her groceries? What am I going to tell her when I have to say that some of her tax dollars is going to people in Grafton County? Or how about the families in town for whom my church spends over $10,000 a year to help them keep their heat on during the winter? What am I going to tell them? Please vote red to stop this excess SWEPT caper and stop pitting neighbor against neighbor. And, Mister Speaker, I request a roll call.

Rep. Walter Spilsbury (R - Sull 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Love it or hate it, the statewide education property tax is current law. As current law, it has to be administered in a way that is constitutional. It looks an awful lot like the local property tax to our taxpayers but it is a state tax and so it has to be apportioned with an equal rate across the state. When certain communities are allowed to keep the portion of the tax they've collected through SWEPT that exceeds the amount they are due from adequacy aid, they can defray other costs in the community. I and the committee concurs with the judge that has decided that is not constitutional and the current law can't stand as it is written. So, it is not the purpose to pit communities against other communities. I think we have to be matter of fact and recognize that when we impose any kind of a tax, we are not necessarily trying to have the monies that have been collected spent directly where they have been collected or in proportion to the distribution of collections. Look for example at the meals and rooms tax. The meals and rooms tax is shared across the communities regardless of which communities have more hotels, more restaurants, more hospitals or whatever draws people into the community. We are not trying to match up community by community the amount collected, and the amount sent there. That's the same proposition here. So, if we are going to collect part of our taxes on the real estate through SWEPT, if that's the wisdom of this body, then we need to make it constitutional. Please support the motion of the committee.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 739. Rep. Cordelli has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment on HB 739. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. McFarlane for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Donald McFarlane (R - Graf 18)Mister Speaker, if I know that education funding in New Hampshire is and should remain local. And if I know that forcing certain so-called donor towns including two of the ten towns in my district, Bridgewater and Hebron, to send their local education tax dollars to the state will necessarily result in higher property taxes for those communities hurting working families and senior on fixed incomes in those towns. And if I know that should the supreme court uphold the ConVal decision, the SWEPT tax rate could increase so as to fund the 18% higher adequacy amount and increasing thereby the number of donor towns in the state by over 3 times. And if I know that despite claims of fairness, this bill merely incentivizes those donor towns to spend their otherwise excess funds on local boondoggles that they can label educational, ensuring that despite the intent of the proponents of this bill, no real redistribution of wealth would actually occur in the long term and that the bill would ultimately raise educational spending.

Speaker PackardRepresentative, this is a parliamentary inquiry. Not a speech.

Rep. Donald McFarlane (R - Graf 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I will wrap it up. And if I know that the bill would therefore raise educational spending in the donor towns and fail to provide meaningful tax relief to other communities. And if I know that New Hampshire voters have rejected state taxes in favor of local control and this would create division between towns, would I now press the red button?

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

Rep. Walter Spilsbury (R - Sull 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know you don't have to agree with the judge and all the rest of the ConVal to see the constitutional problem. And if I know you have already heard me twice tell you the reasons to support this bill, then would I now vote yes?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 739. 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. 246 voting Yea; 128 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.