The House, Thursday, April 23, 2026

Rep. Jared Sullivan (D - Graf 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, right now, people in New Hampshire are being scammed out of their life savings at crypto kiosks located in stores throughout the state, and passing this amendment will do little to protect them. In 2025, Littleton, the town next to where I live, reported $100,000 in losses. in Manchester, over $1.5 million and statewide, granite staters lost more than $22 million at an average of over $40,000 per victim. So how does this scam actually work? Someone gets you on the phone, they know details about you or your family, they use fear and they tell you that a loved one is in jail and needs bail. Or they pretend to be a company like LifeLock and they claim that your identity has been compromised. They use that fear, and they tell you to go to a cryptocurrency machine to insert cash, and then it's gone forever. That is the system we're talking about. Now, proponents of this amendment will argue that stronger safeguards will hurt the crypto industry in New Hampshire, but that just doesn't pass the logical sniff test. The median transaction at these machines is around $300 and the reason for that is because these kiosks often charge fees of around 20%. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and every member of this body to just think for a second. If you have the means to make a serious investment of, say, five or six figures in cryptocurrency, why in the world would you ever choose to accept a 20% haircut before you've even owned the asset you're trying to buy? Of course you wouldn't. Nobody would do that. That's completely illogical. You would go online where you can use a crypto online service and pay a 2% fee or less. These machines are not how serious investors participate in crypto, and that's generally not what they're being used for. There are scams that are a high percentage of the volumes here at these levels. These machines are scamming New Hampshire residents. Finally, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, law enforcement has recovered exactly 0% of all of these losses. Think about that. What other fraud or act of crime do you get 0% recovery? There's normally something you get. 0% of those $22 million has been recovered. We have created a system where someone can walk into a convenience store, lose thousands of dollars in fees in minutes, and then have the rest of it stolen by an international scammer well outside the reach of American law enforcement with almost no safeguards in place. If we pass this amendment, very little will change. We will continue to see staggering losses impacting our constituents across the state. So please, join me in voting no on this amendment, and then let's pass a much better underlying Senate bill when it comes to that. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Bridle.

Rep. Nicholas Bridle (R - Rock 29)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I support the underlying Senate bill. My father, the Honorable Rusty Bridle, served in this chamber for six terms. He was the chairman of the Labor Committee. He currently is enjoying retirement and is 68 years old. Every one of us in this chamber knows someone that age. Look around. Many of you are of retirement age as well. It's not a bad thing. Those who have come before us have helped to serve their communities in a good light. However, scammers out there know that New Hampshire has the second oldest population in America. Scammers are targeting our state currently. They're targeting our loved ones. They call our parents and grandparents. They call our peers and pretend to be the police. They pretend to be LifeLock. They'll say, "you're going to get arrested, you're going to lose your home." These scammers coach their victims step-bystep on how to use these crypto ATMs; just like they did with Western Union, and just like they did with gift cards. They coached them on how to be scammed. That's the whole point of it. The victim thinks they're fixing a problem; paying an overdue debt, righting a wrong. They don't realize they're being robbed until it's too late. In my town of Hampton alone, to date, $2.6 million has been lost to scammers utilizing crypto ATMs. We have a few of them. Victims aren't making bad investments. They're just people losing their homes, and it's not just Hampton; Derry, Londonderry, Concord, Dover, Epping, Littleton, Manchester, Newfield, Litchfield, Tilton. Testimony was submitted from all these towns. It covers the entire state. The bill that came to this House from the Senate had support from New Hampshire's Attorney General's office and New Hampshire's Association of Chiefs of Police. It came with support from groups that protect seniors and advocate for them. The underlying Senate bill was a compromise. Crypto ATMs can continue to operate with reasonable safeguards and our seniors, the most vulnerable, get protection. Scammers get the message; New Hampshire isn't your target anymore. Legitimate and honest businesses should want rules that drive out criminals within their industry, that protect their customers, and this amendment doesn't do that. Right now, scammers love targeting New Hampshire citizens because we don't have any rules, limits, or safeguards for crypto ATMs. Manchester police testified in committee that they've recovered $0 from crypto ATM fraud. Zero. Once that money goes into a machine, it's gone forever. Some will say that the Senate version bans this industry. That's not true. They're operating currently and the Senate bill continues to allow crypto ATMs to operate with reasonable protections. The Senate bill was written with input from our law enforcement officials and it gives victims two weeks to realize they've been scammed to get their money back. This amendment gives them 72 hours, then nothing. Poof. The Senate bill caps every transaction, every one, at $2,000. That's a stopgap. This amendment caps the first transaction for three days, but after that, no limit. $50,000, $100,000, your entire life savings. Gone in an afternoon. But this amendment doesn't stop there. Let's discuss accountability. The Iowa Attorney General investigated these crypto ATM companies and found that 94% of transactions, 94, on their machines were fraudulent. Why does this matter? It matters because this amendment goes further by giving the same companies whose 94% of transactions that were fraudulent immunity from prosecution. They are untouchable. This level of immunity is unprecedented in the United States. Consider this. When you go to a regular bank ATM, you might have to pay, I think today it's $2, $3 per transaction. These crypto ATMs typically charge transaction fees of 20% to 30%; fees that the crypto ATM companies collect as profit, whether the transaction is legitimate or a scam. It doesn't matter to them. A 20% to 30% profit on transaction is worth thousands of dollars. That's a windfall. And with complete immunity from prosecution and lucrative profits, crypto ATM companies have little incentive to prevent scams and fraud at their machines. Why would they? But this amendment still doesn't stop there. At this point you might be thinking, well, we can just ban these crypto ATMs in my town. Not with this amendment you can't. Let's say your police chief sees fraud spiking on crypto ATMs in your town and he goes to local government to take action and protect their citizens. This amendment tells your local city council or board of selectmen to stand down. This amendment prohibits your town from creating localized restrictions on these machines. That means no local government in this state has the means to protect its most vulnerable citizens. Twenty-nine states have tried to enact legislation with similar overreaching provisions and not one has made it into law. Why would New Hampshire want to be the first state to codify language that enables our citizens to be financially ruined? This isn't about trusting technology. I own crypto. I've responsibly used a crypto ATM. I love technology. I even asked AI to analyze this House amendment. I was curious. I told AI, I want you to act as if NYX Crypto ATM Emporium owned a business and how would this affect me? And under this amendment all transactions are good for my business, but fraudulent transactions are great for my business. I get to keep 100% of fraudulent transactions after 72 hours. The AG can't touch me, towns can't ban me, and victims can't sue me. That's the environ- ment this amendment creates. It makes New Hampshire more attractive to scammers and criminals and it strips accountability and removes local control. I'm asking you to join me in voting no on this amendment. If the industry can't survive without this overreaching amendment language that no other state has enacted, then maybe that tells us something about the industry. Let us now press the red button and vote down this amendment. Vote yes on the underlying Senate bill. Don't make New Hampshire the easiest place in America to rob people, especially the vulnerable folks we care about in our communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Ammon.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 42)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've heard a lot of facts and figures from previous speakers, and much of it is overblown. Our position with the House Commerce Committee amendment is to also stop scams. So, I'm going to read my speech here and try to answer some of the fear and uncertainty and doubt that we've just heard. So, we heard in committee from a person called Kevin, we're going to call him Kevin to protect his identity. One afternoon, Kevin, on his computer screen, the screen turned red. It was flashing. A number appears. He calls the phone number. Over the next several hours, a scammer posing as a bank security agent walked him through withdrawing his life savings and feeding every dollar into one of these machines at two different gas stations. So Kevin testified before our committee his words, "I was basically hypnotized." And that's the thing that we're picking up on, this hypnotization by the scammers. That's what the scammers are doing. It's not the ATM companies. By the end of that day, he lost much of his savings. But there was no one there to break the spell. Right now, New Hampshire has no protections on the books for people like Kevin. This is a legal, federally regulated industry that we're talking about operating in our state. The committee amendment is designed to break the spell. That's the purpose of the committee amendment. And it doesn't require a single dollar in new appropriations. I heard the previous speaker say that the attorney general's office was in favor of the Senate version, but they also worked with me on this version. So I don't know how that fact speaks. So first it stops the harm before it happens. During the first 72 hours, a customer is considered a new customer. The customer becomes a new customer by identifying themselves at the kiosk. So they have to show an ID. A lot of them have a facial scan. So think about the data that's going into the machines currently. The Senate bill doesn't handle any of the privacy aspects. We do in the Commerce amendment. Within 72 hours, for a maximum of $3,000, that's the cap, no life savings are going into this machine, $3,000, the person can ask for a refund for any reason in that first 72 hours. Our friend Kevin, and I'm protecting his name, his story was he called the operator eight hours later. So eight hours is in that 72-hour window. And was asked that the refund window at the time was only 15 minutes. So we're extending that for three days. So after the 72-hour window, the machine still asks on-screen questions designed to catch coercion. Again, to break people out of the spell. The scammers are getting very sophisticated, but it's the spell that we're attacking here. So they ask, "is someone directing you to do this?" The Commerce amendment has 28-point font of a large warning required on the machine. Before you even approach the machine, there's a warning. The machines have an iPad on the front. We're requiring them to program in checks as they go through the checkout process to make sure that they're not being coerced. That's part of breaking the spell. So first is the new customer period. Second is the personal data, which I alluded to. These machines are required to collect data about their customers. We have an amendment in our state constitution that protects privacy. We put the privacy aspect into this amendment to protect people's data, their biometric data, from being stored forever, and who knows where it goes. So that's a consideration that is not in the Senate version. Third, it enforces real accountability. Operators must publish their anti-fraud policies for anyone to review. They have to publish exactly what they're doing. That informs future legislation. They must use fraud detection software to flag transfers tied to known criminal accounts. Every violation of the strict rules in the committee amendment is enforced by the Attorney General. So we hear that the bill may prevent municipalities from having their own patchwork of regulation. There's no other financial industry in the state that we let municipalities have all different rules. No industry can survive with the patchwork of rules. So the committee amendment says, if you follow these strict rules, well-thought-out rules, if you defraud someone, the Attorney General will come after you. And that's where the strength and the know-how of how to track down these bad actors. Some will argue that the Senate version is stronger because it has a permanent $2,000 cap. But I want you to think about this. It's a cap on every transaction. Forever. That's what the Senate version does. So we have a $3,000 cap on the 72-hour period because it's the naive new customer. That's who these scammers are putting into a spell. So Vermont tried to do this. And we already know what happened. They drove the industry out of the state. And I think that's the intent of some of these inflated numbers that we hear. Inflating all crypto with just the kiosks. That's what those numbers are telling us. I think the intent is to ban this industry. In New Hampshire, do we ban industries? Or do we make sure that only good actors are behaving in that industry? That's what we're trying to do with the Commerce amendment. So our friend Kevin cannot get his life savings back. But the next person sitting at their computer, when the screen goes red, tells them to call a number to get on the phone to be hypnotized in that spell. The committee amendment from House Commerce is designed to break the spell but not destroy an industry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I ask for a division vote. Speaker Packard: A division has been requested. Members, take your seats. Will the member yield to a question?

Rep. Mark Proulx (R - Hills 15)Thank you. You talk about a few questions breaking the spell. And I don't think that'll work. And I'll give you an example, and then you can tell me why you think your questions will work. In the town of Epping, where I work, a woman had a stack of $100 bills, stuffing them into the machine. The owner of the business called the police. The police came, took her back to the bank to put her money back in, tried to explain this is a scam. She went back the next day, took all the money out, and put it back in the crypto machine. So three questions on a machine isn't going to save them from fraud. And if you can tell me what those questions are going to do and how they're going to break that spell when the police officer took her back to the bank.

Rep. Keith Ammon (R - Hills 42)I'll just respond briefly. I'm glad that you brought up that scenario because that exact scenario is what the committee amendment is designed to protect. So thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on the amendment. We're voting on the amendment only right now. This is a division vote. Members, take your seats. Make sure you turn your voting stations on. The motion before us is on the amendment (1526h.) This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Bill Boyd for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bill Boyd (R - Hills 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, if I know that this amendment fundamentally rewrites Senate Bill 482 and eliminates consumer protections while undermining local control, and Mr. Speaker, if I know that the underlying bill is a sensible bipartisan solution that discourages criminal activity while preventing catastrophic financial loss for all granted staters, then, Mr. Speaker, would I press the red button and vote no on the pending motion? Thank you.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Hunt for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. John Hunt (R - Ches 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that it's very rare that you will ever see me down here, if I know that's because the Commerce Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously, if I know, Mr. Speaker, that this bill had a serious, serious problem, and that is the 14 days and the right of private action to sue not the scammer, but to sue the machine. Mr. Speaker, I think you would laugh us out of the room if we said maybe we should be banning the computer where that person got scammed, or maybe we should be banning the phone. Mr. Speaker, if I believe that maybe we should be banning this telephone or maybe the caller ID that got fraudulently used. Mr. Speaker, if I believe that the Commerce Committee came up with a better solution with the 72 hours, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to pass legislation that will be mirrored in lawsuits because this 14 days. Will I now vote yes on this amendment?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the amendment (1526h). This is a division vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present and an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 135 voting yea, 220 voting nay. The amendment fails. House will be in order. The motion before us now is Ought to Pass. A division has been requested. A roll call has been asked. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 482. 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 and an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 214 voting yea, 140 voting nay. The motion passes. It's being referred to Criminal Justice. CACR 11, (New Title) relating to sheriffs. Providing that there shall be no age limitation for a person to hold the office of county sheriff. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Terry Roy for the Majority of Criminal Justice and Public Safety. The majority believes the choice to not recommend should be based on overwhelming evidence that not only is it not needed, but that it would be detrimental to society and our form of government. This is necessary because our choice to not recommend denies the citizens the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they think the amendment is warranted. The majority saw no such evidence in this case. The citizens of this state, along with the country are living longer more productive lives. The constitutional limit of age 70 for sheriffs was made in 1792. In the late 18th century, the average lifespan at birth for a man in New England was roughly 35 to 45 years. Removing deaths from infant mortality and childhood disease, once a man reached adulthood, he could reasonably expect to live into his early to mid-60s. Setting a mandatory retirement age at 70 in 1792 was actually quite generous. It was a limit most men would never hit. Modern medicine and nutrition has changed that expectation quite a bit in the last 234 years. For a man who reaches age 65 today, he is statistically expected to live another 18 to 20 years, frequently pushing him well into his mid-80s. This raises two questions. What good is it extending our lives if we continue treat the age limitations in our laws the same as we did 234 years ago? Next, we must consider can a man or woman in their 70s in 2026 perform the role of sheriff as it exists today? In 1792, there were no municipal police departments or state police. If you were a citizen in New Hampshire in the late 1700s, the sheriff and his deputies were the only professional law enforcement officers available. They were the general purpose "peace officers" for everything from stopping riots to investigating thefts. Now most daily patrol and investigative work is handled by local police or state police, with sheriffs augmenting both when necessary. Modern NH sheriffs primarily focus on court security, prisoner transport, and serving civil legal papers. Though they still perform important law enforcement duties, the sheriff is not involved in it anymore than the police chief in one of our large municipalities and police chiefs have no such age restriction. Putting an age limit was a way of limiting the office holder as the public did not have the same say in their getting the job as we do today. Vote 7-5. Rep. David Meuse for the Minority of Criminal Justice and Public Safety. Article 78 of the New Hampshire State Constitution states that "No person shall hold the office of Judge of any Court, or Judge of Probate, or Sheriff of any county, after he has attained the age of seventy years." This CACR would erase the maximum age restriction for county sheriffs, allowing sheriffs to begin or to continue serving into their seventies and potentially well beyond that into their eighties and nineties. While we heard testimony that the role of a sheriff is primarily administrative and is analogous to that of a CEO in a private business, there are a number of concerns with extending the age limit. Physical and mental vigor, which both decline with age, are critical for such a high-stress role. But even more importantly, sheriffs are also occasionally called upon to act in a direct law enforcement capacity, such as making an arrest or assisting with one, rather than simply performing administrative functions. By comparison, the mandatory retirement age for our state police is set at age 60. Many corporations also set mandatory retirement ages for CEOs and board members. While age should never be a barrier to serving your community, mandatory retirement ages provide opportunities for qualified younger people to step up. Moreover, they don't preclude those impacted by them from serving their community in other ways. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass. Rep. Roy spoke in favor. Rep. Meuse spoke against and requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 199 - NAYS 157 Aldrich, Glen Bogert, Steven YEAS - 199 Comtois, Barbara Dumais, Russell Freeman, Lisa BELKNAP Ploszaj, Tom Terry, Paul Toner, Travis Bordes, Mike Hamblen, Joseph Avellani, Lino Boudman, Bobbi Harvey-Bolia, Juliet Peternel, Katy MacDonald, John Smith, Jonathan Brown, Richard Taylor, Brian CARROLL Crawford, Karel McAleer, Chris Murphy, Denis Hunt, John CHESHIRE Mattson, Rita Germana, Nicholas Nalevanko, Rich Rhodes, Jennifer Thackston, Dick Karasinski, Sly Qualey, James Davis, Arnold Durkin, Sean COOS Murphy, Michael Ouellet, Mike Franz, Linda Berezhny, Lex Korzen, Lori Beaulier, Calvin Louis, Darrell Ladd, Rick GRAFTON Bjelobrk, Marie Louise McFarlane, Donald Ammon, Keith Boyd, Bill HILLSBOROUGH Berry, Ross Boehm, Ralph Colcombe, Rich� Creighton, James Kelley, Diane Daniels, Gary Barbour, Liz Dumont, Dillon Dupont, Pierre Erf, Keith Cole, Brian Flanagan, Jack Griffin, Gerald Gagne, Larry Drew, Matt Gould, Linda Juris, Louis Kesselring, Steven Fedolfi, Jim Labrie, Brian Lascelles, Richard Leishman, Peter Giasson, Henry Murray, Megan Murphy, Mary Mazur, Lisa Kofalt, Jim Mooney, Maureen Morton, Jonathan Noble, Kristin Long, Patrick Ohm, Bill Paquette, Kathleen Pauer, Diane Miles, Julie Post, Lisa Presa, Adam Proulx, Mark Notter, Jeanine Rice, Kimberly Ryan, Linda Schneller, John Peeples, Raymond Sheehan, Vanessa Sirois, Shane Slottje, Jeremy Reinfurt, Sherri Tenczar, Jeffrey Mannion, Tom Warden, Mark Scully, Kevin Wherry, Robert Suiter, John Wheeler, Jonah Aures, Cyril Aylward, Deborah MERRIMACK McGuire, Carol Cambrils, Jose McGuire, Dan Hicks, Matthew Hill, Gregory Leavitt, John Bricchi, Tracy Moffett, Michael Pitaro, Matthew Polozov, Yury Devoid, Ricky Schamberg, Thomas Seaworth, Brian Walsh, Thomas Mehegan, Peter Wood, Clayton Boyd, Stephen Ball, Lorie Thibault, James Bryer, Scott DeSimone, Debra ROCKINGHAM Edgar, Michael Gilman, Julie Bennett, Cindy Bernardy, JD Bridle, Nicholas Janigian, John de Vries, Erica Walsh, Lilli Mannion, Dennis Thomas, Douglas Dunn, Ron Lundgren, David Ford, Mary McGrath, Linda Donnelly, Tanya Drago, Mike Harb, Robert Osborne, Jason Kuttab, Katelyn Porcelli, Susan Edwards, Jess Foote, Charles Love, David Pearson, Stephen Markell, Jay Summers, James Guthrie, Joseph Guzofski, James Nadeau, Brian Tripp, Richard Popovici-Muller, MacDonald, Wayne Katsakiores, Phyllis Khan, Aboul Roy, Terry Soti, Julius Burnham, Claudine Layon, Erica Litchfield, Melissa Dolan, Tom Farrington, Samuel Vose, Michael Horrigan, Timothy Lynn, Bob Maggiore, Jim Hall, Robley McMahon, Charles Melvin, Charles Cloutier, John Hemingway, Wayne Brown, Pam Perez, Kristine Daniel Coker, Matthew Potucek, John Prudhomme-O'Brien, Katherine Belcher, Mike Sabourin dit Choini�re, Matt Selby, Donald Ames, Dick Sweeney, Joe Sytek, John Faulkner, Barry Newell, Jodi Tudor, Paul Verville, Kevin King, Seth Weyler, Kenneth Wilson, Vicki Almy, Susan DeDe-Poulin, Denise STRAFFORD DeRoy, Susan Cormen, Thomas Gilmore, Gary Harrington, Michael Sullivan, Jared Kaczynski, Thomas DeLemus, Susan Potenza, Kelley Oppel, Thomas Southworth, Thomas Granger, Michael Sykes, George Larochelle, John Walker, David Murray, Alissandra Booras, Efstathia Drye, Margaret SULLIVAN Grant, George Corcoran, Travis Aron, Judy Smith, Steven Elberger, Susan Girard, Dale Gregg, Alicia Aron, Michael Hegner, Karen Kerwin, Erin NAYS - 157 LeClerc, Daniel BELKNAP Manohar, Sanjeev Petrigno, Peter Nagel, David Newman, Ray Newman, Sue Burroughs, Anita CARROLL Woodcock, Stephen Staub, Kathy Veilleux, Daniel Paige, David Fox, Dru Jones, Philip Berch, Paul CHESHIRE Weber, Lucy Gruber, James O'Rorke, Terri Harvey, Cathryn Bolton, Bill Jacobs, Samantha Hakken-Phillips, Mary Parshall, Lucius Muirhead, Russell Stringham, Jerry Tierney, James COOS Bergeron, Dan Tremblay, Marc Chretien, Suzanne Dargie, Paul Baldwin, Heather GRAFTON Georges, Mary Fellows, Sallie Hartnett, Tim Lovett, Peter Barton, Joseph Jeudy, Jean Rockmore, Ellen Fracht, David Leapley, Nicole Lucas, Janet MacKenzie, Mark Spahr, Terry Murphy, Nancy Prout, Andrew Alexander, Joe HILLSBOROUGH Rung, Rosemarie Budathoki, Suraj Spier, Carry Cornell, Patricia Beauchemin, Paige Vail, Suzanne Davis, Fred Chourasia, Manoj Wilhelm, Matthew Grill, Jessica Darby, Will Herbert, Christopher Foss, Lily Kluger, Lee Ann Harriott-Gathright, Linda Lloyd, Christal Jack, Martin McGhee, Kat Foxx, Loren Plamondon, Marc Howard, Molly Raymond, Heather McLean, Mark Salvi, Santosh Preece, David Swanson, Dale Rombeau, Catherine Dolan, William Seibert, Christine Tellez, Trinidad Thomas, Wendy Andrus, Louise Caplan, Tony MERRIMACK Kelly, Eileen Ebel, Karen Gallager, Eric Lane, Connie Luneau, David Hall, Muriel Colby, Eleana Payeur, Stephanie Richards, Beth Roesener, James Gibbs, Merryl See, Alvin Snodgrass, Jim Soucy, Timothy Newsom, James Woods, Gary Sargent, Gregory Wallner, Mary Jane Balboni, Peggy Cahill, Michael ROCKINGHAM Haskins, Linda Knab, Allison Paige, Mark McDonnell, Valerie Meuse, David Milz, David Grote, Jaci Raynolds, Ned Read, Ellen Scherr, Buzz Manos, Zoe Sorensen, Carrie Turer, Eric Vallone, Mark Muns, Chris Weinstein, Toni Simpson, Alexis Ward, Gerald Bailey, Glenn Bay, Luz STRAFFORD Burton, Wayne Butler, Billie England, Myles Howard, Heath Johnson, Erik LaMontagne, Jessica Bixby, Peter Smith, Marjorie Malone, Amy Miller, Seth Smith, Geoffrey Selig, Loren Stone, John Wade, Alice Levesque, Cassandra Schmidt, Peter Wall, Janet

Rep. Peggy Balboni (D - Rock 38)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SB 101 aims to expand education choice in New Hampshire through universal open enrollment, letting students attend schools outside the resident districts. Giving families more options can open doors for students to find the right fit and succeed. But for choice to matter, it must be accessible. I oppose this legislation as written. It risks limiting access. Requiring families to provide transportation means participation depends on flexible schedules and reliable travel, leaving many working families and vulnerable students behind. A policy meant to increase opportunity should not make access more unequal. Amendment (1451h) does not solve that problem. It shifts the focus to funding using a charter-style model. Under that approach, receiving districts would get about $10,000 per student in state aid, well below the roughly $21,000 average it actually costs to educate a student in New Hampshire. At the same time, the resident district loses that funding while still retaining significant responsibilities. It remains accountable for fixed costs and ongoing programs, and most importantly, for covering the full cost of special education for students who leave, including transportation and all services required by their IEPs. Districts could also lose stabilization grants and Title I funding. The result is a real risk of pulling resources out of communities that can least afford it, widening gaps rather than expanding opportunity. A 2016 legislative study already found this charter-style approach to special education funding problematic. Those issues remain unresolved, and expanding the model could carry the same challenges and potential legal costs to the broader system. Beyond funding, key issues remain unanswered. How will capacity be managed? How will enrollment be handled fairly and consistently? Schools are required to use lotteries, but can still prioritize or exclude certain students based on attendance or discipline, raising discrimination and legal concerns. If a student is accepted one year, are they guaranteed a seat the next? How will we ensure support and continuity for at-risk students, English language learners, students with 504 plans, or those experiencing homelessness? We also don't yet know the additional cost to the Educational Trust Fund. There's no clear estimate of how many students would receive the additional grants, nor clarity on who resolves disputes over enrollment, funding, transportation, or services. And without predictability, how can districts responsibly plan their budgets from year to year? These are not minor details. They are fundamental to whether this policy works. If we are serious about expanding educational choice, then we need to do it in a way that is fair, sustainable, and truly accessible. The minority amendment offers a more responsible path, bringing legislators, educators, and stakeholders together to design a system that delivers on the promise of choice for every student. I urge you to oppose this motion so we can take the time to get this right. And Mr. Speaker, I ask for a roll call vote.

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)Thank you for taking my question. I'm a school board member in Nashua, and I'm trying to understand the possible impact to my district if a student with an IEP or a student with a 504 plan attends another district's school?

Rep. Peggy Balboni (D - Rock 38)Thank you for the question. According to the bill, the resident district has the responsibility to ensure that the student from your district receives all provisions and services within the IEP. So right now, the average cost for a student, a special education student, is about $46,000 in addition to the adequacy grants. However, students on 504 plans are considered to be regular education students, and all costs and their accommodations would have to be assumed by the receiving districts. Some of those costs could include for students with physical disabilities, so there could be costs associated with making renovations to buildings for wheelchair students. There could be costs associated with special equipment for those students with visual and hearing impairments. And they can cost thousands of dollars.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield for a follow-up? You may inquire.

Rep. Heather Raymond (D - Hills 5)Thank you. Thank you for taking my follow-up. So just to be clear, if I have a student in Nashua who, for example, needs a wheelchair, and they choose to attend an out-of-district school that is not wheelchair accessible, are my Nashua property taxpayers responsible for the cost of the physical building renovations to make that other district school wheelchair accessible?

Rep. Peggy Balboni (D - Rock 38)The way that I understand the bill is that if that student in a wheelchair has those provisions for accessibility contained within their IEP, it would be the responsibility of the residential district to pay for those services.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Peternel is recognized to speak for the majority amendment.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of amendment (1451h). The other body sent us a perfectly workable bill, but we did find some changes necessary. And after hearing over 10 hours of testimony, as well as a two-hour full committee work session with the Department of Education, the majority of the committee agreed on this amendment. This amendment changes the term sending district to resident district, because it is the parent who makes the decision to apply to send a student to a different school. The amendment clarifies reasons for denial of acceptance in a receiving district and adds exceptions for identified disabilities, 504 plans or individual education plans, foster care or McKinney-Vento status, or chronic absence due to bullying, which is on the rise in the State of New Hampshire. Lottery preferences are established for students of active-duty military students in addition to previously defined preference categories. The resident district is required to provide transportation for special education or 504 plan students if transportation is part of their plan. And as a reminder, these are public schools who are already providing special services to students, so they should have no trouble accommodating students from another public school. Amendment (1451h) requires the state board to convene working groups to study and make further recommendations regarding the implementation and effectiveness of open enrollment policies. This will allow much more time for public input for concerns that need to be addressed in rules as opposed to legislation before implementation. As I said, the other body sent us a very workable bill that required minimal cleanup, and we should not waste any more time studying open enrollment at the expense of student success. Please vote Ought to Pass on amendment (1451h).

Rep. Jess Edwards (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for allowing the question. I'm curious if we pass this bill, will we increase the probability that there will be at least one full-time talented and gifted program in this state? Representative Peternel: I'm not sure. Thank you for the question. I am not sure that this bill would address that specifically. But if schools decide to take the opportunity to innovate, which is already in statute, then perhaps there would be the possibility of a gifted and talented school.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield for a further question?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithSorry, the member does not yield. All righty, the question is on amendment (1451h), and Representative Cornell has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. All righty, the question is on the adoption of amendment (1451h). Representative Luneau is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know this amendment sucks millions of dollars out of your local schools, especially those with higher poverty rates and lower property values, and if I know this amendment fails to address special education and disability rights, placing an even greater burden on taxpayers from both the sending and receiving districts, and if I know broken enrollment is massively unpopular, with over 100 towns representing the vast majority of New Hampshire residents passing warrant articles to restrict participation, then would I press the red button to defeat this amendment so that we can fix it and get it right? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Peternel is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that this bill actually requires the state to send more money to public schools, if I know that education is about the student and not the system, if I know that competition breeds excellence and innovation, and if I know that this amendment makes a really awesome bill even more awesome, would I now press the green button and vote ought to pass on amendment (1451h)?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on amendment (1451h). 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 and an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 182 in the affirmative, 172 in the negative. The amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. The minority amendment is (1455h), printed in House Record Section 16 on pages 32 and 33. Representative Damon is recognized to speak on the minority amendment.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Derry, Goffstown, Meredith, Rindge, Strafford. What do these five towns have in common? They are among the over 100 communities that voted recently on a bipartisan basis to enact limits on open enrollment that this bill would override with a mandate. With this backdrop, I rise to introduce amendment (1455h), which is on page 32 of your calendar, and invite your thoughtful support for this reasonable solution to a proposal that the people we represent statewide remain very skeptical of. I am not opposed to open enrollment, and I am pleased that the committee amendment does address some of the significant questions. However, as you have just heard, the current proposal is not ready for implementation. The many uncertainties around special education, transportation, geographic boundary preferences, fair access for all students, definitions of key phrases including significant disciplinary issues, and chronic incentivism all need to be addressed before universal open enrollment happens. This replace-all amendment would create a study commission to thoroughly address these concerns and resolve the issues in a proactive way. While expanding opportunity for students is a shared value, major policy changes must be implemented without destabilizing the public education system that serves 90 percent of our K-12 students. We need to thoroughly define the parameters of a fair open enrollment policy so that both resident and receiving districts benefit. Districts need time to understand the impacts of likely enrollment changes and make adjustments in future budget cycles. For every student who leaves a district, the sending district loses state funding of $4,000 to $9,000. Those students left behind in the sending district now have fewer resources, property taxes will rise, and students in property-poor communities will take the biggest hit. Perhaps we need to consider phase-out or hold harmless grants to school districts just as we did with the EFA program, or perhaps we need to have an initial phase-in period to assess how it works on a limited basis. A clear understanding of fiscal responsibilities and impacts is essential. Passing a bill without a comprehensive fiscal note is simply not responsible governance. There needs to be capacity at the state Department of Education to monitor implementation and effectiveness, arbitrate disputes between parents and districts, ensure that districts are honoring their obligations to provide continuity of education, track how often students are transferring, and report data on the entire open enrollment program. This is not addressed in the current bill proposal, but would be carefully defined by the study commission, including whether an appropriation is needed for this essential work at DOE. It is important to note that these are bipartisan concerns from districts large and small, rural and urban, with varied socioeconomic status. Constituents throughout the state have spoken strongly in voting to restrict open enrollment. Some of their concerns have been addressed, but not enough, and 2,000 people testified online against open enrollment, with a mere 75 in favor. This is not saying, not now, not ever. It is saying, let's do this carefully, with attention to creating a sustainable, fair, fiscally responsible open enrollment program. Please press the green button to vote yes on the study commission amendment. And Mr. Speaker, I request a division vote.

Rep. Peter Petrigno (D - Hills 43)Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Representative, for taking my question. So, I represent the town of Milford, and recently the voters did put limits on open enrollment, and we feel that's right for our community. I understand that about 100 other towns throughout the state have done the same thing, so I'm just wondering if this would override and invalidate the will of the voters in Milford and all the other towns across the state? Thank you.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you for the thoughtful question. And yes, that is the way the bill is written. It requires school districts to set open enrollment policies. Nearly every district that enacted open enrollment policies to this point have established limits that protect taxpayers from sudden unknown expense increases. If this bill is enacted as law, it will override all the districts that voted to protect their taxpayers. This is a statewide mandate. It is the opposite of local control.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield for another question?

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order about a false statement made in the previous speaker.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)My point of order is that Derry did not vote on open enrollment, and that was a false statement, and I had a point of order to have the prior speaker correct the record to be accurate. My point of order is that there was a false statement made.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Layon, hang on. So the members' point is well taken, but look, what we think is true. So, there's an old quote. It's not that they're lying. It's just that so much of what they know isn't so. I think that can be applied to everyone on a bipartisan fashion, so let's just be careful out there. All righty. Representative Giasson would like a roll call on the amendment. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. All righty. Flag on the play. I mean, you can come in and take your seats anyway, but we will not be going into the voting mode because I got so distracted with points of order that I forgot to recognize Representative Peternel to speak against the amendment. You may proceed.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a moment, I thought maybe I had already spoken. I rise in opposition to amendment (1455h) because this amendment is simply not necessary. Between Senate Bill 101 and two other open enrollment bills which were introduced or passed in the last two years, this body as well as the one on the other side of the wall have heard probably 13, 14, 15 hours of testimony in addition to the two-hour work session and the almost two-hour executive session that we had on the underlying bill. There is also currently a functioning open enrollment district that can, for all intents and purposes, qualify as a pilot program. In fact, they have proven that you do not need to recreate Hotel California with your local town warrant articles to continue to trap your students in districts that are not serving their needs. So, in a sense, this topic has already been well deliberated and essentially studied. Legislators from four different education committees have heard and responded to feedback from constituents and school board members. And this bill also includes rulemaking authority for the Board of Education as well as a requirement to convene working committees. This allows for more opportunity and input into the application of open enrollment. And in addition, the effective date isn't until July 1, 2027, which gives districts a year to plan for implementation. For critics who complain that open enrollment is moving too fast, they are just wrong. New Hampshire is far behind the curve on implementation of open enrollment. So let's put students first and press the red button on amendment (1455h).

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithAll right. So this is going pretty well, but I'd like to point out to the members, we have extremely important guests in the gallery who will be occupying your seats in 25, 30 years maybe. So let's be models of decorum and quiet. We're going to do a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1455h) and Representative Woodcock is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D - Carr 1)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that perhaps not Derry, but well over 100 other towns in New Hampshire voted enrollment limitations and were the voice of the people, and if I know that all of us sitting here this morning do, that one of the most disturbing parts of this new law are the unintended consequences of any new law that we're not foreseeing, and if I know that Representative Damon just laid out a series of issues with a proposed open enrollment bill that could very well lead to multiple unintended consequences, if I further know that a bill of this magnitude will impact every city and town in New Hampshire and that it should arrive on their doorsteps with all of these issues corrected, then would I support the effort to make this best open enrollment legislation possible by pushing the green button and allowing the commission to eliminate the unintended consequences? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Belcher is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mike Belcher (R - Carr 4)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that study is for issues that we need more information on, and if I know that we already have successful open enrollment occurring in this state and we have the information, Mr. Speaker, if I know that parents have a right to direct the education of their children, but currently districts are prohibiting students from leaving, then, Mr. Speaker, finally, if I know that a right delayed is a right denied, would I then press the red button to retain the amendment we just adopted? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of Amendment (1455h). 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. 169 in the affirmative, 184 in the negative. The amendment fails. Now, finally, the main motion of Ought to Pass with Amendment. Representative Hall is recognized to speak against the committee report.

Rep. HallThank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to SB 101 as amended, which mandates that all public schools must become open enrollment schools and authorizes parents to enroll their children in any New Hampshire public school they so choose. Choice? It's only a choice for families with flexible work schedules, reliable transportation and financial stability. This bill, as amended, creates access barriers and expands the divide between the haves and the have nots. Mandatory open enrollment sets our communities against one another. It expands the already existing inequality among school districts and is likely to financially devastate our smaller, more vulnerable districts. They may face substantial reductions in programming and enrollment shift, undermining local control and creating more educational gaps. A rural district that loses enough students could lose the enrollment threshold to even keep their school open. The risks to legal exposure are significant. Disputes over placement decisions and services of special education and 504 students could end up in due process hearings and courtrooms. This bill opens the door to discrimination complaints in federal oversight. School districts are liable for child safety as we know. Yet, they might have bus drop-offs many miles from the child's home. What could possibly go wrong? From a financial perspective, funding of open enrollment under this amended legislation relies on state funded grants with tens of millions of dollars to be withdrawn from the education trust fund to cover the cost of this plan. This is the same pool of money that is supposed to be used to adequately fund our currently underfunded public schools. We need to meet our constitutional obligation before devising new plans to spend our money irresponsibly. Furthermore, this legislation could have a serious impact on district budgets. When the student leaves their home district for another, the per pupil adequacy aid follows them. That means the resident district loses state funding for the children who leave, but it does not lose its fixed costs; electricity, heating, busing and staffing. Resident districts are required by federal law to pay for and provide services to students with disabilities regardless of where they enroll which surely could result in costly unanticipated expenditures. This legislation is fraught with many concerns, uncertainties and unintended consequences regarding funding, special education, tuition agreements, eligibility, transportation, other programs such as career tech, athletics, co-curriculars and many more. The vast majority of granite staters do not support open enrollment in our state as evidenced by inperson and online testimony as well as the tens of thousands of voters in more than a hundred of our towns across the state who have voiced their opposition through warrant articles. Our constituents have spoken. It is our job to listen to the people of New Hampshire. Please vote no on Ought to Pass as Amended, and Mr. Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Noble is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I stand before you today in strong support of SB 101. At the core of this legislation is a simple principle; every child deserves access to the public school that aligns with their needs and aspirations. Today, children are confined by geography. A child's address should never limit their education or the potential they can reach. SB 101 changes that by allowing parents to enroll their children in any public school with available capacity. This bill empowers families with meaningful choice without adding tuition costs, without creating barriers, and without discrimination. It opens doors for students who may be struggling, and it gives them a chance to thrive in a learning environment better suited to them. Importantly, this bill is designed with fairness and transparency in mind. Schools must clearly publish their capacity, which should be determined without the addition of staff. It could even be zero. However, districts will not be able to create a policy that traps students in an education setting that does not work for them. If demand exceeds availability, students are selected through a lottery system just as charter schools do, and admissions cannot be based on disability, academic ability, or athletic talent. SB 101 ensures that students with disabilities continue to receive services through their resident district. It maintains funding through a clear, statewide formula, not local dollars following the child. It allows choice while keeping money in the public school system. There were a lot of questions during the process of this bill, but the one you didn't hear is why would parents want to pull their child out of their local school? Asking this question of parents is not common practice today, but it will become essential to the success of schools going forward. Under open enrollment, schools will be incentivized to listen to what families want in their child's education. This will spark innovation and encourage schools to find new ways to meet the academic needs of the students they serve. At a recent town hall in Milford, a parent shared with me that high test scores would not be her top priority in choosing a school. School culture mattered most to her. Many families feel the same way. The good news is schools already have the resources to create a great school culture. It just takes strong leadership. Success won't come only to the schools with the most resources. It will come to the schools that are creative, adaptable, and willing to think outside the box. What we need to do next year is to start peeling back requirements to allow the schools the flexibility they need to attract students. Critics may worry about disruption, but this bill is thoughtful and measured. Students can only transfer where space exists. Districts retain control over capacity, and families, not bureaucracies, make the final decision about what is best for their child. This is not about dismantling public education. It is about strengthening it. It's about the student who needs a different academic program. It's about the student who would be safer or more supported in another school. It's about giving parents the ability to act when they know something isn't working. SB 101 is a step toward a more flexible, more responsive, and more equitable public education system. Please join me in supporting this landmark legislation to modernize public education and expand learning opportunities for New Hampshire students. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Stevn SmithShe does not yield. All righty. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. Representative Hall 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 majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment on Senate Bill 101. Representative Cornell is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Patricia Cornell (D - Hills 22)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that this universal open enrollment legislation, as amended, lacks clarity, undermines local control, and is fiscally irresponsible, and if I know that this open enrollment proposal is not accessible to all, leaving many students behind, including our more vulnerable population. And if I know that mandatory open enrollment expands the already existing inequality among school districts and could lead to underenrolled-schools, substantial reductions in programming, and ultimately school closures, and finally, if I know that school districts throughout the state have enacted open enrollment policies that work for their community and that overriding the will of those districts with a costly mandate would be a slap in the face to the taxpayers that we were elected to represent, would I now press the red button to reject this OTPA motion so that a better motion could be made? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Belcher is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Mike Belcher (R - Carr 4)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that as long as it is government that is rendering the service of education, to segregate children by zip code is radically discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, if I further know that while government stands in the way of parents telling them they are not allowed to leave their local district, we signal to parents that their children belong to us, not to them. Mr. Speaker, if I know...

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe member will suspend for a minute. Like which part of the House will come to order do I have to explain? We are this close to being able to go to lunch and after lunch 21 bills. Let's not make this a longer day than it has to be by making me do this all the time. The member can continue.

Rep. Mike Belcher (R - Carr 4)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that this bill enables local schools to decide how many students they can reasonably accept but stops them from handcuffing parents when they want to leave, and finally, Mr. Speaker, if I know that parents voting with their feet by deciding to send their children elsewhere will shift underlying incentives so local schools will actively improve their own performance, would I now vote green? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment on Senate Bill 101. 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. 168 in the affirmative, 184 in the negative. The committee report fails. For what reason does a member rise?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Sweeney moves that Senate Bill 101 be laid on the table. The question is whether to lay Senate Bill 101 on the table. We are in a division vote. That is the member withdrew his request. Nobody else said anything. If you are in favor, press the green button, if you are 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. 320 in the affirmative, 32 in the negative, SB 101 is laid on the table. The House is in recess until 1:30.