The House, Thursday, May 8, 2025

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Scherr moves floor amendment (1941h), which can be found in your seat pockets and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Buzz Scherr (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This is a very simple amendment. It responds to what all of us have been seeing around the country when ICE goes to detain somebody. They go in masks. Their face is covered. They have no identity available. They don't tell people who they are. We, if New Hampshire officials are going to, law enforcement officials are going to participate and act under the authority of ICE, New Hampshire doesn't want those people to be traveling incognito. We don't want our deputy sheriffs, our local people to be masked and hidden. So, the amendment simply asks that when a New Hampshire law enforcement official is acting under the authority of ICE, that they identify themselves, they give their badge number and the department under which they're working. That's the way we do things. We don't create a situation that will feel like a kidnapping situation to those who are watching it. We want it to be clear what is happening and who is doing it. So, I ask you to press the green button and support this amendment.

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

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, 90% of the time I would agree with everything my friend just said. Our law enforcement should be uniformed. We should know who they are. When they are working with the federal government on situations like this, they are picking up people that work for organizations called cartels. In cartels, you may laugh, but they kill a lot of people, so I don't know how funny you think that is. Our law enforcement members' lives are at risk. There's a reason that you see these people wearing masks and balaclavas and things like that because they are targeted by the cartels. We have had federal ICE agents and federal law enforcement agents actually killed, targeted and assassinated by these cartels, which I fail to find any humor in whatsoever. I believe that there's a reason this is done that way, and we should support the men and women of law enforcement who we are asking to go out and take these criminals out of our society, to give them the safety.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)The safety for themselves and their families to continue to do the job. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Meuse requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1941h), and this is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 161 in the affirmative, 199 in the negative, the amendment fails. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Sweeney moves amendment (1957h), which can be found in your seat pockets and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, it feels like Groundhog Day again. We are, this underlying bill is a great bill to help local enforcement work with the federal government on enforcing our immigration laws. The amendment adds the anti-sanctuary city policy to the bill as well to help make sure that we can ban sanctuary cities in the State of New Hampshire. As I've said on this House floor before, if you are in New Hampshire illegally, you are not welcome in the State of New Hampshire. If you are in this country illegally, you are not welcome in the State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire will never be a sanctuary state, and we can ensure that by voting yes on this floor amendment today. Thank you.

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

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, to put it simply, what this amendment and the underlying bill do should offend every single one of us. In a state that prizes local control, what we have before us is yet another measure that not only seeks to reduce local control to a point where it can be drowned in a bathtub, it also asks to make it possible to find counties and communities who fail to knuckle under. This amendment is not just about eliminating sanctuary cities, it's about members of this body, once again, imposing their will on counties and communities where they don't live and where they don't pay taxes because it's no longer just about imposing policies, it's about imposing control. What this amendment does is eliminate the ability of our counties and communities to have any say in how their law enforcement resources are paid for by their taxpayers. Resources that are being used or that would be used to support increasingly questionable, morally bankrupt and, in an increasing number of instances, blatantly illegal efforts to prop up federal immigration enforcement efforts that have become increasingly lawless, authoritarian and un- American. Under the cover of eliminating so-called sanctuary cities, the legislation before us explicitly authorizes law enforcement executives to pursue cooperation agreements on their own with the US Department of Homeland Security, regardless of whether their governing board or executive of the municipality, county or state supports them. For generations in New Hampshire, that sort of accountability to a governing board has been known as proper oversight. With this amendment, we effectively make good government a punishable offence. Something every single person in this room should be aware of is that the cost of a 287(g) task for arraignment falls not on the federal government or on the state, but on taxpayers in our counties and our communities. While ICE will provide training at no cost, all additional operating costs are borne entirely by taxpayers in the county or community whose law enforcement agency signs on to these arrangements. So, once again, the cost of a decision made in Concord is downshifted to our counties and to our communities. So, from an operational perspective for law enforcement, what exactly does all of this mean? It means questioning people about their immigration status, checking DHS databases for information on individuals, issuing detainers to hold individuals until ICE can take custody, entering data into ICE's case management system, issuing documentation to start the removal process, making recommendations for bonds and then transferring people to ICE custody. Multiply this across dozens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people or even the millions of people that some people are calling for and it's very easy to see how this is far from a trivial commitment in terms of time or in terms of dollars. And what do counties and local taxpayers get from these agreements? In addition to being complicit in terrorizing anyone with a foreign accent or a different skin color, they also get the bill. That's because neither the state nor the federal government covers these additional costs. As an added bonus, taxpayers get more potential liability. Misidentification in detainer enforcement is common and it's not unusual for ICE to delay taking custody of detainees for days opening the door to habeas corpus lawsuits like the one we recently saw in Merrimack. Not to mention lawsuits for racial profiling. In New Hampshire, by the way, our racial profiling law not only bans profiling based on race, it also bans profiling based on ethnicity, religion, nationality and national origin. So, what don't taxpayers get? What they won't get is any measurable increase in public safety because immigrants are the least likely segment of our population to commit crimes.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)But let's get back to counties and communities. What do they get if they decide the liability, the risk and the expense aren't worth it and they try to stop a law enforcement agency from entering into one of these agreements? Well, under this amendment, they could be fined up to 25% of all the money they receive from state government. So, in addition to removing any remaining shred of local control when it comes to this issue, this amendment finds yet another way for the state to suck money out of local taxpayers. We've seen this movie play out again and again during this Session. People who don't live in your town and who don't live in your county, once again want to control your town, control your county and control your local budgets and this issue is just one more way to make it happen. We can disagree about whether law enforcement, local law enforcement needs to be involved in any way with federal immigration enforcement, but decisions about how local tax dollars are spent should be 100% up to local taxpayers and not to legislators in this room or in the other Chamber creating more conquered chaos. Mister Speaker, I ask you to oppose this amendment, and I ask for a roll call vote.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithAll right, the question is on the adoption of amendment (1957h). Rep. Meuse requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? Yes, it is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1957h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 202 in the affirmative, 160 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Now, on to the main motion. which will be ought to pass as amended. Rep. Meuse is recognized to speak against the report.

Rep. David Meuse (D - Rock 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I won't repeat my objections from the previous debate as we vote on this bill. But, as we get ready to cast our final vote on this one, I'll leave you with this. What we have before us is yet another bill in a long line of proposed legislation that prioritizes federal immigration enforcement, not only over the most pressing needs of New Hampshire communities, but over the rights of people in their communities to have a say in law enforcement activities that they pay for. In addition to thumbing its nose at the entire notion of local control, this bill puts our law enforcement agencies at the beck and call of a rogue federal agency that is now in the process of building an infrastructure for mass deportations that have already snared American citizens along with people whose worst crime was writing an op-ed in their college newspaper. We have always been a state that's about freedom. What this bill is about is tyranny and overreach. Please vote red to kill it and Mister Speaker, I again ask for a roll call vote.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithBefore Rep. Roy gets up. Look, we say stuff they don't like; they say stuff we don't like. My recommendation, get over it, let all the opinions be heard and vote. Rep. Roy is recognized to speak in support of the motion.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you. Separation of church and state. We hear it a lot. They say it's, you know, it's in the constitution. Well it's not. Local control, they say it's our, it's our state in New Hampshire. We're a Dillon's Rule state, look it up. We do not have local control unless this body gives it. Now, we generally like local control. When you make decisions locally and they go good, good for you. When they go south, not, you tried. But this issue doesn't stay locally. When you make your community a haven for murderers and rapists, there's no border at your town keeping them there. There's no force field. There's no force field that keeps them only in your town where you put your local control. Your local control impacts the lives of everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to support the committee report, and the amendment as adopted and finally put this to rest. New Hampshire does not welcome illegals. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Meuse requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the motion of ought to pass as amended on SB 62. Rep. Alisandra Murray is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Alissandra Murray (D - Hills 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this legislation is nothing more than a misguided solution in search of a problem. And, if I know that the state has no business dictating the relationship between counties and municipalities. And, if I further know that this is nothing more than an attempt to create the infrastructure necessary for mass deportation of both citizens and non-citizens alike without due process, then would I now press the red button to defeat this motion?

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

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill does not say that a municipality must do something, it says that municipalities shall be allowed if they elect to. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that this is not in search of a problem because we clearly have one, this is the solution, would I now press green?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of the motion of ought pass as amended on SB 62. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. 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 in the affirmative, 162 in the negative, the motion's adopted.

Rep. Health HowardThank you, Mister Speaker. Having voted on the prevailing side, I would like to reconsider SB 23.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithYou may speak to your motion. Representative Heath Howard: Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the decision that we made last week was wrong because New Hampshire law enforcement has requested that this law not be enacted because we are currently unable to prosecute certain cases of child abuse for more than a misdemeanor. And if I know that police cited cases of children living covered in feces and teeth rotting out of their head with no recourse to charge the parents. And if I know that this bill has nothing to do with parenting decisions like signing your kids up for sports or going to a water park and those anecdotes are a political distraction from doing the right thing, then I would now vote yes to reconsider SB 23. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithOkay, the question is to reconsider the vote on SB 23. Are you ready for the question? A division's been requested. Members take your seats. Rep. Aures requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members keep on taking your seats. Alrighty then, the question is whether to reconsider the vote on SB 23. That's a division vote. That's a roll call vote. Rep. DeVito is recognized to do a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sayra DeVito (R - Rock 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know when this bill was first introduced, the only testimony in favor was a law enforcement agent lamenting the number of homes he enters finding things like alcohol and guns. And, if I know that I'll be damned if Granite Staters will have their homes raided for guns and alcohol, to be charged with felonies due to this legislation. Mister Speaker, if I believe this bill makes felons out of parents giving their kids the type of childhood we were blessed to enjoy. And, if I know that anyone who supports this motion is voting to strip children of loving parents and parents of their Second Amendment rights, Mister Speaker why on earth would I vote anything but red on SB 23? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is whether to reconsider the vote on SB 23. If you are in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 158 in the affirmative, 206 in the negative, the motion fails (Rep. Kofalt in the Chair)

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question before the House is shall debate be limited? Rep. Sweeney is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this body has debated this policy at length, not only this Session, but in Sessions past. Mister Speaker, if I know that this motion simply limits floor amendments and the final vote on the bill to PIs only so both sides still have their ability to discuss what the legislation is doing in this form of a parliamentary inquiry, would I now vote yes on the motion to move the previous question so that we can get through the business of this bill and the remaining bills we have today? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Telerski is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Laura Telerski (D - Hills 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the issue of school vouchers is extremely important to the public and voters and they want to hear what their representatives have to say about it, would I now vote no against this motion to prevent silencing of the debate? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is shall debate be limited on SB 295. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 195 in the affirmative, 166 in the negative, the motion is adopted. Rep. Luneau moves floor amendment (1979h), which can be found in your seat pockets and requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1979h). This is a roll call vote. Rep. Luneau is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. If I know that this floor amendment is not about guardrails. And if I know that I've been up here a lot talking about guardrails such as annual income recertification, such as limiting the program to budget amounts, but that's not what this amendment does. If I know that a sample audit of the EFA program found 12 out of 50 accounts, nearly 25%, had been approved in error. And, if I know that the state's audit division is looking into the program now and will release their findings soon. And, if I know that this floor amendment would require the audit report to have a clean bill of health before expanding the program. And, if I know that a clean bill of health means that the state auditors find that there are sufficient management controls to continue to operate the program, then wouldn't I support a floor amendment that forces compliance, that forces the program administrator to comply with the laws and the rules that we have passed in this body, then wouldn't I vote yes on this floor amendment and take what we're doing here seriously? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order and Rep. Ladd is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this amendment is simply another trap, a delay tactic to implement the EFA program. And, if I know no date has been forwarded or responded to the committee regarding when the LBA report would even become forthcoming. If I also know that the LBA, legislative budget performance audits rarely come forward with less than 120 pages and many recommendations and many tables that we always look towards doing and complying with for improvement, would I then now press the red button to say no to this unneeded delay tactic? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1979h). It's a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 165 in the affirmative, 199 in the negative, the amendment fails. The question now is on the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended. A roll call has been requested and it is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members remain in your seats. All right, the question is on the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on SB 295. Rep. Damon is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that expanding the EFA voucher program to a cost of $100 million when we lack adequate revenues to fund essential needs of New Hampshire citizens such as Medicaid, state employee retirement, affordable housing and correction safe staffing levels. And, if I know that we should fund our impressive university system that benefits our economy rather than paying stipends to wealthy families. And, most importantly, if I know that the public, statewide, overwhelmingly and repeatedly oppose this free state marketing scheme, would I now press the red button to end this fiscal irresponsibility?

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

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the EFA program is not a voucher, not a voucher scam and certainly...

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order. We have higher standards than a junior high lunchroom.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)And certainly not a recruiting tool for people moving into New Hampshire. And, if I know parents are justified in not wanting their children struggling, being bullied or who are not academically challenged in a one-size fit all school situation. If I know projected costs for the EFA program, as asserted by those opposed to the program, are incorrectly exaggerated, would I then support the increased number of students eligible for the Education Freedom Account Program by pressing the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on SB 295. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 188 in the affirmative, 176 in the negative, the motion's adopted. SB 295 is referred to the Committee on Finance.