The House, Thursday, May 7, 2026

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I remember very clearly walking in the very dark basement of the Unitarian Congregational Church in Peterborough where the Peterborough Food Bank was, and those were on dark sort of cloudy days. I remember my mom wasn't exactly happy about the fact that we were there. It was on days where we had to grab rice and beans because we couldn't necessarily afford them. But when you're a kid, all you care about is the candy. I just wanted the Dots, but Dots are quite disgusting, and so I wasn't exactly happy about the fact that it was the only candy available, but that's what your mindset is on when you're a kid. I was reminded of that when I came and read the calendar this last week on this piece of legislation and got the emails from my constituents who work at the nonprofits such as End Hours of Hunger, and the Peterborough Food Bank and others that service hundreds of families in my region. We are in a town of 7,000 people. And last year, 238 of those families were assisted by End 68 Hours of Hunger, 150 of them by the Peterborough Food Bank. And so, Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, I think as brief as I ever may be in this House of Representatives, wanted to relay both how disgusting Dots were and the fact that kids deserve choices, but also, exactly, smarties, Mr. Chairman, that's 100% true, but also the fact that these state dollars do have an impact. It's not all fraud. I think in this era of government and political culture, we hear a lot of fraud stories, and there is a lot of fraud in government. But there are programs such as SNAP, which provide dollars to programs such as End 68 Hours of Hunger or the Peterborough Food Bank that allow people such as my family, when we couldn't afford rice and beans, to grab rice and beans, and no matter how disgusting Dots are, Mr. Speaker, we were able to eat that night. So, thank you very much. I hope you overturn the ITL on this piece of legislation. Join our friends on the other side of the wall in passing this legislation onto the governor's desk and make sure that the money going to these programs continues to go to them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Stringham.

Rep. Jerry Stringham (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak against the ITL motion. As the previous speaker said, this bill relates to the very popular Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides food for hungry, hard-working Granite Staters. A vote for the ITL motion is a vote against the SNAP program. It's as simple as that. SB 603 was passed unanimously by the Senate on a bipartisan basis and, as written, requires no appropriation. SB 603 is needed to support the SNAP program because of House Resolution 1. HR 1, which is also known as the Big Beautiful Bill, passed on July 4th of last year, three days after New Hampshire's biennium budget went into effect. One provision of HR 1 was to increase the percentage of SNAP program administrative costs that the state is responsible for from 50% to 75% beginning on October 1st of this year. So that means for the last nine months of this biennium, the state now picks up 75% of the cost instead of 50%. This unexpected and unforeseen change results in an additional expenditure of $4.4 million in state funds due to the downshifting of administrative burden from the federal government to the state. The SNAP program is valuable for those in need and for New Hampshire's businesses. About 75,000 Granite Staters receive $154 million in nutritional benefits provided through personal electronic benefit transfer cards, or EBT cards, that can be used in over 1,000 businesses, including small businesses in the state. The $154 million is 100% funded by the federal government. New Hampshire pays only a share of the administrative costs, which I said is unexpectedly changing. But there's another important element of HR 1 that makes this bill important, and that is that it requires that the administrative error rate be below 6%. The error rate does not involve anyone receiving benefits. It shouldn't. It's just about having the forms that are needed to be filled out, done perfectly, no typos or anything. If the rate goes above 6%, the state becomes responsible for a portion of the SNAP benefits in the future, potentially increasing the state's budget by $20 million or more. As written, this bill, would signal that we support this program and direct the department to find funds in other parts of the budget, and that's not easy to do. We're dealing in this department with a $51 million back of the budget that they're struggling with. They have a hiring freeze right now. They don't have as many people to administer this program as in the budget. An ITL motion would recklessly eliminate substantial administrative management and oversight for this valuable program, increasing the risk for future financial penalties. So please vote red on the motion of ITL so we can support hungry, hardworking granted staters and those businesses that support them, so that additional motions can be made. Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

Rep. Samuel Farrington (R - Straf 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill does not relate to junk food or benefits. It doesn't even change how New Hampshire fundamentally administers SNAP. This bill, as was mentioned previously, relates to a deficit in federal funding. If you've read the text of this bill, the language permits the Department of Health and Human Services to transfer funds within and among accounting units, and in Finance Division III, we heard testimony from the department that they're already doing this. So this bill is redundant. It's not necessary. And when speaking to the prime sponsor of the bill, he was not even aware of this because that was not mentioned in the Senate testimony hearing. So this bill is redundant. The department is already doing this practice, and this will have no meaningful change on SNAP policy in New Hampshire. Please support the committee recommendation.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Telerski requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The question is the majority committee report of inexpedient to legislate on Senate Bill 603. Representative Telerski is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Laura Telerski (D - Hills 11)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the state budget signed in June was balanced with $4.4 million expected in federal funds for the SNAP program, but HR 1 changed aspects of SNAP funding, and the department now has to backfill that $4.4 million on top of the $51 million back of the budget cut they already have, and if I know that not properly funding administrative costs will undoubtedly result in an increased error rate where we will face significant penalties, putting us even further in the hole, and if I know that SNAP brings $154 million to New Hampshire to be spent at local businesses and corner markets and is an economic lifeline, both for those who can access nutritious food and for the businesses that accept SNAP, would I then support Granite Staters and our local businesses by pressing the red button to overturn the ITL so we can ensure this important program can continue seamlessly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the money in this bill has no effect on the distribution of the $154 million that is going in supplemental nutrition assistance programs, it only affects how much the agency pays. In this case, they think another $4 million in administrative costs, and they say that they can find that $4 million cost in their $2 billion budget and suggests we don't need this bill. Please press the green button for Inexpedient to Legislate.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is a majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on Senate Bill 603. 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, we've got an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote, 186 in the affirmative, 158 in the negative. The committee report is adopted. SB 454-FN, requiring the department of health and human services to update existing relevant public health outreach programs by incorporating information to aid public understanding and awareness of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Wayne MacDonald for Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. This bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to engage in certain public health outreach regarding Alzheimer's disease and other related dementia. The Legislative Budget Assistant has determined that this initiative will cost less than $10,000.00 per year in each of the fiscal years of 2026 through 2029. This is a tremendous cost savings, when considering the millions of dollars that have been spent on dementia-related diseases over the years. One estimate predicts as much as $63,000.00 per dementia victim could be saved by the early detection of such a disease. In view of the fact that New Hampshire has an aging population and that dementia usually affects older citizens, this effort makes perfect sense. Further, the success of this legislation will be realized without the creation of any new services or benefits created by DHHS. For these reasons, a majority of the committee recommends ought to pass. Vote 14-4. The question being adoption of the committee report of Ought to Pass. Committee report was adopted and the bill was ordered to third reading. SB 501, relative to authorization of seclusion or restraint during a personal safety emergency by a physician, physician associate, or advanced practice registered nurse. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Matt Drew for the Majority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. Physical restraint, seclusion (isolation), and chemical restraint are some of those most serious impositions on patient rights. Current law already permits emergency restraint of out-of-control patients to protect both them and the workers and patients around them, with a doctor's approval required after the fact. The majority of the committee finds that expanding this authority is unnecessary. Vote 10-8. Rep. Tim Hartnett for the Minority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. This common-sense bill simply allows advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician associates (PAs), both of which are considered licensed practitioners under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in addition to physicians, to issue seclusion and restraint orders when necessary for safety at New Hampshire Hospital or the regional receiving hospitals when a patient is a danger to themselves or others while in a mental health crisis. The use of seclusion and restraint are last-resort interventions. They are used in personal safety emergencies to ensure the physical safety of the patient and the medical staff who are treating them. These interventions are routinely implemented in time frames where seconds matter to prevent injury to the patient or the treatment team. At New Hampshire Hospital and the other hospitals, the PA and/or APRN may be the primary treatment provider for a patient in crisis. Under current law, the APRN or PA may issue a seclusion or restraint order, but a physician must be contacted within 15 minutes to continue the order, or the seclusion or restraint must cease entirely. This puts the providers, other patients, and the patient in crisis at extreme risk of harm. Every case is currently reviewed to ensure that the decision to use restraint or seclusion was made correctly and procedures were followed to ensure the civil rights of the patient were preserved, while also protecting the civil rights of all other persons who might be endangered. This practice would not change. In addition, passage of the bill will bring state mental health law into alignment with federal law, as CMS and accrediting bodies already authorize physicians, APRNs and PAs to make these orders during a safety emergency. There is no meaningful reason to oppose this bill, only callous disregard for the care and treatment of patients and the safety of medical staff who treat them. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate.