The House, Wednesday, August 19, 2026

Speaker PackardThe House will attend to the governor's veto message on House Bill 396, relative to processing of cattle, swine, sheep, and goats at facilities not certified by the United States Department of Agriculture. The question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall House Bill 396 become law? The Chair recognizes Representative Comtois.

Rep. Barbara Comtois (R - Belk 7)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honorable colleagues, we are being told once again that the sky is falling. We hear about millions of eggs entering our food supply, salmonella outbreaks, contaminated lettuce across more than 40 states, and tens of thousands of pounds of raw meat entering the country without going through the inspections we expect. Yet too often consumers don't even know where their food came from unless they are paying close attention to labels and government recalls. So I ask you, do we really believe that large food conglomerates are more trustworthy than farmers in our own communities? For generations, New Hampshire has believed in knowing your farmer and knowing your food. We have trusted our farmers to raise our family's milk, vegetables, poultry, and other food. We have heard the warnings before. When New Hampshire changed its raw milk laws, we were told there would be disastrous consequences. The sky was supposed to fall. It didn't. In fact, New Hampshire became a national leader in food freedom. Our rabbit and poultry farmers have been able to sell directly to restaurants. Farmers have been raising and processing animals such as red deer, bison, and elk under our state laws. These practices have existed for years, and the sky has not fallen. So why are we telling a New Hampshire farmer that they can raise an animal, care for it, feed it, and sell it to their neighbor, but cannot sell that customer a cut of meat from an animal processed on their own farm simply because it was not processed at a USDA inspected facility. Think about the families who buy a quarter or half a cow, pig, or lamb directly from a local farmer. How many of those families do you know who have become sick because they purchase meat directly from a farmer who they know and trust? We should take food safety seriously. But food safety and food freedom do not have to be enemies. We can protect consumers while also giving New Hampshire farmers a chance to compete and families a chance to afford locally raised food. For years, this House has studied this issue. I know because I sponsored legislation that created those study committees. The commissioner participated, the USDA participated, farmers, consumers, and other stakeholders participated. We studied the problem. We discussed the concerns. We look for solutions. And yet, after all those years, we are still telling our farmers to wait. How long are we going to push this issue down the road? How long are we going to make consumers pay more for locally raised meat simply because of where that animal was processed? And how long are we going to tell our farmers, we trust you, but not quite enough when it comes to your cow? We trust these farmers with our milk. We trust them with our vegetables. We trust them with our rabbit and poultry. But somehow when it comes to a pig, a lamb, or a cow, we suddenly say they cannot be trusted. This bill does not force anyone to buy this meat. It does not eliminate consumer choice. It does the opposite. It gives consumers another choice. If someone wants meat processed at a USDA inspected facility, that option remains. If someone wants to buy directly from a farmer they know and trust under New Hampshire law, that choice should remain available to them as well. That is what freedom looks like. Our farmers deserve the opportunity to make a living. Our consumers deserve to afford food, and New Hampshire deserves a food system that gives people more choices, not fewer. We have said for years, know your farmer, know your food. Let us mean it. Let us trust our farmers. Let us trust our consumers to make informed decisions. Let us give New Hampshire families a chance to put affordable, locally raised food on their tables. Now is the time to act. Please vote to overturn the Governor's veto and let's make New Hampshire number one for healthy, affordable food. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Potenza.

Rep. Kelley Potenza (R - Straf 19)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's frankly ridiculous that I have to stand here today advocating for the override of a veto of a nonpartisan bill that strengthens our local communities. This is about food affordability, food security, food safety. It's about giving New Hampshire farmers another opportunity to serve their neighbors. I often speak about the level of division in this chamber, but I also point to the Environment and Agriculture Committee as an example of what this body should be. We work together. We debate. We listen. We put policy over personalities. When the evidence supports a bill, Republicans and Democrats vote together. HB 396 is one of those bills. A Democratic member of our committee from Nashua, who is not running for reelection, who has supported this legislation for years, often reminds us of what we witnessed during COVID. Empty grocery shelves, broken supply chains, communities relying on local farms. We learned that resilient food systems begin locally. That's why we passed the Homestead Food Act and HB 396 follows that same principle. The national political stage is watching New Hampshire because this bill aligns with two bipartisan efforts in Washington. The Prime Act and the mandatory country of origin labeling. One expands opportunities for local meat processing. The other gives consumers honest information about where their beef comes from. Both are supported by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in Congress. I think Ro Khanna showed up here about a month or so ago and he is a co-sponsor on one of this legislation. This has actually never been a partisan issue. The amount of work that my friend from Barnstead and our committee have invested in this bill over several years has been amazing. Unfortunately, so has the misinformation surrounding it. Let's remember what this bill actually does. It does not force anyone to participate. It does not eliminate federal inspection. It simply gives New Hampshire farmers another option if they choose to use it while giving consumers more local choices. That is freedom. That is local control. That is exactly what many of us campaign on. Americans are beyond frustrated with a food system dominated by just four companies controlling roughly 80 to 85% of beef processing. Small farmers wait months for processing while families pay higher grocery prices. HB 396 is a modest but meaningful step toward giving independent farmers a fighting chance. I also have to point out the inconsistency in some of the arguments against this bill. Many of the same people who support states pushing back against federal policy in other areas suddenly argue we cannot do so here. Colorado and Washington legalized recreational cannabis despite federal law. Many states resisted Real ID. This year, we passed an egg bill that diverged from federal standards. And in 2023, New Hampshire allowed deer, elk, and bison to be processed, sold under the state inspection rather than USDA inspection. So, bison is okay, deer is okay, elk is okay, but cattle are somehow different. How does that make any sense? If we truly believe states are laboratories of democracy, New Hampshire should not be afraid to lead. This bill is supported by farmers, consumers, and people across the political spectrum because everyone understands that affordable, locally produced food strengthens our communities. This override is not about politics. It's about trusting New Hampshire farmers. It's about consumer choice. And it's about stronger local food systems. I'm going to end with this. For all of those that are seeking re-election, because I am not, remember this; your constituents are totally paying attention. They care about grocery prices. That's all I hear when I'm out knocking doors. They care about supporting local farms. They are tired of corporate consolidation. They want more local choices from instate trusted sources. Today, we have an opportunity to stand with them. I respectfully ask you to vote to override the governor's veto of HB 396. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Bixby.

Rep. Peter Bixby (D - Straf 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I am going to request that we sustain the veto on HB 396. So, what this bill attempts to address a real problem which is the shortage of slaughter capacity in New Hampshire. Federal law requires USDA inspection of the slaughter of cows, swine, goats and sheep, referred to as amenable animals, and we have only have four slaughter facilities in the state that can do that do this under federal inspection. What we really need is more slaughter facilities to enter the market. But, that's something we can't legislate from this location. What this bill does is it attempts to circumvent federal law by saying that is okay for someone to slaughter a small number of animals each month on their own farm, that is cows, that is the amenable animals. So the problem here is the state can't override federal law and it does look like the current farm bill that is working its way very slowly through Washington does have some parts, related to the Prime Act that the previous speaker mentioned, that would in fact provide some sort of relief but that hasn't made it through Congress yet and when it does make it through Congress, I would be very happy to work on legislation to help align our laws with that new federal law, if it makes it through, in order to allow more locally done slaughtering in New Hampshire. However, until that happens, we are putting people in jeopardy by trying to override federal law through state law. So, uh, this bill does not work. When it came out of, House E&A, it was pretty good but had a few flaws. The Senate, our friends on the other side of the wall, excuse me, took a bill with a few minor flaws and made it a lot worse. So one of the things that they have done is they have taken fairly transparent label labeling. So the House version said you had to say on the label that it was slaughtered at the farm and they have said and they've changed that to initially processed. What does that mean? So we're moving into Orwell territory here. We don't need to do that in New Hampshire. The Senate took out the part that requires that the health of the herd for amenable animals needs to be inspected by a veterinarian every year. So there's absolutely no health inspection left in this bill. The Senate removed the requirement that the farmers who take advantage of this are aware that it is not consistent with federal law. So, a farmer may not be aware that they're breaking federal law when they're doing this, but they are. Another big problem is the Senate added a training component to be put together by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food in order to farmers who are doing this. Now, it would seem like that would make sense except the department has no expertise in training. They usually contract that out to the cooperative extension, but there is absolutely no money in the bill to allow them to either put together something in-house or to contract that with the cooperative extension. So, what this does is it puts both, the department and cooperative extension, between a rock and a hard place because if we pass this, they will be violating federal law if they don't put together a training program, they'll be violating state law. If they don't put together a training program, they'll be violating federal law if they do put together a training program. So this is uh really not a good way to move forward on this program and I think that it was appropriate that the Governor vetoed this and I hope that we will sustain that veto today. Thank you.

Speaker PackardWe're on the last speaker. Remember this will be a roll call vote. So if everybody takes their seats it'll save some time. The Chair recognizes Representative Tremblay.

Rep. Marc Tremblay (R - Coos 5)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 396 is simply a bill of choice. If you want to buy your cattle, swine, sheep, or goat from a local farmer without USDA inspection, you can. If you want to buy the previously mentioned meat from Hannaford's, Market Basket, or God forbid, Walmart, you can. Freedom is scary. It is however the bedrock of our form of government. Please vote green to override the governor's veto on this bill. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe state constitution requires a roll call. A two-thirds vote is required to override a veto. The Chair recognized Representative Germana for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. GermanaThank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that I voted for this bill in committee because I think it is our responsibility to do everything that we can to support our farmers in New Hampshire. But if I also know that immediately following that vote, I was inundated with phone calls and emails and conversations around my community from farmers who told me how much they oppose this bill because they're concerned that just one outbreak can do irreparable reputational harm to our small producers. And finally, Mr. Speaker, if I know that the body on the other side of the wall weakened important protections that our committee worked so hard to include in the original version, would I vote red to sustain the governor's veto? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Judy Aron for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Judy Aron (R - Sull 4)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the nation, the entire nation, is watching us in New Hampshire and someone needs to step up and be the first to push reforms that support small farmers, and if I know corporate conglomerates are stopping federal law from changing so it won't be changed anytime soon, and if I also know that USDA certified facilities in New Hampshire are scarce, not always trustworthy, expensive, and booked out many months in advance, creating bottlenecks that drive up the cost of food, and if I also know that this bill has many guard rails included to keep our food supply safe and if I also know that this bill is not a mandate to every farmer, but will allow some farmers to challenge federal law which will not change anytime soon as I've said, and it restricts their rights right now to sell directly only to their New Hampshire customers, and finally, Mr. Speaker, if I know that overriding this veto is about affordability, about supporting our local farms, and about keeping the government out of decisions that should be made between a New Hampshire farmer and a New Hampshire customer, would I then press the green button to override the governor's veto and support small farmers in New Hampshire? Thank you.

Speaker PackardIf you're in favor of having a the bill become law, you will press the green button. If you are opposed and wish to sustain the governor's veto, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? House will attend the state of the vote. With 204 voting yea, and 116 voting nay, the motion fails to get to two-thirds. The Governor's veto is sustained. GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE ON HB 1072 While this bill is the product of thoughtful conversations and important considerations, it unnecessarily restricts the Department of Labor's critical authority to swiftly respond to emergent situations where employers have failed to pay wages to their employees. New Hampshire families depend on timely paychecks, and we cannot delay the Department's ability to react in those circumstances. For these reasons stated above, I have vetoed House Bill 1072. Respectfully submitted, Kelly A. Ayotte, Governor The question being, notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall HB 1072, relative to employer notice of department of labor investigations, become law? Pursuant to the New Hampshire Constitution, Part II, Article 44, a roll call, requiring a two-thirds vote of the House for approval, was taken. YEAS 160 - NAYS 159 Aldrich, Glen Comtois, Barbara YEAS - 160 Freeman, Lisa Harvey-Bolia, Juliet Ploszaj, Tom Terry, Paul

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will attend to the governor's veto message on House Bill 1442 permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain circumstances. Representative Wade is recognized to speak.

Rep. Alice Wade (D - Straf 15)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the last debate on HB 1442, I was told that these bills aren't about me. I was told that I am effectively one of the good ones. I was told that because the member from Derry couldn't tell I was trans just by looking at me, that meant that I was safe and that I wouldn't have been discriminated against under this bill. And by saying that I would be safe, that admits to everyone in this room that the enforcement mechanism being used is based on whether someone passes purely based on their appearance. But appearance is not definitive proof and it will result in the exact situations that I've warned about time and time again. Some women look masculine. Some men look feminine, not by choice, but just from their genetics. Because people look different. Some men have high-pitched voices. Some women have low pitched voices. Someone's voice is not proof. Hair length is not proof. Clothing is not proof. Our bodies don't all fit into these categories. And that's okay. You can't use these arbitrary metrics because none of them work in the real world. That goes for restrooms and for every other scenario listed under this bill. If someone commits a crime in the restroom, arrest them, prosecute them. It doesn't matter if they're trans or not. The actions of individuals do not permit you to discriminate against an entire class of people and ban them from public life. That is by definition collective punishment. And lastly, I want to address the point that this bill isn't about me because it absolutely is according to the language written in it. It doesn't matter that I'm seven years into my transition and haven't stepped foot in a men's room for all of that time. It doesn't matter that I've had bottom surgery because I don't have functional ovarian tissue and because my SRY gene wasn't expressed in fetal development 24 years ago, none of that matters according to this bill. I've gotten to know many of you in my first term as a state rep, and you might think that I am the exception and not the rule when it comes to trans people, but that's not true. I am by most accounts an average transwoman. Most of us are terrified to come out publicly because many people who've known us for years have never learned about our identity. Every person in this building has probably used the restroom with a transperson. And guess what? You were fine. You survived because nothing happened. Even when I go to the doctor's office, sometimes they ask me when my last period was to put on my chart after I've told them that I'm trans. If they can't tell, how do you think this is going to go? When a stranger says, "Oh, I think your voice was a little low pitched," and tries to call the cops on you. It's not going to work that way. Congresswoman Nancy Mace is the one who led the charge on implementing a bathroom ban in the US Capitol building, and literally a few weeks after they instituted that policy, she followed a tour group that was just browsing the capital and enjoying their time. She followed them into the restroom and accused them of being trans, and she was wrong. This has happened so many times where there are going to be these false positives and that is why this bill is unenforceable, plain and simple. Even attempting to enforce it creates so many privacy concerns and false accusations that it would only create an environment of fear for everyone who doesn't fit the stereotypical definition of masculine or feminine, whether they are trans or whether they aren't. Last time I asked if you could prove that I am transgender, and I received no answer. Now, I'd ask you, if you were accused of being transgender, how would you prove that wrong? Because that is what will happen all across this state if we pass this bill. And that is why the Governor rightly vetoed it. That is why once again, I am urging all of you to put this issue to rest by pressing the red button so we can focus on the actual issues that matter to our constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Steven Smith (R - Sull 3)Thank you. That was awesome. I just had to think it. Representative Layon is recognized to speak.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the member from Derry who was referred to by the previous speaker, I would like to note that it was a gross mischaracterization of what was said in the debate, and unfortunately, that's consistent with the debate on these bills. There are many things that are said and bounded about that are really not the issue. The issue here is the fact that the trans community has failed to police themselves and others who are claiming a trans identity. The problem here is that there has been nothing that has come forward in order to deal with people who are falsely claiming an identity in order to act get access to women's bathrooms and girls bathrooms. There is nothing that is being done from the community who says that their rights are being violated and instead it's our right to violate the rights of girls. We need everybody to stand together and ensure that we do not have predators hiding under the label of transgender. And now

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order. The member will suspend for a minute. I'd like to point out she came over here a little wound because she believed that her statements were being mischaracterized and she stayed over there silent while the other member continued. She deserves the same courtesy whether you like what she's saying or not. The member will continue. Representative Layon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We need a solution to people who are getting access to spaces uh for nefarious reasons. We would like to have one that does not impact people who are just going about their business and trying to go to the bathroom. The ball is in your court to overturn this and make sure that the women's rooms are women's rooms or to make sure that we do that the community polices people who are just trying to get inappropriate access. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and please vote to overturn the veto.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Heath Howard is recognized.

Rep. Heath Howard (D - Straf 4)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The arguments against basic human rights and the dignity of trans people are, as they always are, disingenuous, based not in fact, surrounded by fear, and built with ignorance, and often openly cruel. The policing of who uses which bathroom is designed to alienate, humiliate, and harms trans people, but will inevitably lead also lead to the harassment against anyone whose appearance doesn't fall in line with other people's expectations of gender. And for anyone who wants to make this discussion about mutilated children, I ask you to put even a fraction of the energy being concerned about this into the arms manufacturers right here in New Hampshire that are making weapons that mutilate and kill children in Palestine as well as our schools across this country. Basic civil rights for trans people should not be up for debate. They never should have been, and they certainly shouldn't be now. Stop this culture war and vote red. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Kuttab, if that is indeed your name, is recognized.

Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies for before. This bill is really about privacy and dignity, and privacy and dignity should not be controversial. The majority of restrooms are designed differently based on biological differences between men and women. And they're labeled men and women. There are some family rooms, but most restrooms are labeled men and women. And there's an expectation when you enter a restroom that's labeled women that there's going to be other women in there. And you're expecting to have that privacy. This isn't to degrade anybody. It's meant that everybody should have that privacy. And when you expect that there's only going to be somebody in there that's a woman, that should be how it is. This bill only applies to bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, prisons, and mental health hospitals. And it doesn't mandate that it has to happen. It just says that if a business wants to give that respect between a man and a women's room that they can and that that's not discrimination. For years and years and years, we've had men and women's rooms. We don't have many co-ed bathrooms or co-ed locker rooms. If they were meant to be co-ed, it would just say co-ed. It wouldn't say men and it wouldn't say women, but they don't. They're not co-ed. So, I ask you to overturn the veto. I know that many won't change their mind on it, but I do think that dignity and respect shouldn't have to be controversial. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThis will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The question before the House is notwithstanding the Governor's veto, shall House Bill 1442 become law? Representative Wade is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Alice Wade (D - Straf 15)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that HB 1442 is one in a long line of bills statewide and nationwide that seeks to roll back non-discrimination protections for trans people, and if I know that I would also support increasing privacy in restrooms by having the door actually go down to the floor, and I think that would frankly be better for everyone involved, and if I know that these bathroom ban bills have been vetoed by Governor Sununu and Governor Ayotte five times in the last two years. And finally, if I know that passing this bill will only create an environment of fear and does nothing to protect any of our constituents than would I now press the red button to sustain the governor's veto?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Kuttab is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that women deserve privacy, and if I know that if a bathroom is labeled women, that women should be in that bathroom. And if I know that multiple genders are meant to be in a location that it could otherwise be labeled co-ed and that entering a woman's space is not proper, then would I now press the green button to override this veto? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThis is a roll call vote. If you're in favor of the bill becoming law, 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. 165 in the affirmative, 149 in the negative, the veto is sustained. The House recessed at 12:19 p.m. RECESS The House reconvened at 1:30 p.m. (Speaker Packard in the Chair)