The House, Thursday, May 14, 2026

Rep. Loren Selig (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition of Senate Bill 430 as amended because it raises serious concerns about student privacy, safety, and trust within our schools. Education is not simply about academics. Schools are places where young people seek guidance, stability, and support during some of the most vulnerable moments in their lives. That support depends on trust. When students believe their private conversations may be disclosed or shared beyond the people they confide in, that trust begins to erode. But you shouldn't take my word for why this bill is bad. Let me share words from the students who are most impacted. One middle schooler who had not yet come out to their parents said school feels safer than home sometimes. "My counselor had flat-out said to us they would be accepting of everyone. My parents never said that. I didn't know if they would be cool with it or not, but I knew for sure my counselor would be. It was nice to be sure before saying it." Another student said, "How are you supposed to be able to explain who you are to your parents when you're still trying to figure, trying your best to figure it out for yourself? My teachers and counselors who I talked to already get it. I just want to figure it out and have someone to talk to who gets it." A high school student shared that sometimes there are things parents don't understand about how kids treat each other at the school environment. So when a student forms a close relationship with the teacher, it sometimes makes sense to tell them things they aren't ready to share with their parents yet. Clearly Senate Bill 430 moves our students and our schools in the wrong direction by creating an atmosphere of surveillance rather than support. Students who are struggling often turn first to trusted teachers, counselors, etcetera, because they believe those adults are there to help them safely navigate difficult circumstances. If students fear sensitive information will be disclosed without clear protections, many will simply stop seeking help altogether. A student who feels unsafe speaking honestly with a counselor is less likely to ask for help before a situation escalates into depression, self-harm, homelessness, or violence. Trust is not secondary in education; it's foundational to student well-being and academic success. Additionally, the bill raises key questions. Who decides what is complete and honest disclosure? Who decides what's a violation? Where is a report filed and who has access to it? Finally, one more young person said of this bill requiring teachers to tell parents everything, "That's not fair. It's not their life. I want to tell the people I want when I am ready. That law is taking away my choices." For these reasons I respectfully urge the body to oppose Senate Bill 430 and I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Litchfield.

Rep. Melissa Litchfield (R - Rock 32)Thank You, Mr. Speaker. I have a speech that I've written out. I just don't think it makes sense to read it on a bill like this because I don't even understand why we're discussing this. It just simply states that if a parent has a question of an educator and they put it in writing that the educator has within 10 days to respond they must respond thoroughly and honestly and there are guardrails in where if we're going to put the child in danger that then you go to the superintendent and something goes to the parent within 10 days it simply says I'm sorry I can't share what I'm going to share. Where are the parents? So, I don't understand if you have a child that is acting funny at home or maybe you think that they're acting sad or they need help or maybe they are confused about their identity. Where are the parents? Aren't we the ones that are supposed to give them support? There's a story that we hear in committee quite often and it touched my heart many times until a couple days ago when I really thought about it. There's a Representative that I respect, but they often tell the story about 9-11, and on 9-11, there was a call made to this particular educator where it was one of those the government called and said, "hey, we need you to take care of this student, you're not to ask any questions, you're to be there for that student," and every time I hear that I have the utmost respect for that particular Representative except it occurred to me two days ago that it's the same Representative that I've served on a committee with for this entire biennium, that's two years for anyone listening. Do you know that Representative has not once, not once, recited the Pledge of Allegiance when the rest of us do? So, is that who you want keeping secrets from the parents? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended. Representative Selig has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is a roll call vote. Members take your seats. Who wanted a point of order?

Rep. Lucius Parshall (D - Ches 8)Yes Mr. Speaker, the last person I'm referring to here cited a member of the committee who chose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance without any relevance to either the question of the bill or for no other reason except to throw shade on that particular Representative. I, as a teacher over 20 years, I had many students who did not say the Pledge of Allegiance on religious grounds, and I did not disqualify them at any time from full participation in the class. I think that was above and beyond to call somebody on their religious affiliation.

Speaker PackardI did not hear what you heard. We have a long day ahead of us and it's going to get longer if we continue talking, making noise and we'll be here till midnight and if that's what you want then fine, but the House will remain in order from this point on. Do I make myself clear? I respectfully disagree with you, but I accept that point of order.

Speaker PackardNow the motion before us is Ought to Pass as Amended. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Woodcock for a Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D - Carr 1)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know the issue is not the process, it's the intent of the bill, if I know that parents have opportunities daily to create conversational environments with their children and if I know that the likelihood of those teenagers discussing important issues with their parent is pretty darn slim, if I know the children need someone that they can discuss important issues with and the choice really isn't good if it's another teenage classmate, then I would pass the red button so we can allow students the opportunity to discuss with a trusted adult in a confidential environment knowing that their conversations will be trusted and honored? I would vote red.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Freeman for a Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lisa Freeman (R - Belk 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that protecting a student's privacy should not exclude a custodial parent or guardian requesting information about concerns they may have about their minor child and if I also know that when adults tell a minor to keep secrets from parents this creates a special secret relationship and can make a child vulnerable to abuse because it trains a child to accept secrecy, isolation, and divided loyalty from their parents, and if I finally know that custodial parents or guardians who make inquiries about their minor child doesn't translate into poor parenting skills or the need to take parenting classes as we heard in committee, then Mr. Speaker I would ask you to press the green button to support engaged parents and the safety of their children. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 430. 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 at an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to state of the vote. With 193 voting nay, 163 voting nay, the committee report is adopted. The House recessed at 12:05 p.m. RECESS The House reconvened at 1:15 p.m. (Representative Steven Smith in the Chair)

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you and I have a lot in common. More than sharing a name, I believe that we share a respect for this institution and what it has stood for, for many years. 30 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was elected to represent Durham and sometimes Lee and Madbury. I hesitated to run because I'm a private person, but I was convinced because I had certain basic principles. Privacy, including reproductive rights, quality and accessible public education, civil rights, civil liberties, and the environment. Today, Mr. Speaker, my personal platform has not changed. I believe in keeping government out of private lives and letting us focus on what we can do better together. My first speech on the other side of the well was on reproductive rights and the Speaker at that time, the first woman elected to be Speaker in this state, the Honorable Donna Sytek, who had written a note to congratulate me on what would then have been called my maiden speech, and before I got back to my seat, that note was handed to me. Speaker Sytek, by the way, for some of you who don't know this, wrote a book called Further Ado, Practical Protocol for New Hampshire, a nonpartisan guide to political etiquette. I hope some of you have read it and I actually would urge all of you on either side of the aisle, if you haven't, you might then better understand why there are some of us who are troubled by how we are conducting business in the legislature now. Those who don't know history are condemned to relive it. Over the years, many bills on the same subject have been filed again and again and people say, why do we permit that? And we do it because this is not a baseball game where three outs and you sit down and let somebody else stand at the plate. We do it because each time that we file a bill that we believe is appropriate to be filed and could make life better for the citizens of this state, we learn from our colleagues, we learn from the people who come to testify that there might be a way to get to yes, we could get better if we listen to all sides, if we're willing to compromise, if we're willing to bring together disparate views. And that is how we have, in the past, conducted ourselves. This bill takes a different approach. Governor Sununu vetoed a similar bill. Last session, the current governor did the same. Those who support the bill were not comfortable with that and so they set out to introduce basically the same bill over and over and over again. Five bills, I believe, or is it six? I must check with the Chair of my committee, have come to Judiciary and have been passed and passed and passed and passed, but that hasn't been enough. Even today, we have floor amendments on the same bill. When is enough, enough? If you're inclined, you can go to YouTube and listen to the testimony of sponsors and supporters alike make hateful, angry statements, clearly violating the rules of procedure in this body, attacking our own colleagues, painting with a brush, a broad brush, those mostly in my party who ask for respect for each of us. One actually condemned specifically those sitting in sections 5 and 4, and then when someone said, well, what about section 3? They added section 3. They used words that I would not permit, repeat, that I would not permit to be said in my committee. Disparaging comments, assigning intent, I hope Speaker Sytek is never forced to subject herself to listening to those tapes. But you can also listen to mothers and fathers, medical professionals, and those who have identified themselves with the transgender community. Decent, caring people asking only that they be treated with the respect that we all deserve. By passing bill after bill after bill, perhaps in the hope of making it impossible for the governor to veto all, we diminish the seriousness of the legislative process and interfere with the ability of all of us to live as we choose. In the end, I am reminded of another time in our nation's history when a Senator from Wisconsin set out to divide this nation and distract from the goals that brought us together through World War II. It was an establishment Boston lawyer who served as chief counsel for the US Army and said to that Senator at long last, have you no sense of decency. I'm old enough to remember that. When people asked why I kept on running, I responded that I would keep on running until we got it right in the end. That proves not to be accurate. Mr. Speaker, this will be my final floor speech before the New Hampshire House, a body I had long respected and worked to do the best we could do, fulfilling our constitutional obligations to the people of New Hampshire. I hope that in overturning the committee vote, we might demonstrate that yes, my belief in this body's inherent decency is still valid. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Prudhomme-O'Brien is recognized to speak.

Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since this bill came up and was presented to us, I have learned that there is a male who self-identifies as female who is awaiting trial because he is accused of killing his wife and he is currently housed in the female section of a county jail in our state right now. This really is happening. It is happening. It would be inhumane to not pass this bill. It would be inhumane to women and girls. Please pass this bill. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Butler is recognized to speak.

Rep. Billie Butler (D - Straf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here we are again. Another bill about gender and bathrooms. Senate Bill 552 says that bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces must be restricted according to what the bill calls, biological sex, and doing so should not be, should not legally count as discrimination. But Mr. Speaker, this bill is not based on any data whatsoever. It's all based in vibes. There is zero evidence of any documented crisis of assaults by trans folk in New Hampshire. Sponsors of this bill claim it's about safety from an invisible threat, but it will not create safety. What it will create is suspicion, confrontation, and pitting fellow granite staters against each other. My constituents are worried about the crushing cost of living, health care, public education, and our antiquated tax system. My property taxes alone have doubled in five years. It's the reason I ran and won in my district. And Mr. Speaker, we have spent 15 hours across two legislative bodies debating gender and toilets. This bill is identical to House Bill 1442 and similar bills from last year that were vetoed. And if this legislation were truly responding to the needs of New Hampshire residents, the sponsors would listen to the overwhelming voices of Granite Staters who came out against it. During committee hearings, we heard from disability advocates, from parents, business owners, women, transgender, and cisgender residents alike. They explained how bills like this would make their lives harder and less safe. And who came in support of this bill? Out-of-state paid lobbyists from Texas and Massachusetts. Don't Mass up New Hampshire indeed. And don't Texas my town. I hear constant speeches in this house about freedom and limited government, local control, and liberty. Liberty. I believe in liberty. It's at the core of who I am. Liberty is freedom from state-mandated conformity. Liberty means government not policing people's bodies, minds, souls, or where we go to the bathroom. I urge this body to vote no on Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 552. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Kuttab is recognized to speak.

Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to be clear, this bill doesn't mandate anything. It simply provides that in three limited circumstances, including prisons and places of involuntary confinement, shared bathrooms and locker rooms, as well as sports, that if one does use biological sex as a criteria, that that's not discrimination. It doesn't require that you have to do it. It just says that if you do, it's not discrimination. This allows women to have their privacy in intimate spaces, and it enables businesses to make their own decisions about what they think is appropriate. I ask you to please support this bill. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Mazur requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. Your seats are probably right where you left them. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass. Representative Marjorie Smith is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 10)Mr. Speaker, if you respect, as I have for 30 years, the basic decency and integrity of this body, and if you believe that two, three, four, five, six bills dealing basically with the same issue are an excess, and if you know that Governor Sununu vetoed a similar bill, and the current governor did also, would you now join the vast majority of people who have spoken out on this bill and vote against the committee report? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Rep. Kristine Perez (R - Rock 16)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that we have been here before, and if I know that this bill corrects any possible mistakes that somebody may have felt in the past, and if I know we have an obligation to provide safety and comfort for people, the majority, in sensitive areas, then I would vote yes for this bill so it can go on to the Governor. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe questions on the majority committee report of Ought to Pas on Senate Bill 552. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button, opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? Before I show you the vote, I want to thank you. I admonished in the beginning, and I should have had more faith in you for getting through that pretty placidly and respectfully. Thank you for that. The House will attend to the state of the vote. 179 in affirmative, 159 in negative. The committee report is adopted.

Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak against floor amendment (1937h). In addition to there already being clearly defined procedures and processes in public schools across the state to address concerns some may have with books or other media materials, that process has already been well determined by locally elected school boards in local communities. The amendment before us creates confusion. While it is true that the statute already includes a concept involving counties, it isn't clear if this inclusion is in reference to a geographic boundary or a political subdivision of governance and was not a concept we discussed in full within the committee. Since we don't organize SAUs by county, it is unclear if a district including one or more counties would be required to address opposition to media content or material. Which county would a policy come from or a standard? And would a county potentially have to respond to a complaint when we don't organize SAUs currently in this way? Again, the issue can only cause further confusion when trying to interpret it. I ask you to vote no on the adoption of floor amendment (1937h) to reject that confusion. Thank you.

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

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment will replace the bill and is very straightforward. It requires each local school board to adopt a policy for handling parental complaints about obscene and harmful materials. It no longer defines what that policy should be other than the definition for materials considered harmful to minors must be included. The two definitions in this amendment come from current statute and are both modified for the school setting. The definition for material is based on the definition in the obscene matter statute, RSA 650:1. The other definition is material considered harmful to minors which is based on the definition in the exposing minors to harmful materials statute, RSA 571-B:1. It currently says that in the county within which any offense set forth in this chapter was committed and I didn't think that that made sense for the school setting. We kept the county in there so that they can make decisions based on what would be a community standard. This amendment draws a bright line against material that is predominantly pornographic and lacks redeeming value and I urge you to support it. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithA division has been requested. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1937h). This is a division 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. With 191 in the affirmative and 157 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Now the motion is Ought to Pass as Amended. Representative Boudman is recognized to speak against the motion.

Rep. Bobbi Boudman (D - Carr 7)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak in opposition of SB 434. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower while speaking at Dartmouth College declared, "Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go into your library and read every book." My grandfather, Matty Wierzbicki, fought in World War II under Dwight D. Eisenhower's leadership against the book burners. His bravery allows his granddaughter to stand here today in the live free or die state to protect the constitution of the country he loved and fought for. I rise today knowing we all took an oath to protect our first amendment rights and ask this body to please join me in voting no on OTPA and protect our fundamental freedoms.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Kluger is recognized to speak against the motion.

Rep. Lee Ann Kluger (D - Hills 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SB 434 as amended regulates materials in a school district and outlines a detailed parental complaint process when materials are found to be objectionable in the parent's opinion. The bill allows this process to be implemented when the materials are offensive to minors. First, there are already policies and protocols in place in order to address parental complaints. Secondly, this bill could potentially allow one parent to influence material being removed from a school with other parents being unaware of or unsupportive of the material that is being restricted or removed. There are already existing guidelines when educators are selecting materials for their schools. Teachers also consider student reading levels and Lexile scores to select appropriate material for diverse classroom needs. SB 434 does not make a cogent argument in relation to material considered harmful. It expands upon the definition of materials to include books, magazines, motion pictures, films or videos, pamphlets, pictures, drawings, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances or other representations that are provided by the school district. Consequently, the bill has such a broad overreach that it goes far beyond House Bill 324 that Governor Ayotte vetoed last year. Contrary to the Governor's decision, SB 434 includes the potential removal of materials that lack serious literary, artistic or scientific value. Previously, in the veto of HB 324, Governor Ayotte stated that we should not be in the business of judging literary value and appropriateness. Librarians and other educators have the knowledge and skills to choose the materials that are right for the students that they teach. They are the experts in curriculum development. I will say that SB 434 caused me to reflect on the variety of books that I read throughout my childhood. I enjoyed so many genres and particularly loved books about art and history. Many of these books inspired me to embrace art throughout my lifetime. I am grateful that I had educators who encouraged choice and the freedom to learn in the classroom. Classrooms that taught me to discuss and gain perspective about the world. I suggest that we want our students to become independent thinkers who have the freedom to read and to learn. Please vote against SB 434 and I'm requesting a roll call vote. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Noble is recognized to speak in support of the motion.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SB 434 provides a guideline to help school boards make objective decisions when faced with complaints about sexually explicit content in schools. This guideline is the definition for material considered harmful to minors and it is based on the Miller Test, a long-standing legal standard used to determine whether material is legally obscene. The test requires that the material be judged as a whole and meet all three criteria, appealing to prurient interest, patently offensive, and lacking serious value. That's just a summary. You can read the entire definition in the floor amendment. I want to be very clear on one fundamental point. Minors do not have a FirstAmendment right to access or read obscene material. The Supreme Court has long recognized that states may restrict minors' access to obscene or sexually explicit material to protect them without violating the constitution. This principle was reaffirmed last year in a Supreme Court decision on a Texas law for age verification. Just last month, the Eighth Circuit lifted a preliminary injunction on parts of an Iowa book law, citing reasoning from the Fifth Circuit that students are not denied access to a book by its removal from a public school library when material is readily available elsewhere. The court further stated that the FirstAmendment does not guarantee students' right to access any books of their choosing at the taxpayer's expense. Now, we've talked about this subject for a few years now, and I think there's some confusion about what is actually in the schools, and we used to hear that kids need to see themselves reflected in the books that they read. Turns out, most people don't believe that kids need to see themselves with a bunch of couples at an orgy in what is what I will call a number position.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)They don't need to see themselves tied up being spanked with a crop, and most people do not believe that kids need to see themselves with three penises ejaculating into their mouth.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order. It's not like this is our first day. You are going to say things they don't like. They are going to say things you don't like. We're professionals and get through it. The member will continue.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)All of which is available in books in public school libraries. Yes, it is. SB...

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe member will suspend. Seriously, how long do you want this to take? Do you see this up here? We weren't planning on buying dinner. You'll be hungry later. I don't care. The member will continue.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)SB 434 is a simpler, common-sense approach that respects local control while providing clear legal guidance. Either the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from legally defined, obscene or harmful material in public schools as it does outside of schools. Or it doesn't. It's your choice. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended. Representative Kluger 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 the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 434. Representative Megan Murray is recognized for a Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that SB 434, as amended, oversteps well-crafted, locally-arrived-upon policies, stokes confusion by including counties in unclear ways, especially when we don't organize schools that way, and engages in censorship, would I now press the red button so that a more appropriate motion can be made? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Drye is recognized for Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Margaret Drye (R - Sull 7)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the three-pronged Miller Test that will be part of these policies will pass constitutional muster, and if I know that any book that advises students, "There's nothing wrong with enjoying some porn, it's a fun, sugary treat", is a book that probably lacks serious artistic, literary, or scientific value, and finally, if I know that last term, I watched adult legislators walk out of this chamber when material available in New Hampshire public schools was read out loud, calling it offensive and triggering, would I then realize that there might be material harmful to minors in our schools, and press the green button to give school policymakers a proven test with which to vet such material? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is a motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 434, this is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button, if you're 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. With 188 in the affirmative, 161 in the negative, the motion is adopted. MOTION TO RECONSIDER Having voted with the prevailing side, Rep. Seibert moved that the House reconsider its action whereby, on a division vote, the House adopted the motion of Refer for Interim Study on SB 498-FN, relative to children's mental health services for persons 18 years of age and younger. Rep. Miles spoke in favor. Rep. Hunt spoke against. Rep. Seibert requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 162 - NAYS 183 Bordes, Mike Coker, Matthew YEAS - 162 Minor, Sheri St. Clair, Charlie BELKNAP Crawford, Karel Taylor, Brian Boudman, Bobbi Nagel, David Woodcock, Stephen Berch, Paul Fox, Dru Faulkner, Barry CARROLL Jacobs, Samantha Ames, Dick Germana, Nicholas O'Rorke, Terri Murphy, Denis Rhodes, Jennifer Paige, David Jones, Philip Parshall, Lucius Morency, Pete CHESHIRE Korzen, Lori Harvey, Cathryn Gruber, James Newell, Jodi COOS Ouellet, Mike Almy, Susan Fracht, David GRAFTON Sullivan, Jared Lovett, Peter Lucas, Janet Spahr, Terry Stringham, Jerry Sykes, George Hakken-Phillips, Mary Muirhead, Russell Murray, Alissandra Boyd, Bill HILLSBOROUGH Bergeron, Dan Booras, Efstathia Budathoki, Suraj Cornell, Patricia Darby, Will Dargie, Paul Beauchemin, Paige Davis, Fred Foss, Lily Georges, Mary Chourasia, Manoj Grill, Jessica Harriott-Gathright, Linda Hartnett, Tim Elberger, Susan Herbert, Christopher Juris, Louis Kerwin, Erin Gorski, Ted Leapley, Nicole LeClerc, Daniel Lloyd, Christal Hegner, Karen Howard, Molly Murray, Megan MacKenzie, Mark Kluger, Lee Ann Mooney, Maureen Murphy, Nancy Paquette, Kathleen Long, Patrick Plamondon, Marc Presa, Adam Proulx, Mark Miles, Julie Raymond, Heather Rice, Kimberly Rombeau, Catherine Petrigno, Peter Ryan, Linda Newman, Sue Seibert, Christine Newman, Ray Swanson, Dale Telerski, Laura Tellez, Trinidad Rung, Rosemarie Veilleux, Daniel Dolan, William Thomas, Wendy Staub, Kathy Wilhelm, Matthew Vail, Suzanne Wheeler, Jonah Caplan, Tony Colby, Eleana MERRIMACK Ebel, Karen Gallager, Eric Luneau, David Newsom, James Payeur, Stephanie Roesener, James Kelly, Eileen Schamberg, Thomas Schultz, Kris Snodgrass, Jim Hall, Muriel Woods, Gary Boyd, Stephen Wallner, Mary Jane Balboni, Peggy Ball, Lorie ROCKINGHAM Bryer, Scott Cahill, Michael Mannion, Dennis Edgar, Michael Foote, Charles Grote, Jaci Bridle, Nicholas Khan, Aboul Knab, Allison Kuttab, Katelyn Donnelly, Tanya Lundgren, David Pearson, Mark Malloy, Dennis Katsakiores, Phyllis Manos, Zoe Markell, Jay Perez, Kristine Walsh, Lilli Raynolds, Ned Read, Ellen Roy, Terry Mandelbaum, Jennifer Sabourin dit Choini�re, Matt Scherr, Buzz Simpson, Alexis Porcelli, Susan Dolan, Tom Turer, Eric Vallone, Mark Pearson, Stephen MacDonald, Wayne Sorensen, Carrie Vandecasteele, Susan Bay, Luz Butler, Billie STRAFFORD Howard, Heath Horrigan, Timothy Johnson, Erik Levesque, Cassandra Miller, Seth Potenza, Kelley Smith, Geoffrey Wade, Alice Walker, David Wall, Janet LaMontagne, Jessica Selig, Loren Sullivan, Brian Damon, Hope SULLIVAN Aldrich, Glen Freeman, Lisa Rollins, Skip Ploszaj, Tom Terry, Paul Toner, Travis NAYS - 183 Hamblen, Joseph Avellani, Lino Belcher, Mike BELKNAP Peternel, Katy MacDonald, John Smith, Jonathan Harvey-Bolia, Juliet Nalevanko, Rich Hunt, John Karasinski, Sly Qualey, James Thackston, Dick CARROLL Tremblay, Marc Murphy, Michael King, Seth Burroughs, Anita Bjelobrk, Marie Louise McAleer, Chris Ladd, Rick Barton, Joseph Beaulier, Calvin Rockmore, Ellen Cormen, Thomas Fellows, Sallie CHESHIRE Louis, Darrell McFarlane, Donald Boehm, Ralph Sellers, John Stavis, Laurel Mattson, Rita Corcoran, Travis Weber, Lucy DiSilvestro, Linda Alexander, Joe Barbour, Liz Erf, Keith Chretien, Suzanne Colcombe, Rich� COOS Giasson, Henry Creighton, James Kelley, Diane Kesselring, Steven Drew, Matt Dumont, Dillon Tierney, James Leishman, Peter Flanagan, Jack Griffin, Gerald McLean, Mark Gould, Linda Jack, Martin GRAFTON Pauer, Diane Foxx, Loren Labrie, Brian Salvi, Santosh Murphy, Mary Mazur, Lisa Berezhny, Lex Sirois, Shane Noble, Kristin Notter, Jeanine Franz, Linda Ulery, Jordan Post, Lisa Prout, Andrew Oppel, Thomas Schneller, John Scully, Kevin Bricchi, Tracy Slottje, Jeremy Spier, Carry HILLSBOROUGH Devoid, Ricky Warden, Mark Wherry, Robert Leavitt, John Berry, Ross Plante, Raymond Andrus, Louise Aures, Cyril Cole, Brian Soucy, Timothy McGuire, Carol Cambrils, Jose Daniels, Gary Gibbs, Merryl Hill, Gregory Dupont, Pierre DeVito, Sayra Mehegan, Peter Moffett, Michael Gagne, Larry Ford, Mary Polozov, Yury Seaworth, Brian Kenny, Catherine Janigian, John Walsh, Thomas Thibault, James Lascelles, Richard Litchfield, Melissa McGhee, Kat Maggiore, Jim Bennett, Cindy Katherine Bernardy, JD Ohm, Bill Melvin, Charles Drago, Mike Dunn, Ron Reinfurt, Sherri Nadeau, Brian Guthrie, Joseph Guzofski, James Sheehan, Vanessa Potucek, John Murray, Kate Miner, Laurence Mannion, Tom Spillane, James Love, David Lynn, Bob Tripp, Richard McDonnell, Valerie McGrath, Linda MERRIMACK Weyler, Kenneth Meuse, David Milz, David Osborne, Jason Brown, Pam Aylward, Deborah Burton, Wayne Prudhomme-O'Brien, Selby, Donald McGuire, Dan Gilmore, Gary Summers, James Sweeney, Joe Lane, Connie Larochelle, John Tudor, Paul Vose, Michael Pitaro, Matthew Turcotte, Len Wilson, Vicki See, Alvin Bixby, Peter Wood, Clayton Grant, George Bailey, Glenn DeRoy, Susan Palmer, William DeLemus, Susan Howland, Allan ROCKINGHAM Harrington, Michael Schmidt, Peter Smith, Marjorie Thomas, Douglas Pearson, Wayne Drye, Margaret Edwards, Jess Aron, Judy Harb, Robert Cloutier, John Layon, Erica Hemingway, Wayne Paige, Mark Spilsbury, Walter McMahon, Charles Muns, Chris and the motion failed. Popovici-Muller, Daniel Soti, Julius Sytek, John Ward, Gerald

Rep. Dennis Malloy (D - Rock 24)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For over 200 years, New Hampshire has thrived as a state. Every two years we come together as a legislature and pass a balanced budget to keep our state running for the next biennium. The amount of spending will change, things we fund will change, and the way we raise revenue will change. But no matter what, the budget that we pass into law is balanced. That concept of a balanced budget is so ingrained in our state's culture that many people think it's required by our constitution. It's not. It's simply a statutory requirement in RSA 9. So, for over two centuries, New Hampshire has enacted a balanced budget every term despite no constitutional provision requiring us to do so. We've managed to balance our budgets for over 200 years without an income tax and have done so in this very room because we listen to the voters. Now, does that mean we've always done it right? I don't think we have. Some of the decisions that this legislature has made in recent years have set our state and our constituents back. Cuts to business taxes over the past decade have shifted more than a billion dollars of the tax burden onto property taxpayers. Other changes to tax policy that benefit the wealthy have shifted the burden even further. Our constituents understand that what we've been doing isn't working for them and it isn't a sustainable strategy. Granted, staters do not want an income tax. I know that from talking to my constituents in the four communities that I've served since I've been here in the House. Opinion polls consistently tell us the same thing. So if the people don't want an income tax, do they also think the constitution needs to be amended to ban one? The public hearing on this amendment was telling. Despite a month of promotion in the press and on social media, public turnout at the hearing was minimal. Most of the people who showed up to speak in support of the amendment are sitting in this room right now or on the other side of the wall. Of the 16 members of the public who spoke at the hearing, 9 were in support of the amendment and 7 were against it. Among those who registered their opposition online, opponents of this amendment outnumbered supporters by the hundreds. So why the push for this now? It's a great question. Last fall, members of this body filed over 800 bills for the legislature to consider in the 2026 session. This proposal was not one of them. It showed up as a non-germane amendment to a Senate bill a month ago. Amending the constitution is a big deal and should require a high bar. Based on the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this CACR, you'd think we'd pass every constitutional amendment on to voters because it's simply the right thing to do. Just let the people decide. We all know that's not actually how it works. We've taken up 24 constitutional amendment proposals in the House alone this year, on subjects ranging from the right to fish to the right to vote, and only one of those 24 amendments that we've seen fit to pass on to voters is one eliminating the register of probate. So here we are, considering our 25th constitutional amendment of the year, CACR 12. A proposal that may be new to us but also resembles amendments this body rejected in 2019 and 2021. Amending the constitution to ban a tax that doesn't exist will do nothing to reduce the burden of property taxes and the rising cost of essentials like food, housing, and child care that voters are repeatedly voicing today. This amendment is poorly written, unnecessary, and performative. I urge my colleagues to press the red button to defeat this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Ulery is recognized to speak in favor of the amendment.

Rep. Jordan Ulery (R - Hills 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague is correct that about 80% of the people support no income tax in New Hampshire. We've heard in committee about the bad policy banning income tax, how bad that would be for New Hampshire. And yet the suggestion in the minority report that a no income tax policy has received serious consideration belies the recent comments in front of this building. Indeed, inside this hall from members who have marched down and made statements, and if you check your seat pocket, even today in a floor amendment. Anyone suggesting that our colleagues are not serious when demanding that they put forward a policy before the people to vote on whether they are in favor of banning an income tax seems to me to be a rather specious argument. This is not a petition article as those policies deal with implementation. This deals rather with the structure of government. Those with a passing acquaintance with the Constitution of New Hampshire may recognize in Article I that all government of right originates from the people and is founded in consent. The people get to make their own laws in our republican form of government. The amended bill proposes to the voters to ban a personal income tax and allows current business friendly taxes to remain. The benefits or negatives of that proposal must be debated by the people. The tax burden on the people has been reduced. We've done that this year. And whether or not the people want to pay more in taxes for government again resides not with the elected 424, but with all of the people. One must note that in every, every, every jurisdiction in which the issue of property tax is raised at the same time an income tax has been proposed, both have eventually risen. We can take a neighboring state down in Connecticut as an example. Which has one of the highest property taxes and one of the highest income taxes. Our New Hampshire Constitution is designed to limit government thus guaranteeing individual rights. One may recall a constitutional law expert once referred to the U.S. Constitution as a bill of negative rights restricting government. And he was right. Government only allows and only the people can restrain the growth of government. Denying the people the right to vote is not an element of our constitutional form of government. Denying the people the right to vote is most certainly political posturing by those who know more than the people who actually pay the taxes. All arguments, being angry about this, that or whatever the offense de jure is, are not best suited for this room regarding taxes, but rather to be decided by the people who pay the taxes, who expand or restrict government, who tell government what it can and cannot do. Please vote green on the pending motion of Ought to Pass as Amended.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is the adoption of amendment (1134h). Are you ready for the question? Representative Sweeney requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is the adoption of amendment (1134h). Representative Almy is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the leaders of this state have failed to acknowledge the effect of inflation on the value of our money for far too long, choosing instead to reduce the tax burden on large corporations and wealthy individuals, which has produced the structural deficit that we now must live with, and if I know that this has continuously increased the burden of funding of public services and infrastructure on the people we represent, particularly harming the middle class, the disabled and the poor who are struggling to make ends meet, and if I know that New Hampshire ranks 48th nationally in aid to cities and towns and dead last in state education funding, and that the burden of funding public services and infrastructure falls on the property taxpayers here more than in any other state, and if I understand that an income tax is not now in the interest of our state but that we cannot predict what may happen 50, 100, 200 years from now, and if I know all these things and I understand the amendment before us will do absolutely nothing to address the grave effects of unrecognized inflation on our constituents and on our businesses and our economy, would I now press the red button to vote no on this motion?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Sweeney is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker if I know that New Hampshire has thrived for over 200 years without an income tax, and I know we can survive and thrive with 200 more plus years without an income tax, and Mr. Speaker if I know that while some seem to want to keep the door open to an income tax in the future, my voters sent me here to oppose an income tax now and forever, would I now press the green button and prevent the burden of an income tax being added to our taxpayers now and forever. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is the adoption of amendment (1134h). This is a roll call vote. Shocker. 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. With 192 in the affirmative and 148 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Representative Oppel moves floor amendment (1903h) which can be found in your seat pockets and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Thomas Oppel (D - Graf 9)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose I should be proud of the fact that I think I've brought both sides together today. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of talk about allowing New Hampshire citizens to have a say about tax policy and I think it's a little ironic on a couple of fronts. For example, whenever people say we live in a democracy I hear an awful lot of people respond, "no it's a republic." But a republic is by definition a representative form of government not a direct vote by the people. Still. And New Hampshire is not, unlike say our neighbor in Maine, a voter initiative state. However, previous speakers have been correct, there is some tax policy that is written into our constitution. Other members have mentioned certain articles. Article XII in the first part of our constitution clearly states that every member of this community has a right to be protected. But it goes on to say in return everyone is "bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection." Articles V and VI in part 2 specifically require this legislature to impose taxes at a uniform rate and courts have so ruled that that rate must be a flat tax. So if we are indeed considering taking the question of an income tax to the people, I believe we should provide them with a clear choice rather than a question that is phrased in a way to elicit a predetermined outcome. Floor amendment (2026-1903h) does not impose an income tax. Rather, if adopted by our citizens it would permit the future adoption of a progressive income tax, which now would not be permitted. That progressive income tax would mean higher rates could be applied to higher income levels. In other words, those with more would pay more. As opposed to our current system that continues to levy the heaviest burden on people with the least. This amendment would also require that revenue from such an income tax be strictly devoted to support public schools in finally keeping with more than three decades of court decisions that found the state has continually failed its constitutional duty to support public schools. And finally, and this is critically important, and I'm certainly hearing this from my constituents, it would stipulate that an increase in state support for public education from this new revenue source. Provide an equal reduction in local school property taxes. This is not about increasing overall spending on our public schools. It is an effort to reduce two disparities in our current funding scheme. First, the tyranny of geography where wide differences in property values cause wide differences in financial support for schools. And my district struggles with that every single year. And second, the tyranny of a tax system in which the greatest burden is imposed on those with the least resources, while the wealthy and well connected are truly the only beneficiaries of the so called New Hampshire Advantage. It is well past time to fulfill our constitutional obligations to adequately support our public schools and to require everyone to pay their fair share as the constitution dictates by ending the current reverse Robin Hood scheme. If you truly believe that the citizens of New Hampshire deserve to be heard on this issue. Let's offer a real and reasoned question for them to consider rather than one that is simply performative political sloganeering. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you to the member for yielding to my question. Does the member want an income tax in New Hampshire?

Rep. Thomas Oppel (D - Graf 9)I am advocating today for an amendment to permit a future progressive income tax.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker just moments ago we passed an amendment to this CACR. That would ban an income tax from ever being considered in the state of New Hampshire. And we just heard that there are those among us who want a progressive income tax in our state. While we have just voted to slam the door shut on taxing people's wages and incomes and earnings in the state of New Hampshire, there are those among us who want to open the door wide open so that they can go into your wallet and take your earnings, your income, your wages. This is not for New Hampshire. This is for someone else. The constitution as a document does not enable the government to do things. The constitution is a restraint on the government; a restraint on the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch giving the power to the people of New Hampshire. Our amendment that we've already adopted under CACR 12 would place a further restraint on the state government to never allow an income tax in the future. This amendment brought forward by democrat members of this house would open the door and enable the government to tax your income and they're going to say, you know, it's going to be progressive, guys. We're going to start it off that only the top 1% has to pay this tax. Every single state, Mr. Speaker, that has imposed an income tax for temporary purposes or only at the top 1% eventually slides that scale down and every single working member of society is then forced to pay their income tax to continue to fund the bureaucracy and the out of control zealots that then dominate the government and swamp culture that it creates. We can keep New Hampshire on the right path today. We can protect our New Hampshire advantage and make sure that the New Hampshire that has thrived over the last 200 years can thrive for another 200 more. But we cannot do that if we adopt this radical amendment to our constitution. So on this amendment, I urge the body to vote no. And then when we get to the final ought to pass as amended on CACR 12, we should in unison on a bipartisan basis, vote yes. But on this amendment, please preserve the New Hampshire advantage and vote no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To clarify for my member from Salem, one Democrat brought forward this amendment. Also to clarify, the zealots who are in the majority in this body right now are not Democrats. They're Republicans. Thank you. You may recall that a couple of months ago, I stood at this well and urged the House to reject a floor amendment to a CACR that we were just seeing for the first time. Well, in the words of Yogi Berra, it's d�j� vu all over again. The amendment before you was drafted on Tuesday afternoon. None of us knew it existed 48 hours ago. Just like the proposal I spoke against back in March, this isn't a typical floor amendment. It is a complete rewrite of a proposed constitutional amendment. And instead of following the normal legislative process, it was dropped in our laps at the 11th hour. That means no public hearing, no committee review, no recommendation from Ways and Means, just a brand new constitutional amendment presented long after the committee process was completed with the expectation that we rubber stamp it. Sound familiar? That was a bad way to legislate two months ago, and it's a bad way to legislate today. The bottom line is that granite staters do not want an income tax. Period. It seems like we've done a good job listening to the people we represent. No proposal to enact an income tax has received serious consideration this century. This amendment would not gain the support of our constituents and is being presented in a way that circumvents the thorough work we do as lawmakers. I urge you to vote no.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of amendment (1903h). Are you ready for the question? Who got that first? Representative Dan McGuire requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1903h). Representative Simpson is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Mr. Speaker, if I know this amendment was filed at the last minute, bypassing the entire committee process that this body uses to vet legislation, and if I know that the people of New Hampshire do not want an income tax, would I now press the red button to oppose the pending motion? Speaker Steven Smith: The question is on the adoption of FloorAmendment (1903h). 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. With 17 in the affirmative and 322 in the negative, the amendment fails. Now the motion is Ought to Pass with amendment. Are you ready for the question? Representative Giasson requests a roll call. Which is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, back in your seats. The question ins on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass withAmendment. Representative Sphar is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. SpharThank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that for 242 years the citizens of New Hampshire have given its representatives their consent to tax or not to tax earned income, and for 242 years those legislatures have never passed an earned income tax, and if I believe we do not need a constitutional amendment to continue to listen to the people who elect us to represent their best interests in this chamber, then I would now push the red button.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Osborne is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jason Osborne (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Look, if I know that in the words of my friends from Nashua and Exeter that we agree that the people of New Hampshire do not want an income tax and if I know that at the behest of my friend from Exeter that we held an extensive public hearing for this very amendment that we are voting on today and gave 4 weeks advance notice so that we could get as much participation from the public and from both sides of the aisle as possible, and if I know that now, today there are no excuses left, and that is our responsibility to give every granite stater the opportunity to say no income tax, not now, not ever, and if I agree with John Stark that death is not the worst of evils, but I know that an income tax just might be, would I now press the green button?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass withAmendment on CACR 12. 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. With 193 in the affirmative, and 148 in the negative, it fails to reach the three fifths threshold.

Rep. Connie Lane (D - Merr 16)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the majority has been steadily increasing the amounts that individuals and political committees can give directly or indirectly to candidates over the past eight years, and if I know that one of the best antidotes for harm that money brings to elections is full transparency of the donors, and if I know that the reasons given for increasing the threshold to $1,000 are flimsy at best, since the inflation would bring the amount to $250, not $1,000, and it's ludicrous to claim that a donor will not give to a candidate of their choice if they have to provide identifying information, then when I press the red button to support transparency in campaign finance donations? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Wood is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Clayton Wood (R - Merr 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know SB 504 increases the thresholds within reason, reasonable amounts of $200 and $1,000 before this disclosure, and I know my constituents appreciate being able to give low amounts of money to a state representative position where they know that money is very effective and probably not affected in any other election, and if I know this completely simplifies the process because trying to keep track of a few dollars is pretty much ridiculous, I would say that this would still get the job done because everything over $200 would be collected and everything over $1,000 would have the occupational information, then would I vote green? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 405. This is a division 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. With 176 in the affirmative, and 159 negative, the committee reports adopted. SB 298-FN, relative to sober living house certification and operational standards. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY. Rep. Paul Dargie for the Majority of Executive Departments and Administration. This bill requires the development of a certification process for recovery residences that are sometimes referred to as sober homes. The certification of recovery homes is currently voluntary, and some residences operate without certification. This bill will ensure that recovery residences follow evidence-based practices that meet state and national standards to ensure the safety and health of residents. Many recovery residences are currently well-run, but there is no universal certification of that status so potential residents do not know for sure what they are getting into when they move into a facility. This bill will ensure that all recovery residences operating in New Hampshire meet the existing health and safety standards. The amendment provides several needed corrections to the bill that were identified during testimony, including a change of the effective date of the bill to July 2027 to allow time for residences that are currently not compliant with the regulations to implement the changes needed to gain compliance. Passing the bill at this time instead of going to interim study will provide certainty to residence operators and allow them a full year to gain certification. This bill was supported 79-1 on the house online testimony portal. Vote 9-7. Rep. Jeremy Slottje for the Minority of Executive Departments and Administration. The minority recommends that this bill be referred for interim study because transitioning New Hampshire's recovery housing from a voluntary registry to a mandatory, state-enforced certification system introduces severe complexities that risk causing more harm than good. By criminalizing uncertified operations through immediate ceaseand-desist orders and attorney general referrals, this mandate threatens to shut down vital, peer-led sober homes operating on razor-thin margins, drastically reducing available bed capacity and exacerbating the state's homelessness and addiction crises. Furthermore, the bill relies on ambiguous "nationally recognized standards," creates a tangled web of local zoning and fire code inspection backlogs, and lacks a completed fiscal note to detail the immense administrative cost to the Department of Health and Human Services. As amended, the bill would not take effect until next summer which means that an interim study followed by successful legislation would not delay implementation. An interim study will allow stakeholders, municipal officials, and recovery advocates to collaborate on a balanced framework that ensures resident safety without dismantling New Hampshire's essential recovery infrastructure. MajorityAmendment (1751h) Amend the bill by replacing section 1 with the following: 1 New Paragraph; Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse; Definitions. Amend RSA 172-B:1 by inserting after para- graph XIII the following new paragraph: XIII-a. "Recovery residence" means a home-like environment for individuals recovering from substance use disorder centered around peer-support that provides an alcohol-free and drug-free living environment or any other business holding themselves out as recovery housing, sober living, or a recovery residence. This term shall not include a halfway house, treatment unit, or detoxification facility. Amend RSA 172-B:2, V(a)(3) as inserted by section 2 of the bill by replacing it with the following: (3) Criteria by which the department may revoke certification of [exclude] a residence [from the list] if the frequency [or] and/or severity of complaints received supports a determination that the recovery [housing] residence at issue does not maintain standards or provide an environment that appropriately supports recovery. Amend RSA 172-B:2, VII(b)-(d) as inserted by section 2 of the bill by replacing it with the following: (b) The certifying body shall investigate complaints received by the department regarding non-compliance with [NARR] nationally recognized standards. The certifying body shall provide an annual report to the department, and shall report quarterly on any newly certified [houses] residences or [houses] residences that are out of compliance. The certifying body shall inform the department and the municipality in which a recovery house operates within [5] 3 business days if [a recovery house's] certification is suspended or revoked. [(c) The department shall identify certified recovery houses in good-standing on the registry created pursuant to paragraph V. (d) The department shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to the process for certification and the requirements of this paragraph.] Amend RSA 172-B:2, VIII and IX as inserted by section 2 of the bill by replacing it with the following: VIII. All recovery residences operating in the state of New Hampshire shall file with the department, on a form prescribed by the department, within 120 days of the effective date of this section to initiate the certification process. For any recovery housing residence that begins operations after the effective date of this section, the required form shall be filed with the department no later than 30 days before the first resident begins occupancy. The following information shall be included on the form: (a) The name and contact information of the operator; (b) The first date of occupancy; (c) Information related to any existing certification or equivalent accreditation the residence has obtained or is in the process of obtaining; and (d) Any other information required by the department through rule. IX. All recovery residences operating within the state of New Hampshire shall obtain and maintain certification directly or through a contracted entity pursuant to the rules adopted under this chapter and the following: (a) Certification shall be completed within 12 months of filing. A recovery residence shall not operate without certification unless it is actively engaged in efforts to obtain certification. For purposes of identifying this 12-month time frame, a recovery housing residence is considered to begin operating on the date that the first resident occupies the residence. (b) If the department finds that a recovery residence is operating without certification, the department shall issue by certified mail a cease operations notice. The department shall notify the municipality in which a recovery house operates and the attorney general for prosecution. (c) No person, business, or government entity shall advertise or represent any residence or other building to be a recovery residence, sober living home, or any other alcohol and drug free housing for persons recovering from substance use disorder unless the residence or building meets one of the following conditions: (1) The residence or building is certified under this chapter; or (2) The residence or building is regulated and licensed by the department. Amend the bill by replacing all after section 3 with the following: 4 Department of Health and Human Services; Funding. The department shall not be required to implement the provisions of this act until such date that the program is sufficiently funded to meet the requirements of sections 1 through 3 of this act. 5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2027. The question being adoption of the majority committee amendment. Amendment adopted. The question now being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass withAmendment. Rep. Layon offered floor amendment (1958h). FloorAmendment (1958h) Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following: AN ACT relative to the scope of review of state agency interpretations, prohibiting the use of scented products in public areas of state buildings, and establishing a committee to study the implementation and effectiveness of the mandatory statewide certification process and operational standards for recovery residences. Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following: 1 New Section; Standards for Review. Amend RSA 541-A by inserting after section 24 the following new section: 541-A:24-a Standards for Review. I. In interpreting a state statute, regulation, or other subregulatory agency document, a state court or an officer hearing an administration action shall not defer to a state agency's interpretation of the statute, regulation, or subregulatory document and shall instead interpret its meaning and effect de novo. II. In actions brought by or against state agencies, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing officer shall resolve any remaining doubt as to legal meaning in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes liberty for the individuals impacted by restrictions, fees, fines, or civil or criminal action as a result of the state statute, regulation, or other subregulatory agency document. 2 New Section; Statutory Construction. Amend RSA 21 by inserting after section 55 the following new section: 21:56 Presumption of Liberty in Administrative Law. Consistent with RSA 541-A:24-a, in actions brought by or against state agencies, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, a court or hearing officer shall resolve any remaining doubt as to legal meaning in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes liberty for the individuals impacted by restrictions, fees, fines, or civil or criminal action as a result of the state statute, regulation or other subregulatory agency document. 3 Legislative Findings. With respect to sections 3 and 4 of this act: I. Scented products, including air fresheners, scented flame or flameless wax products, oils, hand sanitizers, and scented cleaning products, can be an irritant or trigger a reaction in people with certain medical conditions, such as asthma or allergies. II. The American Medical Association has recommended government agencies support the use of fragrance-free products. III. To ensure that state government is, to the greatest extent possible, open to all the people, including those with medical conditions aggravated by scented products, the general court finds that limiting the use of fragrance-containing products would serve the public interest. 4 New Subdivision; Fragrance-Free Requirements in State Buildings Open to the Public. Amend RSA 155 by inserting after section 83 the following new subdivision: Fragrance-Free Requirements in State Buildings Open to the Public 155:84 Fragrance-Free Requirements in State Buildings Open to the Public. I. In this section: (a) "Open to the public" means buildings, or areas of buildings, that maintain regular hours during which any member of the public may visit, or that are routinely used for appointments with members of the public. (b) "Fragrance dispensing devices" means automatic, manual, or reactive devices that dispense a scent into the air, including but not limited to plug-in air fresheners, wall-mounted dispensers, and aerosol sprays. II. Not more than one year from the effective date of this section, in all areas of buildings owned or operated by the state that are open to the public, the state shall: (a) Use only fragrance-free cleaning products; (b) Provide only fragrance-free products in restrooms and any other personal hygiene locations; and (c) Prohibit the use of fragrance dispensing devices. 5 Committee Established. There is established a committee to study the implementation and effectiveness of the mandatory statewide certification process and operational standards for recovery residences. Membership and Compensation. I. The members of the committee shall be as follows: (a) Three members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house of repre- sentatives. (b) Two members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate. II. Members of the committee shall receive mileage at the legislative rate when attending to the duties of the committee. 7 Duties. The committee shall conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based investigation and evaluation of mandatory certification for all recovery residences in New Hampshire to replace the prior voluntary registration system. It shall specifically investigate and evaluate: I. Evaluate and refine the statutory definition of "recovery residence" to establish clear, objective criteria for determining which multi-person shared living arrangements fall under the mandatory certification requirement, including factors such as number of unrelated adult residents, primary purpose of substance use disorder recovery support, provision of an alcohol- and illicit-drug-free environment, absence of on-site clinical treatment services, and exclusions for licensed treatment facilities, family homes, general roommate arrangements, or other housing models. II. Assess risks of over- or under-inclusion and recommend bright-line rules or self-attestation processes. III. Assess the application, review, approval, renewal, and appeal processes; the role of certifying entities; inspector training and capacity; fee structures; and the amendment's delayed implementation and funding contingencies. IV. Review the 39 standards for alignment with current federal SAMHSA Best Practices (11 guiding principles and 4 domains of recovery), National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR) Levels 1-4, Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, and other federal requirements. V. Evaluate medication management, non-discrimination against Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) users, secure storage, and Narcan training. VI. Investigate the feasibility of voluntary designations for MAT-friendly versus MAT-free (abstinenceonly) housing options with clear disclosure requirements. VII. Identify gaps and recommend updates to fit New Hampshire's needs. VIII. Map the standards and process against all relevant federal mandates and funding conditions. IX. Evaluate the potential for state-level waivers, variances, pilot programs, or alternative compliance pathways to address unique New Hampshire needs such as geography, funding, or operator capacity. X. Assess legal, fiscal, and practical feasibility of seeking federal approvals. XI. Investigate inspection frequency, complaint protocols, due-process safeguards (including the amendment's modifications), revocation procedures, penalties, and data transparency requirements. XII. Measure compliance costs, risks of closures, effects on affordability and distribution, and implications from MAT policies or federal alignment. XIII. Evaluate improvements in safety, stability, and recovery success, with specific focus on MAT users versus abstinence-only preferences, accessibility for diverse populations, and potential barriers. XIV. Investigate neighborhood effects, interactions with local zoning and ordinances, coordination with other state and federal systems, and workforce impacts. XV. Quantify costs, potential federal funding opportunities, cost savings, and sustainable funding mechanisms, including those related to waivers. XVI. Compare with other states, conduct public hearings and surveys with diverse stakeholders, evaluate equity impacts, develop metrics for ongoing evaluation, and identify unintended consequences. 8 Chairperson; Quorum. The members of the study committee shall elect a chairperson from among the members. The first meeting of the committee shall be called by the first-named house member. The committee shall meet at least 10 times. The first meeting of the committee shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. Four members of the committee shall constitute a quorum. 9 Report. The committee shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2026. 10 Effective Date. I. Sections 1 and 2 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2027. II. Sections 3 and 4 of this act shall take effect 60 days after its passage. III. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage. 2026-1958h

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment would attach two bills that we had already, one being the establishment of experimental treatment centers and one being the right to try experimental treatments for people who are not at the terminal stage of their life. That sounds like a great idea. But as those bills were drafted, it turns patients' desperation into profit centers. It takes away all of the protections that patients have currently when they are undergoing experimental treatments and removes them. And unfortunately, yes, it's wonderful that people want to expedite care and medications. But when we do that at the expense, and I really do mean expense, because currently if you're undergoing experimental treatment, you may not be charged for it because you are providing the service of allowing yourself to be used as a guinea pig. This allows not only the medical provider to charge the patient, it also allows the producer of the medication or device to charge the patient. So patients can be charged twice, and there are very few controls remaining that protect a patient from being preyed on by people who want to monetize their desperation. Finally, I would just say that turning the legislative process into a giant game of chicken to see who's going to blink first before a catastrophe happens or introducing adulterated meat into the sausage making process so that people can have food poisoning is not a good way to pass laws. We deserve a clean up or down vote on each issue without this kind of adulteration. So, I urge people to vote red and thank you very much.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year I had the privilege of sponsoring HB 701, which expanded New Hampshire's protections for terminally ill patients seeking experimental therapies. The governor's remarks at the signing ceremony sent a clear message. New Hampshire is open for business and for patients. Innovative biotech companies from around the country heard that message and came in droves to testify before the House and Senate HHSEA committees on HB 1734 and HB 1735, which are included in this amendment. These companies asked us to follow models already working in Montana and Florida to create a legal framework for emerging treatments and build a rare disease ecosystem right next to Boston. I dream of seeing that kind of growth here in New Hampshire. But this amendment is about far more than jobs and economic development. It is about patients and saving lives. When critics say we should slow down and wait for Congress to overhaul FDA regulations, I think about the families we worked on last year's Right to Try bill. I think about baby Athena, born after her father Jake died of throat cancer. Evidence suggested a microbiome transfer could have helped him respond to immunotherapy, but fear of regulation and liability delayed treatment until it was too late. I also think of Giannis, a happy five-year-old boy with a rare genetic mutation who was not expected to live past age 10. When his parents asked if he had a message for New Hampshire legislators, Giannis simply said he wanted you all to know that he loves zebras. Today, thanks to therapies being developed by the very companies looking to come here, individualized gene editing could save children like Giannis. But even the FDA admits it has no framework for offering these treatments at scale. Thankfully, for the last decade, the FDA has allowed states to create their own expanded access frameworks. That means we in this chamber have the opportunity to lead. The live free or die state can help save lives by combining proven legal concepts from states like Montana with the biotech infrastructure of Manchester and greater Boston. This should not be partisan. In Montana, Republicans and Democrats worked together for patients, and these bills include provisions to help low-income families access care. Patients have already waited too long for states to step up. Today, New Hampshire has the chance to lead and help save lives. Please press the green button.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of amendment (1951h). A division has been requested. Representative Mazur requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of amendment (1951h). Representative Weber is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that our current right to try law provides protections for patients as well as permission to make their own decisions, and if I know that this extension of that law removes those protections for all patients, and if I remember clearly that one of the proponents of this bill testified in our committee that this bill would make New Hampshire the wild, wild west of risk-taking, would I press the red button once again to defeat this amendment?

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

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that this legislature already supported expanded access to experimental therapies through HB 701, and that we should not hesitate to continue that mission with this amendment, and if I know that families like Jake's and children like Giannis are running out of time while promising therapies already exist, and finally, if I know that New Hampshire should not wait years for federal action and lead with hope and innovation now, would I then press the green button?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of floor amendment (1951h). 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. 188 in the affirmative, 153 in the negative. The amendment is adopted. Now the motion is Ought to Pass as Amended. Are you ready for the question? Representative Popovici-Muller requests a roll call, and it is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The question is the main motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 504. 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. 197 in the affirmative, 145 in the negative. The motion is adopted. (Representative Steven Smith in the Chair)

Rep. GermanaThank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to do something which is relatively rare, and that is to assume for the purpose of this debate that everybody regardless of which side they are one is coming at this with good faith; with good faith and commitment to the concern about public safety. Even if you believe that some version of the campus carry bill will make students, faculty, and staff safer, it is far from clear that this approach will result in a policy that will accomplish that in the end. Those of you who know me and have worked with me know that I'm not generally inclined to see the purported wisdom of some of the decisions made by our friends on the other side of the wall. But even Senators who are inclined to a more expansive reading of the SecondAmendment than I am, raised very serious questions about how the application of this policy would work on our state college and university campuses. For example, how are our institutions going to regulate the storage of firearms in dorm rooms on campus? If an individual has a firearm in their dorm room, they leave for a day, they leave for the weekend. If that firearm is not properly secured, what are the potential consequences? What are the potential liabilities that that situation raises? Whether or how our colleges and universities would be able to regulate firearms in situations where there was likely to be alcohol consumption was a question that was repeatedly raised by some of our colleagues on the other side of the wall who as I said, have a very different interpretation of the SecondAmendment than I do. One republican Senator during a hearing pointed out that all of our military academies have regulation regarding the access of firearms for their students on their campuses. The Governor has raised very serious questions. I don't think that anyone can accuse this Governor of not caring about SecondAmendment rights. I certainly wouldn't. But she's raised very serious questions talking to law enforcement agents in and around our college and university towns about what this means for their ability to interact with local campus security, in order to guarantee the safety of students. I know where I teach, Keene State College in Keene, we don't have an armed enforcement branch on campus. We have an unarmed campus security. We rely on Keene city police, a police department that is understaffed, in order to help us manage some of the most difficult security arrangements that we have to deal with on our campus. Those are very real concerns about public safety. Those are all very real concerns about the financial impact to our colleges and universities who are already struggling with the level of funding that they have to meet the obligations that they have to all of their students, to the faculty, to the staff and to the parents who spend their money to send their children to our institutions. These are all serious and meaningful questions. Mr. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we all want the same outcome, the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities and safety on our campuses. Even if you support the underlying policy, what I ask, Mr. Speaker, and what I ask of my colleagues is that we listen to what we heard in public hearings, we listen to the questions that were raised by members on the other side of the wall. That we give this the time that it deserves to make sure that we get it right. Interim study, the recommendation on the other side of the wall, is the appropriate outcome for HB 1793. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Please do not attach it to this very worthy underlying bill. Let's take the time to make sure we get it right and we can revisit it when we have a lot of those open questions answered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the amendment (1929h). A roll call has been called for, and it is sufficiently seconded, so members take your seats. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is the amendment (1929h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Muirhead for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Russell Muirhead (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that students at UNH are very concerned about this bill, concerned about how it will be implemented on campus, if I know that law enforcement at all levels are opposed to this proposal, if I know that the Governor has expressed grave concerns about this proposal and that another bill has been amended on the other side of the wall and would address the Governor's concerns, then would I press the red button so that we can move ahead with the underlying bill?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Farrington for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Samuel Farrington (R - Straf 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that college students are being deprived of their natural rights, and if I know that gun-free zones leave people as defenseless and vulnerable victims, and if I know that 11 other states have passed similar legislation with decades of data disproving every single what-if situation that the critics raise, and finally, Mr. Speaker, if I know that the only further study needed on this bill is picking up the New Hampshire Constitution and reading Article 2a, then would I now press the green button and remain faithful to our oath of office?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us on floor amendment (1929h). 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 the state of the vote. 159 voting yea. 177 voting nay. The amendment fails. We're now back to the original motion of Ought to Pass on the majority committee report. The Chair recognizes representative Ebel. She's waving off. Chair recognizes Representative Sweeney. He waves off also. Moving on. The Chair recognizes Representative Dan McGuire.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking in opposition to House Bill 408. Way back in the midst of time, before our senior US Senator was even a state Senator, we had a real market for health care. Um, we had more than a dozen companies offering health insurance, rates were low, and there was active competition. But what's happened over the years is bills like this one have passed adding requirements on health insurance and the net result is that there's almost no real market anymore. There's Anthem, there might be a handful of others, but health insurance is costly, and every plan is the Cadillac plan, right? There there's no choice about what features you want and so on. This particular bill is yet another little mandate. It adds, you know, it's not a big one. By my calculation, it adds maybe a quarter of a percent to the cost of health care in New Hampshire, which means it's about an $8 million cost on people who buy health insurance. And it's including the state, right? So, the state covering our 10,000 employees, this is maybe another $300,000 that we're going to have to pay. So, it's not a big deal. All right? But it but the problem is this whole area is the death of a thousand cuts. Right. This is a bill that moves us in the wrong direction. If we want to go back to having inexpensive health insurance, if we want to go back to having choice in health insurance, this is a step in the wrong direction. And I ask you to vote no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mr. Speaker, I move to table Senate Bill 408.

Speaker PackardThat is a priority motion. So the motion before us is to table Senate Bill 408. A division has been requested. Members, take your seats. The motion before us is to table Senate Bill 408. This is a division vote. Chair recognizes representative Ebel for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Karen Ebel (D - Merr 7)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the Finance Committee approved this uh this bill with only three folks opposing it, if I know that the prosthetics that would be available to adults over 19 are extremely important to those folks to be able to live a life the way they feel and the way we feel they should be able to live, and if I know there is absolutely no reason at this point to table this bill, it was fully discussed at the policy committee and it was fully discussed at finance, would I now vote red and turn aside this last minute attempt to table this good bill? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognized Representative Sweeney for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the vice chairman of finance just raised some excellent points regarding this legislation and if I know I probably should have listened to him during the Finance Committee discussion on this, would I now press the green button to table this bill? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to table Senate Bill 408. 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 an opportunity to vote? The House will attend a state of the vote. 148 voting yea,189 voting nay, the motion fails. Now we're back to the original motion majority committee report of Ought to Pass on Senate Bill 408. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say aye, those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Nancy Murphy (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to Finance Committee amendment (1798h) to SB 557, a creative consumer protection bill meant to address this very troubling nationwide public health threat with dangerous health impacts and associated risk of abuse and dependency. This requires immediate and impactful policies to educate consumers, and regulatory action to limit access to synthetic, semi-synthetic, and highly concentrated 7-OH-containing products, especially for our most vulnerable citizens, our children. Given the FDA and DHHS have weighed in, the Liquor Commission is awaiting the opportunity to provide enforcement, and federal scheduling by the DEA is currently in the process of review, (1798h) is not the most appropriate solution at this time. It is possible to move forward on this issue while continuing to protect natural, unadulterated creative and allowing it to remain available for traditional use and potential therapeutic benefits, as well as a harm reduction alternative. I'd like to speak to my opposition to amendment (1798h) on two fronts. First, based on how this amendment came to be, and second, based upon what it does and doesn't do. This amendment, which essentially seeks to return SB 557 to a version of a Senate floor amendment that would classify kratom as a Schedule II controlled drug, is now before us, should be concerning to all of us for three reasons; 1. House Rule 31.Amendment (1798h) is a Finance Committee replace-all policy amendment to SB 557 that comes to us not from the appropriate policy committee, Criminal Justice and Public Safety, but rather from a committee tasked with legislative financial oversight and fiscal decision making. Not only doesn't this make any sense to me, but given the other points I'll make, it seems inappropriate that it's even being considered. These vastly disparate committees are set up to have entirely different areas of domain expertise. I would venture to guess that most of us here recognize the benefit and value of standing committees having specific jurisdictions and why it makes sense to essentially stay in our own lane. This allows for division of duties, those best suited by way of education, experience, and expertise to review and recommend disposition of the bills and amendments that come before us and ensure that each bill receives appropriate consideration. 2. the House Finance Committee amendment (1798h) entirely disregards the work and decisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, the appropriate policy committee of jurisdiction. It willfully ignores that after a public hearing was held on the underlying bill, it was reviewed and amended, and in a CJ exec session, passed with unanimous bipartisan agreement 13-0 on consent. It later passed in this chamber on the consent calendar, pursuant to House Rule 52, because it did not have a fiscal impact or appropriation. And last, but certainly not least, 3. when bills pass unanimously on consent and have absolutely no fiscal impact or appropriation, there appears to be absolutely no need for justification for them to be referred to Finance. We have all seen bills that have well-deserved fiscal notes be waived off, yet today we are considering an amendment to an underlying bill that has no fiscal impact from a committee whose primary responsibility is to concern itself with fiscal impacts and appropriations.Amendment (1798h) was not written to address any fiscal impacts of SB 557, as none existed to begin with. Yet in its decision to supersede the criminal justice and public safety policy, this amendment, which now criminalizes kratom, will in fact actually create new and indeterminable costs to local, state, and county government, given the amendment's requirements of law enforcement, the judiciary, and corrections. In addition to these new fiscal impacts that were nonexistent in the underlying bill, amendment (1798h) seeks to establish an enforceable threshold for law enforcement by setting a 70-H concentration threshold level above which this kratom product would be classified as a Schedule II drug with the associated fines and felony-level penalties. Regulatory action and industry data show that as opposed to natural-leaf kratom, which typically contains less than 500 parts per million of 70-H, the 1,000 parts per million of 70-H on a dry-weight basis that this amendment proposes as the threshold concentration level is well into the range of the problematic spiked or enhanced product that the underlying bill was able to address without criminalization. According to the National Institute of Health, a 1,000 parts per trillion kratom product is significantly above 2.5 to 10 times higher than typical natural levels. Though the Finance majority report states that (1798h) mirrors actions recently taken in Florida and Kentucky with similar concentration-based standards, my research indicates that neither of those states allow concentration standards above 400 parts per million, making the limit proposed in the Finance amendment before us more than twice as high as in these states. Kratom products of concern can be addressed civilly and administratively rather than criminally while our federal government completes its current review of potential federal scheduling actions. I urge my colleagues to push the red button to oppose amendment (1798h) so that a better motion can be made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Stringham.

Rep. Jerry Stringham (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the new amendment before us today but let me begin with what every member here already knows. We all agree that synthetic and semi-synthetic kratom poses real dangers to granite staters. Most of us have heard the testimony. Some of us have seen it. For some of us, it's way too close to home. We know that at high concentrations, these chemically altered forms of kratom can produce opioid-like effects that lead us to overdose. We know that kratom-infused energy drinks are sitting on convenience stores' shelves right now, available to anyone who comes in, including children, who today have complete, unfettered access to every form of kratom in the state. There are no age restrictions, no labeling requirements, no safety standards, nothing. Every member of this body agrees this must change. This is not in dispute. Both versions of SB 557 before us reflect that shared commitment. The question before us today is not whether we act. We will act, and we should. The question is how we act, and whether we choose the approach most likely to actually get this product off the shelves and protect our kids. Before we vote, I want to make sure that every member of this body understands the concrete practical differences between what we are being asked to adopt today and what the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee actually recommended. The committee's version, endorsed unanimously 13-0 and passed by this body on a voice vote, assigns enforcement to the State Liquor Commission. This is not a minor procedural detail. The Liquor Commission already regulates and inspects the various establishments where synthetic kratom is predominantly sold, which is convenience stores, vape shops, gas stations, all operating under state liquor and tobacco licenses. The Commission's own Deputy Chief of Licensing and Enforcement testified before a committee that this approach would remove at least three-quarters of the synthetic kratom currently in circulation because the vast majority of it is found in these licensed establishments already subject to Liquor Commission oversight. This is targeted, efficient, and builds on an existing regulatory infrastructure. The new amendment takes an entirely different approach. It reaches into the criminal code, classifies synthetic kratom as a controlled substance, and makes possession and sale a criminal matter, which means police enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and potentially incarceration. And we're not talking about regulating a product at point of sale. We are talking about sending law enforcement to pursue users and sellers of a substance that is today, under federal law, as well as state law, is purchased by people managing chronic pain and opioid recovery. Ask yourself, which of these approaches is more New Hampshire? One that leverages a regulatory agency that already walks into these stores, checks licenses, and pulls products from the shelves? Or ones that adds another item to the criminal docket of our already stretched police departments and courts? The fiscal note in the Senate version of this bill acknowledges the impact of a judicial system, corrections, and law enforcement. These costs are real. They fall across not only the state government, but locally, and they fall on New Hampshire taxpayers and communities. The proponents of this new amendment argue that the Liquor Commission approach leaves a loophole. That sellers without a liquor and tobacco license could continue selling kratom freely. Now, this is a fair point. But the answer to a regulatory gap is to close the gap through smarter regulation, and 557 is certainly not the end of the story. What is not the answer is to abandon regulation entirely in favor of criminalization. We should vote down this new amendment and support the thoughtful, enforcement-ready approach that our own committee developed. The Liquor Committee framework gets the product off the shelves where it matters most and fast, without creating a new class of criminals or burdening our law enforcement with a problem that a licensing agency can handle more efficiently. I thank you for your attention to this important matter. Please vote red on this amendment so that we can make a better motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Sweeney.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, in the committee process, when a bill comes from a policy committee to the Finance Committee for review, the Finance Committee still talks with the same stakeholders, agency heads, the Liquor Commission, individuals that are involved in whatever policy is being discussed, and there's not a blanket restriction on the Finance Committee looking really deeply into a policy to make sure that we get it right. I appreciate the work the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee put into the bill, but I do recognize some of the shortfalls that the previous Speaker even mentioned. That approach of the bill as it currently stands, not in this amendment, but as it currently stands before us, would only ban the sale of kratom products at Liquor Commission licensees. So, you could have a Liquor Commission licensee, and then right next door you have an unlicensed kratom shop, and they could sell whatever type of kratom, however you want to pronounce it, to anybody in the state at any given moment. We looked at and I talked to folks about what the actual levels of the bad part of kratom is, and for those that don't know, kratom is a leaf that grows typically in tropical climates from Southeast Asia. It was actually first brought over to the United States through Vietnam War veterans who had chewed on it or made it into tea during the Vietnam War. They brought it back to the United States, and that's what created the market in America for it. The natural tea leaves, you could go into coffee shops or tea shops throughout New Hampshire, and they might have kratom tea for you to be able to purchase and drink. A great comparison that I was given on kratom is that it's similar to the poppy on a poppy seed bagel, right? Like the one poppy is not going to kill you, or the handful of them on the bagel won't, but obviously if you take a lot of poppies and you synthesize it, it creates a bad drug. What this does and what the amendment (1790h) does is bring back the version, but puts in the critical metric of the governing level of what is called 70-H. It's a long chemical that's in the committee report or on the bill, but that is the chemical in kratom that actually turns it into a deadly substance once you get to 40,000, 50,000 parts per million. This is restricting it to 1,000 parts per million. It's still good for the pain relief products that are sold in New Hampshire, it's still good for the tea products that are sold in New Hampshire, but it completely cuts out the market for what they're referring to as gas station heroin, the substances that you can just get on the shelves in any gas station or convenience store in the state. That's the goal of the amendment, to make it actually align with where it should be in state law under the criminal code, and make it so that it's an actual policy change that not only can the retailers comply with, but that the retailers help shape to make sure that we weren't throwing out the entire kratom industry from New Hampshire, but that we were able to keep the good while really restricting the bad that does end up having the negative consequences for people, whether they be kids or whether they be adults that are using this product. It's a very technical debate. We didn't debate this when it first came over on the first vote in the House, so it is a lot of information to digest, but I want to just plea with all of you that this wasn't trying to blindside or undo the work of a previous committee. It's really the goal and the intent is to make sure that the final intent of getting the bad kratom out of New Hampshire while keeping the market alive for the good kratom can continue to live, and so that's the goal. So I would urge you to vote with the Finance Committee majority in support of amendment (1798h). Thank you very much.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to question? The member does not yield. The motion before us is amendment (1798h). A division has been called for. Members, take your seats. The motion before us isAmendment (1798h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Stringham for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jerry Stringham (D - Graf 3)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and this House unanimously passed this bill without this amendment, with no fiscal cost or financial impact, and if I know the Liquor Commissioner indicated that the policy committee bill could be implemented quickly and that dangerous kratom products would be removed from the over 6,000 licensed locations quickly, representing more than 75% of the products within months, and if I know this amendment would undo all that but instead criminalize the sale of certain kratom products in a way that would, in an expensive way to taxpayers, burdening law enforcement, confuse consumers by banning some products that are available in leaf form and criminalize conduct that is legal under federal law and current state law for people managing their pain and opioid abatement, and if I knew this amendment changes this bill from being

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. This is a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jerry Stringham (D - Graf 3)Okay. Thank you. Would I then support our citizens and particularly our children and follow the Criminal Justice Committee bill by voting red on this amendment? Thank you. Speaker Packard: The Chair recognizes Representative Sweeney for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know this bill regulates synthetic and semi-synthetic kratom while protecting the natural kratom market in New Hampshire, would I now press the green button to adopt the amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us now is amendment (1798h). 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 have the opportunity to vote? The House will attend the state of the vote. 153 voting yea, 180 voting nay, the motion fails. Bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Representative Pauer offersAmendment (1971h) and is recognized to speak to her amendment.

Rep. Diane Pauer (R - Hills 36)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of floor amendment (1971h). The floor amendment simply adds the language of House Bill 1131 to Senate Bill 557, which simply restores the original process for adopting SB 2 by placing the question back onto the official ballot. When SB 2 was first enacted in 1995 through bipartisan legislation, voters were able to vote on the adoption of SB 2 at the ballot box, allowing participation through absentee voting and regular polling hours on town election day. This changed in 2019 when the law was needlessly amended to require that the SB 2 adoption question be voted on in person at the annual meeting. As a result, adoption of SB 2 is now the only local government change that is decided at an annual meeting by warrant article rather than by official ballot. Notably, the 41 other possible changes among the seven forms of town government are all decided by official ballot on town election day. This floor amendment restores consistency, preserves local control, maintains the three-fifths vote requirement to adopt, and keeps public hearing requirements in place. For these reasons, I urge you to support the floor amendment by voting yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the Power FloorAmendment (1971h). Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. Members, take your seats. Representative Sweeney requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is floor amendment (1971h). 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 had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 171 voting aye, 162 voting aye. The motion passes. We are now on Ought to Pass as Amended. Are you ready for the question? A division has been requested. Members, stay in your seats. I don't think anybody left. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 557. 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 had an opportunity to vote? The House will now attend to the state of the vote. 176 voting aye, 157 voting aye. The committee report is adopted.