The House, Wednesday, March 11, 2026

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

Rep. Loren Selig (D - Straf 10)Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that HB 1264 would increase the requirements for the oversight committee for the EFA program, which did not meet for more than a year and has not been doing its job of monitoring the EFA program, which has blown our state budget out of the water, would I now vote yes to remove it from the table?

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

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the EFA oversight committee meeting times and agenda items should stay flexible, if I know that the current chair has requested the meetings to be filmed, and if I know that the committee can already make recommendations for legislation, then would I now vote red to keep this bill on the table?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the motion to remove House Bill 1264 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 at the state of the vote. With 151 voting in the affirmative, 183 voting in the negative, the motion fails.

Rep. Trinidad Tellez (D - Hills 40)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the New Hampshire state refugee program at DHHS is 100% federally funded and no state funds have ever been expended on the state refugee program, if I know that the New Hampshire State Refugee Program does not resettle refugees in New Hampshire, rather it provides federal pass-through money to support already settled refugees in New Hampshire be successful in attaining economic self-sufficiency at the earliest date possible, if I know that refugees have a significant positive fiscal impact producing net contributions to the economy and are more likely to become entrepreneurs fueling economic growth, and if I know that if this bill passes, the New Hampshire State Refugee Program will still continue to exist in New Hampshire, outside of state government, but without the current efficiencies of being at DHHS, and -

Deputy Speaker Steven Smiththe member was recognized for a parliamentary inquiry; you're supposed to ask me something at the end.

Rep. Trinidad Tellez (D - Hills 40)and with the loss of valuable federal funding stream that provides vital employmentrelated services that promote economic self-sufficiency, then would I now press green to indefinitely postpone?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is whether to indefinitely postpone House Bill 1706, it's 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. 158 in the affirmative, 169 in the negative. The motion fails. For what reason does a member rise?

Rep. GermanaMr. Speaker, I move to table House Bill 1706.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Germana moves to table House Bill 1706, who asked for the roll call? Representative Sweeney asked for a roll call, which is already sufficiently seconded, this will be another roll call vote. There we go. The motion is to table House Bill 1706, 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. 161 in the affirmative, 170 the negative, the motion fails. Now, on to the main motion of Ought to Pass. Representative Weber requests a roll call, now don't you go anywhere, you. That is sufficiently seconded, this will be a roll call vote, members take your seats. All righty. The question is a committee report of Ought to Pass on House Bill 1706, Representative Tellez is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Trinidad Tellez (D - Hills 40)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that this 100% federally funded program will not cease to exist and we will just lose federal funding in passing this, then would I now press the red button?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Drew is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Matt Drew (R - Hills 19)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the federal refugee program has become a profitable political pipeline of people propped up by a permanent parasitical pyramid of wellpaid private partners.

Rep. Matt Drew (R - Hills 19)And if I know that the state office coordinates these federally funded NGOs who then turn around and lobby for more funding and benefits, and if I know that we cannot repeal a federal program, but we can stop the state from helping them work against our own citizens, then would I press the green button and vote yes for OTP?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is a majority committee report of Ought to Pass on House Bill 1706. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button, if 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. 170 in the affirmative, 164 in the negative, the committee report is adopted. HB 1735-FN, permitting treatment of certain severe illness under the right to try act. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Steven Kesselring for the Majority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. This bill amends and clarifies the right to try statute enacted last year to ensure the law is implemented as the legislature originally intended. During review and early application of the statute, it became apparent that certain provisions required additional specificity to eliminate ambiguity for patients, providers, and treatment developers. This bill provides that necessary clarification. The legislation also expands the scope of eligible conditions to include certain severe and debilitating illnesses. This adjustment reflects the realities of emerging medical treatments, particularly in the field of regenerative medicine, including therapies involving bone restoration and cartilage growth. Under the prior statutory language, some of these treatments faced impractical limitations that did not align with the nature of systemic or structural conditions. Vote 10-8. Rep. Janet Lucas for the Minority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. Last year, the legislature enacted RSA 126-Z, the right to try act, which allowed terminally ill patients for whom conventional treatments had been unsuccessful to try experimental treatments under certain strictly controlled circumstances. This bill extends the right to try to patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses as well. However, this bill goes significantly further than that. First, instead of simply adding chronically ill patients to the definition of "eligible patients," the bill strikes the definition of "eligible patients" entirely. In doing so, this bill removes all the patient protections currently in statute, including provisions 1) that the patient has already tried or is not a candidate for FDA treatment options, 2) that the patient is unable to participate in an approved clinical trial involving the investigational drug, biological or device, 3) that the patient has given written informed consent, and 4) that the physician providing access to the treatment may not be compensated directly by the manufacturer for providing access to therapy. It appears that very ill and possibly desperate patients will be able to access these most experimental of treatments without ever trying more conventional treatments first. It seems that the physician prescribing these most experimental of treatments may be paid not only by the patient, but by the manufacturer as well. This bill crosses the same ethical line as HB 1734 (2026): charging for experimental treatments by a physician and/or manufacturer raises significant ethical concerns, including the potential for exploiting vulnerable patients, compromising informed consent, and creating inequitable access to health care. While some argue that allowing patients to pay for research facilitates the development of new treatments, ethical guidelines generally emphasize that such charges are suspect, particularly if the treatment is not proven safe and effective. While an argument can be made that "pay to play" is an exercise of personal liberty, ethical consensus generally holds that charging fees for unproven therapies is morally suspect and highly prone to exploitation. When "pay to play" is unaffordable, right to try becomes right to beg. Finally, the existing law has very broad provisions exempting the physician, the facility, and the manufacturer from liability for the treatment, and from discipline by their respective regulating boards. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass. Rep. Kesselring offered floor amendment (0850h). Floor Amendment (0850h) Amend RSA 126-Z:1, I-b as inserted by section 1 of the bill by replacing it with the following: [I-c.] I-b. "Individualized investigational treatment" means drugs, biologics, or devices unique to and produced exclusively for use for an individual patient, based on their own genetic profile, including but not limited to individualized gene therapy antisense oligonucleotides (ASO), individualized neoantigen vaccines, and any other individualized treatment. The question being adoption of floor amendment (0850h) Floor amendment (0850h) was adopted. The question now being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. Rep. Telerski requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 181 - NAYS 151 Aldrich, Glen Bogert, Steven YEAS - 181 Comtois, Barbara Freeman, Lisa Harvey-Bolia, Juliet Toner, Travis

Rep. Lily Foss (D - Hills 41)I move to lay HB 1299, or indefinitely postpone, please.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe motion is in order. The question is indefinite postponement on House Bill 1299.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairA division has been requested. Members take your seats. Representative Sweeney has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Representative Foss for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lily Foss (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that our constituents did not put us here to vote incessantly on duplicative legislation to solve a problem that does not exist, if I know that there is established legal precedent that separate, but equal facilities are not equal, and if I know that the state does not have the money to enter into any lawsuits as a result of such inequality, would I then press the green button to indefinitely postpone this unnecessary legislation?

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairChair recognizes Representative Kuttab for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that this legislation is not duplicative, and if I know that biological women belong in the restroom labeled women, and that biological men belong in the bathroom or locker room named labeled men, and if I further know that this bill provides for a single-use restroom for anybody who is unsure which they belong in, and finally, if I respect a woman's longstanding right to privacy and dignity, then would I now press the red button? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the motion of indefinite postponement for House Bill 1299. 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. With 156 voting in the affirmative, 171 voting in the negative, the motion fails. The question is on the amendment. The amendment is (0854h), printed in House Record 10, pages 161 to 162. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. This will be a division vote. Members, take your seats. Representative Wade has requested a roll call vote. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Representative Roesener for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Roesener (D - Merr 22)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that laws that restrict people's rights must be grounded in evidence and necessity, and if I know that this amendment applies the constitutional standard of a compelling state interest and that this bill does not meet that standard, and therefore we should not be passing it, and finally, Mr. Speaker, if I know that offering separate single occupancy facilities does not solve civil rights concerns, especially when those facilities may be far away or inconvenient, and especially considering anyone who wants additional privacy can already choose to use those single occupancy facilities without legislating away anybody else's access, then would I urge this body to press the red button to vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

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

Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that all this amendment does is provide for a single-use stall bathroom for anybody who is unsure of which restroom they may belong in, then would I now press the green button? Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the adoption of the majority amendment on House Bill 1299. 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. With 176 voting in the affirmative, 156 voting in the negative, the amendment is adopted. We are on to the main motion of majority motion Ought to Pass with amendment. Representative 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 Representative Roesener for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. James Roesener (D - Merr 22)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that banning transgender people from public places in the areas in which it has been passed has never been shown to reduce any amount of violence, and if I know that this law claiming to protect privacy and safety would instead invite public policing of people's bodies based on appearance and therefore does not safeguard anybody's safety or privacy, and if I know that multiple bills like this have been described by governors in their vetoes as overly broad and impractical to enforce and that they seek to solve a problem that has not presented itself, finally, Mr. Speaker, while I may not know it, I highly suspect that the majority of ladies do not agree that I belong in the women's bathroom, then would I press the red button and vote no on this bill that is both unnecessary and unfair? Thank you.

Rep. Kofalt, in the chairThe question is on the majority motion of Ought to Pass with Amendment on House Bill 1299. 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 176 voting in the affirmative, 155 voting in the negative, the motion is adopted. HB 1313-FN, repealing buffer zones for reproductive health care facilities. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Kevin Scully for the Majority of Judiciary. The majority believes that the current free speech ban in the vicinity of health care facilities providing abortion services is unconstitutional. A similar law in MA was struck down by the US Supreme Court (McCullen v. Coakley) as unconstitutional. Although this law has never been enforced in NH, its very existence has a chilling effect on free speech and is an affront to American culture and values, particularly in Live Free or Die NH. The current law also provides special rights to a type of private business that the state provides to no other private business, violating the concept of equal treatment under the law. The majority believes that protecting and encouraging the right of free speech actually reduces the possibility of people resorting to violence; if mouths are taped shut, people will seek other means of expression. Vote 10-8. Rep. Marjorie Smith for the Minority of Judiciary. New Hampshire's law addressing buffer zones has been in effect since 2014. Unlike the Massachusetts law that was struck down by the Supreme Court, the New Hampshire law allows for a discretionary buffer that restricts a health center to create a patient safety zone as the facts and circumstances dictate. In 2022, Governor Sununu vetoed this same legislation, saying, that concerning the law, "we know of no instance where an individual or group has been harmed..." The New Hampshire law balances the competing constitutional rights ofpatient privacy and public safety. In the dozen years since the New Hampshire law went into effect, violence and harassment directed at abortion providers has increasedexponentially. Providers work with police and local governments as they all hope that the violencethat hasoccurred in other states does not occur here. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass. On a division vote, with 158 members having voted in the affirmative, and 170 in the negative, the motion failed. Rep. Marjorie Smith moved Inexpedient to Legislate. Rep. Granger requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. Coker, Matthew Nagel, David YEAS 171 - NAYS 163 YEAS - 171