The House, Thursday, April 10, 2025

Speaker PackardThe majority amendment is (0785h) printed in house record 19 page 140 and the Chair recognizes Rep. Muns.

Rep. Chris Muns (D - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker and good morning. If there's one thing that we can all agree on it is that our immigration system is broken, and we need to fix it. Securing our border must certainly be part of that but let's not forget that our border does not define who we are as a country. A border is only a line on a map. What truly defines us are the values and the principles we hold dear. In the United States those values and principles are reflected in our constitution and the laws we the people have passed in our efforts to create a more perfect union, the laws we expect all to adhere to and enforce. When HB 511 first came before the House I was one of the 351 of us who voted in favor of it, but I'm opposed to this amendment and will be opposed to the bill should it pass with this amendment and let me tell you why. Nearly all of us are immigrants. The only question is when and how we or our family members arrived. Many of us in this Chamber today have ancestors who I'm sure would have been considered undocumented or illegal by today's standards. The one thing that united and still unites all those who come here is the yearning to be free and to pursue the American dream. It's what distinguishes us from other countries and should be the guiding principles upon which all our immigration policies are based. That is why my parents came here. They were born in the Netherlands. When the German army invaded Holland in 1940 my mother was 13 my father was 12. As the tide of the war turned against them the German army began to round up young Dutch men and send them to Germany to work in factories and live in work camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. Soldiers would routinely sweep through neighborhoods demanding to be allowed in homes and detain any young man they encountered. One of my uncles left the city to hide in the country. Another had a hiding place under the floorboards that he would retreat to when his neighbors told him there were soldiers in the neighborhood. In early 1945 when my father was 17, he was picked up and taken to Germany to work in a factory. The Dutch government of the time installed by the Germans did nothing to stop or even hinder his efforts. There was no due process. My grandparents were not able to appear before a judge on his behalf. My father was simply picked up and shipped out. My parents immigrated to the United States in 1953 because they knew they would never have to fear being treated that way in the United States. We were that shining city on the hill to them. As we struggle to fix our broken immigration system, we need to support the work of the federal authorities who are responsible for enforcing our immigration laws. I understand and respect the difficult job that law enforcement and immigration and border control have and that is why everything we ask them to do should be unimpeachable and consistent not only with the law but the moral principles upon which this country was founded. That is why when this amendment came to us in Finance Division I, I had to pause. If we adopt this amendment today our counties will be authorized to hold someone in their criminal correction facility after their state charges have been discharged not because they have been charged with any additional crime but just because ICE or any federal agency asks them to do so. The only thing that ICE must do is provide proof of what is referred to as an immigration detainer against that man, that individual. I am not a lawyer, but I have been advised by people who are that being in the country without proper documentation is not a crime. Asking for political assignment is not a crime and overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a crime. Immigration detainers are administrative forms prepared and issued by ICE. They are not reviewed and signed off by a judge. They have sometimes resulted in illegal detention of individuals who have not violated civil immigration laws including US citizens and immigrants who are lawfully present in the United States. This amendment permits a county to hold anyone with an immigration detainer for up to 48 hours, not including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, which means that if someone is detained on Thursday before a long holiday weekend they can be held in prison with no charges filed against them among the general criminal population for up to 5 days after their state charges have been discharged and there's nothing that person can do about it. Again, although I'm not a lawyer the one thing I have known since at least fifth grade American history is that in America everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. There is also this thing called due process that ensures that individuals are treated justly and have the opportunity to defend their rights when the government seeks to deprive them of life, liberty or property. And finally, there is the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution that prohibits each of us against unreasonable confinement. Those three principles, innocent until proven guilty, due process and bans on unacceptable confinement are as American as baseball, hot dogs and apple pie. Then why I ask are we considering legislation that violates all three of them? We recently have seen plane loads of individuals alleged of being members of a Venezuelan gang being sent to prison in El Salvador without any of them receiving due process. The administration in Washington even acknowledges that one of those individuals should not be there due to an administrative error. It is enough of a concern that their case was referred to the United States Supreme Court who ruled earlier this week that detainees are entitled to notice that they are being removed and an opportunity to challenge their deportations before a federal judge. Perhaps even more disquieting, particularly to me given my father's experience, are the students from Columbia and Tufts University who have literally been picked up on the street by masked agents of ICE and then transported to Louisiana, again without any charges having been filed and no due process. Now, and again in the spirit of full disclosure the same lawyers who told me that it is not a crime to be in the country without proper immigration documentation, also told me that many jurisdictions around the country, including more than one county in New Hampshire, enter into what are called intergovernmental agency agreements with ICE that enables them to detain individuals ICE believes are undocumented. Clearly that is the case in Louisiana. I do not want New Hampshire to become Louisiana. I do not believe this legislature should take any action that suggests, encourages or sanctions that it is all right for any jurisdiction to hold innocent individuals in any of our criminal correctional facilities for any length of time who have not been charged with a crime. We must not establish a precedent that requires that our criminal system incarcerate people for potential civil violations, and we must protect our counties from potential costly lawsuits if it is later determined persons ICE asked them to detain should not have been held by them. Many of you here today will remember the late great Renny Cushing, who represented Hampton in this House for many years. Renny was a good friend and a mentor to me. One of the thoughts he shared with me once that I have never forgotten was something along the lines of the most awesome power any government has is the power to deprive persons within its jurisdiction of their liberty. That is a power that should be limited, carefully controlled and only exercised in the most extreme of circumstances. Truer words have never been spoken. I am very concerned that with the passage of this amendment, we will be taking the first step down a very slippery slope that will end up making it far too easy for us and our federal partners to deprive our friends, family members and neighbors of their fundamental rights and what it means to live in the United States of America. I could not live with myself because of my vote in favor of this amendment if sometime in the future someone living in New Hampshire is picked up off the street and taken to a detention center far from his or her home without any due process or opportunity to defend themselves against that action. For those reasons I cannot support this amendment, and I urge you to join me in voting no on this amendment, and Mister Speaker I ask for a roll call vote.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have a few points I want to get off the the top and then I'll talk about the amendment. First off, a nation is nothing without borders. A nation is nothing without a process to make sure that if you are here illegally, you are committing a crime and you should be dealt with as if you are committing a crime, which you are. The amendment though, yes, the underlying bill deals with sanctuary cities and banning sanctuary cities in the State of New Hampshire. As the bill is currently written, as I wrote it, all counties would be holding any ICE detainee for up to 48 hours regardless of whether or not the county had an agreement with the federal government to hold ICE detainees. The county association came to Finance because they didn't have the information in front of them when it was in the first committee, asking us to amend it so that only those counties that have agreements with the federal government would be required to hold ICE detainees up to 48 hours. So, the amendment is taking it from every single county can hold ICE detainees up to 48 hours to just those county correctional facilities that choose to enter into an agreement with the federal government to hold ICE detainees. So, we're taking it. You know I would be fine either way. I would be fine telling every county hold ICE detainees up to 48 hours. The county association came in, they asked for this amendment so that only those counties that have those agreements with the federal government would be the ones to have to hold them up to 48 hours. That seemed reasonable to us on Division I in Finance. I'm good with passing the amendment that we're voting on right now. I'm good with passing the bill without that amendment. So, it's a real choose your own adventure. You guys can, we can vote with the Democrats and and take away this windowing amendment and make it so that every county will be required to host ICE detainees up to 48 hours because they are here in this country illegally. They should not get sanctuary in the State of New Hampshire, and they should not feel welcomed in the State of New Hampshire. So, vote your conscience on the amendment in my own debate and then we can have a debate on the underlying bill. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is on the amendment (0785h). Rep. Sweeney 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 amendment (0785h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Scherr for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know what this amendment is really about. Many of us have fought against the insidious infiltration of the federal government into every single aspect of our life. And if I know that as the way things stand with HB 511 already, that police in New Hampshire inform ICE as soon as they take somebody into custody that they have that person in custody. And if I know that ICE then knows when that person will be released from custody. And if I know in spite of this information, the amendment says that's not good enough, let's give them 48 more hours after the person's state custody ends. And if I know even that is not enough because apparently ICE doesn't work on weekends, we'll exclude Saturdays and Sundays and holidays and give them up to five days to come and get this person. And if I know we don't need this bill. There's enough here to let ICE do their job without giving them this extra time and with still letting them hear that they have somebody in custody for whom they have a detainer, would I vote no on this amendment and press the red button?

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

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister speaker, if I know this amendment was only trying to winnow down the sanctuary city bill towards the counties that only had federal agreements with ICE. And if I know that I've been convinced by my friends across the aisle that this amendment isn't really necessary for the underlying bill, would I now vote red on the amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the amendment (0785h). This is going to be a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend the state of the vote. 36 voting Yea; 337 voting Nay, the amendment fails. We are now on to the majority report of ought to pass. Are you ready for the question? Okay, right. The motion before us now is ought to pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Meuse for a parliamentary, I mean to speak.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, like my colleague from Hampton, I was also one of 351 House members who supported the amended version of this bill back on the 6th of February. While there were many things in the final bill that I disagreed with, I believe that the amended version would offer some level of protection for undocumented immigrants who aren't accused of crimes. So, in the spirit of reducing harm to a vulnerable group of people, I supported it. Two months ago, that seemed like a pretty safe bet. This is New Hampshire and this is America. Our institutions have survived good administrations and bad ones. We have always had a strong bipartisan tradition of supporting the rule of law, due process and freedom of speech. Until recently, being in this country, simply being undocumented in this country, wasn't considered to be a crime unless a person crosses the border illegally. But the administration in Washington has made it clear that regardless of what the law says, it believes that all undocumented people are criminals. Many of these people are our neighbors. They've lived in our communities for years. They have paid taxes. They have built our homes. They have prepared our meals, and they have even risked their own health by serving as essential workers during COVID. Study after study consistently shows that immigrants are the least likely group of people to commit serious crimes and when they do commit a serious crime, long before this bill ever existed, it's been the policy of police departments across this state to notify ICE, even in communities where police departments have so-called sanctuary policies. What's changed over the past few weeks for many of us has been seeing green card holders who may have committed minor crimes and violations in the past, often many years in the past, suddenly seized and deported. We have seen a Russian scientist who's worked in the United States for 20 years and been critical of Putin and his invasion of Ukraine stopped at the airport and sent to a detention facility. This woman has no criminal record, committed no crime and now faces deportation. We have seen people flown to a prison in a foreign country with no due process who were accused of being criminal gang members, but later we found out that some of these people not only didn't have criminal records, we found out that some of them were in the US legally and never had a hearing before they were put on a plane to a foreign prison, where we have also seen video of these same prisoners being abused. And on Sunday, we found out this situation was even worse than we thought. According to CBS News, 75% of the 238 immigrants who were sent to the Salvadorian mega prison had no traces of a criminal record. No traces of a criminal record. The bottom line is that when you respect due process and the rule of law, these are the kinds of things that you find out before you pack people off to the harshest prison in a foreign country where the rule of law is the rule of a dictator. Since we first passed this bill, we have seen scores of other immigrants, both documented and undocumented, with no criminal records who haven't been accused of crimes, being taken into custody. In recent weeks, nearly 300 students, including a student at Dartmouth College, have had their visas revoked, not for committing a crime but for expressing opinions that some in our government don't agree with. Many of you have probably seen the video of an international student pulled off the street by ICE agents wearing masks in a scene right out of a bad movie. Her offense was writing an op-ed in a student newspaper urging her college to divest itself of stock and companies with ties to Israel after two years of unspeakable violence in the Middle East. To be very, very clear, in America you do not sign away your right to free speech when you enter this country, and you do not sign away your right to due process just because you have a different accent. If we pass this bill, we're not simply doing our part to solve the immigration problem. What we are doing is putting our stamp of approval. The stamp of approval of our live free or die state on a federal policy that allows the innocent, as well as the guilty, to be demonized, rounded up and caged with little or no regard for due process. What this bill does under the guise of enabling New Hampshire law enforcement to support federal immigration efforts, is to make our state a willing accomplice in a politically manufactured campaign of state terrorism against a group of people, the vast majority of whom came here, not to victimize America but because they love America, and they believe America is good. If you believe those people are right and you also believe that there can be no liberty where brutality reigns and the law is used as a weapon against the weak, I urge you to push the red button and show your support, and Mister speaker I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Sweeney.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If you are in this nation illegally, I do not want you welcomed in the State of New Hampshire. If you are in this nation illegally, you should not have sanctuary in the State of New Hampshire. We've seen the headlines. We've seen the news stories. The video clips just earlier this year from neighboring states that have adopted these sanctuary policies at large and what destruction and death they have brought to their states. And it's not immune. We're not immune to it in New Hampshire. Even with my own town. Since we voted on February 6th, there was a case in my town of Salem, New Hampshire where a resident, a constituent of those of us that are here from Salem, was dealt drugs from somebody from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Those drugs were laced with a lethal, deadly dose of fentanyl and when the police investigated it in Salem, New Hampshire, they traced the drugs back to this Lawrence, Mass. drug dealer who had an ICE detainer against him for years. But the State of Massachusetts and the City of Lawrence, because they were sanctuary, did nothing and that bled over into New Hampshire. Now unfortunately this bill doesn't change Massachusetts laws, so it would not have changed that situation with a Mass. illegal immigrant coming up to New Hampshire to push off their deadly drugs, but every step that we can take to make New Hampshire a little bit safer to protect our citizens. We just had a massive surge for the last four years at our southern border that brought millions of illegal immigrants in at the southern border, the northern border, through our ports an unmitigated disaster for four years, It stopped now, and it stopped for now, but we still have those that are here that we need to get out. They should not be welcomed in the State of New Hampshire. They should not have sanctuary in our biggest cities or our smallest towns, on our college campuses, in our facilities. We need to say no. It's time to be the adults in the room, recognize that a nation is nothing without borders, that a nation is nothing if we ignore the laws of the land. We need to take the handcuffs off of our local law enforcement and encourage them to cooperate with federal law enforcement, with ICE to protect New Hampshire, to keep our state safe and vote green to ban sanctuary cities in the State of New Hampshire. Thank you very much.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Rep. Sweeney 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 ought to pass on HB 511. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ray Newman for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Ray Newman (D - Hills 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that crossing the border is illegal. I also know that in the United States, there is no law that says it is illegal to be in this country without papers. Having said that, if I know that all people are entitled to due process, even incarcerated people, because the Constitution refers to people. And I know we hear 48 hours over and over again, but the truth is that detainers are valid for up to 5 days because they don't count Saturday, Sunday and holidays. And finally, if I know that the bill requires our underfunded and understaffed law enforcement agencies to spend their limited resources reporting every single denial of an ICE detainer, would I now press the red button to defeat this outrageous bill?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognize Rep. Weyler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this bill stops town cities and counties from adopting sanctuary policies that welcome illegal immigrants to New Hampshire. And if I know those here illegally should not be welcomed or offered sanctuary in New Hampshire, would I now press the green button in support of the committee's recommendation of ought to pass? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of ought to pass on HB 511. This a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press a green button if you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 211 voting Yea, 161 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe amendment is (1488h) printed in House Record 19 pages 28 through 126. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hakken-Phillips.

Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in opposition to the HB 2 committee amendment because this budget fails to protect the rights and well-being of New Hampshire's most vulnerable. Now I believe in the premise that government is collective action for the safety and security of its people, therefore it is our duty as citizens, but especially as legislators, to leverage the power of government to protect those who need protection and to give voice to those who have no voice. But Mister Speaker, this amendment strays so far away from that responsibility. In examining HB 2, it's not just the 180 pages of statutory changes on which we should be focused, it's the values this document reflects and the real-world consequences that it imposes. When we strip away all the line items, what we're left with is a clear picture. This budget abandons the people who need our help the most. So first, this amendment eliminates the Office of the Child Advocate. This is the one agency tasked with uncovering abuse and protecting vulnerable children across New Hampshire. Last biennium, the office managed more than 1,700 cases and critical incidents involving DCYF, residential placements, missing children and the reports of restraint, seclusion and abuse. This is not bureaucracy; it is lifesaving work. A $2.2 million savings over two years is a drop in a budgetary bucket, but the consequences are enormous. Without this office, there will be no independent oversight of the systems that failed children like Harmony Montgomery and Elijah Lewis, New Hampshire children who died preventable deaths due to systemic neglect. Eliminating this office sends a chilling message that children's lives in New Hampshire are negotiable. Caring for kids used to be something that we could all agree upon. At a time when this budget already cuts food, health care and basic services for children, eliminating their final layer of protection is not just shortsighted, it's unconscionable. Second, this amendment eliminates the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights. It's the only state agency dedicated to investigating and enforcing anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, public accommodation and education. Last year, the commission handled 243 formal complaints and provided training to state agencies in partnership with the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. But without this commission, victims of discrimination will be forced into an already overburdened court system. By the way, that's also seeing cuts this budget cycle. So, the cut of about $3.2 million in general funds and a little over $366,000 in federal support is the cost of justice and equal protection. Mister Speaker, how do we justify prioritizing marginal savings over the right to be free from discrimination? Third, this amendment eliminates the Department of Corrections Parental Education Program. This helps incarcerated parents prepare to reunite with their families and reintegrate into society with the tools they need to succeed. Roughly 15,000 children in the state of New Hampshire have a parent in prison. This program not only helps parents reconnect in healthier ways, it supports the caregivers and communities to which they'll return. If we believe incarceration is for rehabilitation, not solely for punishment, then this program is essential. Cutting the approximate $200,000 for this program undermines our values and it leaves vulnerable families without support. Fourth, this amendment includes a sweeping, vaguely defined ban on diversity equity inclusion efforts across our public institutions. A policy change inserted with no public hearing, no clear definitions and no fiscal analysis. This so-called ban puts New Hampshire at great legal risk and financial risk while threatening programs that support students with learning disabilities, disabled individuals needing accessible voting or parking, low-income residents seeking legal aid or housing, veterans accessing their earned benefits and religious communities who need accommodations. Not only is this ban an unfunded mandate, it opens the door to lawsuits for breach of contract, discrimination and non-compliance with federal law. During a budget crisis, we should be focused on solving actual problems, not stoking culture wars that turn back the clock on our civil rights. Here's the bottom line, HB 2 as amended fails to protect the rights and well-being of New Hampshire's most vulnerable. This budget prioritizes penny pinching over people. It strips away protections for abused children, marginalized communities, incarcerated people working towards a better future and veterans and students who rely on equity-based support. New Hampshire is one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest country in the world. We can and we must do better. I urge my colleagues to reject this vision for our state and to work together for a budget that reflects our common values of justice, compassion and opportunity for all. New Hampshire deserves a better budget, Mister speaker, and for these reasons I ask you to vote no against the committee amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Okay, now that we've okayed the money, this HB 2 is the enabling legislation. This takes care of all the changes to the laws. The governor sent us about 100 pages of these, and I sent them off to all the policy committees that I thought would deal with those things to get comments back about whether they could support them or not. Some of them brought me changes and we incorporated them. There's about 28 bills, maybe more, that passed through this House that then came to us because we were the second committee. We retained them or we passed them, ought to pass and we dealt with those this morning. So, now we've got all these other bills that we put in here because they needed a little money, or they needed some other changes. We amended some of them. I appreciate the efforts of many of the policy committees that I asked not to send us more money spending and a lot of you that had a bill with an FN in it took the money out or found some other way to pay for that. I appreciate that or we'd be in a bigger fix. So, there'll be several bills and there'll be a whole bunch of amendments, so I won't take a lot of your time, but think of this as most of this season's bills that we passed and they're in this HB 2 and if HB 2 dies, so do those bills that we all supported. That's not a good thing because that means that the Senate won't look at them either. So, if we passed them in this House, we ought to pass them again. Again, there'll be objections to them the same as there was the first time you saw them. So, please support these separate amendments. You got it on the white sheet, I think for the Republicans, so you can take a look at how strongly these are needed, and I hope you will support these and not vote against them because you voted for them before, or they wouldn't be in this bill. Thank you, Mister speaker.

Rep. Rosemarie Rung (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment to HB 2 spans over 100 pages and outlines changes across dozens of state agencies and departments. For some of us on House Finance, as you've heard, we've lost count of the number of hours spent working on this during the past six weeks. But this amendment is not about us, it's not about you and it's not about me. It's about the men, women and children we represent back home. So, I ask each of you to look beyond the text and consider this bill through their eyes. Think of your elderly neighbor, the clerk at the corner store, the young mother shopping for groceries, the neglected child sitting alone in a park, teenagers dreaming of college and a future here in New Hampshire. To your elderly neighbor, this bill, this amendment is a nightmare. She may have to choose between heat, food or prescriptions because of the increasing property taxes that result from the limited revenue sharing of the meals and rooms tax and reductions in county reimbursements. The amendment on top of that, your neighbor will lose her voice and an advocate with the elimination of the Office of the Commission on Aging. To the store clerk down the road, she's not just working the register, she's also an artist who exhibits her paintings with the help from the town's arts association, a group supported by the State Council on the Arts. The state council also provides local schools with artisan residents, state arts competitions and art education. Its support for the New Hampshire League of Craftsmen helps bring in millions in revenue every year through events like the annual Craftsman's Fair. If this amendment to HB 2 passes, New Hampshire would become the only state in the country without a council on the arts. Is that a distinction we really want? To the young mom in the grocery store, HB 2 strips away more than just dollars. She relies on SNAP benefits to stretch every dollar for her family and when the weather's nice she uses those benefits at local farmers markets buying healthy produce while supporting local agriculture. This amendment cuts that program entirely. Who does that help? Not her, not her kids and not the local farmer who depends on that income. When I speak of that neglected boy, it's not a hypothetical, but real to those of us in Merrimack who were left stunned and grief stricken from the death of 5-year-old Elijah Lewis. Elijah had slipped through the DCYF cracks and was murdered by his mother like another child, Harmony Montgomery, who died at the hands of her father. The Office of the Child Advocate was created to prevent tragedies like these and to hold DCYF accountable and protect children who cannot speak for themselves. This budget eliminates that office and puts more kids at risk. We cannot in good conscience allow that to happen. And the teenagers full of potential, they're not just someone else's child, they're our children, our grandchildren, our future, but with deep cuts to the university and the community college system, we're pushing them out of state for an education they can no longer afford here. And when they leave, they aren't just leaving for a college degree, they take their talents and their futures away from New Hampshire. This amendment accelerates our brain drain and deepens the graying of our state. So, let's see this amendment for what it really is, not 100 pages of text, but cuts that run deep to hurt those who sent us here to represent their best interests. Let's vote down this amendment so that we can vote for a better budget. One that lifts people up instead of leaving them behind. Thank you, Mister speaker.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, in order to have a balanced budget, you need both HB 1 and HB 2. They go together. They're hand in glove, but in particular, by eliminating this amendment from HB 2, you would cut revenue, not increase it because all of the revenue changes we talked about, gambling, fee increases, dedicated funds, etc., that's in this amendment and the total amount in this amendment is about $200 million per year of those kinds of things, those kind of extra revenues. But the spending in this amendment is more like, looks like about $85 million total, okay. So, as a change from the governor's budget. So, this amendment, if you got rid of it, the budget would be negatively affected by over $100 million, okay. That's just not responsible. It's that simple. On top of that, this amendment has about 30 house bills in it, many of which passed this body unanimously and many of which were requests from people on the other side of the aisle, environmental measures and things like that. And so, if we want to be able to push for those policies in our negotiations across the hall here, we need them as part of HB 2, okay. So, for all those reasons, really, we must pass HB 2. I don't see that there's a reasonable other choice. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is committee amendment (1488h). A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is amendment (1488h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ebel for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that a state budget is a reflection of our values and our aspirations. And if I know that a budget should be forward looking, support our communities and invest in the future of our children. And if I remember sitting in this room two months ago listening to the governor give her budget address and urging us to continue doing what is working. And if I look at this budget and see too much of what's working being cut with drastic reductions that burden families, businesses and property taxpayers, straining our university and community college systems, tourism development opportunities and health care access. And if I know this HB 2 amendment falls far short of what Granite Staters expect and deserve and that we all deserve a better budget, would I now press the red button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Osborne for a parliamentary inquiry. Representative Osborne: Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I agree that this budget should reflect our values and does reflect our values. In fact, it contains virtually every priority item that this body has passed over the last couple of months. And if I know that this is once again only the first step in a process of negotiating with the folks outside of this body. And if I want our positions to have a place at that negotiating table, would I now press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (1488h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 200 voting Yea, 175 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Edwards offers floor amendment (1529h), and Rep. Wade is recognized to speak.

Rep. Alice Wade (D - Straf 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in opposition to amendment (1529h), and I'll make this blunt. Trans people existing does not affect your everyday life. We just don't. We should not be spending this much time and energy trying to strip away health care and rights from people who just want to mind our own business. I understand we're a convenient political punching bag right now. It's easy to target us, vilify us and blame us for broader societal problems, but taking away our rights is not going to solve anything. I understand that people may have concerns in specific individual cases, but when we see sweeping legislation like this backed by no evidence, copy and pasted from other states and fueled by fear, it's clear that this is not about nuanced policymaking. The goal of this legislation is to label trans people as a threat to public safety and privacy despite absolutely no evidence backing that up. Trans women are nearly four times more likely to be assaulted than cis women, not the other way around. There wasn't any example provided of a trans person harassing or assaulting anyone in a restroom. The only thing I was told was that some people are uncomfortable using the restroom with a trans person there. I'm sorry if my presence made you uncomfortable, but I'm just there to do my business and wash my hands like anyone else. That's what restrooms are for, and someone else's discomfort is not a reason to ban an entire class of people from existing in public who did not do anything wrong. Imagine that this law passed and suddenly every public restroom has a padlock on it, and you are the only person without a key. Imagine holding it in for an entire day just because the government thinks that you're a threat for needing to pee. The threat of harassment or assault is very serious in New Hampshire, but this bill does nothing to address those issues. All it does is allow any business or private entity to subjectively judge your sex at birth using any criteria they want, birth certificates, bathroom monitors, general inspections, you name it because there's no guard rails at all in any of this legislation to prevent it. Even if this bill passes, this amendment, if someone wanted to enter the women's restroom in order to assault someone, do you think they're going to follow this law? No, because of course they wouldn't, because they're already going to break the law anyway. If you ever find a law that truly addresses harassment, let me know and I would be genuinely happy to co-sponsor it. I'm not here asking for special treatment. I'm asking to be treated like everyone else because we're just trying to mind our own business. Every one of these anti-trans bills had overwhelming public opposition, 80 to 90% of the people who testified opposed it. Thousands opposed while only a few hundred supported across the board on every one of these bills. This policy has no place in a budget amendment, especially given this bill already passed the House a few weeks ago. This only serves to further codify discrimination into state statute. If you believe that we as a legislature have better things to do than to micromanage the lives of 1% of the population. If you agree with Governor Sununu's veto of this bill last year where he said it identified a problem that does not exist here in New Hampshire. And if you think that I would look out of place using the men's restroom here at the State House then I'd urge you to vote no on this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker, and I request a roll call vote.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. We were asked to use our imagination and I'm going to ask you to imagine your own reality. I'm going to ask you to know what you already know. I'm going to ask you to remember that we had a vote on a bill that was exactly like this basically protecting bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting competitions and detention facilities so that we can protect our women. We can protect our women. We can protect our women. We've already voted for this. I hope you will vote for it again. The other part of this bill is an effort to inject some free market experimentalism inside of our health care system. Since World War II, the government has gotten increasingly involved in making payments and regulating the health care system and we're continuing to have problems. This is an effort to open up a member-based system that's worked in places like California and Oklahoma City. I don't know who might come into New Hampshire to try more of a free market approach, but they say that the test of insanity is constantly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. This gives us an opportunity to do something different and innovative and I want to thank the representative for bringing it forward. Those two things together represent FA (1529h), and I hope you will vote green again.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairRep. Wade has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Roesener for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Roesener (D - Merr 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that our transgender neighbors are not threats to safety or dangerous by nature, but people just like everybody else, family members, workers, students, human beings deserving of dignity and safety just like everybody else. And if I know that in places where this type of policy has been enacted, rolling back these protections has never proven by evidence to make communities safer, but it has been proven to lead to a troubling rise in hate crimes against transgender individuals. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that history will remember not just what we stood for but who we stood with, then I would know that pressing the red button on this amendment is not just our choice, it is our responsibility. Vote red.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Rep. Edwards for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would say that if I know that this, these two bills in combination, one protect the privacy and safety of our women. And if I know that we need to try free market approaches to liberate our sclerotic health care system and maybe make some innovations here in New Hampshire, would I then press green to pass these two bills that we've passed before and have debated endlessly?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1529h). This will be a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 203 having voted in the affirmative, 169 voted in the negative, the amendment passes. The bill's on second reading open to further amendment. Rep. Berry offers floor amendment (1559h). Rep. Berry is recognized to speak to the amendment. Rep. Berry waves off. The question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1559h). Are you ready for the question? For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Nicole Leapley (D - Hills 22)Mister Speaker, I'd like to request that the remarks be recorded in the permanent journal on (1529h).

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairWe're in the voting mode, and we're in the middle of HB 2. I would ask you to hold that motion for a later time. The question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1559h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; all those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the motion is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Mazur offers floor amendment (1526h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Woods to speak against the amendment.

Rep. Gary Woods (D - Merr 30)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I stand today to speak against the amendment (1526h). I stand today to speak.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairWill the member suspend please? It's getting loud in here. I ask people to please allow the member to be heard. Please proceed.

Rep. Gary Woods (D - Merr 30)I stand against amendment (1526h). This amendment deals with vaccines, which are considered one of the 10 great public health achievements in the US. This amendment would keep some of the current vaccine requirements, but the requirement for the most virulent diseases, chickenpox, hepatitis B, hemophilus and influenza B would be allowed to expire in June of 2026. This would make New Hampshire the only state in the nation not requiring chickenpox or influenza B, and only one of three states not to require hepatitis B. As we can see by the example of measles currently rampaging Texas, eliminating these vaccines can leave the citizens of New Hampshire very vulnerable. The amendment would also remove vaccine decisions from the rulemaking process within the Department of Health and Human Services and transfer that task to the legislature. This process, especially in times of stress, becomes highly politicized and would circumvent the very experts we have at hand to provide the best scientific perspective thus making the response to any emergency lengthy, cumbersome and not timely. Finally, this amendment is not consistent with our basic constitutional charge to support the general welfare of the citizens of New Hampshire. Please push the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment includes two House positions that have already passed the House floor, which means we've had the debate on them. We want them added to HB 2 to assert and make a clear statement in the budget that these are common sense priorities that would restore balance, clarity and accountability in our public health policies. The first part of this amendment ensures that local health ordinances remain focused on clear and immediate threats such as nuisances and similar dangers to public health, while reinforcing the role of elected officials in approving those measures. This is about transparency, local control and respecting the limits of government authority. The second position in this amendment rightly reigns in the rulemaking power of unelected bureaucrats by specifying in statute which childhood immunizations are required. It affirms the proper role of the legislature in setting public health policy. This HB 2 amendment is a step towards a more accountable, rights respecting approach to health governments. I urge my colleagues to press the green button to support it. Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairRep. Weber 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 Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry. Representative Weber: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that adopting this amendment causes adverse health consequences for our children. And if I know that stuffing large chunks of nonbudgetary policy into a budget is not a sensible way to deal with our fiscal responsibilities. And finally, if I know that New Hampshire citizens deserve a better budget, would I press the red button to defeat this amendment?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Rep. Mazur for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know these two positions have already passed the House and this amendment just solidifies them as a priority. And if I know the first ensures local health ordinances focus on real threats and require elected approval thus strengthening transparency and local control. And finally, if I know the second puts immunization decisions in the hands of parents and legislators rightly restoring authority to those directly accountable to the people, would I please press the green button? Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1526h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you will 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. With 195 voting in the affirmative, 175 voting in the negative, the amendment passes. The bill is on second reading open to further amendment. Rep. Spillane offers floor amendment (1560h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Meuse.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you again, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, for the last three months this body has left no stone unturned when it comes to adding new laws and new regulations to micromanage our elections, public education, our town budgets and even the books that we find in our libraries. But when it comes to public safety and regulating deadly weapons, the preferred policy that this amendment would bring to the people of our state is no regulation at all. Not only would this amendment legalize the possession of brass knuckles, blackjacks and other weapons favored by generations of gangs and street thugs, it would also set up something called the Firearms Freedoms Act that states that firearms made, bought and retained within a particular state aren't subject to federal regulation along with the claim that any rules or regulations are an infringement of rights. For the past 10 years, state legislatures have passed or tried to pass laws like these, but the courts have consistently struck them down. The goal of this part of the amendment is nothing more than an attempt to set up a potential lawsuit with the federal government that would have to be fought at the taxpayer's expense. That's the taxpayer's expense of taxpayers here in New Hampshire. If that lawsuit actually proved to be successful and the US commerce clause in the National Firearms Act were effectively invalidated, which is the endgame, regulation for machine guns, silencers and weapons over 50 calibers would effectively end. So, lucky us here in New Hampshire, people would be free to stroll around our streets in public places with machine guns just like Al Capone's 1930s Chicago. When Montana passed a similar law a decade ago, it was struck down by the ninth circuit court. We could save our state a lot of time, a lot of money and make the people of our state a heck of a lot safer simply by striking down this unwanted, unneeded and outright dangerous amendment right here and right now. Please vote red to delete it and Mister Speaker I request a roll call vote.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Based on that, I guess I'm bringing the most dangerous amendment to this that anybody could possibly bring. Before I get into the merits of this, I just wanted to make one comment and that if brass knuckles and blackjacks and slungshots were the weapons of gang members and street brawlers, one would think we'd actually have had some arrests and confiscations of those in the last two decades, but they haven't. I'm not going to relitigate the value of these three bills, but HB 381, HB 207 and HB 243 already passed the House with a majority that was bipartisan. And not only that, two of these bills passed the House three times last term. What I'm usually doing is trying to argue for one side over the other. We have a lot of bills we talk about here where we're deeply divided, Republicans and Democrats. But this is one of those times where I can say what we're doing is setting ourselves up to be one body that's attacking or preparing to defend ourselves against attacks from a body that's across the wall. And this is an opportunity for us to set ourselves up with something that we've passed on a bipartisan measure already so that we can come prepared to the budget discussions across the wall, and I ask you to be one body united against the other body and pass this amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairRep. Meuse has requested a roll call vote. The question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1560h). Rep. Meuse has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Meuse for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment would set our state down the path where we'll see machine guns on our streets with no laws to regulate them. And if I know this amendment would also legalize brass knuckles and blackjacks. And if I know that our job is to defend public safety for the people in New Hampshire and not to defend our own egos against what may happen in the other body, then would I press the red button and oppose this amendment? Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Rep. Spillane for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Spillane (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know I'm skeptical about everything I just heard on the other side here. And I know that all of these three bills have passed this House and two of them have passed this House three times before and we have done so bipartisanly. And I know that it's fantastic to stand solidified against the other body because they often will do so against us, would I now press the green button and support this amendment?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1560h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. We have 203 voting in the affirmative, 167 voting in the negative, the motion is adopted. The bill's on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Sabourin offers floor amendment (1555h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Sabourin. Representative Sabourin dit Choiniere: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, New Hampshire's 2025 through 2029 child and family services plan attachment B outlines DCYF's budget for FY25 through October 24, 2024, due September 30, 2025. It includes federal funds like Title 4E meant to support kids in foster care, adoption and prevention services. Title 4E's intent is clear, ensure safe stable care for kids who can't stay with their parents aiming for unification, adoption or permanent placement while funding evidence-based services to prevent removals. Think mental health, substance abuse and parenting support. But look at the numbers of $22.6 million in title 4E funds. Only $1.3 million, just 6% goes to foster family relative care or foster parent training and retention. Meanwhile, $8.1 million funds administrative costs, $4.7 million pays external contractors for staff training and $5.5 million covers liability insurance for lawsuits over harm to kids in foster care. Zero dollars go to recruiting or training foster or adoptive parents or child care expenses. The Office of the Child Advocates November 2024 report flags serious issues. Foster parents abusing or neglecting kids without violations recorded, DCYF refusing waivers to keep siblings together or kids in their communities, unnecessary sibling separations and despite low case loads, persistent complaints about policy and best practice failures. Only $1.3 million supports the front lines of care. Worse, spending on prevention, protective services, crisis intervention, family preservation and reunification is redacted. Zero state funds are allocated here and with federal matching at 50/50, that likely means zero federal funds too. This defies Title 4E's prevention focus. New Hampshire failed a 2019 federal audit resulting in the state having to repay misused funds and faces another title 4E review next week. In yesterday's executive council meeting, it was noted that DCYF did not even attempt to start complying with recommendations for improvement from the 2019 audit until three weeks ago. HB 2, in this section without the amendment, tells DCYF to maximize federal funding for screening, training and tech upgrades first with a vague child centered nod last. It's weak, almost implying, kids should be pushed into TANF or SSI to boost federal dollars, not what Title 4E intends. We need this amendment. The legislature must direct DCYF to prioritize title 4E funds for safe care and prevention, not admin bloat or lawsuits. Let's demand transparency, unredacted spending, proof of compliance to the legislature. These children deserve stability, not a system spending more on itself than them. Without this, we risk more audit failures and penalties. Please support this amendment and press green.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you to my fellow military veteran friend, member of the Air Force and I appreciate his dedication to this task. But we have a significant process foul here. We held hearings in Division III. The representative wasn't able to participate in any of them. This is really the first time here on the floor that I've had an opportunity to hear his point of view. I've tried calling him and I interrupted his work. So, to give you a little bit of background on this, this issue was surfaced by the senior member of the opposition party. We try to identify if somebody has a good idea, a good policy, we will look at it. And Division III passed this particular HB 2 item unanimously in the division and then I think it didn't have any issues with it in the full Finance Committee. So, I think this is a bipartisan bill. The part that's in there is a bipartisan piece of work and I would hope that you would respect the work that we've done, to be collegial and bipartisan in the narrow areas that we could, and I would ask you to vote green. Excuse me, no red. This is definitely a red. I'm sorry, I'm a Nebraska fan. I should say go big red. Go big red.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairRep. Weber 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 Chair recognizes Rep. Bernardy for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. JD Bernardy (R - Rock 36)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, Mister Speaker, excuse me. If I know the purpose of title 4E is funding to ensure safe, stable and care for kids who can't stay with their parents, aiming for reunification, adoption or permanent placement. If I know that New Hampshire has failed its most recent federal audits for misuse of title 4E funds and is now in non-compliance. And if I know that this amendment merely puts guard rails in place to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to provide compliance information to the legislature on a semiannual basis and prioritize safe and stable foster placements and preventative services, would I press the green button?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Rep. Edwards for parliamentary inquiry. Representative Edwards: Thank you, Mister Chair. If I knew that if we were concerned about financial accountability and reporting, they would not accept this amendment because the bill that we put in includes financial reporting twice a year so that we can monitor what they're doing. And if I knew that these are a bunch of programs to help vulnerable kids. And if I knew that we were going after federal money without any additional general funds in the mix. And if I were looking for the one ray where there's a bipartisan issue to this, would I now press red on this so that the work of, the bipartisan work of Division III would be left to stand? Please press red.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1555h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you will press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 268, I'm sorry with 104 voting in the affirmative, 268 voting in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill's on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Potenza offers floor amendment (1562h). She's not. I stand corrected. Rep. Potenza is not offering floor amendment (1562h). The bill is on second reading open to further amendment. Rep. Wallner offers floor amendment (1543h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Ebel to speak in favor of the amendment.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in strong support of this amendment. This better budget invests in our future and lifts up Granite Staters. This better budget helps our state, towns and businesses, our people to thrive. New Hampshire's budget should ensure good health care, support the most vulnerable, protect clean water and air, provide justice and public safety and invest in great educational opportunities for Granite Staters. Our budget should foster a vibrant economy and support our citizens. Increasingly, the state is shirking these responsibilities. For too long balancing state budgets has meant cutting state funding and forcing cities, towns and school districts to make up the difference as best they can. The budget we just voted on continues that trend increasing costs to communities while cutting the services they rely on. Sooner or later someone always pays and whether it's through higher property taxes or by families bearing the brunt of the cuts they pay.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairWill the member suspend please? If you need to have a conversation, I would ask you to step out to the anteroom and do so quietly so that the member can be heard. Please continue.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)When the state expands school vouchers and cuts millions from our university and community college systems, our local schools and future workforce suffer. Our communities pay the price. When the state cuts public education funding then caps what towns can spend, it is using the power of state government to tread on our right, our longstanding tradition of local control. This is not the New Hampshire way, and our children pay the price. When the state cuts Medicaid provider rates, family planning or funding for mental health and services for the developmentally disabled, our hospitals, first responders and families pay the price. When the state cuts county Medicaid support for long-term elderly care, our counties pay the price. When the state abolishes the New Hampshire Council on the Arts and shrinks tourism marketing budgets, cutting those economic drivers, it hurts business and cultural opportunities for us all. When the state abolishes the Office of the Child Advocate where is the watchdog for children at risk? When the state abolishes the Commission on Aging, who will help our state plan as our aging population skyrockets. Chief Justice Gordon McDonald just sounded the alarm again about drastic cuts to our court system, courts that can delay justice while harm ripples throughout our state and increases local costs. When housing support is insufficient our housing crisis deepens. When state aid grants for wastewater treatment plants are cut towns must raise rates for improvements to protect public health. When the renewable energy fund is raided local governments are stripped of tools to lower energy costs and modernize. This is what downshifting looks like. This is what local governments face when trying to balance their budget and do what's right. And this is why according to the Tax Foundation, New Hampshire has some of the highest property tax rates in the country. This is what happens when the state drops the ball, and someone has to pick it up. Too often it's our towns and too often it's those who have the least. This is why a better budget matters to every Granite Stater. Our better budget declares that New Hampshire will do its part and shows that here in Concord we care. We are here for you and for our state. This budget restores funding. It protects services. It invests in public education and health care. It doesn't balance the budget by downshifting costs to communities and property taxpayers. This amendment invests in the future of Granite Staters. It restores funding to our university system, helping New Hampshire students succeed and supports business through workforce development. It reverses devastating Medicaid and mental health cuts enabling families, seniors and people with disabilities to get the care they need closer to home. This better budget increases state aid to cities and towns, enabling local governments to invest in infrastructure, public safety, housing and clean water while relying less on property tax increases. It protects the renewable energy fund and supports energy efficiency. It respects New Hampshire's tradition of local control by removing state enforced public school spending cap. This budget reflects our values. It puts people first. This budget says we're all in this together. No, no budget is perfect, but this proposal is responsible and a compassionate improvement. It's a better budget for New Hampshire. So, let's end the era of downshifting. Let's stop balancing budgets by pushing costs on our towns, our schools and our working families. Let's pass a budget that invests in New Hampshire's future, that inspires us and says we believe in you. Let's pass this amendment and let's give Granite Staters a better budget. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Rep. Kate Murray (D - Rock 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Education is the foundation of our communities, the bedrock upon which opportunity, innovation and shared prosperity is built. From early childhood through college, from new Americans starting fresh to lifelong learners continuing to grow, education touches every stage of life. Whether it's learning the ABCs, advancing cutting edge technology at UNH, which allows submarines to do their own repairs while still at sea, helping new Americans open businesses that support future generations, education fuels our humanity. When we stop investing in learning, we limit our potential. Unfortunately, the budget presented to us today does just that. It stifles education at every level. It slashes funding for early childhood education and eliminates the Office of the Child Advocate. It guts innovative programs in our public schools, including robotics and STEM initiatives. It imposes a devastating $50 million cut to the university system and a $4 million cut to our community colleges. Adult education is cut in half. Meanwhile, the one program that did see an increase is a deeply flawed and unpopular education freedom accounts, which grew by $16 million each year and yet despite this increase, there's still no accountability in the program. No way to measure student success beyond anecdotal parental reports. That's not how we ensure quality education. That's not how we support student achievement. Taken together, this budget sends a troubling message that an uneducated and uninformed population is a desired outcome, but Granite Staters know better, and they deserve better. We're here to offer a better way forward. Our proposal restores $50 million to the university system and $4 million to the community college. Investments that support real world advancements in technology, computer science and engineering. These institutions provide hands-on experience and a clear pathway to high-paying jobs, and they help keep our young talent right here in New Hampshire. We fully restore funding to adult education because we know that without a high school diploma Granite Staters are locked out of opportunity. With a diploma doors open to jobs, to further education, to a better life. If we do not restore this funding, this program will not be able to continue. And while we recognize the views of those who support the EFA program, this proposal maintains current funding levels and eligibility at 350% of the federal poverty level, honoring the program's original intent. While we work to implement long overdue accountability measures, now is not the time for expansion. Now is a time for responsible oversight. This proposal also eliminates the arbitrary and harmful school spending cap, known to us as HB 675, which strips local control from our municipalities. In this state we trust our cities and towns to know what is best for their schools and we reject any policy that would result in cuts to special education and general education, sports, arts and more. We've added a pilot program to provide direct certification for free and reduced lunch ensuring no child goes hungry in school at no additional cost to the state, because hungry kids can't learn. We also adjust the revenue sharing from the slot machine operations increasing the state's share from 30% to 35% in the first year to 45% thereafter, bringing more resources to local education and local charities. Finally, this proposal removes a harmful unconstitutional and fiscally irrelevant attack on diversity, equity and inclusion. The policy was introduced at the last hour of the last day without a hearing and if enacted would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in lawsuits and jeopardize school funding. An unintended consequence of this policy, as written, would likely target programs that support veterans and members of the developmental disability community. This is not what Granite Staters want. This is not how we govern. Mister Speaker, the proposed budget that we just voted on is a flawed budget. It's not a responsible budget and it's not a budget that reflects the values and priorities of the people of New Hampshire. The better budget proposal delivers a more thoughtful and forward-looking budget, one that responds to the voices of our communities, strengthens our educational foundation, renews our promise of opportunity for all and is fiscally responsible. Granite Staters deserve a better budget that reflects their values and priorities. I respectfully urge you to support this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Laura Telerski (D - Hills 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today to speak about the critical importance of Medicaid for Granite Staters. Right now, one in seven people in New Hampshire rely on Medicaid, including children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, veterans and working families. Nearly 90,000 children, that's one in four, are covered by Medicaid and 22% of all births in our state rely on it. These are not numbers, these are our neighbors, our constituents, our communities. Medicaid keeps people healthy and keeps our economy strong. It funds essential services from maternity care to mental health, to supporting those with developmental disabilities. It saves the state millions in emergency room visits and uncompensated care and it creates good paying jobs in our health care sector. Last budget cycle, this Chamber worked together to make historic gains, raising provider rates, expanding postpartum coverage and improving infant services. But now the proposed budget cuts Medicaid reimbursement rates by 3%, a step backwards we simply cannot afford. Our better budget amendment holds the line maintaining those rates, so we don't lose the progress that we have made, but there's more at stake. The proposal also cuts $31 million meant to prevent a waitlist for people with developmental disabilities, impacting the workforce and threatening services for those who need complex care. Granite Staters with disabilities deserve the chance to live fulfilling, independent lives and they deserve better than what's being offered here. Our amendment restores that funding, aligning with the governor's original proposal. We've also made progress in the fight against opioids. For the first time in a decade, we're seeing overdose deaths decline, but we're not done. The House Finance plan cuts $37.8 million from our mental health system threatening everything from community support to the goal of ending ER boarding for people in crisis. Our amendment responds with a $22 million investment in community mental health because care should be available when and where people need it. Let's talk about the New Hampshire Family Planning Program, which provides essential services, birth control, cancer screenings, and STD treatment to lower income Granite Staters. For many, these providers are the only health care access points available. Eliminating this program, as the budget proposes, will drive people to emergency rooms and reverse decades of public health progress. Our amendment restores funding for this vital program because it works. New Hampshire consistently has among the lowest unintended pregnancy and STD rates in the nation and some of the best maternal health outcomes. That's not a coincidence. We also restore funding to the state loan repayment program which helps recruit health care professionals to underserved areas. Freezing it, as proposed, undermines our ability to build the workforce we desperately need. Our amendment includes $800,000 to keep that pipeline open. And finally, the proposed budget includes a 5% tax on some of our lowest income residents who qualify for Medicaid. You can call it a premium or a cost share, but let's be honest, it's an income tax on hardworking Granite Staters. House Democrats will not balance the budget on the backs of working people. Our amendment removes this tax and protects the Granite Advantage Program and CHIP, as they exist in current law. Health care is not a privilege, it's a right. No one should have to choose between a doctor's visit and putting food on the table. Let me close with this. It won't be the lawmakers in this room who face the consequences of this budget. It'll be the Granite Staters who rely on the care and support that we're debating today. The security of our entire health care system is on the line. I urge you to vote yes on the better budget amendment because Granite Staters deserve a better budget. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jerry Stringham (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Well, you've heard about how the better budget amendment restores essential programs and reduces a lot of the harm in the current budget, but how do we pay for it? This amendment contains no new taxes, no new fees or any change in any tax or fee rate over what we've already passed. So, let's dig into the numbers. The first source of additional revenue in this amendment comes from video lottery terminals or VLTs. The governor's budget authorized our state's charitable gaming facilities to switch their slot machines from historic horse racing to the more lucrative VLTs and she set the revenue distribution for VLTs at 55% to casino operators and 45% to the state. The governor's revenue distribution was consistent with the industry and the region, and the lottery commissioner said that under her proposal, casino operators were eager to make the switch. The amendment that we previously adopted lowers the state share to 30% giving 70% of the VLT revenue to casino operators. The rationale is that the operators won't switch from historic horse racing machines to VLTs at the governor's level because it would take the operators months rather than weeks to recoup their investment. This amendment takes that argument into account providing operators 65% of the revenue for the first year, but then returning to the governor's 55/45 split after that. Doing so provides casino operators plenty of incentive to switch to VLTs and assures that New Hampshire charities and the New Hampshire taxpayers see more benefit, short and long term. This change alone brings in an additional $72 million into the state's education trust fund and brings in more money for New Hampshire charities over the next biennium. A second source of revenue for this amendment comes from rolling back the expansion of the EFA vouchers. While many in this room want to see the EFA program expanded, in a year when critical programs like mental health and developmental disability support are being cut, we can't afford to expand the EFAs to those with higher incomes. This amendment keeps eligibility the same as it is today, funding the program at the governor's FY26 level both years and reducing the budget we previously adopted by $32 million. These are the places we're getting the money to put back so many of these essential programs. Third, this amendment restores cuts to economic drivers like tourism development, the arts and the university system, continuing what is working to stimulate New Hampshire business growth. Doing so allows us to use revenue projections between the governor and House, reducing her business growth rate of 11% over the next two years to a more conservative 4% bringing in $285 million over the biennium. And even though the revenue projections in this amendment remained hundreds of millions of dollars lower than the governor's, it's worth noting that after the executive council meeting yesterday and two more monthly reports have come out since she came and spoke to us, she stated that she's confident in the revenue numbers in her budget, so we're way below that. Finally, this amendment includes a new revenue source, the Sununu Center. This amendment provides for a sale leaseback arrangement of the 150-acre property that the Sununu Center sits on, allowing the state to sell this property this term. The amendment previously adopted does not sufficiently fund YDC settlements for the upcoming biennium at only $10 million a year and admittedly we don't have many pots of money to turn to, but we've made a commitment to provide justice to those who were abused at the YDC as kids and this amendment directs all proceeds from the sale of this property to the YDC settlement fund. So, this amendment is balanced. It contains no tax increases, lowers property taxes by returning more money to our cities and towns and reduces the county tax rate. We realize it may take some bravery to vote for this amendment, but being a coward is only cute in the Wizard of Oz. The people of New Hampshire deserve a better budget, and I hope you will all join me in voting for this amendment that better serves our citizens, towns, county and state. Thank you.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Mister Speaker. That was four speakers to me, so I'm a little outnumbered on this. They raised about 48 to 60 points. I could go by them point by point, but there's good news. Their build back better budget is much like the kind of artificial reality that we've seen in the past four years at the federal level. There's an infinite ability to spend money. There is impractical ways to raise money. Let's just take one, the Sununu Center. I thoroughly researched the Sununu Center's availability with the department, with the AG, with the Department of Administrative Services. I looked at selling it. I looked at getting a loan against it. None of those were possible and I briefed the committee on that. There was no surprise. It shouldn't be in their amendment to begin with because it's a known non-starter. So, if this build back better budget is built on magic math and this is redundant. The reason this sounded so familiar to you is because these were the same criticism you heard when we voted, 200 of us, to vote for our HB 2. So rather than throw out that 200 vote, let's just go ahead and vote again and and reject the build back better budget. Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairRep. Ebel has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wallner for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D - Merr 19)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that amendment (1543h) provides New Hampshire with a budget that better meets the needs of our state and provides for the well-being of our citizens. And if I know that this amendment restores vital state services, invests in our communities and provides for economic development of New Hampshire. And if I know the amendment provides a budget that puts the people of New Hampshire first and that is a responsible budget that is grounded in common sense and fairness, would I now vote yes?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe Chair recognizes Rep. Edwards for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that this amendment was hidden from Division III. That we had transparency in our process and everything. That 200 of you voted on was heard in committee and had plenty of opportunity for both parties to comment, yet this amendment is brought in at the last minute without the ability of the Finance Committee to do it right. If I knew that, would I go ahead and vote again to support what we did earlier and build the budget properly? That's how you get a better budget. You use the proper process, so I would appreciate it if you would vote red so we can kill this amendment and keep alive the work that we voted for an hour or so ago. Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on floor amendment (1543h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you will press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 166 voting in the affirmative, 204 voting in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill is on second reading open to further amendment. Rep. Lynn offers floor amendment (1512h) and is recognized to speak for his amendment.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment which proposes what I would characterize as a compromise amendment to the property tax relief act which has been incorporated into HB 2. The property tax relief act as you know is HB 675. I am a strong supporter of the basic principle of a tax cap for local school budget increases. The problem with the present version of it, as is in HB 2 now, is that I submit to you it goes too far and it goes too far in that beginning on July 1st of 2027, its provisions would say that any increase, any increase above the prior year's budget, and assume for the moment because I'll get to this in a second, but assume that there is no change in school population from one year to the other. The way the present provision is worded beginning on July 1st of 2027 under that circumstance it would mean that any increase in the budget, even a dollar, even a dollar increase, would require a 2/3 majority vote. I'm a, as I said I'm a strong supporter of property tax cap, but this goes too far. How do you justify that? That basically is saying that a routine kind of spending, you know you're never going to get exactly the same budget, routine spending within the realm of inflation requires a 2/3 vote. How do we justify that? I just don't understand how we can argue that that makes sense. So, my proposal says that in order to invoke the tax cap requirement, it's got to be more than the CPI requirement. It's got to be something that is an increase above what inflation would call for because that seems to me, that sensibly says, well wait a minute. If your school district where there are often very low turnout elections, if your school district which often has a low turnout election, you want to make what amounts to an extraordinary increase in the budget above what inflation would call for, then you've got to show that there's more than a bare majority of the low turnout that says that's okay. You've got to rise to that higher level of 2/3. That, it seems to me, I have no problem justifying that to anyone in my community. I would have a great deal of difficulty saying why it would make sense to have a 2/3 vote on, you know a dollar increase. The other thing I hope you'll ask yourself and think about is, as you know, we are really faced with three choices. You have the current, we can vote for the current provision that is in HB 675, which would say after 2027 any increase requires a 2/3 vote, or there will be another amendment that comes after this one which will completely eliminate the tax cap. So, if we vote this amendment that I propose down, those will be the two alternatives. Leave it as it is so any increase after 2027 will require a 2/3 vote or get rid of the tax cap. I speak particularly to the folks on my side of the aisle. I don't want to get rid of the tax cap, but I am very concerned that there will be a number of people on my side of the aisle that will vote to get rid of the tax cap if we don't adopt this compromise amendment. And so, for that reason I ask you to please press the green button on this amendment and Mister Speaker I would ask for a division vote.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairDoes the member yield to a question? The member yields.

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)I thank the member for taking my question. I haven't had a chance to really digest your amendment yet, so my question is this. If the 5-year average CPI is 5% would that allow a rise in the school budget each year by 4.9% with a simple majority vote?

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Yes, I believe it would. If it's within the CPI, I believe it would allow for a simple majority vote for the increase, yes.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. It really pains me to come up and and argue against my good friend from Windham, but I'm forced to do so. So, this is a bill that passed the House narrowly, but it's one of the most important bills that we did pass this year, in my opinion. The number one complaint from my constituents, and I assume from yours as well, is the level of property tax. So, depending on where you are, it is something like 2/3 or 3/4 of it is school costs. The cost of schools is out of this world. It's well over in the state, the average is over $21,000 a pupil. In my town it happens to be more like $27,000 a pupil, and to our shame our performance is worse than average, so it's not good. Beyond that in the state spending has gone up in the past decade 58% when inflation has, spending per pupil when, when inflation has only been about 38%. So, performance has declined. So, schools cost too much already. This amendment gives them an inflation adjustment just in straight dollar terms, right. So, if a school like, I think my school budget is $15 million maybe something like that, this would give them an inflation adjustment of 3%, 4%, 5% whatever it is, every year even though the school population is in decline. There are very few places where if you look at the number of first graders, it's somehow equal or greater than the number of 12th graders, right. School populations are going down and down and have been for decades. That's a, you know, demographic fact. So, if someone wanted to do this kind of an amendment correctly, it should be a CPI adjustment together with a population adjustment, but I would argue that doing it this way, CPI only is actually increasing the cost per pupil and making the property tax situation worse, right. Beyond that, the bill that we passed has an out, right. It has the 2/3 vote if the town wants to spend more on schools and we've seen examples where way more than 2/3 want to do that, right. The people that come out and vote in March are, generally speaking, a small fraction of the total electorate and they tend to be ones that want to spend more. So, this bill is unnecessary for the cases where towns do want to spend more. They have shown the ability to do so. So, I hope that you will stick with our original bill and defeat this amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairA division vote has been requested. Members take your seats. The question is on amendment (1512h). This is a division vote. If if you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. With 28 members voting in the affirmative, 341 voting in the negative, the amendment fails.

Speaker PackardRep. Kuttab offers floor amendment (1499h), and the Chair recognizes Rep. Boehm.

Rep. Ralph Boehm (R - Hills 38)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of amendment (1499h). This amendment just removes HB 675 from HB 2. It will in no way affect the budget. This is my ninth term, and I believe the first time I am speaking for an amendment to HB 2 and without this amendment I cannot support the budget this time. We will be voting on removing more local control from our school districts. So, school districts have the ability now to put in a tax cap, but now we are trying to force school districts to do it. The original bill has problems. For example, no cost-of-living increases or additional programs. These could be fixed by the Finance Committee that has retained the bill, but that bill would still be overreach. It is amazing that we keep yelling about local control and are trying to remove more of it. I'm surprised that members here that call themselves Free Staters are for this. Members that say they are against big government are now voting for a bigger government. What's next, the bill telling towns how to zone? If the local body keeps voting down the tax cap, they must like the way the school district is running. But if they keep voting down the budget, that's for the default, after a while the school board may get the message. People will then vote for a tax cap. By the way, if anything the default budget fix should have been put in HB 2. If this amendment fails, I and others will be voting against HB 2. Thank you and vote green and I request a division vote. And, by the way, HB 675 only passed this House by five votes. Thank you.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. I don't know what I have to add to what I said before. Property taxes are high. Schools are the reason, and this piece of legislation is a way to give our local property taxpayers a little bit of relief and a little control, a pause in the raising of property taxes that they well deserve. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Boehm has asked for a division. This will be a division vote. Members take your seats. Rep. Sweeney has asked for a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. The motion before us is floor amendment (1499h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Kuttab for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that towns are currently enabled to implement a tax cap if they so choose and that only six towns opted to have this on their ballot and that it was defeated in all six towns. If I further know that if towns want a cap, it only takes 25 voters to have it included on their ballot. So, the fact that it wasn't on the ballot demonstrates that most of the towns did not want this. If I also know that this completely removes even a cost-of-living adjustment and will force 98% of the school districts across our state to reduce their budgets without a 2/3 vote, which will undoubtedly lead to breaching teacher contracts and potential legal disputes that could disrupt the stability of our school systems and do nothing to lower property taxes. And finally, if I know that mandating uniform approaches from Concord is not the New Hampshire way, local control is, then would I now press the green button to leave things to local control and remove this mandate which our constituents have made clear they do not want. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Osborne for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I remember that just a couple weeks ago, we passed this very legislation in this body to protect our taxpayers from the special interests that come out on local voting day. That the overwhelming majority of registered voters come out on November election day to send us to Concord to work for them, to protect them and that the number one issue that they tell us about is property taxes that we can protect them from with this legislation built into HB 2 and would be removed by this amendment, would I now press the red button to continue the fight to protect our taxpayers?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1499h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 206 voting Yea, 165 voting nay, the amendment is adopted. Rep. Simpson offers floor amendment (1501h) and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of amendment (1501h) which adds the New Hampshire Family Planning Program back into the state budget, returning the funding that was proposed in the governor's budget. I want to remind everybody what the New Hampshire Family Planning Program is. It's funding for preventative sexual and reproductive health care for low-income Granite Staters. Specifically, this program helps to cover no cost or low-cost birth control, STD testing and treatment and cancer screenings. Again, all for low-income Granite Staters. There are only four health care providers who are in the family planning program because the executive council voted against the providers who also offer abortion care even though by law none of the funding can be used or ever has been used for abortion. The four health care providers who are in the program are Coos County Family Health, CAP Belknap, Merrimack, Amoskeag Health and Lamprey Health Care, health centers that are designed to care for medically underserved areas of the state. They serve lower income patients in so many of our communities, including rural areas of our state. The budget, as proposed by the majority, eliminates the family planning program entirely. A member of the majority said in the Finance Committee that fundraising efforts can cover the difference. This is not just unacceptable, but it's not true. The CEO of one of the potentially impacted federally qualified health centers said very clearly to Finance Division III that if this funding were to go away it would undermine their capacity to provide services to the broader community. The federally qualified health centers exist in areas of our state that are already medically underserved. This means that patients have to drive a very long time to get health care, especially health care they can afford. If the majority of this Chamber chooses to defund these health care providers, that choice would lead to negatively impacting health centers in Berlin, Manchester, Meredith, Nasha, Newmarket and Raymond. Coos County Family Health Services is one of the providers in the family planning program. They have the highest poverty rate in the entire state and the highest number of folks on Medicaid. They also have the highest rate of sexual assault in the entire state. The Family Planning Clinic at Coos County Family Health Services also operates the domestic violence support center. To be clear, these two programs work hand in hand to keep survivors of domestic violence and their children safe and healthy. Eliminating the entire family planning program will harm vulnerable Granite Staters because without this funding programs or health centers could close entirely and patients will lose access to their health care. You might wonder why can't patients just pay for these services. Why can't they go somewhere else instead? I just want to say clearly that patients who use these services cannot afford to pay for them. In Coos County, the health center is the only provider in the New Hampshire Family Planning Program. There is nowhere else to go for essential services like contraception. This vote shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be a party line vote. If you want to keep Granite Staters healthy, if you don't want to add to the uncompensated care of hospitals, if you want to prevent teenage pregnancy, if you want to combat sexually transmitted diseases and especially if you don't want to bankrupt hardworking Granite Staters by forcing them to go to an emergency room for basic health care, please vote green on this amendment to fund the New Hampshire Family Planning Program. Thank you.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I agree and have a proven track record of agreeing with the previous speaker. This is my third budget. The previous two budgets we fully funded family planning. What we happen to have in this situation was for every dollar that the governor had in revenue, we had about 75 cents to spend. That meant the classic unlimited wants and limited resources dilemma. And so, we very clearly articulated the priorities that we would follow in Division III to fund the hundred or so programs. We said that those residential settings in which we have patients in a bed for which state employees have to tend to them, have to come first. So, that included Glencliff Hospital, the New Hampshire Hospital. It includes effectively YDC. And then from there we took a look at additionally vulnerable groups. You've heard the other side talk passionately, if not financially, about the reductions that were made in the developmental disability area and in the community health area. So, when you start to prioritize a limited amount of money, at some point you get to a cut point. One of the things that we put into this HB 2 that you've already voted for and voted to defend is the ability of groups or individuals to donate up to a quarter million dollars to help fund programs. And this is such a good program and there's such a strong advocacy for it, I'd like to see some energy put into going out and raising some donations to help cover it because we simply ran out of money. Now if I had more time, I would have looked very carefully at the Coos county situation. I got asked in a Q&A the other day about that and I didn't understand the question. I didn't answer it well, so whoever you were, what I should have said to you is that the remediation plan for family planning in my view at this point is to pass this budget, get it over to the Senate and articulate a case for Coos. The other places, the other three places, are in the southern tier for the most part. There are other alternatives. What you're not being told is those alternatives aren't free, okay. So sometimes things in life aren't free. These are adults that we're talking about that are using the family planning services. These are adults. The people that we prioritize our money to first were like Glencliff, where you have a combination of mentally ill, developmentally disabled and we have this huge shortfall in the amount of money that we've been able to fund for their personnel. So, in a world in which more resources were available, like I have done in two prior budgets, I would have funded family planning but at some point, you're just out of money and somebody's going to stand up and say, "Blame me." So, you can go ahead and blame me, but what I need you to do is I need you to vote red on this because it adds back basically $1.9 million in general funds over the next two years and doesn't fund it. Where's it going to come from? It's easy to say I'll spend the money. It gets to be a different issue when you say okay what are you not going to spend? So, let's not take the easy way out and and let's vote red against this.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1501h). A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently second? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is floor amendment (1501h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lucas for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Janet Lucas (D - Graf 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the family planning program helps cover no cost and low-cost preventative reproductive health care like birth control and cancer screenings across New Hampshire. And if I know that the patients served at the health care providers currently in the family planning program often cannot afford to receive health care services anywhere else. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I know that if we do not fund the New Hampshire Family Planning Program, health care centers could close entirely leaving patients in our rural areas without access to health care, would I now press the green button to add this critical funding back into the budget? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Edwards for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that family planning has in fact been funded fully according to the governor's budget and my past two budgets. And that this year, if I knew that I am leaving inadequately funded the care and support, the direct care and support of mentally ill, developmentally disabled people in Glencliff because we ran out of money. And if I knew that there's the ability for any individual or group to donate up to $250,000 without going through the fiscal committee. And if I knew that this was such a passionate issue that groups and individuals would stand up and throw money at it, would I now vote red to kill this amendment?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1501h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 174 voting Yea, 196 voting Nay, the amendment fails. Rep. Petrigno offers floor amendment (1503h) and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, colleagues, it's unfortunate that we find ourselves in a time of fiscal restraint but nonetheless here we are. But in doing so, we must be mindful to avoid at all costs bringing harm to our most vulnerable. In this instance, I'm speaking of our children. Those who are abused and neglected, who are in need of special services, who find themselves in foster care or in the juvenile justice system. For a very small state, New Hampshire has had way too many high-profile cases involving these children. Everyone in this Chamber knows what I'm talking about and it's nothing to be proud of. However, we have been making steady progress in this regard, especially with the good work of the Office of the Child Advocate. Created in 2018, New Hampshire was the 12th state in the nation to establish this autonomous agency charged with being the one voice, the sole advocate, to look out for, defend and speak up in every instance for our children's best interest. welfare and safety. Now since then, 21 other states have joined New Hampshire, 33 states now have similar agencies, but with this proposed budget instead of moving forward or at a minimum staying the course we are taking a step backwards during a time of critical need. And while the headlines often put our state in the bad light when it comes to children protective services, it was our Office of the Child Advocate that shined brightly, gaining high praise for rescuing two of our children who were supposed to be receiving intensive mental health care at the Bledsoe Youth Academy in Tennessee, but instead were found to be in a prison-like setting within a culture of degradation and retaliation. Now you will hear that there is redundancy in the work of the office performed by other agencies. That is simply not true. The office is neither luxury nor frill. As an independent agency, the office oversees all other agencies, provides statutory guaranteed confidentiality allowing constituents from judges and attorneys to DCYF social workers and community providers to feel safe, shielded from potential retribution when raising critical issues about other agencies. And unlike other agencies, the office meets with and interviews children on a regular basis, visits residential placements in and outside of New Hampshire to ensure safe and appropriate care. No other agency reviews restraint and seclusion reports, correlates and analyzes important data to help guide other agencies and the legislature. Furthermore, the office has been invaluable to assisting the Children and Family Law Committees of both Chambers when evaluating and drafting legislation. Now with all due respect to the Finance Committee Chair, his comments earlier were erroneous regarding the Children and Family Law Committee support for the Office of the Child Advocate. The committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, fully support the Office of the Child Advocate. Now I realize the governor has given us a challenging task but in doing so she has made her support for the Office of the Child Advocate very clear, publicly stating that she disagrees with removing the position from the budget. I'm confident that we agree with her. We simply cannot afford to sacrifice the best interest, welfare and safety of our children, so I urge you to support this amendment and Mister Speaker, I call for a roll call vote. Thank you very much.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, one of the things we had to do in the budget when looking for less expense is look to eliminate duplicative functions. The Office of the Child Advocate is one such function. There there are two kinds of things it does. One is get involved in the legislative process. There are no end to people interested in legislation who have child welfare in mind. We don't need to hire people to do that, that's what they are. The other one is this complaint oversight ombudsman type of activity, but that's duplicative of similar functions inside DCYF. And if DCYF is poorly run the solution is not to create yet another agency, but it's to fix and change the leadership of DCYF, right. Because this agency, the Office of the Child Advocate has no authority over DCYF. What they can do is jawbone, right, but that's all they can do. So, when you have a problem in one area do you create yet another organization or do you go to that area and fix it, right. We have to get rid of duplicative functions. It's not worth spending money to do something wrong over here and do some kind of fix over here. Why don't we just do it right over here in the first place and not cost the taxpayers for both. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1503h). Rep. Petrigno 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 floor amendment (1503h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Petrigno for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that New Hampshire has had way too many high-profile cases of abuse and neglect and that the Office of the Child Advocate has been the one bright spot. And if I know that the work of the office is in fact unique, not redundant, that no other agency provides statutorily mandated confidentiality and if I further know that the Children and Family Law Committee supports as well as the governor supports this office and I hope that we all agree, would I now press the green button and vote yes? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Dan McGuire for parliament inquiry.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the Office of the Child Advocate has interfered with, rather than assisted, needed legislation to re-reform child abuse and child welfare laws. And if I know that the Office of the Child Advocate is duplicative of other functions within DCYF. And if I know it's a mistake to spend money on both the problem and more money on the solution rather than fixing the problem directly, would I now press the red button? Speaker Packard: The motion before us is amendment (1503h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 177 voting Yea, 190 voting Nay, the amendment fails. Rep. Bridle offers floor amendment (1523h) and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Nicholas Bridle (R - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. Tourism is not just a highlight of New Hampshire's identity; it's our second largest revenue generating industry. It touches every county in every season and draws visitors from around the world. It drives revenue for businesses, retailers, restaurants, hotels, nightclubs, state parks from local diners to grand hotels. These businesses support over 70,000 state workers, workers who live in your districts. Governor Ayotte's budget proposed $13.7 million over two years for the Division of Travel and Tourism Development and HB 2 strips that funding delivering a death blow to one of our most reliable economic powerhouses. This amendment restores funding and reaffirms our commitment to small business owners and the hospitality workforce across New Hampshire. Some opponents of this have labeled this corporate welfare, suggesting struggling business owners should find $14 million in ad dollars themselves. But when you see a commercial on TV saying visit Florida or Virginia is for lovers, it wasn't paid for by Joe's Kayak rental. Our mountains. lakes loons, moose and lobsters don't have ad budgets. Small businesses don't have marketing departments. The local House of Pizza can't afford a billboard in New York City, but Visit New Hampshire can. State level tourism campaigns level the playing field and help every business, not just the one with big budgets. Other states have learned this lesson the hard way. In the early 2010s, Connecticut cut its tourism marketing budget by 60%. The result 1.3 million fewer visitors, $165 million lost in visitor spending and over $10 million in lost tax revenue. Recovery for them took years and many small businesses didn't make it. Marketing is not optional, it's how we stay competitive in a crowded regional and national market. Some may ask why not reallocate this money toward roads or education. Here's why. Tourism revenue helps pay for both. It brings in non-resident tax dollars, reducing the burden on our communities. If we cut tourism now, we risk cuts to schools and services later when that revenue disappears. This isn't tourism versus infrastructure. It's about recognizing one that funds the other. HB 2 also calls for the sale or lease of our state's welcome centers and cuts $2.3 million from the Bureau of Visitor Services. These centers are often a visitor's first impression of our state. They distribute maps, brochures, promote rural destinations, support local businesses, encourage longer stays. Once they're closed to create a small one-time savings, they're gone. It's like blowing your kid's college fund to go to The Brook. There's no easy way back from that. Tourism is not just about scenic views; it's about real dollars and real jobs. New Hampshire boasts over 7,000 miles of world-class snowmobiling trails, scenic chairlift rides, majestic scenic railways. In Coos County, Ride the Wilds is the largest OHRV trail system in our country offering over a thousand miles of interconnected trails. We have thousands of miles of hiking trails, including 1,200 in the White Mountain National Forest and ours is the most popular backcountry stretch of the Appalachian Trail. We are home to 48 peaks over 4,000 feet. We offer more than 400 public access boat launch sites with 1,300 ponds and lakes where visitors can enjoy everything from water skiing to canoeing to class 4 whitewater rapids and kayaking. Add to that 18 miles of beautiful coastal shoreline and marshlands for freshwater fishing and saltwater fishing. Combine this with New Hampshire's tax-free shopping, agricultural tours, NASCAR events, covered bridges, concert venues, the seafood festival, Laconia Bike Week, Fisher Cats games. It's clear everyone in this room has benefited from tourism in one form or another. Looking ahead to 2026, we will neighbor a FIFA World Cup host state and celebrate America's 250th birthday drawing visitors from all over the globe. Events are already underway being planned and New Hampshire must be ready to showcase what we can offer. Other states are investing in this already and if we fail to secure this funding, we'll miss out on that opportunity. This funding has long been an investment in our people, those 70,000 jobs. Now is not the time to abandon them. Certainly not by asking small businesses to foot a $14 million bills they can't afford. They count on us. Go back to your community and tell them that today you invested in them and in all of us because we all benefit from those who visit this great state. I ask you to join me in supporting this amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Well, I certainly won't disagree with the good colleague from Hampton about how amazing New Hampshire is. We're a far better state than the state of Connecticut, as he referenced. I just need to talk about to you all, there are a lot of tough cuts in this budget that we've proposed. This isn't one of them. Tourism advertising spending, $7 million a year, on a $5.5 billion industry for the State of New Hampshire is not something that we should be amending the budget for. It's not a cry that we need to answer for the associations and the industries that are supposedly affected by this reduced New Hampshire state marketing spent. Those industries, those businesses, those trade associations that are all dues paying members of the very same organizations that lobbied the legislature in support of this amendment, they can fund their advertising for the next two years to still draw people to the natural beauty of the State of New Hampshire, the great events that we're putting on. When I think of the Loudon racetrack, I think NASCAR does a pretty good job of advertising themselves. And a lot of the bike week, I think people know about it as a cultural tradition, not something that, you know, billboards in New York City or advertising spends outside of the regional market really gets any return on our investment for. You'll hear numbers, or you've heard numbers, that every dollar we spend on advertising gets us $15 or $17 back in economic activity. If that was the case, I would propose a billion dollars spent on advertising and then we could fully fund the budget and all of our economic activity going forward. It's just not, when you look at the budget and the decisions we had to make, restoring tourism advertising spending should not be our top priority when looking, thinking of restoration of cuts. Moving on to the welcome centers. That actually came out of a conversation with the business and the BEA Department in our division. They're obligated to run these welcome centers due to the way the federal law on highways is written. It's a cost to them to run these welcome centers. So, the selling the welcome centers is one thing, but it is an ongoing cost to the State of New Hampshire to manage and run and operate all those welcome centers that we are not allowed by the federal government as the State of New Hampshire to commercialize or get any return on. But we are eligible to sell most of them and put them back on the private market, put them back on the tax base for the municipalities that the welcome centers are located in, and we can actually start, you know, developing more economic growth along the highways and along the destinations in our state. So, again, I don't disagree with any of the wonderful points that were made about how nice of a state New Hampshire is and how wonderful it would be for all the tourists to come here instead of elsewhere. I just strongly disagree that advertising spend $14 million for a $5.5 billion a year industry just doesn't pass the math test for me. So, I'd urge you to vote red on this amendment. Thank you.

Speaker PackardA roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is floor amendment (1523h). The House will be in order. It's floor amendment (1523h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Bridle for a parliamentary inquiry. This is a roll call vote.

Rep. Nicholas Bridle (R - Rock 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that every county in this state is represented by my colleagues in this room today and that they've benefited from revenue generated by the tourism industry. And if I know, like the Representative from Salem said, that every dollar we invest returns $15 spent in this economy. And if I know that the economy is the second highest revenue generating industry in this state, one of our most reliable economic incomes. And if I know that a healthy tourism industry helps us fund other important essential industries, projects that are all close to our hearts, would I now tell tourists that New Hampshire will gladly accept them, their families and their vacation dollars and press the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know $7 million is .1% of the $5.5 billion hospitality industry in the State of New Hampshire. And if I know that 9.1% is not going to really drive the needle. And if I further know that NASCAR can pay for their own advertising as can every other private business in the state would, I now press the red button and vote down this amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1523h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend the state of the vote. 198 voting Yea, 169, the House will be in order. 198 Yea, 169 Nay, the amendment is adopted. Rep. Sabourin dit Choiniere offers floor amendment (1569h) and is recognized to speak. Representative Sabourin dit Choiniere: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, I question why anyone would accept the conclusion that abolishing the BTLA will result in a dime of savings in the next biennium. If we know that the proposal states that the employees of the BTLA are hereby transferred to the superior court without interruption of service, salary or compensation and authorizes a new superior court justice who shall be qualified by reason of such a person's knowledge and experience in tax matters, then are we not actually authorizing new positions and expenses in the next biennium compared to the last? If we know that Division I acted under the assumption that BTLA receives 100 appeals a year, with only 30 going to hearing. And we know that the BTLA's real case load averages 400 cases a year with 70 decisions on the merits issued each year, why should we believe that this is a sensible proposal to handle this case load more efficiently? If we know that property taxes generate more than $350 million in revenue each year, isn't funding the BTLA's budget request, which amounts to .007% of that total a reasonable measure to ensure equity and proportionality? If we know that no current BTLA board members term is set to expire in FY26 or the first half of FY27, then where will any savings and efficiencies be found in the next biennium? If we know that all of the functions, powers duties, records, personnel and property of the BTLA are hereby transferred to the superior court and that the superior court shall not assume any statutory duty of the BTLA that conflicts with its role and functions as a court, have we not abdicated our job to determine the policies and programs of this state and see that they be administered accordingly, having not delegated to the superior court the job of deciding which laws administered by a former BTLA they see fit to administer? If we know that the BTLA on average only draws $750,000 from the general fund each year and the cost for a new superior court judge and their staff is $650,000 each year, how can we hold a straight face and say that this proposal will save the people of New Hampshire $1.17 million in FY26 and then another $1.2 million in FY27? Please vote green on the amendment and thank you.

Rep. David Walker (R - Straf 19)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment puts back the BTLA and adds another court. I want to come out and speak in favor of this because what we're doing by eliminating the BTLA is we're downshifting all the costs to the taxpayers because taxpayers have two avenues to go to appeal their assessments with appeal to get an exemption and one's the BTLA, the other one's superior court. If they eliminate the BTLA, which the original committee cut out, then all they got is superior court or this other court, which charges them money. They have to get a lawyer and fight for that. If you're an elderly person, you could be very, very intimidated to apply to the superior court. So, I think the BTLA needs to be put back in, so we don't have an elderly person spending up to $1,000 on a lawyer and admin fees to get their $100 exemption. I don't think it'll happen, so I think it's most just to put back the BTLA and I hope you all support and vote green on this amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, the the problem with the BTLA is not that they do a poor job, it's just that they are super expensive. In 2024, they issued 58 decisions, okay, 58 decisions, but they spent $1.2 million a year, all right. I'll do the division for you. That's over $20,000 a decision, all right. The cost of the superior court, which is the alternative to the BTLA, and it's the alternative today when somebody goes to the BTLA they could decide to go to the superior court if they wanted to. The cost of superior court for the most complicated cases averages $1,500 a case. So, the difference between 1,500 and 20,000 is a factor of what, 13, 14, something like that. It's way more expensive than superior court. And, if we're going to balance the budget and we've already just now spent close to $20 million from the rainy-day fund, right. The rainy-day fund is getting low, and I promised the treasurer we would keep it up because that affects our credit rating. Let's not spend this unnecessary $2.4 million for 58 cases a year, right. I mean this is $2.4 million for the biennium, 58 decisions a year. It's simply not worth it. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Germana 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 floor amendment (1569h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Proulx for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mark Proulx (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that superior court is overloaded as we speak and there would be a great delay to get their cases heard. And if I know that people are struggling that need these tax breaks and need them in a timely fashion, then I would vote yes. Short and sweet is my deal. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. McGuire for parliamentary inquiry, Dan McGuire.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that cases at the BTLA are are costing the taxpayer $20,000 a piece, whereas superior court cases cost us $1,500 a piece. If I know that there's one specialized judge who handles these kinds of cases for the superior court. And if I know that we're adding two more judges to superior court in this budget, as expensive as they are, they're a lot cheaper than the BTLA, would I then press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1569h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 183 voting Yea, 180 voting Nay, the motion passes. Rep. Damon offers floor amendment (1561h) and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. Hello?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The Member has a right to speak and be heard.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bipartisan fiscally neutral amendment allows New Hampshire to participate in the USDA pilot project so that students who are already enrolled in Medicaid are efficiently enrolled in the free and reduced school meals program that they are already qualified for. Important points to note. First, this is an opt-in program that gives families the opportunity to consent on their Medicaid application if they want the students to be enrolled in school meals. No family's privacy is violated. Medicaid eligibility is confirmed annually or more often if family income changes. Second, lines 16 to 22 of the amendment clearly define that there is no effect on adequacy aid payments during the two years of the pilot program. The expense you have heard projected is simply not factual. The amendment keeps differential education aid at the pre-Medicaid direct certification levels. To be clear, this amendment has no impact on school funding for implementing the pilot program for MDC. Third, the program is automatically repealed two years after it starts, leaving it to future legislatures to decide on the merits of continuing using reliable accurate data. Forty-three states are currently participating in the Medicaid direct certification program, including Maine and Vermont, many of them for several years. Hungry children do not learn efficiently. Increased access to school meals is strongly associated with improved education and health benefits, reduced absenteeism and reduced tardiness, fewer behavioral issues and less childhood obesity. These are students who are already entitled to these meal benefits. We are not increasing eligibility with this amendment. For a variety of reasons, families do not always complete the paper application forms for free and reduced meals. It can be a daunting process, text that is a barrier for limited readers, shame or just too much for a hardworking low-income parent to get done. According to Feeding America, children with food insecurity are twice as likely to receive special education services and twice as likely to repeat a grade. Feeding these children, having reliable food intake is economically smart. So, you know that this amendment freezes education aid based on free and reduced meal participation at current levels so there is no impact on adequacy funding to schools. And you know that Medicaid direct certification is an opt-in program so families can choose whether to participate. And perhaps you don't want to be the people who voted not to feed food insecure children who, through no fault of their own, are poor. So, I urge you to join me in voting green to help food insecure children be fed and thrive. As many as 10,500 New Hampshire children throughout all our counties will be so very grateful to you. Thank you and Mister Speaker I request a division vote.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Popovici-Muller.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for generously offering to only push the state towards bankruptcy two years from now instead of immediately, but I still think that we should stick with moving towards prosperity instead. This rehash of the tabled HB 583 bill fails to even show...

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend for a minute. What is the point of order? Come down here. Representative Selig He's insulting the member. He's insulting her by accusing her of leading the state to bankruptcy and that is an insult and not acceptable.

Speaker PackardWell, it is pretty much a standard that we don't cast aspersions on anybody in the Chamber. I'm sorry I didn't hear exactly what he said.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you. As I was saying, this rehash of the tabled bill HB 583 fails to even show a demonstrated need despite the federal census statistic used to measure hunger being so biased towards overcounting that if I answer the census question about hunger as asked my very well-fed family will be counted as food insecure. For the past three years and two terms through two bills, one state and House and Senate and House statutory committee and two budgets, not one person who testified in support of such policies was able to bring one specific case or one school district policy that denied food to a student because of their inability to pay. School districts already work hard to ensure that all parents are aware of the free and reduced meals program and support them in applying making it highly unlikely that any parents who would like to be part of the free and reduced meal program are unable to join. For those reasons and many more please join me in voting red to stop this attempt to bankrupt our state.

Speaker PackardA division has been asked for. This will be a division vote. Members take your seats. Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is floor amendment (1561h). This is a division vote, a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Kelly for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Eileen Kelly (D - Merr 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the Medicaid direct certification program is a pilot project which allows the office of Medicaid to share data with the Department of Education for the sole purpose of certifying children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. If I know that families shall only be opted into this program if the participants consent on their application. And if I also know that this pilot program is revenue neutral, the average daily membership numbers are frozen during the 2-year program at current levels and therefore will not increase the adequacy amount and the program automatically repeals at the end of the 2-year pilot. Children will no longer be directly certified from Medicaid and the family will need to fill out forms again, then Mister Speaker, would I now push the green button to support this amendment? Thank you.

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

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this proposed remedy for this unsubstantiated problem is absurd because this amendment would put us on a path to spending $100 million, but only $100,000 of that would go to pay for food. And if I know that this amendment addresses hunger as effectively as throwing money out of a helicopter flying over Boston in the faint hope that it will be caught by hungry New Hampshire kids, will I now press the red button to allow us to move forward with our work?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is floor amendment (1561h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press a green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 181 voting Yea, 182 voting Nay, motion fails. Rep. Wilhelm offers floor amendment (1553h). The Chair recognizes Rep. Nagel. The House will be in order. The member has a right to be heard. Representative Nagel: Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'd like to thank you, my co-sponsors, for giving me the honor of supporting this amendment for you. Before I begin, I just wanted to let you know that I did speak with the Office of Legislative Services, and I have a disclosure that I need to make. My wife is on the Board of the Warner Indian Museum. They do receive money from the New Hampshire Council for the Arts. We do not generate any revenue from that, and they said that it was fine that I speak and vote but let you know that that's the case. With that said, I would like to let you know how we became involved with the Warner Indian Museum. I would imagine many of you know that it's there. It's been there for about 40 years now. It was started by a gentleman named Bud Thompson and what they do is, he had a love affair with Native American culture and and he started collecting artifacts and before you know it, he had enough to create a museum. But he didn't want to stop there. What he wanted to do was to celebrate the whole native experience and so from going from just demonstrating artifacts and things like that, they also started having classes, teaching kids about the native experience and so on and so forth. Suddenly it became a big part of the Warner culture. We were just at a chamber of commerce meeting in Warner, and we found out what a big impact that that institution had on bringing people into the town of Warner. And they did receive two grants from the New Hampshire Council for the Arts to help support their activities. I'm troubled oftentimes that people imply well you can just get your money from somewhere else. I watch; I don't know their budget processes. I'm not part of the budget process, but I do watch how creative they are in terms of generating revenue and it's just not that easy to get it. And the amount of money that they get from the state is not a lot but it's enough to keep them going and enough to facilitate their services for the State of New Hampshire. And I would imagine a lot of your kids have probably had educational resources done there. What they do embody is the creative, educational, artistic and economic values of the nonprofits that are sponsored by the New Hampshire Council for the Arts. The council celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. They started very humbly, struggling, but now they've grown substantially and last year they administered 181 grants at a cost of about $1.5 million. About $500,000 of that was federally matching funds. The rest of it came from the state. The benefits that we all get from that, number one, is economic impact. This sector of our economy generates about $3.3 billion. It creates jobs, 45,000 individuals in this state are employed by the arts. The return on investment, we talked about that earlier. There's about a 7 to 1 ratio for every dollar spent by federal, state and local governments on the arts. There's about a $7 return in tax revenue. For those of you who live in the Lakes region, the Colonial Theater, that was a huge thing in terms of revitalizing the downtown of Laconia that had been stagnating for a long time. And every time somebody wants to do urban renewal, the first thing you do is you make sure you get a theater of some sort down there and that brings people downtown. Cultural preservation I basically already outlined. That's what the Indian Museum does. And the other big thing is they leverage federal funds. There's a 2:1 ratio that they can get federal money for doing this. I would like to conclude with a little bit of a story that's always bothered me since I was a kid. I grew up in a small town. I had six friends that went on to play professional major league sports. Two in major league baseball and four in professional football. They all went to public school. They all went to public universities and at no point were they ever looking for money. To quote one of them he said, "We always got the best rooms, the best food and the best gym." And they also said the best girls. And that was their experience and one of them apologized. He said, "The people in the arts are always struggling to get money for everything." Interestingly, the girl across the street from me went to Julliard. She became one of the world's greatest pianists functionally at their own cost because there was no public money to do that. The six athletes had careers that spanned a total of anywhere from 1 to 10 years. The woman across the street has been performing professionally now for almost 70 years and is still performing professionally. That is the point. Investment in the arts yields a lot of good things for all of us and I would like to see that we start to recognize that. I was about to say do you have any questions, but that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Again, to my colleagues, really just on the numbers here. It is a $3.3 billion industry of arts in New Hampshire. One million a year in state grants is not necessary to subsidize a $3.3 billion industry for the arts in New Hampshire. That's the justification towards cutting it. Again, this budget has so many tough cuts for health programs, for the university system, that it is to me, an industry that can be supported by private patrons who now, without the interest and dividends tax, gets to keep more of their own money. They can fund the art programs on their own. They can utilize our very successful charitable gaming operations to get funding for their art programs and their nonprofits. It is not a service that the State of New Hampshire should be taxing people in order to fund. Thank you. Please vote against the amendment.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1553h). A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is floor amendment (1553h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wilhelm for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Matthew Wilhelm (D - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the creative economy makes significant contribution to our state's overall economy employing more than 40,000 Granite Staters and generating over $7 in tax revenues for every dollar invested by federal, state and local government. And Mister Speaker, if I know that the New Hampshire Council on the Arts has a stellar track record of awarding highly sought-after competitive grant funding to nonprofits in every county across our state that helps organizations enrich their communities culturally and economically, bring arts into schools to help develop the creative skills of our youth, bring artists into health care facilities to help heal and improve the quality of life for residents and patients, help artists build essential business skills and more. And Mister Speaker, if I know that unless this budget is amended, New Hampshire is poised to become the first state in the country to eliminate its state arts council, which will lead to a loss in matching federal funds that our communities rely on to revitalize their downtowns, boost tourism and strengthen economic development, then would I now push the green button to pass this bipartisan amendment to reverse the proposed elimination of the New Hampshire State Council on the Arts and restore it from the governor's originally proposed budget? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Sweeney for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know $1 million a year towards subsidizing a $3.4 billion industry does not make fiscally prudent sense. Mister Speaker, if I know that the State of New Hampshire or governments in total do not have any interest in funding state run arts programs or you may call them propaganda pieces. And Mister Speaker, if I further know that this budget is full of tough cuts and that this cut is not one that we should restore to put back on the backs of the taxpayers, while private nonprofits and private patrons can fund these programs, would I now press the red button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1553h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 177 voting Yea, 185 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Stephen Pearson offers floor amendment (1566h) and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Stephen Pearson (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise today bringing forward this floor amendment. The difference here is a lot of the things that we put into this budget, into HB 2, we actually voted on the floor in the affirmative, but that's not the case here. As a matter of fact, this proposal didn't pass committee, it didn't pass the House. It was placed in HB 2 with no notice, no agency present and no opportunity for testimony. I want to stress here that you are not voting on a concept, you are voting on specific language and that's important. What does the language of this entirely new pension system do? Well, it creates a new bureaucracy. Despite being called group III, it is actually an entire new system outside of the management of the New Hampshire Retirement System. They are not managing this, and it does not fall under their authority. As a matter of fact, in the LBA documentation, they questioned that it would, and this is a direct quote, it would appear inappropriate for the statutory sections regarding this new plan to reside in RSA 100-A. So, because this is a new system, it requires an administration. As a matter of fact, in the bill itself it allows the Department of Administrative Services to employ and assign staff to the executive director and commission of this new system. Now beyond that, there is a pretty substantial fiscal impact here. This new system has a $100 million debt service attached to it, which in a time when we are trying to get the retirement system out of debt, really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This proposal has existed in some form or another in this House for the last 25 years and it has been killed every time, including during a Republican supermajority. So, why does it have $100 million of debt? What happens here is that as it as you transition new employees over to a new system, you are shutting off the income to the current system. Well, that income pays 84% of the pension debt service right now. So, when that number goes to zero, those dollars have to be made up somewhere. So, where are they getting made up? They're getting made up in debt and downshifting. Now it is possible that you would find those terms acceptable to transition into something different, but here's the one that just will not fly. This legislation creates the largest double dipping scheme in state history. Not only does it permit it in the language, it basically tells you how to do it. Mark Cavanaugh, the deputy compliance counsel for the New Hampshire Retirement System and Marty Carlin, the former legislative affairs liaison of the retirement system who now works for someone else. Both looked at this language. Both agree this language will allow for immediate double dipping. You will be permitted to retire on a Friday, come back to work on Monday as a new group III employee. You will not only collect your group I pension, but now the state has to pay your pension, pay the debt on your current position, pay into group III and pay into social security. Now we have rules, RSA 100 talks about double dipping, doesn't permit it. When you retire you have to wait 28 days before you can come back into service part-time. And if you come back full-time, you cannot collect your pension. You go back in, and you start paying again. Not after this. Not under this proposal because those rules are internal to the New Hampshire Retirement System, which you are now not part of. And this is a quote directly from the LBA documents. Under existing law, New Hampshire retirement retirees collecting a pension may not work full-time in an unclassified position and still collect their pension. This proposal, by delimiting this provision to persons appointed before July 1, 2025, would appear to allow any New Hampshire retirement system retiree to take such an unclassified position on or after and continue to receive their benefits. This was in the documentation from this from the beginning. Now New Hampshire is not paving any ground here. This was actually tried in Michigan. And what it translated to was $6 billion dollars of debt for the State of Michigan. Alaska tried this and at $2 billion, they panicked. The entire Alaskan Senate GOP co-sponsored a bill to go back to their old system. There's not a single member of the public that testified in favor of this. So, don't be fooled with the notion that employees want this. The community college system has the option. They're the only agency that has the option to join the retirement system or go into a 401-type plan. Seventy-eight percent of hires in the past 10 years have chosen the retirement system over a 401k. Those speak for themselves. Now, you may agree on the concept here, but you're not voting on a concept, you're voting on language. This language just does not work here. So, in conclusion, this proposal grows government, it adds a $100 million of pension debt, and it allows for double dipping. None of these, none of these are a good idea. I ask for your support in this floor amendment to remove this, once again, from our state budget. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Layon. Does the member yield to questions?

Rep. Chris Muns (D - Rock 29)Thank you. Thank you, representative, for taking my question. I serve on the Finance Committee, and I do not recall ever getting a or seeing an estimate from the New Hampshire Retirement System as to what this would cost. You know what the impact would be on our budget? Have you seen any numbers that would provide that kind of an estimate?

Rep. Stephen Pearson (R - Rock 13)Yeah, a fiscal note was released showing at year one an accelerated debt service that translates year after year and and actually grows exponentially year after year. That was provided. I mean I got a copy of it in the Finance room.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This amendment removes a key piece of pension reform from the budget, the group II program. So, this isn't exactly a 401k program for new state employees, but that's close enough for what we're talking about today. It's only for new state employees, leaving career government workers like police, firefighters, teachers, and local employees in the old-fashioned standard pension system. The program eliminated by this amendment puts the risk on employees, not the state, but also gives that extra return to the employees. This means the retirement accounts would grow with inflation, not be eaten away by inflation. Group III requires the new state employee and their employer to contribute the same amounts as employees and teachers into the old-fashioned system and to pay down 10% to the unfunded liability. So, it's been highlighted that that's in statute and it doesn't float along with the numbers that are determined by the retirement system. Now, I'm willing to bet that if the amount contributed goes higher, this will obviously be amended to put the 12 or 14% that we may need if our deficit grows beyond the $5.5 billion unfunded in our pension system. But, if it goes down, I don't think there'll be the political will to cut that. If it goes down to 5% contribution, these guys are going to be paying more than their fair share towards a retirement system that they're not part of. So, you'll also hear, you also heard that this steals money from the system and to some extent that's right. Right now, if you are one of the 70% of state employees who leaves before you're vested, the state's going to keep your 2.4% match. That means the state's pocketing your money and it's not going to your retirement. That's over half of state employees, that when they leave leave money on the table and others are picking it up. I mean, to me, I don't think the state should be keeping that money. The employees should be taking that money. So, I don't call that stealing from the system. You also heard that this creates new bureaucracy, but that's false. There's already an active and thriving market for defined contribution plans and I expect a couple people have heard of 401ks or 403bs before. So, even small businesses can make these work pretty easily. So, I'm going to call this big bureaucracy thing fake news. You heard massive numbers tossed around for the new debt for this group, but there were some significant errors in that fiscal note. Right now, we have a huge unfunded liability because back in the 90s the numbers got screwed up. And, as we're able to move some employees out of this, we're going to have less of an opportunity to dig that hole deeper. Double dipping also only applies to people who are earning credit towards their pension. If you are putting money into an investment style retirement, it doesn't matter where you have a pension from, whether it's GE or the state. In an investment style, whether you're working for the state or you're working at the local Dunkin Donuts, it doesn't impact your pension. So, double dipping, again fake news. So, in this budget we have two important changes to the state retirement system. The first is the group II change, which tells state employees my age that their retirement benefits will again look like they did when they were hired on. Our police and fire want this. They want it a lot. The second is this new group III which tells the 70% of state employees who don't vest that their retirement matters too. This is a package deal folks, and I request a roll call vote, Mister Speaker so that if this amendment passes. our firefighters and police will know who's willing to gamble on their retirement reforms at the risk of the 70% of state employees who don't vest in the program. Are we going to hold new state employees hostage to the old-fashioned system that doesn't serve over half of state employees, or are we going to blaze a path to solvency and financial freedom for new state employees? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1566h). Representative Potenza I'd like to make a motion.

Rep. Kelley Potenza (R - Straf 19)I would like to know if the representative that put this amendment forward should have been allowed to submit this self-serving amendment, as someone who is vested in the state pension? Based upon our ethics rules and law, I feel it's a violation.

Speaker PackardThat is not a point of order. If a member has a complaint, there's other ways to file it.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1566h). Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is floor amendment (1566h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Stephen Pearson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Stephen Pearson (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the three major problems with this bill involve structure, debt and double dipping. And if I know I'm not a state employee and I'm not new, would I then please support this floor amendment to prevent this mess from occurring? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Carol McGuire for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 27)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this plan does not cost the state any more than the current plan. And if I know that right now, we're paying for legislative meddling in the 1990s, that means that we pay four times as much for the accumulated debt from those poor decisions in the 90s than we do toward the pensions of our current employees. And if I know that this new plan cannot be meddled with. We put the money in and that's it, would I not save the state from future problems with our retirement system and vote against this amendment?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1556h). It's a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 183 voting Yea, 177 voting Nay, the motion passes. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. The motion before us is to table HB 2. Rep. Sweeney has asked for a division. Members take your seats. The motion before us is to table HB 2. This is a division vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 198 Yea, 167 Nay, HB 2 is laid on the table. The House will be in recess for 15 minutes. The House will come to order. Members take your seats. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Rep. Sweeney requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is to remove HB 2 from the table. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Granger for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Granger (R - Straf 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that it's always good to have a nice little huddle. And if I know that it's good to have a couple little chats about what we're going to do. And if I know that everyone on my team is going to be doing exactly what we agreed to and we're going to be sticking together, would I then press the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to remove HB 2 from the table. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 193 voting Yea, 170 voting Nay, HB 2 is removed from the table. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe motion is to move the previous question on HB 2. The motion means that all the remaining debates will be taken up with only PIs and voting and there has been a roll call requested for all the all the remaining floor amendments. So, the motion is shall debate now be limited? This is a roll call vote. Members need to take their seats. Members need to be in their seats. The motion before us is to move the previous question. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Turcotte for a parliamentary inquiry, Representative Turcotte: Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 2 contains an amendment that would remove local control option for the operation of Keno video gambling. And if I also know that there's a floor amendment pending that would retain the current RSA by giving the decision to the towns themselves regarding the Keno video gambling, would I now press the red button against calling the question so we can have a full debate? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know moving the previous question on a bill that still has amendments on it allows us to have a vote on every individual amendment. And if I further know that it will simply just limit it to PIs only. And if I further know we still have 10 amendments left on HB 2 and we can deal with them one at a time with PIs and get through the rest of the calendar for today, would I now press the green button to move the previous question? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us to move the previous question. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 193 voting Yea, 171 voting Nay, the motion passes. Rep. Luneau offers floor amendment (1525h). Rep. Sweeney requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. I would suggest that members stay in their seats because this is going to move fairly quickly. The motion before us is floor amendment (1525h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Luneau for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know towns across the state passed resolutions opposed to expanding the EFA program recently. And if I know that the voters in those towns want to know how their State Reps. feel about that program. And if I know we can leave the EFA program the way it is now and send the money to 93 cities and towns with lower property values and high property taxes. And if I know students and taxpayers will benefit from these grants, then would I press the green button to adopt this amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the position currently in the budget reflects equal treatment under the law for every child in the state. And if I know that since we don't mean test admission to public schools, we shouldn't mean test access to other education programs, would I vote red so we can get on with the rest of the business?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us amendment (1525h). This a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend the state of the vote. 166 voting Yea, 198 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Luneau offers floor amendment (1545h). Rep. Sweeney 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 floor amendment (1545h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Damon for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that multiple towns across the state passed resolutions opposed to expanding the EFA program. And if I know that our state colleges and universities attract students that drive our economy. And if I know every day is a great day to be a Wildcat and the Wildcats are watching us, would I now vote to keep EFAs the same and fund the university with that money? Press the green button to adopt this amendment. Thank you.

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

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the intent of this amendment is to take money away from education for K through 12 students. And if I know that our kids' futures are important, would I vote red to oppose this amendment?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us amendment (1545h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 166 voting Yea, 198 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Ohm offers floor amendment (1517h). Rep. Sweeney 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 floor amendment (1517h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ohm for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bill Ohm (R - Hills 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that there is currently no tax on video lottery terminals because they are illegal in New Hampshire until made legal by HB 2. And if I further know that the lottery has proposed a 45% tax on these new devices. And if I further know that a 35% tax, which is proposed in this amendment, is a fair and reasonable price that would give additional money to charities, schools and group II retirements, would I now push the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know there's no provision in HB 2 that outlaws the existing historic horse racing machines while legalizing the new video lottery terminals. And further, Mister Speaker, if I know that would require an incentive from us for the market to transition from historic horse racing machines to the new video lottery terminals. And, Mister Speaker, if I also know the current rate on historic horse racing machines is 25% and the 30% rate on VLTs will enable that market incentive while any rate higher would likely doom it and then destroy the revenues that we've projected off it, would I now vote red to keep the tax rate at 30% on VLTs? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1517h). It's a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 173 voting Yea, 205 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Howard offers floor (1546h). Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members should still be in their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Howard for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Heath Howard (D - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this policy evicts good tenants who pay their rent on time and cause no problems giving good tenants a record of eviction. And if I know that this policy evicts good tenants at a time when vacancy is at a record low 0.6% meaning that it takes months for even a tenant without a record of an eviction to find housing. And if I know that we want to make housing easier to find, not harder, because we need workers to stay in our state while we are in the middle of a housing crisis. And if I know that the current law, which allows rent to be increased after a lease has been up, has been working fine for decades. And if I know that once again policy has no place in the budget, then would I now press the green button to pass this amendment and remove harmful anti-housing policy from the budget? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognize Rep. Alexander for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Alexander (R - Hills 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this bill has nothing to do with evictions and allows for clear contract negotiation between housing providers and tenants. And if I know that this is a key piece to solving the housing crisis by allowing more flexibility in the market, would I then vote red to keep this bill in the budget so we can negotiate with the other body? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us floor amendment (1546h). It's a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 159 voting Yea, 205 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Turcotte offers floor amendment (1513h). Rep. Sweeney has asked for a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is floor amendment (1513h). This a roll call. The Chair recognizes Rep. Turcotte for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Len Turcotte (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that in an ethical world removing the local control option for Keno would require the full normal legislative process to determine if the local option should be wiped clean from our RSAs without our citizens knowledge, input and approval. And if I know earlier today, during a floor speech, it was mentioned that gambling revenues estimates were increased in order to balance the budget. And if I know that the platform of more than half the members in this body states reject expanded casino and video lottery gambling as a means to balance the budget or increase spending. And finally, if I know that towns that now do not permit Keno in their municipalities would be forced to accept it, would I now press the green button and find this amendment OTP? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Dan McGuire for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this is not about casino or video lottery gambling, this is about Keno. And if I know that because this is lottery, this amendment would remove $12 million from the adequate education account so this is reducing adequate education funds by $12 million. And if I know that, would I now press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1513h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 183 voting Yea, 181 voting Nay, the motion passes. Rep. Horrigan offers floor amendment (1516h). Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Horrigan for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D - Straf 10)Thank you very much Mister Speaker. If I know that the Office of Health Equity is a small, actually very small, has seven people working for it, but it's a small but mighty agency. It's a crucial component of the Department of Health and Human Services mission. If I know that its name is self-explanatory, make sure everyone in New Hampshire gets the health care they deserve. If I know that this amendment undoes two things of section 462 of the committee amendment, which first of all it removes the name change. If I know that this agency has a lot to deal with anyways the name change will take a certain amount of time and money, which they should better be used for doing their job. And if I also know that this takes out a hiring fees provision, which I think is a bad idea but it's also poorly drafted. And if I know, as I said before, this is a good agency that treats everyone fairly and it's an essential part of the HHS mission, would I now do the fair equitable and correct thing and vote green? Yes, vote green on my amendment. Thank you. Please vote green. Speaker Packard: The Chair recognizes Rep. Edwards for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that the first sentence of the mission statement of this department for a considerable number of years has been to provide equitable access to care, wouldn't I realize that changing the name from health equity to health access is just simple semantic improvement. And if I knew that basic political marketing suggests that the word equity has become a hot button phrase that's causing ridiculous amounts of fighting, wouldn't I want to just take the name out of the title. And if I knew that the department supported changing the name to the Office of Health Equity, wouldn't I just go ahead and continue with the finance supported bill and press red to reject this amendment?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is amendment (1516h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 116 voting Yea, 248 voting Nay, the motion fails. Rep. Newell offers floor amendment (1550h). Rep. Sweeney 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 Chair recognizes Rep. Newell for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jodi Newell (D - Ches 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the opioid abatement trust fund must be used in accordance with exhibit E of the settlement terms our attorney general signed off on and using them for any other use invites litigation and even risks a loss of tens of millions of dollars to the state over the next couple of decades. And if I know that these funds have been responsibly and effectively used as evidenced by the downward trend in over overdose deaths. And if I also know that the alcohol fund has been used responsibly and effectively administered to the benefit of our state and of our society, would I now push the green button to keep our settlement dollars and our citizens safe?

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

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I knew that this year's budget move is the beginning of a two-year effort to take a consolidation effort to two entities that do great work but are highly redundant both the Opioid Abatement Fund and the Governor's Commission on Alcohol and other drug misuse have extremely redundant missions focused on prevention, treatment and recovery. And that the goal ought to be, in a smart government, to integrate these activities and not to create intentional stove pipes. And if I knew that by moving the general funds away from or moving the alcohol fund money away from direct appropriation of the governor's commission and putting it in the general funds, I would lay the precursor to having the governor's commission be part of the power of the purse. If I knew that the governor's commission currently takes the 5% without any legislative oversight, spends it on how they want with the permission of the general counsel. And if I believe that having the power of the purse, appropriately with the legislature, I would support this 2-year two budget move. Vote red please.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1550h). It's a roll call vote. If you're in favor. you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 169 voting Yea, 195 voting Nay, motion fails. Rep. Wilhelm offers floor amendment (1567h). Rep. Sweeney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wilhelm for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Matthew Wilhelm (D - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that HB 2 includes no fewer than 90 new or increased fees that will hit working people and small businesses squarely in the wallet. Fees for registering cars, trucks, cement mixers, even motorcycle registrations, Mister Speaker. And if I know that we wouldn't need to raise these fees, some doubled, even tripled, from the current budget if we halted the expansion of education freedom accounts to include ultra wealthy Granite Staters who don't need taxpayer dollars to subsidize their choice to send their kids to a private school. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that I didn't run on a platform of increasing fees. And, if I remember correctly from the flyers that I received in the mail every day during campaign season, that my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't campaign on a platform of raising fees either, then would I now push the green button to halt the expansion of education freedom accounts to ultra wealthy families who don't need a government subsidy and pull back on the 90 new or increased fees being proposed in the state budget, which is poised to burden everyday Granite Staters and New Hampshire small businesses? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

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

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the education freedom account is very successful, and it actually saves money for the public schools because they're still getting the money even for two years after the student leaves and they're not paying $14,000 additional property taxes. It should be looked upon as a property tax saver. Please press the red button.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1567h). This a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 165 voting Yea, 198 voting Nay, the motion fails. Last one. Rep. Gibbs offers floor amendment (1549h). Rep. Sweeney has asked for a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Gibbs for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Merryl Gibbs (D - Merr 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the Human Rights Commission, which would be removed by HB 2, which would be eliminated from state government by HB 2 without this amendment. If I know that it is the only state agency charged by statute with preventing and addressing discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation and that it is thus extremely important to the people of New Hampshire. And if I know that HB 2 without this amendment would completely eliminate the Human Rights Commission and leave people who have been subject to discrimination with the only option of going to court to deal with their complaint. And that many many victims of discrimination would therefore be left with no practical option for relief because many would be unable to find and afford an attorney to proceed in court, would I then press the green button to support this amendment? Thank you.

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

Rep. Gerald Griffin (R - Hills 42)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the Commission on Human Rights recently went through an audit by the Legislative Budget Office and that audit revealed the worst results of any state organization in recent memory. And if I know that the typical case in that office took 2.3 years to complete. And if I know that 27% of those cases ran so long that the appellants, the people who appealed their case, lost the right to go to court. And finally, if I know that it costs the state more than $10,000 per case to have a case run through them versus $1,500 for the typical superior court case, would I then push the red button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1549h). This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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. 161 voting Yea, 203 voting Nay, the motion fails. The motion before us now is ought to pass as amended. Rep. Sweeney 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 ought to pass as amended. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Simpson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the state budget is a reflection of our values and the most impactful piece of legislation that we will take up this year. If I know that the budget before us harms the most vulnerable Granite Staters, cutting funding for mental health support and people with developmental disabilities. If I know this budget increases costs for health care and for higher education and takes away aid to local communities, increasing the burden on property taxpayers. If I know that this budget makes deep harmful cuts, eliminating the arts council and the child advocate, while increasing spending over $30 million to expand private school vouchers to the wealthy. If I know this budget cut needed revenue even further by giving millions and millions of dollars that the governor's budget allocated to public education to casino owners instead. And finally, if I know that we can and must do better. That Granite Staters deserve a better budget than this, would I now press the red button to vote no on the adoption of this budget?

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

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. It's been a fun day, right. So, if I know that every single one of us in this room has voted for an amendment that is now in this budget that we're about to vote on. And if I know that there's something in here that I want no matter who I am in this room. And if I know circling back to earlier today that this is the first step in a process and that if I want to have a seat at the table with at least one thing that I want, would I now press the green button and have a great evening?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is ought to pass as amended on HB 2. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor. you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 185 voting Yea, 175 voting Nay, HB 2 is adopted.