The House, Thursday, January 8, 2026

Rep. Laurel Stavis (D - Graf 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Committee's ITL recommendation on HB 572. That bill is now a law and exists in the Governor's budget as the Partners in Housing Act. It was introduced with an appropriation request to fund its operations for two years. After reducing that request, it passed the Housing Committee unanimously and then passed this body on a voice vote. But at the last moment, the majority of finance stripped all of its remaining funding. Should this ITL motion be defeated, we seek to offer an amendment that would restore a part of the original appropriation request. As the prime sponsor of HB 572, I'm delighted that it exists in law, but I want it to work. I want it to do what's intended to do; lower the costs of building modestly priced homes to the point where building those homes will be financially attractive to developers. But let me just take a moment to recap exactly what Partners in Housing does, since its passage on a voice vote meant some of my colleagues here may not be familiar with the details. Partners tackles the single most difficult housing challenge we face. Not zoning, not land use, but skyrocketing costs. It lowers those costs in multiple ways; by creating a database of municipal land suitable for residential development, thus lowering the cost of that land, by providing low-interest construction loans to developers who work with municipalities to build homes on that land, by expediting review process, and by returning non-performing land to the tax rolls, producing new revenue across the board. The goal is to build homes for young families, the workers that fuel our economy, and older people looking to downsize. Not subsidized homes, not low-income homes, but homes the residents and businesses alike are telling us is their most pressing need. Most importantly, it's entirely voluntary. Municipalities that choose to participate will do so because it's in their best interest, not because it's mandated by the state. And we tested it severely. Would planning boards agree to expedite review? Would builders find it attractive? Would towns want to participate? All of these questions were answered with a resounding yes by the dozens of organizations that turned out to support it when it was heard in the Housing Committee. The Realtors Association, the Business and Industry Association, the Division of Business and Economics Affairs, the Planners Association, the Association of Counties, Stay Work Play New Hampshire, New Hampshire Housing Action, the Municipal Association, the AARP, the State Council on Aging, and I could go on and on and on. This is a program that the people we represent want, and they want us to enact it with more than just words. Reaching a compromise on its funding by overturning this ITL is a commonsense way to address the single biggest problem facing New Hampshire residents, the problem they're pleading with us to solve. In the last two years, we've put forward several bills that address New Hampshire's housing shortage. They adjust parking rules, setback requirements, lot sizes, and ADUs. These are great efforts that will solve some problems to be sure, but none address the core issue of affordability, and that is the centerpiece of Partners in Housing. Good intentions don't build houses young families can afford. Careful, modest investment is needed as well; investment that will pay for itself in new property tax revenues as houses are built. More jobs are created for New Hampshire builders, and more businesses can find and keep the workers they need. HB 572 does not presume to be the only solution to our housing problem, but it's a hell of a good start. I see how it's benefiting my community, and I want that opportunity to be available throughout the state. I urge my colleagues to defeat this ITL motion so another motion can be made, and I ask for a roll call vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful today to speak in support of the committee recommendation of ITL on House Bill 572. I'm grateful largely because I know within my caucus we have a wide view and a wide spectrum of ideas and thoughts as to best tackle the housing crisis, but with this vote today I think we can all be united. House Bill 572, at best, and the best part of it that we actually put into the state budget that we voted for last year, is a spreadsheet. It's a spreadsheet database that identifies the local, county, and state government-owned land throughout the State of New Hampshire. Republicans on House Finance thought that was a worthwhile idea so that we could start tracking what land the government owns so that, to the previous speaker's points, we can start getting productive land back onto the tax rolls to expand the tax base locally and allow those local leaders that control the keys to those parcels to have some direction as to where they want their town or their municipality to go in the future. What we don't need is the funding that's in 572 still, and that's why we're voting to make it inexpedient to legislate today. The solution to our housing crisis in New Hampshire is not more government. It's not more programs. It's not low-interest loans to developers. It's not housing. Really, in reality, when we talked about this bill in committee, we talked about the wonderful projects that were supported by this bill. That's a miracle because this bill, this policy, never existed with funding. It never created a single development. This bill, this policy, will not lead to more homes being created. It won't lead to more development. It will just lead to more spending and more reviews and whatnot. We don't need this bill. We put the policy that was good into the budget, and so you can vote with us unanimously today to inexpedient to legislate 572. Thank you very much.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Stavis has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The motion before us is the majority committee report of inexpedient to legislate on House Bill 572. This is a roll call vote. Chair recognizes Representative David Page for a parliamentary inquiry. Rep. David Page: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I understand that meeting our housing needs requires not just good intentions, but responsible public investments that create jobs, deliver homes, and generate reliable returns. And if I know that poll after poll shows housing is the top concern for granite staters, and I struggle to understand why we would choose to starve proven housing programs of the oxygen they need to survive, would I now press the red button so that another motion may be made?

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Dan McGuire for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that this new program was available to us during budget time, and unfortunately did not meet the cutoff of what we had to spend, and if I know that what's on the table from the minority is over $5 million of new appropriation, we certainly do not have that at this time, would I now press the green button to support the committee recommendation of inexpedient to legislate? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardMotion before us, majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 572. 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. 191 voting Yea, 156 voting Nay. The committee report is adopted.

Rep. Keith Erf (R - Hills 28)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HB 675 passed this House last year and was retained in the Finance Committee. It requires a two-thirds majority vote of those voting to pass a school budget that increases operating spending by more than the percentage change in enrollment. This amendment changes the requirement for two-thirds majority vote to include an inflation adjustment, until June 30th, 2028, the previous year's operating budget is adjusted to account for the inflation rate over the previous calendar year. After that time, the previous year's operating budget is first adjusted by the percentage change in the enrollment over the previous year and then adjusted to account for the inflation rate over the previous calendar year. If the proposed school operating budget exceeds the calculated amount, including both enrollment and inflation adjustments, as described, then two-thirds of those voting must vote to approve it. The two-thirds majority vote also applies to any warrant articles in excess of the calculated amount. School districts seeking emergency appropriations continue to follow current law, which is unchanged. The Commissioner of the Department of Revenue Administration continues to notify the school board of excess appropriations to be deleted as in current law, which is unchanged. The two-thirds majority vote of those voting is not a high hurdle in passing school operating budgets. Over the past few years, there have been a number of votes on large spending increases, and the vote in favor has been 80 to 90 percent in favor. In Croydon, in 2022, it was 99 percent in favor. This two-thirds majority vote assures that a significant majority of residents voting to approve the local school budget are happy to see the significant increase in their property taxes resulting from the increased school spending they are voting for. Please join me in voting to provide our constituents with a modicum of control over their local property taxes, which have seen large increases driven by increased local school spending. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Wallner has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call on the amendment. The motion before us is the Majority Amendment (3013h). Chair recognizes Representative Hakken-Phillips for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that whatever shape or form this amendment comes to the floor in, the impractical and arbitrary school budget cap is against granite state values and the New Hampshire way when it prohibits local control, if I know that this policy makes for a good sound bite and an even better social media message, but it's an extremely unpopular policy with voters and it will fail to deliver on the property tax relief it promises, and if I also know that constituents elected their local school board members to do the hard work of solving problems using all the tools at their disposal, just like businesses and families do, but this amendment handcuffs those same elected officials and inhibits their work, and finally, if I know that the real harm done by this bill will be felt in the overcrowded public school classrooms by more than the 90% of granite state kids who are there, where they have fewer educational opportunities despite their community's desires, then would I now push the red button and vote no against the amendment so that another way can be undertaken? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Sweeney for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that this committee amendment is the culmination of a year of work by the committee and stakeholders to craft the package, and further, Mr. Speaker, if I know that this amendment reflects the common-sense proposal that was sought for earlier last year in regards to this bill, would I now press the green button and stand with the overwhelming majority of granite staters that want to see this policy passed? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is majority amendment (3013h). 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 but- ton. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present have an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to state of the vote. 184 voting yea, 168 voting nay; the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading, and open to further amendment. The chair recognizes Representative Rice.

Rep. Kimberly Rice (R - Hills 38)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, colleagues. I rise in support of this amendment because it is about accountability and priorities. This proposal does not cut classroom funding. It does not impact teachers or students. It simply places a reasonable limit on central office administrative spending, ensuring that education dollars are focused where they matter most; on learning. A 6% cap still allows districts flexibility, but it also promotes efficiency, transparency, and responsible use of taxpayer funds. Families across our state expect us to be good stewards of their hard-earned dollars, especially at a time when costs continue to rise. This amendment keeps the focus on students, respects local control, and encourages smarter spending. By adding this to the bill rather than replacing it, it respects the good work of the Finance and Education Funding committees. For those reasons, I urge you to press the green button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Rice has offered floor amendment (0033h). It's in your seat pockets. Representative Wallner has requested a roll call. Is it sufficiently seconded? Representative Wallner has requested a Division. Representative 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 the Rice floor amendment (0033h) that is in your seat pockets. This is a roll call vote. The chair recognizes Representative Kate Murray for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kate Murray (D - Rock 22)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know this amendment, even with such small changes as it offers, it's still a direct attack on local control, an ideal that granite staters hold very dear, and if I know the consequences of this bill and of this amendment, of which we are already aware, there are additional unintended consequences, which will cause immeasurable harm to our school district, including those areas such as insurance and other considerations, which are beyond the control of a school district, but which the school district still must attend to when it is working out its finances. And if I know that my mailbox has been overwhelmingly filled with emails at absolute opposition to this school cap, and if I know that changing a few nouns here and there and using synonyms and using alternate verbs, this amendment still flies in the face of local control, arbitrarily imposes a cap, and has garnered widespread and vociferous opposition in every corner of the state, would I now vote red to vote down this amendment? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Rice for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kimberly Rice (R - Hills 38)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that this bill helps to control the spending of administration, and that I further know that the cost of administration is the bulk of our budgets, would I press the green button to help get these budgets under control? As of now, they are unsustainable. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Representative Rice for amendment (0033h). 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. If all members present had an opportunity to vote, the House will attend to the state of the vote. 177 voting yea, 176 voting nay. The Speaker did vote on that. The amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading. House will be in order, please. The bill is on second reading, open to further amendment. Representative Ball offers floor amendment (0042h). It's in your seat pockets. Representative Perez is recognized to speak. Representative Perez Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy New Year to my colleagues. I am not Lori Ball, I am Representative Perez. I've been accused of trying to come last minute to bring to change HB 675 and I want you to know that that is definitely not true because I have been following this for multiple years and last year in my town I put in a warrant, citizen's warrant article, to do exactly this. We do have a law, RSA 32:5-C, that allows us to do this. So I put it in and at the deliberative session it was changed to a study and my town did an incredible study for me and they came back to me, the school board I mean, came back to me with that study and made it very clear that this did not work for our town. They made it very clear that this type of cap is based on numbers and not on needs. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, we all agree that property taxes are rising too fast and school budgets are the largest driver. The real question before us now is how do we apply restraint without harming classrooms or stripping away local control? I personally am tired of when budgets are cut at the school level that the first thing is said, well we will take this away from the kids. House Bill 675 and the prior amendment rely on state-level formulas tied to inflation and enrollment. That approach adds complexity, shifts accountability away from the local decision-maker and makes it hard for voters to understand who is responsible for the bill. This amendment takes a simpler, more effective approach. It places a clear enforceable cap on central office administrative spending, the fastest growing and least transparent part of school budget and it does so at the point where budgets are actually set; locally. Last year I asked in our town for them to pull what the administrative spending was because it wasn't clear in the budget. It took them less than an hour and a half to pull those numbers for me. Just as important, it explicitly protects instruction. Teachers and classrooms are excluded by design so districts are not forced to balance budgets on the backs of educators. Instruction should remain the priority. Some have argued only a broad state-level spending cap constitutes real restraint. I disagree. Real restraint is clear, enforceable limits applied where decisions are made and accountability to the voters, not mandates imposed from Concord. This amendment does not overhaul the education funding system. It does not rely on complicated assumptions. It simply requires that administrative scale with the rest of the budget unless the voters chose otherwise. This is real restraint, transparent and defensible. If we want to protect the classrooms, preserve local control and responsibly address taxes, this amendment is the right place to start. I ask for your support. I ask you to support this amendment. Thank you.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, typically I get up here and I just sort of speak from my mind and speak from my heart, but I actually prepared a speech today because I view this issue as just so important to the voters of New Hampshire. The number one issue I hear from voters and residents and neighbors is that our property taxes are just getting out of control. It's pricing seniors out of their homes. It's making it harder for young families to buy into the New Hampshire market. They flee for lower tax states down south or out west in the Midwest. People fleeing New Hampshire to go to lower tax states should be an enigma to us. For years, especially since 2021 when this majority took back control, this legislature has sent more money than ever before to our towns, our cities and our school districts and we have seen zero property tax relief for all those efforts. We keep singing until we're blue in the face, and as much as we don't like to get blue in the face, we keep singing about how much money we keep sending back to towns, to cities, to school districts and it just disappears. Residents don't feel the property tax relief that our votes intended it to be and they just go into the school districts where they just continue to propose higher budgets because they take the money that the state sends them, they lightly increase their tax rate as much as they can before people really start to revolt and the spending keeps going up and up and up. Something has to give. House Bill 675 has had an incredible process in the House of Representatives. Originally it started off as a near doubling of the state adequacy aid to each school district per voter, per student, and then it evolved into the two-thirds cap with the inflation adjusted that we just added on earlier and now we just previously amended.

Rep. WebberMr. Speaker, I'm wondering when we are going to proceed to speak of the amendment.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Right now. This amendment puts a six percent cap on central administrative office expenses in the school district budget. That's fantastic. Good thing we just amended the bill two seconds ago with the six percent cap added on to HB 675. The amendment before us right now replaces all of the work of House Bill 675 over the last year and a half with that six percent cap just on central office. There is no higher threshold cap on school spending beyond that six percent central office cap. So there's no upper limit to what they can spend. So for every dollar increase they want to spend more on central office they would need to increase, they would simply need to increase every other spending item by $16 in order to get a simple majority vote to approve the higher central office spending. Under the current form of 675 with the amendments that we have already adopted, that six percent cap would live within that budget that is going up by inflation and tied to the student population. The current amendment that we're debating right now isn't a real reform. It's a loophole. I really appreciated the sponsor of the amendment bringing it forward because that's how we crafted the amendment that we just adopted as a body because we do want to make sure that we are getting those costs of administrative costs constrained down to protect the taxpayers but it is like it is largely a meaningless cap if there is not that higher threshold cap on overall district spending. That is what is out of control and it's only going to incentivize further if this amendment passes. It will incentivize further increases in spending, not incentivize decrease in spending inefficiencies that the current version of House Bill 675 does. So with those guardrails in place the districts are not going to be able to tax and spend their way to oblivion. They're not going to be able to tax our residents out of their homes. It's the same reason why Americans for Tax Reform has urged this body to reject this amendment. Removing the spending cap that this amendment does will invite higher taxes not lower ones. In a time of higher cost burning everyone's wallet this amendment would throw gasoline on the fire; not snuff it out. We should not weaken this bill. We should get it over to the Senate for the next step in the long legislative process that is ahead before it gets to the governor's desk. And folks this side of the wall, this side of the aisle, that side of the aisle, I suspect and I could be wrong, but we'll see within 15 or 20 minutes or so that there may be many votes yes on this amendment that don't want the underlying bill to pass. This amendment replaces the entire bill. Why would we vote with folks that want to replace the entire bill that then don't want to see that entire bill finally pass in 20 minutes or so? I would question their motives. I would question their intent. I would. I would. If you vote for an amendment that replaces the entire bill and then you follow it by voting against the Ought to Pass as amended you are deceiving the voters. You are deceiving this body. It's not fair. I urge the body to vote no on the amendment.

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. Representative Sweeney: Thank You Mr. Speaker. Do you have a Point of Order?

Rep. Peter Bixby (D - Straf 13)I believe the practice and precedent in this body is to not impugn motives to other members and that has just been directly done by the member on the other side.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mr. Speaker I apologize for asking a grounded question.

Rep. Nick GermanaAm I mistaken isn't the member supposed to be directing his comments to the Speaker not directing them directly at other members in the chamber?

Speaker PackardAll comments are directed through the Speaker. The House will be in order. Enough. The motion before us now is the floor amendment (0042h). Representative 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 Ball floor amendment 0-0-4-2. This is a roll call vote. Chair recognizes Representative Ball for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lorie Ball (R - Rock 25)Thank You Mr. Speaker. If I know that this amendment places a clear enforceable cap on central office administrative spending at the point where the budgets are set while explicitly protecting classroom instruction and local voter control the New Hampshire way then I would press the green button and support this amendment.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Osborne for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank You Mr. Speaker. If I know that we just adopted an amendment that constrains the central office spending and if I know that I'm here to protect the taxpayers and I know that this amendment would be a tanker truck full of gasoline on the already raging inferno of property taxes consuming the state driving granite staters from their homes, would I press the red button right now to defeat this poison pill amendment?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Ball floor amendment (0042h). 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. 182 voting aye. 173 voting nay. The amendment is adopted. Now we are on the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. The chair recognizes Representative Hakken-Phillips.

Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips (D - Graf 12)Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HB675 as amended because it's bad for New Hampshire schools. The proposed replace-all bill as amended differs from what narrowly passed this chamber in March. The amended bill mandates a centralized administrative office cap. It's a budget cap for schools with a difficult override. You can't spend a dollar more without a supermajority. We've heard the policy arguments against this before. Budget caps lock in disparities between districts, take away local control, hurt kids in classrooms, and create too high a voting threshold to overcome. Remember, voters have outright rejected caps in nearly every election in recent memory, sending a clear message; New Hampshire doesn't want caps. But consider this too. First, under New Hampshire law, school districts are already free to set these budget caps. In fact, 8 cities and 5 towns already have established some limit on school spending. Funny enough, I don't recall Laconia, Manchester, Rochester or even Alstead, Milton or Nottingham, all places with these limits, widely celebrating some epic property tax relief compared to the rest of the state. So, if this bill promises tax relief and if the cap under law is permissible now, how come only 13 cities and towns have adopted it? The remaining cities and towns don't want a cap because it doesn't work. This amendment's mandate is a mistake. Second, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled this past summer that New Hampshire is inadequately funding public education in violation of our state constitution. In Conval, the court demands that the state raise base-adequacy from approximately $4100 to approximately $7300 per pupil. But if this amendment passes and is signed into law, it will be in direct defiance of those rulings. It is one thing for the legislature to do nothing to advance those holdings, but it is entirely another for this legislature to do the exact opposite of what the court demands. This amended bill poses a significant fiscal and legal risk to New Hampshire. Schools cannot comply with the school budget cap and the court's raised per-pupil adequacy. Now, that's sounds like the conflict could mean expensive litigation and that expense would be on top of the more than $4 million the state has already spent in it's failed legal challenges on these very issues. Third, this amended bill is quite simply bad math. It just doesn't add up. When Londonderry gets hit with a $2 million one-time school health care assessment, Rochester receives a $1.5 million less than department adequacies monies than projected, and Merrimack faces a $2 million budget gap because of increasing healthcare premiums and special education costs. These towns need the same flexibility as any business or family has to meet their obligations. Clearly, these financial surprises cannot add up to last year's budget. We already ask our communities to do the impossible, and if we pass this bill as amended, we'll be asking them to do it with one hand tied behind their back. Mr. Speaker, our communities don't need handcuffs. They need unfettered freedom to use all of the financial planning tools at their disposal for local decision making. That's what our communities have been doing for centuries. It's quite literally the New Hampshire way. If we pass this bill as amended, the message it will send is the New Hampshire way over, that people who write school budgets and the community members who elect them and vote to approve those budgets aren't capable, they're not good enough. We'd be saying you need Concord's mandates instead. Our communities don't need mandates, they need assistance. We all want property tax relief, so assist our communities by stopping the downshifting that makes it incredibly difficult to get ahead. Less for room and meals, less for New Hampshire retirement system, less for public education, less for special education. Year after year it's less and even less from the state. How is that a sustainable plan, good politics or even good business? Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to vote no on this amendment because it's bad problem solving, it's bad legal strategy, bad math, bad politics and simply bad for New Hampshire. Our communities do not need mandates, they need assistance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I asked for a Division Vote.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Sweeney

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on, well, you know, the other guy. It's unfortunate and I'm perplexed that so many would vote for an amendment that replaced the entire bill and now they're going to vote against the entire bill. I'm also going to vote against the entire bill because this bill, as amended, with the replace-all amendment, completely sets New Hampshire on the trajectory for more property tax increases, more local spending and just out of control budget. So HB 675, it was fun while we had you. We're going back to the drawing board. I would vote down this bill. Thank you all for playing.

Speaker PackardRepresent 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 with Amendment. This is a roll call vote. The chair recognizes Representative Eileen Kelly for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Eileen Kelly (D - Merr 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that current law, RSA 32:5-E allows voters and school districts to adopt budget caps if they so choose, thereby retaining local control, and, Mr. Speaker, if I also know that this legislation is not about protecting the taxpayer, it is just another way of shifting responsibility away from the state and failing to meet court-ordered education funding requirements, our constitutional obligation to educate our public school students does not change, and finally, Mr. Speaker, if I know that our state's citizens have made it clear they oppose a state mandated school budget cap, last year communities around our state resoundingly rejected proposed caps. House Bill 675 as amended, forces a state-wide mandate on all school districts, regardless of the discrepancies between them and most importantly, takes away local control from voters than would I now vote no and press the red button. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Ladd for a parliamentary inquiry. Waves off. The motion before us is the Ought to pass as amended on House Bill 675. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you oppose, press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. If all members had an opportunity to vote, the House will attend to the state of the vote. 9 voting a 346 voting nay. The motion fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mr. Speaker I move to place the entire debate of HB 675 into the permanent journal.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 675. Can we do a voice vote? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it.

Speaker PackardFor what reason does a member rise? For a motion, Mr. Speaker. State your motion.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)I move to special order HB 155 to the next order of business.

Speaker PackardThe motion is in order. The chair recognizes Representative Osborne to speak.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Knowing that the taxpayers just took a little bit of a defeat from us, let's give them a win and turn the momentum back around.

Speaker PackardThe motion is to move HB 155 to the next order of business. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and HB 155 is the next order of business. The majority of the committee on ways and means to which was referred, House Bill 155 FN, an act reducing the rate of the business enterprise tax, having considered the same, report the same with the following amendment and the recommendation that the bill ought to pass with amendment. Representative Jordan Ulery, for the majority of the committee. The minority of the committee, having considered the same and being unable to agree with the majority, report with the following resolution resolved that it is inexpedient to legislate. Representative Susan Almy for the minority of the committee.

Speaker PackardThe amendment is (2983h) printed in House Record 51, page 56. Are you ready for the question on the amendment? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The bill is now Ought to Pass with Amendment and the chair recognizes Representative Almy.

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to get one thing clear first. This bill does not help small businesses. It only helps the large ones. Representative Ulery and I assured this in 2021 by updating the BET exemption for inflation in the CPI since the prior update and requiring an update every two years thereafter. As a result, the BET, as of 2021, which is the latest information we have from the DRA, was only paid by businesses grossing over $300,000. The DRA reports having not included this data since, sorry. The 2021 analysis, DRA analysis, of the differences between small and large businesses showed that 47% of those businesses that filed paid no BET at all. So what we did is working. 79% of the tax was paid by corporations and multinational business entities. Did they object? Our tax bills to them were such a small part of their costs that many did not realize until recently that their taxes were being cut. They only started to ask for refunds a few years ago. Every time we cut more taxes, we cut services that the legislature thinks are disposable. The people of our state, their school, municipal, and county governments, and their businesses, large and small, regard these lost services as essential. They try to replace them, often inefficiently, because it is harder to run these services at the local level. For each cut not paid for by federal stimulus packages, our towns, cities, counties, and businesses lost resources that paid for our schools, roads and bridges, training centers, water treatment plants, and salaries for local essential services. Now the federal stimulus packages are being replaced by callbacks. Many of the OBA cuts have not yet been activated at local levels, and they are just beginning to appear. The tariffs were only the start. The result is constant property tax increases and losses of public services both businesses and ordinary citizens depended on. We cannot continue like this. Five years into the fiscal year, the budget was only 0.7% below plan. I have not been able to read the focus yet because the focus only came out yesterday, and my computer would not work in the hotel. 2026 is going to be worse. Our largest taxes, the BPT and BET, the business taxes, were 7.4% under plan, five months in. When the once-in-a-decade tax amnesty number is removed from the revenue reports, the first half of the fiscal year will be in deficit. Only one of the remaining major taxes did well, lottery, at 27% above plan. That is through November because of two very large power balls. Treasury interest is no longer in the top tier because we are eating into the reserve that we built from federal stimulus programs. Our businesses are asking for more help to fund housing, childcare, and addiction, not more cuts. The BIA may agree, but their constitution requires them to advocate for cuts. Small business owners and other citizens around the state are writing the newspapers to call for a reversal of our tax policy. Our businesses, school districts, municipalities, and counties are struggling to keep up with reduced revenues and rising costs due to inflation. The minority believes that this bill should not pass.

Rep. Jordan Ulery (R - Hills 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My friend, the Representative from Lebanon, was correct. This bill does help all businesses that pay BET. Recent DRA reports show that revenues are up because taxes are down. I know that doesn't sound reasonable, but history shows it is. Every time we cut taxes, we increase these revenues. Property taxes were mentioned, which have nothing to do with BET and BPT because property taxes are set by ourselves when we vote in our town how much money we want to spend in our towns. And businesses are, the good representative was correct, businesses are asking for help, and that's what this bill does. I spoke last year about Bastiat. He teaches us that excessive taxation is legal plunder. There's another term for that, but I'll use his. As Nobel Laureate Friedman says, higher taxes will not reduce the deficit except for a brief interval. They simply increase government spending. This is the lesson of history. Arthur Laffer teaches us and demonstrates scientifically that there is a taxation sweet spot. This is what this bill reaches for. That area that produces revenue that is sufficient for government and doesn't overtax. It doesn't destroy. The power of taxation is the power to destroy. This bill encourages business growth and ensures the New Hampshire advantage. The recent positive revenues show that. Please vote green or yell yay on the motion. Mr. Speaker, I request a roll call on this vote, please. Thank you for your attention.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Ulery has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. This is a roll call vote. Members need to be in their seats. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment on House Bill 155. This is a roll call vote. Chair recognizes Representative Spahr for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Terry Spahr (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the State of New Hampshire last year bled $67 million, and if I know that the State of New Hampshire this year is on track to bleed another $40 million, and that these two losses will substantially deplete our rainy day reserves, and if I know even our own governor has publicly stated she is reluctant to reduce this tax anymore, then would I push the red button?

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Janigian for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Janigian (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that lowering business taxes in the past, we've seen actual tax increase revenue, more tax revenue into the state, and if I also know that lowering the business enterprise tax does help small businesses grow their businesses, then would I now press the green button to increase the New Hampshire advantage?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of how to pass as amended on House Bill 155. 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. If all members present had an opportunity to vote, the House will attend to state of the vote. 189 voting aye, 165 voting nay. The committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Manos.

Rep. Zoe Manos (D - Rock 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to strongly oppose HB 232. Make no mistake about it, this is an anti-abortion bill. Those who want to pass this bill will say it's about a right of conscience, a healthcare provider's right of conscience. But this bill is really about allowing someone to turn a patient away from accessing abortion. For whatever reason, without any explanation, without any referrals, this bill would be a new abortion restriction in New Hampshire. It allows anyone working in a healthcare facility to refuse to participate in abortion care, including the receptionist. Should a receptionist have the power to deny healthcare to a patient? That's what this bill would do. It would effectively deny patients access to abortion.

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend for a minute. I unfortunately didn't do the amendment first, which we have to do before we actually do the speech. Just step back for a minute. Thank you. The question is on the amendment (2932h), printed in House Record 51, pages 59 through 60. Are you ready for the question on the amendment? All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. You may continue, Representative, and I apologize.

Rep. Zoe Manos (D - Rock 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, this bill will allow anyone working in a healthcare facility to refuse to participate in abortion care, including the receptionist. Should a receptionist have the power to deny healthcare to patients in New Hampshire? That's what this bill would do. It would effectively deny patients access to abortion, which is legal healthcare in this state. The bill's definition of participation in abortion care is so broad, so expansive, that refusals could include turning patients away at the door or withholding basic information, with no requirement of advance notice, referrals, or alternative support for the patient. Patients, especially in rural areas, could be left without any options or forced to travel long distances for time-sensitive care. This would result in delays or outright denials of care, even in emergency situations. HB 232 grants unilateral power to individual providers, while stripping patients and healthcare institutions of any ability to ensure continuity or access to care. It ties the hands of employers who would be prohibited from managing staff, reassigning roles, or even discussing accommodations. It would impose penalties on employers for any perceived retaliatory or disciplinary action, leaving healthcare institutions unable to protect patients' access. Many of my colleagues in this chamber, as well as the governor, promised voters no new abortion restrictions in New Hampshire. But this bill allows patients, specifically those seeking abortions, to be turned away. That's an abortion restriction. We should keep our promises and vote it down. I urge a no vote on HB 232, and I request a roll call vote, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe member does not yield. Chair recognizes Representative Peternel.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Part 1, Article 4 of the New Hampshire Constitution states, "among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature, unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the rights of conscience." This right does not come from government. It precedes government. This bill supports that constitutional promise. It protects healthcare professionals from being forced to participate in the ending of a human life, and allows New Hampshire to attract providers who value motherhood and family. This bill does not ban or restrict access to abortion. It simply brings New Hampshire in line with 47 other states with conscience clauses. Medicine has always been guided by the principle of do no harm. For many healthcare providers, abortion represents the deliberate taking of innocent human life, an unnatural, violent separation of unborn children from their mother. Forcing their participation is not healthcare. It is a violation of conscience. No one should have to choose between their profession and their moral integrity. Some would argue that physicians who object to participating in abortions should choose another specialty. That argument rejects moral diversity in medicine and denies women the option of physicians who affirm their dignity and value as mothers and share their worldview. This bill does not apply in emergencies and does not apply to providers and institutions where abortion is a major service. Emergency situations are also protected. Conscience protections are not hypothetical. Medical professionals have lost jobs, licenses, and careers for refusing to violate their beliefs. Rights without enforcement are meaningless. I urge you to support ought to pass as amended on House Bill 232 to expand healthcare options, honor our Constitution, and uphold human dignity, mother, and true healthcare for women. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on House Bill 232. Representative Manos 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 a majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on House Bill 232. It's a roll call vote. The chair recognizes Representative Manos for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Zoe Manos (D - Rock 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that HB 232 allows anyone working in a healthcare facility, including the receptionist, to turn patients away from accessing abortion, which is legal healthcare in New Hampshire, and if I know that this bill prohibits employers from managing staff, leaving healthcare institutions unable to protect patient access, and if I know that many of us made a promise to voters that there would be no new abortion restrictions in New Hampshire, and this is a new abortion restriction, would I now push the red button? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Alexander for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Joe Alexander (R - Hills 29)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know HB 232 affirms the right of medical professionals to object to perform an abortion should they morally disagree with the procedure, and if I know this bill would bring New Hampshire in line with 47 other states and adds an exception in case of medical emergencies, and Mr. Speaker, if I know Part 1, Article 4 of the New Hampshire Constitution gives natural rights to granite staters, including the right to conscience, would I then press the green button? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on House Bill 232. 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. If all members had an opportunity to vote, the House will attend to the state of the vote. 184 voting aye, 164 voting nay. The committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe majority of the Committee on Judiciary, to which it was referred, Senate Bill 268, an act permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain limited circumstances. Consider the same, report the same, with a recommendation that the bill Ought to Pass. Representative Kristine Perez for the majority. Minority, having considered the same, being unable to agree with the majority, report with the following resolution resolved that it is Inexpedient to Legislate. Representative Eric Turer for the minority of the committee. The chair recognizes Representative Turer. Representative Turer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Babe, I got you, babe. I got you, babe. You hopefully recognize that lyric as a reference to the movie, Groundhog Day. It stars actor Bill Murray, who becomes doomed to repeat the same day over and over and over again. Similarly, we have our own bill that seems to suffer the same fate. Today, it's Senate Bill 268, but it's also been House Bill 396 and House Bill 148. And there are two more coming this session, all exactly the same bill we already know so well. The thing is, in the movie, people don't particularly like Bill. Similarly, both our prior and our current Republican Governors chose to veto this bill language. Here are a few quotes from their veto messages, which warn that the bills, quote, seek to solve problems that have not presented themselves, invite unnecessary discord, potentially create an exclusionary environment for some citizens, and will spur a plethora of litigation against local communities and businesses. There are many other reasons not to like this bill, which members have heard in the previous debates. This bill still relies on undefined terms, offers no lawful way to enforce them, and puts government and private actors in the position of policing people's bodies. Like movie Bill, Senate Bill 268 and its twins discriminate, belittle, and victimize the truly most vulnerable members of the community while not doing anything to help people with the real problems they face. So he and we are stuck in this seemingly endless cycle. To continue my metaphor, the movie does have a happy ending. Movie Bill does finally get to move on, but only when he sees all the people in the town for who they really are, real people with real feelings, real needs, who are just trying to live free, and yes, even die as best they can. Instead of belittling them, movie Bill actually begins to help people solve real problems they struggle with. Hunger, homelessness, illness, business woes, heck, even a flat tire caused by the bad roads. The people really love this new Bill in the movie. Perhaps there's a lesson there. So for those who don't do metaphors, let me say it plainly. It's time to move on. Let's not waste more time and likely more of the Governor's veto ink debating these horribly irresponsible bills that fail to meet even the most basic requirements for a valid legislative effort. If this bill becomes law, it would most likely do all of the harmful things the governor's veto messages suggested and worse. It would cause the very problems it purports to solve while undermining our most basic rights of privacy and autonomy. Worst, it would undermine the very protections against gender discrimination that our prior Republican governor signed into law in 2018. The lives of real people, both transgender and not, will be caught in the middle. But its impact will fall most heavily on our transgender citizens, exposing them to discrimination and personal harm without delivering any of the safety or fairness it promises to others. So I'm asking members to do what two governors understood to be the right thing and not just do the same thing over and over again. Vote no. We'll all be better for it when the alarm clock goes off tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I ask for a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Perez.

Rep. Kristine Perez (R - Rock 16)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And once again, Happy New Year to all of you. I'm here for my third time with this over and over again, and I'm proud to be doing that. I have stood here before you multiple times over the past few years to address this concern. Yes, concern for all individuals involved. This concern, I'm afraid, has been elevated to a concern of safety. This bill and others before have never been about discrimination, but more about one's rights, their dignity, and their respect of privacy, and now safety has come to the forefront. This bill does not require any entity to provide separate spaces, but allows those that choose to do so without legal ramification. Quote, this section does not mean that any public or private entity is required by state statute to separate persons based on biological sex. And this is truly not a political issue. In many ways, and with all the unnerving events that we have heard over the past few years, I once again say this is a need for safety. I, as an adult, have a right to choose not to enter any place, public place. It is an option for me. I choose not to enter certain spaces, perhaps in cities that I might perceive as unsafe. Unsafe for many reasons, but mostly unsafe for me as an older woman. Again, I am an adult, so I can choose what I consider safe. But what about the children? These children that are forced to use facilities available to them. Why would a young, transitioned individual want to put themselves in a position of being harassed or even injured? Why? Is it because someone told him it was their right? Yes, perhaps. But what about their safety? What about the physical or mental ramifications of an unfortunate encounter they might suffer long-term effects of? And why should anyone be exposed to any situation that might make them completely uneasy, embarrassed, or even offended? Everyone, no matter their identity, has a right to safety and comfort. Safety in lavatories, facilities, in sports, and in detention facilities, and more. Let's provide this for all. Especially for the youth and quit fighting about it. I urge you to vote green on Ought to Pass and I thank you for your time. But since I know I will be asked, how would I determine biological sex? We have been able to separate the biological sexes in all civilizations since the beginning of time without having complex statutory definitions about chromosomes, genitals, or birth certificates. The exhausted demand for a definition is cynical. Trying to provide one would make the entire debate about chromosomal aberrations or altered birth certificates. We don't have a statutory definition for human beings, but the law operates just fine without one. These demands for the detailed definition of sex are just an attempt to overcomplicate things and make sex seem like a less obvious reality than it is. How would I know a person's biological sex? I have a tendency to be trusting. I would ask and believe until I was proven wrong. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is majority committee report of Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 268. Representative Turer 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 the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 268. This is a roll call vote. Chair recognizes Representative Rosener for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. RosenerThank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that, as stated earlier, this bill relies on judgment of biological sex without providing an enforceable definition or objective, non-intrusive standard for determining it, and if I know enforcement would, therefore, necessarily depend on appearance-based judgments, stereotypes, and evasive, inappropriate questioning, and if I know that comparable laws in other states have produced predictable outcomes of conflict, of litigation, and demonstrated little to no improvement in public safety, then, as a guy who enjoys having long hair and is often called ma'am from 10 feet away, but sir up close, I would have to vote no on this bill? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Alexander for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Joe Alexander (R - Hills 29)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know 74 percent of granite staters believe we should allow school districts to have separate locker rooms and restrooms based on biological sex, and if I know by giving districts greater flexibility, we can enable them to develop policies that make the most sense for their communities, and if I know, despite the governor's veto, it's important we reassert our position on this bill and this subject matter, and if I know that SB 268 eliminates an onerous state mandate allowing for local control, and if I support local control, I'd push the green button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 268. 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. If all members had an opportunity to vote, the House will attend to say the vote. 185 voting aye, 155 voting nay, the committee report is adopted. HB 173, relative to maintaining the purpose of a petitioned warrant article. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Linda Franz for the Majority of Municipal and County Government. This bill seeks to add new language to RSA 40:13, IV(c) that disallows amending the purpose of a petitioned warrant article. At annual meetings, legislative bodies are inappropriately altering the subject matter and purpose of petitioned warrant articles. For example, petitioned warrant articles to adopt a local tax cap are often amended at the annual meeting into a study of a local tax cap. Such an amendment clearly alters the subject matter and purpose of the petitioned warrant article. Amending the dollar amount of an appropriation within the petitioned warrant article is allowed and not affected by the new language. This bill reaffirms that petitioned warrant articles are to be treated the same as those placed on the warrant by the governing body and prohibits amendments that would nullify the article's purpose. Vote 10-7. Rep. Eleana Colby for the Minority of Municipal and County Government. The minority of the committee believes this bill undermines the fundamental purpose of a deliberative session, which is to promote meaningful discussion and collaboration among participants. It seeks to restrict voters' opportunities to engage in the deliberative process by prohibiting any amendments to the purpose of a petitioned warrant article. Petitioned warrant articles should be given the same level of respect and scrutiny as traditional warrant articles. However, this bill introduces preferential treatment that infringes upon citizens' rights to fully participate in their municipal meetings and the democratic process. There is significant concern among the minority that if a petitioned warrant article passes and inadvertently directs the municipality to violate state or federal statutes, the municipality could incur legal liabilities, the costs of which would ultimately fall on property taxpayers. If the petitioned warrant article fails to meet legal standards and cannot be acted upon, this will sow seeds of distrust in municipal leadership and election officials alike. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass. Rep. Colby spoke against. Rep. Pauer spoke in favor. On a division vote, with 187 members having voted in the affirmative, and 162 in the negative, the majority committee report was adopted and the bill was ordered to a third reading..